Dataset Information

Influenza Antiviral Prescribing Practices and the Influence of Rapid Testing Among Primary Care Providers in the US, 2009-2016.

ABSTRACT: Background:Early influenza antiviral treatment within 2 days of illness onset can reduce illness severity and duration. Reliance on low sensitivity rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) to guide antiviral prescribing has been reported. We describe antiviral prescribing practices among primary care providers from a large surveillance network in the United States. Methods:From 2009-2016, a network of 36 to 68 outpatient clinics per year collected respiratory specimens and clinical data for patients with influenza-like illness (ILI). Specimens were tested for influenza using polymerase chain reaction (PCR). We used multivariable logistic regression to assess factors influencing antiviral prescribing. Results:Among 13 540 patients with ILI, 2766 (20%) were prescribed antivirals. In age groups recommended to receive empiric antiviral treatment for suspected influenza, 11% of children <2 years and 23% of adults ?65 years received a prescription. Among 3681 patients with a positive PCR test for influenza, 40% tested negative by RIDT. In multivariable analysis, prescription receipt was strongly associated with a positive RIDT (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 12, 95% CI 11-14) and symptom onset ?2 days before visit (aOR 4.3, 95% CI 3.8-4.9). Antiviral prescribing was also more frequent among pediatric and private family practice clinics compared with community health centers (aOR 1.9, 95% CI 1.6-2.2, and 1.3, 95% CI 1.1-1.5, respectively). Conclusion:Primary care providers were more likely to prescribe antivirals to patients with a positive RIDT, but antivirals were prescribed infrequently even to patients in high-risk age groups. Understanding patient and provider characteristics associated with antiviral prescribing is important for communicating treatment recommendations.

SUBMITTER: Fowlkes AL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6557305 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Influenza Antiviral Prescribing Practices and the Influence of Rapid Testing Among Primary Care Providers in the US, 2009-2016.

Fowlkes Ashley L AL Steffens Andrea A Reed Carrie C Temte Jonathan L JL Campbell Angela P AP

Open forum infectious diseases 20190426 6

<h4>Background</h4>Early influenza antiviral treatment within 2 days of illness onset can reduce illness severity and duration. Reliance on low sensitivity rapid influenza diagnostic tests (RIDTs) to guide antiviral prescribing has been reported. We describe antiviral prescribing practices among primary care providers from a large surveillance network in the United States.<h4>Methods</h4>From 2009-2016, a network of 36 to 68 outpatient clinics per year collected respiratory specimens and clinica ...[more]

PMID: 31205973

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSeasonal influenza vaccination is recommended for all adults; however, little is known about how primary care physicians can communicate effectively with patients about influenza vaccination.ObjectiveTo assess among general internal medicine (GIM) and family physicians (FP) regarding adult influenza vaccination: (1) recommendation and administration practices, (2) barriers to discussing and perceived reasons for patient refusal, and (3) factors associated with physician self-efficacy in convincing patients to be vaccinated.DesignEmail and mail survey conducted in February-March 2017 PARTICIPANTS: Nationally representative sample of GIM and FP MAIN MEASURES: Factor analysis was used to group similar items for multivariable analysis of barriers and strategies associated with high physician self-efficacy about convincing patients to be vaccinated (defined as disagreeing that they could do nothing to change resistant patients' minds).Key resultsResponse rate was 67% (620/930). Ninety-eight percent always/almost always recommended influenza vaccine to adults ≥ 65 years, 90% for adults 50-64 years, and 75% for adults 19-49 years. Standing orders (76%) and electronic alerts (64%) were the most commonly used practice-based immunization strategies. Frequently reported barriers to discussing vaccination were other health issues taking precedence (41%), time (29%), and feeling they were unlikely to change patients' minds (24%). Fifty-eight percent of physicians reported high self-efficacy about convincing patients to be vaccinated; these providers reported fewer patient belief barriers contributing to vaccine refusal (RR = 0.93 per item; 95% CI (0.89-0.98); Cronbach's α = 0.70), were more likely to report using both fact- (1.08/item; (1.03-1.14); 0.66) and personal experience-based (1.07/item; (1.003-1.15); 0.65) communication strategies, and were more likely to work in practices using patient reminders for influenza vaccine (1.32; (1.16-1.50)).ConclusionsPhysicians identified barriers to successfully communicating about adult influenza vaccination but few effective strategies to counter them. Interventions to promote self-efficacy in communication and under-utilized practice-based immunization strategies are needed.

Project description:ImportanceThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the "Guideline For Prescribing Opioids For Chronic Pain" (hereafter, CDC guideline) in 2016, but its association with prescribing practices for patients who are opioid naive is unknown.ObjectiveTo estimate changes in initial prescribing rates, duration, and dosage practices to patients who are opioid naive after the release of the CDC guideline.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used 6 sequential cohorts to estimate preguideline trends in prescribing among patients who were opioid naive, project that trend forward, and compare it with postguideline prescribing practices. Participants included commercially insured adults without current cancer or hospice care diagnoses and with no past-year opioid claims in the US from 2011 to 2017. All adjusted models were controlled for patient demographics and state-fixed effects. Data were analyzed from January 2020 to May 2021.ExposuresThe release of the CDC guideline.Main outcomes and measuresIndicators of any opioid prescription fills during a 9-month period, the number of days' supply of the initial prescription, and the binary indicator of whether the initial prescription was for 50 or more morphine milligram equivalents (MMEs) per day.ResultsThere were 12 870 612 eligible unique patients across cohorts (mean [SD] age in 2016, 51.2 [18.7] years; 6 553 458 [50.9%] women); and the mean (SD) age of the cohorts increased annually, from 48.7 (17.9) years in the April 2011 to December 2012 cohort to 51.9 (19.2) years in the April 2016 to December 2017 cohort. The postguideline prescribing prevalence was 532 962 of 5 834 088 individuals (9.1%), which exceeded that projected from the preguideline trend, estimated at 9.0% (95% CI, 9.0%-9.1%). Among patients receiving prescriptions during follow-up, adjusted mean days' supply was 4.7% (95% CI, 4.3%-5.1%) lower in the first year after release of the guideline and 9.8% (95% CI, 9.3%-10.3%) lower in the second year after release, compared with the expected rate from the preguideline trend. The adjusted odds of receiving a high-dose (ie, ≥50 MME/d) initial prescription were lower in the first year (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.98) and in the second year (odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.93-0.96) after the release of the CDC guideline compared with the odds expected from the preguideline trend.Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study found that patients who were opioid naive continued to initiate opioid therapy after the release of opioid prescribing guidelines by the CDC, but trends in prescribing duration reversed and decreased, after increasing in each of 4 preguideline cohorts examined. High-dose prescribing rates were already decreasing, but those trends accelerated after the CDC guideline release. These results suggest that nonmandatory, evidence-based guidelines from trusted sources were associated with prescribing practices. Guideline-concordant care has potential to improve pain management and reduce opioid-related harms.

Project description:PURPOSE:To quantify costs of eye care providers' Medicare Part D prescribing patterns for ophthalmic medications and to estimate the potential savings of generic or therapeutic drug substitutions and price negotiation. DESIGN:Retrospective cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS:Eye care providers prescribing medications through Medicare Part D in 2013. METHODS:Medicare Part D 2013 prescriber public use file and summary file were used to calculate medication costs by physician specialty and drug. Savings from generic or therapeutic drug substitutions were estimated for brand drugs. The potential savings from price negotiation was estimated using drug prices negotiated by the United States Veterans Administration (USVA). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Total cost of brand and generic medications prescribed by eye care providers. RESULTS:Eye care providers accounted for $2.4 billion in total Medicare part D prescription drug costs and generated the highest percentage of brand name medication claims compared with all other providers. Brand medications accounted for a significantly higher proportion of monthly supplies by volume, and therefore, also by total cost for eye care providers compared with all other providers (38% vs. 23% by volume, P < 0.001; 79% vs. 56% by total cost, P < 0.001). The total cost attributable to eye care providers is driven by glaucoma medications, accounting for $1.2 billion (54% of total cost; 72% of total volume). The second costliest category, dry eye medications, was attributable mostly to a single medication, cyclosporine ophthalmic emulsion (Restasis, Allergan, Irvine, CA), which has no generic alternative, accounting for $371 million (17% of total cost; 4% of total volume). If generic medications were substituted for brand medications when available, $148 million would be saved (7% savings); if generic and therapeutic substitutions were made, $882 million would be saved (42% savings). If Medicare negotiated the prices for ophthalmic medications at USVA rates, $1.09 billion would be saved (53% savings). CONCLUSIONS:Eye care providers prescribe more brand medications by volume than any other provider group. Efforts to reduce prescription expenditures by eye care providers should focus on increasing the use of generic medications, primarily through therapeutic substitutions. Policy changes enabling Medicare to negotiate prescription drug prices could decrease costs to Medicare.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Pharmacogenetic testing (PGx) has the potential to improve the quality of psychiatric prescribing by considering patients' genetic profile. However, there is limited scientific evidence supporting its efficacy or guiding its implementation. The Precision Medicine in Mental Health (PRIME) Care study is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of a specific commercially-available pharmacogenetic (PGx) test to inform antidepressant prescribing at 22 sites across the U.S. Simultaneous implementation science methods using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) are integrated throughout the trial to identify contextual factors likely to be important in future implementation of PGx. The goal of this study was to understand providers' perceptions of PGx for antidepressant prescribing and implications for future implementation. METHODS:Qualitative focus groups (n?=?10) were conducted at the beginning of the trial with Primary Care and Mental Health providers (n?=?31) from six PRIME Care sites. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed and data were analyzed using rapid analytic procedures organized by CFIR domains. RESULTS:Analysis revealed themes in the CFIR Intervention Characteristics domain constructs of Evidence, Relative Advantage, Adaptability, Trialability, Complexity, and Design that are important for understanding providers' perceptions of PGx testing. Results indicate: 1) providers had limited experience and knowledge of PGx testing and its evidence base, particularly for psychiatric medications; 2) providers were hopeful that PGx could increase their precision in depression prescribing and improve patient engagement, but were uncertain about how results would influence treatment; 3) providers were concerned about potential misinterpretation of PGx results and how to incorporate testing into their workflow; 4) primary care providers were less familiar and comfortable with application of PGx testing to antidepressant prescribing than psychiatric providers. CONCLUSIONS:Provider perceptions may serve as facilitators or barriers to implementation of PGx for psychiatric prescribing. Incorporating implementation science into the conduct of the RCT adds value by uncovering factors to be addressed in preparing for future implementation, should the practice prove effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03170362 ; Registered 31 May 2017.

Dataset Information

Influenza Antiviral Prescribing Practices and the Influence of Rapid Testing Among Primary Care Providers in the US, 2009-2016.

Publications

Influenza Antiviral Prescribing Practices and the Influence of Rapid Testing Among Primary Care Providers in the US, 2009-2016.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure