BACKGROUND: : In January 2008, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) communicated concerns about the efficacy of ezetimibe, but did not provide clear clinical guidance, and substantial media attention ensued. We investigated the proportion of patients who discontinued therapy and switched to a clinically appropriate alternative after the FDA communication. METHODS: : Using claims data from a national pharmacy benefits manager, we created a rolling cohort of new users of ezetimibe between January 2006 and August 2008 and created a supply diary for each patient in the year after cohort entry. A patient was identified as nonpersistent if a gap of 90 days was seen in the diary. Using segmented linear regression, we compared rates of nonpersistence before and after the FDA communication and assessed patient-level characteristics associated with discontinuation. Among nonpersistent patients, we determined whether a patient made a clinically appropriate switch in the subsequent 90 days by adding a new cholesterol-lowering medication or by increasing the dose of an existing one. We used a weighted t test to compare the rates of appropriate switching before and after the communication. RESULTS: : Among 867,027 new ezetimibe users, 407,006 (46.9%) were nonpersistent in the first year. After the FDA communication, the monthly level of ezetimibe nonpersistence increased by 5.7 percentage points (P<0.0001). Younger patients, those who lived in low-income zip codes, and female patients were less likely to discontinue therapy (P<0.0001 for all). Among nonpersistent patients, rates of clinically appropriate switching increased from 10.8% before to 16.5% after the FDA warning (P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: : A substantial increase in ezetimibe nonpersistence rates was seen after an FDA communication regarding its efficacy and following associated media attention, and a small proportion of patients made a clinically appropriate switch after discontinuation. Further consideration is needed to deliver messages that promote appropriate use of chronic therapy rather than simply reduce use.

A substantial threat to the overall health of the American public is nonadherence to medications used to treat diabetes, as well as physicians' failure to initiate patients' use of those medications. To address this problem, we evaluated an integrated, pharmacy-based program to improve patients' adherence and physicians' initiation rates. The study included 5,123 patients with diabetes in the intervention group and 24,124 matched patients with diabetes in the control group. The intervention consisted of outreach from both mail-order and retail pharmacists who had specific information from the pharmacy benefit management company on patients' adherence to medications and use of concomitant therapies. The interventions improved patients' medication adherence rates by 2.1 percent and increased physicians' initiation rates by 38 percent, compared to the control group. The benefits were greater in patients who received counseling in the retail setting than in those who received phone calls from pharmacists based in mail-order pharmacies. This suggests that the in-person interaction between the retail pharmacist and patient contributed to improved behavior. The interventions were cost-effective, with a return on investment of approximately $3 for every $1 spent. These findings highlight the central role that pharmacists can play in promoting the appropriate initiation of and adherence to therapy for chronic diseases.

BACKGROUND: Physicians with more experience are generally believed to have accumulated knowledge and skills during years in practice and therefore to deliver high-quality care. However, evidence suggests that there is an inverse relationship between the number of years that a physician has been in practice and the quality of care that the physician provides. PURPOSE: To systematically review studies relating medical knowledge and health care quality to years in practice and physician age. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles in MEDLINE from 1966 to June 2004 and reference lists of retrieved articles. STUDY SELECTION: Studies that provided empirical results about knowledge or a quality-of-care outcome and included years since graduation or physician age as explanatory variables. DATA EXTRACTION: We categorized studies on the basis of the nature of the association between years in practice or age and performance. DATA SYNTHESIS: Overall, 32 of the 62 (52%) evaluations reported decreasing performance with increasing years in practice for all outcomes assessed; 13 (21%) reported decreasing performance with increasing experience for some outcomes but no association for others; 2 (3%) reported that performance initially increased with increasing experience, peaked, and then decreased (concave relationship); 13 (21%) reported no association; 1 (2%) reported increasing performance with increasing years in practice for some outcomes but no association for others; and 1 (2%) reported increasing performance with increasing years in practice for all outcomes. Results did not change substantially when the analysis was restricted to studies that used the most objective outcome measures. LIMITATIONS: Because of the lack of reliable search terms for physician experience, reports that provided relevant data may have been missed. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who have been in practice longer may be at risk for providing lower-quality care. Therefore, this subgroup of physicians may need quality improvement interventions.

PURPOSE: The study investigated the determinants of warfarin use in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: We assembled a retrospective cohort of community-dwelling elderly patients (aged > or = 66 years) with AF using linked administrative databases. We identified the physicians responsible for the ambulatory care of these patients using physician service claims and compared patients who did and did not have an identifiable provider. For those patients with an identifiable provider, we assessed the association between patient, physician, and hospital factors and warfarin use. RESULTS: Our cohort consisted of 140,185 patients, of whom 116,200 (83%) had an identifiable cardiac provider. Patients without a provider were significantly more likely to have comorbid conditions that increase their risk of warfarin-associated bleeding. After adjustment for clinical factors, patients without a provider were significantly less likely to receive warfarin (odds ratio 0.37, 95% confidence interval: 0.36-0.38). Of patients with providers, 50,551 patients (43.5%) received warfarin within 180 days after hospital discharge. Warfarin use was positively associated with AF-associated stroke risk factors (eg, prior stroke, congestive heart failure) and negatively associated with warfarin-associated bleeding risk factors (eg, history of intracerebral hemorrhage). After controlling for patient and hospital factors, patients cared for by noncardiologist physicians with cardiology consultation were more likely to receive warfarin then patients treated in noncollaborative environments. CONCLUSIONS: Warfarin continues to be substantially underprescribed to patients who are at high risk for AF-associated cardioembolic stroke. Our findings highlight the need for targeted quality improvement interventions and suggest preferred models of AF care involving routine collaboration between cardiologists and other physicians.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the influence of physicians' experiences of adverse events in patients with atrial fibrillation who were taking warfarin. DESIGN: Population based, matched pair before and after analysis. SETTING: Database study in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: The physicians of patients with atrial fibrillation admitted to hospital for adverse events (major haemorrhage while taking warfarin and thromboembolic strokes while not taking warfarin). Pairs of other patients with atrial fibrillation treated by the same physicians were selected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Odds of receiving warfarin by matched pairs of a given physician's patients (one treated after and one treated before the event) were compared, with adjustment for stroke and bleeding risk factors that might also influence warfarin use. The odds of prescriptions for angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor before and after the event was assessed as a neutral control. RESULTS: For the 530 physicians who had a patient with an adverse bleeding event (exposure) and who treated other patients with atrial fibrillation during the 90 days before and the 90 days after the exposure, the odds of prescribing warfarin was 21% lower for patients after the exposure (adjusted odds ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.00). Greater reductions in warfarin prescribing were found in analyses with patients for whom more time had elapsed between the physician's exposure and the patient's treatment. There were no significant changes in warfarin prescribing after a physician had a patient who had a stroke while not on warfarin or in the prescribing of ACE inhibitors by physicians who had patients with either bleeding events or strokes. CONCLUSIONS: A physician's experience with bleeding events associated with warfarin can influence prescribing warfarin. Adverse events that are possibly associated with underuse of warfarin may not affect subsequent prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have helped clarify the efficacy of clopidogrel for the treatment and prevention of vascular disease. Costs for its use exceeded $5.9 billion in 2005, making it the second greatest source of drug expenditure in the world. However, little is known about the appropriateness of that use. Overuse of clopidogrel could have important implications for health care quality and drug expenditures. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study linking all filled prescriptions to all clinical encounter data for Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in a large state-wide pharmacy assistance program. We identified all patients newly prescribed clopidogrel during a recent 2-year period and determined the proportion who had indications for clopidogrel, the mean number of tablets filled by patients with and without apparent indications in the year after starting therapy, and the costs associated with the observed patterns of clopidogrel use. RESULTS: We identified 4977 patients who were newly prescribed clopidogrel. Of these patients, only 47% had > or = 1 documented indications for clopidogrel according to clinical trial findings. Using looser criteria, the number of patients with appropriate indications was 56%. During the first year of therapy, 43% ($2.05 million) of total clopidogrel expenditures for the patients studied was spent on patients without an indication that this agent was required, using the extended criteria for evidence-based use. CONCLUSIONS: More than 40% of the clopidogrel used in this population appears to have been prescribed to patients for whom the drug had no documented advantage over aspirin or no antiplatelet therapy. If the same proportion applies nationally, in 2005, it would represent almost $1.5 billion of potentially unnecessary health care expenditure.

BACKGROUND: The AFFIRM (Atrial Fibrillation Follow-Up Investigation of Rhythm Management) trial demonstrated that rate control and rhythm control strategies result in similar survival and quality of life for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Because of superior safety and lower cost, rate control is now the recommended strategy for the management of most elderly, high-risk AF patients. OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent to which the AFFIRM trial results have been adopted into actual practice. METHODS: We conducted a time-series analysis of 3 population-based cohorts of patients with AF who were 66 years of age or older in Pennsylvania and Ontario. We stratified patients in Ontario by socioeconomic status (SES) and examined changes in quarterly prescription rates for rate control and rhythm controlling medications as well as cardioversion procedures before and after publication of the AFFIRM trial. RESULTS: The publication of the AFFIRM trial resulted in statistically significant reductions in the use of rhythm controlling medications in all 3 cohorts (p < 0.01). The magnitude of these changes in the non-low SES Canadian cohort was approximately 1% per quarter and was greater than the magnitude observed in the other cohorts (p < 0.001). The use of cardioversion procedures also decreased in all study regions (p < 0.01). In contrast, AFFIRM publication was also associated with a small increase in the use of rate controlling medications in Canada (p < 0.01) but not in the US (p = 0.23). CONCLUSIONS: Publication of the AFFIRM trial resulted in small but statistically significant changes in the care of patients with AF.

BACKGROUND:: Although many patient, physician, and payment predictors of adherence have been described, knowledge of their relative strength and overall ability to explain adherence is limited. OBJECTIVES:: To measure the contributions of patient, physician, and payment predictors in explaining adherence to statins. RESEARCH DESIGN:: Retrospective cohort study using administrative data. SUBJECTS:: A total of 14,257 patients insured by Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey who were newly prescribed a statin cholesterol-lowering medication. MEASURES:: Adherence to statin medication was measured during the year after the initial prescription, based on proportion of days covered. The impact of patient, physician, and payment predictors of adherence were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression. The explanatory power of these models was evaluated with C statistics, a measure of the goodness of fit. RESULTS:: Overall, 36.4% of patients were fully adherent. Older patient age, male gender, lower neighborhood percent black composition, higher median income, and fewer number of emergency department visits were significant patient predictors of adherence. Having a statin prescribed by a cardiologist, a patient's primary care physician, or a US medical graduate were significant physician predictors of adherence. Lower copayments also predicted adherence. All of our models had low explanatory power. Multivariate models including patient covariates only had greater explanatory power (C = 0.613) than models with physician variables only (C = 0.566) or copayments only (C = 0.543). A fully specified model had only slightly more explanatory power (C = 0.633) than the model with patient characteristics alone. CONCLUSIONS:: Despite relatively comprehensive claims data on patients, physicians, and out-of-pocket costs, our overall ability to explain adherence remains poor. Administrative data likely do not capture many complex mechanisms underlying adherence.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is highly prevalent in nursing home residents and is associated with a substantial clinical and economic burden. Statins reduce mortality and hospitalization rates in older patients with CAD. OBJECTIVES: To assess rates and predictors of statin use among high-risk patients with symptomatic coronary artery disease (CAD) admitted to nursing homes after acute cardiac hospitalization. DESIGN: Cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in either a state-run drug assistance program or Medicaid in nursing homes in New Jersey from 1994 through 2005. MEASUREMENTS: Statin utilization within 60 days of nursing home admission was determined for patients recently hospitalized with symptomatic CAD in whom statins are indicated consisting of those with: acute coronary syndrome (ACS) without revascularization, ACS with revascularization and congestive heart failure (CHF) with revascularization. Predictors of statin use were evaluated with multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: While statin use over the 11-year period increased from 1.2% to 31.8%, overall utilization was very low. Predictors of greater statin use included prior cardiac hospitalization [odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.13 to 1.57], prior statin use (OR 6.92, 95% CI 5.86 to 8.82) and receipt of a concurrent cardiac medication (range of odds ratios, 2.36-3.40). Older patients admitted for ACS with or without revascularization were less likely to receive a statin. Patients who had received anti-platelets or angiotensin-modifying agents prior to their hospitalization were less likely to receive statins after discharge. Renal disease, prior stroke, diabetes, hypertension and hyperlipidemia did not influence statin utilization. Predictors of treatment did not change when the cohort was dichotomized according to length of stay. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are infrequently treated with statins when discharged to nursing homes following hospitalization for a symptomatic cardiovascular event. Barriers to statin treatment in this setting require closer examination.

Low levels of statin adherence have been documented in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), but whether coronary revascularization is associated with improved adherence rates has yet to be evaluated. We identified all Medicare beneficiaries enrolled in 2 statewide pharmacy assistance programs who were >/=65 years old, who had been hospitalized for CAD from 1995 through 2004, and who had been prescribed statin therapy within 90 days of discharge (n = 13,130). Statin adherence was measured based on the proportion of days covered with statin therapy after hospital discharge, and full adherence was defined as proportion of days covered >/=80%. Statin adherence was compared in patients with CAD treated with medical therapy (n = 3,714), percutaneous coronary intervention (n = 6,309), or coronary artery bypass graft surgery (n = 3,107). Statin adherence significantly increased over the period of the study from 70.5% to 75.4% (p <0.0001). After hospitalization for CAD, patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery had full adherence rates of 70.6% and 70.2%, respectively. Full adherence rates were significantly lower for patients treated with coronary revascularization compared to patients treated with medical therapy (79.4%, p <0.0001). Independent predictors of higher statin adherence included treatment with medical therapy, later year of hospital admission, white race, previous statin use, and use of other cardiac medications after CAD hospitalization (p <0.01 for all comparisons). In conclusion, in patients receiving invasive coronary treatment, statin adherence remains suboptimal, despite strong evidence supporting their use. Given the health and economic consequences of nonadherence, these findings highlight the need for developing cost-effective strategies to improve medication adherence after coronary revascularization.