Elissa V. Klinger

Patient-centered interventions to improve medication management and adherence: A qualitative review of research findings

OBJECTIVE Patient-centered approaches to improving medication adherence hold promise, but evidence of their effectiveness is unclear. This review reports the current state of scientific research around interventions to improve medication management through four patient-centered domains: shared decision-making, methods to enhance effective prescribing, systems for eliciting and acting on patient feedback about medication use and treatment goals, and medication-taking behavior. METHODS We reviewed literature on interventions that fell into these domains and were published between January 2007 and May 2013. Two reviewers abstracted information and categorized studies by intervention type. RESULTS We identified 60 studies, of which 40% focused on patient education. Other intervention types included augmented pharmacy services, decision aids, shared decision-making, and clinical review of patient adherence. Medication adherence was an outcome in most (70%) of the studies, although 50% also examined patient-centered outcomes. CONCLUSIONS We identified a large number of medication management interventions that incorporated patient-centered care and improved patient outcomes. We were unable to determine whether these interventions are more effective than traditional medication adherence interventions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Additional research is needed to identify effective and feasible approaches to incorporate patient-centeredness into the medication management processes of the current health care system, if appropriate.

Pharmacologic Options to Prevent Postoperative Ileus

Objective: To summarize the evidence on pharmacologic options in preventing postoperative ileus (POI). Data Sources: The Cochrane Database of Reviews and OVID databases and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Web site were searched (1950–April 2009) using the term postoperative ileus. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Meta-analyses and randomized controlled trials were included for review. The FDA Web site was searched for clinical reviews and label information for drugs indicated for the prevention of POI. Data Synthesis: Three meta-analyses, 2 on gum-chewing and 1 on alvimopan, and 18 clinical trials were identified. Only gum chewing and alvimopan were effective in preventing POI. Gum chewing reduced the time to first flatus and bowel movement (weighted mean difference 21h, p = 0.0006 and 33h; p = 0.0002, respectively). In one meta-analysis, gum chewing significantly reduced length of stay (LOS) by 2.4 days (p < 0.00001) but this was not replicated in the second meta-analysis. Alvimopan shortened the time to reach a composite endpoint of solid food intake, plus/minus flatus, and bowel movement (93 vs 105 h; p < 0.001). A higher incidence of myocardial infarction was observed in a 12-month study of alvimopan for the treatment of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction, but not in studies in patients undergoing bowel resection. Alvimopan decreased the time to written hospital discharge order (hazard ratio 1.35; p<0.01), while the significance of a reduction in LOS (0.2–1.3 days) was not reported. Conclusions: Gum chewing and alvimopan are effective in preventing POI, but given safety concerns and higher cost with alvimopan, gum chewing may be preferred.

Use of Practice-Based Research Network Data to Measure Neighborhood Smoking Prevalence

Introduction Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs) and health systems may provide timely, reliable data to guide the development and distribution of public health resources to promote healthy behaviors, such as quitting smoking. The objective of this study was to determine if PBRN data could be used to make neighborhood-level estimates of smoking prevalence. Methods We estimated the smoking prevalence in 32 greater Boston neighborhoods (population = 877,943 adults) by using the electronic health record data of adults who in 2009 visited one of 26 Partners Primary Care PBRN practices (n = 77,529). We compared PBRN-derived estimates to population-based estimates derived from 1999–2009 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) data (n = 20,475). Results The PBRN estimates of neighborhood smoking status ranged from 5% to 22% and averaged 11%. The 2009 neighborhood-level smoking prevalence estimates derived from the BRFSS ranged from 5% to 26% and averaged 13%. The difference in smoking prevalence between the PBRN and the BRFSS averaged −2 percentage points (standard deviation, 3 percentage points). Conclusion Health behavior data collected during routine clinical care by PBRNs and health systems could supplement or be an alternative to using traditional sources of public health data.

Comparison of healthcare resource use between patients receiving ondansetron or palonosetron as prophylaxis for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

Objective: To analyze the differences between ondansetron and palonosetron in healthcare resource use (i.e., inpatient/ outpatient encounters) among patients receiving intraperitoneal cisplatin. Method: A medical record review was performed. Intraperitoneal cisplatin administrations for gynecological cancers from January through June 2006 and from October 2007 through June 2008 were divided into two groups based on the serotonin-receptor antagonist used. The occurrence of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV)-related hospital readmissions, emergency department visits, and outpatient encounters occurring within 7 days after cisplatin administration was compared. CINV-related resource use was defined as events associated with dehydration, hypovolemia, nausea/vomiting, hypokalemia, constipation, shortness of breath, or syncope/collapse. Results: Ondansetron or palonosetron was used in 39 and 89 cisplatin administrations, respectively. The baseline characteristics were similar between the groups with mean age of 59 years and ovarian cancer being the most common cancer. Length of stay was approximately 2 days. Palonosetron was always administered as a single-day therapy while one- or multi-day ondansetron therapy was administered in 27% and 73% of cycles, respectively. A trend towards more CINV-related hospitalizations with ondansetron versus palonosetron was observed (5.1% vs. 0%, p = 0.09) with no significant difference in other CINV-related encounters. Conclusion: Palonosetron was associated with a trend to a lower risk of CINV-related hospital readmission than ondansetron in patients receiving intraperitoneal cisplatin for gynecological cancers, although not statistically significant. The duration of ondansetron therapy might be suboptimal with 27% of patients receiving only 1 day of therapy during hospital stay. These findings need to be confirmed in future studies.

A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Personalized Multi-Condition Risk Assessment in Primary Care

INTRODUCTION Personal risk for multiple conditions should be assessed in primary care. This study evaluated whether collection of risk factors to generate electronic health record (EHR)-linked health risk appraisal (HRA) for coronary heart disease, diabetes, breast cancer, and colorectal cancer was associated with improved patient-provider communication, risk assessment, and plans for breast cancer screening. METHODS This pragmatic trial recruited adults with upcoming visits to 11 primary care practices during 2013-2014 (N=3,703). Pre-visit, intervention patients completed a risk factor and perception assessment and received an HRA; coded risk factor data were sent to the EHR. Post-visit, intervention patients reported risk perception. Pre-visit, control patients only completed the risk perception assessment; post-visit they also completed the risk factor assessment and received the HRA. No data were sent to the EHR for controls. Accuracy/improvement of self-perceived risk was assessed by comparing self-perceived to calculated risk. RESULTS The intervention was associated with improvement of patient-provider communication of changes to improve health (78.5% vs 74.1%, AOR=1.67, 99% CI=1.07, 2.60). There was a similar trend for discussion of risk (54.1% vs 45.5%, AOR=1.34, 95% CI=0.97, 1.85). The intervention was associated with greater improvement in accuracy of self-perceived risk for diabetes (16.0% vs 12.6%, p=0.006) and colorectal cancer (27.9% vs 17.2%, p<0.001) with a similar trend for coronary heart disease and breast cancer. There were no changes in plans for breast cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS Patient-reported risk factors and EHR-linked multi-condition HRAs in primary care can modestly improve communication and promote accuracy of self-perceived risk.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Health System-Based Smoking Cessation Program

Introduction Project CLIQ (Community Link to Quit) was a proactive population-outreach strategy using an electronic health records-based smoker registry and interactive voice recognition technology to connect low- to moderate-income smokers with cessation counseling, medications, and social services. A randomized trial demonstrated that the program increased cessation. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of CLIQ from a provider organizations perspective if implemented outside the trial framework. Methods We calculated the cost, cost per smoker, incremental cost per additional quit, and, secondarily, incremental cost per additional life year saved of the CLIQ system compared to usual care using data from a 2011-2013 randomized trial assessing the effectiveness of the CLIQ system. Sensitivity analyses considered economies of scale and initial versus ongoing costs. Results Over a 20-month period (the duration of the trial) the program cost US

Implementation of a center for drug policy across a system of hospitals

283 027 (95% confidence interval [CI]

Accuracy of self-perceived risk for common conditions

209 824-

Patient and Provider Perspectives on Mammographic Breast Density Notification Legislation

389 072) more than usual care in a population of 8544 registry-identified smokers, 707 of whom participated in the program. The cost per smoker was

Proactive Tobacco Cessation Outreach to Smokers of Low Socioeconomic Status: A Randomized Clinical Trial

33 (95% CI 28-40), incremental cost per additional quit was