Uptake of evidence by physicians: De-adoption of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents after the TREAT trial

• Main Authors: Khoa Vu, Jiani Zhou, Alexander Everhart, Nihar Desai, Jeph Herrin, Anupam B. Jena, Joseph S. Ross, Nilay D. Shah, Pinar Karaca-Mandic
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2021-08-01
• Series: BMC Nephrology
• Subjects: De-adoption; Physician prescribing; Medication utilization; Medical safety
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-021-02491-y

Abstract Background Variation in de-adoption of ineffective or unsafe treatments is not well-understood. We examined de-adoption of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESA) in anemia treatment among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) following new clinical evidence of harm and ineffectiveness (the TREAT trial) and the FDA’s revision of its safety warning. Method We used a segmented regression approach to estimate changes in use of epoetin alfa (EPO) and darbepoetin alfa (DPO) in the commercial, Medicare Advantage (MA) and Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) populations. We also examined how changes in both trends and levels of use were associated with physicians’ characteristics. Results Use of DPO and EPO declined over the study period. There were no consistent changes in DPO trend across insurance groups, but the level of DPO use decreased right after the FDA revision in all groups. The decline in EPO use trend was faster after the TREAT trial for all groups. Nephrologists were largely more responsive to evidence than primary care physicians. Differences by physician’s gender, and age were not consistent across insurance populations and types of ESA. Conclusions Physician specialty has a dominant role in prescribing decision, and that specializations with higher use of treatment (nephrologists) were more responsive to new evidence of unsafety and ineffectiveness.