Barriers and facilitators to guideline concordant dental antibiotic prescribing in the United States: A qualitative study of the National Dental PBRN.

OBJECTIVES: While factors contributing to dental antibiotic overprescribing have previously been described, previous work has lacked any theoretical behavior change framework that could guide future intervention development. The purpose of this study was to use an evidence-based conceptual model to identify barriers and facilitators of appropriate antibiotic prescribing by dentists as a guide for future interventions aimed at modifying antibiotic prescribing. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with dentists from the National Dental Practice Based Research Network (PBRN) exploring patient and practice factors perceived to impact antibiotic prescribing. Audio-recorded telephone interviews were transcribed and independently coded by three researchers. Themes were organized around the COM-B model to inform prospective interventions. RESULTS: 73 of 104 dentists (70.1%) were interviewed. Most were general dentists (86.3%), male (65.7%), and white (69.9%). Coding identified three broad targets to support appropriate dental antibiotic prescribing among dentists: (1) increasing visibility and accessibility of guidelines, (2) providing additional guidance on antibiotic prescribing in dental scenarios without clear guidelines, and (3) education and communication skills-building focused on discussing appropriate antibiotic use with patients and physicians. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from our study are consistent with other studies focusing on antibiotic prescribing behavior in dentists. Understanding facilitators and barriers to dental antibiotic prescribing is necessary to inform targeted interventions to improve appropriate antibiotic prescribing. Future interventions should focus on implementing multimodal strategies to provide the necessary support for dentists to judiciously prescribe antibiotics.

Variation in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) at US dental school clinics.

PURPOSE: Although the threat of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was the same at different US dental schools, the response wasn't. There is no study that documents the variation in mitigation strategies, COVID-19 transmission, and clinical educational changes at US Dental schools during the ongoing pandemic that began in 2020 in the US. METHODS: The current study was approved as exempt research (project number HUM00199261). Our survey of Associate Dean's of Clinical Operations was individually emailed in July 2021. There were no reminders and descriptive statistics were calculated using Microsoft Excel. RESULTS: We received 46 completed surveys from the 68 sent out. Note that 65.2% of respondents reported requiring N95 masks for aerosol-generating procedures. Note that 38.9% of respondents said they required student partnering as chairside dental assistants for aerosol-generating procedures. Note that 37.7% of respondents began using alternate cubicles. A total of 6.52% of schools reported a transmission of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 virus from patient to provider. There were no reported transmissions from provider to patient or from patient to patient. CONCLUSION: In our study, we found a lot of similarities between the approach taken by Dental School Clinics across the US to mitigate the risks of COVID-19, however, we also observed many differences.

Guideline concordance and antibiotic-associated adverse events between Veterans administration and non-Veterans administration dental settings: a retrospective cohort study.

Background: Antibiotics prescribed as infection prophylaxis prior to dental procedures have the potential for serious adverse drug events (ADEs). However, the extent to which guideline concordance and different dental settings are associated with ADEs from antibiotic prophylaxis is unknown. Aim: The purpose was to assess guideline concordance and antibiotic-associated ADEs and whether it differs by VA and non-VA settings. Methods: Retrospective cohort study of antibiotic prophylaxis prescribed to adults with cardiac conditions or prosthetic joints from 2015 to 2017. Multivariable logistic regression models were fit to assess the impact of ADEs, guideline concordance and dental setting. An interaction term of concordance and dental setting evaluated whether the relationship between ADEs and concordance differed by setting. Results: From 2015 to 2017, 61,124 patients with antibiotic prophylaxis were identified with 62 (0.1%) having an ADE. Of those with guideline concordance, 18 (0.09%) had an ADE while 44 (0.1%) of those with a discordant antibiotic had an ADE (unadjusted OR: 0.84, 95% CI: 0.49-1.45). Adjusted analyses showed that guideline concordance was not associated with ADEs (OR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.25-2.46), and this relationship did not differ by dental setting (Wald χ^2 p-value for interaction = 0.601). Conclusion: Antibiotic-associated ADEs did not differ by setting or guideline concordance.

Changes in antibiotic prescribing by dentists in the United States, 2012-2019.

OBJECTIVES: Dentists prescribe 10% of all outpatient antibiotics in the United States and are the top specialty prescriber. Data on current antibiotic prescribing trends are scarce. Therefore, we evaluated trends in antibiotic prescribing rates by dentists, and we further assessed whether these trends differed by agent, specialty, and by patient characteristics. DESIGN: Retrospective study of dental antibiotic prescribing included data from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Data set from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2019. METHODS: The change in the dentist prescribing rate and mean days' supply were evaluated using linear regression models. RESULTS: Dentists wrote >216 million antibiotic prescriptions between 2012 and 2019. The annual dental antibiotic prescribing rate remained steady over time (P = .5915). However, the dental prescribing rate (antibiotic prescriptions per 1,000 dentists) increased in the Northeast (by 1,313 antibiotics per 1,000 dentists per year), among oral and maxillofacial surgeons (n = 13,054), prosthodontists (n = 2,381), endodontists (n = 2,255), periodontists (n = 1,961), and for amoxicillin (n = 2,562; P < .04 for all). The mean days' supply significantly decreased over the study period by 0.023 days per 1,000 dentists per year (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: From 2012 to 2019, dental prescribing rates for antibiotics remained unchanged, despite decreases in antibiotic prescribing nationally and changes in guidelines during the study period. However, mean days' supply decreased over time. Dental specialties, such as oral and maxillofacial surgeons, had the highest prescribing rate with increases over time. Antibiotic stewardship efforts to improve unnecessary prescribing by dentists and targeting dental specialists may decrease overall antibiotic prescribing rates by dentists.

How decisions are made: Antibiotic stewardship in dentistry.

BACKGROUND: We performed a preimplementation assessment of workflows, resources, needs, and antibiotic prescribing practices of trainees and practicing dentists to inform the development of an antibiotic-stewardship clinical decision-support tool (CDST) for dentists. METHODS: We used a technology implementation framework to conduct the preimplementation assessment via surveys and focus groups of students, residents, and faculty members. Using Likert scales, the survey assessed baseline knowledge and confidence in dental providers' antibiotic prescribing. The focus groups gathered information on existing workflows, resources, and needs for end users for our CDST. RESULTS: Of 355 dental providers recruited to take the survey, 213 (60%) responded: 151 students, 27 residents, and 35 faculty. The average confidence in antibiotic prescribing decisions was 3.2 ± 1.0 on a scale of 1 to 5 (ie, moderate). Dental students were less confident about prescribing antibiotics than residents and faculty (P < .01). However, antibiotic prescribing knowledge was no different between dental students, residents, and faculty. The mean likelihood of prescribing an antibiotic when it was not needed was 2.7 ± 0.6 on a scale of 1 to 5 (unlikely to maybe) and was not meaningfully different across subgroups (P = .10). We had 10 participants across 3 focus groups: 7 students, 2 residents, and 1 faculty member. Four major themes emerged, which indicated that dentists: (1) make antibiotic prescribing decisions based on anecdotal experiences; (2) defer to physicians' recommendations; (3) have limited access to evidence-based resources; and (4) want CDST for antibiotic prescribing. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists' confidence in antibiotic prescribing increased by training level, but knowledge did not. Trainees and practicing dentists would benefit from a CDST to improve appropriateness of antibiotic prescribing.

Comparison of guideline concordant antibiotic prophylaxis in Veterans Affairs and non-Veterans Affairs dental settings among those with cardiac conditions or prosthetic joints.

BACKGROUND: No research has been conducted to assess whether antibiotic prophylaxis prescribing differs by dental setting. Therefore, the goal of this study was to compare the prescribing of antibiotic prophylaxis in Veterans Affairs (VA) and non-Veterans Affairs settings. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of veteran and non-veteran dental patients with cardiac conditions or prosthetic joints between 2015-2017. Multivariable log binomial regression analysis was conducted to compare concordant prescribing by setting with a sub-analysis for errors of dosing based on antibiotic duration (i.e., days prescribed). RESULTS: A total of 61,124 dental visits that received a prophylactic antibiotic were included. Most were male (61.0%), and 55 years of age or older (76.2%). Nearly a third (32.7%) received guideline concordant prophylaxis. VA dental settings had a lower prevalence of guideline concordant prescribing compared to non-VA settings in unadjusted results (unadjusted prevalence ratio [uPR] = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.90-0.95). After adjustment, prevalence of guideline concordant prescribing was higher in those with prosthetic joints in the VA setting (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.59-1.88), with no difference identified in those without a prosthetic joint (aPR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.96-1.01). Concordance of dosing was higher in VA compared to non-VA settings (aPR = 1.11, 95% CI: 1.07-1.15). CONCLUSIONS: VA has a higher prevalence of guideline concordant prescribing among those with prosthetic joints and when assessing dosing errors. Though the presence of an integrated electronic health record (EHR) may be contributing to these differences, other system or prescriber-related factors may be responsible. Future studies should focus on to what extent the integrated EHR may be responsible for increased guideline concordant prescribing in the VA setting.

Barriers to and facilitators of opioid prescribing by dentists in the United States: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Dentists in the United States frequently prescribe opioids for dental-related pain, although evidence shows superior efficacy of nonopioids for pain management. A national sample of US dentists was interviewed to understand the barriers and facilitators to opioid prescribing. METHODS: Semistructured one-on-one telephone interviews were conducted with dentists sampled from the 6 regions of The National Dental Practice-Based Research Network. Responses were coded into the domains of the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behavior. Potential behavior change interventions were identified for targeted themes. RESULTS: Seventy-three interviews were qualitatively analyzed. Most of those interviewed were general dentists (86.3%) and on average (SD) were in practice for 24.3 (13.0) years. Ten themes were identified within the Capability, Opportunity and Motivation Model of Behavior. Dentists' knowledge of opioid risk, ability to identify substance use disorder behavior, and capability of communicating pain management plans to patients or following clinic policies or state and federal regulations were linked with judicious opioid prescribing. Dentists reported prescribing opioids if they determined clinical necessity or feared negative consequences for refusing to prescribe opioids. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists' opioid decision making is influenced by a range of real-world practice experiences and patient and clinic factors. Education and training that target dentists' knowledge gaps and changes in dentists' practice environment can encourage effective communication of pain management strategies with patients and prescribing of nonopioids as first-line analgesics while conserving opioid use. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Identified knowledge gaps in dentistry can be targets for education, clinical guidelines, and policy interventions to ensure safe and appropriate prescribing of opioids.

Trends in Opioid Prescribing by General Dentists and Dental Specialists in the U.S., 2012-2019.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence suggests that U.S. dentists prescribe opioids excessively. There are limited national data on recent trends in opioid prescriptions by U.S. dentists. In this study, we examined trends in opioid prescribing by general dentists and dental specialists in the U.S. from 2012 to 2019. METHODS: Dispensed prescriptions for oral opioid analgesics written by dentists were identified from IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription Data from January 2012 through December 2019. Autoregressive integrated moving average and joinpoint regression models described monthly population-based prescribing rates (prescriptions/100,000 individuals), dentist-based prescribing rates (prescriptions/1,000 dentists), and opioid dosages (mean daily morphine milligram equivalents/day). All analyses were performed in 2020. RESULTS: Over the 8 years, dentists prescribed >87.2 million opioid prescriptions. Population- and dentist-based prescribing rates declined monthly by -1.97 prescriptions/100,000 individuals (95% CI= -9.98, -0.97) and -39.12 prescriptions/1,000 dentists (95% CI= -58.63, -17.65), respectively. Opioid dosages declined monthly by -0.08 morphine milligram equivalents/day (95% CI= -0.13, -0.04). Joinpoint regression identified 4 timepoints (February 2016, May 2017, December 2018, and March 2019) at which monthly prescribing rate trends were often decreasing in greater magnitude than those in the previous time segment. CONCLUSIONS: Following national trends, dentists became more conservative in prescribing opioids. A greater magnitude of decline occurred post 2016 following the implementation of strategies aimed to further regulate opioid prescribing. Understanding the factors that influence prescribing trends can aid in development of tailored resources to encourage and support a conservative approach by dentists, to prescribing opioids.

Appropriateness of Antibiotic Prophylaxis Before Dental Procedures, 2016-2018.

INTRODUCTION: Prescribing antibiotic prophylaxis is common yet unnecessary for many dental visits. In this analysis, our objective was to assess whether the appropriateness of antibiotic prophylaxis has improved over time. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using dental visits from 2016 to 2018 (data analyzed in 2021) using medical and prescriptions claims data of patients from the U.S. with commercial dental insurance. Antibiotic prophylaxis was defined as a ≤2 days' supply prescription dispensed within 7 days before a dental visit. Appropriateness of prophylaxis was defined on the basis of the manipulation of the gingiva/tooth periapex or oral mucosa perforation in patients with appropriate cardiac diagnoses. Associations between patient and visit characteristics and appropriateness of antibiotic prophylaxis were assessed using multiple Poisson regression. RESULTS: Unnecessary antibiotic prophylaxis was highly prevalent in this cohort, ranging from 77.0% in 2016 to 78.5% in 2018. In the adjusted analysis, factors associated with unnecessary antibiotic prophylaxis included younger age, female sex, geographic region, rurality, type of antibiotic, and certain dental procedures. The factors associated with the highest risk of unnecessary prophylaxis in the adjusted analysis were orthodontic procedures and having a history of a prosthetic joint. Notably, the risk of unnecessary antibiotic prophylaxis decreased over time in the adjusted analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Unnecessary prescription of antibiotic prophylaxis by dentists continues to be common. Antimicrobial stewardship strategies are needed to improve prescribing by dentists.

Computer simulation of the SARS-CoV-2 contamination risk in a large dental clinic.

COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) virus, has been rapidly spreading worldwide since December 2019, causing a public health crisis. Recent studies showed SARS-CoV-2's ability to infect humans via airborne routes. These motivated the study of aerosol and airborne droplet transmission in a variety of settings. This study performs a large-scale numerical simulation of a real-world dentistry clinic that contains aerosol-generating procedures. The simulation tracks the dispersion of evaporating droplets emitted during ultrasonic dental scaling procedures. The simulation considers 25 patient treatment cubicles in an open plan dentistry clinic. The droplets are modeled as having a volatile (evaporating) and nonvolatile fraction composed of virions, saliva, and impurities from the irrigant water supply. The simulated clinic's boundary and flow conditions are validated against experimental measurements of the real clinic. The results evaluate the behavior of large droplets and aerosols. We investigate droplet residence time and travel distance for different droplet diameters, surface contamination due to droplet settling and deposition, airborne aerosol mass concentration, and the quantity of droplets that escape through ventilation. The simulation results raise concerns due to the aerosols' long residence times (averaging up to 7.31 min) and travel distances (averaging up to 24.45 m) that exceed social distancing guidelines. Finally, the results show that contamination extends beyond the immediate patient treatment areas, requiring additional surface disinfection in the clinic. The results presented in this research may be used to establish safer dental clinic operating procedures, especially if paired with future supplementary material concerning the aerosol viral load generated by ultrasonic scaling and the viral load thresholds required to infect humans.

Characteristics Associated With Opioid and Antibiotic Prescribing by Dentists.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study is to identify county-level characteristics that may be high-impact targets for opioid and antibiotic interventions to improve dental prescribing. METHODS: Prescriptions during 2012-2017 were extracted from the IQVIA Longitudinal Prescription database. Primary outcomes were yearly county-level antibiotic and opioid prescribing rates. Multivariable negative binomial regression identified associations between prescribing rates and county-level characteristics. All analyses occurred in 2020. RESULTS: Over time, dental opioid prescribing rates decreased by 20% (from 4.02 to 3.22 per 100 people), whereas antibiotic rates increased by 5% (from 6.85 to 7.19 per 100 people). Higher number of dentists per capita, higher proportion of female residents, and higher proportion of residents aged <65 years were associated with increased opioid rates. Relative to location in the West, location in the Northeast (59%, 95% CI=52, 65) and Midwest (64%, 95% CI=60, 70) was associated with lower opioid prescribing rates. Higher clinician density, median household income, proportion female, and proportion White were all independently associated with higher antibiotic rates. Location in the Northeast (149%, 95% CI=137, 162) and Midwest (118%, 95% CI=111, 125) was associated with higher antibiotic rates. Opioid and antibiotic prescribing rates were positively associated. CONCLUSIONS: Dental prescribing of opioids is decreasing, whereas dental antibiotic prescribing is increasing. High prescribing of antibiotics is associated with high prescribing of opioids. Strategies focused on optimizing dental antibiotics and opioids are needed given their impact on population health.

Potentially Inappropriate Medication Combination with Opioids among Older Dental Patients: A Retrospective Review of Insurance Claims Data.

BACKGROUND: Opioid prescribing by dentists for older patients receiving medications with potential contraindications and the subsequent impact on acute care outcomes is not well described. OBJECTIVES: Our objective of this paper was to evaluate the use of potentially inappropriate medication combinations (PIMCs) involving opioids prescribed by dentists according to the Beers Criteria and risks of 30-day emergency department (ED) visits and all-cause hospitalization among commercially insured dental patients ages 65 years and older. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 40,800 older dental patient visits in which opioids were prescribed between 2011 and 2015 using the IBM MarketScan databases. Data collection from dental, medical, and pharmacy claims included information on the concurrent use of PIMCs and outcomes of all-cause acute care utilization over the 30-day period after dental encounters. RESULTS: For the overall cohort, the median age was 69 years, and 45% were women. The prevalence of PIMCs per Beers Criteria was 10.4%. A total of 947 all-cause acute care events were observed in the 30 days post-dental visit. Patients with PIMCs involving opioids prescribed by dentists according to the Beers Criteria had higher rates of acute care use (3.3% vs 2.2%, p<0.001), which were associated with an increased risk of all-cause acute care utilization (adjusted risk ratio [RR] 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.48). A dose-response relationship was seen with increasing oral morphine equivalents prescribed and increased acute care utilization (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: A significant proportion of older patients receiving opioids at dental visits use psychotropic medications that in combination should be avoided according to the American Geriatric Society Beers Criteria.

Overprescribing of Opioids to Adults by Dentists in the U.S., 2011-2015.

INTRODUCTION: Dentists prescribe 1 in 10 opioid prescriptions in the U.S. When opioids are necessary, national guidelines recommend the prescription of low-dose opioids for a short duration. This study assesses the appropriate prescribing of opioids by dentists before guideline implementation. METHODS: The authors performed a cross-sectional analysis of a population-based sample of 542,958 U.S. commercial dental patient visits between 2011 and 2015 within the Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases (data analysis October 2018‒April 2019). Patients with recent hospitalization, active cancer treatment, or chronic pain conditions were excluded. Prescription opioids were ascertained using pharmacy claims data with standardized morphine equivalents and recorded days' supply. Appropriate prescribing was determined from the 2016 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for pain management based on a recommended 3 days' supply of opioid medication and anticipated post-procedural pain. RESULTS: Twenty-nine percent of prescribed opioids exceeded the recommended morphine equivalents for appropriate management of acute pain. Approximately half (53%) exceeded the recommended days' supply. Patients aged 18-34 years, men, patients residing in the Southern U.S., and those receiving oxycodone were most likely to have opioids prescribed inappropriately. The proportion of opioids that exceed the recommended morphine equivalents increased over the study period, whereas opioids exceeding the recommended days' supply remained unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Between 1 in 4 and 1 in 2 opioids prescribed to adult dental patients are overprescribed. Judicious opioid-prescribing interventions should be tailored to oral health conditions and dentists.

Assessment of the Appropriateness of Antibiotic Prescriptions for Infection Prophylaxis Before Dental Procedures, 2011 to 2015.

Importance: Antibiotics are recommended before certain dental procedures in patients with select comorbidities to prevent serious distant site infections. Objective: To assess the appropriateness of antibiotic prophylaxis before dental procedures using Truven, a national integrated health claims database. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study. Dental visits from 2011 to 2015 were linked to medical and prescription claims from 2009 to 2015. The dates of analysis were August 2018 to January 2019. Participants were US patients with commercial dental insurance without a hospitalization or extraoral infection 14 days before antibiotic prophylaxis (defined as a prescription with ≤2 days' supply dispensed within 7 days before a dental visit). Exposures: Presence or absence of cardiac diagnoses and dental procedures that manipulated the gingiva or tooth periapex. Main Outcomes and Measures: Appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis was defined as a prescription dispensed before a dental visit with a procedure that manipulated the gingiva or tooth periapex in patients with an appropriate cardiac diagnosis. To assess associations between patient or dental visit characteristics and appropriate antibiotic prophylaxis, multivariable logistic regression was used. A priori hypothesis tests were performed with an α level of .05. Results: From 2011 to 2015, antibiotic prophylaxis was prescribed for 168 420 dental visits for 91 438 patients (median age, 63 years; interquartile range, 55-72 years; 57.2% female). Overall, these 168 420 dental visits were associated with 287 029 dental procedure codes (range, 1-14 per visit). Most dental visits were classified as diagnostic (70.2%) and/or preventive (58.8%). In 90.7% of dental visits, a procedure was performed that would necessitate antibiotic prophylaxis in high-risk cardiac patients. Prevalent comorbidities include prosthetic joint devices (42.5%) and cardiac conditions at the highest risk of adverse outcome from infective endocarditis (20.9%). Per guidelines, 80.9% of antibiotic prophylaxis prescriptions before dental visits were unnecessary. Clindamycin was more likely to be unnecessary relative to amoxicillin (odds ratio [OR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.05-1.15). Prosthetic joint devices (OR, 2.31; 95% CI, 2.22-2.41), tooth implant procedures (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.45-1.89), female sex (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.17-1.25), and visits occurring in the western United States (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.25) were associated with unnecessary antibiotic prophylaxis. Conclusion and Relevance: More than 80% of antibiotics prescribed for infection prophylaxis before dental visits were unnecessary. Implementation of antimicrobial stewardship in dental practices is an opportunity to improve antibiotic prescribing for infection prophylaxis.

Comparison of Opioid Prescribing by Dentists in the United States and England.

Importance: The United States consumes most of the opioids worldwide despite representing a small portion of the world's population. Dentists are one of the most frequent US prescribers of opioids despite data suggesting that nonopioid analgesics are similarly effective for oral pain. While oral health and dentist use are generally similar between the United States and England, it is unclear how opioid prescribing by dentists varies between the 2 countries. Objective: To compare opioid prescribing by dentists in the United States and England. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of prescriptions for opioids dispensed from outpatient pharmacies and health care settings between January 1 and December 31, 2016, by dentists in the United States and England. Data were analyzed from October 2018 to January 2019. Exposures: Opioids prescribed by dentists. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion and prescribing rates of opioid prescriptions. Results: In 2016, the proportion of prescriptions written by US dentists that were for opioids was 37 times greater than the proportion written by English dentists. In all, 22.3% of US dental prescriptions were opioids (11.4 million prescriptions) compared with 0.6% of English dental prescriptions (28 082 prescriptions) (difference, 21.7%; 95% CI, 13.8%-32.1%; P < .001). Dentists in the United States also had a higher number of opioid prescriptions per 1000 population (35.4 per 1000 US population [95% CI, 25.2-48.7 per 1000 population] vs 0.5 per 1000 England population [95% CI, 0.03-3.7 per 1000 population]) and number of opioid prescriptions per dentist (58.2 prescriptions per dentist [95% CI, 44.9-75.0 prescriptions per dentist] vs 1.2 prescriptions per dentist [95% CI, 0.2-5.6 prescriptions per dentist]). While the codeine derivative dihydrocodeine was the sole opioid prescribed by English dentists, US dentists prescribed a range of opioids containing hydrocodone (62.3%), codeine (23.2%), oxycodone (9.1%), and tramadol (4.8%). Dentists in the United States also prescribed long-acting opioids (0.06% of opioids prescribed by US dentists [6425 prescriptions]). Long-acting opioids were not prescribed by English dentists. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that in 2016, dentists in the United States prescribed opioids with significantly greater frequency than their English counterparts. Opioids with a high potential for abuse, such as oxycodone, were frequently prescribed by US dentists but not prescribed in England. These results illustrate how 1 source of opioids differs substantially in the United States vs England. To reduce dental opioid prescribing in the United States, dentists could adopt measures similar to those used in England, including national guidelines for treating dental pain that emphasize prescribing opioids conservatively.

Successful Implementation of an Antibiotic Stewardship Program in an Academic Dental Practice.

BACKGROUND: Most antibiotic use in the United States occurs in the outpatient setting, and 10% of these prescriptions are generated by dentists. The development of comprehensive antibiotic stewardship programs (ASPs) in the dental setting is nascent, and therefore we describe the implementation of a dental ASP. METHODS: A collaborative team of dentist, pharmacist, and physician leaders conducted a baseline needs assessment and literature evaluation to identify opportunities to improve antibiotic prescribing by dentists within Illinois' largest oral health care provider for Medicaid recipients. A multimodal intervention was implemented that included patient and provider education, clinical guideline development, and an assessment of the antibiotic prescribing rate per urgent care visit before and after the educational interventions. RESULTS: We identified multiple needs, including standardization of antibiotic prescribing practices for patients with acute oral infections in the urgent care clinics. A 72.9% decrease in antibiotic prescribing was observed in urgent care visits after implementation of our multimodal intervention (preintervention urgent care prescribing rate, 8.5% [24/283]; postintervention, 2.3% [8/352]; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: We report the successful implementation of a dental ASP that is concordant with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Core Elements of Antibiotic Stewardship in the Outpatient Setting. Our approach may be adapted to other dental practices to improve antibiotic prescribing.

Dentists' prescribing of antibiotics and opioids to Medicare Part D beneficiaries: Medications of high impact to public health.

BACKGROUND: Gaining a better understanding of dental prescribing can help identify opportunities for intervention regarding optimal medication use. The purpose of this study is to characterize opioid and antibiotic prescribing patterns of dentists in the United States for Medicare Part D beneficiaries. METHODS: The authors conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of national 2014 Medicare Part D Prescriber Public Use File data. Providers in the data set with dental-related disciplines were included (n = 99,797). Outcomes of interest were mean days' supply and mean number of claims reported per claim, beneficiary, and prescriber discipline. RESULTS: Of the 6,724,372 dental prescription claims submitted, 3,947,848 (58.7%) and 1,312,796 (19.5%) were for antibiotics and opioids, respectively. Sixty-nine percent of dentists in the highest quartile of opioid prescribers were also in the highest quartile of antibiotic prescribers (r2 = 0.7778; P < .01). The mean (standard deviation) days' supply per claim was 6.9 (5.3) days (range, 1-90 days) for antibiotics and 3.6 (2.0) days (range, 1-44.5 days) for opioids. Of the 33,348 dental providers who prescribed opioids, 18,971 (56.9%) prescribed a mean opioid days per claim greater than the recommended duration of 3 days for acute pain. CONCLUSION: Opioids and antibiotics are the medications most prescribed by dentists. On the basis of national recommendations and results of studies from other countries, the length of therapy prescribed may be excessive. Further studies should be conducted to assess appropriateness of dental prescriptions. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Dentistry should be considered for antibiotic and opioid stewardship interventions along with medicine.

Should Student Evaluation of Teaching Play a Significant Role in the Formal Assessment of Dental Faculty? Two Viewpoints: Viewpoint 1: Formal Faculty Assessment Should Include Student Evaluation of Teaching and Viewpoint 2: Student Evaluation of Teaching Should Not Be Part of Formal Faculty Assessment.

Student evaluation of teaching (SET) is often used in the assessment of faculty members' job performance and promotion and tenure decisions, but debate over this use of student evaluations has centered on the validity, reliability, and application of the data in assessing teaching performance. Additionally, the fear of student criticism has the potential of influencing course content delivery and testing measures. This Point/Counterpoint article reviews the potential utility of and controversy surrounding the use of SETs in the formal assessment of dental school faculty. Viewpoint 1 supports the view that SETs are reliable and should be included in those formal assessments. Proponents of this opinion contend that SETs serve to measure a school's effectiveness in support of its core mission, are valid measures based on feedback from the recipients of educational delivery, and provide formative feedback to improve faculty accountability to the institution. Viewpoint 2 argues that SETs should not be used for promotion and tenure decisions, asserting that higher SET ratings do not correlate with improved student learning. The advocates of this viewpoint contend that faculty members may be influenced to focus on student satisfaction rather than pedagogy, resulting in grade inflation. They also argue that SETs are prone to gender and racial biases and that SET results are frequently misinterpreted by administrators. Low response rates and monotonic response patterns are other factors that compromise the reliability of SETs.

3-year results of docetaxel-based sequential and combination regimens in the adjuvant therapy of node-positive breast cancer: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel has proven efficacy in metastatic breast cancer. In this pilot study, we explored the efficacy/feasibility of docetaxel-based sequential and combination regimens as adjuvant therapy of node-positive breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From March 1996 till March 1998, four consecutive groups of patients with stages II and III breast cancer, aged < or = 70 years, received one of the following regimens: a) sequential Doxorubicin (A) --> Docetaxel (T) --> CMF (Cyclophosphamide+Methotrexate+5-Fluorouracil): A 75 mg/m q 3 wks x 3, followed by T100 mg/m2 q 3 wks x 3, followed by i.v. CMF Days 1+8 q 4 wks x 3; b) sequential accelerated A --> T --> CMF: A and T administered at the same doses q 2 wks with Lenograstin support; c) combination therapy: A 50 mg/m2 + T 75 mg/m2 q 3 wks x 4, followed by CMF x 4; d) sequential T --> A --> CMF: T and A, administered as in group a), with the reverse sequence. When indicated, radiotherapy was administered during or after CMF, and Tamoxifen after CMF. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were treated. The median age was 48 years (29-66) and the median number of positive axillary nodes was 6 (1-25). Tumors were operable in 94% and locally advanced in 6% of cases. Pathological tumor size was >2 cm in 72% of cases. There were 21 relapses, (18 systemic, 3 locoregional) and 11 patients (12%) have died from disease progression. At median follow-up of 39 months (6-57), overall survival (OS) was 87% (95% CI, 79-94%) and disease-free survival (DFS) was 76% (95% CI, 67%-85%). CONCLUSION: The efficacy of these docetaxel-based regimens, in terms of OS and DFS, appears to be at least as good as standard anthracycline-based adjuvant chemotherapy (CT), in similar high-risk patient populations.