Publications

BACKGROUND: Despite decreases in opioid prescribing from 2016 through 2019, some dentists (general, specialists, oral and maxillofacial surgeons) in the United States continue to prescribe opioids at high rates. The authors' objective was to define dentists' trajectories of opioid prescribing.

METHODS: The authors identified actively prescribing dentists from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription data set, from 2015 through 2019. Group-based trajectory modeling identified opioid prescribing trajectories on the basis of dentists' annual prescribing rates for the overall sample (model 1) and for high prescribers (model 2). The authors used χ2 or Mann-Whitney U tests to characterize the model 2 trajectory groups.

RESULTS: In model 1 (n = 199,145 prescribers), group-based trajectory modeling identified 8 trajectories that were grouped into 5 categories. A total of 14.8% were nonprescribers who composed less than 1% of all prescriptions, low prescribers (3 groups; 46.0%) prescribed at low rates (2015: 5.5%-16.9%; 2019: 1.5%-11.9%), decliners (7.3%) decreased prescribing rapidly (2015: 29.4%; 2019: 5.1%), moderately high prescribers (2 groups; 28.5%) prescribed moderately (2015: 28.7% and 39.2%; 2019: 18.1% and 28.8%), and consistently high prescribers (3.4%) prescribed at high rates (2015: 54.6%; 2019: 44.7%). In model 2, from consistently high prescribers (n = 6,845), 4 trajectories were identified. Of these 4 groups, 1 group (7.5%) declined prescribing rapidly. The groups did not differ meaningfully; however, the rapid decliners included fewer oral and maxillofacial surgeons (13.0% vs 18.4%), saw more Medicaid patients (2.5% vs 1.0%), and had higher opioid prescribing rates in 2015 (95.5% vs 91.6%) (P < .001 for all).

CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified variations in dentists' opioid prescribing rates. Although 60% of dentists decreased prescribing rates by 30% through 83%, 3.4% of dentists consistently prescribed at high rates.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Some dentists continue to prescribe opioids at high levels, indicating that additional information is needed to better inform policy and clinical decision making.

OBJECTIVE: Inappropriate diagnosis and treatment of asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) and urinary tract infection (UTI) are leading causes of antibiotic overuse but have not been well-studied in patients with risks for complicated UTI such as neurogenic bladder (NB). Our aim was to describe ASB and UTI management in patients with NB and assess factors associated with inappropriate management.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING: Four Department of Veteran's Affairs (VA) medical centers.

PARTICIPANTS: Adults with NB due to spinal cord injury/disorder (SCI/D), multiple sclerosis (MS), or Parkinson disease (PD) and encounters with an ASB or UTI diagnosis between 2017 and 2018. Clinical and encounter data were extracted from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse and medical record reviews for a stratified sample of 300 encounters from N=291 patients.

INTERVENTIONS: None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of appropriate and inappropriate ASB and UTI diagnosis and treatment was summarized. Multivariable logistic regression models assessed factors associated with inappropriate management.

RESULTS: N=200 UTI and N=100 ASB encounters were included for the 291 unique patients (SCI/D, 39.9%; MS, 36.4%; PD, 23.7%). Most patients were men (83.3%), >65 years (62%), and used indwelling or intermittent catheterization (68.3%). Nearly all ASB encounters had appropriate diagnosis (98%). 70 (35%) UTI encounters had inappropriate diagnosis, including 55 (27.5%) with true ASB, all with inappropriate treatment. Among the remaining 145 UTI encounters, 54 (27%) had inappropriate treatment. Peripheral vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, and cerebrovascular disease were associated with increased odds of inappropriate management; indwelling catheter (aOR 0.35, P=.01) and Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation provider (aOR 0.29, P<.01) were associated with decreased odds.

CONCLUSION: Up to half of UTI encounters for patients with NB had inappropriate management, largely due to inappropriate UTI diagnosis in patients with true ASB. Interventions to improve ASB and UTI management in patients with NB should target complex patients with comorbidities being seen by non-rehabilitation providers.

Background: Antibiotics prescribed as infection prophylaxis prior to dental procedures have the potential for serious adverse drug events (ADEs). However, the extent to which guideline concordance and different dental settings are associated with ADEs from antibiotic prophylaxis is unknown. Aim: The purpose was to assess guideline concordance and antibiotic-associated ADEs and whether it differs by VA and non-VA settings. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of antibiotic prophylaxis prescribed to adults with cardiac conditions or prosthetic joints from 2015 to 2017. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to assess the impact of ADEs, guideline concordance and dental setting. An interaction term of concordance and dental setting evaluated whether the relationship between ADEs and concordance differed by setting. Results: From 2015 to 2017, 61,124 patients with antibiotic prophylaxis were identified with 62 (0.1%) having an ADE. Of those with guideline concordance, 18 (0.09%) had an ADE while 44 (0.1%) of those with a discordant antibiotic had an ADE (unadjusted OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.49-1.45). Adjusted analyses showed that guideline concordance was not associated with ADEs (OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.25-2.46), and this relationship did not differ by dental setting (Wald χ^2 p-value for interaction = 0.601). Conclusion: Antibiotic-associated ADEs did not differ by setting or guideline concordance.

Decreasing the time to contact precautions (CP) is critical to carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales (CRE) prevention. Identifying factors associated with delayed CP can decrease the spread from patients with CRE. In this study, a shorter length of stay was associated with being placed in CP within 3 days.

STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore how knowledge, perceptions, and beliefs about urinary tract infections (UTIs) among persons with neurogenic bladder (NB) may impact health behaviors and provider management and enhance person-centeredness of interventions to improve UTI management.

SETTING: Three Veterans Affairs (VA) medical centers.

METHODS: Adults with NB due to spinal cord injury/disorder (SCI/D) or multiple sclerosis (MS) with UTI diagnoses in the prior year participated in focus groups. Transcripts were coded using deductive codes linked to the Health Belief Model and inductive codes informed by grounded theory.

RESULTS: Twenty-three Veterans (SCI/D, 78%; MS: 18.5%) participated in discussions. Three themes emerged: (1) UTI knowledge; (2) factors affecting the intervention environment; and (3) factors affecting modes of delivery. Knowledge gaps included UTI prevention, specific symptoms most indicative of UTI, and antibiotic side effects. Poor perceptions of providers lacking knowledge about NB and ineffective patient-provider communication were common in the Emergency Department and non-VA facilities, whereas participants had positive perceptions of home-based care. Participants perceived lower severity and frequency of antibiotic risks compared to UTI risks. Participant preferences for education included caregiver involvement, verbal and written materials, and diverse settings like peer groups.

CONCLUSIONS: Identifying patient perspectives enhances person-centeredness and allows for novel interventions improving patient knowledge and behaviors about UTIs. Partnering with trusted providers and home-based caregivers and improving NB knowledge and communication in certain care settings were important. Patient education should address mental risk representations and incorporate preferences for content delivery to optimize self-efficacy and strengthen cues to action.

IMPORTANCE: Drug shortages are a chronic and worsening issue that compromises patient safety. Despite the destabilizing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pharmaceutical production, it remains unclear whether issues affecting the drug supply chain were more likely to result in meaningful shortages during the pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of supply chain issue reports associated with drug shortages overall and with the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This longitudinal cross-sectional study used data from the IQVIA Multinational Integrated Data Analysis database, comprising more than 85% of drug purchases by US pharmacies from wholesalers and manufacturers, from 2017 to 2021. Data were analyzed from January to May 2023.

EXPOSURE: Presence of a supply chain issue report to the US Food and Drug Administration or the American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists (ASHP).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcome was drug shortage, defined as at least 33% decrease in units purchased within 6 months of a supply chain issue report. Random-effects logistic regression models compared the marginal odds of shortages for drugs with vs without reports. Interaction terms assessed heterogeneity prior to vs during the COVID-19 pandemic and by drug characteristics (formulation, age, essential medicine status, clinician- vs self-administered, sales volume, and number of manufacturers).

RESULTS: A total of 571 drugs exposed to 731 supply chain issue reports were matched to 7296 comparison medications with no reports. After adjusting for drug characteristics, 13.7% (95% CI, 10.4%-17.8%) of supply chain issue reports were associated with subsequent drug shortages vs 4.1% (95% CI, 3.6%-4.8%) of comparators (marginal odds ratio [mOR], 3.7 [95% CI, 2.6-5.1]). Shortages increased among both drugs with and without reports in February to April 2020 (34.2% of drugs with supply chain issue reports and 9.5% of comparison drugs; mOR, 4.9 [95% CI, 2.1-11.6]), and then decreased after May 2020 (9.8% of drugs with reports and 3.6% of comparison drugs; mOR, 2.9 [95% CI, 1.6-5.3]). Significant associations were identified by formulation (parenteral mOR, 1.9 [95% CI, 1.1-3.2] vs oral mOR, 5.4 [95% CI, 3.3-8.8]; P for interaction = .008), WHO essential medicine status (essential mOR, 2.2 [95% CI, 1.3-5.2] vs nonessential mOR, 4.6 [95% CI, 3.2-6.7]; P = .02), and for brand-name vs generic status (brand-name mOR, 8.1 [95% CI, 4.0-16.0] vs generic mOR, 2.4 [95% CI, 1.7-3.6]; P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this national cross-sectional study, supply chain issues associated with drug shortages increased at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. Ongoing policy work is needed to protect US drug supplies from future shocks and to prioritize clinically valuable drugs at greatest shortage risk.

BACKGROUND: Valsartan is commonly used for cardiac conditions. In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration recalled generic valsartan due to the detection of impurities. Our objective was to determine if heart failure patients receiving valsartan at the recall date had a greater likelihood of unfavorable outcomes than patients using comparable antihypertensives.

METHODS: We conducted a cohort study of Optum's de-identified Clinformatics® Datamart (July 2017-January 2019). Heart failure patients with commercial or Medicare Advantage insurance who received valsartan were compared to persons who received non-recalled angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) and angiotensin converting enzyme-inhibitors (ACE-Is) for 1 year prior and including the recall date. Outcomes included a composite for all-cause hospitalization, emergency department (ED), and urgent care (UC) use and a measure of cardiac events which included hospitalizations for acute myocardial infarction and hospitalizations/ED/UC visits for stroke/transient ischemic attack, heart failure or hypertension at 6-months post-recall. Cox proportional hazard models with propensity score weighting compared the risk of outcomes between groups.

RESULTS: Of the 87 130 adherent patients, 15% were valsartan users and 85% were users of non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is. Valsartan use was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause hospitalization/ED/UC use six-months post-recall (HR 1.00; 95% CI 0.96-1.03), compared with individuals taking non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is. Similarly, cardiac events 6-months post-recall did not differ between individuals on valsartan and non-recalled ARBs/ACE-Is (HR 1.04; 95% CI 0.97-1.12).

CONCLUSIONS: The valsartan recall did not affect short-term outcomes of heart failure patients. However, the recall potentially disrupted the medication regimens of patients, possibly straining the healthcare system.

OBJECTIVES: Not much is known about safety checklists use in dentistry. We aim to examine, assess, and provide a comprehensive understanding of the current knowledge concerning the use of checklists to improve patient safety in dentistry.

METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive literature search using Medline and Embase for studies that use or describe the development of dental patient safety checklists. All study designs were included for citations published through December 2023.

RESULTS: Following abstract and full-text screening, 27 studies remained for data extraction and analysis. Oral surgery emerged as the main dental specialty where the utilization and evaluation of checklists were primarily concentrated (n = 15). The majority of the included studies described either checklist development, their implementation, or both (n = 18). Only 6 studies assessed the effectiveness of checklists in improving patient safety outcomes. Of the effectiveness studies, five found a decrease in incidents and dental adverse events, along with an improvement in patient care and safety, associated with the use of checklists.

CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review highlights the limited current knowledge regarding checklist use and effectiveness in reducing adverse events across dental practices; it demonstrates the need on how to best guide the profession towards implementing this important evidence-based patient safety tool.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Checklists are effective tools to improve patient safety and have become integral to medical practice. Dentistry can also benefit from these tools to improve patient safety.