Real-world switching patterns and associated characteristics in patients with psoriasis treated with biologics in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Switching therapies is common for patients with psoriasis. OBJECTIVE: To quantify real-world switching rates and characteristics among patients initiating biologics over 24 months. METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with ≥2 confirmed psoriasis diagnoses who initiated a new biologic were identified from a US-payer claims database (Merative® MarketScan®) Switching rates were reported over 24 months using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, and multivariable Cox regression analyses were performed to identify associated patient characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 7997 patients were included, with overall treatment switch rates at 14.4% at 12 months and 26.0% at 24 months. IL-23 inhibitors were associated with the lowest risk of switching compared with TNF, IL-17, and IL-12/23 inhibitors over 24 months (p < 0.0001). Switch rates varied between specific biologics, with the lowest switch rates observed for patients treated with risankizumab at 8.5% followed by guselkumab at 15.7% over 24 months. Prior targeted immune modulator use, age, and female gender were predictors of switching (adjusted hazard ratio; 1.23, 1.31, and 1.40, respectively; p ≤ 0.0005). LIMITATIONS: Claims data may be subject to data errors and reasons for switching cannot be determined. CONCLUSION: Switching was common in psoriasis patients using biologics over 24 months, with the lowest risk of switching observed with IL-23 inhibitors.

Pharmacists and Naloxone: Barriers to Dispensing and Effectiveness of an Educational Outreach Program.

BACKGROUND: The Illinois Naloxone Standing Order allows community pharmacists to dispense naloxone; however, this policy initiative may be underutilized. OBJECTIVE: Our study aims to characterize naloxone dispensing barriers, overall and by pharmacy type, make recommendations that can inform future policies to improve naloxone access, and evaluate outreach initiative effectiveness from academic detailers' perspectives. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of semistructured data collected as part of an educational outreach program targeting Illinois community pharmacists in 2021. Academic detailers conducted educational outreach visits across community pharmacy settings (i.e., primary pharmacy, grocery pharmacy, or independent pharmacy) to promote standing order use and discuss barriers pharmacists face when dispensing naloxone. Following each visit, detailers recorded visit characteristics, pharmacist-identified obstacles impacting naloxone dispensing, and visit effectiveness. RESULTS: Detailers performed in-person visits at 270 (78%) of 348 targeted sites. A lower proportion of independent pharmacies (61%) routinely stock naloxone than primary (95%, P < 0.001) or grocery (98%, P < 0.001) pharmacies. Among pharmacists at independent pharmacies, 43% indicated they were highly or extremely comfortable dispensing naloxone, a significantly lower proportion than pharmacists at grocery (79%, P < 0.001) or primary (68%, P < 0.001) pharmacies. The prevalence of salient barriers to naloxone dispensing was: cost/insurance issues (primary pharmacy = 38% vs. grocery pharmacy = 36% vs. independent pharmacy = 28%, P = 0.46), stigma (36% vs. 49% vs. 16%, P < 0.05), and lack of standing order enrollment (0% vs. 0% vs. 49%, P < 0.05). On average, detailers perceived visits as less useful to pharmacists working at independent pharmacies than those at primary or grocery pharmacies. CONCLUSIONS: Over 80% of pharmacists reported facing greater than one naloxone dispensing barrier. While cost/insurance issues appear ubiquitous, patient stigma-related factors were prevalent in primary and grocery pharmacies. Although many pharmacists are comfortable dispensing naloxone under the standing order, pharmacists at independent pharmacies are less comfortable, potentially secondary to lower standing order enrollment.

Academic detailing interventions for opioid-related outcomes: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Academic detailing (AD) is a tailored, interactive educational outreach intervention that may improve patient outcomes. Insight into the design of AD interventions and the extent to which they are effective can help inform future AD-based programmes. The objective of this scoping review was to characterize opioid-focused AD interventions and describe their findings. METHODS: A scoping review focused on AD interventions for opioids was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL databases through July 1, 2021. Studies were eligible for inclusion if written in English, included interactive opioid-focused educational interventions, and were conducted either in person, virtually or via telephone. Four independent reviewers reviewed titles and abstracts. Data extraction from full-text publications was completed using a standardized form. RESULTS: Of 6086 articles initially identified, 22 articles met the inclusion criteria and 20 unique interventions were identified. The AD intervention was either delivered one-on-one (n=16) or in a small, interactive group setting (n=4). AD interventions varied in design. Effectiveness was evaluated in terms of opioid and naloxone prescribing rates, provider knowledge gaps, provider adherence to guidelines, and intervention feasibility. Sixteen (80%) interventions resulted in statistically significant improvement in one or more outcomes. CONCLUSION: Generally, opioid-related AD was effective and programmes were primarily conducted one-on-one between pharmacists and primary care providers for 16-30 minutes. A variety of metrics and outcomes were used to assess the success/effectiveness of AD interventions, which is an important consideration in future studies as no single metric captures the effectiveness of an educational outreach-based intervention for pain management.

Feasibility and acceptability of virtual academic detailing on opioid prescribing.

INTRODUCTION: Social distancing requirements during COVID-19 pose a challenge to conducting traditional academic detailing, which typically involves in-person peer education visits to improve patient outcomes. The main alternative is to conduct virtual academic detailing delivered through web-based technology, but this approach is fraught with many challenges. This study aimed to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a virtual academic detailing program implemented among health care providers. METHODS: The academic detailing program focused on appropriate opioid prescribing and chronic non-cancer pain management among a sample of providers. An initial in-person visit was followed by a virtual visit up to 8 weeks later. Videoconferencing was used to conduct the virtual visit with telephone as a backup. Feasibility was assessed whether the virtual visits could happen, and acceptability was assessed by provider satisfaction. Validated measures of Provider Satisfaction with Academic Detailing (PSAD) and Detailer Assessment of Visit Effectiveness (DAVE) with a 5-point Likert-type scale were used. Higher scores corresponded to higher satisfaction and greater perceived effectiveness. Non-parametric and parametric statistical tests were used to compare instrument summary scores across visits and between groups. Pairwise analyses across visits only included instrument responses for providers who participated in both visits and completed both surveys in their entirety. RESULTS: There were 127 (90 %) initial in-person visits completed out of 141 visits scheduled, with a survey response rate of 96 %. Out of 120 virtual follow-up visits scheduled, 92 (77 %) were conducted, and 56 surveys (61 %) were collected. There was a high level of satisfaction with the initial and follow up virtual academic detailing visits, though, among providers who participated in both visits and had completed surveys (n = 50), initial visits had slightly higher scores (mean difference = -2.94 [95 % Confidence intervals: -4.38, -1.50], p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in detailer perception across the two visits as seen in the scale summary score (0.05 [-0.56, 0.66], p = 0.86) and two individually reported items related to feasibility (0.07 [-0.29, 0.42], p = 0.72) and conversation (-0.05 [-0.28, 0.17], p = 0.63). Forty-one (44.6 %) virtual visits were conducted using WebEx, where video and screen sharing of visit content was possible, while the remaining 51 (55.4 %) were conducted using a telephone. There was no significant difference in provider satisfaction between WebEx vs. telephone visits (-1.47 [-4.99, 2.05], p = 0.82). Provider satisfaction was also not impacted by any technical difficulties as reported by the detailer (-0.04 [-3.30, 3.38], p = 0.98). CONCLUSION: The results slightly favor in-person visits and suggest that virtual detailing visits need to incorporate strategies that minimize technical difficulties and prevent participants from defaulting to less favorable technology. Future research opportunities include evaluating the effectiveness of a virtual versus in-person delivery of AD program on outcomes such as providers' opioid prescribing behavior.