ABSTRACT: Neuropathic pain is a common condition experienced by older adults. Prevalence estimates of neuropathic pain and descriptive data of pharmacologic management among nursing home residents are unavailable. We estimated the prevalence of neuropathic pain diagnoses and described the use of pain medications among nursing home residents with possible neuropathic pain. Using the Minimum Data Set 3.0 linked to Medicare claims for residents living in a nursing home on November 30, 2016, we included 473,815 residents. ICD-10 codes were used to identify neuropathic pain diagnoses. Identification of prescription analgesics/adjuvants was based on claims for the supply of medications that overlapped with the index date over a 3-month look-back period. The prevalence of neuropathic pain was 14.6%. Among those with neuropathic pain, 19.7% had diabetic neuropathy, 27.3% had back and neck pain with neuropathic involvement, and 25.1% had hereditary or idiopathic neuropathy. Among residents with neuropathic pain, 49.9% received anticonvulsants, 28.6% received antidepressants, 19.0% received opioids, and 28.2% had no claims for analgesics or adjuvants. Resident characteristics associated with lack of medications included advanced age, dependency in activities of daily living, cognitive impairment, and diagnoses of comorbid conditions. A diagnosis of neuropathic pain is common among nursing home residents, yet many lack pharmacologic treatment for their pain. Future epidemiologic studies can help develop a more standard approach to identifying and managing neuropathic pain among nursing home residents.

BACKGROUND: Evidence to guide clinical decision making for pain management in nursing home residents is scant. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to explore the extent of consensus among expert stakeholders regarding what analgesic issues should be prioritized for comparative-effectiveness studies of beneficial and adverse effects of analgesic regimens in nursing home residents. METHODS: Two stakeholder panels (nurses only and a mix of clinicians/researchers) were engaged (n = 83). During a three-round online modified Delphi process, participants rated and commented on the need for new evidence on nonopioid analgesic regimens and opioid regimens, short-term adverse effects, long-term adverse effects, comorbid conditions, and other factors in the nursing home setting (9-point scale; 1 = not essential to 9 = very essential to obtain new evidence). The quantitative data were analyzed to determine the existence of consensus using an approach from the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User's Manual. The qualitative data, consisting of participant explanations of their numeric ratings, were thematically analyzed by an experienced qualitative researcher. RESULTS: For nursing home residents, evidence generation was deemed essential for opioids, gabapentin (alone or with serotonin norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs]), and nonsteroid anti-inflammatory drugs with SNRIs. Experts prioritized the following outcomes as essential: long-term adverse effects, including delirium, cognitive decline, and decline in activities of daily living (ADLs). Kidney disease and depression were deemed essential conditions to consider in studies of pain medications. Coprescribing analgesic regimens with benzodiazepines, sedating medications, serotonergic medications, and non-SNRI antidepressants were considered essential areas of study. Experts noted that additional study was essential in residents with moderate/severe cognitive impairment and limitations in ADLs. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholder priorities for more evidence reflect concerns related to treating medically complex residents with complex drug regimens and included long-term adverse effects, coprescribing, and sedating medications. Carefully conducted observational studies are needed to address the vast evidence gap for nursing home residents.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about trends in statin use in United States (US) nursing homes. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to describe national trends in statin use in nursing homes and evaluate the impact of the introduction of generic statins, safety warnings, and guideline recommendations on statin use. METHODS: This study employed a repeated cross-sectional prevalence design to evaluate monthly statin use in long-stay US nursing home residents enrolled in Medicare fee-for-service using the Minimum Data Set 3.0 and Medicare Part D claims between April 2011 and December 2016. Stratified by age (65-75 years, > /= 76 years), analyses estimated trends and level changes with 95% confidence intervals (CI) following statin-related events (the availability of generic statins, American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guideline updates, and US FDA safety warnings) through segmented regression models corrected for autocorrelation. RESULTS: Statin use increased from April 2011 to December 2016 (65-75 years: 38.6-43.3%; > /= 76 years: 26.5% to 30.0%), as did high-intensity statin use (65-75 years: 4.8-9.5%; > /= 76 years: 2.3-4.5%). The introduction of generic statins yielded little impact on the prevalence of statins in nursing home residents. Positive trend changes in high-intensity statin use occurred following national guideline updates in December 2011 (65-75 years: beta = 0.16, 95% CI 0.09-0.22; > /= 76 years: beta = 0.09, 95% CI 0.06-0.12) and November 2013 (65-75 years: beta = 0.11, 95% CI 0.09-0.13; > /= 76 years: beta = 0.04, 95% CI 0.03-0.05). There were negative trend changes for any statin use concurrent with FDA statin safety warnings in March 2012 among both age groups (65-75 years: beta trend change = - 0.06, 95% CI - 0.10 to - 0.02; > /= 76 years: beta trend change = - 0.05, 95% CI - 0.08 to - 0.01). The publication of the results of a statin deprescribing trial yielded a decrease in any statin use among the > /= 76 years age group (beta level change = - 0.25, 95% CI - 0.48 to - 0.09; beta trend change = - 0.03, 95% CI - 0.04 to - 0.01), with both age groups observing a positive trend change with high-intensity statins (65-75 years: beta = 0.11, 95% CI 0.02-0.21; > /= 76 years: beta = 0.05, 95% CI 0.01-0.09). CONCLUSION: Overall, statin use in US nursing homes increased from 2011 to 2016. Guidelines and statin-related events appeared to impact use in the nursing home setting. As such, statin guidelines and messaging should provide special consideration for nursing home populations, who may have more risk than benefit from statin pharmacotherapy.

OBJECTIVE: We estimated the use of prescribed analgesics and adjuvants among nursing home residents without cancer who reported pain at their admission assessment, in relation to resident-reported pain severity. METHODS: Medicare Part D claims were used to define 3 classes of analgesics and 7 classes of potential adjuvants on the 21st day after nursing home admission (or the day of discharge for residents discharged before that date) among 180,780 residents with complete information admitted between January 1, 2011 and December 9, 2016, with no cancer diagnosis. RESULTS: Of these residents, 27.9% reported mild pain, 46.6% moderate pain, and 25.6% reported severe pain. The prevalence of residents in pain without Part D claims for prescribed analgesic and/or adjuvant medications was 47.3% among those reporting mild pain, 35.7% among those with moderate pain, and 24.8% among those in severe pain. Among residents reporting severe pain, 33% of those > /= 85 years of age and 35% of those moderately cognitively impaired received no prescription analgesics/adjuvants. Use of all classes of prescribed analgesics and adjuvants increased with resident-reported pain severity, and the concomitant use of medications from multiple classes was common. CONCLUSION: Among nursing home residents with recognized pain, opportunities to improve the pharmacologic management of pain, especially among older residents, and those living with cognitive impairments exist.

BACKGROUND: Research comparing direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOACs) to warfarin has excluded nursing home residents, a vulnerable and high-risk population. OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and effectiveness of DOACs versus warfarin. DESIGN: New-user cohort study (2011-2016). PATIENTS: US nursing home residents aged > 65 years with non-valvular atrial fibrillation enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare for > 6 months. EXPOSURES: Initiators of DOACs (2881 apixaban, 1289 dabigatran, 3735 rivaroxaban) were 1:1 propensity matched to warfarin initiators. MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes included ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (i.e., ischemic cerebrovascular event), bleeding (extracranial or intracranial), other vascular events, death, and a composite of all outcomes. Absolute rate differences (RD) and cause-specific hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated. Subgroup analyses were performed by alignment of DOAC dosing with labeling. KEY RESULTS: Median age (84 years), CHA2DS2-Vasc (5), and ATRIA risk scores (3) were similar across medications. Clinical outcome rates were similar for dabigatran and rivaroxaban users versus warfarin users. However, ischemic cerebrovascular event rates were higher among dabigatran and rivaroxaban users that received reduced dosages without an indication. Overall, apixaban users had higher ischemic cerebrovascular event rates (HR 1.86; 95% CI 1.00-3.45) and lower bleeding rates (HR 0.66; 95% CI 0.49-0.88), but outcome rates varied by dosing alignment. Mortality rates (per 100 person-years) were lower for apixaban (RDs - 9.30; 95% CI - 13.18 to - 5.42), dabigatran (RDs - 10.79; 95% CI - 14.98 to - 6.60), and rivaroxaban (RDs - 8.92; 95% CI - 12.01 to - 5.83) versus warfarin; composite outcome findings were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Among US nursing home residents, the DOACs were each associated with lower mortality versus warfarin. Misaligned DOAC dosing was common in nursing homes and was associated with clinical and mortality outcomes. Overall, DOAC users had lower rates of adverse outcomes including mortality compared with warfarin users.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the prevalence and factors associated with statin pharmacotherapy in long-stay nursing home residents with life-limiting illness. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: US Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home facilities. PARTICIPANTS: Long-stay nursing home resident Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with life-limiting illness (n = 424 212). MEASUREMENTS: Prevalent statin use was estimated as any low-moderate intensity (daily dose low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol [LDL-C] reduction < 30%-50%) and high-intensity (daily dose LDL-C reduction > 50%) use via Medicare Part D claims for a prescription supply on September 30, 2016, with a 90-day look-back period. Life-limiting illness was operationally defined to capture those near the end of life using evidence-based criteria to identify progressive terminal conditions or limited prognoses ( < 6 mo). Poisson models provided estimates of adjusted prevalence ratios and 95% confidence intervals for resident factors. RESULTS: A total of 34% of residents with life-limiting illness were prescribed statins (65-75 y = 44.0%, high intensity = 11.1%; > 75 y = 31.1%, high intensity = 5.4%). Prevalence of statins varied by life-limiting illness definition. Of those with a prognosis of less than 6 months, 23% of the 65 to 75 and 12% of the older than 75 age groups were on statins. Factors positively associated with statin use included minority race or ethnicity, use of more than five concurrent medications, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease or risk factors. CONCLUSION: Despite having a life-limiting illness, more than one-third of clinically compromised long-stay nursing home residents remain on statins. Although recent national guidelines have expanded indications for statins, the benefit of continued therapy in an advanced age population near the end of life is questionable. Efforts to deprescribe statins in the nursing home setting may be warranted.

BACKGROUND: Antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) are commonly used by nursing home residents, both on- and off-label. The landscape of AED use has changed over the past two decades; however, despite this, contemporaneous research on AED use in US nursing home residents is scant. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of AED use, describe prescribing patterns, identify factors associated with AED use, and assess whether these factors differ among AEDs with expanded indications in older adults (i.e. gabapentin, pregabalin, topiramate, and lamotrigine). METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study among 549,240 long-stay older residents who enrolled in fee-for-service Medicare and lived in 15,111 US nursing homes on 1 September 2016. Demographics and conditions associated with AED indications, epilepsy comorbidities, and safety data came from the Minimum Data Set Version 3.0 (MDS 3.0). Medicare Part D claims were used to identify AED use. Robust Poisson models and multinomial logistic models for clustered data estimated adjusted prevalence ratios (aPR), adjusted odds ratios (aOR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: Overall, 24.0% used AEDs (gabapentin [13.3%], levetiracetam [4.7%], phenytoin [1.9%], pregabalin [1.8%], and lamotrigine [1.2%]). AED use was associated with epilepsy (aPR 3.73, 95% CI 3.69-3.77), bipolar disorder (aPR 1.20, 95% CI 1.18-1.22), pain (aPRmoderate/severe vs. no pain 1.42, 95% CI 1.40-1.44), diabetes (aPR 1.27, 95% CI 1.26-1.28), anxiety (aPR 1.12, 95% CI 1.11-1.13), depression (aPR 1.17, 95% CI 1.15-1.18), or stroke (aPR 1.08, 95% CI 1.06-1.09). Residents with advancing age (aPR85+ vs. 65-74 years 0.73, 95% CI 0.73-0.74), Alzheimer's disease/dementia (aPR 0.87, 95% CI 0.86-0.88), or cognitive impairment (aPRsevere vs. no impairment 0.62, 95% CI 0.61-0.63) had decreased AED use. Gabapentinoid use was highly associated with pain (aORmoderate/severe vs. no pain 2.07, 95% CI 2.01-2.12) and diabetes (aOR 1.79, 95% CI 1.76-1.82), but not with an epilepsy indication. CONCLUSIONS: AED use was common in nursing homes, with gabapentin most commonly used (presumably for pain). That multiple comorbidities were associated with AED use underscores the need for future studies to investigate the safety and effectiveness of AED use in nursing home residents.

OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to describe the prevalence of adjuvants to opioid therapy and changes in these agents for pharmacologic management in nursing home residents with cancer. METHODS: We included Medicare beneficiaries with cancer and documented opioid use at nursing home admission in 2011-2013 (N = 3268). The Minimum Data Set 3.0 provided information on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Part D claims provided information on opioid and adjuvant use during the 7 days after admission and 90 days later. Proportions of changes in these agents were estimated. Separate logistic models estimated associations between resident characteristics and (1) use of adjuvants at admission and (2) intensification of pharmacologic management at 90 days. RESULTS: Nearly 20% of patients received adjuvants to opioids at admission, with gabapentin the most common adjuvant (34.4%). After 90 days, approximately 25% had maintained or intensified pharmacologic management. While advanced age ( > /= 85 vs. 65-74 years, adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.63-1.02) and comorbidities, including dementia (aOR 0.65; 95% CI 0.53-0.82) and depression (aOR 1.55; 95% CI 1.29-1.87), were associated with adjuvant use at admission, worse cognitive impairment (severe vs. no/mild, aOR 0.80; 95% CI 0.64-0.99) and presence of more severe pain (moderate/severe vs. no pain, aOR 1.60; 95% CI 1.26-2.03) were associated with intensification of drug regimen. CONCLUSION: Given aging-related changes and the presence of comorbid conditions in older adults, safety studies of these practices are warranted.

Background: Nursing home residents with atrial fibrillation are at high risk for ischemic stroke and bleeding events. The most recent national estimate (2004) indicated less than one third of this high-risk population was anticoagulated. Whether direct-acting oral anticoagulant ( DOAC ) use has disseminated into nursing homes and increased anticoagulant use is unknown. Methods and Results: A repeated cross-sectional design was used to estimate the point prevalence of oral anticoagulant use on July 1 and December 31 of calendar years 2011 to 2016 among Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries with atrial fibrillation residing in long-stay nursing homes. Nursing home residence was determined using Minimum Data Set 3.0 records. Medicare Part D claims for apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin were identified and point prevalence was estimated by determining if the supply from the most recent dispensing covered each point prevalence date. A Cochran-Armitage test was performed for linear trend in prevalence. On December 31, 2011, 42.3% of 33 959 residents (median age: 85; Q1 79, Q3 90) were treated with an oral anticoagulant, of whom 8.6% used DOACs. The proportion receiving treatment increased to 47.8% of 37 787 residents as of December 31, 2016 ( P < 0.01); 48.2% of 18 054 treated residents received DOAC s. Demographic and clinical characteristics of residents using DOAC s and warfarin were similar in 2016. Half of the 8734 DOAC users received standard dosages and most were treated with apixaban (54.4%) or rivaroxaban (35.8%) in 2016. Conclusions: Increases in anticoagulant use among US nursing home residents with atrial fibrillation coincided with declining warfarin use and increasing DOAC use.

CONTEXT: Despite many nursing home residents experiencing pain, research about the multidimensional nature of non-malignant pain in these residents is scant. OBJECTIVES: To identify and describe pain symptom subgroups and to evaluate whether subgroups differed by sex. METHODS: Using Minimum Data Set 3.0 data (2011-2012), we identified newly admitted nursing home residents reporting pain (n=119,379). A latent class analysis included 13 indicators: markers for pain (i.e., severity, frequency, impacts sleep and function) and depressive symptoms. Sex was evaluated as a grouping variable. Multinomial logistic models identified the association between latent class membership and covariates, including age and cognitive impairment. RESULTS: Four latent subgroups were identified were: Severe (15.2%), Moderate Frequent (26.4%), Moderate Occasional with (26.4%) and without (32.0%) Depressive Symptoms. Measurement invariance by sex was ruled out. Depressed mood, sleep disturbances, and fatigue distinguished subgroups. Age > /= 75 years was inversely associated with belonging to the Severe, Moderate Frequent, or Moderate Occasional with Depressive Symptoms subgroups. Residents with severe cognitive impairment had reduced odds of membership in the Severe Pain subgroup (adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 0.84; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-0.90) and Moderate Frequent Pain subgroup (aOR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.56-0.64) but increased odds in the Moderate Occasional Pain with Depressive Symptoms subgroup (aOR: 1.12; 95% CI: 1.06-1.18). CONCLUSION: Identifying subgroups of residents with different patterns of pain and depressive symptoms highlights the need to consider physical and psychological components of pain. Expanding knowledge about pain symptom subgroups may provide a promising avenue to improve pain management in nursing home residents.