Potentially Inappropriate Medication in Older Persons With Dementia: Does a Migration Background Matter?

OBJECTIVES: Previous research in the general population shows more potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) among persons with a migration background compared with persons without a migration background. This study investigated the association between non-Western (nw) migration background (MB) and dementia-specific PIMs in older adults with dementia in the Netherlands. DESIGN: Cohort study using routinely recorded electronic health records and administrative data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Electronic health record data of general practitioners from the NIVEL-Primary Care Database, were linked to registries managed by Statistics Netherlands (2013-2014). A total of 9055 community-dwelling older adults with dementia were included, among whom 294 persons had an nw-MB from Africa, South America, or Asia, based on their country of birth. METHODS: We determined the presence of dementia-specific PIM prescriptions and compared this between persons with an nw-MB and without an MB, using logistic regression analysis adjusted for follow-up time, age, registered sex, and total number of prescriptions. Interaction effects of potentially relevant covariates were tested. The 3 largest nw-MB groups in the Netherlands were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Dementia-specific PIMs were less frequently prescribed to persons with an nw-MB compared to persons without an MB with a dementia diagnosis [30.6% vs 34.4%, odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.54-0.92], with especially less often a benzodiazepine prescription in the group with an nw-MB, compared to persons without an MB (15.0% vs 19.3%, OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.84). Dementia duration, living alone, household income, and degree of urbanization did not influence the associations. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Among older adults with dementia in the Netherlands, persons with an nw-MB had less often a dementia-specific PIM prescription compared to persons without an MB. Whether this difference is a reflection of better quality of care, higher professional uncertainty, or less recognition of (mental) health problems in persons with an nw-MB and dementia, needs further investigation.

Optimising personal continuity for older patients in general practice: a cluster randomised stepped wedge pragmatic trial.

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability of a multicomponent intervention for improving personal continuity for older patients in general practice. DESIGN: A cluster randomised three-wedged, pragmatic trial during 18 months. SETTING: 32 general practices in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 221 general practitioners (GPs), practice assistants and other practice staff were included. Practices were instructed to include a random sample of 1050 patients aged 65 or older at baseline and 12-month follow-up. INTERVENTION: The intervention took place at practice level and included opTimise persOnal cOntinuity for oLder (TOOL)-kit: a toolbox containing 34 strategies to improve personal continuity. OUTCOMES: Data were collected at baseline and at six 3-monthly follow-up measurements. Primary outcome measure was experienced continuity of care at the patient level measured by the Nijmegen Continuity Questionnaire (NCQ) with subscales for personal continuity (GP knows me and GP shows commitment) and team/cross-boundary continuity at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes were measured in GPs, practice assistants and other practice staff and included work stress and satisfaction and perceived level of personal continuity. In addition, a process evaluation was undertaken among GPs, practice assistants and other practice staff to assess the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. RESULTS: No significant effect of the intervention was observed on NCQ subscales GP knows me (adjusted mean difference: 0.05 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.15), p=0.383), GP shows commitment (0.03 (95% CI -0.08 to 0.14), p=0.668) and team/cross-boundary (0.01 (95% CI -0.06 to 0.08), p=0.911). All secondary outcomes did not change significantly during follow-up. Process evaluation among GPs, practice assistants and other practice staff showed adequate acceptability of the intervention and partial implementation due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a high perceived workload. CONCLUSION: Although participants viewed TOOL-kit as a practical and accessible toolbox, it did not improve personal continuity as measured with the NCQ. The absence of an effect may be explained by the incomplete implementation of TOOL-kit into practice and the choice of general outcome measures instead of outcomes more specific for the intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials registry Platform (ICTRP), trial NL8132 (URL: ICTRP Search Portal (who.int).

Predicting unplanned hospitalisations in older adults using routinely recorded general practice data.

BACKGROUND: Unplanned hospitalisations represent a hazardous event for older persons. Timely identification of high-risk individuals using a prediction tool may facilitate preventive interventions. AIM: To develop and validate an easy-to-use prediction model for unplanned hospitalisations in community-dwelling older adults using readily available data to allow rapid bedside assessment by general practitioners. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective study using general practice electronic health records of 243,129 community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years linked with national administrative data. METHODS: The dataset was geographically split into a development (58.7%) and validation (41.3%) sample to predict unplanned hospitalisations within 6 months. We evaluated the performance of three different models with increasingly smaller selections of candidate predictors (i.e. optimal, readily-available and easy-to-use model, respectively). We used logistic regression with backward selection for model development. The models were validated internally and externally. We assessed predictive performance by area under the curve (AUC) and calibration plots. RESULTS: In both samples, 7.6% had at least one unplanned hospitalisation within 6 months. The discriminative ability of the three models was comparable and remained stable after geographic validation. The easy-to-use model included age, sex, prior hospitalisations, pulmonary emphysema, heart failure and polypharmacy. Its discriminative ability after validation was AUC 0.72 [95% confidence interval: 0.72-0.71]. Calibration plots showed good calibration. CONCLUSION: Our models showed satisfactory predictive ability. Reducing the number of predictors and geographic validation did not impact predictive performance, demonstrating the robustness of the model. We developed an easy-to-use tool that may assist general practitioners in decision-making and targeted preventive interventions.

Prospective diagnostic accuracy study of history taking and physical examination for adults with vertigo in general practice: study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Vertigo is a prevalent and burdensome symptom. More than 80% of patients with vertigo are primarily treated by their general practitioner (GP) and are never referred to a medical specialist. Despite this therapeutic responsibility, the GP's diagnostic toolkit has serious limitations. All recommended tests lack empirical evidence, because a diagnostic accuracy study on vestibular disorders ('How well does test x discriminate between patients with or without target condition y?') has never been performed in general practice. The VERtigo DIagnosis study aims to fill this gap. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will perform a diagnostic accuracy study on vertigo of primary vestibular origin in general practice to assess the discriminative ability of history taking and physical examination. We will compare all index tests with a respective reference standard. We will focus on five target conditions that account for more than 95% of vertigo diagnoses in general practice: (1) benign paroxysmal positional vertigo, (2) vestibular neuritis, (3) Ménière's disease, (4) vestibular migraine (VM) and (5) central causes other than VM. As these five target conditions have a different pathophysiology and lack one generally accepted gold standard, we will use consensus diagnosis as a construct reference standard. Data for each patient, including history, physical examination and additional tests as recommended by experts in an international Delphi procedure, will be recorded on a standardised form and independently reviewed by a neurologist and otorhinolaryngologist. For each patient, the reviewers have to decide about the presence/absence of each target condition. We will calculate sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, likelihood ratios and diagnostic ORs, followed by decision rules for each target condition. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study obtained approval from the Vrije Universiteit Medical Center Medical Ethical Review Committee (reference: 2022.0817-NL83111.029.22). We will publish our findings in peer-reviewed international journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN97250704.

Health economic evaluation of a nurse-assisted online eye screening in home healthcare to reduce avoidable vision impairment (iScreen): study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Among older people undiagnosed and untreated vision impairment and blindness are common. The leading causes are uncorrected refractive errors and cataracts. Vision problems are associated with a lower quality of life, several health problems, and a higher chance of falling accidents and fractures. To eliminate avoidable vision impairment and blindness, targeted eye screening programs are recommended. Older patients, receiving home healthcare, have not yet been considered as a population at risk who could benefit from eye screening. METHODS: A cluster-randomized controlled trial will be conducted to investigate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of online nurse-assisted eye screening in home healthcare, compared to care as usual, in reducing avoidable vision impairment. A healthcare and societal perspective will be used. The study will be performed in collaboration with several home healthcare organizations in the Netherlands. The online eye screening consists of near and distance visual acuity, followed by an Amsler grading test. Measurements in both groups will take place at baseline and after 6 and 12 months of follow-up. A total of 240 participants will be recruited. Older men and women (65 +), who receive home-based nursing and are cognitively able to participate, will be included. The primary outcome will be the change of two lines or more on the Colenbrander-1 M visual acuity chart between baseline and 12-month follow-up. DISCUSSION: An eye screening for populations at risk contributes to the detection of undiagnosed and untreated vision impairment. This may reduce the health-related consequences of vision loss and the high economic burden associated with vision impairment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06058637. Registered on 27 September 2023.

Study protocol for a nationwide implementation of internet-based vestibular rehabilitation for patients with chronic vestibular symptoms (I-RECOVER).

BACKGROUND: Vestibular rehabilitation is a safe and effective exercise-based treatment for patients with chronic vestibular symptoms. However, it is underused in general practice. Internet-based vestibular rehabilitation (Vertigo Training), which has proven to be effective as well, was developed to increase uptake. We now aim to improve the quality of care for patients with vestibular symptoms by carrying out a nationwide implementation of Vertigo Training. We will evaluate the effect of this implementation on primary care. METHODS: Our implementation study consists of three successive phases: 1) We will perform a retrospective observational cohort study and a qualitative interview study to evaluate the current management of patients with vestibular symptoms in primary care, in particular anti-vertigo drug prescriptions, and identify areas for improvement. We will use the results of this phase to tailor our implementation strategy to the needs of general practitioners (GPs) and patients. 2) This phase entails the implementation of Vertigo Training using a multicomponent implementation strategy, containing: guideline adaptations; marketing strategy; pharmacotherapeutic audit and feedback meetings; education; clinical decision support; and local champions. 3) In this phase, we will evaluate the effect of the implementation in three ways. a. Interrupted time series. We will use routine primary care data from adult patients with vestibular symptoms to compare the number of GP consultations for vestibular symptoms, referrals for vestibular rehabilitation, prescriptions for anti-vertigo drugs, and referrals to physiotherapy and secondary care before and after implementation. b. Prospective observational cohort study. We will extract data from Vertigo Training to investigate the usage and the characteristics of participants. We will also determine whether these characteristics are associated with successful treatment. c. Qualitative interview study. We will conduct interviews with GPs to explore their experiences with the implementation. DISCUSSION: This is one of the first studies to evaluate the effect of a nationwide implementation of an innovative treatment on Dutch primary care. Implementation strategies have been researched before, but it remains unclear which ones are the most effective and under what conditions. We therefore expect to gain relevant insights for future projects that aim to implement innovations in primary care.

[Insomnia: a persistent problem without optimal pharmacological approach]. / Slapeloosheid: een hardnekkig probleem zonder optimale medicamenteuze strategie.

Insomnia is a highly prevalent disorder in the Netherlands, with an estimated prevalence of 7-22%. The use of pharmacological interventions should be restricted, nevertheless, medications for insomnia are often prescribed. The use of off-label pharmacological interventions is increasing, although supporting evidence for these strategies is limited. In order to understand the use of certain on- and off-label strategies, we describe the pathophysiology of insomnia and the clinical pharmacology of various on- and off-label drugs.

Online vestibular rehabilitation for chronic vestibular syndrome: 36-month follow-up of a randomised controlled trial in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Vestibular rehabilitation (VR) is the preferred treatment for chronic vestibular symptoms such as dizziness and vertigo. An internet-based programme was developed to increase uptake of VR. The authors have previously reported that internet-based VR resulted in a clinically relevant decrease of vestibular symptoms for up to 6 months, compared with usual care. AIM: To evaluate long-term outcomes of internet-based VR in patients with chronic vestibular syndrome. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomised controlled trial was conducted in Dutch general practice involving 322 participants aged ≥50 years with chronic vestibular syndrome. Participants were randomised to stand-alone VR, blended VR (with physiotherapy support), and usual care. Usual care participants were allowed to cross over to stand-alone VR 6 months after randomisation. METHOD: Participants were approached 36 months after randomisation. The primary outcome was the presence of vestibular symptoms as measured by the vertigo symptom scale-short form (VSS-SF). Secondary outcomes were dizziness-related impairment, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and healthcare utilisation. RESULTS: At 36-month follow-up, 65% of participants filled in the VSS-SF. In the usual care group, 38% of participants had crossed over to VR at 6 months. There were no significant differences in vestibular symptoms between VR groups and usual care (mean difference = -0.8 points, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.8 to 1.2, for stand-alone VR; -0.3, 95% CI = -2.2 to 1.7, for blended VR). In VR groups, clinically relevant improvement compared with baseline was maintained over time. CONCLUSION: Internet-based VR provides a maintained improvement of vestibular symptoms for up to 36 months in patients with chronic vestibular syndrome.

Personal Continuity and Appropriate Prescribing in Primary Care.

PURPOSE: Personal continuity between patient and physician is a core value of primary care. Although previous studies suggest that personal continuity is associated with fewer potentially inappropriate prescriptions, evidence on continuity and prescribing in primary care is scarce. We aimed to determine the association between personal continuity and potentially inappropriate prescriptions, which encompasses potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs), by family physicians among older patients. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study using routine care data from patients enlisted in 48 Dutch family practices from 2013 to 2018. All 25,854 patients aged 65 years and older having at least 5 contacts with their practice in 6 years were included. We calculated personal continuity using 3 established measures: the usual provider of care measure, the Bice-Boxerman Index, and the Herfindahl Index. We used the Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions (STOPP) and the Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START) specific to the Netherlands version 2 criteria to calculate the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescriptions. To assess associations, we conducted multilevel negative binomial regression analyses, with and without adjustment for number of chronic conditions, age, and sex. RESULTS: The patients' mean (SD) values for the usual provider of care measure, the Bice-Boxerman Continuity of Care Index, and the Herfindahl Index were 0.70 (0.19), 0.55 (0.24), and 0.59 (0.22), respectively. In our population, 72.2% and 74.3% of patients had at least 1 PIM and PPO, respectively; 30.9% and 34.2% had at least 3 PIMs and PPOs, respectively. All 3 measures of personal continuity were positively and significantly associated with fewer potentially inappropriate prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: A higher level of personal continuity is associated with more appropriate prescribing. Increasing personal continuity may improve the quality of prescriptions and reduce harmful consequences.

Nudging General Practitioners to explore suicidal thoughts among depressed patients.

BACKGROUND: While frank discussion of suicidal thoughts in patients with depression is important for the prevention of suicide, suicide exploration of General Practitioners (GPs) is suboptimal. This study aimed to assess whether an intervention that prompts pop-up screens nudges GPs to more frequently explore suicidal thoughts over the course of two years. METHODS: From January 2017 to December 2018, the intervention was incorporated in the information system of the Dutch general practice sentinel network. New registration of an episode of depression triggered a pop-up screen referring to a questionnaire about GPs' behaviour with regard to exploring suicidal thoughts. In two years, 625 questionnaires were completed by GPs and analysed using multilevel logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Compared to the first year, GPs were 50% more likely to explore suicidal thoughts among patients in the second year (OR 1.48; 95%CI 1.01-2.16). When adjusting for patients' gender and age we found that the effect of the pop-up screens disappeared (OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.90-1.97). Suicide exploration occurred less frequently in women than in men (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.43-0.98) and in older compared to younger patients (OR 0.97; 95% CI 0.96-0.98 per year older). In addition, 26% of variation in suicide exploration was because of differences in general practice. There was no evidence that general practices developed differently over time. CONCLUSIONS: Although low cost and easy to administer, the pop-up system was not effective in nudging GPs to explore suicidality more frequently. We encourage studies to test whether implementing these nudges as part of a multifaceted approach will lead to a stronger effect. Moreover, we recommend researchers to include more variables, such as work experience or previous mental health training, to better understand the effects of the intervention on GPs' behaviour.

Non-pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine.

BACKGROUND: Vestibular migraine is a form of migraine where one of the main features is recurrent attacks of vertigo. These episodes are often associated with other features of migraine, including headache and sensitivity to light or sound. These unpredictable and severe attacks of vertigo can lead to a considerable reduction in quality of life. The condition is estimated to affect just under 1% of the population, although many people remain undiagnosed. A number of interventions have been used, or proposed to be used, as prophylaxis for this condition, to help reduce the frequency of the attacks. Many of these interventions include dietary, lifestyle or behavioural changes, rather than medication.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of non-pharmacological treatments used for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable vestibular migraine comparing dietary modifications, sleep improvement techniques, vitamin and mineral supplements, herbal supplements, talking therapies, mind-body interventions or vestibular rehabilitation with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with a cross-over design, unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) improvement in headache, 6) improvement in other migrainous symptoms and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: < 3 months, 3 to < 6 months, > 6 to 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies in this review with a total of 319 participants. Each study addressed a different comparison and these are outlined below. We did not identify any evidence for the remaining comparisons of interest in this review.   Dietary interventions (probiotics) versus placebo We identified one study with 218 participants (85% female). The use of a probiotic supplement was compared to a placebo and participants were followed up for two years. Some data were reported on the change in vertigo frequency and severity over the duration of the study. However, there were no data regarding improvement of vertigo or serious adverse events. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) versus no intervention One study compared CBT to no treatment in 61 participants (72% female). Participants were followed up for eight weeks. Data were reported on the change in vertigo over the course of the study, but no information was reported on the proportion of people whose vertigo improved, or on the occurrence of serious adverse events.  Vestibular rehabilitation versus no intervention The third study compared the use of vestibular rehabilitation to no treatment in a group of 40 participants (90% female) and participants were followed up for six months. Again, this study reported some data on change in the frequency of vertigo during the study, but no information on the proportion of participants who experienced an improvement in vertigo or the number who experienced serious adverse events.  We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results of these studies, as the data for each comparison of interest come from single, small studies and the certainty of the evidence was low or very low.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of evidence for non-pharmacological interventions that may be used for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine. Only a limited number of interventions have been assessed by comparing them to no intervention or a placebo treatment, and the evidence from these studies is all of low or very low certainty. We are therefore unsure whether any of these interventions may be effective at reducing the symptoms of vestibular migraine and we are also unsure whether they have the potential to cause harm.

Pharmacological interventions for acute attacks of vestibular migraine.

BACKGROUND: Vestibular migraine is a form of migraine where one of the main features is recurrent attacks of vertigo. These episodes are often associated with other features of migraine, including headache and sensitivity to light or sound. The unpredictable and severe attacks of vertigo can lead to a considerable reduction in quality of life. The condition is estimated to affect just under 1% of the population, although many people remain undiagnosed. A number of pharmacological interventions have been used, or proposed to be used, at the time of a vestibular migraine attack to help reduce the severity or resolve the symptoms. These are predominantly based on treatments that are in use for headache migraine, with the belief that the underlying pathophysiology of these conditions is similar.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions used to relieve acute attacks of vestibular migraine. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable vestibular migraine comparing triptans, ergot alkaloids, dopamine antagonists, antihistamines, 5-HT3 receptor antagonists, gepants (CGRP receptor antagonists), magnesium, paracetamol or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) with either placebo or no treatment.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) improvement in headache, 6) improvement in other migrainous symptoms and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: < 2 hours, 2 to 12 hours, > 12 to 72 hours. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs with a total of 133 participants, both of which compared the use of triptans to placebo for an acute attack of vestibular migraine. One study was a parallel-group RCT (of 114 participants, 75% female). This compared the use of 10 mg rizatriptan to placebo. The second study was a smaller, cross-over RCT (of 19 participants, 70% female). This compared the use of 2.5 mg zolmitriptan to placebo.  Triptans may result in little or no difference in the proportion of people whose vertigo improves at up to two hours after taking the medication. However, the evidence was very uncertain (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 1.07; 2 studies; based on 262 attacks of vestibular migraine treated in 124 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any evidence on the change in vertigo using a continuous scale. Only one of the studies assessed serious adverse events. No events were noted in either group, but as the sample size was small we cannot be sure if there are risks associated with taking triptans for this condition (0/75 receiving triptans, 0/39 receiving placebo; 1 study; 114 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for interventions used to treat acute attacks of vestibular migraine is very sparse. We identified only two studies, both of which assessed the use of triptans. We rated all the evidence as very low-certainty, meaning that we have little confidence in the effect estimates and cannot be sure if triptans have any effect on the symptoms of vestibular migraine. Although we identified sparse information on potential harms of treatment in this review, the use of triptans for other conditions (such as headache migraine) is known to be associated with some adverse effects.  We did not identify any placebo-controlled randomised trials for other interventions that may be used for this condition. Further research is needed to identify whether any interventions help to improve the symptoms of vestibular migraine attacks and to determine if there are side effects associated with their use.

Predicting future falls in older people using natural language processing of general practitioners' clinical notes.

BACKGROUND: Falls in older people are common and morbid. Prediction models can help identifying individuals at higher fall risk. Electronic health records (EHR) offer an opportunity to develop automated prediction tools that may help to identify fall-prone individuals and lower clinical workload. However, existing models primarily utilise structured EHR data and neglect information in unstructured data. Using machine learning and natural language processing (NLP), we aimed to examine the predictive performance provided by unstructured clinical notes, and their incremental performance over structured data to predict falls. METHODS: We used primary care EHR data of people aged 65 or over. We developed three logistic regression models using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator: one using structured clinical variables (Baseline), one with topics extracted from unstructured clinical notes (Topic-based) and one by adding clinical variables to the extracted topics (Combi). Model performance was assessed in terms of discrimination using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and calibration by calibration plots. We used 10-fold cross-validation to validate the approach. RESULTS: Data of 35,357 individuals were analysed, of which 4,734 experienced falls. Our NLP topic modelling technique discovered 151 topics from the unstructured clinical notes. AUCs and 95% confidence intervals of the Baseline, Topic-based and Combi models were 0.709 (0.700-0.719), 0.685 (0.676-0.694) and 0.718 (0.708-0.727), respectively. All the models showed good calibration. CONCLUSIONS: Unstructured clinical notes are an additional viable data source to develop and improve prediction models for falls compared to traditional prediction models, but the clinical relevance remains limited.

Pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine.

BACKGROUND: Vestibular migraine is a form of migraine where one of the main features is recurrent attacks of vertigo. These episodes are often associated with other features of migraine, including headache and sensitivity to light or sound. These unpredictable and severe attacks of vertigo can lead to a considerable reduction in quality of life. The condition is estimated to affect just under 1% of the population, although many people remain undiagnosed. A number of pharmacological interventions have been used or proposed to be used as prophylaxis for this condition, to help reduce the frequency of the attacks. These are predominantly based on treatments that are in use for headache migraine, with the belief that the underlying pathophysiology of these conditions is similar. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatments used for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 23 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with definite or probable vestibular migraine comparing beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, antiepileptics, antidepressants, diuretics, monoclonal antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptide (or its receptor), botulinum toxin or hormonal modification with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies with a cross-over design, unless data from the first phase of the study could be identified. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vertigo (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vertigo (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) improvement in headache, 6) improvement in other migrainous symptoms and 7) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: < 3 months, 3 to < 6 months, > 6 to 12 months. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies with a total of 209 participants. One evaluated beta-blockers and the other two evaluated calcium channel blockers. We did not identify any evidence for the remaining interventions of interest. Beta-blockers versus placebo One study (including 130 participants, 61% female) evaluated the use of 95 mg metoprolol once daily for six months, compared to placebo. The proportion of people who reported improvement in vertigo was not assessed in this study. Some data were reported on the frequency of vertigo attacks at six months and the occurrence of serious adverse effects. However, this is a single, small study and for all outcomes the certainty of evidence was low or very low. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results. Calcium channel blockers versus no treatment Two studies, which included a total of 79 participants (72% female), assessed the use of 10 mg flunarizine once daily for three months, compared to no intervention. All of the evidence for this comparison was of very low certainty. Most of our outcomes were only reported by a single study, therefore we were unable to conduct any meta-analysis. Some data were reported on improvement in vertigo and change in vertigo, but no information was available regarding serious adverse events. We are unable to draw meaningful conclusions from the numerical results, as these data come from single, small studies and the certainty of the evidence was very low. AUTHORS CONCLUSIONS: There is very limited evidence from placebo-controlled randomised trials regarding the efficacy and potential harms of pharmacological interventions for prophylaxis of vestibular migraine. We only identified evidence for two of our interventions of interest (beta-blockers and calcium channel blockers) and all evidence was of low or very low certainty. Further research is necessary to identify whether these treatments are effective at improving symptoms and whether there are any harms associated with their use.

Impact of the COVID-19 Outbreak-Delayed Referral of Colorectal and Lung Cancer in Primary Care: A National Retrospective Cohort Study.

The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak impacted health care. We investigated its impact on the time to referral and diagnosis for symptomatic cancer patients in The Netherlands. We performed a national retrospective cohort study utilizing primary care records linked to The Netherlands Cancer Registry. For patients with symptomatic colorectal, lung, breast, or melanoma cancer, we manually explored free and coded texts to determine the durations of the primary care (IPC) and secondary care (ISC) diagnostic intervals during the first COVID-19 wave and pre-COVID-19. We found that the median IPC duration increased for colorectal cancer from 5 days (Interquartile Range (IQR) 1-29 days) pre-COVID-19 to 44 days (IQR 6-230, p < 0.01) during the first COVID-19 wave, and for lung cancer, the duration increased from 15 days (IQR) 3-47) to 41 days (IQR 7-102, p < 0.01). For breast cancer and melanoma, the change in IPC duration was negligible. The median ISC duration only increased for breast cancer, from 3 (IQR 2-7) to 6 days (IQR 3-9, p < 0.01). For colorectal cancer, lung cancer, and melanoma, the median ISC durations were 17.5 (IQR (9-52), 18 (IQR 7-40), and 9 (IQR 3-44) days, respectively, similar to pre-COVID-19 results. In conclusion, for colorectal and lung cancer, the time to primary care referral was substantially prolonged during the first COVID-19 wave. In such crises, targeted primary care support is needed to maintain effective cancer diagnosis.

Non-pharmacological interventions for persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD).

BACKGROUND: Persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD) is a chronic balance disorder, which is characterised by subjective unsteadiness or dizziness that is worse on standing and with visual stimulation. The condition was only recently defined and therefore the prevalence is currently unknown. However, it is likely to include a considerable number of people with chronic balance problems. The symptoms can be debilitating and have a profound impact on quality of life. At present, little is known about the optimal way to treat this condition. A variety of medications may be used, as well as other treatments, such as vestibular rehabilitation.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of non-pharmacological interventions for persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD).  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 21 November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with PPPD, which compared any non-pharmacological intervention with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies that did not use the Bárány Society criteria to diagnose PPPD, and studies that followed up participants for less than three months.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vestibular symptoms (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vestibular symptoms (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) generic health-related quality of life and 6) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: Few randomised controlled trials have been conducted to assess the efficacy of different treatments for PPPD compared to no treatment (or placebo). Of the few studies we identified, only one followed up participants for at least three months, therefore most were not eligible for inclusion in this review.  We identified one study from South Korea that compared the use of transcranial direct current stimulation to a sham procedure in 24 people with PPPD. This is a technique that involves electrical stimulation of the brain with a weak current, through electrodes that are placed onto the scalp. This study provided some information on the occurrence of adverse effects, and also on disease-specific quality of life at three months of follow-up. The other outcomes of interest in this review were not assessed. As this is a single, small study we cannot draw any meaningful conclusions from the numeric results.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Further work is necessary to determine whether any non-pharmacological interventions may be effective for the treatment of PPPD and to assess whether they are associated with any potential harms. As this is a chronic disease, future trials should follow up participants for a sufficient period of time to assess whether there is a persisting impact on the severity of the disease, rather than only observing short-term effects.

Discussing depression in patients with visual impairment differs across countries: Validation of a prediction model in healthcare providers.

PURPOSE: Healthcare providers often experience difficulties in discussing depression with adults with visual impairment (VI), obstructing timely referral. The purpose of this study was to examine predictors of routine discussions of depression with adults with VI from the perspective of different healthcare providers from different countries. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey data from Welsh (N = 122), Australian (N = 94) and Dutch (N = 100) healthcare providers, that is eye care practitioners (ECPs) and low-vision care providers (LVCPs), were analysed. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed in the Welsh sample to determine predictors for discussing depression. Internal validation was conducted by using a bootstrap method, and the recalibrated model was externally validated in the Australian and Dutch sample. RESULTS: Work experience in eye care services (OR 0.95; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92 to 0.99) and perceived barriers (OR 0.95; 95% CI 0.92 to 0.98) was found to predict discussing depression with patients. The area under the curve (AUC) of 0.73 reflected good discrimination of the model. The model showed a slightly better fit in the Australian sample (AUC = 0.77), but a poor fit in the Dutch sample. CONCLUSION: The final prediction model was not generalizable to Dutch healthcare providers. They perceived less barriers in depression management than Welsh and Australian healthcare providers. This could be explained by differences in ECPs and LVCPs roles and responsibilities, increased attention on mental health and differences in organizing health care. Differences between healthcare providers' responsibilities and support needs should be taken into account while creating a facilitating environment to discuss depression.

Pharmacological interventions for persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD).

BACKGROUND: Persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD) is a chronic balance disorder, which is characterised by subjective unsteadiness or dizziness that is worse on standing and with visual stimulation. The condition was only recently defined and therefore the prevalence is currently unknown. However, it is likely to include a considerable number of people with chronic balance problems. The symptoms can be debilitating and have a profound impact on quality of life. At present, little is known about the optimal way to treat this condition. A variety of medications may be used, as well as other treatments, such as vestibular rehabilitation.  OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions for persistent postural-perceptual dizziness (PPPD).  SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 21 November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in adults with PPPD, which compared selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) or serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs) with either placebo or no treatment. We excluded studies that did not use the Bárány Society criteria to diagnose PPPD and studies that followed up participants for less than three months.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were: 1) improvement in vestibular symptoms (assessed as a dichotomous outcome - improved or not improved), 2) change in vestibular symptoms (assessed as a continuous outcome, with a score on a numerical scale) and 3) serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were: 4) disease-specific health-related quality of life, 5) generic health-related quality of life and 6) other adverse effects. We considered outcomes reported at three time points: 3 to < 6 months, 6 to ≤ 12 months and > 12 months. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified no studies that met our inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, there is no evidence from placebo-controlled randomised trials regarding pharmacological treatments - specifically SSRIs and SNRIs - for PPPD. Consequently, there is great uncertainty over the use of these treatments for this condition. Further work is needed to establish whether any treatments are effective at improving the symptoms of PPPD, and whether their use is associated with any adverse effects.