[Procedures Performed in General Practice - a Cross-sectional Study]. / Prozeduren, die in der Allgemeinmedizin durchgeführt werden ­ eine Querschnittstudie.

OBJECTIVE: General practice offers basic medical care to patients. Therefore, general practitioners (GPs) perform a variety of medical procedures. In order to estimate GPs array of services from the perspective of health services research, it is indispensable to know the procedures that are carried out by GPs and identify relevant influencing factors. METHODS: Based on the results of a selective literature search, the Medical Association's regulations on specialty training and experiences gained so far in developing the competence-based curriculum for general practice, a questionnaire covering 89 procedures was developed and sent to 1 576 general practitioners all over Germany. RESULTS: The response rate was 42%; 42 of 89 procedures were carried out by at least 50% of the participants. These procedures include the anatomical areas skin, eyes, ears, nose, gastrointestinal tract, urological tract and musculoskeletal system. Significant differences were shown in 25 of the most frequent procedures regarding practices in urban and rural areas, in 9 procedures with regard to the participant's length of occupation in general practice and in 19 procedures regarding male and female participants. CONCLUSION: This is the first survey that shows which procedures are performed by German GPs and how often they are performed. Factors such as practice location in either rural or urban area, physician's gender and years practiced as GP have been identified as important influences on the spectrum of services provided.

Background paper to the recommendation for the preferential use of live-attenuated influenza vaccine in children aged 2-6 years in Germany.

The German Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO) recommends seasonal influenza vaccination for children and adolescents with chronic medical conditions that put them at risk for severe influenza illness. In addition to trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines (TIV), a trivalent live-attenuated influenza vaccine (LAIV) was licensed for children and adolescents aged 2-17 years in the European Union in 2011. Employing the methodology of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group, we examined the evidence for efficacy and safety of LAIV relative to TIV to guide STIKO's decision on whether LAIV should be preferentially recommended for at-risk children. In our meta-analysis of data from two randomized trials directly comparing LAIV and TIV in children aged ≤ 6 years, the protective efficacy of LAIV against laboratory-confirmed influenza was 53 % [95 % confidence interval (CI): 45-61 %] higher than that of TIV. A similar study in individuals aged 6-17 years showed a 32 % (95 % CI: 3-52 %) higher efficacy of LAIV. The quality of the evidence for a superior protective efficacy of LAIV against all relevant clinical outcomes was rated 'moderate' for children aged 2-6 years and 'low' for the age group 7-17 years. Regarding safety outcomes, the available data suggest no significant differences between LAIV and TIV. Based on these results, STIKO recommends that LAIV should be used preferentially for influenza vaccination of at-risk children aged 2-6 years. In children and adolescents aged 7-17 years, either LAIV or TIV may be used without specific preference. Possible contraindications and the vaccinee's and his/her guardians' preferences should be taken into account.

Background paper to the revised recommendation for hepatitis B vaccination of persons at particular risk and for hepatitis B postexposure prophylaxis in Germany.

The German Standing Committee on Vaccination (Ständige Impfkommission, STIKO) recommends vaccinating risk groups against hepatitis B and gives advice for postexposure prophylaxis. STIKO has recently revised this recommendation, focusing on: (i) classification of risk groups, (ii) duration of protection after primary immunization, and (iii) anti-HBs threshold that defines successful hepatitis B vaccination. Orientating literature reviews were performed for the first objective. Examples of population subgroups at increased risk were identified and classified into three indication groups. Systematic reviews on the duration of vaccine-induced protection identified one randomized controlled trial (RCT) and nine cohort studies. When applying the grading of recommendation, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) methodology, evidence from RCTs was considered of very low quality regarding the question of whether hepatitis B can be prevented for 15 years after successful primary vaccination (anti-HBs ≥ 10 IU/l) with a vaccine efficacy of 96 % against chronic hepatitis, 89 % against HBsAg positivity, and 73 % against isolated anti-HBc positivity. However, seven cohort studies showed that no cases of clinical hepatitis B or HBsAg positivity occurred during a maximum follow-up period of 10 years in settings comparable to the situation in Germany when anti-HBs ≥ 10 IU/l was used to indicate vaccination success. Less than 1 % of vaccinated study participants had isolated anti-HBc positivity. GRADE assessment of two cohort studies revealed that evidence of very low quality exists that the use of anti-HBs ≥ 100 IU/l to measure vaccination success leads to a lower frequency of anti-HBc positivity during follow-up than the use of anti-HBs ≥ 10 IU/l. The recommendation was revised according to this evidence.

What do primary care patients think about generic drugs?

OBJECTIVE: To examine the attitude of patients towards generic drugs and prescriptions containing generic drugs as an alternative to brand-name products, with a special focus on information on patients attitude to generic drugs provided by their general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: A total of 804 patients in 31 general practices were surveyed using a self-questionnaire. The influence of age, sex, education, disease, knowledge of generic drugs, experience with generic substitution and information provided by the GP on patient attitudes towards generic drugs and substitutions were examined. RESULTS: Nearly two thirds of the patients (509/804) stated that they knew of the difference between brand-name drugs and generics; of these, one third were not satisfied with the information given by their GPs and 37% of patients expressed general skepticism towards generic drugs because of their lower price. This attitude was more frequent among those who felt that generic prescribing was "invented" to solve the financial crisis in the German health insurance system at their expense (odds ratio (OR): 6.2; 95% confidence interval: 4.0 - 9.8) and those who had not been confronted personally with a generic substitution (OR: 1.8; 1.3 3.0). Patients who had been skeptical when first confronted with a generic substitution were more frequently among those who considered inexpensive drugs to be inferior (OR: 4.5; 2.0 10.4) and they were frequently not satisfied with the information on substitution provided by their GP (OR: 2.7; 1.2 - 5.9). CONCLUSION: GPs are in an ideal position to inform their patients adequately about the equivalence of brand-name and generic drugs. However, the patient view that inexpensive drugs must be inferior may be difficult to rectify in the short term.