Dataset Information

Prescription Drug Use and Polypharmacy Among Medicaid-Enrolled Adults with Autism: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

A lack of gold standard treatment for autism spectrum disorders (ASD), no clear ASD management guidelines, and lack of evidence-based pharmacological interventions other than aripiprazole and risperidone elevate the risk of off-label prescribing and adverse effects among individuals with ASD, more so among adults.

Objective

The aim of this study was to identify and compare the types of prescription drug use, rates of polypharmacy, and characteristics associated with polypharmacy among adults with and without ASD in a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of a three-state Medicaid Analytic eXtract database (2000-2008).

Methods

Adults aged 22-64 years with ASD (ICD9-CM code: 299.xx) were propensity score-matched to 'no ASD' controls by age, sex, and race. General polypharmacy (≥6 unique classes of prescription drugs in a year) and psychotropic polypharmacy (≥3 unique prescription drug classes of psychotropic medications within a 90-day period) were the main study outcomes. Chi-square tests for rates, t tests for mean number of claims, and multivariate logistic regressions for likelihood of prescription drug use and polypharmacy were run.

Results

Annually, almost 75% of adults with ASD had >20 prescription drug claims compared with 33% of adults without ASD. Around 85% of adults with ASD used at least one psychotropic drug class compared with 42% of adults without ASD. Highly common psychotropics were antipsychotics (66%_ASD vs 20%_noASD), anticonvulsants (59%_ASD vs 20%_noASD), and anxiolytics/hypnotics/sedatives (21%_ASD vs 11%_noASD). Other than psychotropics, many adults with ASD used medical prescription drugs such as antimicrobials (47%), dermatologic agents (48%), respiratory agents (38%), gastrointestinal agents (31%), alternative medications (25%), antiparkinsonian agents (22.6%), antihyperlipidemics/statins (7.3%), and immunologics (2.0%). Rates of general (48%_ASD vs 32%_noASD) and psychotropic polypharmacy (19%_ASD vs 6%_noASD) were significantly higher in the ASD group.

Conclusion

Prescription drug use and polypharmacy rates among adults with ASD are substantially higher than those in an age-, sex-, and race-matched cohort of adults without ASD. Adults with ASD frequently use therapeutic treatments other than psychotropics. Healthcare providers, who usually report low confidence in treating patients with ASD, should play an active role in constant monitoring of prescription drug use patterns and patient response to interventions. Prescribers and caregivers are encouraged to make decisions after weighing the benefits and risks associated with a pharmacological treatment. Further investigations into the common use of any alternative treatments that can affect a patient's response to core treatments should also be conducted.

SUBMITTER: Vohra R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5127876 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceIncreasing prices of antidiabetic medications in the US have raised substantial concerns about the effects of drug affordability on diabetes care. There has been little rigorous evidence comparing the experiences of patients with diabetes across different types of insurance coverage.ObjectiveTo compare the utilization patterns and costs of prescription drugs to treat diabetes among low-income adults with Medicaid vs those with Marketplace insurance in Colorado during 2014 and 2015.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study included diabetic patients enrolled in Colorado Medicaid and Marketplace plans who were aged 19 to 64 years and had incomes between 75% and 200% of the federal poverty level during 2014 and 2015. Data analysis was conducted from September 2020 to April 2021.ExposuresHealth insurance through Colorado Medicaid or Colorado's state-based Marketplace.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were drug utilization (prescription drug fills) and drug costs (total costs and out-of-pocket costs). The secondary outcome was months with an active prescription for noninsulin antidiabetic medications. An all payer claims database was combined with income data, and linear models were used to adjust for clinical and demographic confounders.ResultsOf 22 788 diabetic patients included in the study, 20 245 were enrolled in Medicaid and 2543 in a Marketplace plan. Marketplace-eligible individuals were older (mean [SD] age, 52.12 [10.60] vs 47.70 [11.33] years), and Medicaid-eligible individuals were more likely to be female (12 429 [61.4%] vs 1413 [55.6%]). Medicaid-eligible patients were significantly more likely than Marketplace-eligible patients to fill prescriptions for dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (adjusted difference, -3.7%; 95% CI, -5.3 to -2.1; P < .001) and sulfonylureas (adjusted difference, -6.6%; 95% CI, -8.9 to -4.3; P < .001). Overall rates of insulin use were similar in the 2 groups (adjusted difference, -2.3%; -5.1 to 0.5; P = .11). Out-of-pocket costs for noninsulin medications were 84.4% to 95.2% lower and total costs were 9.4% to 54.2% lower in Medicaid than in Marketplace plans. Out-of-pocket costs for insulin were 76.7% to 94.7% lower in Medicaid than in Marketplace plans, whereas differences in total insulin costs were mixed. The percentage of months of apparent active medication coverage was similar between the 2 groups for 4 of 5 drug classes examined, with Marketplace-eligible patients having a greater percentage of months than Medicaid-eligible patients for sulfonylureas (adjusted difference, 5.3%; 95% CI, 0.3%-10.4%; P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, drug utilization across multiple drug classes was higher and drug costs were significantly lower for adults with diabetes enrolled in Medicaid than for those with subsidized Marketplace plans. Patients with Marketplace coverage had a similar percentage of months with an active prescription as patients with Medicaid coverage.

Project description:ObjectivesTo study trends in use of oral glucocorticoids (GCs) among adults, characteristics of oral GC initiators and prescriptions for the prevention of potential adverse effects associated with GC therapy.DesignFirst, a cross-sectional study repeated yearly was performed from 2007 to 2014 in a nationwide representative sample. Second, characteristics of initiators and patterns of GC therapy during the year following treatment initiation were described in a cohort of patients who began GC between 2007 and 2013.SettingPopulation-based study using data from the French reimbursement healthcare system (covering approximately 90% of the population) in patients aged ≥18 years.ResultsOver the study period, the prevalence of oral GC use ranged from 14.7% to 17.1% (95% CI 17.0%-17.2%) with a significant increase of 14.1% (95% CI +13.5% to +14.8%). The 2007-2013 cohort of oral GC initiators comprised 206 759 individuals. Oral GC use was mostly short-term (68% of unique reimbursement) and more than half of short-term users took concurrent antibiotics or respiratory/otological drugs. Chronic users (≥6 reimbursements/year) represented 1.8% (n=3789) of the cohort. The proportion of chronic users with comorbidities likely to be worsened by GC use (diabetes, psychotic disorders, osteoporosis) was 25%. Among patients at increased risk of osteoporosis, 62% received specific prevention/monitoring measures and only 27% had a bisphosphonate. Half of chronic oral GC users had a concurrent reimbursement of a proton pump inhibitor in the absence of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use.ConclusionsOral GC use was highly widespread and increased among adults from 2007 to 2014. The overwhelming short-term use could mainly concern a growing use of unjustified prescriptions rather than situations with a favourable benefit/risk ratio. For chronic users, our findings plead for the development of interventions designed to improve monitoring with regard to the frequent comorbidities at risk and inappropriate prescribing of preventive therapeutic measures.

Project description:The veterinary prescription of antibiotics in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) remains largely undocumented. In Bhutan, however, the national veterinary service keeps records of their activities and prescriptions, which offer an opportunity to establish a benchmark to assess the use of these agents in this and other LMIC. A cross-sectional retrospective study was designed and 2,266 handwritten veterinary records from 2017 were sampled from 23 animal health premises (AHPs) to estimate individual and an overall proportion of consultations that resulted in an antibiotic prescription. The frequency of antibiotic prescription per species, type of AHP, and according to WHO's AWaRe index and OIE list of priority antimicrobials were also explored. It was estimated that 31% (95% confidence interval: 29-33%; intracluster correlation: 0.03) of the veterinary consultations resulted in an antibiotic prescription. The incidence of antibiotic prescription was highest in consultations of poultry across AHP. Across species, diarrhea and wounds were frequently treated with broad-spectrum antibiotics including sulfonamides, tetracyclines, trimethoprim + sulfa, and penicillin. Between 45% and 70% antibiotics prescribed correspond to AWaRe's access group and up to 25% to AWaRe's watch group. Over 70% of antibiotics dispensed in veterinary consultations for any species correspond to the OIE's veterinary critically important antimicrobial agents. Overall, the study demonstrated positive features of veterinary antimicrobial stewardship in Bhutan, given the conservative proportion of consultation that results in this type of prescription and the type of antibiotic prescribed. Although the veterinary service closely follows the Bhutanese Standard Treatment Guidelines, the prescription of antibiotics to key species should be closely monitored. Our study suggests that further improvements of antibiotic stewardship can be achieved through standardisation of antibiotic prescription to some species, a revision of the guidelines toward reducing the prescription of antibiotics of high relevance for human medicine, and by including details of clinical investigation, use of tests, and treatment outcomes in veterinary consultation records.