CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain--United States, 2016

IMPORTANCE

Primary care clinicians find managing chronic pain challenging. Evidence of long-term efficacy of opioids for chronic pain is limited. Opioid use is associated with serious risks, including opioid use disorder and overdose.

OBJECTIVE

To provide recommendations about opioid prescribing for primary care clinicians treating adult patients with chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care, and end-of-life care.

PROCESS

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) updated a 2014 systematic review on effectiveness and risks of opioids and conducted a supplemental review on benefits and harms, values and preferences, and costs. CDC used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework to assess evidence type and determine the recommendation category.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Evidence consisted of observational studies or randomized clinical trials with notable limitations, characterized as low quality using GRADE methodology. Meta-analysis was not attempted due to the limited number of studies, variability in study designs and clinical heterogeneity, and methodological shortcomings of studies. No study evaluated long-term (≥1 year) benefit of opioids for chronic pain. Opioids were associated with increased risks, including opioid use disorder, overdose, and death, with dose-dependent effects.

RECOMMENDATIONS

There are 12 recommendations. Of primary importance, nonopioid therapy is preferred for treatment of chronic pain. Opioids should be used only when benefits for pain and function are expected to outweigh risks. Before starting opioids, clinicians should establish treatment goals with patients and consider how opioids will be discontinued if benefits do not outweigh risks. When opioids are used, clinicians should prescribe the lowest effective dosage, carefully reassess benefits and risks when considering increasing dosage to 50 morphine milligram equivalents or more per day, and avoid concurrent opioids and benzodiazepines whenever possible. Clinicians should evaluate benefits and harms of continued opioid therapy with patients every 3 months or more frequently and review prescription drug monitoring program data, when available, for high-risk combinations or dosages. For patients with opioid use disorder, clinicians should offer or arrange evidence-based treatment, such as medication-assisted treatment with buprenorphine or methadone.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The guideline is intended to improve communication about benefits and risks of opioids for chronic pain, improve safety and effectiveness of pain treatment, and reduce risks associated with long-term opioid therapy.

Resistance exercise in individuals with and without cardiovascular disease: 2007 update: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology and Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism

Prescribed and supervised resistance training (RT) enhances muscular strength and endurance, functional capacity and independence, and quality of life while reducing disability in persons with and without cardiovascular disease. These benefits have made RT an accepted component of programs for health and fitness. The American Heart Association recommendations describing the rationale for participation in and considerations for prescribing RT were published in 2000. This update provides current information regarding the (1) health benefits of RT, (2) impact of RT on the cardiovascular system structure and function, (3) role of RT in modifying cardiovascular disease risk factors, (4) benefits in selected populations, (5) process of medical evaluation for participation in RT, and (6) prescriptive methods. The purpose of this update is to provide clinicians with recommendations to facilitate the use of this valuable modality.

Causes of prescribing errors in hospital inpatients: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

To prevent errors made during the prescription of drugs, we need to know why they arise. Theories of human error used to understand the causes of mistakes made in high-risk industries are being used in health-care. They have not, however, been applied to prescribing errors, which are a great cause of patient harm. Our aim was to use this approach to investigate the causes of such errors.

METHODS

Pharmacists at a UK teaching hospital prospectively identified 88 potentially serious prescribing errors. We interviewed the prescribers who made 44 of these, and analysed our findings with human error theory.

FINDINGS

Our results suggest that most mistakes were made because of slips in attention, or because prescribers did not apply relevant rules. Doctors identified many risk factors-work environment, workload, whether or not they were prescribing for their own patient, communication within their team, physical and mental well-being, and lack of knowledge. Organisational factors were also identified, and included inadequate training, low perceived importance of prescribing, a hierarchical medical team, and an absence of self-awareness of errors.

INTERPRETATION

To reduce prescribing errors, hospitals should train junior doctors in the principles of drug dosing before they start prescribing, and enforce good practice in documentation. They should also create a culture in which prescription writing is seen as important, and formally review interventions made by pharmacists, locum arrangements, and the workload of junior doctors, and make doctors aware of situations in which they are likely to commit errors.

Information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians' prescribing: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pharmaceutical companies spent $57.5 billion on pharmaceutical promotion in the United States in 2004. The industry claims that promotion provides scientific and educational information to physicians. While some evidence indicates that promotion may adversely influence prescribing, physicians hold a wide range of views about pharmaceutical promotion. The objective of this review is to examine the relationship between exposure to information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians' prescribing.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched for studies of physicians with prescribing rights who were exposed to information from pharmaceutical companies (promotional or otherwise). Exposures included pharmaceutical sales representative visits, journal advertisements, attendance at pharmaceutical sponsored meetings, mailed information, prescribing software, and participation in sponsored clinical trials. The outcomes measured were quality, quantity, and cost of physicians' prescribing. We searched Medline (1966 to February 2008), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to February 2008), Embase (1997 to February 2008), Current Contents (2001 to 2008), and Central (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2007) using the search terms developed with an expert librarian. Additionally, we reviewed reference lists and contacted experts and pharmaceutical companies for information. Randomized and observational studies evaluating information from pharmaceutical companies and measures of physicians' prescribing were independently appraised for methodological quality by two authors. Studies were excluded where insufficient study information precluded appraisal. The full text of 255 articles was retrieved from electronic databases (7,185 studies) and other sources (138 studies). Articles were then excluded because they did not fulfil inclusion criteria (179) or quality appraisal criteria (18), leaving 58 included studies with 87 distinct analyses. Data were extracted independently by two authors and a narrative synthesis performed following the MOOSE guidelines. Of the set of studies examining prescribing quality outcomes, five found associations between exposure to pharmaceutical company information and lower quality prescribing, four did not detect an association, and one found associations with lower and higher quality prescribing. 38 included studies found associations between exposure and higher frequency of prescribing and 13 did not detect an association. Five included studies found evidence for association with higher costs, four found no association, and one found an association with lower costs. The narrative synthesis finding of variable results was supported by a meta-analysis of studies of prescribing frequency that found significant heterogeneity. The observational nature of most included studies is the main limitation of this review.

CONCLUSIONS

With rare exceptions, studies of exposure to information provided directly by pharmaceutical companies have found associations with higher prescribing frequency, higher costs, or lower prescribing quality or have not found significant associations. We did not find evidence of net improvements in prescribing, but the available literature does not exclude the possibility that prescribing may sometimes be improved. Still, we recommend that practitioners follow the precautionary principle and thus avoid exposure to information from pharmaceutical companies. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Suboptimal prescribing in older inpatients and outpatients

Investigators searched Medline and HealthSTAR databases from January 1, 1985 through June 30, 1999 to identify articles on suboptimal prescribing in those age 65 years and older. A manual search of the reference lists from identified articles and the authors' article files, book chapters, and recent reviews was conducted to identify additional articles. The definitions for various types of suboptimal prescribing (polypharmacy, inappropriate, and underutilization) are numerous, and measurement varies from study to study. The literature suggests that suboptimal prescribing is common in older outpatients and inpatients. Moreover, there is significant morbidity and mortality associated with suboptimal prescribing for these older patients. Evidence from well-controlled studies suggests that multidisciplinary teams and clinical pharmacy interventions can modify suboptimal drug use in older people. Future research is necessary to measure and test other methods for tackling this major public health problem facing older people.

What is a prescribing error?

OBJECTIVE

To develop a practitioner led definition of a prescribing error for use in quantitative studies of their incidence.

DESIGN

Two stage Delphi technique.

SUBJECTS

A panel of 34 UK judges, which included physicians, surgeons, pharmacists, nurses and risk managers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The extent to which judges agreed with a general definition of a prescribing error, and the extent to which they agreed that each of 42 scenarios represented a prescribing error.

RESULTS

Responses were obtained from 30 (88%) of 34 judges in the first Delphi round, and from 26 (87%) of 30 in the second round. The general definition of a prescribing error was accepted. The panel reached consensus that 24 of the 42 scenarios should be included as prescribing errors and that five should be excluded. In general, transcription errors, failure to communicate essential information, and the use of drugs or doses inappropriate for the individual patient were considered prescribing errors; deviations from policies or guidelines were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Health care professionals are in broad agreement about the types of events that should be included and excluded as prescribing errors. A general definition of a prescribing error has been developed, together with more detailed guidance regarding the types of events that should be included. This definition allows the comparison of prescribing error rates among different prescribing systems and different hospitals, and is suitable for use in both research and clinical governance initiatives.

Gout medication treatment patterns and adherence to standards of care from a managed care perspective

OBJECTIVE

To determine allopurinol treatment patterns and adherence to published standards of care for patients with gout.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective claims analysis in a managed care database included patients 18 years or older, with continuous eligibility for 1 year before and after the start date and 2 or more visits during which the gout disease code (274.xx) was assigned or 1 or more pharmacy prescriptions for a gout-specific medication between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2002 (intake period). Factors associated with compliance with allopurinol therapy were measured based on the medication possession ratio, and adherence to 2 quality-of-care indicators for gout management was assessed using multivariable logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 64.9% of allopurinol users had a modal daily dose or the most commonly observed daily dose of 300 mg/d, median length of therapy was 3 months, and a high proportion of patients had a medication possession ratio of 10% or less. Suggested quality-of-care Indicators for gout had low performance: 53% of patients with renal impairment received a modal daily dose of 300 mg or greater, and 83% of patients who started taking allopurinol did not have their serum urate levels measured within 180 days. Patients with gout flares were less likely to be compliant with allopurinol (odds ratio, 0.50; 95% confidence interval, 0.40-0.63). Patients with renal impairment at baseline were 3.2 times more likely to undergo serum urate testing than patients without renal impairment (odds ratio, 3.20; 95% confidence Interval, 1.25-8.23).

CONCLUSION

There was low compliance with allopurinol therapy for treatment of gout. Patients potentially received suboptimal quality of care as measured by serum urate testing and appropriateness of allopurinol dosing in patients with renal impairment.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy in older people: a Cochrane systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To summarise the findings of an updated Cochrane review of interventions aimed at improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy in older people.

DESIGN

Cochrane systematic review. Multiple electronic databases were searched including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from inception to November 2013). Hand searching of references was also performed. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series analyses reporting on interventions targeting appropriate polypharmacy in older people in any healthcare setting were included if they used a validated measure of prescribing appropriateness. Evidence quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation).

SETTING

All healthcare settings.

PARTICIPANTS

Older people (≥ 65 years) with ≥ 1 long-term condition who were receiving polypharmacy (≥ 4 regular medicines).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were the change in prevalence of appropriate polypharmacy and hospital admissions. Medication-related problems (eg, adverse drug reactions), medication adherence and quality of life were included as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

12 studies were included: 8 RCTs, 2 cluster RCTs and 2 controlled before-and-after studies. 1 study involved computerised decision support and 11 comprised pharmaceutical care approaches across various settings. Appropriateness was measured using validated tools, including the Medication Appropriateness Index, Beers' criteria and Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions (STOPP)/ Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START). The interventions demonstrated a reduction in inappropriate prescribing. Evidence of effect on hospital admissions and medication-related problems was conflicting. No differences in health-related quality of life were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The included interventions demonstrated improvements in appropriate polypharmacy based on reductions in inappropriate prescribing. However, it remains unclear if interventions resulted in clinically significant improvements (eg, in terms of hospital admissions). Future intervention studies would benefit from available guidance on intervention development, evaluation and reporting to facilitate replication in clinical practice.

Sex and racial differences in pharmacological response: where is the evidence? Pharmacogenetics, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewed 300 new drug applications between 1995 and 2000. Of the 163 that included a sex analysis, 11 drugs showed a >40% difference in pharmacokinetics between males and females, which was listed on the product label, yet no dosing recommendations were made based on sex. Female sex has been shown to be a risk factor for clinically relevant adverse drug reactions. Would simply dosing females based on their different pharmacokinetics decrease the incidence of adverse events? The answer is not known. Sex-dependent pharmacodynamic effects have been identified. The role of pharmacokinetics vs. pharmacodynamics is unclear, as is the impact of pharmacogenetics on both. This review highlights a few specific examples in each area in which sex differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics are important and provides recommendations for additional needed research.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 7 February 2018, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people aged 65 years and older, prescribed polypharmacy (four or more medicines), which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 32 studies, 20 from this update. Included studies consisted of 18 randomised trials, 10 cluster randomised trials (one of which was a stepped-wedge design), two non-randomised trials and two controlled before-after studies. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support (CDS); and 31 were complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical-care based approaches (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patient's outcomes), one of which incorporated a CDS component as part of their multi-faceted intervention. Interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists and geriatricians, and all were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low.It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool), mean difference (MD) -4.76, 95% CI -9.20 to -0.33; 5 studies, N = 517; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.05; 7 studies; N = 1832; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs, (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.02; 11 studies; N = 3079; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.81, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.64; 2 studies; N = 569; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPOs (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 5 studies; N = 1310; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in hospital admissions (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 4052; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in quality of life (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 3211; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in eight studies (N = 10,087) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as reviews of patients' prescriptions, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they may be slightly beneficial in terms of reducing potential prescribing omissions (PPOs); but this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias.

Inappropriate medication prescribing in skilled-nursing facilities

OBJECTIVE

To quantify the appropriateness of medication prescriptions in nursing home residents.

DESIGN

Prospective, cohort study.

SETTING

Twelve nursing homes in the greater Los Angeles area.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1106 nursing home residents.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The appropriateness of medication prescriptions was evaluated using explicit criteria developed through consensus by 13 experts from the United States and Canada. These experts identified 19 drugs that should generally be avoided and 11 doses, frequencies, or durations of use of specific drugs that generally should not be exceeded.

RESULTS

Based on the consensus criteria, 40% of residents received at least one inappropriate medication order, and 10% received two or more inappropriate medication orders concurrently; 7% of all prescriptions were inappropriate. Physicians prescribed a greater number of inappropriate medications for female residents. Regression analysis, corrected for clustering effects within facilities, showed that a greater number of inappropriate medication prescriptions were ordered in larger nursing homes. Inappropriate prescriptions were not related to the proportion of Medicaid (Medi-Cal) residents or the number of physicians practicing in the homes.

CONCLUSIONS

Inappropriate medication prescribing in nursing homes is common. Female residents and residents of large nursing homes are at the greatest risk for receiving an inappropriate prescription.

Opioid rotation: the science and the limitations of the equianalgesic dose table

Opioid rotation refers to a switch from one opioid to another in an effort to improve the response to analgesic therapy or reduce adverse effects. It is a common method to address the problem of poor opioid responsiveness despite optimal dose titration. Guidelines for opioid rotation are empirical and begin with the selection of a safe and reasonably effective starting dose for the new opioid, followed by dose adjustment to optimize the balance between analgesia and side effects. The selection of a starting dose must be based on an estimate of the relative potency between the existing opioid and the new one. Potency, which is defined as the dose required to produce a given effect, differs widely among opioids, and among individuals under varying conditions. To effectively rotate from one opioid to another, the new opioid must be started at a dose that will cause neither toxicity nor abstinence, and will be sufficiently efficacious in that pain is no worse than before the change. The estimate of relative potency used in calculating this starting dose has been codified on "equianalgesic dose tables," which historically have been based on the best science available and have been used with little modification for more than 40 years. These tables, and the clinical protocols used to apply them to opioid rotation, may need revision, however, as the science underlying relative potency evolves. Review of these issues informs the use of opioid rotation in the clinical setting and defines key areas for future research.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing.

OBJECTIVES

This review sought to determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

In November 2013, for this first update, a range of literature databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched, and handsearching of reference lists was performed. Search terms included 'polypharmacy', 'medication appropriateness' and 'inappropriate prescribing'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

A range of study designs were eligible. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people 65 years of age and older in which a validated measure of appropriateness was used (e.g. Beers criteria, Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Study-specific estimates were pooled, and a random-effects model was used to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the overall quality of evidence for each pooled outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Two studies were added to this review to bring the total number of included studies to 12. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support; 11 complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical approaches to interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals, such as prescribers and pharmacists. Appropriateness of prescribing was measured using validated tools, including the MAI score post intervention (eight studies), Beers criteria (four studies), STOPP criteria (two studies) and START criteria (one study). Interventions included in this review resulted in a reduction in inappropriate medication usage. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall quality of evidence for all pooled outcomes ranged from very low to low. A greater reduction in MAI scores between baseline and follow-up was seen in the intervention group when compared with the control group (four studies; mean difference -6.78, 95% CI -12.34 to -1.22). Postintervention pooled data showed a lower summated MAI score (five studies; mean difference -3.88, 95% CI -5.40 to -2.35) and fewer Beers drugs per participant (two studies; mean difference -0.1, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.09) in the intervention group compared with the control group. Evidence of the effects of interventions on hospital admissions (five studies) and of medication-related problems (six studies) was conflicting.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as pharmaceutical care, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they appear beneficial in terms of reducing inappropriate prescribing.

Academic detailing to improve use of broad-spectrum antibiotics at an academic medical center

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic misuse is common and costly and may promote antibiotic resistance. We tested the efficacy of a targeted one-on-one educational program ("academic detailing") designed to improve the appropriateness of broad-spectrum antibiotic use.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted in a large US teaching hospital. During an 18-week study period, 17 general medical, oncology, and cardiology services either received academic detailing or did not. The intervention was prompted by an order for either levofloxacin or ceftazidime that led to a computer-based review of data for that patient. Orders for the 2 target antibiotics deemed unnecessary by a priori criteria were included in the study. The primary outcome examined was the number of days that unnecessary levofloxacin or ceftazidime was administered in intervention and control groups.

RESULTS

Before the trial, intervention and control services had similar prescribing patterns for the target antibiotics; the drugs were used for similar indications throughout the study period. During the intervention, there was a reduction of 37% in days of unnecessary levofloxacin or ceftazidime use per 2-week interval on services randomized to the educational intervention vs control services (P< .001). In multivariable analyses controlling for baseline prescribing and study interval, the rate of unnecessary use of the 2 target antibiotics was reduced by 41% on the intervention services compared with controls (95% confidence interval, 44%-78%; P< .001). Length of stay, intensive care unit transfers, readmission rates, and in-hospital death rates were similar in both groups (P> or =.10 for all).

CONCLUSION

Targeted one-on-one education is a practical, effective, and safe method for reducing excessive broad-spectrum antibiotic use.

Inappropriate prescribing in the older population: need for new criteria

Inappropriate prescribing (IP) is a common and serious global healthcare problem in elderly people, leading to increased risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), polypharmacy being the main risk factor for both IP and ADRs. IP in older people is highly prevalent but preventable; hence screening tools for IP have been devised, principally Beers' Criteria and the Inappropriate Prescribing in the Elderly Tool (IPET). Although Beers' Criteria have become the most widely cited IP criteria in the literature, nevertheless, they have serious deficiencies, including several drugs that are rarely prescribed nowadays, a lack of structure in the presentation of the criteria and omission of several important and common IP instances. New, more up-to-date, systems-based and easily applicable criteria are needed that can be applied in the routine clinical setting.

The Norwegian General Practice (NORGEP) criteria for assessing potentially inappropriate prescriptions to elderly patients. A modified Delphi study

OBJECTIVE

To establish a clinically relevant list with explicit criteria for pharmacologically inappropriate prescriptions in general practice for elderly people > or =70 years.

DESIGN

A three-round Delphi process for validating the clinical relevance of suggested criteria (n = 37) for inappropriate prescriptions to elderly patients.

SETTING

A postal consensus process undertaken by a panel of specialists in general practice, clinical pharmacology, and geriatrics. Main outcome measures. The Norwegian General Practice (NORGEP) criteria, a relevance-validated list of drugs, drug dosages, and drug combinations to be avoided in the elderly (< or =70 years) patients.

RESULTS

Of the 140 invited panellists, 57 accepted to participate and 47 completed all three rounds of the Delphi process. The panellists reached consensus that 36 of the 37 suggested criteria were clinically relevant for general practice. Relevance of three of the criteria was rated significantly higher in Round 3 than in Round 1. At the end of the Delphi process, a significant difference between the different specialist groups' scores was seen for only one of the 36 criteria.

CONCLUSION

The NORGEP criteria may serve as rules of thumb for general practitioners (GPs) related to their prescribing practice for elderly patients, and as a tool for evaluating the quality of GPs' prescribing in settings where access to clinical information for individual patients is limited, e.g. in prescription databases and quality improvement interventions.

Satisfaction with medication: an overview of conceptual, methodologic, and regulatory issues

OBJECTIVE

Patients' satisfaction with their medication or medical device has been of increasing interest over the past decade. This is reflective of the rise of the patient as consumer and the desire of pharmaceutical and device manufacturers to obtain feedback from the consumers about their products. Satisfaction with medication is more narrowly focused and should be distinguished from other aspects of satisfaction. The purpose of this article is to place the concept of patient satisfaction with medication in an appropriate theoretical context, to explore the challenges of performing this research, and to offer recommendations for the basis of satisfaction claims.

METHODS

We reviewed the literature on satisfaction with medication or medical devices. We summarize and discuss the background, conceptual issues, and theoretical justification for studying satisfaction with medication. We offer examples of domains to be included and suggestions on how to develop a psychometrically sound satisfaction measure. We also address additional issues for consideration.

RESULTS

Medication satisfaction is a type of patient-reported outcome, but is distinguished from other patient-reported outcomes-specifically health-related quality of life (HRQL) and self-reports of symptoms. The Theory of Reasoned Action provides one theoretical justification for the concept. The heuristic value of this theory leads to implications regarding the relation between satisfaction and adherence. In addition, the theory is consistent with the need to focus on the patient's beliefs and values concerning the impact of taking his/her medication. Although the beliefs will differ according to the specific drug-disease combination, the beliefs can often be categorized in several domains of satisfaction: symptom relief/efficacy, side effects, ease and convenience, impact on HRQL, general satisfaction, and additional domains specific to the given research question.

CONCLUSION

Patient satisfaction instruments should be subjected to the same psychometrically rigorous standards and procedures as any other patient-reported outcome and should also be subject to the same regulatory standards as other patient-reported outcomes with respect to advertising and promotion.

The quality of pharmacologic care for vulnerable older patients

BACKGROUND

Although pharmacotherapy is critical to the medical care of older patients, medications can have considerable toxicity in this age group. To date, research has focused on inappropriate prescribing and policy efforts have aimed at access, but no comprehensive measurement of the quality of pharmacologic management using explicit criteria has been performed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the broad range of pharmacologic care processes for vulnerable older patients.

DESIGN

Observational cohort study.

SETTING

2 managed care organizations enrolling older persons.

PATIENTS

Community-dwelling high-risk patients 65 years of age or older continuously enrolled in the managed care organizations from 1 July 1998 to 31 July 1999.

MEASUREMENTS

Patients' receipt of care as specified in 43 quality indicators covering 4 domains of pharmacologic care: 1) prescribing indicated medications; 2) avoiding inappropriate medications; 3) education, continuity, and documentation; and 4) medication monitoring.

RESULTS

Of 475 vulnerable older patients, 372 (78%) consented to participate and had medical records that could be abstracted. The percentage of appropriate pharmacologic management ranged from 10% for documentation of risks of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs to 100% for avoiding short-acting calcium-channel blockers in patients with heart failure and avoiding beta-blockers in patients with asthma. Pass rates for quality indicators in the "avoiding inappropriate medications" domain (97% [95% CI, 96% to 98%]) were significantly higher than pass rates for "prescribing indicated medications" (50% [CI, 45% to 55%]); "education, continuity, and documentation" (81% [CI, 79% to 84%]); and "medication monitoring" (64% [CI, 60% to 68%]).

LIMITATIONS

Fewer than 10 patients were eligible for many of the quality indicators measured, and the generalizability of these findings in 2 managed care organizations to the general geriatric population is uncertain.

CONCLUSIONS

Failures to prescribe indicated medications, monitor medications appropriately, document necessary information, educate patients, and maintain continuity are more common prescribing problems than use of inappropriate drugs in older patients.

Long-term opioid therapy reconsidered

In the past 20 years, primary care physicians have greatly increased prescribing of long-term opioid therapy. However, the rise in opioid prescribing has outpaced the evidence regarding this practice. Increased opioid availability has been accompanied by an epidemic of opioid abuse and overdose. The rate of opioid addiction among patients receiving long-term opioid therapy remains unclear, but research suggests that opioid misuse is not rare. Recent studies report increased risks for serious adverse events, including fractures, cardiovascular events, and bowel obstruction, although further research on medical risks is needed. New data indicate that opioid-related risks may increase with dose. From a societal perspective, higher-dose regimens account for the majority of opioids dispensed, so cautious dosing may reduce both diversion potential and patient risks for adverse effects. Limiting long-term opioid therapy to patients for whom it provides decisive benefits could also reduce risks. Given the warning signs and knowledge gaps, greater caution and selectivity are needed in prescribing long-term opioid therapy. Until stronger evidence becomes available, clinicians should err on the side of caution when considering this treatment.

Outcomes of an intervention to improve hospital antibiotic prescribing: interrupted time series with segmented regression analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate an intervention to reduce inappropriate use of key antibiotics with interrupted time series analysis.

METHODS

The intervention is a policy for appropriate use of Alert Antibiotics (carbapenems, glycopeptides, amphotericin, ciprofloxacin, linezolid, piperacillin-tazobactam and third-generation cephalosporins) implemented through concurrent, patient-specific feedback by clinical pharmacists. Statistical significance and effect size were calculated by segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series of drug use and cost for 2 years before and after the intervention started.

RESULTS

Use of Alert Antibiotics increased before the intervention started but decreased steadily for 2 years thereafter. The changes in slope of the time series were 0.27 defined daily doses/100 bed-days per month (95% CI 0.19-0.34) and pound 1908 per month (95% CI pound 1238- pound 2578). The cost of development, dissemination and implementation of the intervention ( pound 20133) was well below the most conservative estimate of the reduction in cost ( pound 133296), which is the lower 95% CI of effect size assuming that cost would not have continued to increase without the intervention. However, if use had continued to increase, the difference between predicted and actual cost of Alert Antibiotics was pound 572448 (95% CI pound 435696- pound 709176) over the 24 months after the intervention started.

CONCLUSIONS

Segmented regression analysis of pharmacy stock data is a simple, practical and robust method for measuring the impact of interventions to change prescribing. The Alert Antibiotic Monitoring intervention was associated with significant decreases in total use and cost in the 2 years after the programme was implemented. In our hospital, the value of the data far exceeded the cost of processing and analysis.

Physician motivations for nonscientific drug prescribing

Although there is increasing concern about inappropriate physician prescribing and how to devise programs to improve drug therapy decisions, little research has been published documenting the reasons for such misprescribing. We analyzed the motivations reported by 141 physicians who were part of a large multi-state randomized controlled trial of 'academic detailing.' The physicians were identified from state Medicaid prescribing records as moderate to high prescribers of cerebral or peripheral vasodilators, propoxyphene, or cephalexin, and were visited by clinical pharmacists serving as outreach educators in a medical school-based prescribing improvement program. Physicians' motivations for their prescribing patterns were discussed in an informal, interactive manner; all responses were recorded in detail by the pharmacists immediately following each visit. Of the 110 responses elicited, the most common reason offered by physicians for use of these medications was patient demand (51 statements, or 46%). Physicians also frequently attributed their prescribing of these drugs to intentional use of placebo effect (24%). An equally common reason was prescribers' assertion that their own clinical experience indicated that these drugs were actually therapies of choice in the conditions presented (26%), despite evidence from the research literature that this was not the case. Such indications included the use of the 'vasodilators' for senile dementia or peripheral vascular disease, cephalexin for viral upper respiratory infections, and propoxyphene instead of acetaminophen or aspirin for mild pain. Greater attention must be paid to physicians' attitudes and motivations concerning suboptimal prescribing if programs are to succeed in replacing these practices with more rational clinical decision-making.

Inappropriate prescribing for the elderly: beers criteria-based review

OBJECTIVE

To review currently available literature applying the Beers criteria for inappropriate medication use in the elderly to prescribing practices in various settings.

DATA SOURCE

Key words including inappropriate, Beers, medication, prescribing, elderly, geriatric, and criteria were used to search MEDLINE records from January 1992 to June 1999.

DATA EXTRACTION

Eight relevant studies were found that applied the Beers criteria in various healthcare settings.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Each study was examined for methodologic issues, criteria used, prevalence, nature and extent of inappropriate medication use, and factors associated with their use. Despite the methodologic differences, the review revealed some consistent patterns across healthcare settings. This review has shown that: (1) most of the researchers modified the Beers criteria to examine inappropriate medication use in the elderly; (2) studies using patient-based prevalence showed that between nearly one in four (23.5%) and one in seven (14.0%) elderly patients received an inappropriate medication as defined by either the Beers list of 20 inappropriate medications or the Modified Beers list; (3) the majority of these patients received one inappropriate agent; and (4) long-acting benzodiazepines, dipyridamole, propoxyphene, and amitriptyline were among the most frequently prescribed inappropriate medications. Univariate analyses indicated that women, patients >80 years old, and Medicaid patients appeared to receive more inappropriate medications than others; however, multivariate analyses found that only a higher number of medications was consistently associated with inappropriate medication use.

CONCLUSIONS

Inappropriate prescribing or use trends are noteworthy because they were observed despite methodologic differences. The findings can be instrumental in developing targeted interventions to influence future prescribing practices. More research is needed to address the national trends and healthcare impact of inappropriate drug use in the elderly.

Establishing "best practices" for opioid rotation: conclusions of an expert panel

Opioid rotation is a strategy applied during opioid therapy for pain that refers to a switch from one opioid to another in an effort to improve clinical outcomes (benefits or harms). It begins with the selection of a new drug at a starting dose that minimizes potential risks while ideally maintaining analgesic efficacy. The selection of a starting dose must be informed by an estimate of the relative potency between the existing opioid and the new one. Clinically relevant estimates of relative analgesic potency have been codified in the "equianalgesic dose table," which has been used with little modification for more than 40 years. New information about relative potency and the growing implementation of long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain provided a strong rationale for the convening of an expert panel to discuss the scientific foundation to opioid rotation and the elements that now should inform a clinical guideline for this practice. The panel affirmed both the value and the limitations of the current equianalgesic dose table and proposed a guideline intended to promote safety during opioid rotation.