Purpose

Pharmacy dispensing databases are often used to identify patients' medications at a particular time point, for example to measure prescribing quality or the impact of medication use on clinical outcomes. We performed a systematic review of studies that examined methods to assess medications in use at a specific point in time.

Methods

Comprehensive literature search to identify studies that compared active medications identified using pharmacy databases to medications identified using nonautomated data sources. Two investigators independently reviewed abstracts and full-text material.

Results

Of 496 studies screened, 29 studies evaluating 50 comparisons met inclusion criteria. Twenty-nine comparisons evaluated fixed look-back period approaches, defining active medications as those filled in a specified period prior to the index date (range 84-730 days). Fourteen comparisons evaluated medication-on-hand approaches, defining active medications as those for which the most recent fill provided sufficient supply to last through the study index date. Sensitivity ranged from 48% to 93% for fixed look-back period approaches and 35% to 97% for medication-on-hand approaches. Interpretation of comparative performance of methods was limited by use of different reference sources, target medication classes, and databases across studies. In four studies with head-to-head comparisons of these methods, sensitivity of the medication-on-hand approach was a median of 7% lower than the corresponding fixed look-back approach.

Conclusions

The reported accuracy of methods for identifying active medications using pharmacy databases differs greatly across studies. More direct comparisons of common approaches are needed to establish the accuracy of methods within and across populations, medication classes, and databases.

Background

Limited English proficiency is associated with decreased access to ambulatory care, however, it is unclear if this disparity leads to increased use of emergency departments (EDs) for low severity ambulatory care sensitive conditions (ACSCs).

Objective

We sought to determine the association between the patient's preferred language and hospital utilization for ACSCs.

Research design

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all ED visits in New Jersey in 2013 and 2014. The primary outcome was hospital admission for acute ACSCs, chronic ACSCs, and fractures (a nonambulatory care sensitive control condition). Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) utilization and length of stay. Mixed-effect regression models estimated the association between preferred language (English vs. non-English) and study outcomes, controlling for demographics, comorbidities, and hospital characteristics.

Results

We examined 201,351 ED visits for acute ACSCs, 251,193 visits for chronic ACSCs, and 148,428 visits for fractures, of which 13.5%, 11.1%, and 9.9%, respectively, were by non-English speakers. In adjusted analyses, non-English speakers were less likely to be admitted for acute ACSCs [-3.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI), -3.6% to -2.5%] and chronic ACSCs (-2.3%; 95% CI, -2.8% to -1.7%) but not fractures (0.4%; 95% CI, -0.2% to 1.0%). Among hospitalized patients, non-English speakers were less likely to receive ICU services but had no difference in length of stay.

Conclusions

These findings suggest non-English-speaking patients may seek ED care for lower acuity ACSCs than English-speaking patients. Efforts to decrease preventable ED and increase access to ambulatory care use should consider the needs of non-English-speaking patients.

Background

Pharmacy dispensing data are frequently used to identify prevalent medication use as a predictor or covariate in observational research studies. Although several methods have been proposed for using pharmacy dispensing data to identify prevalent medication use, little is known about their comparative performance.

Objectives

The authors sought to compare the performance of different methods for identifying prevalent outpatient medication use.

Research design

Outpatient pharmacy fill data were compared with medication reconciliation notes denoting prevalent outpatient medication use at the time of hospital admission for a random sample of 207 patients drawn from a national cohort of patients admitted to Veterans Affairs hospitals. Using reconciliation notes as the criterion standard, we determined the test characteristics of 12 pharmacy database algorithms for determining prevalent use of 11 classes of cardiovascular and diabetes medications.

Results

The best-performing algorithms included a 180-day fixed look-back period approach (sensitivity, 93%; specificity, 97%; and positive predictive value, 89%) and a medication-on-hand approach with a grace period of 60 days (sensitivity, 91%; specificity, 97%; and positive predictive value, 91%). Algorithms that have been commonly used in previous studies, such as defining prevalent medications to include any medications filled in the prior year or only medications filled in the prior 30 days, performed less well. Algorithm performance was less accurate among patients recently receiving hospital or nursing facility care.

Conclusion

Pharmacy database algorithms that balance recentness of medication fills with grace periods performed better than more simplistic approaches and should be considered for future studies which examine prevalent chronic medication use.

Background

Hospitalizations among people with dementia (PWD) may precipitate behavioral changes, leading to the psychotropic medication use despite adverse outcomes and limited efficacy. We sought to determine the incidence of new psychotropic medication use among community-dwelling PWD after hospital discharge and, among new users, the proportion with prolonged use.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study using a 20% random sample of Medicare claims in 2017, including hospitalized PWD with traditional and Part D Medicare who were 68 years or older. The primary outcome was incident prescribing at discharge of psychotropics including antipsychotics, sedative-hypnotics, antiepileptics, and antidepressants. This was defined as new prescription fills (i.e., from classes not used in 180 days preadmission) within 7 days of hospital or skilled nursing facility discharge. Prolonged use was defined as the proportion of new users who continued to fill newly prescribed medications beyond 90 days of discharge.

Results

The cohort included 117,022 hospitalized PWD with a mean age of 81 years; 63% were female. Preadmission, 63% were using at least 1 psychotropic medication; 10% were using medications from ≥3 psychotropic classes. These included antidepressants (44% preadmission), antiepileptics (29%), sedative-hypnotics (21%), and antipsychotics (11%). The proportion of PWD discharged from the hospital with new psychotropics ranged from 1.9% (antipsychotics) to 2.9% (antiepileptics); 6.6% had at least one new class started. Among new users, prolonged use ranged from 36% (sedative-hypnotics) to 63% (antidepressants); across drug classes, prolonged use occurred in 51%. Predictors of newly initiated psychotropics included length of stay (≥median vs. ConclusionsHospitalized PWD have a high prevalence of preadmission psychotropic medication use; against this baseline, discharge from the hospital with new psychotropics is relatively uncommon. Nevertheless, prolonged use of newly initiated psychotropics occurs in a substantial proportion of this population.

Background/objectives

Guideline-based management of cardiovascular disease often involves prescribing multiple medications, which contributes to polypharmacy and risk for adverse drug events in older adults. Deprescribing is a potential strategy to mitigate these risks. We sought to characterize and compare clinician perspectives regarding deprescribing cardiovascular medications across three specialties.

Design

National cross-sectional survey.

Setting

Ambulatory.

Participants

Random sample of geriatricians, general internists, and cardiologists from the American College of Physicians.

Measurements

Electronic survey assessing clinical practice of deprescribing cardiovascular medications, reasons and barriers to deprescribing, and choice of medications to deprescribe in hypothetical clinical cases.

Results

In each specialty, 750 physicians were surveyed, with a response rate of 26% for geriatricians, 26% for general internists, and 12% for cardiologists. Over 80% of respondents within each specialty reported that they had recently considered deprescribing a cardiovascular medication. Adverse drug reactions were the most common reason for deprescribing for all specialties. Geriatricians also commonly reported deprescribing in the setting of limited life expectancy. Barriers to deprescribing were shared across specialties and included concerns about interfering with other physicians' treatment plans and patient reluctance. In hypothetical cases, over 90% of physicians in each specialty chose to deprescribe when patients experienced adverse drug reactions. Geriatricians were most likely and cardiologists were least likely to consider deprescribing cardiovascular medications in cases of limited life expectancy (all P < .001), such as recurrent metastatic cancer (84% of geriatricians, 68% of general internists, and 45% of cardiologists), Alzheimer dementia (92% of geriatricians, 81% of general internists, and 59% of cardiologists), or significant functional impairment (83% of geriatricians, 68% of general internists, and 45% of cardiologists).

Conclusions

While barriers to deprescribing cardiovascular medications are shared across specialties, reasons for deprescribing, especially in the setting of limited life expectancy, varied. Implementing deprescribing will require improved processes for both physician-physician and physician-patient communication. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:78-86, 2019.

Deprescribing, an integral component of a continuum of good prescribing practices, is the process of medication withdrawal or dose reduction to correct or prevent medication-related complications, improve outcomes, and reduce costs. Deprescribing is particularly applicable to the commonly encountered multimorbid older adult with cardiovascular disease and concomitant geriatric conditions such as polypharmacy, frailty, and cognitive dysfunction-a combination rarely addressed in current clinical practice guidelines. Triggers to deprescribe include present or expected adverse drug reactions, unnecessary polypharmacy, and the need to align medications with goals of care when life expectancy is reduced. Using a framework to deprescribe, this review addresses the rationale, evidence, and strategies for deprescribing cardiovascular and some noncardiovascular medications.