Search

Introduction: Academic detailing (AD) is an educational outreach strategy to provide clinicians with current evidence-based information, which has been shown to change prescribing behaviours. The overall effectiveness of AD interventions is associated with prescriber satisfaction; however, most approaches use single items or nonvalidated measures. This study aims to develop and validate an instrument to assess prescriber satisfaction with AD interventions. Methods: A group of candidate items was generated and refined based on constructs identified through a literature review and in consultation with an expert panel. The initial instrument was piloted with 183 primary care providers who participated in an AD intervention on opioid-related pain management. To support the validity and reliability of the measure, psychometric properties were examined. Results: Ten candidate items were developed based on the following themes: acceptability, feasibility of implementation, usefulness, perception of efficacy, overall satisfaction, willingness to repeat and willingness to change. One item related to willingness to change did not contribute to assessing an individual’s ability and lowered the measure’s internal consistency and was therefore dropped. Conclusion: Results supported the validity and reliability of a refined 9-item measure of Provider Satisfaction with Academic Detailing (the PSAD). This measure should be considered for broad use across educational outreach programmes as a standardized measure to assess provider satisfaction and provide continuous quality improvement.

ObjectivesAmbulatory antibiotic stewardship generally aims to address the appropriateness of antibiotics prescribed at in-person visits. The prevalence and appropriateness of antibiotics prescribed outside of in-person visits is poorly studied.Design and settingRetrospective cohort study of all ambulatory antibiotic prescribing in an integrated health delivery system in the United States.ParticipantsAntibiotic prescribers and patients receiving oral antibiotic prescriptions between January 2016 and December 2019.Main outcome measuresProportion of antibiotics prescribed with in-person visits or not-in-person encounters (e.g., telephone, refills). Proportion of prescriptions in in 5 mutually exclusive appropriateness groups: 1) chronic antibiotic use; 2) antibiotic-appropriate; 3) potentially antibiotic-appropriate; 4) non-antibiotic-appropriate; and 5) not associated with a diagnosis.ResultsOver the 4-year study period, there were 714,057 antibiotic prescriptions ordered for 348,739 unique patients by 2,391 clinicians in 467 clinics. Patients had a mean age of 41 years old, were 61% female, and 78% White. Clinicians were 58% women; 78% physicians; and were 42% primary care, 39% medical specialists, and 12% surgical specialists. Overall, 81% of antibiotics were prescribed with in-person visits and 19% without in-person visits. The most common not-in-person encounter types were telephone (10%), orders only (5%), and refill encounters (3%). Of all antibiotic prescriptions, 16% were for chronic use, 15% were antibiotic-appropriate, 39% were potentially antibiotic-appropriate, 22% were non-antibiotic-appropriate, and 8% were not associated with a diagnosis. Antibiotics prescribed in not-in-person encounters were more likely to be chronic (20% versus 15%); less likely to be associated with appropriate or potentially appropriate diagnoses (30% versus 59%) or non-antibiotic-appropriate diagnoses (8% versus 25%); and more likely to be associated with no diagnosis (42% versus ConclusionsAmbulatory stewardship interventions that focus only on in-person visits may miss a large proportion of antibiotic prescribing, inappropriate prescribing, and antibiotics prescribed in the absence of any diagnosis.

The United States faces an opioid crisis with an unprecedented and increasing death rate from opioid overdose. Successfully reducing the rates of opioid use disorder (OUD) and overdose will require the engagement of frontline clinicians to prescribe opioids more safely and to build their capacity to treat patients with OUD using evidence-based approaches. The COVID-19 pandemic has created significant challenges for patients, clinicians and health systems and has been associated with increasing risks of overdoses and deaths. Herein, we review a multidisciplinary project designed to implement and evaluate clinic-based interventions in Oregon, USA, to improve pain management, opioid prescribing and treatment of OUD. The intervention, called Improving PaIn aNd OPiOId MaNagemenT in Primary Care (PINPOINT), combines practice facilitation, academic detailing and education through the Oregon ECHO Network. Implementation of PINPOINT has occurred across the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network and has involved 49 clinic sites to date. To evaluate the impact of the intervention, the research team created the Provider Results of Opioid Management and Prescribing Training (PROMPT), a dataset that links information from the state prescription drug monitoring program, all-payer claims database, emergency medical services, vital records and substance use disorder treatment system. The PROMPT dataset will allow evaluation of the impact of the intervention at both the clinician and clinic levels. Due to the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic, elements of both implementation and evaluation required significant adaptations to continue to meet the original project goals.

Aims: To describe naloxone dispensing in Medicaid fee-for-service (FFS) and examine relationships between copays and coverage limits for naloxone and its dispensing rates. Methods: Cross-sectional study using Medicaid FFS State Drug Utilization Data to quantify the use of naloxone in 2018. The primary outcomes of this study were the proportion of naloxone prescriptions relative to all prescriptions and all opioid prescriptions dispensed in each state. We obtained drug benefit design information from the Medicaid Behavioral Health Services Database. The primary analysis examined the influence of copays (yes/no), copay amounts, and coverage limits on medication dispensing using simple linear regression, excluding states with no measurable use or less than 5% Medicaid FFS. Results: We found substantial variability across 50 states and DC in the proportion of prescriptions dispensed for Narcan and generic naloxone. We found a positive relationship between copay and copay amount and dispensing of generic naloxone. However, a sensitivity analysis including the broadest possible cohort of states failed to confirm this relationship. We found no other relationships between copays or coverage limits and dispensing of any naloxone formulation. Conclusions: Substantial variation exists between the rates of naloxone dispensing across the US for Medicaid patients, but we did not find a meaningful relationship between plan design and dispensing. Whether drug benefit designs in Medicaid influence naloxone use requires further evaluation to avoid limiting access to this life-saving medication.

BackgroundHydrocodone and oxycodone are prescribed commonly to treat pain. However, differences in risk of opioid-related adverse outcomes after an initial prescription are unknown. This study aims to determine the risk of opioid-related adverse events, defined as either chronic use or opioid overdose, following a first prescription of hydrocodone or oxycodone to opioid naïve patients.MethodsA retrospective analysis of multiple linked public health datasets in the state of Oregon. Adult patients ages 18 and older who a) received an initial prescription for oxycodone or hydrocodone between 2015-2017 and b) had no opioid prescriptions or opioid-related hospitalizations or emergency department visits in the year preceding the prescription were followed through the end of 2018. First-year chronic opioid use was defined as ≥6 opioid prescriptions (including index) and average ≤30 days uncovered between prescriptions. Fatal or non-fatal opioid overdose was indicated from insurance claims, hospital discharge data or vital records.ResultsAfter index prescription, 2.8% (n = 14,458) of individuals developed chronic use and 0.3% (n = 1,480) experienced overdose. After adjustment for patient and index prescription characteristics, patients receiving oxycodone had lower odds of developing chronic use relative to patients receiving hydrocodone (adjusted odds ratio = 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-1.00) but a higher risk of overdose (adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) = 1.65, 95% CI 1.45-1.87). Oxycodone monotherapy appears to greatly increase the hazard of opioid overdose (aHR 2.18, 95% CI 1.86-2.57) compared with hydrocodone with acetaminophen. Oxycodone combined with acetaminophen also shows a significant increase (aHR 1.26, 95% CI 1.06-1.50), but not to the same extent.ConclusionsAmong previously opioid-naïve patients, the risk of developing chronic use was slightly higher with hydrocodone, whereas the risk of overdose was higher after oxycodone, in combination with acetaminophen or monotherapy. With a goal of reducing overdose-related deaths, hydrocodone may be the favorable agent.

BackgroundTo the extent that outcomes are mediated through negative perceptions of generics (the nocebo effect), observational studies comparing brand-name and generic drugs are susceptible to bias favoring the brand-name drugs. We used authorized generic (AG) products, which are identical in composition and appearance to brand-name products but are marketed as generics, as a control group to address this bias in an evaluation aiming to compare the effectiveness of generic versus brand medications.Methods and findingsFor commercial health insurance enrollees from the US, administrative claims data were derived from 2 databases: (1) Optum Clinformatics Data Mart (years: 2004-2013) and (2) Truven MarketScan (years: 2003-2015). For a total of 8 drug products, the following groups were compared using a cohort study design: (1) patients switching from brand-name products to AGs versus generics, and patients initiating treatment with AGs versus generics, where AG use proxied brand-name use, addressing negative perception bias, and (2) patients initiating generic versus brand-name products (bias-prone direct comparison) and patients initiating AG versus brand-name products (negative control). Using Cox proportional hazards regression after 1:1 propensity-score matching, we compared a composite cardiovascular endpoint (for amlodipine, amlodipine-benazepril, and quinapril), non-vertebral fracture (for alendronate and calcitonin), psychiatric hospitalization rate (for sertraline and escitalopram), and insulin initiation (for glipizide) between the groups. Inverse variance meta-analytic methods were used to pool adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) for each comparison between the 2 databases. Across 8 products, 2,264,774 matched pairs of patients were included in the comparisons of AGs versus generics. A majority (12 out of 16) of the clinical endpoint estimates showed similar outcomes between AGs and generics. Among the other 4 estimates that did have significantly different outcomes, 3 suggested improved outcomes with generics and 1 favored AGs (patients switching from amlodipine brand-name: HR [95% CI] 0.92 [0.88-0.97]). The comparison between generic and brand-name initiators involved 1,313,161 matched pairs, and no differences in outcomes were noted for alendronate, calcitonin, glipizide, or quinapril. We observed a lower risk of the composite cardiovascular endpoint with generics versus brand-name products for amlodipine and amlodipine-benazepril (HR [95% CI]: 0.91 [0.84-0.99] and 0.84 [0.76-0.94], respectively). For escitalopram and sertraline, we observed higher rates of psychiatric hospitalizations with generics (HR [95% CI]: 1.05 [1.01-1.10] and 1.07 [1.01-1.14], respectively). The negative control comparisons also indicated potentially higher rates of similar magnitude with AG compared to brand-name initiation for escitalopram and sertraline (HR [95% CI]: 1.06 [0.98-1.13] and 1.11 [1.05-1.18], respectively), suggesting that the differences observed between brand and generic users in these outcomes are likely explained by either residual confounding or generic perception bias. Limitations of this study include potential residual confounding due to the unavailability of certain clinical parameters in administrative claims data and the inability to evaluate surrogate outcomes, such as immediate changes in blood pressure, upon switching from brand products to generics.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed that use of generics was associated with comparable clinical outcomes to use of brand-name products. These results could help in promoting educational interventions aimed at increasing patient and provider confidence in the ability of generic medicines to manage chronic diseases.

BackgroundPain complaints are common, but clinicians are increasingly concerned about overuse of opioid pain medications. This may lead patients with actual pain to be stigmatized as "drug-seeking," or attempting to obtain medications they do not require medically. We assessed whether patient requests for specific opioid pain medication would lead physicians to classify them as drug-seeking and change management decisions.Methods and findingsMixed-methods analysis of interviews with 192 office-based primary care physicians after viewing video vignettes depicting patients presenting with back pain. For each presentation physicians were randomly assigned to see either an active request for a specific medication or a more general request for help with pain. The main outcome was assignment by the physician of "drug-seeking" as a potential diagnosis among patients presenting with back pain. Additional outcomes included other actions the physician would take and whether the physician would prescribe the medication requested. A potential diagnosis of drug-seeking behavior was included by 21% of physicians seeing a specific request for oxycodone vs. 3% for a general request for help with back pain(pConclusionsWhen patients make a specific request for opioid pain medication, physicians are far more likely to suspect that they are drug-seeking. Physician suspicion of drug-seeking behavior did not vary by patient characteristics, including gender and race. The strategies used to assess patients further varied widely. These findings indicate a need for the development of better clinical tools to support the evaluation and management of patients presenting with pain.

To establish age- and sex-dependent values of magnetic resonance (MR) liver fat-signal fraction (FSF) in healthy volunteers with normal body-mass index (BMI).2-point mDIXON sequences (repetition time/echo time, 4.2msec/1.2msec, 3.1msec) at 3.0 Tesla MR were acquired in 80 healthy volunteers with normal BMI (18.2 to 25.7 kg/m2) between 20 and 62 years (10 men/10 women per decade). FSF was measured in 5 liver segments (segment II, III, VI, VII, VIII) based on mean signal intensities in regions of interest placed on mDIXON-based water and fat images. Multivariate general linear models were used to test for significant differences between BMI-corrected FSF among age subgroups. Pearson and Spearman correlations between FSF and several body measures were calculated.Mean FSF (%) ± standard deviations significantly differed between women (3.91 ± 1.10) and men (4.69 ± 1.38) and varied with age for women/men (p-value: 0.002/0.027): 3.05 ± 0.49/3.74 ± 0.60 (age group 20-29), 3.75 ± 0.66/4.99 ± 1.30 (30-39), 4.76 ± 1.16/5.25 ± 1.97 (40-49) and 4.09 ± 1.26/4.79 ± 0.93 (50-62). FSF differences among age subgroups were significant for women only (p = 0.003).MR-based liver fat content is higher in men and peaks in the fifth decade for both genders.