Efficacy of a computer based discontinuation strategy to reduce PPI prescriptions: a multicenter cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Deprescribing of inappropriate long-term proton pump inhibitors (PPI) is challenging and there is a lack of useful methods for general practitioners to tackle this. The objective of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of the electronic decision aid tool arriba-PPI on reduction of long-term PPI intake. Participants (64.5 ± 12.9 years; 54.4% women) with a PPI intake of at least 6 months were randomized to receive either consultation with arriba-PPI from their general practitioner (n = 1256) or treatment as usual (n = 1131). PPI prescriptions were monitored 6 months before, 6 and 12 months after study initiation. In 49.2% of the consultations with arriba-PPI, the general practitioners and their patients made the decision to reduce or discontinue PPI intake. At 6 months, there was a significant reduction by 22.3% (95% CI 18.55 to 25.98; p < 0.0001) of defined daily doses (DDD) of PPI. A reduction of 3.3% (95% CI - 7.18 to + 0.62) was observed in the control group. At 12 months, the reduction of DDD-PPI remained stable in intervention patients (+ 3.5%, 95% CI - 0.99 to + 8.03), whereas control patients showed a reduction of DDD-PPI (- 10.2%, 95% CI - 6.01 to - 14.33). Consultation with arriba-PPI led to reduced prescription rates of PPI in primary care practices. Arriba-PPI can be a helpful tool for general practitioners to start a conversation with their patients about risks of long-term PPI intake, reduction or deprescribing unnecessary PPI medication.

Suitability of accelerometry as an objective measure for upper extremity use in stroke patients.

BACKGROUND: Upper limb (UL) paresis is one of the most common stroke consequences and significantly restricts patients in everyday life. Instruments objectively measuring direct arm use in stroke patients are lacking, but might be helpful to understand patients' impairment. Aiming to examine whether accelerometry is a suitable objective measure for everyday UL use in stroke patients, we conducted a systematic review on the association between accelerometer-derived measurements and clinical scales. METHODS: Articles were systematically searched in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, PeDro and LIVIVO through December 12th, 2021, screened for inclusion by AH, and subsequently independently screened by CK and MK. Disagreements were discussed until consensus. We included English and German peer-reviewed articles dealing with the validity of accelerometers as a measurement of UL use in stroke patients and eligible systematic reviews. Studies exclusively using accelerometry as an outcome parameter, book contributions, conference abstracts and case studies were excluded. Data extraction was conducted by AH and confirmed by CK focussing on study type, objective, accelerometer device, sample size, stroke status, assessments conducted, measurement method, wearing time and key results. We analysed all eligible articles regarding the correlation between accelerometry and other clinical assessments and the validity in accordance with the type of accelerometer. RESULTS: Excluding duplicates, the initial search yielded 477 records. In the 34 eligible studies accelerometers was used with a predominance of tri-axial accelerometery (n = 12) and only few with two-axial application (n = 4). Regarding measures to examine association to accelerometer data different clinical scales were applied depending on the setting, the degree of impairment and/or the status of stroke. Cut-off values to determine correlations varied largely; most significant correlations are reported for the MAL [Range 0.31- 0.84] and the ARAT [Range 0.15-0.79]. CONCLUSIONS: Accelerometers can provide reliable data about daily arm use frequency but do not supply information about the movements´ quality and restrictions on everyday activities of stroke patients. Depending on the context, it is advisable to use both, accelerometry and other clinical measures. According to the literature there is currently no accelerometer device most suitable to measure UL activity. High correlations indicate that multi-dimensional accelerometers should be preferred.