Dataset Information

Characterizing the Variation of Alcohol Cessation Pharmacotherapy in Primary Care.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Alcohol use disorder (AUD) imposes a high mortality and economic burden. Effective treatment is available, though underutilized.

Objective

Describe trends in AUD pharmacotherapy, variation in prescribing, and associated patient factors.

Design

Retrospective cohort using electronic health records from 2010 to 2019.

Participants

Primary care patients from 39 clinics in Ohio and Florida with diagnostic codes for alcohol dependence or abuse plus social history indicating alcohol use. PCPs in family or internal medicine with at least 20 AUD patients.

Main measures

Pharmacotherapy for AUD (naltrexone, acamprosate, and disulfiram), abstinence from alcohol, patient demographics, and comorbidities. Generalized linear mixed models were used to identify patient factors associated with prescriptions and the association of pharmacotherapy with abstinence.

Key results

We identified 13,250 patients; average age was 54 years, 66.9% were male, 75.0% were White, and median household income was $51,776 per year. Over 10 years, the prescription rate rose from 4.4 to 5.6%. Patients who were Black (aOR 0.74; 95% CI 0.58, 0.94) and insured by Medicare versus commercial insurance (aOR 0.61; 95% CI 0.48, 0.78) were less likely to be treated. Higher median household income ($10,000 increment, aOR 1.06; 95% CI 1.03, 1.10) and Medicaid versus commercial insurance (aOR 1.52; 95% CI 1.24, 1.87) were associated with treatment. Receiving pharmacotherapy was associated with subsequent documented abstinence from alcohol (aOR 1.60; 95% CI 1.33, 1.92). We identified 236 PCPs. The average prescription rate was 3.6% (range 0 to 24%). The top decile prescribed to 14.6% of their patients. The bottom 4 deciles had no prescriptions. Family physicians had higher rates of pharmacotherapy than internists (OR 1.50; 95% CI 1.21, 1.85).

Conclusions

Medications for AUD are infrequently prescribed, but there is considerable variation among PCPs. Increasing the use of pharmacotherapy by non-prescribers may increase abstinence from alcohol.

SUBMITTER: Bernstein E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8298666 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Only 7.8 % of individuals meeting diagnostic criteria for alcohol use disorder (AUD) receive treatment in a given year. Most individuals with AUDs are identified in primary care (PC) settings and referred to substance use disorders (SUD) clinics; however, only a minority of those referred attend treatment services. Safe and effective pharmacological treatments for AUD exist, but they are rarely prescribed by PC providers. The objective of this study is to refine, implement, and evaluate an intervention to integrate pharmacological AUD treatment options into PC settings. This paper provides a detailed description of the intervention design and the evaluation components.Three large Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities are participating in the intervention. The intervention targets stakeholder groups with tailored strategies based on implementation theory and prior research identifying barriers to implementation of AUD pharmacotherapy. Local SUD providers and primary care mental health integration (PCMHI) providers are trained to serve as local implementation/clinical champions and receive external facilitation. PC providers receive access to consultation from local and national clinical champions, educational materials, and a dashboard of patients with AUD on their caseloads for case identification. Veterans with AUD diagnoses receive educational information in the mail just prior to a scheduled PC visit. Effectiveness of the intervention will be evaluated through an interrupted time series with matched controls to monitor change in facility level AUD pharmacotherapy prescribing rates. Following Stetler's four-phase formative evaluation (FE) strategy, FE methods include (1) developmental FE (pre-implementation interviews with champions, PC providers, and Veterans), (2) implementation-focused FE (tracking attendance at facilitation meetings, academic detailing efforts by local champions, and patient dashboard utilization), (3) progress-focused FE (tracking rates of AUD pharmacotherapy prescribing and rates of referral to PCMHI and SUD specialty care), and (4) interpretive FE (post-implementation interviews with champions and PC providers). Analysis of FE data will be guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).If demonstrated to be successful, this implementation strategy will provide a replicable, feasible, and relative low-cost method for integrating AUD treatment services into PC settings, thereby increasing access to AUD treatment.

Project description:IntroductionThe co-use of cannabis and alcohol among tobacco-using youth is common. Alcohol co-use is associated with worse tobacco cessation outcomes, but results are mixed regarding the impact of cannabis on tobacco outcomes and if co-use leads to increased use of non-treated substances. This secondary analysis from a youth smoking cessation trial aimed to (1) evaluate the impact of cannabis or alcohol co-use on smoking cessation, (2) examine changes in co-use during the trial, and (3) explore secondary effects of varenicline on co-use.MethodsThe parent study was a 12-week, randomized clinical trial of varenicline for smoking cessation among youth (ages 14-21, N = 157; Mage = 19, 40% female; 76% White). Daily cigarette, cannabis, and alcohol use data were collected via daily diaries during treatment and Timeline Follow-back for 14 weeks post-treatment.ResultsBaseline cannabis co-users (68%) had double the odds of continued cigarette smoking throughout the trial compared with noncannabis users, which was pronounced in males and frequent cannabis users. Continued smoking during treatment was associated with higher probability of concurrent cannabis use. Baseline alcohol co-users (80%) did not have worse smoking outcomes compared with nonalcohol users, but continued smoking was associated with higher probability of concurrent drinking. Varenicline did not affect co-use.ConclusionsInconsistent with prior literature, results showed that alcohol co-users did not differ in smoking cessation, whereas cannabis co-users had poorer cessation outcomes. Youth tobacco treatment would benefit from added focus on substance co-use, particularly cannabis, but may need to be tailored appropriately to promote cessation.ImplicationsAmong youth cigarette smokers enrolled in a pharmacotherapy evaluation clinical trial, alcohol and/or cannabis co-use was prevalent. The co-use of cannabis affected smoking cessation outcomes, but more so for males and frequent cannabis users, whereas alcohol co-use did not affect smoking cessation. Reductions in smoking were accompanied by concurrent reductions in alcohol or cannabis use. Substance co-use does not appear to affect all youth smokers in the same manner and treatment strategies may need to be tailored appropriately for those with lower odds of smoking cessation.

Project description:BackgroundDaily smokers and hazardous drinkers are high-risk patients, developing 2-4 times more complications after surgery. Preoperative smoking and alcohol cessation for four to eight weeks prior to surgery halves this complication rate. The patients' preoperative contact with the surgical departments might be too brief for the hospital to initiate these programmes. Therefore, it was relevant to evaluate a new clinical practice which combined the general practitioner's (GP) referral to surgery with a referral to a smoking and alcohol intervention in the surgical pathway.MethodsThe design was an exploratory prospective trial. The outcome measured was the number of patients referred to a preoperative smoking and alcohol cessation programme at the same time as being referred for elective surgery by their GP. The participants consisted of 72 high-risk patients who were referred for elective surgery by 47 local participating GPs. The GPs, nurses, and specialists in internal medicine, prehabilitation and surgery developed new clinical practice guidelines based on the literature and interviews with 11 local GPs about the specific barriers for implementing a smoking and alcohol cessation programme. The role of the GP was to be the gatekeeper: identifying daily smokers and hazardous drinkers when referring them to surgery; handing out information on risk reduction; and referring those patients identified to a preoperative smoking and alcohol cessation programme. The role of the hospital was to contact these patients to initiate smoking and alcohol cessation at the hospital out-patient clinic for life-style intervention.ResultsThe GPs increased their referral to the smoking and alcohol cessation programme from 0% to 10% (7/72 patients) in the study period.ConclusionThe effect of the study was limited in integrating the efforts of primary care providers and hospital surgical departments in increasing the up-take of preoperative smoking and alcohol cessation programmes aimed at smokers and harmful drinkers referred for surgery. New strategies for cooperation between GPs and surgical departments are urgently needed.Trial registrationJ.nr. 2005-54-1781 in Danish Data Protection Agency. J.nr. 07 268136 in Scientific Ethical Committee for Copenhagen and Frederiksberg Municipalities.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the high prevalence of alcohol use disorders (AUDs), in 2016, only 7.8% of individuals meeting diagnostic criteria received any type of AUD treatment. Developing options for treatment within primary care settings is imperative to increase treatment access. As part of a trial to implement AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care settings, this qualitative study analyzed pre-implementation provider interviews using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify implementation barriers.MethodsThree large Veterans Health Administration facilities participated in the implementation intervention. Local providers were trained to serve as implementation/clinical champions and received external facilitation from the project team. Primary care providers received a dashboard of patients with AUD for case identification, educational materials, and access to consultation from clinical champions. Veterans with AUD diagnoses received educational information in the mail. Prior to the start of implementation activities, 24 primary care providers (5-10 per site) participated in semi-structured interviews. Transcripts were analyzed using common coding techniques for qualitative data using the CFIR codebook Innovation/Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, and Characteristics of Individuals domains. Number and type of barriers identified were compared to quantitative changes in AUD pharmacotherapy prescribing rates.ResultsFour major barriers emerged across all three sites: complexity of providing AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care, the limited compatibility of AUD treatment with existing primary care processes, providers' limited knowledge and negative beliefs about AUD pharmacotherapy and providers' negative attitudes toward patients with AUD. Site specific barriers included lack of relative advantage of providing AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care over current practice, complaints about the design quality and packaging of implementation intervention materials, limited priority of addressing AUD in primary care and limited available resources to implement AUD pharmacotherapy in primary care.ConclusionsCFIR constructs were useful for identifying pre-implementation barriers that informed refinements to the implementation intervention. The number and type of pre-implementation barriers identified did not demonstrate a clear relationship to the degree to which sites were able to improve AUD pharmacotherapy prescribing rate. Site-level implementation process factors such as leadership support and provider turn-over likely also interacted with pre-implementation barriers to drive implementation outcomes.

Project description:Randomized efficacy clinical trials conducted in research settings may not accurately reflect the benefits of tobacco dependence treatments when used in real-world clinical settings. Effectiveness trials (eg, in primary care settings) are needed to estimate the benefits of cessation treatments in real-world use.A total of 1346 primary care patients attending routine appointments were recruited by medical assistants in 12 primary care clinics. Patients were randomly assigned to 5 active pharmacotherapies: 3 monotherapies (nicotine patch, nicotine lozenge, and bupropion hydrochloride sustained release [SR]) and 2 combination therapies (patch + lozenge and bupropion SR + lozenge). Patients were referred to a telephone quit line for cessation counseling. Primary outcomes included 7-day point prevalence abstinence at 1 week, 8 weeks, and 6 months after quitting and number of days to relapse.Among 7128 eligible smokers (> or =10 cigarettes per day) attending routine primary care appointments, 1346 (18.9%) were enrolled in the study. Six-month abstinence rates for the 5 active pharmacotherapies were the following: bupropion SR, 16.8%; lozenge, 19.9%; patch, 17.7%; patch + lozenge, 26.9%; and bupropion SR + lozenge, 29.9%. Bupropion SR + lozenge was superior to all of the monotherapies (odds ratio, 0.46-0.56); patch + lozenge was superior to patch and bupropion monotherapies (odds ratio, 0.56 and 0.54, respectively).One in 5 smokers attending a routine primary care appointment was willing to make a serious quit attempt that included evidence-based counseling and medication. In this comparative effectiveness study of 5 tobacco dependence treatments, combination pharmacotherapy significantly increased abstinence compared with monotherapies. Provision of free cessation medications plus quit line counseling arranged in the primary care setting holds promise for assisting large numbers of smokers to quit. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00296647.