Publications

BACKGROUND: Reducing inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions (Rxs) is a major quality improvement initiative in the United States. Tracking antibiotic prescribing trends is 1 method of assessing improvement in antibiotic prescribing. The purpose of this study was to assess longitudinal antibiotic prescribing practices among dental specialists.

METHODS: This was a retrospective ecological longitudinal trend study. The authors calculated monthly systemic antibiotic Rx counts, and rates per 100,000 beneficiaries, from a pharmacy benefits manager in the United States from 2013 through 2015. The authors calculated average annual antibiotic Rx rates (AARs) for the 3-year study period. The authors used a quasi-Poisson regression model to analyze antibiotic Rx trends. The authors quantified seasonal trends, when present, via peak-to-trough ratios (PTTRs).

RESULTS: Dental specialists prescribed 2.4 million antibiotics to the cohort of 38 million insurance beneficiaries during the 3-year study period (AAR = 2,086 Rxs per 100,000 beneficiaries). Oral and maxillofacial surgeons prescribed the most antibiotics (1,172,104 Rxs; AAR = 1,018 Rxs per 100,000 beneficiaries), followed by periodontists (527,038 Rxs; AAR = 457 Rxs per 100,000 beneficiaries), and endodontists (447,362 Rxs; AAR = 388 Rxs per 100,000 beneficiaries). Longitudinal antibiotic prescribing trends were stable among all dental specialties in the regression models (P > .05). The authors observed substantial seasonal variation in antibiotic Rxs in 2 specialties: pediatric dentistry (PTTR, 1.18; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 1.25) and orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics (PTTR, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.21 to 1.71), with the highest rates of antibiotic Rxs in the spring and winter.

CONCLUSIONS: Antibiotic prescribing practices for dental specialists remained stable. The authors observed seasonal trends in 2 specialties.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Public health efforts are needed improve antibiotic prescribing among dental specialties.

BACKGROUND: Patients with pulpal and periapical conditions often seek treatment for pain, intraoral swelling, or both. Even when definitive, conservative dental treatment (DCDT) is an option, antibiotics are often prescribed. The purpose of this review was to summarize available evidence regarding the effect of antibiotics, either alone or as adjuncts to DCDT, to treat immunocompetent adults with pulpal and periapical conditions, as well as additional population-level harms associated with antibiotic use.

TYPE OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors updated 2 preexisting systematic reviews to identify newly published randomized controlled trials. They also searched for systematic reviews to inform additional harm outcomes. They conducted searches in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Pairs of reviewers independently conducted study selection, data extraction, and assessment of risk of bias and certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS: The authors found no new trials via the update of the preexisting reviews. Ultimately, 3 trials and 8 additional reports proved eligible for this review. Trial estimates for all outcomes suggested both a benefit and harm over 7 days (very low to low certainty evidence). The magnitude of additional harms related to antibiotic use for any condition were potentially large (very low to moderate certainty evidence).

CONCLUSIONS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Evidence for antibiotics, either alone or as adjuncts to DCDT, showed both a benefit and a harm for outcomes of pain and intraoral swelling and a large potential magnitude of effect in regard to additional harm outcomes. The impact of dental antibiotic prescribing requires further research.

BACKGROUND: There is systemic undercoding of medical comorbidities within administrative claims in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This leads to bias when applying claims-based risk adjustment indices to compare outcomes between VA and non-VA settings. Our objective was to compare the accuracy of a medication-based risk adjustment index (RxRisk-VM) to diagnostic claims-based indices for predicting mortality.

METHODS: We modified the RxRisk-V index (RxRisk-VM) by incorporating VA and Medicare pharmacy and durable medical equipment claims in Veterans dually-enrolled in VA and Medicare in 2012. Using the concordance (C) statistic, we compared its accuracy in predicting 1 and 3-year all-cause mortality to the following models: demographics only, demographics plus prescription count, or demographics plus a diagnostic claims-based risk index (e.g., Charlson, Elixhauser, or Gagne). We also compared models containing demographics, RxRisk-VM, and a claims-based index.

RESULTS: In our cohort of 271,184 dually-enrolled Veterans (mean age = 70.5 years, 96.1% male, 81.7% non-Hispanic white), RxRisk-VM (C = 0.773) exhibited greater accuracy in predicting 1-year mortality than demographics only (C = 0.716) or prescription counts (C = 0.744), but was less accurate than the Charlson (C = 0.794), Elixhauser (C = 0.80), or Gagne (C = 0.810) indices (all P < 0.001). Combining RxRisk-VM with claims-based indices enhanced its accuracy over each index alone (all models C ≥ 0.81). Relative model performance was similar for 3-year mortality.

CONCLUSIONS: The RxRisk-VM index exhibited a high level of, but slightly less, accuracy in predicting mortality in comparison to claims-based risk indices.

IMPLICATIONS: Its application may enhance the accuracy of studies examining VA and non-VA care and enable risk adjustment when diagnostic claims are not available or biased.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level 3.

BACKGROUND: An expert panel convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs and the Center for Evidence-Based Dentistry conducted a systematic review and formulated clinical recommendations for the urgent management of symptomatic irreversible pulpitis with or without symptomatic apical periodontitis, pulp necrosis and symptomatic apical periodontitis, or pulp necrosis and localized acute apical abscess using antibiotics, either alone or as adjuncts to definitive, conservative dental treatment (DCDT) in immunocompetent adults.

TYPES OF STUDIES REVIEWED: The authors conducted a search of the literature in MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature to retrieve evidence on benefits and harms associated with antibiotic use. The authors used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty in the evidence and the Evidence-to-Decision framework.

RESULTS: The panel formulated 5 clinical recommendations and 2 good practice statements, each specific to the target conditions, for settings in which DCDT is and is not immediately available. With likely negligible benefits and potentially large harms, the panel recommended against using antibiotics in most clinical scenarios, irrespective of DCDT availability. They recommended antibiotics in patients with systemic involvement (for example, malaise or fever) due to the dental conditions or when the risk of experiencing progression to systemic involvement is high.

CONCLUSION AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Evidence suggests that antibiotics for the target conditions may provide negligible benefits and probably contribute to large harms. The expert panel suggests that antibiotics for target conditions be used only when systemic involvement is present and that immediate DCDT should be prioritized in all cases.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid prescribing safety among individuals with cancer is poorly understood. This study estimates the prevalence of Pharmacy Quality Alliance opioid measures among individuals with cancer undergoing or not undergoing active treatment versus those without cancer.

METHODS: Pennsylvania Medicaid data (2016) were analyzed in 2018 to identify adults aged 18-64 years with and without cancer diagnoses who had 2 or more opioid prescriptions. Active cancer treatment, defined as having chemotherapy, radiotherapy, cancer surgery, or hospitalization with a primary diagnosis of cancer, was evaluated from October 2015 to December 2016 allowing a ≥3-month look-back period for cancer diagnoses observed in the first quarter of 2016. Opioid dosages (>120 morphine milligram equivalents for ≥90 consecutive days), multiple providers (4 or more prescribers and 4 or more pharmacies), and opioid and benzodiazepines overlapping ≥30 days were evaluated.

RESULTS: The sample with opioid prescriptions included 111,491 enrollees without cancer diagnoses and 12,819 with cancer, 58.8% of whom were not in active cancer treatment. Among enrollees undergoing cancer treatment, with cancer but not in active treatment, and without cancer, the prevalence of high morphine milligram equivalents was 7.1%, 6.0%, and 4.7% (p<0.001), respectively. The corresponding prevalence of multiple providers was 6.7%, 4.1%, and 3.4% (p<0.001). Concurrent opioid and benzodiazepine prescriptions occurred in 28.6%, 30.5%, and 26.8% (p<0.001), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with cancer, regardless of treatment status, had higher-risk opioid use based on Pharmacy Quality Alliance measures versus those without cancer. Their systematic exclusion from opioid quality surveillance could create missed opportunities to identify patients at high risk of adverse opioid-related outcomes.

In this cohort study, pricing data from January 2007 to June 2018 from SSR Health were used to determine how list prices, net prices, and discounts for the originator biologics changed with biosimilar competition.

Polypharmacy is common in older adults and associated with inappropriate medication use, adverse drug events, medication nonadherence, higher costs, and increased mortality compared with those without polypharmacy. Deprescribing, the clinically supervised process of stopping or reducing the dose of medications when they cause harm or no longer provide benefit, may improve outcomes. Although potentially beneficial, clinicians struggle to overcome structural, organizational, technological, and cognitive barriers to deprescribing, limiting its use in clinical practice. Deprescribing science would benefit from a unifying conceptual framework to prioritize research. Current deprescribing conceptual frameworks have made important contributions to the field but often with a focus on specific medication classes or aspects of deprescribing. To further this relatively nascent field, we developed a broader deprescribing conceptual framework that builds on prior frameworks and includes patient, prescriber, and system influences; the process of deprescribing; outcomes; and dissemination. Patient factors include patients' biology, experience, values, and preferences. Prescriber factors include rational (eg, based on explicit knowledge) and nonrational (eg, behavioral tendencies, biases, and heuristics) decision making. System factors include resources, incentives, goals, and culture that contribute to deprescribing. The framework separates the deprescribing decision from the deprescribing process. The framework captures the results of deprescribing by examining changes in clinical structures, performance processes, patient experience, health outcomes, and cost. Through testing and refinement, this novel, more comprehensive conceptual framework has the potential to advance deprescribing research by organizing the existing evidence, identifying evidence gaps, and categorizing deprescribing interventions and the settings in which they are applied. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2018-2022, 2019.

This study uses Medicaid drug utilization data to describe reimbursement and market share of long-acting insulins before and after approval of new insulin products and to estimate savings associated with a “biosimilar” for insulin glargine approved in 2015.