No abstract

Adherence to inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) in asthma is suboptimal. Patients may rely more on their short-acting beta-agonist (SABA) to control symptoms, which may increase their risk of exacerbations and uncontrolled asthma. Our objective is to describe ICS adherence and SABA use among Dutch primary care patients with asthma, and how these are related to exacerbations and self-reported asthma control. Patients aged ≥12 years diagnosed with asthma who received ≥2 inhalation medication prescriptions in 2016 were selected from the Nivel Primary Care Database. ICS adherence (continuous measure of medication availability), SABA use (number of prescriptions), exacerbations (short courses of oral corticosteroids with daily dose ≥20 mg), and asthma control (self-reported with the Asthma Control Questionnaire; ACQ) were computed. Multilevel logistic regression analyses, to account for clustering of patients within practices, were used to model associations between ICS adherence, SABA use, and asthma outcomes. Prescription data of 13,756 patients were included. ICS adherence averaged 62% (SD: 32.7), 14% of patients received ≥3 SABA prescriptions, and 13% of patients experienced ≥1 exacerbation. Self-reported asthma control was available for 2183 patients of whom 51% reported controlled asthma (ACQ-5 score <0.75). A higher number of SABA prescriptions was associated with a higher risk of exacerbations and uncontrolled asthma, even with high ICS adherence (>90%). ICS adherence was not associated with exacerbations, whilst poor ICS adherence (≤50%) was associated with uncontrolled asthma. In conclusion, increased SABA use is an important and easily identifiable signal for general practitioners to discuss asthma self-management behavior with their patients.

Aim: Pain is increasingly treated with opioids. Potential harms of opioid therapy disproportionally affect older patients. This study aims to provide information on trends, nature and duration of opioid prescribing to older adults, in primary care and to explore differences between older patients from different ages. Methods: Primary care data (2005-2017) were derived from routine electronic medical records of patients in Nivel Primary Care Database. All opioid prescriptions with Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification (ATC) code N02A were selected (except for codeine). Diagnoses were recorded using the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC). Patients were categorized in three age groups (65-74, 75-84, and ≥85 years). Descriptive analyses were used to describe the trend of opioid prescriptions for specific opioids, the duration of use and underlying diagnoses. Results: 283,600 patients were included of which 32,287 had at least one opioid prescription in 2017. An increase in the number of older adults who received at least one opioid was seen between 2005 and 2017. The oldest patients were more likely to be prescribed an opioid, especially when it comes to strong opioids, the increase in the volume of prescribing was highest in this group. Moreover, over 40% of the oldest patients used strong opioids chronically. Strong opioids were mostly prescribed for musculoskeletal diagnoses. Cancer was the second most common diagnosis for strong opioids in the younger subgroups, whereas less specified diagnoses were as second in the oldest subgroup. Conclusion: Opioid prescription changes with increasing age in frequency, nature, and duration, despite higher harm risks among older patients. Because of the high prevalence of chronic use, it is important to monitor the patient throughout the treatment and to critically evaluate the initiation and continuation of opioid prescriptions.

COVID-19 restrictions have resulted in major changes in healthcare, including the prescribing of antibiotics. We aimed to monitor antibiotic prescribing trends during the COVID-19 pandemic in Dutch general practice, both during daytime and out-of-hours (OOH). Routine care data were used from 379 daytime general practices (DGP) and 28 OOH-services over the period 2019–2021. Per week, we analyzed prescription rates per 100,000 inhabitants, overall, for respiratory and urinary tract infections (RTIs and UTIs) specifically and within age categories. We assessed changes in antibiotic prescribing during different phases of the pandemic using interrupted time series analyses. Both at DGPs and OOH-services significantly fewer antibiotics were prescribed during the COVID-19 pandemic after government measures became effective. Furthermore, the number of contacts decreased in both settings. When restrictions were revoked in 2021 prescription rates increased both at DGP and OOH-services, returning to pre-pandemic levels at OOH-services, but not in DGP. Changes in antibiotic prescribing rates were prominent for RTIs and among children up to 11 years old, but not for UTIs. To conclude, while antibiotic prescribing decreased during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic both in daytime and out-of-hours, the pandemic does not seem to have a lasting effect on antibiotic prescribing.

Respiratory tract infections (RTIs) account for a large part of antibiotic prescriptions in primary care. However, guidelines advise restrictive antibiotic prescribing for RTIs. Only in certain circumstances, depending on, e.g., comorbidity, are antibiotics indicated. Most studies on guideline adherence do not account for this. We aimed to assess guideline adherence for antibiotic prescribing for RTIs as well as its variation between general practices (GPs), accounting for patient characteristics. We used data from electronic health records of GPs in the Netherlands. We selected patients who consulted their GP for acute cough, rhinitis, rhinosinusitis or sore throat in 2014. For each disease episode we assessed whether, according to the GP guideline, there was an indication for antibiotics, using the patient’s sociodemographic characteristics, comorbidity and co-medication. We assessed antibiotic prescribing for episodes with no or an unsure indication according to the guidelines. We analysed 248,896 episodes. Diagnoses with high rates of antibiotic prescribing when there was no indication include acute tonsillitis (57%), strep throat (56%), acute bronchitis (51%) and acute sinusitis (48%). Prescribing rates vary greatly between diagnoses and practices. Reduction of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing remains a key target to tackle antimicrobial resistance. Insight into reasons for guideline non-adherence may guide successful implementation of the variety of interventions already available for GPs and patients.

Background General practitioners (GPs) can be considered the designated professionals to identify high fall risk and to guide older people to fall preventive care. Currently it is not exactly known how GPs treat this risk. This study aims to investigate GPs’ daily practice regarding fall preventive care for frail older patients. Methods Sixty-five GPs from 32 Dutch practices participated in this study for a period of 12 months. When a GP entered specific International Classification of Primary Care-codes related to frailty and/or high fall risk in their Electronic Health Records, a pop-up appeared asking “Is this patient frail?”. If the GP confirmed this, the GP completed a short questionnaire about patient’s fall history and fear of falling (FOF), and the fall preventive care provided. Results The GPs completed questionnaires regarding 1394 frail older patients aged ≥75. Of 20% of these patients, the GPs did not know whether they had experienced a fall or not. The GPs did not know whether a FOF existed in even more patients (29%). Of the patients with a fall history and/or a FOF (N = 726), 37% (N = 271) received fall preventive care. Two main reasons for not offering fall preventive care to these patients were: I) the patient finds treatment too intensive or too much of a hassle (37%), and II) the GP identified a high fall risk but the patient did not acknowledge this (14%). When patients were treated for high fall risk, the GP and the physiotherapist were the most frequently involved health care providers. The involved health care providers most often treated mobility limitations, cardiovascular risk factors, and FOF. Conclusions The results from this study show that GPs were frequently not aware of their frail patient’s fall history and/or FOF and that the majority of the frail older patients with a fall history and/or FOF did not receive fall preventive care. Developing systematic screening strategies for the primary care setting enhancing the identification of high fall risk and the provision of fall preventive care may improve patients’ quality of life and reduce health care costs.

Background The immediacy of the onset of opioids may be associated with the risk of dependency and accidental overdose. Nasal and oromucosal fentanyl dosage forms are so called immediate release fentanyl (IRF). These IRFs have been approved to treat breakthrough pain in patients with cancer who are on chronic opioid treatment only. There are signals of increased off-label prescribing of IRFs in general practices. Objectives This study aims to provide insight into the frequency of IRF prescription in Dutch general practices and the extent to which IRF is prescribed off-label. Methods Routinely collected electronic health records of general practices (GPs) participating in Nivel Primary Care Database were used. Adult patients with IRF prescriptions in 2019 were selected from whom dispensing data on 2018 and 2019 was available. Diagnoses were recorded by GPs using International Classification of Primary Care. Descriptive analyses were performed. Results This study included 342 GPs with a patient population of 1,297,942 patients, 1,368 patients received at least one IRF prescription in 2019, which is equal to 1.1 patients per 1,000 registered patients. Most patients (74.9%) with an IRF prescription received an off-label prescription. A slight majority had a cancer diagnosis but nearly 65.2% did not have a maintenance therapy and 14% were opioid-naive before receiving their first IRF prescription. Conclusion IRFs are not prescribed frequently in Dutch general practices. However, when prescribed, a relatively large portion of patients received an off-label prescription.

No abstract