Adam Sacarny1,2,3, Michael L Barnett4, Jackson Le5, Frank Tetkoski6, David Yokum2,7, Shantanu Agrawal5,8. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York. 2. Office of Evaluation Sciences, US General Services Administration, Washington, DC. 3. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 4. Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Center for Program Integrity, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, US Department of Health and Human Services, Baltimore, Maryland. 6. retired from the Center for Medicare, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, US Department of Health and Human Services, Baltimore, Maryland. 7. currently with The Lab @ DC, Government of the District of Columbia, Washington, DC. 8. currently with the National Quality Forum, Washington, DC.
Abstract
Importance: Antipsychotic agents, such as quetiapine fumarate, are frequently overprescribed for indications not supported by clinical evidence, potentially causing harm. Objective: To investigate if peer comparison letters targeting high-volume primary care prescribers of quetiapine meaningfully reduce their prescribing. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial (intent to treat) conducted from 2015 to 2017 of prescribers and their patients nationwide in the Medicare program. The trial targeted the 5055 highest-volume primary care prescribers of quetiapine in 2013 and 2014 (approximately 5% of all primary care prescribers ofquetiapine). Interventions: Prescribers were randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive a placebo letter or 3 peer comparison letters stating that their quetiapine prescribing was high relative to their peers and was under review by Medicare. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the total quetiapine days supplied by prescribers from the intervention start to 9 months. Secondary outcomes included quetiapine receipt from all prescribers by baseline patients, quetiapine receipt by patients with low-value or guideline-concordant indications for therapy, mortality, and hospital use. In exploratory analyses, the study followed outcomes to 2 years. Results:Of the 5055 prescribers, 231 (4.6%) were general practitioners, 2428 (48.0%) were in family medicine, and 2396 (47.4%) were in internal medicine; 4155 (82.2%) were male. All were included in the analyses. Over 9 months, the treatment arm supplied 11.1% fewer quetiapine days per prescriber vs the control arm (2456 vs 2864 days; percentage difference, 11.1% fewer days; 95% CI, -13.1% to -9.2% days; P < .001; adjusted difference, -319 days; 95% CI, -374 to -263 days; P < .001), which persisted through 2 years (15.6% fewer days; 95% CI, -18.1% to -13.0%; P < .001). At the patient level, individuals in the treatment arm received 3.9% (95% CI, -5.0% to -2.9%; P < .001) fewer days of quetiapine from all prescribers over 9 months, with a larger decrease among patients with low-value vs guideline-concordant indications (-5.9% [95% CI, -8.0% to -3.9%] vs -2.4% [95% CI, -4.0% to -0.9%], P = .01 for test that effects were equal for both patient groups). There was no evidence of substitution to other antipsychotics, and 9-month mortality and hospital use were similar between the treatment vs control arms. Conclusions and Relevance: Peer comparison letters caused substantial and durable reductions in quetiapine prescribing, with no evidence of negative effects on patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02467933.
RCT Entities:
Importance: Antipsychotic agents, such as quetiapine fumarate, are frequently overprescribed for indications not supported by clinical evidence, potentially causing harm. Objective: To investigate if peer comparison letters targeting high-volume primary care prescribers of quetiapine meaningfully reduce their prescribing. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial (intent to treat) conducted from 2015 to 2017 of prescribers and their patients nationwide in the Medicare program. The trial targeted the 5055 highest-volume primary care prescribers of quetiapine in 2013 and 2014 (approximately 5% of all primary care prescribers of quetiapine). Interventions: Prescribers were randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive a placebo letter or 3 peer comparison letters stating that their quetiapine prescribing was high relative to their peers and was under review by Medicare. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the total quetiapine days supplied by prescribers from the intervention start to 9 months. Secondary outcomes included quetiapine receipt from all prescribers by baseline patients, quetiapine receipt by patients with low-value or guideline-concordant indications for therapy, mortality, and hospital use. In exploratory analyses, the study followed outcomes to 2 years. Results: Of the 5055 prescribers, 231 (4.6%) were general practitioners, 2428 (48.0%) were in family medicine, and 2396 (47.4%) were in internal medicine; 4155 (82.2%) were male. All were included in the analyses. Over 9 months, the treatment arm supplied 11.1% fewer quetiapine days per prescriber vs the control arm (2456 vs 2864 days; percentage difference, 11.1% fewer days; 95% CI, -13.1% to -9.2% days; P < .001; adjusted difference, -319 days; 95% CI, -374 to -263 days; P < .001), which persisted through 2 years (15.6% fewer days; 95% CI, -18.1% to -13.0%; P < .001). At the patient level, individuals in the treatment arm received 3.9% (95% CI, -5.0% to -2.9%; P < .001) fewer days of quetiapine from all prescribers over 9 months, with a larger decrease among patients with low-value vs guideline-concordant indications (-5.9% [95% CI, -8.0% to -3.9%] vs -2.4% [95% CI, -4.0% to -0.9%], P = .01 for test that effects were equal for both patient groups). There was no evidence of substitution to other antipsychotics, and 9-month mortality and hospital use were similar between the treatment vs control arms. Conclusions and Relevance: Peer comparison letters caused substantial and durable reductions in quetiapine prescribing, with no evidence of negative effects on patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02467933.
Authors: Noah Ivers; Gro Jamtvedt; Signe Flottorp; Jane M Young; Jan Odgaard-Jensen; Simon D French; Mary Ann O'Brien; Marit Johansen; Jeremy Grimshaw; Andrew D Oxman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-06-13
Authors: Clive Ballard; Marisa Margallo-Lana; Edmund Juszczak; Simon Douglas; Alan Swann; Alan Thomas; John O'Brien; Anna Everratt; Stuart Sadler; Clare Maddison; Lesley Lee; Carol Bannister; Ruth Elvish; Robin Jacoby Journal: BMJ Date: 2005-02-18
Authors: Jeffrey A Linder; Daniella Meeker; Craig R Fox; Mark W Friedberg; Stephen D Persell; Noah J Goldstein; Jason N Doctor Journal: JAMA Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Todd P Semla; Austin Lee; Ronald Gurrera; Laura Bajor; Mingfei Li; Donald R Miller; Eric G Smith; Chao Wang; Yun Wan; Lewis E Kazis; Mark S Bauer Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-04-03 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Daniella Meeker; Tara K Knight; Mark W Friedberg; Jeffrey A Linder; Noah J Goldstein; Craig R Fox; Alan Rothfeld; Guillermo Diaz; Jason N Doctor Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Michael Hallsworth; Tim Chadborn; Anna Sallis; Michael Sanders; Daniel Berry; Felix Greaves; Lara Clements; Sally C Davies Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Peiqi Wang; Susan M Hutfless; Eun J Shin; Christian Hartman; Sarah Disney; Christopher C Fain; Kathy P Bull-Henry; Daniel K Daniels; Tsion Abdi; Vikesh K Singh; Anthony N Kalloo; Martin A Makary Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Jessica M Perkins; Bernard Kakuhikire; Charles Baguma; Justin D Rasmussen; Emily N Satinsky; Allen Kiconco; Justus Kananura; Carolyn M Audet; Mark J Siedner; Jessica E Haberer; David R Bangsberg; Alexander C Tsai Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2022-01-16
Authors: Michael I Ellenbogen; Peiqi Wang; Heidi N Overton; Christine Fahim; Angela Park; William E Bruhn; Jennifer L Carnahan; Amy M Linsky; Seki A Balogun; Martin A Makary Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2020-01 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Caitlin W Hicks; Peiqi Wang; William E Bruhn; Christopher J Abularrage; Ying W Lum; Bruce A Perler; James H Black; Martin A Makary Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2020-01-02 Impact factor: 4.268