Discontinuation Categories Underlying Gaps in Dispensing for Six Medication Groups.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Elizabeth A Bayliss, Glenn K Goodrich, Jennifer C Barrow, Bill Harding, Courtney A Ripley, Courtney R Kraus, Valerie Paolino, Jonathan D Norton, Orla C Sheehan, Linda A Weffald, Ariel R Green, Ted E Palen, Emily Reeve, Matthew L Maciejewski, Cynthia M Boyd
{"title":"Discontinuation Categories Underlying Gaps in Dispensing for Six Medication Groups.","authors":"Elizabeth A Bayliss, Glenn K Goodrich, Jennifer C Barrow, Bill Harding, Courtney A Ripley, Courtney R Kraus, Valerie Paolino, Jonathan D Norton, Orla C Sheehan, Linda A Weffald, Ariel R Green, Ted E Palen, Emily Reeve, Matthew L Maciejewski, Cynthia M Boyd","doi":"10.1002/pds.70142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Accurately identifying medication discontinuations at scale is important for developing evidence about deprescribing. Gaps in dispensing often serve as proxies for discontinuation but are imprecise. We categorize reasons for gaps in dispensing to inform data-based methods to accurately identify medication discontinuations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using pharmacy dispensing data, we purposively sampled from a population of adults age 65+ with 2+ chronic conditions who experienced a 90-day gap in dispensing-with and without subsequent fills-of oral diabetes drugs, statins, proton pump inhibitors, drugs with anticholinergic properties, anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs, or antihypertensives. We reviewed clinical documentation (e.g., visit notes, communications, medication orders) from last dispensing through the 90-day gap plus 120 days to classify dispensing gaps as true discontinuations (clinically intended) or non-discontinuations (no evidence of intent to discontinue), and then into subcategories. Medications with no documented explanation for the gap in dispensing and continued listing on the patient's medication list were classified as non-discontinuations.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of N = 1906 records reviewed, there were 1068 (56%) true discontinuations and 838 (44%) non-discontinuations. Subcategories within true discontinuations included provider intent to discontinue, provider substitutions, intentional stops followed by restarts, and agreeing with a colleague's or patient's decision to discontinue. Non-discontinuations included documented low adherence, changes in dose, changes in pharmacy formulary, and changes in drug formulation. Proportions of drugs in categories and subcategories varied by medication group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using gaps in dispensing as proxy measures for medication discontinuation may introduce bias through misclassification, and varied reasons for discontinuation may complicate causal interpretations.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"34 4","pages":"e70142"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70142","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: Accurately identifying medication discontinuations at scale is important for developing evidence about deprescribing. Gaps in dispensing often serve as proxies for discontinuation but are imprecise. We categorize reasons for gaps in dispensing to inform data-based methods to accurately identify medication discontinuations.

Methods: Using pharmacy dispensing data, we purposively sampled from a population of adults age 65+ with 2+ chronic conditions who experienced a 90-day gap in dispensing-with and without subsequent fills-of oral diabetes drugs, statins, proton pump inhibitors, drugs with anticholinergic properties, anticoagulants and antiplatelet drugs, or antihypertensives. We reviewed clinical documentation (e.g., visit notes, communications, medication orders) from last dispensing through the 90-day gap plus 120 days to classify dispensing gaps as true discontinuations (clinically intended) or non-discontinuations (no evidence of intent to discontinue), and then into subcategories. Medications with no documented explanation for the gap in dispensing and continued listing on the patient's medication list were classified as non-discontinuations.

Results: Of N = 1906 records reviewed, there were 1068 (56%) true discontinuations and 838 (44%) non-discontinuations. Subcategories within true discontinuations included provider intent to discontinue, provider substitutions, intentional stops followed by restarts, and agreeing with a colleague's or patient's decision to discontinue. Non-discontinuations included documented low adherence, changes in dose, changes in pharmacy formulary, and changes in drug formulation. Proportions of drugs in categories and subcategories varied by medication group.

Conclusion: Using gaps in dispensing as proxy measures for medication discontinuation may introduce bias through misclassification, and varied reasons for discontinuation may complicate causal interpretations.

六种药物组配药的停药类别存在差距。
目的:准确识别大规模药物停药对开发处方减量的证据很重要。配药间隙通常作为停药的替代,但不精确。我们对分配差距的原因进行分类,以告知基于数据的方法来准确识别药物中断。方法:使用药房配药数据,我们有目的地从65岁以上、2种以上慢性疾病的成年人中取样,这些人在配药(有和没有后续填充)方面有90天的间隔,包括口服糖尿病药物、他汀类药物、质子泵抑制剂、抗胆碱能药物、抗凝血剂和抗血小板药物或抗高血压药物。我们审查了从最后一次配药到90天间隔加上120天间隔的临床文件(例如,访问记录、通信、药物订单),将配药间隔分类为真正的停药(临床预期)或非停药(无意图停药的证据),然后划分为子类别。没有书面解释配药间隔和患者药物清单上继续列出的药物被归类为非停药。结果:在审阅的N = 1906份记录中,有1068份(56%)真实停药,838份(44%)非停药。真正停药的子类别包括提供者有意停药、提供者替代、故意停药后重新开始、同意同事或患者的停药决定。非停药包括记录的低依从性、剂量变化、药物处方变化和药物配方变化。类别和子类别中药物的比例因用药组而异。结论:将调剂间隔作为药物停药的替代指标可能会因分类错误而产生偏倚,停药原因的多样性可能会使因果解释复杂化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
173
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The aim of Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety is to provide an international forum for the communication and evaluation of data, methods and opinion in the discipline of pharmacoepidemiology. The Journal publishes peer-reviewed reports of original research, invited reviews and a variety of guest editorials and commentaries embracing scientific, medical, statistical, legal and economic aspects of pharmacoepidemiology and post-marketing surveillance of drug safety. Appropriate material in these categories may also be considered for publication as a Brief Report. Particular areas of interest include: design, analysis, results, and interpretation of studies looking at the benefit or safety of specific pharmaceuticals, biologics, or medical devices, including studies in pharmacovigilance, postmarketing surveillance, pharmacoeconomics, patient safety, molecular pharmacoepidemiology, or any other study within the broad field of pharmacoepidemiology; comparative effectiveness research relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics, and medical devices. Comparative effectiveness research is the generation and synthesis of evidence that compares the benefits and harms of alternative methods to prevent, diagnose, treat, and monitor a clinical condition, as these methods are truly used in the real world; methodologic contributions of relevance to pharmacoepidemiology, whether original contributions, reviews of existing methods, or tutorials for how to apply the methods of pharmacoepidemiology; assessments of harm versus benefit in drug therapy; patterns of drug utilization; relationships between pharmacoepidemiology and the formulation and interpretation of regulatory guidelines; evaluations of risk management plans and programmes relating to pharmaceuticals, biologics and medical devices.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信