Publications

BACKGROUND: The drug supply chain is global and at risk of disruption and subsequent drug shortages, especially during unanticipated events.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to determine the impact of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on drug purchases overall, by class, and for specific countries.

METHODS: A cross-sectional time series analysis of country-level drug purchase data from August 2014 to August 2020 from IQVIA MIDAS was conducted. Standardized units per 100 population and percentage increase in units purchased were assessed from 68 countries and jurisdictions in March 2020 (when the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic). Analyses were compared by United Nations development status and drug class. Autoregressive integrated moving average models tested the significance of changes in purchasing trends.

RESULTS: Before COVID-19, standardized medication units per 100 population ranged from 3990 to 4760 monthly. In March 2020, there was a global 15% increase in units of drugs purchased to 5309.3 units per 100 population compared with the previous year; the increase was greater in developed countries (18.5%; P < 0.001) than in developing countries (12.8%; P < 0.0001). After the increase in March 2020, there was a correction in the global purchase rate decreasing by 4.7% (April to August 2020 rate, 21,334.6/100 population; P < 0.001). Globally, we observed high purchasing rates and large changes for respiratory medicines such as inhalers and systemic adrenergic drugs (March 2020 rate, 892.7/100 population; change from 2019, 28.5%; P < 0.001). Purchases for topical dermatologic products also increased substantially (42.2%), although at lower absolute rates (610.0/100 population in March 2020; P < 0.0001). Interestingly, purchases for systemic anti-infective agents (including antiviral drugs) increased in developing countries (11.3%; P < 0.001), but decreased in developed countries (1.0%; P = 0.06).

CONCLUSION: We observed evidence of global drug stockpiling in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, especially among developed countries. Actions toward equitable distribution of medicines through a resilient drug supply chain should be taken to increase global response to future unanticipated events, such as pandemics.

IMPORTANCE: Within the Veterans Health Administration (VA), the use and cost of low-value services delivered by VA facilities or increasingly by VA Community Care (VACC) programs have not been comprehensively quantified.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify veterans' overall use and cost of low-value services, including VA-delivered care and VA-purchased community care.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study assessed a national population of VA-enrolled veterans. Data on enrollment, sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidities, and health care services delivered by VA facilities or paid for by the VA through VACC programs were compiled for fiscal year 2018 from the VA Corporate Data Warehouse. Data analysis was conducted from April 2020 to January 2022.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: VA administrative data were applied using an established low-value service metric to quantify the use of 29 potentially low-value tests and procedures delivered in VA facilities and by VACC programs across 6 domains: cancer screening, diagnostic and preventive testing, preoperative testing, imaging, cardiovascular testing and procedures, and other procedures. Sensitive and specific criteria were used to determine the low-value service counts per 100 veterans overall, by domain, and by individual service; count and percentage of each low-value service delivered by each setting; and estimated cost of each service.

RESULTS: Among 5.2 million enrolled veterans, the mean (SD) age was 62.5 (16.0) years, 91.7% were male, 68.0% were non-Hispanic White, and 32.3% received any service through VACC. By specific criteria, 19.6 low-value services per 100 veterans were delivered in VA facilities or by VACC programs, involving 13.6% of veterans at a total cost of $205.8 million. Overall, the most frequently delivered low-value service was prostate-specific antigen testing for men aged 75 years or older (5.9 per 100 veterans); this was also the service with the greatest proportion delivered by VA facilities (98.9%). The costliest low-value services were spinal injections for low back pain ($43.9 million; 21.4% of low-value care spending) and percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary disease ($36.8 million; 17.9% of spending).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cross-sectional study found that among veterans enrolled in the VA, more than 1 in 10 have received a low-value service from VA facilities or VACC programs, with approximately $200 million in associated costs. Such information on the use and costs of low-value services are essential to guide the VA's efforts to reduce delivery and spending on such care.

BACKGROUND: Dentists in the United States frequently prescribe opioids for dental-related pain, although evidence shows superior efficacy of nonopioids for pain management. A national sample of US dentists was interviewed to understand the barriers and facilitators to opioid prescribing.

METHODS: Semistructured one-on-one telephone interviews were conducted with dentists sampled from the 6 regions of The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Responses were coded into the domains of the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behavior. Potential behavior change interventions were identified for targeted themes.

RESULTS: Seventy-three interviews were qualitatively analyzed. Most of those interviewed were general dentists (86.3%) and on average (SD) were in practice for 24.3 (13.0) years. Ten themes were identified within the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behavior. Dentists' knowledge of opioid risk, ability to identify substance use disorder behavior, and capability of communicating pain management plans to patients or following clinic policies or state and federal regulations were linked with judicious opioid prescribing. Dentists reported prescribing opioids if they determined clinical necessity or feared negative consequences for refusing to prescribe opioids.

CONCLUSIONS: Dentists' opioid decision making is influenced by a range of real-world practice experiences and patient and clinic factors. Education and training that target dentists' knowledge gaps and changes in dentists' practice environment can encourage effective communication of pain management strategies with patients and prescribing of nonopioids as first-line analgesics while conserving opioid use.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Identified knowledge gaps in dentistry can be targets for education, clinical guidelines, and policy interventions to ensure safe and appropriate prescribing of opioids.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines, opioids, proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), and antibiotics are frequently prescribed inappropriately by primary care physicians (PCPs), without sufficient consideration of alternative options or adverse effects. We hypothesized that distinct groups of PCPs could be identified based on their propensity to prescribe these medications.

OBJECTIVE: To identify PCP groups based on their propensity to prescribe benzodiazepines, opioids, PPIs, and antibiotics, and patient and PCP characteristics associated with identified prescribing patterns.

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study using VA data and latent class regression analyses to identify prescribing patterns among PCPs and examine the association of patient and PCP characteristics with class membership.

PARTICIPANTS: A total of 2524 full-time PCPs and their patient panels (n = 2,939,636 patients), from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2018.

MAIN MEASURES: We categorized PCPs based on prescribing volume quartiles for the four drug classes, based on total days' supply dispensed of each medication by the PCP to their patients (expressed as days' supply per 1000 panel patient-days). We used latent class analysis to group PCPs based on prescribing and used multinomial logistic regression to examine patient and PCP characteristics associated with latent class membership.

KEY RESULTS: PCPs were categorized into four groups (latent classes): low intensity (23% of cohort), medium-intensity overall/high-intensity PPI (36%), medium-intensity overall/high-intensity opioid (20%), and high intensity (21%). PCPs in the high-intensity group were predominantly in the highest quartile of prescribers for all four drugs (68% in the highest quartile for benzodiazepine, 86% opioids, 64% PPIs, 62% antibiotics). High-intensity PCPs (vs. low intensity) were substantially less likely to be female (OR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.21-0.42) or practice in the northeast versus other census regions (OR: 0.10, 95% CI: 0.06-0.17).

CONCLUSIONS: VA PCPs can be classified into four clearly differentiated groups based on their prescribing of benzodiazepines, opioids, PPIs, and antibiotics, suggesting an underlying typology of prescribing. High-intensity PCPs were more likely to be male.

IMPORTANCE: Metrics that detect low-value care in common forms of health care data, such as administrative claims or electronic health records, primarily focus on tests and procedures but not on medications, representing a major gap in the ability to systematically measure low-value prescribing.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a scalable and broadly applicable metric that contains a set of quality indicators (EVOLV-Rx) for use in health care data to detect and reduce low-value prescribing among older adults and that is informed by diverse stakeholders' perspectives.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This qualitative study used an online modified-Delphi method to convene an expert panel of 15 physicians and pharmacists. This panel, comprising clinicians, health system leaders, and researchers, was tasked with rating and discussing candidate low-value prescribing practices that were derived from medication safety criteria; peer-reviewed literature; and qualitative studies of patient, caregiver, and physician perspectives. The RAND ExpertLens online platform was used to conduct the activities of the panel. The panelists were engaged for 3 rounds between January 1 and March 31, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Panelists used a 9-point Likert scale to rate and then discuss the scientific validity and clinical usefulness of the criteria to detect low-value prescribing practices. Candidate low-value prescribing practices were rated as follows: 1 to 3, indicating low validity or usefulness; 3.5 to 6, uncertain validity or usefulness; and 6.5 to 9, high validity or usefulness. Agreement among panelists and the degree of scientific validity and clinical usefulness were assessed using the RAND/UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) Appropriateness Method.

RESULTS: Of the 527 low-value prescribing recommendations identified, 27 discrete candidate low-value prescribing practices were considered for inclusion in EVOLV-Rx. After round 1, 18 candidate practices were rated by the panel as having high scientific validity and clinical usefulness (scores of ≥6.5). After round 2 panel deliberations, the criteria to detect 19 candidate practices were revised. After round 3, 18 candidate practices met the inclusion criteria, receiving final median scores of 6.5 or higher for both scientific validity and clinical usefulness. Of those practices that were not included in the final version of EVOLV-Rx, 3 received high scientific validity (scores ≥6.5) but uncertain clinical usefulness (scores <6.5) ratings, whereas 6 received uncertain scientific validity rating (scores <6.5).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This study culminated in the development of EVOLV-Rx and involved a panel of experts who identified the 18 most salient low-value prescribing practices in the care of older adults. Applying EVOLV-Rx may enhance the detection of low-value prescribing practices, reduce polypharmacy, and enable older adults to receive high-value care across the full spectrum of health services.

OBJECTIVE: Guidelines advocate against tight glycemic control in older nursing home (NH) residents with advanced dementia (AD) or limited life expectancy (LLE). We evaluated the effect of deintensifying diabetes medications with regard to all-cause emergency department (ED) visits, hospitalizations, and death in NH residents with LLE/AD and tight glycemic control.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a national retrospective cohort study of 2,082 newly admitted nonhospice veteran NH residents with LLE/AD potentially overtreated for diabetes (HbA1c ≤7.5% and one or more diabetes medications) in fiscal years 2009-2015. Diabetes treatment deintensification (dose decrease or discontinuation of a noninsulin agent or stopping insulin sustained ≥7 days) was identified within 30 days after HbA1c measurement. To adjust for confounding, we used entropy weights to balance covariates between NH residents who deintensified versus continued medications. We used the Aalen-Johansen estimator to calculate the 60-day cumulative incidence and risk ratios (RRs) for ED or hospital visits and deaths.

RESULTS: Diabetes medications were deintensified for 27% of residents. In the subsequent 60 days, 28.5% of all residents were transferred to the ED or acute hospital setting for any cause and 3.9% died. After entropy weighting, deintensifying was not associated with 60-day all-cause ED visits or hospitalizations (RR 0.99 [95% CI 0.84, 1.18]) or 60-day mortality (1.52 [0.89, 2.81]).

CONCLUSIONS: Among NH residents with LLE/AD who may be inappropriately overtreated with tight glycemic control, deintensification of diabetes medications was not associated with increased risk of 60-day all-cause ED visits, hospitalization, or death.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence suggests that U.S. dentists prescribe opioids excessively. There are limited national data on recent trends in opioid prescriptions by U.S. dentists. In this study, we examined trends in opioid prescribing by general dentists and dental specialists in the U.S. from 2012 to 2019.

METHODS: Dispensed prescriptions for oral opioid analgesics written by dentists were identified from IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Data from January 2012 through December 2019. Autoregressive integrated moving average and joinpoint regression models described monthly population-based prescribing rates (prescriptions/100,000 individuals), dentist-based prescribing rates (prescriptions/1,000 dentists), and opioid dosages (mean daily morphine milligram equivalents/day). All analyses were performed in 2020.

RESULTS: Over the 8 years, dentists prescribed >87.2 million opioid prescriptions. Population- and dentist-based prescribing rates declined monthly by -1.97 prescriptions/100,000 individuals (95% CI= -9.98, -0.97) and -39.12 prescriptions/1,000 dentists (95% CI= -58.63, -17.65), respectively. Opioid dosages declined monthly by -0.08 morphine milligram equivalents/day (95% CI= -0.13, -0.04). Joinpoint regression identified 4 timepoints (February 2016, May 2017, December 2018, and March 2019) at which monthly prescribing rate trends were often decreasing in greater magnitude than those in the previous time segment.

CONCLUSIONS: Following national trends, dentists became more conservative in prescribing opioids. A greater magnitude of decline occurred post 2016 following the implementation of strategies aimed to further regulate opioid prescribing. Understanding the factors that influence prescribing trends can aid in development of tailored resources to encourage and support a conservative approach by dentists, to prescribing opioids.

BACKGROUND: Low-value prescribing may result in adverse patient outcomes and increased medical expenditures. Clinicians' baseline strategies for navigating patient encounters involving low-value prescribing remain poorly understood, making it challenging to develop acceptable deprescribing interventions. Our objective was to characterize primary care physicians' (PCPs) approaches to reduce low-value prescribing in older adults through qualitative analysis of clinical scenarios.

METHODS: As part of an overarching qualitative study on low-value prescribing, we presented two clinical scenarios involving potential low-value prescribing during semi-structured interviews of 16 academic and community PCPs from general internal medicine, family medicine and geriatrics who care for patients aged greater than or equal to 65. We conducted a qualitative analysis of their responses to identify salient themes related to their approaches to prescribing, deprescribing, and meeting patients' expectations surrounding low-value prescribing.

RESULTS: We identified three key themes. First, when deprescribing, PCPs were motivated by their desire to mitigate patient harms and follow medication safety and deprescribing guidelines. Second, PCPs emphasized good communication with patients when navigating patient encounters related to low-value prescribing; and third, while physicians emphasized the importance of shared decision-making, they prioritized patients' well-being over satisfying their expectations.

CONCLUSIONS: When presented with real-life clinical scenarios, PCPs in our cohort sought to reduce low-value prescribing in a guideline-concordant fashion while maintaining good communication with their patients. This was driven primarily by a desire to minimize the potential for harm. This suggests that barriers other than clinician knowledge may be driving ongoing use of low-value medications in clinical practice.

Although nonsteroidal anti inflammatory drugs are superior to opioids in dental pain management, opioids are still prescribed for dental pain in the United States. Little is known about the serious adverse outcomes of short-acting opioids within the context of dental prescribing. The objective of this study was to evaluate adverse outcomes and persistent opioid use (POU) after opioid prescriptions by dentists, based on whether opioids were overprescribed or within recommendations. A cross-sectional analysis of adults with a dental visit and corresponding opioid prescription (index) from 2011 to 2018 within a nationwide commercial claims database was conducted. Opioid overprescribing was defined as >120 morphine milligram equivalents per Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines. Generalized estimating equation models were used to assess adverse outcomes (emergency department visits, hospitalizations, newly diagnosed substance use disorder, naloxone administration, or death within 30 days from index) and POU (≥1 prescription 4-90 days postindex). Predicted probabilities are reported. Of 633,387 visits, 2.6% experienced an adverse outcome and 16.6% had POU. Adverse outcome risk was not different whether opioids were overprescribed or within recommendations (predicted probability 9.0%, confidence interval [CI]: 8.0%-10.2% vs 9.1%, CI: 8.1-10.3), but POU was higher when opioids were overprescribed (predicted probability 27.4%, CI: 26.1%-28.8% vs 25.2%, CI: 24.0%-26.5%). Visits associated with mild pain and those with substance use disorders had the highest risk of both outcomes. Findings from this study demonstrate that dental prescribing of opioids was associated with adverse outcomes and POU, even when prescriptions were concordant with guidelines. Additional efforts are required to improve analgesic prescribing in dentistry, especially in groups at high risk of opioid-related adverse outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Nonopioid analgesics are more effective for most oral pain, but data suggest that dental prescribing of opioids is excessive. This study evaluates the extent to which opioids exceed recommendations and the characteristics associated with opioid overprescribing by Veterans Health Administration dentists.

METHODS: This was a national cross-sectional study of Veterans' dental visits from 2015 to 2018. Overprescribing was defined per national guidelines as >120 morphine milligram equivalents (primary outcome). The association of dental visit and patient demographic and medical characteristics was modeled with overprescribing (defined as >120 morphine milligram equivalents) using Poisson regression with clustering by facility and patient. A secondary analysis assessed opioid prescriptions >3 days' supply. The dates of analysis were January 2020‒May 2021.

RESULTS: Of the 196,595 visits, 28.7% exceeded 120 morphine milligram equivalents. Friday visits and people with chronic oral pain or substance misuse were associated with a higher prevalence of overprescribing. Women, older Veterans, and Black and Latinx Veterans were less likely to be overprescribed than men, younger Veterans, and White Veterans, respectively. Routine dental visits had a higher prevalence of opioid overprescribing than invasive visits. Opioid overprescribing decreased over time. White Veterans were more likely to receive oxycodone and hydrocodone, whereas people of Black race and Latinx ethnicity were more likely to receive codeine and tramadol. In the secondary analysis, 68.5% of opioid prescriptions exceeded a 3-day supply.

CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 1 in 3 opioids prescribed by Veterans Health Administration dentists exceed guidelines. Prescribing higher potency and quantities of opioids, especially on Fridays and to certain demographic groups, should be addressed as part of dental opioid stewardship programs.