Want to take quizzes and track your credits?
Can behavioral nudges reduce inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotic agents and raise clinical quality for older and disabled patients, who often receive these drugs?
In this randomized clinical trial, a peer comparison letter randomized across the 5055 highest Medicare prescribers of the antipsychotic quetiapine fumarate reduced prescribing for at least 2 years. Effects were larger than those observed in existing large-scale behavioral interventions, potentially because of the content of the peer comparison letter, which mentioned the potential for a review of prescribing activity.
Behavioral nudge interventions can raise the quality of prescribing, but research is still needed on how to most precisely target unsafe prescribing behavior.
Antipsychotic agents, such as quetiapine fumarate, are frequently overprescribed for indications not supported by clinical evidence, potentially causing harm.
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).
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.
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.
ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02467933
Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates
JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC
Accepted for Publication: May 31, 2018.
Corresponding Author: Adam Sacarny, PhD, Department of Health Policy and Management, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, 722 W 168 St, Fourth Floor, New York, NY 10032 (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Published Online: August 1, 2018. doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.1867
Author Contributions: Dr Sacarny had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Concept and design: Sacarny, Tetkoski, Yokum, Agrawal.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Sacarny, Barnett, Le, Yokum, Agrawal.
Drafting of the manuscript: Sacarny.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
Statistical analysis: Sacarny, Barnett.
Obtained funding: Sacarny, Yokum.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Sacarny, Le, Tetkoski, Yokum, Agrawal.
Supervision: Sacarny, Agrawal.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
Funding/Support: We acknowledge the support of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL) North America, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (all to Dr Sacarny).
Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this publication represent those of the authors and not their respective organizations, including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). The contents of this publication were reviewed for compliance by CMS.
You currently have no searches saved.