Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 24, Issue 8, pp 897–903 | Cite as

Reducing the Prescribing of Heavily Marketed Medications: A Randomized Controlled Trial

  • Robert J. Fortuna
  • Fang Zhang
  • Dennis Ross-Degnan
  • Francis X. Campion
  • Jonathan A. Finkelstein
  • Jamie B. Kotch
  • Adrianne C. Feldstein
  • David H. Smith
  • Steven R. Simon
Original Article

Abstract

Context

Prescription drug costs are a major component of health care expenditures, yet resources to support evidence-based prescribing are not widely available.

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of computerized prescribing alerts, with or without physician-led group educational sessions, to reduce the prescribing of heavily marketed hypnotic medications.

Design

Cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Setting

We randomly allocated 14 internal medicine practice sites to receive usual care, computerized prescribing alerts alone, or alerts plus group educational sessions.

Measurements

Proportion of heavily marketed hypnotics prescribed before and after the implementation of computerized alerts and educational sessions.

Main Results

The activation of computerized alerts held the prescribing of heavily marketed hypnotic medications at pre-intervention levels in both the alert-only group (adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0.97; 95% CI 0.82–1.14) and the alert-plus-education group (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.83–1.17) while the usual-care group experienced an increase in prescribing (RR 1.31; 95% CI 1.08–1.60). Compared to the usual-care group, the relative risk of prescribing heavily marketed medications was less in both the alert-group (Ratio of risk ratios [RRR] 0.74; 95% CI 0.57–0.96) and the alert-plus-education group (RRR 0.74; 95% CI 0.58–0.97). The prescribing of heavily marketed medications was similar in the alert-group and alert-plus-education group (RRR 1.02; 95% CI 0.80–1.29). Most clinicians reported that the alerts provided useful prescribing information (88%) and did not interfere with daily workflow (70%).

Conclusions

Computerized decision support is an effective tool to reduce the prescribing of heavily marketed hypnotic medications in ambulatory care settings.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00788346.

KEY WORDS

prescription drugs effectiveness marketed medications prescribing decision support computerized alerts 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a grant from the State Attorney General Consumer and Prescriber Education Grant Program, which is funded through the multi-state settlement from the unlawful marketing of the prescription drug Neurontin®. Dr. Fortuna was supported by an Institutional National Research Service Award, #5 T32 HP11001–18.

Conflict of Interest

None disclosed.

Supplementary material

11606_2009_1013_MOESM1_ESM.doc (286 kb)
ESM (DOC 285 Kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Catlin A, Cowan C, Hartman M, Heffler S. National health spending in 2006: a year of change for prescription drugs. Health Aff (Millwood). 2008;27:14–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services. National Health Expenditure Accounts 2006 Highlights. http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf. 2006. Accessed April 21, 2009.
  3. 3.
    US Government Accountability Office. Prescription Drugs: Improvements Needed in FDA's Oversight of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising (GAO-07–54). 11–16–0008.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kessler DA, Levy DA. Direct-to-consumer advertising: is it too late to manage the risks? Ann Fam Med. 2007;5:4–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donohue JM, Cevasco M, Rosenthal MB. A decade of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:673–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rosenthal MB, Berndt ER, Donohue JM, Frank RG, Epstein AM. Promotion of prescription drugs to consumers. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:498–505.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kravitz RL, Epstein RM, Feldman MD, Franz CE, Azari R, Wilkes MS, et al. Influence of patients’ requests for direct-to-consumer advertised antidepressants: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005;29:1995–2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mintzes B, Barer ML, Kravitz RL, Bassett K, Lexchin J, Kazanjian A, et al. How does direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) affect prescribing? A survey in primary care environments with and without legal DTCA. CMAJ. 2003;169:405–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mintzes B, Barer ML, Kravitz RL, Kazanjian A, Bassett K, Lexchin J, et al. Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients’ requests on prescribing decisions: two site cross sectional survey. BMJ. 2002;324:278–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chertow GM, Lee J, Kuperman GJ, Burdick E, Horsky J, Seger DL, et al. Guided medication dosing for inpatients with renal insufficiency. JAMA. 2001;286:2839–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Feldstein AC, Smith DH, Perrin N, Yang X, Simon SR, Krall M, et al. Reducing warfarin medication interactions: an interrupted time series evaluation. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1009–115.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Simon SR, Smith DH, Feldstein AC, Perrin N, Yang X, Zhou Y, et al. Computerized prescribing alerts and group academic detailing to reduce the use of potentially inappropriate medications in older people. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54:963–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Smith DH, Perrin N, Feldstein A, Yang X, Kuang D, Simon SR, et al. The impact of prescribing safety alerts for elderly persons in an electronic medical record: an interrupted time series evaluation. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1098–104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bates DW, Leape LL, Cullen DJ, Laird N, Petersen LA, Teich JM, et al. Effect of computerized physician order entry and a team intervention on prevention of serious medication errors. JAMA. 1998;280:1311–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bates DW, Teich JM, Lee J, Seger D, Kuperman GJ, Ma'Luf N, et al. The impact of computerized physician order entry on medication error prevention. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1999;6:313–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Teich JM, Merchia PR, Schmiz JL, Kuperman GJ, Spurr CD, Bates DW. Effects of computerized physician order entry on prescribing practices. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2741–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    The Department of Justice. Warner-Lambert to Pay $430 Million to Resolve Criminal & Civil Health Care Liability Relating to Off-Label Promotion. The Department of Justice. http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2004/May/04_civ_322.htm. Accessed April 21, 2009.
  18. 18.
    Oregon Health & Science University. Attorney General Consumer and Prescriber Grant Program. State Attorney Generals. http://www.ohsu.edu/cpgp. Accessed April 21, 2009.
  19. 19.
    Express Scripts. 2006 Drug Trend Report. http://www.express-scripts.com/industryresearch/industryreports/drugtrendreport/2006. Accessed April 21, 2009.
  20. 20.
    Atrius Health Pharmacy & Therapeutics Committee. Fact Sheet Hypnotics for Insomnia. 2–27–2008.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Soumerai SB, Avorn J. Principles of educational outreach (‘academic detailing’) to improve clinical decision making. JAMA. 1990;263:549–56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robbins AS, Chao SY, Fonseca VP. What's the relative risk? A method to directly estimate risk ratios in cohort studies of common outcomes. Ann Epidemiol. 2002;12:452–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Agostini JV, Zhang Y, Inouye SK. Use of a computer-based reminder to improve sedative-hypnotic prescribing in older hospitalized patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2007;55:43–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shrank WH, Joseph GJ, Choudhry NK, Young HN, Ettner SL, Glassman P, et al. Physicians’ perceptions of relevant prescription drug costs: do costs to the individual patient or to the population matter most. Am J Manag Care. 2006;12:545–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Reichert S, Simon T, Halm EA. Physicians’ attitudes about prescribing and knowledge of the costs of common medications. Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:2799–803.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tarn DM, Paterniti DA, Heritage J, Hays RD, Kravitz RL, Wenger NS. Physician communication about the cost and acquisition of newly prescribed medications. Am J Manag Care. 2006;12:657–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bates DW, Kuperman GJ, Wang S, Shah NR, Seger AC, Seger DL, Fiskio JM, Kuperman GJ, Blumenfeld B, et al. Improving acceptance of computerized prescribing alerts in ambulatory care. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13:5–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shah NR, Seger AC, Seger DL, Fiskio JM, Kuperman GJ, Blumenfeld B, et al. Improving acceptance of computerized prescribing alerts in ambulatory care. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13:5–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Feldstein A, Simon SR, Schneider J, Krall M, Laferriere D, Smith DH, et al. How to design computerized alerts to safe prescribing practices. Jt Comm J Qual Saf. 2004;30:602–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Isaac T, Weissman JS, Davis RB, Massagli M, Cyrulik A, Sands DZ, et al. Overrides of medication alerts in ambulatory care. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169:305–11.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lu CY, Ross-Degnan D, Soumerai SB, Pearson SA. Interventions designed to improve the quality and efficiency of medication use in managed care: a critical review of the literature - 2001–2007. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    O'Brien MA, Rogers S, Jamtvedt G, Oxman AD, Odgaard-Jensen J, Kristoffersen DT, et al. Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;CD000409.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Simon SR, Majumdar SR, Prosser LA, Salem-Schatz S, Warner C, Kleinman K, et al. Group versus individual academic detailing to improve the use of antihypertensive medications in primary care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. Am J Med. 2005;118:521–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fosnight SM, Holder CM, Allen KR, Hazelett S. A strategy to decrease the use of risky drugs in the elderly. Cleve.Clin J Med. 2004;71:561–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Peter Loftus. PHARMA MARKET: Glow Of Sepracor Sleep Drug Gets Dimmer. Dow Jones Newswires. http://www.istockanalyst.com/article/viewiStockNews/articleid/2342109. Accessed April 21, 2009.
  36. 36.
    Sanofi-Aventis. United States Securities and Exchange Commission Form 20-F. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, 83. http://en.sanofi-aventis.com/binaries/20-F_2007_EN_tcm28–1519.pdf. Accessed April 21, 2009.s
  37. 37.
    DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, Rao SR, Donelan K, Ferris TG, Jha A, et al. Electronic health records in ambulatory care–a national survey of physicians. N.Engl.J Med. 2008;359:50–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Simon SR, Kaushal R, Cleary PD, Jenter CA, Volk LA, Orav EJ, et al. Physicians and electronic health records: a statewide survey. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:507–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Simon SR, Soran CS, Kaushal R, Jenter CA, Volk LA, Burdick E, Cleary PD, Orav EJ, Poon EG, and Bates DW. Physicians’ Usage of Key Functions in Electronic Health Records from 2005 to 2007: A Statewide Survey. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009; In press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert J. Fortuna
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fang Zhang
    • 1
  • Dennis Ross-Degnan
    • 1
  • Francis X. Campion
    • 1
    • 3
  • Jonathan A. Finkelstein
    • 1
  • Jamie B. Kotch
    • 1
  • Adrianne C. Feldstein
    • 4
  • David H. Smith
    • 4
  • Steven R. Simon
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ambulatory Care and PreventionHarvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health CareBostonUSA
  2. 2.Departments of Internal Medicine and PediatricsUniversity of Rochester School of Medicine and DentistryRochesterUSA
  3. 3.Harvard Vanguard Medical AssociatesBostonMAUSA
  4. 4.Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente NorthwestPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations