AIMThe aim of the present study was to explore the impact of strategies to reduce polypharmacy on mortality, hospitalization and change in number of drugs. METHODSSystematic review and meta-analysis: a systematic literature search targeting patients ≥65 years with polypharmacy (≥4 drugs), focusing on patient-relevant outcome measures, was conducted. We included controlled studies aiming to reduce polypharmacy. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and evaluated study quality. RESULTSTwenty-five studies, including 10 980 participants, were included, comprising 21 randomized controlled trials and four nonrandomized controlled trials. The majority of the included studies aimed at improving quality or the appropriateness of prescribing by eliminating inappropriate and non-evidence-based drugs. These strategies to reduce polypharmacy had no effect on all-cause mortality (odds ratio 1.02; 95% confidence interval 0.84, 1.23). Only single studies found improvements, in terms of reducing the number of hospital admissions, in favour of the intervention group. At baseline, patients were taking, on average, 7.4 drugs in both the intervention and the control groups. At follow-up, the weighted mean number of drugs was reduced (À0.2) in the intervention group but increased (+0.2) in controls. CONCLUSIONSThere is no convincing evidence that the strategies assessed in the present review are effective in reducing polypharmacy or have an impact on clinically relevant endpoints. Interventions are complex; it is still unclear how best to organize and implement them to achieve a reduction in inappropriate polypharmacy. There is therefore a need to develop more effective strategies to reduce inappropriate polypharmacy and to test them in large, pragmatic randomized controlled trials on effectiveness and feasibility. British Journal of Clinical PharmacologyBr J Clin Pharmacol (2016) 82 532-548 532

BackgroundSelf-management support is a key component of effective chronic care management, yet in practice appears to be the least implemented and most challenging. This study explores whether and how self-management support is integrated into chronic care approaches in 13 European countries. In addition, it investigates the level of and barriers to implementation of support strategies in health care practice.MethodsWe conducted a review among the 13 participating countries, based on a common data template informed by the Chronic Care Model. Key informants presented a sample of representative chronic care approaches and related self-management support strategies. The cross-country review was complemented by a Dutch case study of health professionals’ views on the implementation of self-management support in practice.ResultsSelf-management support for chronically ill patients remains relatively underdeveloped in Europe. Similarities between countries exist mostly in involved providers (nurses) and settings (primary care). Differences prevail in mode and format of support, and materials used. Support activities focus primarily on patients’ medical and behavioral management, and less on emotional management. According to Dutch providers, self-management support is not (yet) an integral part of daily practice; implementation is hampered by barriers related to, among others, funding, IT and medical culture.ConclusionsAlthough collaborative care for chronic conditions is becoming more important in European health systems, adequate self-management support for patients with chronic disease is far from accomplished in most countries. There is a need for better understanding of how we can encourage both patients and health care providers to engage in productive interactions in daily chronic care practice, which can improve health and social outcomes.

The growing recognition of care fragmentation is causing many countries to explore new approaches to healthcare delivery that can bridge the boundaries between professions, providers and institutions and so better support the rising number of people with chronic health problems. This paper examines the role of the regulatory, funding and organisational context for the development and implementation of approaches to chronic care, using examples from Austria, Germany and the Netherlands. We find that the three countries have implemented a range of policies and approaches to achieve better coordination within and across the primary and secondary care interface and so better meet the needs of patients with chronic conditions. This has involved changes to the regulatory framework to support more coordinated approaches to care (Austria, Germany), coupled with financial incentives (Austria, Germany) or changes in payment systems (the Netherlands). What is common to the three countries is the comparative 'novelty' of policies and approaches aimed at fostering coordinated care; however, the evidence of their impact remains unclear.

The frequency of medication errors is high in patients with polypharmacy in primary care. Development of strategies (e.g. external medication review) is required to counteract medication errors.

Abstract Objective To evaluate the effects of a computerised decision support tool for comprehensive drug review in elderly people with polypharmacy. Design Pragmatic, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting 359 general practices in Austria, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Participants 3904 adults aged 75 years and older using eight or more drugs on a regular basis, recruited by their general practitioner. Intervention A newly developed electronic decision support tool comprising a comprehensive drug review to support general practitioners in deprescribing potentially inappropriate and non-evidence based drugs. Doctors were randomly allocated to either the electronic decision support tool or to provide treatment as usual. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months. The key secondary outcome was reduction in the number of drugs. Results 3904 adults were enrolled between January and October 2015. 181 practices and 1953 participants were assigned to electronic decision support (intervention group) and 178 practices and 1951 participants to treatment as usual (control group). The primary outcome (composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months) occurred in 871 (44.6%) participants in the intervention group and 944 (48.4%) in the control group. In an intention-to-treat analysis the odds ratio of the composite outcome was 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.07; P=0.19, 997 of 1953 v 1055 of 1951). In an analysis restricted to participants attending practice according to protocol, a difference was found favouring the intervention (odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98; 774 of 1682 v 873 of 1712, P=0.03). By 24 months the number of prescribed drugs had decreased in the intervention group compared with control group (uncontrolled mean change −0.42 v 0.06: adjusted mean difference −0.45, 95% confidence interval −0.63 to −0.26; P<0.001). Conclusions In intention-to-treat analysis, a computerised decision support tool for comprehensive drug review of elderly people with polypharmacy showed no conclusive effects on the composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months. Nonetheless, a reduction in drugs was achieved without detriment to patient outcomes. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN10137559 .

BackgroundMultimorbidity is increasing in aging populations with a corresponding increase in polypharmacy as well as inappropriate prescribing. Depending on definitions, 25-50 % of patients aged 75 years or older are exposed to at least five drugs. Evidence is increasing that polypharmacy, even when guidelines advise the prescribing of each drug individually, can potentially cause more harm than benefit to older patients, due to factors such as drug-drug and drug-disease interactions. Several approaches reducing polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing have been proposed, but evidence showing a benefit of these measures regarding clinically relevant endpoints is scarce. There is an urgent need to implement more effective strategies. We therefore set out to develop an evidence-based electronic decision support (eDS) tool to aid physicians in reducing inappropriate prescribing and test its effectiveness in a large-scale cluster-randomized controlled trial.MethodsThe “Polypharmacy in chronic diseases–Reduction of Inappropriate Medication and Adverse drug events in older populations” (PRIMA)-eDS tool is a tool comprising an indication check and recommendations for the reduction of polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing based on systematic reviews and guidelines, the European list of inappropriate medications for older people, the SFINX-database of interactions, the PHARAO-database on adverse effects, and the RENBASE-database on renal dosing. The tool will be evaluated in a cluster-randomized controlled trial involving 325 general practitioners (GPs) and around 3500 patients across five study centres in the United Kingdom, Germany, Austria and Italy. GP practices will be asked to recruit 11 patients aged 75 years or older who are taking at least eight medications and will be cluster-randomized after completion of patient recruitment. Intervention GPs will have access to the PRIMA-eDS tool, while control GPs will treat their patients according to current guidelines (usual care) without access to the PRIMA-eDS tool. After an observation time of 2 years, intervention and control groups will be compared regarding the primary composite endpoint of first non-elective hospitalization or death.DiscussionThe principal hypothesis is that reduction of polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing can improve the clinical composite outcome of hospitalization or death. A positive result of the trial will contribute substantially to the improvement of care in multimorbidity. The trial is necessary to investigate not only whether the reduction of polypharmacy improves outcome, but also whether GPs and patients are willing to follow the recommendations of the PRIMA-eDS tool.Trial registrationThis trial has been registered with Current Controlled Trials Ltd. on 31 July 2014 (ISRCTN10137559).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1177-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Elective surgery is usually preceded by preoperative diagnostics to minimize risk. The results are assumed to elicit preventive measures or even cancellation of surgery. Moreover, physicians perform preoperative tests as a baseline to detect subsequent changes. This systematic review aims to explore whether preoperative testing leads to changes in management or reduces perioperative mortality or morbidity in unselected patients undergoing elective, non-cardiac surgery. We systematically searched all relevant databases from January 2001 to February 2011 for studies investigating the relationship between preoperative diagnostics and perioperative outcome. Our methodology was based on the manual of the Ludwig Boltzmann Institute for Health Technology Assessment, the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) handbook, and the PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews. One hundred and one of the 25 281 publications retrieved met our inclusion criteria. Three test grid studies used a randomized controlled design and 98 studies used an observational design. The test grid studies show that in cataract surgery and ambulatory surgery, there are no significant differences between patients with indicated preoperative testing and no testing regarding perioperative outcome. The observational studies do not provide valid evidence that preoperative testing is beneficial in healthy adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery. There is no evidence derived from high-quality studies that supports routine preoperative testing in healthy adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Testing according to pathological findings in a patient's medical history or physical examination seems justified, although the evidence is scarce. High-quality studies, especially large randomized controlled trials, are needed to explore the effectiveness of indicated preoperative testing.

BackgroundDisease management programmes (DMPs) are costly and impose additional work load on general practitioners (GPs). Data on their effectiveness are inconclusive. We therefore conducted a cluster-randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the Austrian DMP for diabetes mellitus type 2 on HbA1c and quality of care for adult patients in primary care.MethodsAll GPs of Salzburg-province were invited to participate. After cluster-randomisation by district, all patients with diabetes type 2 were recruited consecutively from 7-11/2007. The DMP, consisting mainly of physician and patient education, standardised documentation and agreement on therapeutic goals, was implemented in the intervention group while the control group received usual care. We aimed to show superiority of the intervention regarding metabolic control and process quality. The primary outcome measure was a change in HbA1c after one year. Secondary outcomes were days in the hospital, blood pressure, lipids, body mass index (BMI), enrolment in patient education and regular guideline-adherent examination. Blinding was not possible.Results92 physicians recruited 1489 patients (649 intervention, 840 control). After 401 ± 47 days, 590 intervention-patients and 754 controls had complete data. In the intention to treat analysis (ITT) of all 1489 patients, HbA1c decreased 0.41% in the intervention group and 0.28% in controls. The difference of -0.13% (95% CI -0.24; -0.02) was significant at p = 0.026. Significance was lost in mixed models adjusted for baseline value and cluster-effects (adjusted mean difference -0.03 (95% CI -0.15; 0.09, p = 0.607). Of the secondary outcome measures, BMI and cholesterol were significantly reduced in the intervention group compared to controls in ITT after adjustments (-0.53 kg/m²; 95% CI -1.03;-0.02; p = 0.014 and -0.10 mmol/l; 95% CI -0.21; -0.003; p = 0.043). Additionally, more patients received patient education (49.5% vs. 20.1%, p < 0.0001), eye- (71.0% vs. 51.2%, p < 0.0001), foot examinations (73.8% vs. 45.1%, p < 0.0001), and regular HbA1c checks (44.1% vs. 36.0%, p < 0.01) in the intervention group.ConclusionThe Austrian DMP implemented by statutory health insurance improves process quality and enhances weight reduction, but does not significantly improve metabolic control for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Whether the small benefit seen in secondary outcome measures leads to better patient outcomes, remains unclear.Trial RegistrationCurrent Controlled trials Ltd., ISRCTN27414162.