Robert Perreault

Bio: Robert Perreault is an academic researcher from McGill University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Medical prescription & Health care. The author has an hindex of 9, co-authored 12 publications receiving 1561 citations.

Adverse Events Associated With Prescription Drug Cost-Sharing Among Poor and Elderly Persons

Abstract: ContextRising costs of medications and inequities in access have sparked calls for drug policy reform in the United States and Canada. Control of drug expenditures by prescription cost-sharing for elderly persons and poor persons is a contentious issue because little is known about the health impact in these subgroups.ObjectivesTo determine (1) the impact of introducing prescription drug cost-sharing on use of essential and less essential drugs among elderly persons and welfare recipients and (2) rates of emergency department (ED) visits and serious adverse events associated with reductions in drug use before and after policy implementation.Design and SettingInterrupted time-series analysis of data from 32 months before and 17 months after introduction of a prescription coinsurance and deductible cost-sharing policy in Quebec in 1996. Separate 10-month prepolicy control and postpolicy cohort studies were conducted to estimate the impact of the drug reform on adverse events.ParticipantsA random sample of 93 950 elderly persons and 55 333 adult welfare medication recipients.Main Outcome MeasuresMean daily number of essential and less essential drugs used per month, ED visits, and serious adverse events (hospitalization, nursing home admission, and mortality) before and after policy introduction.ResultsAfter cost-sharing was introduced, use of essential drugs decreased by 9.12% (95% confidence interval [CI], 8.7%-9.6%) in elderly persons and by 14.42% (95% CI, 13.3%-15.6%) in welfare recipients; use of less essential drugs decreased by 15.14% (95% CI, 14.4%-15.9%) and 22.39% (95% CI, 20.9%-23.9%), respectively. The rate (per 10 000 person-months) of serious adverse events associated with reductions in use of essential drugs increased from 5.8 in the prepolicy control cohort to 12.6 in the postpolicy cohort in elderly persons (a net increase of 6.8 [95% CI, 5.6-8.0]) and from 14.7 to 27.6 in welfare recipients (a net increase of 12.9 [95% CI, 10.2-15.5]). Emergency department visit rates related to reductions in the use of essential drugs also increased by 14.2 (95% CI, 8.5-19.9) per 10 000 person-months in elderly persons (prepolicy control cohort, 32.9; postpolicy cohort, 47.1) and by 54.2 (95% CI, 33.5-74.8) among welfare recipients (prepolicy control cohort, 69.6; postpolicy cohort, 123.8). These increases were primarily due to an increase in the proportion of recipients who reduced their use of essential drugs. Reductions in the use of less essential drugs were not associated with an increase in risk of adverse events or ED visits.ConclusionsIn our study, increased cost-sharing for prescription drugs in elderly persons and welfare recipients was followed by reductions in use of essential drugs and a higher rate of serious adverse events and ED visits associated with these reductions.

The medical office of the 21st century (MOXXI): effectiveness of computerized decision-making support in reducing inappropriate prescribing in primary care

Abstract: Background: Adverse drug-related events are common in the elderly, and inappropriate prescribing is a preventable risk factor. Our objective was to determine whether inappropriate prescribing could be reduced when primary care physicians had computer-based access to information on all prescriptions dispensed and automated alerts for potential prescribing problems. Methods: We randomly assigned 107 primary care physicians with at least 100 patients aged 66 years and older (total 12 560) to a group receiving computerized decision-making support (CDS) or a control group. Physicians in the CDS group had access to information on current and past prescriptions through a dedicated computer link to the provincial seniors9 drug-insurance program. When any of 159 clinically relevant prescribing problems were identified by the CDS software, the physician received an alert that identified the nature of the problem, possible consequences and alternative therapy. The rate of initiation and discontinuation of potentially inappropriate prescriptions was assessed over a 13-month period. Results: In the 2 months before the study, 31.8% of the patients in the CDS group and 33.3% of those in the control group had at least 1 potentially inappropriate prescription. During the study the number of new potentially inappropriate prescriptions per 1000 visits was significantly lower (18%) in the CDS group than in the control group (relative rate [RR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.69–0.98), but differences between the groups in the rate of discontinuation of potentially inappropriate prescriptions were significant only for therapeutic duplication by the study physician and another physician (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.99–2.79) and drug interactions caused by prescriptions written by the study physician (RR 2.15, 95% CI 0.98–4.70). Interpretation: Computer-based access to complete drug profiles and alerts about potential prescribing problems reduces the rate of initiation of potentially inappropriate prescriptions but has a more selective effect on the discontinuation of such prescriptions.

The effectiveness of web-based asthma self-management system, my asthma portal (MAP): A pilot randomized controlled trial

Abstract: Background: Whether Web-based technologies can improve disease self-management is uncertain. My Asthma Portal (MAP) is a Web-based self-management support system that couples evidence-based behavioral change components (self-monitoring of symptoms, physical activity, and medication adherence) with real-time monitoring, feedback, and support from a nurse case manager. Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the impact of access to a Web-based asthma self-management patient portal linked to a case-management system (MAP) over 6 months compared with usual care on asthma control and quality of life. Methods: A multicenter, parallel, 2-arm, pilot, randomized controlled trial was conducted with 100 adults with confirmed diagnosis of asthma from 2 specialty clinics. Asthma control was measured using an algorithm based on overuse of fast-acting bronchodilators and emergency department visits, and asthma-related quality of life was assessed using the Mini-Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (MAQLQ). Secondary mediating outcomes included asthma symptoms, depressive symptoms, self-efficacy, and beliefs about medication. Process evaluations were also included. Results: A total of 49 individuals were randomized to MAP and 51 to usual care. Compared with usual care, participants in the intervention group reported significantly higher asthma quality of life (mean change 0.61, 95% CI 0.03 to 1.19), and the change in asthma quality of life for the intervention group between baseline and 3 months (mean change 0.66, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.98) was not seen in the control group. No significant differences in asthma quality of life were found between the intervention and control groups at 6 (mean change 0.46, 95% CI –0.12 to 1.05) and 9 months (mean change 0.39, 95% CI –0.2 to 0.98). For poor control status, there was no significant effect of group, time, or group by time. For all self-reported measures, the intervention group had a significantly higher proportion of individuals, demonstrating a minimal clinically meaningful improvement compared with the usual care group. Conclusions: This study supported the use of MAP to enhance asthma quality of life but not asthma control as measured by an administrative database. Implementation of MAP beyond 6 months with tailored protocols for monitoring symptoms and health behaviors as individuals’ knowledge and self-management skills improve may result in long-term gains in asthma control. ClinicalTrial: International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): 34326236; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN34326236 (Archived by Webcite at http://www.webcitation.org/6mGxoI1R7). [J Med Internet Res 2016;18(12):e313]

Effects of computerized clinical decision support systems on practitioner performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review.

Abstract: ContextDevelopers of health care software have attributed improvements in patient care to these applications. As with any health care intervention, such claims require confirmation in clinical trials.ObjectivesTo review controlled trials assessing the effects of computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and to identify study characteristics predicting benefit.Data SourcesWe updated our earlier reviews by searching the MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Inspec, and ISI databases and consulting reference lists through September 2004. Authors of 64 primary studies confirmed data or provided additional information.Study SelectionWe included randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials that evaluated the effect of a CDSS compared with care provided without a CDSS on practitioner performance or patient outcomes.Data ExtractionTeams of 2 reviewers independently abstracted data on methods, setting, CDSS and patient characteristics, and outcomes.Data SynthesisOne hundred studies met our inclusion criteria. The number and methodologic quality of studies improved over time. The CDSS improved practitioner performance in 62 (64%) of the 97 studies assessing this outcome, including 4 (40%) of 10 diagnostic systems, 16 (76%) of 21 reminder systems, 23 (62%) of 37 disease management systems, and 19 (66%) of 29 drug-dosing or prescribing systems. Fifty-two trials assessed 1 or more patient outcomes, of which 7 trials (13%) reported improvements. Improved practitioner performance was associated with CDSSs that automatically prompted users compared with requiring users to activate the system (success in 73% of trials vs 47%; P = .02) and studies in which the authors also developed the CDSS software compared with studies in which the authors were not the developers (74% success vs 28%; respectively, P = .001).ConclusionsMany CDSSs improve practitioner performance. To date, the effects on patient outcomes remain understudied and, when studied, inconsistent.

Impact of medication adherence on hospitalization risk and healthcare cost.

Abstract: Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of medication adherence on healthcare utilization and cost for 4 chronic conditions that are major drivers of drug spending: diabetes, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and congestive heart failure. Research Design: The authors conducted a retrospective cohort observation of patients who were continuously enrolled in medical and prescription benefit plans from June 1997 through May 1999. Patients were identified for disease-specific analysis based on claims for outpatient, emergency room, or inpatient services during the first 12 months of the study. Using an integrated analysis of administrative claims data, medical and drug utilization were measured during the 12-month period after patient identification. Medication adherence was defined by days’ supply of maintenance medications for each condition. Patients: The study consisted of a population-based sample of 137,277 patients under age 65. Measures: Disease-related and all-cause medical costs, drug costs, and hospitalization risk were measured. Using regression analysis, these measures were modeled at varying levels of medication adherence. Results: For diabetes and hypercholesterolemia, a high level of medication adherence was associated with lower disease-related medical costs. For these conditions, higher medication costs were more than offset by medical cost reductions, producing a net reduction in overall healthcare costs. For diabetes, hypercholesterolemia, and hypertension, cost offsets were observed for all-cause medical costs at high levels of medication adherence. For all 4 conditions, hospitalization rates were significantly lower for patients with high medication adherence. Conclusions: For some chronic conditions, increased drug utilization can provide a net economic return when it is driven by improved adherence with guidelines-based therapy.

Effect of Clinical Decision-Support Systems: A Systematic Review

Abstract: Background Despite increasing emphasis on the role of clinical decision-support systems (CDSSs) for improving care and reducing costs, evidence to support widespread use is lacking. Purpose To evaluate the effect of CDSSs on clinical outcomes, health care processes, workload and efficiency, patient satisfaction, cost, and provider use and implementation. Data sources MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science through January 2011. Study selection Investigators independently screened reports to identify randomized trials published in English of electronic CDSSs that were implemented in clinical settings; used by providers to aid decision making at the point of care; and reported clinical, health care process, workload, relationship-centered, economic, or provider use outcomes. Data extraction Investigators extracted data about study design, participant characteristics, interventions, outcomes, and quality. Data synthesis 148 randomized, controlled trials were included. A total of 128 (86%) assessed health care process measures, 29 (20%) assessed clinical outcomes, and 22 (15%) measured costs. Both commercially and locally developed CDSSs improved health care process measures related to performing preventive services (n= 25; odds ratio [OR], 1.42 [95% CI, 1.27 to 1.58]), ordering clinical studies (n= 20; OR, 1.72 [CI, 1.47 to 2.00]), and prescribing therapies (n= 46; OR, 1.57 [CI, 1.35 to 1.82]). Few studies measured potential unintended consequences or adverse effects. Limitations Studies were heterogeneous in interventions, populations, settings, and outcomes. Publication bias and selective reporting cannot be excluded. Conclusion Both commercially and locally developed CDSSs are effective at improving health care process measures across diverse settings, but evidence for clinical, economic, workload, and efficiency outcomes remains sparse. This review expands knowledge in the field by demonstrating the benefits of CDSSs outside of experienced academic centers. Primary funding source Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.