Retrospective Drug Utilization Review Program Research Articles

Impact of a retrospective drug utilization review program on changing opioid prescribing behavior

The VA system is the largest single provider of healthcare in the United States and to individuals infected with HIV specifically. High quality medication management is particularly important since HIV is a chronic infectious condition which requires taking multiple medications with strict requirements for adherence to medication regimens. Veterans Administration (VA) patients are required to obtain all chronic medications using the VA mail-order pharmacy system.Drawing on Donabedian's Quality Improvement framework, this study sought to examine experiences that Veterans with HIV have with the Veterans Administration medication mail-order system, and to explore opportunities for quality improvement.A sequential, explanatory mixed-methods design was used to interview Veterans receiving care at a Midwestern Veterans Administration Hospital using a mail-order experience survey followed by in-depth interviews. All 57 Veterans, out of 72, who were successfully contacted consented to participate.Overall, Veterans evaluated the mail-order service positively and valued the accuracy (correct medication delivery). However, a notable problem emerged with respect to assuring access to HIV medications with about half (47%) indicating running out of HIV medication. Respondents identified structural issues with respect to days covered by mailed medications (90 versus current 30 days) and process issues with scheduling new refills. Veterans also indicated the information sheets were too long, complex and not helpful for their queries. Patients were open to pharmacists playing an active role during clinic visits and felt this would help manage their conditions better.Veterans generally reported that the VA Mail-order service was of high quality. However, some findings indicate there are opportunities to improve this service to be more patient-centered particularly for vulnerable HIV patients.

Effectiveness of a Retrospective Drug Utilization Review on Potentially Unsafe Opioid and Central Nervous System Combination Therapy.

Drug overdose deaths are the leading cause of unintentional death in the United States, and opioid-related mortality is the primary contributor (75.2%). Among opioid-related mortalities, opioids are most commonly taken with benzodiazepines (30.1%) and antidepressants (13.4%). The utility of a retrospective drug utilization review (DUR) program initiated by a commercial health plan for members taking potentially unsafe opioid and central nervous system (CNS) combination therapy is currently unknown. To determine the effectiveness of a retrospective DUR program on potentially unsafe opioid and CNS combination therapy. This research is a pre-post study utilizing pharmacy claims data from 2.6 million commercially insured members enrolled in a health plan in the Midwest. Members were required to be at least aged 18 years as of August 30, 2013, and continuously enrolled from May 2, 2013, through February 15, 2014. Members with 1 or more paid claims for an opioid at least 200 morphine equivalent dose (MED) daily and a concur- rent supply of another opioid, benzodiazepine, or antidepressant from May 2, 2013, through August 30, 2013 (120-day preintervention period) were targeted for the retrospective DUR program. These exclusion criteria were applied: members belonging to commercial groups requiring permission on claims data analyses, missing or invalid prescriber information, or presence of pharmacy claims indicating human immunodeficiency virus or acquired immunodeficiency syndrome during the 2 years prior to the pre-intervention period. Prescribers of high-dose opioids received a mailing (intervention) containing a member-specific letter, medication profile, and satisfaction survey to determine the prescriber-perceived clinical value of the program. To assess the effectiveness of the retrospective DUR program, criteria was reapplied to identify members still meeting criteria 120 days postintervention (February 15, 2014). Paired samples t-test was used to compare pre-post results. Of 2,236,243 eligible members aged 18 years and older, 980 met DUR criteria. Prescribers for these members subsequently received a mailing regarding potentially unsafe opioid and CNS combination therapy. A total of 671 prescribers were sent a mailing regarding these 980 members. Among the 980 members meeting DUR criteria, distribution of prescriber specialty was family medicine (25.9%), physical medicine and rehabilitation (14.4%), internal medicine (13.0%), pain (9.2%), anesthesiology (7.0%), other (8.8%), and unknown (21.7%). High-dose opioids most commonly identified by the DUR were oxycodone extended release (27.6%), morphine sulfate extended release (17.7%), and fentanyl patch (13.1%). After reapplying DUR criteria to identify members still meeting criteria 120 days after the DUR, 528 members remained, representing a 28.1% reduction in high-risk opioid use. Survey response rate was 23.6% (231 of 980 surveys returned). The majority (62.3%) of respondents reported that this retrospective DUR program was useful in their daily practice. A 28.1% reduction in potentially unsafe opioid and CNS combination therapy was observed after implementing a retrospective DUR program targeting high-risk opioid use. Among members remaining high risk after the DUR, the change in total unique opioids and total daily MED was nonsignificant. Members remaining at high risk after the DUR can be targeted for further interventions such as care management and member education regarding fraud, waste, and abuse. A majority of prescribers (90.5%) self-report using their states' prescription monitoring programs when prescribing controlled substances.

Evaluation of a Retrospective Drug Utilization Review Program for the Treatment of Plaque Psoriasis: A Pilot Study

Background: Because of their increasing use and high unit costs, biologics pose challenges to payer costcontainment efforts. Creative approaches are needed to assure clinical appropriateness and eliminate unnecessary costs related to biological medications. The biologic etanercept has been approved for treatment of chronic moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in certain adults; however the costs can be over $2,000 per month. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of a specialty pharmacy’s retrospective drug utilization review (rDUR) pilot program designed to identify patients with plaque psoriasis who were prescribed a dose of etanercept inconsistent with the manufacturer recommended dosing for plaque psoriasis. Methods: This descriptive analysis evaluated a pharmacist-initiated, provider-oriented rDUR pilot program for plaque psoriasis patients using etanercept. We assessed the rDUR program’s impact on annual cost. A retrospective descriptive analysis was undertaken to assess the rDUR program’s impact on annual cost associated with changes in dosage in prescribed amounts of etanercept for patients with plaque psoriasis. We examined prescription “fills” and cost per patient pre- and post-program implementation using wholesale acquisition costs (WAC). Retrospective DUR review criteria were based on dosing information contained in the prescribing label. Results: The rDUR targeted 388 providers with 444 plaque psoriasis patients; prescriber response rate to faxed reminder letters was 65.5%. Annual costs for etanercept patients had an upper range of $37,638, and annual payer savings associated with reduced dosing regimens were projected to be an average of $22,062 per patient per year. Conclusion: Proactive therapy management approaches are necessary for specialty medications to help eliminate unnecessary health-care expenses related to unintended prescribing in excess of the manufacturer’s recommended dosing. Pharmacist-led programs to provide information regarding manufacturer dosing recommendations can effectively be incorporated into specialty pharmacy, and can significantly and positively influence prescribing and control costs.

Impact of a drug utilization review program on high‐risk use of prescription controlled substances

Prescription drug abuse has prompted considerable concern. We evaluated a retrospective drug utilization review program to reduce controlled substance use among individuals with high-risk utilization. We analyzed pharmacy claims from a large pharmaceutical benefits manager. For each eligible member, we calculated a controlled substance score based on the number and type of claims, prescribers and pharmacies, and utilization patterns over three months. Two state health plans sent controlled substance letters to prescribers of members meeting or exceeding a plan- and pre-specified controlled substance score. Two different state health plans did not send such letters. We used a difference-in-difference design and generalized estimating equations to quantify the impact of the program on the mean difference in reduction of the controlled substance score over six months. Eligible members in the intervention and comparison states had similar baseline mean controlled substance scores (19.0 vs. 18.6, p = 0.36). Adjusting for individuals' age, sex and pharmacy risk group score, reductions in the mean controlled substance score were greater in the intervention than comparison cohort (5.67 vs. 4.31, p = 0.01), corresponding with a 34.0% reduction in the intervention cohort compared to a 25.5% reduction in the comparison cohort. Changes were driven primarily by reductions in the number of controlled substance claims filled (30.5% vs. 23.1%, p = 0.01), as well as by a non-statistically significant trend towards reductions in the number of prescribers and pharmacies used (26.9% vs. 20.1%, p = 0.07). Retrospective drug utilization review programs may reduce controlled substance scores and claims among individuals with patterns suggesting high-risk utilization.

Retrospective drug utilization review: incidence of clinically relevant potential drug-drug interactions in a large ambulatory population.

To determine the incidence of clinically relevant potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in a large population of ambulatory patients utilizing a computerized, retrospective drug utilization review (DUR) program followed by clinical pharmacist audit. The drug claims database included approximately 2.9 million patients with more than 30 million prescriptions dispensed in the 12-month period from September 2001 through August 2002. Cases were identified by a computerized, retrospective DUR program with embedded triggers to detect 69 prespecified potentially serious DDIs, with "serious" defined as an interaction that would likely require a change in therapy or use of additional clinical or laboratory monitoring. Two types of automated, computerized assessments were conducted: the first simply detected coprescribed drug pairs, and the second assessment used more sophisticated filters to reduce false positive alerts for coprescribed drug pairs. Clinical pharmacist audit then determined the final incidence of clinically relevant warnings; in this audit, coprescribed drug pairs were defined as clinically relevant if they could cause potentially serious DDIs. Eighteen drug pairs had insufficient cases for inclusion, leaving 51 drug pairs for evaluation. A total of 244,703 cases of potential DDIs were identified (0.8% of total prescription claims) by simple automated screens. More sophisticated DDI filters reduced the 244,703 potential DDIs by 70.8%, to a total of 65,544 pairs (0.2% of total prescription claims). Clinical pharmacist review reduced the number of potential DDIs by an additional 80.6%, to 12,722 drug pairs (0.04% of total prescription claims) deemed clinically relevant. The combination of sophisticated DDI filters and clinical pharmacist review reduced the incidence of potentially serious DDIs by 94.3%. The incidence of potentially serious DDIs is relatively low (less than 1%) among ambulatory patients; however, the incidence depends on the method of case finding. Retrospective DUR programs, especially those with additional automated filters or that utilize additional pharmacist review, appear to be important screening tools in determining true rates of coprescribed drug pairs that can lead to potentially serious DDIs.

Drug Utilization Review of Sedative/Hypnotic Agents in Texas Medicaid Patients

To assess use of sedative/hypnotic agents in Texas Medicaid patients and evaluate practitioner receptiveness to intervention letters concerning sedative/hypnotic prescribing generated by the Texas Medicaid Drug Utilization Review (DUR) Board.Retrospective DUR.Texas Medicaid retrospective DUR program.244 Texas Medicaid patients and 291 Texas physicians.Patient profiles for Texas Medicaid patients were reviewed retrospectively to quantify sedative/hypnotic prescribing practices. Intervention letters were prepared and sent to physicians directly involved in the care of patients receiving excessive sedative/hypnotic therapy. Physician responses were categorized based on information presented in the intervention letter and circumstances surrounding the identified patient. Prescribing practices were assessed approximately 1 year after the intervention to determine the impact of intervention letters on prescribing.Physician response to intervention letter.Responses were received from 208 of 291 physicians (71.5%). Approximately 40% of physicians agreed in principle with the suggestions offered by the Texas Medicaid DUR Board to minimize chronic sedative/hypnotic use. Almost one-half of these physicians had discontinued sedative/hypnotic therapy for the identified patients 1 year after the intervention. Approximately 9% justified continued sedative/hypnotic use based on patient diagnosis or refractory response to treatment, and 55 physicians (26.4%) were unwilling to alter therapy because of patient-specific factors.Through the use of retrospective DUR, Texas Medicaid patients receiving excessive amounts of sedative/hypnotic agents were identified and improvements in sedative/hypnotic therapy were initiated. DUR can be useful not only in identifying problem areas, but also in encouraging physicians to modify prescribing practices through educational means.

Positive impact of a follow-up phone call to community pharmacies in a medicaid drug utilization program.

To evaluate the impact of including community pharmacists in strategies to alter excessive prescribing of antiulcer medications (AUMs) in a statewide drug utilization review (DUR) program. Mailing educational materials to physicians is a common intervention strategy of retrospective DUR programs. However, pharmacists are typically left out of this process, ignoring a possibly influential healthcare provider. Patients without gastroesophageal reflux disease who received > or = 1.0 normalized therapeutic equivalents (e.g., 1.0 NTE = ranitidine 300 mg/d or omeprazole 20 mg/d) for five of six prior months were included. The pharmacists and physicians of these patients were divided into one of three geographically distinct groups: group 1 physicians received mailed materials only (pharmacists were not contacted); group 2 physicians and pharmacists received mailed materials only; and group 3 physicians and pharmacists received mailed materials, and the pharmacists were contacted by phone. Mean NTE and AUM costs were analyzed six months before and six months following the intervention. One hundred thirty-eight, 329, and 248 patients were included in G1, G2, and G3, respectively. There was a 12.4%, 8.0%, and 14.0% reduction in NTE for G1, G2, and G3, respectively. G1 AUM cost decreased 7.7% ($7710); G2 decreased 6.8% ($14 037); G3 decreased 20.5% ($26722). The total decrease in AUM cost for the entire cohort from before to after the intervention was $48469 (p < 0.05) in the six months following the intervention. A follow-up phone call to pharmacists in a statewide DUR intervention enhances the effectiveness of DUR interventions under the conditions studied. Enlisting the support of community pharmacists may improve the cost savings of these interventions.

Inter- and intrarater reliability of retrospective drug utilization reviewers.

To assess inter- and intrarater reliability among 23 pharmacist and physician retrospective drug utilization reviewers and to assess interrater reliability after a reviewer training session. Exploratory study. Maryland Medicaid's retrospective drug utilization review (DUR) program. 23 physician and pharmacist retrospective drug utilization reviewers. None. Profiles rated as "intervention indicated" or "intervention not indicated." Cochran's Q test, overall percent agreement, and the unweighted kappa statistic were used in the analysis of review consistency. Intrarater reliability showed substantial consistency among the 23 reviewers; the percent agreement was 82.9% with kappa = 0.66. Interrater reliability, however, was poor, with an overall agreement of 69.6% and kappa = 0.16. Interrater reliability was also poor after a one-hour reviewer training session (agreement 81.8%, kappa = -0.19). The implicit review process used in the retrospective DUR program that we evaluated was unreliable. Since reliability is a necessary but not sufficient condition for validity of an indicator of inappropriate drug use, the validity of the DUR implicit review process is in question.

Comprehensive Drug Utilization Review: Adding Physician Outreach to Concurrent and Retrospective Drug Utilization Review

Communication about drug selection and use between physicians and pharmacists has changed in the last two decades. The enhanced clinical education offered to pharmacists and the recognition by many physicians that keeping up with advances in drug therapy is exceedingly difficult and time consuming has facilitated the change. Accordingly, hospitals and long-term care facilities have formalized the clinical role of the pharmacist in drug selection, use, and/or monitoring through the use of drug utilization review (DUR) programs, specifically called drug use evaluation (DUE) and drug regimen review (DRR), respectively, in these environments. A majority of drug therapy decisions, however, occur outside of these closed environments where the physician's drug information is often provided by representatives of the pharmaceutical manufacturers and where comprehensive DUR programs are in their infancy. As a source of information on drug products available from their company, sales representatives perform a valuable service, but their information, understandably, is focused on the advantages of their products. Making appropriate choices from alternative therapies that are more plentiful, complex and expensive than ever requires the physician to have access to current, scientifically valid, objective and unbiased information. Building on the value inherent in concurrent and retrospective DUR programs and on research conducted in the early 1980s, Medco Containment Services has developed a program that brings this type of prescribing information directly to physicians in their offices. Called the Optimal Therapeutics ProgramSM (OTPSM), Medco's program is fully operational in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and is the vehicle for bringing clinically relevant, objective, and cost-effective prescribing information to physicians for application in the ambulatory care marketplace. This innovative program augments concurrent and retrospective DUR, delivering truly comprehensive DUR services. OTP also provides an opportunity for highly motivated and skilled pharmacists to shape their emerging role as drug information consultants.