Dataset Information

Assessment of Physician Prescribing of Muscle Relaxants in the United States, 2005-2016.

ABSTRACT: Importance:Little is known to date about national trends in the prescribing of skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs), the use of which is associated with important safety concerns, especially in older adults and in those who use concomitant opioids. Objective:To measure national trends in SMR prescribing over a 12-year period. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study used data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from January 2005 to December 2016. Data were analyzed from August 21, 2018, to July 18, 2019. The study included patients with ambulatory care visits who had encounters with non-federally funded, office-based physicians in the United States. Exposures:SMR use, categorized as newly prescribed or continued therapy at the office visit. Main Outcomes and Measures:Ambulatory care visits-overall and stratified by calendar year, geographic region, and patient age, sex, and race-in which an SMR was newly prescribed or continued were quantified. Among office visits in which an SMR was newly prescribed, diagnoses were assessed. Concomitant medications were quantified for all office visits, stratified by new or continued therapy. Survey visit weights were used to estimate nationally representative measures, and age-standardized rates were generated by geographic region using US Census data. Results:This study included a total of 314 970 308 office visits (mean [SD] age, 53.5 [15.2] years; 194 621 102 [61.8%] men and 120 349 206 [38.2%] women). In 2016, there were 30?730?262 (95% CI, 30?626?464-30?834?060) US ambulatory care visits in which an SMR was either newly prescribed or continued as ongoing therapy. Patients in these visits were most frequently female (58.2% [95% CI, 57.9%-58.6%]), white (53.7% [95% CI, 53.4%-54.0%]), and aged 45 to 64 years (48.5% [95% CI, 48.2%-48.9%]). During the study period, office visits with a prescribed SMR nearly doubled from 15.5 million (95% CI, 15.4-15.6 million) in 2005 to 30.7 million (95% CI, 30.6-30.8 million) in 2016. Although visits for new SMR prescriptions remained stable, office visits with continued SMR drug therapy tripled from 8.5 million (95% CI, 8.4-8.5 million) visits in 2005 to 24.7 million (95% CI, 24.6-24.8 million) visits in 2016. Older adults accounted for 22.2% (95% CI, 21.8%-22.6%) of visits with an SMR prescription. Concomitant use of an opioid was recorded in 67.2% (95% CI, 62.0%-72.5%) of all visits with a continuing SMR prescription. Conclusions and Relevance:This study found that SMR use increased rapidly between 2005 and 2016, which is a concern given the prominent adverse effects and limited long-term efficacy data associated with their use. These findings suggest that approaches are needed to limit the long-term use of SMRs, especially in older adults, similar to approaches to limit long-term use of opioids and benzodiazepines.

SUBMITTER: Soprano SE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7315288 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessment of Physician Prescribing of Muscle Relaxants in the United States, 2005-2016.

Soprano Samantha E SE Hennessy Sean S Bilker Warren B WB Leonard Charles E CE

JAMA network open 20200601 6

<h4>Importance</h4>Little is known to date about national trends in the prescribing of skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs), the use of which is associated with important safety concerns, especially in older adults and in those who use concomitant opioids.<h4>Objective</h4>To measure national trends in SMR prescribing over a 12-year period.<h4>Design, setting, and participants</h4>This cross-sectional study used data from the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from January 2005 to December 2016 ...[more]

PMID: 32579193

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:ImportanceTreatment advances in diabetes can meaningfully improve outcomes only if they effectively reach the populations at risk.ObjectivesTo evaluate whether the cascade of US diabetes care, defined as diabetes diagnosis, linkage to care, and achievement of individual and combined treatment targets, improved from 2005 to 2016 and to investigate potential disparities in US diabetes care.Design, setting, and participantsNationally representative, serial cross-sectional studies included in the 2005-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey were evaluated. Data on nonpregnant US adults (age ≥18 years) with diabetes who had reported fasting for 9 or more hours (n = 1742 diagnosed and 746 undiagnosed) were included. Data analysis was performed from August 1, 2018, to May 10, 2019.ExposuresTime period (2005-2008, 2009-2012, and 2013-2016), age, sex, race/ethnicity, health insurance, and educational level incorporated into logistic regression models predicting odds of target achievement.Main outcomes and measuresProportion of participants overall and stratified by age, sex, and race/ethnicity who were linked to diabetes care and met glycemic (hemoglobin A1c <7.0%-8.5%, depending on age and complications), blood pressure (<140/90 mm Hg), cholesterol level (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <100 mg/dL), and smoking abstinence targets and a composite of all targets.ResultsIn 2013-2016, of 1742 US adults with diagnosed diabetes, 94% (95% CI, 92%-96%) were linked to diabetes care; 64% (95% CI, 58%-69%) met hemoglobin A1c level, 70% (95% CI, 64%-75%) met blood pressure level, and 57% (95% CI, 51%-62%) met cholesterol level targets; 85% were nonsmokers (95% CI, 82%-88%); and 23% (95% CI, 17%-29%) achieved the composite goal. Results were similar in 2005-2008 (composite 23%) and in 2009-2012 (composite 25%). There was no significant improvement in diagnosis or target achievement during the study period. Compared with middle-aged adults (45-64 years) with diagnosed diabetes, older patients (≥65 years) had higher odds (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.70; 95% CI, 1.17-2.48) and younger adults (18-44 years) had lower odds (aOR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.97) of meeting the composite target. Women had lower odds of achieving the composite target than men (aOR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.45-0.80). Non-Hispanic black individuals vs non-Hispanic white individuals had lower odds of achieving the composite target (aOR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.39-0.83). Having health insurance was the strongest predictor of linkage to diabetes care (aOR, 3.96; 95% CI, 2.34-6.69).Conclusions and relevanceIt appears that the diabetes care cascade in the United States has not significantly improved between 2005 and 2016. This study's findings suggest that gaps in diabetes care that were present in 2005, particularly among younger adults (18-44 years), women, and nonwhite individuals, persist.

Project description:Importance:Individuals with prediabetes are at increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular disease. The incidence and prevalence of type 2 diabetes in the US adolescent population have increased in the last decade. Therefore, it is important to monitor the prevalence of prediabetes and varying levels of glucose tolerance to assess the future risk of type 2 diabetes in the youngest segment of the population. Objective:To examine the prevalence of impaired fasting glucose (IFG), impaired glucose tolerance (IGT), and increased glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels in US adolescents (aged 12-18 years) and young adults (aged 19-34 years) without diabetes. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional analyses of the 2005-2016 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey assessed a population-based sample of adolescents and young adults who were not pregnant, did not have diabetes, and had measured fasting plasma glucose, 2-hour plasma glucose after a 75-g oral glucose tolerance test, and HbA1c levels. Analysis began in April 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures:Impaired fasting glucose was defined as fasting plasma glucose of 100 mg/dL to less than 126 mg/dL, IGT as 2-hour plasma glucose of 140 mg/dL to less than 200 mg/dL, and increased HbA1c level as HbA1c level between 5.7% and 6.4%. The prevalence of IFG, isolated IFG, IGT, isolated IGT, increased HbA1c level, isolated increased HbA1c level, and prediabetes (defined as having IFG, IGT, or increased HbA1c level) were estimated. Fasting insulin levels and cardiometabolic risk factors across glycemic abnormality phenotypes were also compared. Obesity was defined as having age- and sex-specific body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) in the 95th percentile or higher in adolescents or 30 or higher in young adults. Results:Of 5786 individuals, 2606 (45%) were adolescents and 3180 (55%) were young adults. Of adolescents, 50.6% (95% CI, 47.6%-53.6%) were boys, and 50.6% (95% CI, 48.8%-52.4%) of young adults were men. Among adolescents, the prevalence of prediabetes was 18.0% (95% CI, 16.0%-20.1%) and among young adults was 24.0% (95% CI, 22.0%-26.1%). Impaired fasting glucose constituted the largest proportion of prediabetes, with prevalence of 11.1% (95% CI, 9.5%-13.0%) in adolescents and 15.8% (95% CI, 14.0%-17.9%) in young adults. In multivariable logistic models including age, sex, race/ethnicity, and body mass index, the predictive marginal prevalence of prediabetes was significantly higher in male than in female individuals (22.5% [95% CI, 19.5%-25.4%] vs 13.4% [95% CI, 10.8%-16.5%] in adolescents and 29.1% [95% CI, 26.4%-32.1%] vs 18.8% [95% CI, 16.5%-21.3%] in young adults). Prediabetes prevalence was significantly higher in individuals with obesity than in those with normal weight (25.7% [95% CI, 20.0%-32.4%] vs 16.4% [95% CI, 14.3%-18.7%] in adolescents and 36.9% [95% CI, 32.9%-41.1%] vs 16.6% [95% CI, 14.2%-19.4%] in young adults). Compared with persons with normal glucose tolerance, adolescents and young adults with prediabetes had significantly higher non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, systolic blood pressure, central adiposity, and lower insulin sensitivity (P?<?.05 for all). Conclusions and Relevance:In the United States, about 1 of 5 adolescents and 1 of 4 young adults have prediabetes. The adjusted prevalence of prediabetes is higher in male individuals and in people with obesity. Adolescents and young adults with prediabetes also present an unfavorable cardiometabolic risk profile, putting them both at increased risk of type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.

Project description:ImportanceRecent US health care reforms incentivize improved population health outcomes and primary care functions. It remains unclear how much improving primary care physician supply can improve population health, independent of other health care and socioeconomic factors.ObjectivesTo identify primary care physician supply changes across US counties from 2005-2015 and associations between such changes and population mortality.Design, setting, and participantsThis epidemiological study evaluated US population data and individual-level claims data linked to mortality from 2005 to 2015 against changes in primary care and specialist physician supply from 2005 to 2015. Data from 3142 US counties, 7144 primary care service areas, and 306 hospital referral regions were used to investigate the association of primary care physician supply with changes in life expectancy and cause-specific mortality after adjustment for health care, demographic, socioeconomic, and behavioral covariates. Analysis was performed from March to July 2018.Main outcomes and measuresAge-standardized life expectancy, cause-specific mortality, and restricted mean survival time.ResultsPrimary care physician supply increased from 196 014 physicians in 2005 to 204 419 in 2015. Owing to disproportionate losses of primary care physicians in some counties and population increases, the mean (SD) density of primary care physicians relative to population size decreased from 46.6 per 100 000 population (95% CI, 0.0-114.6 per 100 000 population) to 41.4 per 100 000 population (95% CI, 0.0-108.6 per 100 000 population), with greater losses in rural areas. In adjusted mixed-effects regressions, every 10 additional primary care physicians per 100 000 population was associated with a 51.5-day increase in life expectancy (95% CI, 29.5-73.5 days; 0.2% increase), whereas an increase in 10 specialist physicians per 100 000 population corresponded to a 19.2-day increase (95% CI, 7.0-31.3 days). A total of 10 additional primary care physicians per 100 000 population was associated with reduced cardiovascular, cancer, and respiratory mortality by 0.9% to 1.4%. Analyses at different geographic levels, using instrumental variable regressions, or at the individual level found similar benefits associated with primary care supply.Conclusions and relevanceGreater primary care physician supply was associated with lower mortality, but per capita supply decreased between 2005 and 2015. Programs to explicitly direct more resources to primary care physician supply may be important for population health.

Project description:Background/objectivesPsychotropic and opioid medications are routinely prescribed for symptom management in hospice, but national estimates of prescribing are lacking. Changes in Medicare hospice payment in 2014 provide the first opportunity to examine psychotropic and opioid prescribing among hospice beneficiaries, and the factors associated with use of specific medication classes.DesignCross-sectional analysis of a 20% sample of traditional and managed Medicare with Part D enrolled in hospice, 2014-2016.SettingBeneficiaries enrolled in the Medicare hospice benefit.ParticipantsMedicare beneficiaries ≥65 newly enrolled in hospice between July 1, 2014 and December 31, 2016 (N = 554,022).Main outcomePrevalence of psychotropic and opioid medication prescribing by class and factors associated with prescribing.Results70.3% of hospice beneficiaries were prescribed a psychotropic and 63.3% were prescribed an opioid. The most common psychotropic classes prescribed were: benzodiazepines (60.6%), antipsychotics (38.3%), antidepressants (18.4%), and antiepileptics (10.2%). Lorazepam (56.4%), morphine (52.8%), and haloperidol (28.6%) were received by the most beneficiaries. Prevalence of any psychotropic and opioid prescription was highest among beneficiaries who were female (76.7%), non-Hispanic white (76.6%), and those with cancer (78.9%). Compared to white beneficiaries, non-Hispanic black beneficiaries were less likely to receive nearly every class of medication, with significantly lower odds of receiving opioids (64.1% vs 57.9%; AOR 0.75, 95% CI 0.72-0.77) and benzodiazepines (61.6% vs 52.2%; AOR 0.66, 95% CI 0.64-0.68). Differences were seen across hospice diagnosis; those with cancer were more likely to receive opioids, benzodiazepines, and antipsychotics but less likely to receive antidepressants and antiepileptics.ConclusionsPsychotropic and opioid medications are frequently prescribed in hospice. Observed variations in prescribing across race and ethnicity may reflect disparities in prescribing as well as patient preferences for care. Further work is important to understand factors driving prescribing given limited studies surrounding medication prescribing in hospice.

Project description:Background/objectivesWith an aging population suffering from increased prevalence of chronic conditions in the United States (U.S.), a large portion of these patients are on multiple medications. High-risk medications can increase the risk for drug-drug interactions and medication nonadherence. This study aims to describe the prevalence of polypharmacy and high-risk medication prescribing in U.S. physician offices.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from 2009 to 2016. All patients over 65 years old were included. Polypharmacy was categorized as no polypharmacy (< 2 medications), minor polypharmacy (2-3 medications), moderate polypharmacy (4-5 medications), and major polypharmacy (>5 medications). Medications were further categorized into high-risk medication categories (anticholinergics, cardiovascular agents, central nervous system (CNS) medications, pain medications, and other). Comparisons between the degrees of polypharmacy were performed utilizing chi-square or Wilcoxon rank-sum tests with JMP Pro 14® (SAS Institute, Cary, NC).ResultsOver 2 billion patient visits were included. Overall, Polypharmacy was common (65.1%): minor polypharmacy (16.2%), moderate polypharmacy (12.1%), and major polypharmacy (36.8%). Patients with major polypharmacy were older compared to those with moderate or minor polypharmacy (75 vs. 73 years, respectively) and were most frequently prescribed pain medications (477.3 per 1,000 total visits). NSAIDs were the most frequently prescribed, with 232.4 per 1,000 total visits resulting in one high-risk NSAID prescription, while 21.9 per 1,000 total visits resulted in two or more high-risk NSAIDs.ConclusionMost patients over 65 years experienced some degree of polypharmacy, with many experiencing major polypharmacy. This indicates an increased need for expanded pharmacist roles through medication therapy management and safety monitoring in this patient population.

Dataset Information

Assessment of Physician Prescribing of Muscle Relaxants in the United States, 2005-2016.

Publications

Assessment of Physician Prescribing of Muscle Relaxants in the United States, 2005-2016.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets