Who provides chronic disease management? Population-based retrospective cohort study in Alberta.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportions of patients who receive care from family physicians, specialists, and nurse practitioners for the management of common chronic medical conditions. DESIGN: Population-based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Province of Alberta. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 19 years or older who were registered for provincial health services and each had 2 or more interactions with the same provider between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017, for any of 7 specified chronic medical conditions: hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, and chronic kidney disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers of patients being managed for these conditions and which provider types were involved in their care. RESULTS: Albertans receiving care for the chronic medical conditions being studied (n=970,783) had a mean (SD) age of 56.8 (16.3) years and 49.1% were female. Family physicians were the sole providers of care for 85.7% of patients with a diagnosis of hypertension, 70.9% with diabetes, 59.8% with COPD, and 65.5% with asthma. Specialists were sole providers of care for 49.1% of patients with ischemic heart disease, 42.2% with chronic kidney disease, and 35.6% with heart failure. Nurse practitioners were involved in the care of less than 1% of patients with these conditions. CONCLUSION: Family physicians were involved in the care of most patients with any of 7 chronic medical conditions included in this study and were the sole providers of care for the majority of patients with hypertension, diabetes, COPD, and asthma. Guideline working group representation and the setting of clinical trials should reflect this reality.

Lipid-lowering therapies for cardiovascular disease prevention and management in primary care: PEER umbrella systematic review of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefits and harms of lipid-lowering therapies used to prevent or manage cardiovascular disease including bile acid sequestrants (BAS), ezetimibe, fibrates, niacin, omega-3 supplements, proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, and statins. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and a grey literature search. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials published between January 2017 and March 2022 looking at statins, ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors, fibrates, BAS, niacin, and omega-3 supplements for preventing cardiovascular outcomes were selected. Outcomes of interest included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and adverse events. SYNTHESIS: A total of 76 systematic reviews were included. Four randomized controlled trials were also included for BAS because no efficacy systematic review was identified. Statins significantly reduced MACE (6 systematic reviews; median risk ratio [RR]=0.74; interquartile range [IQR]=0.71 to 0.76), cardiovascular mortality (7 systematic reviews; median RR=0.85, IQR=0.83 to 0.86), and all-cause mortality (8 systematic reviews; median RR=0.91, IQR=0.88 to 0.92). Major adverse cardiovascular events were also significantly reduced by ezetimibe (3 systematic reviews; median RR=0.93, IQR=0.93 to 0.94), PCSK9 inhibitors (14 systematic reviews; median RR=0.84, IQR=0.83 to 0.87), and fibrates (2 systematic reviews; mean RR=0.86), but these interventions had no effect on cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. Fibrates had no effect on any cardiovascular outcomes when added to a statin. Omega-3 combination supplements had no effect on MACE or all-cause mortality but significantly reduced cardiovascular mortality (5 systematic reviews; median RR=0.93, IQR=0.93 to 0.94). Eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester alone significantly reduced MACE (1 systematic review, RR=0.78) and cardiovascular mortality (2 systematic reviews; RRs of 0.82 and 0.82). In primary cardiovascular prevention, only statins showed consistent benefits on MACE (6 systematic reviews; median RR=0.75, IQR=0.73 to 0.78), cardiovascularall-cause mortality (7 systematic reviews, median RR=0.83, IQR=0.81 to 0.90), and all-cause mortality (8 systematic reviews; median RR=0.91, IQR=0.87 to 0.91). CONCLUSION: Statins have the most consistent evidence for the prevention of cardiovascular complications with a relative risk reduction of about 25% for MACE and 10% to 15% for mortality. The addition of ezetimibe, a PCSK9 inhibitor, or eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester to a statin provides additional MACE risk reduction but has no effect on all-cause mortality.

PEER simplified lipid guideline 2023 update: Prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To update the 2015 clinical practice guideline and provide a simplified approach to lipid management in the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) for primary care. METHODS: Following the Institute of Medicine's Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust, a multidisciplinary, pan-Canadian guideline panel was formed. This panel was represented by primary care providers, free from conflicts of interest with industry, and included the patient perspective. A separate scientific evidence team performed evidence reviews on statins, ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitors, fibrates, bile acid sequestrants, niacin, and omega-3 supplements (docosahexaenoic acid with eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] or EPA ethyl ester alone [icosapent]), as well as on 11 supplemental questions. Recommendations were finalized by the guideline panel through use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. RECOMMENDATIONS: All recommendations are presented in a patient-centred manner designed with the needs of family physicians and other primary care providers in mind. Many recommendations are similar to those published in 2015. Statins remain first-line therapy for both primary and secondary CVD prevention, and the Mediterranean diet and physical activity are recommended to reduce cardiovascular risk (primary and secondary prevention). The guideline panel recommended against using lipoprotein a, apolipoprotein B, or coronary artery calcium levels when assessing cardiovascular risk, and recommended against targeting specific lipid levels. The team also reviewed new evidence pertaining to omega-3 fatty acids (including EPA ethyl ester [icosapent]) and proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitors, and outlined when to engage in informed shared decision making with patients on interventions to lower cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSION: These updated evidence-based guidelines provide a simplified approach to lipid management for the prevention and management of CVD. These guidelines were created by and for primary health care professionals and their patients.

PEER simplified chronic pain guideline: Management of chronic low back, osteoarthritic, and neuropathic pain in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a clinical practice guideline to support the management of chronic pain, including low back, osteoarthritic, and neuropathic pain in primary care. METHODS: The guideline was developed with an emphasis on best available evidence and shared decision-making principles. Ten health professionals (4 generalist family physicians, 1 pain management-focused family physician, 1 anesthesiologist, 1 physical therapist, 1 pharmacist, 1 nurse practitioner, and 1 psychologist), a patient representative, and a nonvoting pharmacist and guideline methodologist comprised the Guideline Committee. Member selection was based on profession, practice setting, and lack of financial conflicts of interest. The guideline process was iterative in identification of key questions, evidence review, and development of guideline recommendations. Three systematic reviews, including a total of 285 randomized controlled trials, were completed. Randomized controlled trials were included only if they reported a responder analysis (eg, how many patients achieved a 30% or greater reduction in pain). The committee directed an Evidence Team (composed of evidence experts) to address an additional 11 complementary questions. Key recommendations were derived through committee consensus. The guideline and shared decision-making tools underwent extensive review by clinicians and patients before publication. RECOMMENDATIONS: Physical activity is recommended as the foundation for managing osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain; evidence of benefit is unclear for neuropathic pain. Cognitive-behavioural therapy or mindfulness-based stress reduction are also suggested as options for managing chronic pain. Treatments for which there is clear, unclear, or no benefit are outlined for each condition. Treatments for which harms likely outweigh benefits for all or most conditions studied include opioids and cannabinoids. CONCLUSION: This guideline for the management of chronic pain, including osteoarthritis, low back pain, and neuropathic pain, highlights best available evidence including both benefits and harms for a number of treatment interventions. A strong recommendation for exercise as the primary treatment for chronic osteoarthritic and low back pain is made based on demonstrated long-term evidence of benefit. This information is intended to assist with, not dictate, shared decision making with patients.

PEER systematic review of randomized controlled trials: Management of chronic low back pain in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of chronic low back pain patients who achieve a clinically meaningful response from different pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and gray literature search. STUDY SELECTION: Published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported a responder analysis of adults with chronic low back pain treated with any of the following 15 interventions: oral or topical nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), exercise, acupuncture, spinal manipulation therapy, corticosteroid injections, acetaminophen, oral opioids, anticonvulsants, tricyclic antidepressants, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, cannabinoids, oral muscle relaxants, or topical rubefacients. SYNTHESIS: A total of 63 RCTs were included. There was moderate certainty that exercise (risk ratio [RR] of 1.71; 95% CI 1.37 to 2.15; number needed to treat [NNT] of 7), oral NSAIDs (RR = 1.44; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.78; NNT = 6), and SNRIs (duloxetine; RR = 1.25; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.38; NNT = 10) provide clinically meaningful benefits to patients with chronic low back pain. Exercise was the only intervention with sustained benefit (up to 48 weeks). There was low certainty that spinal manipulation therapy and topical rubefacients benefit patients. The benefit of acupuncture disappeared in higher-quality, longer (> 4 weeks) trials. Very low-quality evidence demonstrated that corticosteroid injections are ineffective. Patients treated with opioids had a greater likelihood of discontinuing treatment owing to an adverse event (number needed to harm of 5) than continuing treatment to derive any clinically meaningful benefit (NNT = 16), while those treated with SNRIs (duloxetine) had a similar likelihood of continuing treatment to attain benefit (NNT = 10) as those discontinuing the medication owing to an adverse event (number need to harm of 11). One trial each of anticonvulsants and topical NSAIDs found similar benefit to that of placebo. No RCTs of acetaminophen, cannabinoids, muscle relaxants, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or tricyclic antidepressants met the inclusion criteria. CONCLUSION: Exercise, oral NSAIDs, and SNRIs (duloxetine) provide a clinically meaningful reduction in pain, with exercise being the only intervention that demonstrated sustained benefit after the intervention ended. Future high-quality trials that report responder analyses are required to provide a better understanding of the benefits and harms of interventions for patients with chronic low back pain.

PEER systematic review of randomized controlled trials: Management of chronic neuropathic pain in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of patients with neuropathic pain who achieve a clinically meaningful improvement in their pain with the use of different pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and a gray literature search. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials that reported a responder analysis of adults with neuropathic pain-specifically diabetic neuropathy, postherpetic neuralgia, or trigeminal neuralgia-treated with any of the following 8 treatments: exercise, acupuncture, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), topical rubefacients, opioids, anticonvulsant medications, and topical lidocaine. SYNTHESIS: A total of 67 randomized controlled trials were included. There was moderate certainty of evidence that anticonvulsant medications (risk ratio of 1.54; 95% CI 1.45 to 1.63; number needed to treat [NNT] of 7) and SNRIs (risk ratio of 1.45; 95% CI 1.33 to 1.59; NNT = 7) might provide a clinically meaningful benefit to patients with neuropathic pain. There was low certainty of evidence for a clinically meaningful benefit for rubefacients (ie, capsaicin; NNT = 7) and opioids (NNT = 8), and very low certainty of evidence for TCAs. Very low-quality evidence demonstrated that acupuncture was ineffective. All drug classes, except TCAs, had a greater likelihood of deriving a clinically meaningful benefit than having withdrawals due to adverse events (number needed to harm between 12 and 15). No trials met the inclusion criteria for exercise or lidocaine, nor were any trials identified for trigeminal neuralgia. CONCLUSION: There is moderate certainty of evidence that anticonvulsant medications and SNRIs provide a clinically meaningful reduction in pain in those with neuropathic pain, with lower certainty of evidence for rubefacients and opioids, and very low certainty of evidence for TCAs. Owing to low-quality evidence for many interventions, future high-quality trials that report responder analyses will be important to strengthen understanding of the relative benefits and harms of treatments in patients with neuropathic pain.

Masks for prevention of viral respiratory infections among health care workers and the public: PEER umbrella systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of mask use on viral respiratory infection risk. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in at least 1 published systematic review comparing the use of masks with a control group, either in community or health care settings, on the risk of viral respiratory infections. SYNTHESIS: In total, 11 systematic reviews were included and 18 RCTs of 26 444 participants were found, 12 in the community and 6 in health care workers. Included studies had limitations and were deemed at high risk of bias. Overall, the use of masks in the community did not reduce the risk of influenza, confirmed viral respiratory infection, influenzalike illness, or any clinical respiratory infection. However, in the 2 trials that most closely aligned with mask use in real-life community settings, there was a significant risk reduction in influenzalike illness (risk ratio [RR] = 0.83; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.99). The use of masks in households with a sick contact was not associated with a significant infection risk reduction in any analysis, no matter if masks were used by the sick individual, the healthy family members, or both. In health care workers, surgical masks were superior to cloth masks for preventing influenzalike illness (RR = 0.12; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.98), and N95 masks were likely superior to surgical masks for preventing influenzalike illness (RR = 0.78; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.00) and any clinical respiratory infections (RR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.00). CONCLUSION: This systematic review found limited evidence that the use of masks might reduce the risk of viral respiratory infections. In the community setting, a possible reduced risk of influenzalike illness was found among mask users. In health care workers, the results show no difference between N95 masks and surgical masks on the risk of confirmed influenza or other confirmed viral respiratory infections, although possible benefits from N95 masks were found for preventing influenzalike illness or other clinical respiratory infections. Surgical masks might be superior to cloth masks but data are limited to 1 trial.

PEER umbrella systematic review of systematic reviews: Management of osteoarthritis in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how many patients with chronic osteoarthritis pain respond to various non-surgical treatments. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and the Cochrane Library. STUDY SELECTION: Published systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that included meta-analysis of responder outcomes for at least 1 of the following interventions were included: acetaminophen, oral nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), topical NSAIDs, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), tricyclic antidepressants, cannabinoids, counseling, exercise, platelet-rich plasma, viscosupplementation, glucosamine, chondroitin, intra-articular corticosteroids, rubefacients, or opioids. SYNTHESIS: In total, 235 systematic reviews were included. Owing to limited reporting of responder meta-analyses, a post hoc decision was made to evaluate individual RCTs with responder analysis within the included systematic reviews. New meta-analyses were performed where possible. A total of 155 RCTs were included. Interventions that led to more patients attaining meaningful pain relief compared with control included exercise (risk ratio [RR] of 2.36; 95% CI 1.79 to 3.12), intra-articular corticosteroids (RR = 1.74; 95% CI 1.15 to 2.62), SNRIs (RR = 1.53; 95% CI 1.25 to 1.87), oral NSAIDs (RR = 1.44; 95% CI 1.36 to 1.52), glucosamine (RR = 1.33; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.74), topical NSAIDs (RR = 1.27; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.38), chondroitin (RR = 1.26; 95% CI 1.13 to 1.41), viscosupplementation (RR = 1.22; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.33), and opioids (RR = 1.16; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.32). Preplanned subgroup analysis demonstrated no effect with glucosamine, chondroitin, or viscosupplementation in studies that were only publicly funded. When trials longer than 4 weeks were analyzed, the benefits of opioids were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Interventions that provide meaningful relief for chronic osteoarthritis pain might include exercise, intra-articular corticosteroids, SNRIs, oral and topical NSAIDs, glucosamine, chondroitin, viscosupplementation, and opioids. However, funding of studies and length of treatment are important considerations in interpreting these data.

Top studies relevant to primary care from 2018: From PEER.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize high-quality studies for 10 topics from 2018 that have strong relevance to primary care practice. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Study selection involved routine literature surveillance by a group of primary care health professionals. This included screening abstracts of important journals and Evidence Alerts, as well as searching ACP Journal Club. MAIN MESSAGE: Topics of the 2018 articles include whether low-dose acetylsalicylic acid improves health outcomes like cardiovascular disease (CVD); whether a low-carbohydrate diet is better than a low-fat diet for weight loss (and whether genetics matter); whether vaginal estradiol is superior to placebo for vulvovaginal symptoms of menopause; whether opioid management is better than nonopioid management for chronic back or osteoarthritis pain; whether additional water intake will decrease recurrent urinary tract infections; whether omega-3 fatty acids prevent CVD or reduce dry eyes; whether the new drug icosapent improves CVD; whether bath additives help eczema; whether acetaminophen can prevent recurrent febrile seizures; and recommendations for glycemic targets in diabetes based on reviews of evidence and other guidelines. Five "runner-up" studies are also briefly reviewed. CONCLUSION: Research from 2018 produced several high-quality studies in CVD but also spanned the breadth of primary care including pediatrics, women's health, and pain management, among other areas.

Managing opioid use disorder in primary care: PEER simplified guideline.

OBJECTIVE: To use the best available evidence and principles of shared, informed decision making to develop a clinical practice guideline for a simplified approach to managing opioid use disorder (OUD) in primary care. METHODS: Eleven health care and allied health professionals representing various practice settings, professions, and locations created a list of key questions relevant to the management of OUD in primary care. These questions related to the treatment setting, diagnosis, treatment, and management of comorbidities in OUD. The questions were researched by a team with expertise in evidence evaluation using a series of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials. The Guideline Committee used the systematic reviews to create recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations outline the role of primary care in treating patients with OUD, as well as pharmacologic and psychotherapy treatments and various prescribing practices (eg, urine drug testing and contracts). Specific recommendations could not be made for management of comorbidities in patients with OUD owing to limited evidence. CONCLUSION: The recommendations will help simplify the complex management of patients with OUD in primary care. They will aid clinicians and patients in making informed decisions regarding their care.

Opioid use disorder in primary care: PEER umbrella systematic review of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the best available evidence regarding various topics related to primary care management of opioid use disorder (OUD). DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Google, and the references of included studies and relevant guidelines. STUDY SELECTION: Published systematic reviews and newer randomized controlled trials from the past 5 to 10 years that investigated patient-oriented outcomes related to managing OUD in primary care, diagnosis, pharmacotherapies (including buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone), tapering strategies, psychosocial interventions, prescribing practices, and management of comorbidities. SYNTHESIS: From 8626 articles, 39 systematic reviews and an additional 26 randomized controlled trials were included. New meta-analyses were performed where possible. One cohort study suggests 1 case-finding tool might be reasonable to assist with diagnosis (positive likelihood ratio of 10.3). Meta-analysis demonstrated that retention in treatment improves when buprenorphine or methadone are used (64% to 73% vs 22% to 39% for control), when OUD is treated in primary care (86% vs 67% in specialty care, risk ratio [RR] of 1.25, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.47), and when counseling is added to pharmacotherapy (74% vs 62% for controls, RR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.36). Retention was also improved with naltrexone (33% vs 25% for controls, RR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.64) and reduced with medication-related contingency management (eg, loss of take-home doses as a punitive measure; 68% vs 77% for no contingency, RR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.99). CONCLUSION: There is reasonable evidence that patients with OUD should be managed in the primary care setting. Diagnostic criteria for OUD remain elusive, with 1 reasonable case-finding tool. Methadone and buprenorphine improve treatment retention, while medication-related contingency methods could worsen retention. Counseling is beneficial when added to pharmacotherapy.

Top studies relevant to primary care practice.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize 10 high-quality studies from 2017 that have strong relevance to primary care practice. QUALITY OF EVIDENCE: Study selection involved routine literature surveillance by a group of primary care health professionals. This included screening abstracts of important journals and Evidence Alerts, as well as searching the American College of Physicians Journal Club. MAIN MESSAGE: Topics of the 2017 articles include whether treating subclinical hypothyroidism improves outcomes or symptoms; whether evolocumab reduces cardiovascular disease as well as low-density lipoprotein levels; whether lifestyle interventions reduce medication use in patients with diabetes; whether vitamin D prevents cardiovascular disease, cancer, or upper respiratory tract infections; whether canagliflozin reduces clinical events in patients with diabetes; how corticosteroid injections affect knee osteoarthritis; whether drained abscesses benefit from antibiotic treatment; whether patients with diabetes benefit from bariatric surgery; whether exenatide reduces clinical events in patients with diabetes; and whether tympanostomy tubes affect outcomes in recurrent acute otitis media or chronic otitis media. We provide brief summaries, context where needed, and final recommendations for 10 studies with potential effects on primary care. We also briefly review 5 "runner-up" studies. CONCLUSION: Research from 2017 produced several high-quality studies in diabetes management. These have demonstrated benefit for alternative therapies and offered evidence not previously available. This year's selection of studies also provided information on a variety of conditions and therapies that are, or might become, more common in primary care settings.

Systematic review of systematic reviews for medical cannabinoids: Pain, nausea and vomiting, spasticity, and harms.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of medical cannabinoids on pain, spasticity, and nausea and vomiting, and to identify adverse events. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database, and the references of included studies were searched. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews with 2 or more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that focused on medical cannabinoids for pain, spasticity, or nausea and vomiting were included. For adverse events, any meta-analysis for the conditions listed or of adverse events of cannabinoids was included. SYNTHESIS: From 1085 articles, 31 relevant systematic reviews were identified including 23 for pain, 5 for spasticity, 6 for nausea and vomiting, and 12 for adverse events. Meta-analysis of 15 RCTs found more patients taking cannabinoids attained at least a 30% pain reduction: risk ratio (RR) of 1.37 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.64), number needed to treat (NNT) of 11. Sensitivity analysis found study size and duration affected findings (subgroup differences, P ≤ .03), with larger and longer RCTs finding no benefit. Meta-analysis of 4 RCTs found a positive global impression of change in spasticity (RR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.95, NNT = 7). Other results were not consistently statistically significant, but when positive, a 30% or more improvement in spasticity had an NNT of 10. Meta-analysis of 7 RCTs for control of nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy found an RR of 3.60 (95% CI 2.55 to 5.09) with an NNT of 3. Adverse effects caused more patients to stop treatment (number needed to harm [NNH] of 8 to 22). Individual adverse events were very common, including dizziness (NNH = 5), sedation (NNH = 5), confusion (NNH = 15), and dissociation (NNH = 20). "Feeling high" was reported in 35% to 70% of users. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) evaluation reduced evidence ratings of benefit to low or very low. CONCLUSION: There is reasonable evidence that cannabinoids improve nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy. They might improve spasticity (primarily in multiple sclerosis). There is some uncertainty about whether cannabinoids improve pain, but if they do, it is neuropathic pain and the benefit is likely small. Adverse effects are very common, meaning benefits would need to be considerable to warrant trials of therapy.

Simplified guideline for prescribing medical cannabinoids in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a clinical practice guideline for a simplified approach to medical cannabinoid use in primary care; the focus was on primary care application, with a strong emphasis on best available evidence and a promotion of shared, informed decision making. METHODS: The Evidence Review Group performed a detailed systematic review of 4 clinical areas with the best evidence around cannabinoids: pain, nausea and vomiting, spasticity, and adverse events. Nine health professionals (2 generalist family physicians, 2 pain management-focused family physicians, 1 inner-city family physician, 1 neurologist, 1 oncologist, 1 nurse practitioner, and 1 pharmacist) and a patient representative comprised the Prescribing Guideline Committee (PGC), along with 2 nonvoting members (pharmacist project managers). Member selection was based on profession, practice setting, location, and lack of financial conflicts of interest. The guideline process was iterative through content distribution, evidence review, and telephone and online meetings. The PGC directed the Evidence Review Group to address and provide evidence for additional questions as needed. The key recommendations were derived through consensus of the PGC. The guideline was drafted, refined, and distributed to a group of clinicians and patients for feedback, then refined again and finalized by the PGC. RECOMMENDATIONS: Recommendations include limiting medical cannabinoid use in general, but also outline potential restricted use in a small subset of medical conditions for which there is some evidence (neuropathic pain, palliative and end-of-life pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and spasticity due to multiple sclerosis or spinal cord injury). Other important considerations regarding prescribing are reviewed in detail, and content is offered to support shared, informed decision making. CONCLUSION: This simplified medical cannabinoid prescribing guideline provides practical recommendations for the use of medical cannabinoids in primary care. All recommendations are intended to assist with, not dictate, decision making in conjunction with patients.

Lignes directrices simplifiées de PEER sur les lipides : actualisation 2023: Prévention et prise en charge des maladies cardiovasculaires en soins primaires.

OBJECTIF: Actualiser le guide de pratique clinique de 2015 et présenter une approche simplifiée de la prise en charge des lipides dans la prévention des maladies cardiovasculaires (MCV) en première ligne. MÉTHODES: Conformément aux recommandations de l'Institute of Medicine dans Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust, un panel pancanadien d'experts multidisciplinaires en lignes directrices a été formé. Ce panel était représentatif des cliniciens en soins primaires, libre de tout conflit d'intérêts avec l'industrie, et il tenait compte des points de vue des patients. Une équipe distincte, responsable des données probantes scientifiques, a passé en revue l'information sur les statines, l'ézétimibe, les inhibiteurs de la proprotéine convertase subtilisine-kexine de type 9, les fibrates, les chélateurs des acides biliaires, la niacine et les suppléments d'omega-3 (acide docosahexaénoïque avec acide eicosapentaénoïque [EPA] ou ester éthylique de l'EPA seul [icosapent]), ainsi que sur la réponse à 11 questions supplémentaires. Le panel des lignes directrices a finalisé les recommandations en utilisant la méthodologie GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RECOMMANDATIONS: Toutes les recommandations sont présentées de manière à être centrées sur le patient et conçues en ayant à l'esprit les besoins des médecins de famille et des autres cliniciens des soins primaires. De nombreuses recommandations sont semblables à celles publiées en 2015. Les statines demeurent le traitement de première intention pour la prévention tant primaire que secondaire des MCV, et le régime méditerranéen et l'activité physique sont recommandés pour réduire le risque cardiovasculaire (en prévention primaire et secondaire). Le panel des lignes directrices a recommandé de ne pas utiliser le dosage des lipoprotéines a, des apolipoprotéines B ou le score calcique coronarien (SCC) dans l'évaluation du risque cardiovasculaire, et de ne pas cibler de seuils précis de taux lipidiques. L'équipe a aussi passé en revue de nouvelles données concernant les acides gras omega-3 (y compris l'ester éthylique d'EAP [icosapent]) et les inhibiteurs de la proprotéine convertase subtilisine-kexine de type 9, et a précisé les moments où il convient de procéder à une prise de décision partagée avec les patients sur les interventions pour diminuer le risque cardiovasculaire. CONCLUSION: Ces lignes directrices actualisées et fondées sur des données probantes présentent une approche simplifiée de la prise en charge des lipides pour la prévention et le traitement des MCV. Ce guide de pratique clinique a été conçu par et pour des professionnels de la santé en soins primaires et leurs patients.

Lignes directrices simplifiées de PEER sur la douleur chronique: Gestion de la douleur chronique lombaire, arthrosique et neuropathique en première ligne.

OBJECTIF: Formuler des lignes directrices de pratique clinique pour soutenir la prise en charge de la douleur chronique, y compris la douleur lombaire, arthrosique et neuropathique, dans les soins primaires. MÉTHODES: Ces lignes directrices ont été élaborées en mettant l'accent sur les meilleures données probantes disponibles et sur les principes de décision partagée. Dix professionnels de la santé (4 omnipraticiens, 1 médecin de famille spécialisée en gestion de la douleur, 1 anesthésiste, 1 physiothérapeute, 1 pharmacienne, 1 infirmière praticienne et 1 psychologue), 1 représentant des patients, et 1 pharmacienne et spécialiste de la méthodologie des lignes directrices sans droit de vote composaient le comité des lignes directrices. Les membres ont été sélectionnés en fonction de leur profession, de leur milieu de pratique, et de l'absence d'un conflit d'intérêts de nature financière. Les lignes directrices sont le fruit d'un processus itératif incluant la détermination des questions clés, l'examen des données probantes et la formulation des recommandations des lignes directrices. Trois revues systématiques, totalisant 285 études avec répartition aléatoire et contrôlées ont été réalisées. Ces études n'étaient incluses que si elles avaient rapporté une analyse des répondants (p. ex. combien de patients ont obtenu un soulagement d'au moins 30% de la douleur). Le comité a confié à une équipe d'examen des données (composée de spécialistes des données probantes) la tâche de répondre à 11 autres questions complémentaires. Les principales recommandations découlent d'un consensus au sein du comité. Des cliniciens et des patients ont minutieusement examiné les lignes directrices et les outils de décision partagée avant leur publication. RECOMMANDATIONS: L'activité physique est recommandée comme fondement de la gestion de la douleur arthrosique et lombaire chronique; les données probantes étayant un bienfait ne sont pas concluantes dans le cas de la douleur neuropathique. La thérapie cognitivo-comportementale ou la réduction du stress basée sur la pleine conscience sont également suggérées comme des options pour gérer la douleur chronique. Les traitements pour lesquels le bienfait est clair, non concluant ou absent sont décrits sous chaque affection. Les traitements dont les préjudices surpassent probablement les bienfaits pour toutes les affections étudiées, ou la plupart d'entre elles, sont les opioïdes et les cannabinoïdes. CONCLUSION: Ces lignes directrices sur la gestion de la douleur chronique, y compris la douleur arthrosique, lombaire et neuropathique, met en lumière les meilleures données probantes disponibles, y compris les bienfaits et préjudices pour un certain nombre d'interventions thérapeutiques. Une forte recommandation en faveur de l'exercice comme principal traitement de la douleur arthrosique et lombaire chronique repose sur des données probantes ayant démontré un bienfait depuis longtemps. Cette information vise à contribuer au processus de décision partagée avec le patient et non à le dicter.