Integrating patient-centric indications into the prescribing process: Experience at a tertiary academic medical center.

PURPOSE: To describe the development of and implementation of a patient-centric clinical indications library (CIL) into the prescribing process and determine the operational and humanistic outcomes (from prescriber, pharmacist, and patient perspectives) of including indications on outpatient prescription labels. METHODS: A descriptive retrospective data analysis was conducted. Multiple stakeholder groups were engaged to develop and integrate the CIL into the prescription package. After CIL integration, prescribers, pharmacists, and patients were surveyed. A focus group discussion consisting of Veterans and caregivers was held. RESULTS: Following implementation of the CIL, the proportion of prescriptions associated with an indication increased from 88% to 96%. Surveyed clinicians responded that indications helped them better understand a patient's profile (61.1% of prescribers and 100% of pharmacists). Among surveyed pharmacists, 61.5% and 53.8%, respectively, believed that indications helped them catch instances of wrong medications and wrong doses ordered. Veterans surveyed found that indications on their prescription labels helped them know what their medications were for (91.0% of respondents) and why it is important to take their medications (70.7%). In focus group discussions, Veterans and family members and/or caregivers expressed a preference to see indications that describe how a medication works (eg, "to lower blood sugar" vs "for diabetes") because they felt that type of phrasing is measurable, action oriented (which was appealing due to Veterans' military background), provides surreptitious education, and tells the users what to expect. CONCLUSION: Engaging multidisciplinary stakeholder groups, optimizing the electronic health record system, and authorizing pharmacists to add known indications to prescriptions increased the number of prescriptions with indications, decreased the perceived time spent on order entry and verification, and enabled better understanding of each medication's purpose by providers and patients.

Opioid use in young veterans.

PURPOSE: Data suggest an increase in prescription opioid abuse in recent years. Young veterans represent a group with major risk factors for prescription opioid abuse. The objectives of this study are: (A) to determine the prevalence of chronic opioid use in young veterans over time; (B) to describe the prescribing patterns and monitoring of chronic opioid therapy in young veterans; and (C) to assess opioid management within Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System (VAPAHCS) with an emphasis on effectiveness and safety. METHODS: This is a Veterans Affairs Research and Development (R&D) Committee and IRB-approved retrospective, single-center study of young veterans aged 18-30 years on chronic opioid therapy during the study years January 1, 2003, to October 1, 2008. A subset of the study population who were receiving long-acting opioids for a minimum of 6 months was included in the effectiveness and safety analyses. Data were obtained from the Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN 21) data warehouse, outpatient prescription records, and from electronic chart review. RESULTS: The prevalence of chronic opioid use in young veterans has increased from 3 percent in 2003 to 4.5 percent in 2007. Patients on average were exposed to two different opioids and had three different opioid prescribers. Nearly 80 percent of the opioid prescriptions during the study were prescribed by primary care providers and less than 1 percent was from pain specialists. Only 31 percent of patients on chronic opioids had undergone urine drug testing and only 5 percent had signed opioid treatment agreements. No difference in median pain score was observed following initiation of long-acting opioid therapy, and 22 percent of patients (4 of 18) met the prespecified definition of being a responder to long-acting opioid therapy. Five patients (28 percent) on long-acting opioids experienced adverse drug reactions. CONCLUSION: The prevalence of chronic opioid use in young veterans has been on the rise in recent years. Young veterans receiving care at VAPAHCS have often had multiple opioid prescribers and have trialed multiple opioid analgesics. Many improvements in appropriate monitoring and management of these patients can be made, which may include providing more training to current staff the development of an opioid refill clinic, and greater utilization of the pain management specialists. Further larger study is warranted to identify successful strategies for improving prescribing and monitoring of opioids as well as potential predictors of response to chronic long-acting opioid therapy.

Hepatitis C performance measure on hepatitis A and B vaccination: missed opportunities?

OBJECTIVES: Prevention of hepatitis A virus (HAV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in patients with chronic hepatitis C (CHC) through vaccination is endorsed by all major professional societies. This study was conducted to determine adherence to the recently adopted physician performance measure on HAV and HBV vaccination. METHODS: This was a retrospective study. Hepatitis A and B serology data and immunization records between 2000 and 2007 from CHC patients with detectable hepatitis C virus (HCV) RNA were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 2,968 CHC patients were included in the study. Of these, 2,143 patients (72%) were tested for susceptibility to HAV, of which 53% had immunity. Of the non-immune patients, 746 (74%) were vaccinated as well as an additional 218 without prior testing. For HBV, 2,303 patients (78%) were tested for immunity and 782 (34%) were immune. Of the susceptible patients, 1,086 (71%) were vaccinated as well as an additional 197 patients without prior testing. The overall vaccination performance measure adherence rate was 71% for HAV, 70% for HBV, and 62% for both HAV and HBV. Random review of 176 charts found the major reasons for non-adherence were missed opportunity (41%), change of health care system (31%), and documented vaccination outside our health care system (22%). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found a high and improved adherence to the recommendations, but missed opportunity was still the main reason of non-adherence. This study also supported the strategy of selective vaccination in the veteran population.

Incidence of statin hepatotoxicity in patients with hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Statins are considered contraindicated in patients with chronic liver disease. Our objective was to determine the risk of developing hepatotoxicity from statin therapy in hyperlipidemic patients with hepatitis C. METHODS: Changes in liver biochemistry values within 12 months compared with baseline were determined in 3 cohorts matched for age, sex, and body mass index: (I) 166 anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV)-positive hyperlipidemic veterans who were initiated on statin therapy; (II) 332 anti-HCV-positive veterans who had not received statin therapy; and (III) 332 anti-HCV-negative hyperlipidemic veterans who were initiated on statin therapy. An increase in liver biochemistry values was defined as mild-moderate or severe as proposed in a previous study on statin hepatotoxicity in a non-hepatitis C population. RESULTS: In patients with hepatitis C, statin therapy (cohort I) was associated with a higher incidence of mild-moderate liver biochemistry value increases compared with those not on statin therapy (cohort II) (22.9% vs 13.3%, respectively, P = .009), but a lower incidence of severe increases (1.2% vs 6.6%, respectively, P = .015). Among patients started on statin therapy (cohorts I and III), the incidence of mild-moderate liver biochemistry value increases (22.9% vs 16.3%, respectively, P = .094), severe increases (1.2% vs 1%, respectively, P = .874), or discontinuation of statin therapy as a result of hepatotoxicity (21.6% vs 9.2%, respectively, P = .147) were similar in hepatitis C-positive and hepatitis C-negative patients. CONCLUSIONS: Statin therapy was not associated with a higher risk of severe hepatotoxicity in patients with chronic hepatitis C and appeared safe.

Drug-related emergency department visits in an elderly veteran population.

BACKGROUND: Given that adverse drug events result in extensive costs and healthcare resource utilization, the goal is to better understand drug-related emergency department (ED) visits so that programs can be implemented to improve the quality of health care. OBJECTIVE: To (1) determine the incidence of drug-related ED visits at a large, tertiary care, Veterans Affairs hospital; (2) identify causes of these drug-related ED visits; (3) determine patient outcomes, healthcare resource utilization, and costs associated with these visits; and (4) determine the proportion of adverse drug reaction (ADR)-related ED visits that were spontaneously reported to the hospital's ADR reporting program. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective electronic chart review of all patients who visited the ED during the second week of each month in 2003. Causes for drug-related visits were identified. ADRs in this study included side effects, drug allergies, and drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and were assessed using the Naranjo probability scale. RESULTS: A total of 2169 patients were included in the study. Drug-related visits accounted for 12.6% of all ED visits. The main causes of drug-related visits were ADRs and nonadherence, which accounted for 33% and 19% of drug-related visits, respectively. Only 11% of these ADRs were spontaneously reported to the hospital's ADR reporting program. Thirty-five percent of drug-related visits led to hospitalizations, which resulted in an average length of stay of 9.3 days. The institution's total cost of drug-related visits was approximately 1.5 million US dollars over 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Many ED visits are drug related and often result in hospitalization and increased healthcare resource utilization. Only a minimal number of the ADRs resulting in ED visits are spontaneously reported to hospital ADR reporting programs.

Effects of a tablet-splitting program in patients taking HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors: analysis of clinical effects, patient satisfaction, compliance, and cost avoidance.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to determine the effect of a hydroxymethylglutaryl- CoA reductase inhibitor (HMG) tablet-splitting program on laboratory outcomes (lipid panel and liver enzyme tests). Other objectives were to assess patient compliance and satisfaction with splitting tablets and to measure the reduction in drug acquisition costs. METHODS: Patients at a Veterans Affairs Health Care System facility were included in this study if they participated in the HMG tablet-splitting program between April and September 2000. Patients taking the same drug and dosage before and after implementation of the program were asked to complete a mailed questionnaire designed to measure satisfaction and compliance with the program. Data collected through electronic charts included patient demographics, prescribed medication, and the values for lipid panel and liver function tests. RESULTS: A total of 2,019 patients were included in the study. The total cost avoidance achieved over one year for atorvastatin, lovastatin, and simvastatin was 138,108 dollars (N=2,019). The majority of patients who responded to the questionnaire were satisfied and compliant with tablet splitting. In the laboratory analysis (N=512), there was no difference between prevalues and postvalues for total cholesterol and triglycerides. There was a statistically, but not clinically, significant decrease in LDL (102 versus 97, P<0.001) and increase in HDL (46 versus 48, P<0.001), AST (26 versus 28, P<0.001), and ALT (24 versus 26, P=0.006) after the initiation of tablet splitting. CONCLUSION: Tablet splitting of HMGs had no short-term negative effects on laboratory outcomes and favorable effects on humanistic outcomes as measured by patient satisfaction and compliance. Tablet splitting of HMGs is an effective way to reduce costs and nearly double the number of patients who can be treated for the same expense.