Olayinka O. Shiyanbola

Opioid-Paracetamol Prescription Patterns and Liver Dysfunction

AbstractBackground: Paracetamol (acetaminophen) is the most common cause of acute liver failure (ALF). ALF attributed to paracetamol is most often associated with the following features: an unintentional overdose, a single product, an opioid-paracetamol combination, duration of <7 days, and a median dose of 7.5 g/day. Currently, the recommended maximum daily dose of paracetamol is 4 g. Objectives: The aims of the study were to determine opioid-paracetamol prescription patterns, including prescriptions exceeding the recommended dose of paracetamol (4 g/day) [prescriptions and beneficiaries]; examine factors associated with receiving opioid-paracetamol prescriptions in excess of paracetamol 4 g/day; and evaluate opioid-paracetamol prescription patterns for beneficiaries with liver dysfunction. Methods: A retrospective cohort study examining prescription data of 4.8 million beneficiaries from a US health benefits organization from 1 January 2009 through 31 December 2009. The main outcomes examined were daily paracetamol dose and liver dysfunction. Results: A large proportion (8.1%) of the 5.3 million prescriptions for opioid-paracetamol exceeded the recommended maximum daily dose of paracetamol (4 g/day), putting over one-quarter of a million (255 123 [18.9%]) of the 1.35 million beneficiaries receiving an opioid-paracetamol prescription at risk of toxicity. The most frequently prescribed products that exceeded paracetamol dose guidelines contained dextropropoxyphene and hydrocodone. Multiple factors, including type of product (i.e. dextropropoxyphene or oxycodone-containing), geographical location (Midwest), strength of the paracetamol in the opioid-paracetamol product (>325 mg) and prescriber specialty (dentist, physician assistant), were associated with high-dose paracetamol prescriptions. Liver dysfunction was diagnosed in 3818 cases, and 23.4% of these beneficiaries received an opioid-paracetamol prescription in the 90 days prior to the liver dysfunction diagnosis. Conclusions: Although most opioid-paracetamol prescriptions are written and dispensed for <4 g/day of paracetamol, a significant portion of beneficiaries are being prescribed and dispensed excessive doses of paracetamol. Efforts to curtail this practice may involve provision of prescriber and pharmacist education, utilization of benefit manager systems to flag excessive dosing or that require confirmation of dosing, and implementation of US FDA recommendations supported by these data.

Patients’ perceived value of pharmacy quality measures: a mixed-methods study

Objective To describe patients’ perceived value and use of quality measures in evaluating and choosing community pharmacies. Design Focus group methodology was combined with a survey tool. During the focus groups, participants assessed the value of the Pharmacy Quality Alliances quality measures in evaluating and choosing a pharmacy. Also, participants completed questionnaires rating their perceived value of quality measures in evaluating a pharmacy (1 being low value and 5 being high) or choosing a pharmacy (yes/no). Thematic analysis and descriptive statistics were used to analyse the focus groups and surveys, respectively. Setting Semistructured focus groups were conducted in a private meeting space of an urban and a rural area of a Mid-western State in the USA. Participants Thirty-four adults who filled prescription medications in community pharmacies for a chronic illness were recruited in community pharmacies, senior centres and public libraries. Results While comments indicated that all measures were important, medication safety measures (eg, drug-drug interactions) were valued more highly than others. Rating of quality measure utility in evaluating a pharmacy ranged from a mean of 4.88 (‘drug-drug interactions’) to a mean of 4.0 (‘absence of controller therapy for patients with asthma’). Patients were hesitant to use quality information in choosing a pharmacy (depending on the participants location) but might consider if moving to a new area or having had a negative pharmacy experience. Use of select quality measures to choose a pharmacy ranged from 97.1% of participants using ‘drug-drug interactions’ (medication safety measure) to 55.9% using ‘absence of controller therapy for patients with asthma’. Conclusions The study participants valued quality measures in evaluating and selecting a community pharmacy, with medication safety measures valued highest. The participants reported that the quality measures would not typically cause a switch in pharmacy but might influence their selection in certain situations.

Clustering medication adherence behavior based on beliefs in medicines and illness perceptions in patients taking asthma maintenance medications

Abstract Objectives: The prevalence of medication non-adherence is 50% in chronic disease conditions and varies from 30% to 70% in asthma maintenance medications. A major drawback in addressing medication non-adherence is the short time available for patient consultations, which limits the ability of the clinician in identifying the problem. Thus, this study explores how medication adherence behavior can be clustered and identifies the unique characteristics of each cluster so that clinicians can recognize the cluster characteristics in patients to provide targeted interventions. The study objectives were to: (1) cluster patients’ medication adherence behavior with asthma maintenance medications based on their beliefs in medicines and illness perceptions, and (2) describe the characteristics of the patients in each cluster based on psychosocial, clinical, and demographic characteristics. Research design and methods: A cross-sectional online survey design on a convenience sample of adult individuals who were taking asthma maintenance medications. Main outcome measures: Self-reported medication adherence using Morisky scale, beliefs in medicines using Beliefs in Medicines Questionnaire, and illness perceptions using the Brief Illness Perceptions Questionnaire. Results: The cluster analysis with 392 subjects resulted in five clusters based on patients’ beliefs in medicines and their illness perceptions. The clusters formed had distinct characteristics that lend themselves to monitoring or for which targeted interventions can be framed to improve medication adherence. Limitations: The study only examined asthma maintenance medications limiting the generalizability of the study. Also, all the data collected including medication adherence were self-reported data from an online panel. This can cause selection bias and lack of generalizability. Conclusions: The study demonstrated how the concept of ‘non-adherence’ is different for different patients and the need for tailored interventions for each type of non-adherence. With the limited consultation time available for clinicians to communicate with the patients, identifying the characteristics of patients in different clusters can assist clinicians in providing appropriate targeted interventions.

Exploring consumer understanding and preferences for pharmacy quality information

Objective: To describe consumer understanding of pharmacy quality measures and consumer preferences for pharmacy quality information. Methods: Semi-structured focus group design was combined with survey methods. Adults who filled prescription medications for self-reported chronic illnesses at community pharmacies discussed their understanding of Pharmacy Quality Alliance approved quality measures. Questions examined preference of pharmacy quality information rating systems (e.g. stars versus percentages) and desired data display/formats. During the focus group, participants completed a survey examining their understanding of each pharmacy quality measure. All focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. Results: Thirty-four individuals participated (mean age= 62.85; SD=16.05). Participants were unfamiliar with quality measures information and their level of understanding differed for each quality measure. Surveys indicated 94.1% understood “Drug-Drug Interactions” and “Helping Patients Get Needed Medications” better than other measures (e.g., 76.5% understood “Suboptimal Treatment of Hypertension in Patients with Diabetes”). Qualitative analysis indicated participants preferred an overall pharmacy rating for quick access and use. However, participants also wanted quality measures information displayed by health conditions. Participants favored comparison of their pharmacy to city data instead of state data. Most participants liked star ratings better than percentages, letter grades, or numerical ratings. Conclusions: Individuals who have a chronic illness and regularly use community pharmacies are interested in pharmacy quality measures. However, specific quality measures were not understood by some participants. Participants had specific preferences for the display of pharmacy quality information which will be helpful in the design of appropriate quality report systems.

Perceptions of prescription warning labels within an underserved population

Objective To understand how underserved populations attend to prescription warning label (PWL) instructions, examine the importance of PWL instructions to participants and describe the challenges associated with interpreting the information on PWLs. Methods Adults from an underserved population (racial and ethnic minorities, individuals with low income, older adults) who had a history of prescription medication use and were able to understand English took part in semi-structured interviews. Participants were presented with eight different prescription bottles with an attached PWL. Participants were asked, “If this prescription was yours, what information would you need to know about the medicine?” The number of participants who attended to the warning labels was noted. Other questions assessed the importance of PWLs, the challenges with understanding PWLs, and ways a pharmacist could help participant understanding of the PWL. Results There were 103 participants. The mean age was 50.25 years (SD=18.05). Majority attended to the PWL. Participants not currently taking medications and who had limited health literacy were likely to overlook the warning labels. Majority rated the warning instructions to be extremely important (n=86, 83.5 %), wanted the pharmacist to help them understand PWLs by counseling them on the information on the label (n=63, 61.2%), and thought the graphics made the label information easy to understand. Conclusions PWLs are an important method of communicating medication information, as long as they are easily comprehensible to patients. In addition to placing PWLs on prescription bottles, health care providers need to counsel underserved populations on medication warnings, especially individuals with limited health literacy who are not currently using a prescription medication.

Change in Medication Adherence and Beliefs in Medicines Over Time in Older Adults

Objective: The temporal component of medication adherence is important while designing interventions to improve medication adherence. Thus, the objective of this study was to determine how medication adherence and beliefs in medicines change over time in older adults. Methods: A two-year longitudinal internet-based survey among adults 65+ years was used to collect data on medication adherence (Morisky 4-item scale) and beliefs in medicines (Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire). Paired t-test and one-way ANOVA determined if a change in beliefs in medicines and medication adherence over time was significant. A multiple linear regression was used to determine the significant predictors of change in medication adherence over time. Results: 436 respondents answered both baseline and follow-up surveys. Among all respondents, there was no significant change in adherence (0.58 ± 0.84 vs. 0.59 ± 0.84; p > 0.05), necessity beliefs (17.13 ± 4.31 vs. 17.10 ± 4.29; p > 0.05), or concern beliefs (11.70 ± 3.73 vs. 11.68 ± 3.77; p > 0.05) over time. For older adults with lower baseline adherence, there was a statistically significant improvement in adherence (1.45 ± 0.70 vs. 0.99 ± 0.97; p < 0.05); but no change in beliefs in medicines over time. The significant predictors of change in medication adherence over time were baseline adherence and baseline concern beliefs in medicines. Conclusion: With baseline adherence and baseline concern beliefs in medicines playing a significant role in determining change in adherence behavior over time, especially in individuals with lower adherence, it is important to alleviate medication concerns at the beginning of therapy for better adherence.

Risk factors of self-reported adverse drug events among Medicare enrollees before and after Medicare Part D

Objectives: Quantify risk factors for self-reported adverse drug events (ADEs) after the implementation of Medicare Part D, quantify self-reported ADEs before and after Medicare Part D and quantify the association between self-reported ADEs and increased use of prescription medication. Methods: The design was a longitudinal study including an internet survey before Medicare Part D in 2005 (n=1220) and a follow-up survey in 2007 (n=1024), with n=436 responding to both surveys. Harris Interactive® invited individuals in their online panel to participate in this study. Individuals who were 65 or older, English speakers, US residents and enrolled in Medicare were included. Data collected and used in analysis included self-reported ADE, socio-demographics, self-rated health, number of medications, symptoms experienced, concern and necessity beliefs about medicines, number of pharmacies, and whether doses were skipped or stopped to save money. Results: In 2007, reporting an ADE was related to concern beliefs, symptoms experienced and age. ADEs were experienced by 18% of respondents in 2005 and 20.4% in 2007. The average number of medications increased from 3.82 (SD=2.82) in 2005 to 4.32 (SD=3.20) in 2007 (t= -5.77, p<0.001). Among respondents who answered both surveys (n=436), 18.4% reported an ADE in 2005 while 24.3% reported an ADE in 2007. The increase in self-reported ADE was related to concern beliefs (OR=1.12, 95%CI=1.05, 1.19) and symptoms experienced (OR= 3.27, 95%CI=1.60, 6.69), not number of medications (OR=1.04, 95%CI=0.77, 1.41). Conclusion: Discussing elderly patients’ beliefs about their medicines may affect their medication expectations, symptom interpretation and attributions and future medication attributions.

Association of health literacy and medication self-efficacy with medication adherence and diabetes control

Introduction The exact pathway linking health literacy, self-efficacy, medication adherence, and glycemic control for type 2 diabetes remains unclear. Understanding the relationship between patient factors, medication adherence, and lower glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) may help patients better manage their disease. This study examined the association of health literacy and medication self-efficacy with self-reported diabetes medication adherence, and the association of health literacy, medication self-efficacy, and self-reported diabetes medication adherence with HbA1c of patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods This cross-sectional study utilized a face-to-face questionnaire at two family medicine clinics in a Midwestern state among 174 patients; subjects enrolled were at least 20 years old with diagnosed type 2 diabetes, prescribed at least one oral diabetes medicine, and understood English. Questionnaires were administered to assess the participants’: health literacy, using the Newest Vital Sign six-item questionnaire (NVS); self-efficacy for medication use, using the 13-item Self-Efficacy for Appropriate Medication Use Scale; and self-report medication adherence, using the eight-item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale. HbA1c values were obtained from participants’ electronic medical records. Multiple linear regressions were used to explore the association of health literacy and medication self-efficacy with both medication adherence and HbA1c level after controlling for all other covariates. Results Self-reported health status (β = 0.17, p = 0.015) and medication self-efficacy (β = 0.53, p < 0.001) were positively associated with diabetes medication adherence. Health literacy was neither associated with diabetes medication adherence (β = −0.04, p = 0.586) nor HbA1c (β = −0.06, p = 0.542). Lower diabetes medication adherence (β = −0.26, p = 0.008) and higher number of prescribed medications (β = 0.28, p = 0.009) were correlated with higher HbA1c. Conclusion Health literacy, as measured by the NVS, does not correlate with medication adherence or glycemic control among patients with type 2 diabetes. Interventions to improve patients’ self-efficacy of medication use may improve diabetes medication adherence.

Quick screen of patients' numeracy and document literacy skills: the factor structure of the Newest Vital Sign

Introduction The Newest Vital Sign (NVS) is a survey designed to measure general health literacy whereby an interviewer asks six questions related to information printed on a nutritional label from an ice cream container. It enables researchers to evaluate several health literacy dimensions in a short period of time, including document literacy, comprehension, quantitative literacy (numeracy), application, and evaluation. No study has empirically examined which items belong to which latent dimensions of health literacy in the NVS using factor analysis. Identifying the factor structure of the NVS would enable health care providers to choose appropriate intervention strategies to address patients’ health literacy as well as improve their health outcomes accordingly. This study aimed to explore the factor structure of the NVS that is used to assess multiple dimensions of health literacy. Methods A cross-sectional study administering the NVS in a face-to-face manner was conducted at two family medicine clinics in the USA. One hundred and seventy four individuals who participated were at least 20 years old, diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, prescribed at least one oral diabetes medicine, and used English as their primary language. Exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted to investigate the factor structure of the NVS. Results Numeracy and document literacy are two dimensions of health literacy that were identified and accounted for 63.05% of the variance in the NVS. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha) of the NVS were 0.78 and 0.91 for numeracy and document literacy, respectively. Conclusion Numeracy and document literacy appropriately represent the factor structure of the NVS and may be used for assessing health literacy in greater detail for patients with type 2 diabetes.

“I did not want to take that medicine”: African-Americans’ reasons for diabetes medication nonadherence and perceived solutions for enhancing adherence

Background Diabetes is disproportionally burdensome among African-Americans (AAs) and medication adherence is important for optimal outcomes. Limited studies have qualitatively examined reasons for nonadherence among AAs with type 2 diabetes, though AAs are less adherent to prescribed medications compared to whites. This study explored the reasons for medication nonadherence and adherence among AAs with type 2 diabetes and examined AAs’ perceived solutions for enhancing adherence. Methods Forty AAs, age 45–60 years with type 2 diabetes for at least 1 year prior, taking at least one prescribed diabetes medication, participated in six semistructured 90-minute focus groups. Using a phenomenology qualitative approach, reasons for nonadherence and adherence, as well as participants’ perceived solutions for increasing adherence were explored. Qualitative content analysis was conducted. Results AAs’ reasons for intentional nonadherence were associated with 1) their perception of medicines including concerns about medication side effects, as well as fear and frustration associated with taking medicines; 2) their perception of illness (disbelief of diabetes diagnosis); and 3) access to medicines and information resources. Participants reported taking their medicines because they valued being alive to perform their social and family roles, and their belief in the doctor’s recommendation and medication helpfulness. Participants provided solutions for enhancing adherence by focusing on the roles of health care providers, patients, and the church. AAs wanted provider counseling on the necessity of taking medicines and the consequences of not taking them, indicating the need for the AA community to support and teach self-advocacy in diabetes self-management, and the church to act as an advocate in ensuring medication use. Conclusion Intentional reasons of AAs with type 2 diabetes for not taking their medicines were related to their perception of medicines and illness. Solutions for enhancing diabetes medication adherence among AAs should focus on the roles of providers, patients, and the church.