Browsing by Author "Min, Lillian"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Method to Quantify Mean Hypertension Treatment Daily Dose Intensity Using Health Care System Data
    (American Medical Association, 2021-01-04) Min, Lillian; Ha, Jin-Kyung; Aubert, Carole E.; Hofer, Timothy P.; Sussman, Jeremy B.; Langa, Kenneth M.; Tinetti, Mary; Hyungjin Myra, Kim; Maciejewski, Matthew L.; Gillon, Leah; Larkin, Angela; Chan, Chiao-Li; Kerr, Eve A.; Bravata, Dawn; Cushman, William C.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Importance: Simple measures of hypertension treatment, such as achievement of blood pressure (BP) targets, ignore the intensity of treatment once the BP target is met. High-intensity treatment involves increased treatment burden and can be associated with potential adverse effects in older adults. A method was previously developed to identify older patients receiving intense hypertension treatment by low BP and number of BP medications using national Veterans Health Administration and Medicare Part D administrative pharmacy data to evaluate which BP medications a patient is likely taking on any given day. Objective: To further develop and validate a method to more precisely quantify dose intensity of hypertension treatment using only health system administrative pharmacy fill data. Design, setting, and participants: Observational, cross-sectional study of 319 randomly selected older veterans in the national Veterans Health Administration health care system who were taking multiple BP-lowering medications and had a total of 3625 ambulatory care visits from July 1, 2011, to June 30, 2013. Measure development and medical record review occurred January 1, 2017, through November 30, 2018, and data analysis was conducted from December 1, 2019, to August 31, 2020. Main outcomes and measures: For each BP-lowering medication, a moderate hypertension daily dose (HDD) was defined as half the maximum dose above which no further clinical benefit has been demonstrated by that medication in hypertension trials. Patients' total HDD was calculated using pharmacy data (pharmacy HDDs), accounting for substantial delays in refills (>30 days) when a patient's pill supply was stretched (eg, cutting existing pills in half). As an external comparison, the pharmacy HDDs were correlated with doses manually extracted from clinicians' visit notes (clinically noted HDDs). How well the pharmacy HDDs correlated with clinically noted HDDs was calculated (using C statistics). To facilitate interpretation, HDDs were described in association with the number of medications. Results: A total of 316 patients (99.1%) were male; the mean (SD) age was 75.6 (7.2) years. Pharmacy HDDs were highly correlated (r = 0.92) with clinically noted HDDs, with a mean (SD) of 2.7 (1.8) for pharmacy HDDs and 2.8 (1.8) for clinically noted HDDs. Pharmacy HDDs correlated with high-intensity, clinically noted HDDs ranging from a C statistic of 92.8% (95% CI, 92.0%-93.7%) for 2 or more clinically noted HDDs to 88.1% (95% CI, 85.5%-90.6%) for 6 or more clinically noted HDDs. Conclusions and relevance: This study suggests that health system pharmacy data may be used to accurately quantify hypertension regimen dose intensity. Together with clinic-measured BP, this tool can be used in future health system-based research or quality improvement efforts to fine-tune, manage, and optimize hypertension treatment in older adults.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Recommendations for outcome measurement for deprescribing intervention studies
    (Wiley, 2022) Bayliss, Elizabeth A.; Albers, Kathleen; Gleason, Kathy; Pieper, Lisa E.; Boyd, Cynthia M.; Campbell, Noll L.; Ensrud, Kristine E.; Gray, Shelly L.; Linsky, Amy M.; Mangin, Derelie; Min, Lillian; Rich, Michael W.; Steinman, Michael A.; Turner, Justin; Vasilevskis, Eduard E.; Dublin, Sascha; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Interpreting results from deprescribing interventions to generate actionable evidence is challenging owing to inconsistent and heterogeneous outcome definitions between studies. We sought to characterize deprescribing intervention outcomes and recommend approaches to measure outcomes for future studies. A scoping literature review focused on deprescribing interventions for polypharmacy and informed a series of expert panel discussions and recommendations. Twelve experts in deprescribing research, policy, and clinical practice interventions participating in the Measures Workgroup of the US Deprescribing Research Network sought to characterize deprescribing outcomes and recommend approaches to measure outcomes for future studies. The scoping review identified 125 papers reflecting 107 deprescribing studies. Common outcomes included medication discontinuation, medication appropriateness, and a broad range of clinical outcomes potentially resulting from medication reduction. Panel recommendations included clearly defining clinically meaningful medication outcomes (e.g., number of chronic medications, dose reductions), ensuring adequate sample size and follow-up time to capture clinical outcomes resulting from medication discontinuation (e.g., quality of life [QOL]), and selecting appropriate and feasible data sources. A new conceptual model illustrates how downstream clinical outcomes (e.g., reduction in falls) should be interpreted in the context of initial changes in medication measures (e.g., reduction in mean total medications). Areas needing further development include implementation outcomes specific to deprescribing interventions and measures of adverse drug withdrawal events. Generating evidence to guide deprescribing is essential to address patient, caregiver, and clinician concerns about the benefits and harms of medication discontinuation. This article provides recommendations and an initial conceptual framework for selecting and applying appropriate intervention outcomes to support deprescribing research.