Background Management of patients with polypharmacy is challenging, and evidence for beneficial effects of deprescribing interventions is mixed. This study aimed to investigate whether a patient-centred deprescribing intervention of PCPs results in a reduction of polypharmacy, without increasing the number of adverse disease events and reducing the quality of life, among their older multimorbid patients. Methods This is a cluster-randomised clinical study among 46 primary care physicians (PCPs) with a 12 months follow-up. We randomised PCPs into an intervention and a control group. They recruited 128 and 206 patients if ≥60 years and taking ≥five drugs for ≥6 months. The intervention consisted of a 2-h training of PCPs, encouraging the use of a validated deprescribing-algorithm including shared-decision-making, in comparison to usual care. The primary outcome was the mean difference in the number of drugs per patient (dpp) between baseline and after 12 months. Additional outcomes focused on patient safety and quality of life (QoL) measures. Results Three hundred thirty-four patients, mean [SD] age of 76.2 [8.5] years participated. The mean difference in the number of dpp between baseline and after 12 months was 0.379 in the intervention group (8.02 and 7.64; p = 0.059) and 0.374 in the control group (8.05 and 7.68; p = 0.065). The between-group comparison showed no significant difference at all time points, except for immediately after the intervention (p = 0.002). There were no significant differences concerning patient safety nor QoL measures. Conclusion Our straight-forward and patient-centred deprescribing procedure is effective immediately after the intervention, but not after 6 and 12 months. Further research needs to determine the optimal interval of repeated deprescribing interventions for a sustainable effect on polypharmacy at mid- and long-term. Integrating SDM in the deprescribing process is a key factor for success. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials, prospectively registered ISRCTN16560559 Date assigned 31/10/2014. The Prevention of Polypharmacy in Primary Care Patients Trial (4P-RCT).
BackgroundIn oldest-old patients (>80), few trials showed efficacy of treating hypertension and they included mostly the healthiest elderly. The resulting lack of knowledge has led to inconsistent guidelines, mainly based on systolic blood pressure (SBP), cardiovascular disease (CVD) but not on frailty despite the high prevalence in oldest-old. This may lead to variation how General Practitioners (GPs) treat hypertension. Our aim was to investigate treatment variation of GPs in oldest-olds across countries and to identify the role of frailty in that decision.MethodsUsing a survey, we compared treatment decisions in cases of oldest-old varying in SBP, CVD, and frailty. GPs were asked if they would start antihypertensive treatment in each case. In 2016, we invited GPs in Europe, Brazil, Israel, and New Zealand. We compared the percentage of cases that would be treated per countries. A logistic mixed-effects model was used to derive odds ratio (OR) for frailty with 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for SBP, CVD, and GP characteristics (sex, location and prevalence of oldest-old per GP office, and years of experience). The mixed-effects model was used to account for the multiple assessments per GP.ResultsThe 29 countries yielded 2543 participating GPs: 52% were female, 51% located in a city, 71% reported a high prevalence of oldest-old in their offices, 38% and had >20 years of experience. Across countries, considerable variation was found in the decision to start antihypertensive treatment in the oldest-old ranging from 34 to 88%. In 24/29 (83%) countries, frailty was associated with GPs’ decision not to start treatment even after adjustment for SBP, CVD, and GP characteristics (OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.48–0.59; ORs per country 0.11–1.78).ConclusionsAcross countries, we found considerable variation in starting antihypertensive medication in oldest-old. The frail oldest-old had an odds ratio of 0.53 of receiving antihypertensive treatment. Future hypertension trials should also include frail patients to acquire evidence on the efficacy of antihypertensive treatment in oldest-old patients with frailty, with the aim to get evidence-based data for clinical decision-making.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12877-017-0486-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
We investigated the prevalence and treatment of patients with chronic insomnia presenting to Swiss primary care physicians (PCPs) part of “Sentinella”, a nationwide practice‐based research network. Each PCP consecutively asked 40 patients if they had sleep complaints, documented frequency, duration, comorbidities, and reported ongoing treatment. We analysed data of 63% (83/132) of the PCPs invited. The PCPs asked 76% (2,432/3,216) of included patients about their sleep (51% female); 31% (761/2,432) of these had had insomnia symptoms; 36% (875/2,432) had current insomnia symptoms; 11% (269/2,432) met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM‐5) criteria for chronic insomnia (61% female). In all, 75% (201/269) of patients with chronic insomnia had comorbidities, with 49% (99/201) reporting depression. Chronic insomnia was treated in 78% (209/269); 70% (188/268) took medication, 38% (102/268) benzodiazepines or benzodiazepine receptor agonists, 32% (86/268) took antidepressants. Only 1% (three of 268) had been treated with cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia (CBT‐I). A third of patients presenting for a non‐urgent visit in Swiss primary care reported insomnia symptoms and 11% met the DSM‐5 criteria for chronic insomnia. Hypnotics were the most common treatment, but almost no patients received first‐line CBT‐I. Reducing the burden of insomnia depends on disseminating knowledge about and access to CBT‐I, and encouraging PCPs to discuss it with and offer it as a first‐line treatment to patients with chronic insomnia.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.