Publications

Entangled photon pair sources based on bulk optics are approaching optimal design and implementation, with high state fidelities, spectral purities and heralding efficiencies, but generally low brightness. Integrated entanglement sources, while providing higher brightness and low-power operation, often sacrifice performance in output state quality and coupling efficiency. Here we present a polarization-entangled pair source based on a hybrid approach of waveguiding and bulk optics, addressing every metric simultaneously. We show 96 % fidelity to the singlet state, 82 % Hong-Ou-Mandel interference visibility, 43 % average Klyshko efficiency, and a high brightness of 2.9 × 106 pairs/(mode·s·mW), while requiring only microwatts of pump power.

BACKGROUND: Overlapping use of opioids and benzodiazepines is associated with increased risk for overdose. Veterans receiving medications concurrently from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Medicare may be at higher risk for such overlap.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between dual use of VA and Medicare drug benefits and receipt of overlapping opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional.

SETTING: VA and Medicare.

PARTICIPANTS: All veterans enrolled in VA and Medicare Part D who filled at least 2 opioid prescriptions in 2013 (n = 368 891).

MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes were the proportion of patients with a Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA) measure of opioid-benzodiazepine overlap (≥2 filled prescriptions for benzodiazepines with ≥30 days of overlap with opioids) and the proportion of patients with high-dose opioid-benzodiazepine overlap (≥30 days of overlap with a daily opioid dose >120 morphine milligram equivalents). Augmented inverse probability weighting regression was used to compare these measures by prescription drug source: VA only, Medicare only, or VA and Medicare (dual use).

RESULTS: Of 368 891 eligible veterans, 18.3% received prescriptions from the VA only, 30.3% from Medicare only, and 51.4% from both VA and Medicare. The proportion with PQA opioid-benzodiazepine overlap was larger for the dual-use group than the VA-only group (23.1% vs. 17.3%; adjusted risk ratio [aRR], 1.27 [95% CI, 1.24 to 1.30]) and Medicare-only group (23.1% vs. 16.5%; aRR, 1.12 [CI, 1.10 to 1.14]). The proportion with high-dose overlap was also larger for the dual-use group than the VA-only group (4.7% vs. 2.3%; aRR, 2.23 [CI, 2.10 to 2.36]) and Medicare-only group (4.7% vs. 2.9%; aRR, 1.06 [CI, 1.02 to 1.11]).

LIMITATION: Data are from 2013 and cannot capture medications purchased without insurance; unmeasured confounding may remain in this cross-sectional study.

CONCLUSION: Among a national cohort of veterans dually enrolled in VA and Medicare, receiving prescriptions from both sources was associated with greater risk for receiving potentially unsafe overlapping prescriptions for opioids and benzodiazepines.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

OBJECTIVES: The Alternative Quality Contract (AQC) implemented in 2009 by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts (BCBSMA) is intended to improve quality and control costs by putting providers at risk for total medical spending and tying payment to performance on specified quality measures. We examined the AQC's early effects on use of and spending on medication treatment (MT) for addiction among individuals with alcohol use disorders (AUDs) and opioid use disorders (OUDs), conditions not subject to any performance measurement in the AQC.

METHODS: Using data from 2006 to 2011, we use difference-in-difference estimation of the effect of the AQC on MT using a comparison group of enrollees in BCBSMA whose providers did not participate in the AQC. We compared AQC and non-AQC enrollees with AUDs (n = 37,113 person-years) and/or OUDs (n = 12,727 person-years) on any use of MT, number of prescriptions filled, and MT spending adjusting for demographic and health status characteristics.

RESULTS: There was no difference in MT use among AQC enrollees with OUD (38.7%) relative to the comparison group (39.1%) (adjusted difference = -0.4%, 95% confidence interval -3.8% to 3.0%, P = 0.82). Likewise, there was no difference in MT use for AUD between the AQC (6.3%) and comparison group (6.5%) (P = 0.64). Similarly, we detected no differences in number of prescriptions or spending.

CONCLUSIONS: Despite incentives for improved integration and quality of care under a global payment contract, the initial 3 years of the AQC showed no impact on MT use for AUD or OUD among privately insured enrollees with behavioral health benefits.

OBJECTIVE:  This article aims to evaluate whether the use of a double-balloon catheter with oral misoprostol results in a lower rate of cesarean and shorter times to delivery than the use of the double-balloon catheter with oral placebo.

STUDY DESIGN:  In a double-blind randomized controlled trial, a double-balloon catheter was used for induction of labor with two doses of either 50 µg of misoprostol or placebo. Outcomes included cesarean rate, time to vaginal delivery, change in Bishop's score, and oxytocin usage.

RESULTS:  A total of 343 women were screened and 199 randomized: 99 to the misoprostol arm and 100 to the placebo arm. Cesarean delivery rate was not different between the groups (misoprostol: 13.1% vs. placebo: 17.0%, p = 0.45). Time to vaginal delivery was significantly shorter (mean: 14.6 ± 6.9 vs. 20.8 ± 13.8 hours, p < 0.0001), change in Bishop's score was significantly greater (median: 5 vs. 4 points, p = 0.005), and use of oxytocin was significantly less frequent (86.9 vs. 98.0% patients, p = 0.01) in the misoprostol group.

CONCLUSION:  The use of a double-balloon catheter with oral misoprostol for induction did not reduce the cesarean delivery rate, but did result in shorter labors, a greater increase in Bishop's score, and a lower need for oxytocin use.

Although physicians learn about new medical technologies from their peers, the magnitude and source of peer influence is unknown. We estimate the effect of peer adoption of three first-in-class medications (dabigatran, sitigliptin, and aliskiren) on physicians' own adoption of those medications. We included 11,958 physicians in Pennsylvania prescribing anticoagulant, antidiabetic, and antihypertensive medications. We constructed 4 types of peer networks based on shared Medicare and Medicaid patients, medical group affiliation, hospital affiliation, and medical school/residency training. Instrumental variables analysis was used to estimate the causal effect of peer adoption (fraction of peers in each network adopting the new drug) on physician adoption (prescribing at least the median number prescriptions within 15 months of the new drug's introduction). We illustrate how physician network position can inform targeting of interventions to physicians by computing a social multiplier. Dabigatran was adopted by 25.2%, sitagliptin by 24.5% and aliskiren by 8.3% of physicians. A 10-percentage point increase in peer adoption in the patient-sharing network led to a 5.90% (SE = 1.50%, p<0.001) increase in physician adoption of dabigatran, 8.32% (SE = 1.51%, p<0.001) increase in sitagliptin, and 7.84% increase in aliskiren adoption (SE = 2.93%, p<0.001). Peer effects through shared hospital affiliation were positive but not significant, and medical group and training network effects were not reliably estimated. Physicians in the top decile of patient-sharing network peers were estimated to have nearly 2-fold stronger influence on their peers' adoption compared to physicians in the top decile of prescribing volume. Limitations include lack of detailed clinical information and pharmaceutical promotion, variables which may influence physician adoption but which are unlikely to bias our peer effect estimates. Peer adoption, especially by those with whom physicians share patients, strongly influenced physician adoption of new drugs. Our study shows the potential for using information on physician peer networks to improve technology diffusion.

BACKGROUND: The Pharmacy Quality Alliance (PQA) recently developed 3 quality measures for prescribing opioids: high dosages, multiple providers and pharmacies, and concurrent use of opioids and benzodiazepines.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence of the PQA measures and identify the patient demographic and health characteristics associated with the measures.

METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis using Pennsylvania Medicaid data (2013-2015). We limited our analyses to noncancer patients who were aged 18-64 years and not dual-eligible for Medicare/Medicaid. Per PQA specifications, patients were required to possess ≥ 2 opioid prescriptions for ≥ 15 days annual supply each year. Outcome measures included (a) high dosages, defined as > 120 morphine milligram equivalents for ≥ 90 consecutive days; (b) multiple providers/pharmacies, defined as receiving opioid prescriptions from ≥ 4 providers and ≥ 4 pharmacies; and (c) concurrent use of opioids and benzodiazepines, defined as ≥ 30 cumulative days of overlapping opioids and benzodiazepines among individuals having ≥ 2 opioid and ≥ 2 benzodiazepine fills. Patient characteristics assessed included demographics; other medication use; and physical, mental, and behavioral health comorbidities. We present descriptive and multivariable statistical analyses of the data to describe trends in quality measure prevalence and associations with enrollee health characteristics.

RESULTS: Numbers of enrollees meeting inclusion criteria ranged from 73,082 in 2013 to 85,710 in 2015. From 2013 to 2015, high dosage prevalence increased from 5.1% to 5.5%; the use of multiple providers/pharmacies decreased from 7.1% to 5.0%; and concurrent use of opioids and benzodiazepines decreased from 29.1% to 28.4% (all P < 0.05). A substantial portion of patients with > 1 PQA measure from 2013 to 2015 was eligible for Medicaid because of disability (41.8%-81.9%). Enrollees with opioid use disorder were more likely to have high dosages (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 2.01, 95% CI = 1.83-2.21). Enrollees with anxiety and mood disorders were more likely to have multiple providers/pharmacies (anxiety: AOR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.43-1.65; mood: AOR = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.06-1.25) and concurrent use of opioids and benzodiazepines (anxiety: AOR = 3.50, 95% CI = 3.38-3.63; mood: AOR = 1.42, 95% CI = 1.36-1.48).

CONCLUSIONS: Given high levels of eligibility based on disability and the prevalence of mood, anxiety, and opioid use disorders among those identified by the quality measures, providers may require additional support to care for this patient population.

DISCLOSURES: This project was supported by a grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and was also supported by an intergovernmental agreement between the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services and the University of Pittsburgh. Lo-Ciganic was supported by the University of Arizona Health Sciences Career Development Award. The other authors have nothing to disclose. The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this article do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. A portion of these results was presented at the Association for Medical Education and Research in Substance Abuse 41st National Conference; November 2-4, 2017; Washington, DC.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about physicians' approaches to adopting new cardiovascular drugs and how adoption varies between drugs of differing novelty.

METHODS: Using data on dispensed prescriptions from IMS Health's Xponent™ database, we created a cohort of all primary care physicians (PCPs) and cardiologists in Pennsylvania who regularly prescribed anticoagulants, antihypertensives and statins from 2007 to 2011. We examined prescribing of three new cardiovascular drugs of differing novelty: dabigatran, aliskiren and pitavastatin. Outcomes were rapid adoption of each new drug, defined by early and sustained monthly prescribing detected by group-based trajectory models, by physicians within the first 15 months of marketplace introduction.

RESULTS: 5953 physicians regularly prescribed each drug class. The majority of physicians (63.8%) adopted zero new drugs in the first 15 months, 35.0% rapidly adopted one or two, and 1.2% rapidly adopted all three. Physicians were more likely to rapidly adopt the most novel drug, dabigatran (27.3%), than aliskiren (10.5%) or pitavastatin (8.0%). Physician specialty and sex were the most consistent predictors of adoption. Compared to PCPs, cardiologists were more likely to rapidly adopt dabigatran (Adjusted Odds Ratio 8.90, 95% confidence interval 7.42-10.67; P<0.001) aliskerin (2.05, CI 1.56-2.69; P<0.001) and pitavastatin (3.44, CI 2.60-4.57; P<0.001). Female physicians were less likely to adopt dabigatran (0.71, CI 0.59-0.85; P <0.001) and aliskiren (0.64, CI 0.49-0.83; P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Physicians vary in their prescribing of recently-introduced cardiovascular drugs. Though most physicians did not rapidly adopt any new cardiovascular drugs, drug novelty and cardiology training were associated with greater adoption.

OBJECTIVES: To assess how often older adults admitted to hospital for common non-cardiac conditions were discharged with intensified antihypertensive treatment, and to identify markers of appropriateness for these intensifications.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING: US Veterans Administration Health System.

PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 65 years or over with hypertension admitted to hospital with non-cardiac conditions between 2011 and 2013.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Intensification of antihypertensive treatment, defined as receiving a new or higher dose antihypertensive agent at discharge compared with drugs used before admission. Hierarchical logistic regression analyses were used to control for characteristics of patients and hospitals.

RESULTS: Among 14 915 older adults (median age 76, interquartile range 69-84), 9636 (65%) had well controlled outpatient blood pressure before hospital admission. Overall, 2074 (14%) patients were discharged with intensified antihypertensive treatment, more than half of whom (1082) had well controlled blood pressure before admission. After adjustment for potential confounders, elevated inpatient blood pressure was strongly associated with being discharged on intensified antihypertensive regimens. Among patients with previously well controlled outpatient blood pressure, 8% (95% confidence interval 7% to 9%) of patients without elevated inpatient blood pressure, 24% (21% to 26%) of patients with moderately elevated inpatient blood pressure, and 40% (34% to 46%) of patients with severely elevated inpatient blood pressure were discharged with intensified antihypertensive regimens. No differences were seen in rates of intensification among patients least likely to benefit from tight blood pressure control (limited life expectancy, dementia, or metastatic malignancy), nor in those most likely to benefit (history of myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular disease, or renal disease).

CONCLUSIONS: One in seven older adults admitted to hospital for common non-cardiac conditions were discharged with intensified antihypertensive treatment. More than half of intensifications occurred in patients with previously well controlled outpatient blood pressure. More attention is needed to reduce potentially harmful overtreatment of blood pressure as older adults transition from hospital to home.

OBJECTIVES: 1) To describe reported medication diversion within the practice of pharmacy; and 2) to compare diversion by employee type.

DESIGN: Retrospective study.

SETTING: A sample of state board of pharmacy records was examined from 9 states. Disciplinary actions were obtained from the records for the time period of May 2008 to May 2013.

PARTICIPANTS: Pharmacy employees (pharmacist, technician, interns).

INTERVENTION: Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: When a diversion case was identified, the following items were obtained for each case of medication diversion: 1) category of pharmacy employee (pharmacist, technician, intern); 2) type of substance (control, noncontrol, both); 3) use of diverted substance (sale, personal use, both, undetermined); and 4) action taken by the board.

RESULTS: A total of 811 medication diversion cases in 9 states were identified. Most cases involved a pharmacy technician (71.4%), controlled substances only (94.2%), and diversion for personal use (46.6%) and resulted in license or registration revocation or surrender (62.5%). When examining medication diversion use by purpose for diversion, there were significant differences by pharmacy employee type (sale use: P = 0.003; personal use: P = 0.032; unknown use: P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION: Medication diversion is a pressing problem. There were 811 cases examined by 9 state boards, and many cases may be unreported. Technicians represent nearly three-fourths of diversions. It is essential that the practice of pharmacy identifies and assesses strategies to reduce medication diversion.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about physicians' approaches to adopting new cardiovascular drugs and how adoption varies between drugs of differing novelty.

METHODS: Using data on dispensed prescriptions from IMS Health's Xponent™ database, we created a cohort of all primary care physicians (PCPs) and cardiologists in Pennsylvania who regularly prescribed anticoagulants, antihypertensives and statins from 2007 to 2011. We examined prescribing of three new cardiovascular drugs of differing novelty: dabigatran, aliskiren and pitavastatin. Outcomes were rapid adoption of each new drug, defined by early and sustained monthly prescribing detected by group-based trajectory models, by physicians within the first 15 months of marketplace introduction.

RESULTS: 5953 physicians regularly prescribed each drug class. The majority of physicians (63.8%) adopted zero new drugs in the first 15 months, 35.0% rapidly adopted one or two, and 1.2% rapidly adopted all three. Physicians were more likely to rapidly adopt the most novel drug, dabigatran (27.3%), than aliskiren (10.5%) or pitavastatin (8.0%). Physician specialty and sex were the most consistent predictors of adoption. Compared to PCPs, cardiologists were more likely to rapidly adopt dabigatran (Adjusted Odds Ratio 8.90, 95% confidence interval 7.42-10.67; P<0.001) aliskerin (2.05, CI 1.56-2.69; P<0.001) and pitavastatin (3.44, CI 2.60-4.57; P<0.001). Female physicians were less likely to adopt dabigatran (0.71, CI 0.59-0.85; P <0.001) and aliskiren (0.64, CI 0.49-0.83; P <0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: Physicians vary in their prescribing of recently-introduced cardiovascular drugs. Though most physicians did not rapidly adopt any new cardiovascular drugs, drug novelty and cardiology training were associated with greater adoption.