Pavan V Thakkar, Angelique E Boutzoukas, Scott N Compton, Ohviya Sivashankar, Kanecia O Zimmerman, Daniel K Benjamin, M Alan Brookhart
{"title":"Predictors of Potentially Inappropriate Stimulant Prescribing Among Adults.","authors":"Pavan V Thakkar, Angelique E Boutzoukas, Scott N Compton, Ohviya Sivashankar, Kanecia O Zimmerman, Daniel K Benjamin, M Alan Brookhart","doi":"10.1002/pds.70079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Increases in adult stimulant prescribing pose a potential risk due to the higher prevalence of contraindicated conditions among this population. We sought to identify patient, provider, and visit characteristics predictive of potentially inappropriate adult stimulant prescriptions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a repeated cross-sectional study using the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a nationally representative weighted sample of 5 453 702 723 ambulatory care visits from 2012 to 2019. Potentially inappropriate prescriptions were defined as prescriptions to patients with potentially contraindicated conditions, as determined by US Food and Drug Administration stimulant labels.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 5 453 702 723 visits, stimulant use was prevalent at 121384694 (2.23%) visits and newly prescribed at 18880152 (0.34%) visits. Of these, 4 620 138 (24.47%) new stimulant prescriptions and 28 055 947 (23.11%) prevalent prescriptions were potentially inappropriate. Potentially inappropriate prescribing increased over time and with age. Visits to primary care providers (relative risk [RR] 1.65, 95% CI 1.05-2.59) were predictive of inappropriate prescribing. Non-Hispanic Black (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.70) and Hispanic race/ethnicity (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.60), coronary artery disease (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.86), pregnancy (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.03-0.11), hypertension (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.84), and glaucoma (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02-0.24) were predictive of decreased prevalent stimulant prescriptions; substance abuse was predictive of new stimulant prescribing (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.07-4.27).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The proportion of potentially inappropriate adult stimulant prescriptions increased over time and with patient age. Visits to primary care providers were predictive of potentially inappropriate prescribing, and a history of substance abuse was predictive of new stimulant prescriptions; therefore, quality improvement interventions regarding safe stimulant prescribing practices may be warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":19782,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","volume":"34 1","pages":"e70079"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11731891/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.70079","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: Increases in adult stimulant prescribing pose a potential risk due to the higher prevalence of contraindicated conditions among this population. We sought to identify patient, provider, and visit characteristics predictive of potentially inappropriate adult stimulant prescriptions.
Methods: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional study using the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a nationally representative weighted sample of 5 453 702 723 ambulatory care visits from 2012 to 2019. Potentially inappropriate prescriptions were defined as prescriptions to patients with potentially contraindicated conditions, as determined by US Food and Drug Administration stimulant labels.
Results: Of the 5 453 702 723 visits, stimulant use was prevalent at 121384694 (2.23%) visits and newly prescribed at 18880152 (0.34%) visits. Of these, 4 620 138 (24.47%) new stimulant prescriptions and 28 055 947 (23.11%) prevalent prescriptions were potentially inappropriate. Potentially inappropriate prescribing increased over time and with age. Visits to primary care providers (relative risk [RR] 1.65, 95% CI 1.05-2.59) were predictive of inappropriate prescribing. Non-Hispanic Black (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.70) and Hispanic race/ethnicity (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.35-0.60), coronary artery disease (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.33-0.86), pregnancy (RR 0.05, 95% CI 0.03-0.11), hypertension (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.84), and glaucoma (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02-0.24) were predictive of decreased prevalent stimulant prescriptions; substance abuse was predictive of new stimulant prescribing (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.07-4.27).
Conclusions: The proportion of potentially inappropriate adult stimulant prescriptions increased over time and with patient age. Visits to primary care providers were predictive of potentially inappropriate prescribing, and a history of substance abuse was predictive of new stimulant prescriptions; therefore, quality improvement interventions regarding safe stimulant prescribing practices may be warranted.
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.