Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30073273›Full record

Trial reportJAMA psychiatry2018

Effect of Peer Comparison Letters for High-Volume Primary Care Prescribers of Quetiapine in Older and Disabled Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Adam Sacarny, Michael L Barnett, Jackson Le, Frank Tetkoski, David Yokum, Shantanu Agrawal

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA psychiatry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 48 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02467933 nacompletednot on this map

The Effect of Informative Letters on the Prescription and Receipt of Seroquel

TypeinterventionalSponsorAbdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action LabRan2015 to 2017Enrolled5,055ConditionsEconomics, Fraud, Delivery of Health Care, Health ExpendituresArmsPlacebo letter, Initial Informative letter, Followup Informative Letter
NCT04851691 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

A Pragmatic Randomized-controlled Trial of a Multi-pronged Electronic Health Record-based Clinical Decision Support Tool to Reduce Low-value Antipsychotic Prescriptions Among Older Adults With Alzheimer's and Related Dementias

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of California, Los AngelesRan2021 to 2023Enrolled158ConditionsAlzheimer Disease, Dementia Alzheimers, Dementia of Alzheimer TypeArmsEHR CDS, Usual Care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 104 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Adam SacarnyDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, New York.
Michael L BarnettDepartment of Health Policy and Management, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Jackson LeCenter for Program Integrity, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, US Department of Health and Human Services, Baltimore, Maryland.
Frank Tetkoskiretired from the Center for Medicare, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, US Department of Health and Human Services, Baltimore, Maryland.
David YokumOffice of Evaluation Sciences, US General Services Administration, Washington, DC.
Shantanu AgrawalCenter for Program Integrity, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, US Department of Health and Human Services, Baltimore, Maryland.
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services · USGeneral Services Administration · USHarvard University · USNational Bureau of Economic Research · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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 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.

Indexed as

Outcome Assessment, Health CareAdultAgedAntipsychotic AgentsDrug PrescriptionsFemaleGeneral PractitionersGuideline AdherenceHumansInternal MedicineMaleMedicareMental DisordersMiddle AgedPeer GroupPersons with DisabilitiesAntipsychotic AgentsQuetiapine Fumarate

Identifiers

PMID30073273
PMCPMC6233799
OpenAlexW2886806890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.