Back

A Framework for Inferring and Analyzing Pharmacotherapy Treatment Patterns

Rush, E.; Ozmen, O.; Kim, M.; Ortegon, E. R.; Jones, M.; Park, B. H.; Pizer, S.; Trafton, J.; Brenen, L.; Ward, M.; Nebeker, J. R.

2022-07-29 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2022.07.27.22277782 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveTo discover pharmacotherapy prescription patterns and their statistical associations with outcomes through a clinical pathway inference framework applied on real-world data. Materials and MethodsWe apply machine learning steps in our framework using a 2006 to 2020 cohort of veterans with major depressive disorder (MDD). Outpatient antidepressant pharmacy and emergency department visits, self-harm, and all-cause mortality data were extracted from the Department of Veterans Affairs Corporate Data Warehouse. ResultsOur MDD cohort consisted of 252,179 individuals. During the study period there were 98,417 cases of emergency department visits, 1,016 cases of self-harm, and 1,507 deaths from all causes. The top ten prescription patterns accounted for 69.3% of the data for individuals starting antidepressants at the fluoxetine equivalent of 20-39mg. Additionally, we found associations between outcomes and dosage change. DiscussionFor 252,179 Veterans who served in Iraq and Afghanistan with subsequent MDD noted in their electronic medical record, we documented and described the major pharmacotherapy prescription patterns implemented by VHA providers. Ten patterns accounted for almost 70% of the data. Associations between antidepressant usage and outcomes in observational data may be confounded. The low numbers of adverse events especially associated with all-cause mortality make our calculations imprecise. Furthermore, our outcomes are also the indications for both disease and treatment. Despite these limitations, we demonstrate the usefulness of our framework in providing operational insight into clinical practice, and our results underscore the need for increased monitoring during critical points of treatment.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
40.9%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.5%
50% of probability mass above
3
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
6.6%
4
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.8%
5
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
3.8%
6
Frontiers in Digital Health
20 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.0%
7
Medical Decision Making
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.0%
8
JMIR Formative Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.8%
9
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.8%
10
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
11
BMC Health Services Research
42 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.4%
12
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
13
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.4%
14
Journal of Affective Disorders
81 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
15
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
16
Communications Medicine
85 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
17
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
18
BMC Medical Research Methodology
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
19
BJPsych Open
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
20
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Acta Neuropsychiatrica
12 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
22
Statistics in Medicine
34 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.8%
23
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%