A multiyear cross-sectional study of U.S. national prescribing patterns of first-generation sedating antihistamines in older adults with skin disease.
Journal
The British journal of dermatology
ISSN: 1365-2133
Titre abrégé: Br J Dermatol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0004041
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 2020
03 2020
Historique:
accepted:
23
04
2019
pubmed:
26
4
2019
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
26
4
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
First-generation antihistamines (FGAs) are classified as 'potentially inappropriate' for use in older patients (patients aged ≥ 65 years). However, the prevalence of and factors associated with FGA prescription have not been studied. To examine FGA prescription rates for older patients who visited dermatology offices, and compare them to those for younger patients (patients aged 18-65 years) who visited dermatology offices and those for older patients who visited primary-care physicians (PCPs). This was a multiyear cross-sectional observational study using data from the U.S. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2006-2015). Visits by patients aged 18 years or older were included in the study; the data comprised 15 243 dermatology office visits and 66 036 PCP office visits. The main outcome was FGA prescription. Other variables included physician specialty (dermatologist or PCP), patient's age, diagnosis of dermatological conditions and reason for visit. For dermatology visits, the overall FGA prescription rate for older patients was similar to that for younger patients (1·5% vs. 1·2%; P = 0·19), even when the diagnosis was dermatitis or pruritus (3·7% vs. 4·8%; P = 0·21) or when itch was a complaint (7·6% vs. 6·7%; P = 0·64). However, the rate of FGA prescription for dermatology visits was lower than that for PCP visits, in analyses matched for patient and visit characteristics (3·9% vs. 7·4%; P = 0·02). Our findings suggest that FGAs are overprescribed to older patients but that dermatologists are less likely to prescribe FGAs than PCPs. What's already known about this topic? First-generation antihistamines (FGAs) have been shown to pose substantial risks to older adults, including cognitive impairment, falls, confusion, dry mouth and constipation. Therefore, FGAs have been classified as 'potentially inappropriate' for use in older patients by the American Geriatrics Society. It has also been shown that dermatologists do not always take patient characteristics (e.g. age or life expectancy) into account when deciding on a treatment, instead following a 'one-size-fits-all' approach. What does this study add? FGAs are often prescribed during dermatology visits, and prescription rates do not differ between older and younger patients. There were no significant differences in prescription rates when comparing younger and older adults with the same diagnosis or symptom (e.g. dermatitis, pruritus or itch). FGAs are prescribed at higher rates in primary-care offices than in dermatology offices.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
First-generation antihistamines (FGAs) are classified as 'potentially inappropriate' for use in older patients (patients aged ≥ 65 years). However, the prevalence of and factors associated with FGA prescription have not been studied.
OBJECTIVES
To examine FGA prescription rates for older patients who visited dermatology offices, and compare them to those for younger patients (patients aged 18-65 years) who visited dermatology offices and those for older patients who visited primary-care physicians (PCPs).
METHODS
This was a multiyear cross-sectional observational study using data from the U.S. National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (2006-2015). Visits by patients aged 18 years or older were included in the study; the data comprised 15 243 dermatology office visits and 66 036 PCP office visits. The main outcome was FGA prescription. Other variables included physician specialty (dermatologist or PCP), patient's age, diagnosis of dermatological conditions and reason for visit.
RESULTS
For dermatology visits, the overall FGA prescription rate for older patients was similar to that for younger patients (1·5% vs. 1·2%; P = 0·19), even when the diagnosis was dermatitis or pruritus (3·7% vs. 4·8%; P = 0·21) or when itch was a complaint (7·6% vs. 6·7%; P = 0·64). However, the rate of FGA prescription for dermatology visits was lower than that for PCP visits, in analyses matched for patient and visit characteristics (3·9% vs. 7·4%; P = 0·02).
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that FGAs are overprescribed to older patients but that dermatologists are less likely to prescribe FGAs than PCPs. What's already known about this topic? First-generation antihistamines (FGAs) have been shown to pose substantial risks to older adults, including cognitive impairment, falls, confusion, dry mouth and constipation. Therefore, FGAs have been classified as 'potentially inappropriate' for use in older patients by the American Geriatrics Society. It has also been shown that dermatologists do not always take patient characteristics (e.g. age or life expectancy) into account when deciding on a treatment, instead following a 'one-size-fits-all' approach. What does this study add? FGAs are often prescribed during dermatology visits, and prescription rates do not differ between older and younger patients. There were no significant differences in prescription rates when comparing younger and older adults with the same diagnosis or symptom (e.g. dermatitis, pruritus or itch). FGAs are prescribed at higher rates in primary-care offices than in dermatology offices.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31021412
doi: 10.1111/bjd.18042
pmc: PMC6814489
mid: NIHMS1025909
doi:
Substances chimiques
Histamine H1 Antagonists
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
763-769Subventions
Organisme : NIA NIH HHS
ID : K76 AG054631
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAMS NIH HHS
ID : T32 AR007465
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAMS NIH HHS
ID : K24 AR075060
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© 2019 British Association of Dermatologists.
Références
JAMA Dermatol. 2018 Jul 1;154(7):757-758
pubmed: 29710117
BMC Geriatr. 2015 Mar 25;15:31
pubmed: 25879993
J Drugs Dermatol. 2018 Feb 1;17(2):135-140
pubmed: 29462220
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016 Aug;64(8):1610-5
pubmed: 27303932
World Allergy Organ J. 2011 Mar;4(3 Suppl):S22-7
pubmed: 23282332
Osteoporos Int. 2018 Oct;29(10):2163-2170
pubmed: 30046925
JAMA. 2013 Dec 11;310(22):2443-50
pubmed: 24327039
JAMA Neurol. 2016 Jun 1;73(6):721-32
pubmed: 27088965
BMJ. 2006 Feb 25;332(7539):455-9
pubmed: 16452102
Drug Metab Rev. 2009;41(2):67-76
pubmed: 19514965
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015 Nov;63(11):2227-46
pubmed: 26446832
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Mar;175(3):401-7
pubmed: 25621434
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018 Jul;66(7):1382-1387
pubmed: 29582410
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Oct;69(4):550-6
pubmed: 23870201
Clin Interv Aging. 2009;4:225-33
pubmed: 19554093
BMC Geriatr. 2017 Oct 10;17(1):230
pubmed: 29017448
Lancet Neurol. 2006 May;5(5):379-80
pubmed: 16632303
Stat Sci. 2010 Feb 1;25(1):1-21
pubmed: 20871802