Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a notable increase in telemedicine adoption. However, the impact of the pandemic on telemedicine use at a population level in rural and remote settings remains unclear. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate changes in the rate of telemedicine use among rural populations and identify patient characteristics associated with telemedicine use prior to and during the pandemic. Methods: We conducted a repeated cross-sectional study on all monthly and quarterly rural telemedicine visits from January 2012 to June 2020, using administrative data from Ontario, Canada. We compared the changes in telemedicine use among residents of rural and urban regions of Ontario prior to and during the pandemic. Results: Before the pandemic, telemedicine use was steadily low in 2012-2019 for both rural and urban populations but slightly higher overall for rural patients (11 visits per 1000 patients vs 7 visits per 1000 patients in December 2019, P<.001). The rate of telemedicine visits among rural patients significantly increased to 147 visits per 1000 patients in June 2020. A similar but steeper increase (P=.15) was observed among urban patients (220 visits per 1000 urban patients). Telemedicine use increased across all age groups, with the highest rates reported among older adults aged ≥65 years (77 visits per 100 patients in 2020). The proportions of patients with at least 1 telemedicine visit were similar across the adult age groups (n=82,246/290,401, 28.3% for patients aged 18-49 years, n=79,339/290,401, 27.3% for patients aged 50-64 years, and n=80,833/290,401, 27.8% for patients aged 65-79 years), but lower among younger patients <18 years (n=23,699/290,401, 8.2%) and older patients ≥80 years (n=24,284/290,401, 8.4%) in 2020 (P<.001). There were more female users than male users of telemedicine (n=158,643/290,401, 54.6% vs n=131,758/290,401, 45.4%, respectively, in 2020; P<.001). There was a significantly higher proportion of telemedicine users residing in relatively less rural than in more rural regions (n=261,814/290,401, 90.2% vs n=28,587/290,401, 9.8%, respectively, in 2020; P<.001). Conclusions: Telemedicine adoption increased in rural and remote areas during the COVID-19 pandemic, but its use increased in urban and less rural populations. Future studies should investigate the potential barriers to telemedicine use among rural patients and the impact of rural telemedicine on patient health care utilization and outcomes.

The majority of people with hypertension require more than one medication to achieve blood pressure control. Many patients are prescribed multipill antihypertensive regimens rather than single-pill fixed-dose combination (FDC) treatment. Although FDC use may improve medication adherence, the impact on patient outcomes is unclear. We compared clinical outcomes and medication adherence with FDC therapy versus multipill combination therapy in a real-world setting using linked clinical and administrative databases. We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of 13,350 individuals 66 years and older in Ontario, Canada with up to 5 years of follow-up. We included individuals who were newly initiated on one angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin II-receptor blocker (ARB) plus one thiazide diuretic. High-dimensional propensity score matching was used to compare individuals receiving FDC versus multipill therapy. The primary outcome was a composite of death or hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), heart failure, or stroke. We conducted 2 analyses to examine the association between adherence and patient outcomes. First, we performed an on-treatment analysis to determine whether outcomes differed between groups while patients were on treatment, censoring patients when they first discontinued treatment, defined as not receiving medications within 150% of the previous days’ supply. Second, we conducted an intention-to-treat analysis that followed individuals allowing for breaks in treatment to quantify the difference in drug adherence between groups and assess its impact on clinical outcomes. As expected, there was no significant difference in the primary outcome between groups in the on-treatment analysis (HR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86–1.31, P = 0.60). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the proportion of total follow-up days covered with medications was significantly greater in the FDC group (70%; IQR 19–98) than in the multipill group (42%, IQR 11–91, P < 0.01), and the primary outcome was less frequent in FDC recipients (3.4 versus 3.9 events per 100 person-years; HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81–0.97, P < 0.01). The main limitations of this study were the lack of data regarding cause of death and blood pressure measurements and the possibility of residual confounding. Among older adults initiating combination antihypertensive treatment, FDC therapy was associated with a significantly lower risk of composite clinical outcomes, which may be related to better medication adherence.

To characterize the impacts of policies intended to improve opioid prescribing and prevent opioid-related overdose and death on individuals who take opioids. We conducted a qualitative study using focus groups with 48 adults aged 18 years and over who had experience taking opioids. Participants were recruited from across Ontario, Canada, and separate focus groups were held for individuals taking opioids for chronic pain and individuals taking opioids for other reasons. We drew upon stigma theory to interpret participants' accounts. Following analysis and interpretation, we generated three themes describing the impacts of recently implemented opioid-related policies and harm reduction interventions on people who take opioids: 'propagating stigma: addict as dominant status', 'loss of autonomy' and 'producing/reproducing structural vulnerabilities'. Specifically, participants characterize an environment in which 'addict' has become the dominant social identity ascribed to people who take opioids, and where relationships with providers have become strained as participants perceive themselves to be powerless when decisions regarding opioid use and pain management are made. These shifts in identity and relationships had negative repercussions when help-seeking and exposed larger vulnerabilities related to poverty and criminalization. The introduction of opioid-related policies had unintended consequences for people who take opioids. Potential measures for mitigating these consequences include ensuring that people who take opioids are involved in all facets of policy development and implementation, integrating peer workers into the care of these individuals, and respecting patient agency when decisions about pain management and opioid use are made.

Purpose: Consensus is needed on conceptual foundations, terminology and relationships among the various self‐controlled “trigger” study designs that control for time‐invariant confounding factors and target the association between transient exposures (potential triggers) and abrupt outcomes. The International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) funded a working group of ISPE members to develop guidance material for the application and reporting of self‐controlled study designs, similar to Standards of Reporting Observational Epidemiology (STROBE). This first paper focuses on navigation between the types of self‐controlled designs to permit a foundational understanding with guiding principles.Methods: We leveraged a systematic review of applications of these designs, that we term Self‐controlled Crossover Observational PharmacoEpidemiologic (SCOPE) studies. Starting from first principles and using case examples, we reviewed outcome‐anchored (case‐crossover [CCO], case‐time control [CTC], case‐case‐time control [CCTC]) and exposure‐anchored (self‐controlled case‐series [SCCS]) study designs.Results: Key methodological features related to exposure, outcome and time‐related concerns were clarified, and a common language and worksheet to facilitate the design of SCOPE studies is introduced.Conclusions: Consensus on conceptual foundations, terminology and relationships among SCOPE designs will facilitate understanding and critical appraisal of published studies, as well as help in the design, analysis and review of new SCOPE studies. This manuscript is endorsed by ISPE.

Objective: Antipsychotic use is controversial in the management of adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) because of inconclusive evidence for efficacy in the absence of a comorbid psychiatric condition, and substantial concerns about adverse effects. We aimed to characterize antipsychotic use among Ontario adults with IDD and compare profiles of those with and without a documented psychiatric diagnosis. Method: This population-based study included 51,881 adults with IDD under 65 y as of April 2010 receiving provincial drug benefits in Ontario who were followed until March 2016 to identify those dispensed at least one antipsychotic medication. Profiles of those with and without a psychiatric diagnosis were compared. Results: Overall, 39.2% of adults ( n = 20,316) were dispensed an antipsychotic medication, which increased to 56.4% in a subcohort residing in group homes. Almost one-third (28.91%) of people prescribed an antipsychotic medication did not have a documented psychiatric diagnosis. Those without a psychiatric diagnosis differed considerably from those with a diagnosis. In particular, those without a psychiatric diagnosis were older, less likely to have used antidepressants or benzodiazepines in the year before, and less likely to have used ambulatory and acute care. Conclusions: Antipsychotic use in IDD is common, and occurs frequently without a psychiatric diagnosis. Attention toward how antipsychotics are prescribed and monitored for people with IDD in Canada is warranted to ensure appropriate prescribing.