Patrick M Zueger1, Holly M Holmes2, Gregory S Calip1,3,4, Dima M Qato1,3, A Simon Pickard1,3, Todd A Lee5,6. 1. Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 2. Division of Geriatric and Palliative Medicine, UTHealth McGovern Medical School, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Center for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomic Research, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. 4. Division of Public Health Sciences, Epidemiology Program, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. Department of Pharmacy Systems, Outcomes and Policy, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. toddlee@uic.edu. 6. Center for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomic Research, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA. toddlee@uic.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of medications not relieving symptoms or maximizing quality of life should be minimized following hospice enrollment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency of and predictive factors for continuation of medications with limited benefit after hospice admission among those admitted for cancer- and non-cancer-related causes. DESIGN: Cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked database. PATIENTS: Medicare Part D-enrolled beneficiaries 66 years and older who were admitted to and died under hospice care between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2013 (N = 70,035). MAIN MEASURES: Patients were followed from hospice enrollment through death for Part D dispensing of limited benefit medications (LBMs) they had used in the 6 months prior to hospice admission, including anti-hyperlipidemics, anti-hypertensives, oral anti-diabetics, anti-platelets, anti-dementia medications, anti-osteoporotic medications, and proton pump inhibitors. The proportion of patients continuing an LBM after hospice admission was evaluated. Adjusted relative risks (RRs) were estimated for factors associated with LBM continuation. KEY RESULTS: Overall, 29.8% and 30.5% of patients admitted to hospice for a cancer- and non-cancer-related cause, respectively, continued at least one LBM after hospice admission. Anti-dementia medications were continued most frequently (29.3%) while anti-osteoporotic medications were continued least often (14.1%). Compared to home hospice, LBM continuation was greater in hospice patients residing in skilled nursing (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.20-1.29), non-skilled nursing (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.25-1.32), and assisted living facilities (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.24-1.32). Patients with hospice stays ≥ 180 days were more likely to continue at least one LBM compared to those with stays of 1 week or less (RR 13.11, 95% CI 12.25-14.02). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of Medicare hospice beneficiaries continued to receive LBMs following hospice enrollment. Providers should evaluate the necessity of continuing non-palliative medications at the end of life through a careful, patient-centric consideration of their potential risks and benefits.
BACKGROUND: The use of medications not relieving symptoms or maximizing quality of life should be minimized following hospice enrollment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency of and predictive factors for continuation of medications with limited benefit after hospice admission among those admitted for cancer- and non-cancer-related causes. DESIGN: Cohort study using the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare linked database. PATIENTS: Medicare Part D-enrolled beneficiaries 66 years and older who were admitted to and died under hospice care between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2013 (N = 70,035). MAIN MEASURES: Patients were followed from hospice enrollment through death for Part D dispensing of limited benefit medications (LBMs) they had used in the 6 months prior to hospice admission, including anti-hyperlipidemics, anti-hypertensives, oral anti-diabetics, anti-platelets, anti-dementia medications, anti-osteoporotic medications, and proton pump inhibitors. The proportion of patients continuing an LBM after hospice admission was evaluated. Adjusted relative risks (RRs) were estimated for factors associated with LBM continuation. KEY RESULTS: Overall, 29.8% and 30.5% of patients admitted to hospice for a cancer- and non-cancer-related cause, respectively, continued at least one LBM after hospice admission. Anti-dementia medications were continued most frequently (29.3%) while anti-osteoporotic medications were continued least often (14.1%). Compared to home hospice, LBM continuation was greater in hospice patients residing in skilled nursing (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.20-1.29), non-skilled nursing (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.25-1.32), and assisted living facilities (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.24-1.32). Patients with hospice stays ≥ 180 days were more likely to continue at least one LBM compared to those with stays of 1 week or less (RR 13.11, 95% CI 12.25-14.02). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of Medicare hospice beneficiaries continued to receive LBMs following hospice enrollment. Providers should evaluate the necessity of continuing non-palliative medications at the end of life through a careful, patient-centric consideration of their potential risks and benefits.
Entities:
Keywords:
Medicare Part D; deprescribing; end-of-life care; hospice; inappropriate medication use
Authors: N J H Raijmakers; L van Zuylen; C J Furst; M Beccaro; L Maiorana; P Pilastri; C Rossi; G Flego; A van der Heide; M Costantini Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2012-10-14 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Lucas Morin; Davide L Vetrano; Debora Rizzuto; Amaia Calderón-Larrañaga; Johan Fastbom; Kristina Johnell Journal: Am J Med Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Ronald T C M van Nordennen; Jan C M Lavrijsen; Kris C P Vissers; Raymond T C M Koopmans Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2014-07 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Elizabeth A Bayliss; Michael R Bronsert; Liza M Reifler; Jennifer L Ellis; John F Steiner; Deanna B McQuillen; Diane L Fairclough Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2013-01-10 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Jennifer Tjia; Jennifer L Lund; Deborah S Mack; Attah Mbrah; Yiyang Yuan; Qiaoxi Chen; Seun Osundolire; Cara L McDermott Journal: Curr Epidemiol Rep Date: 2021-04-23