A volunteer-supported walking programme to improve physical function in older people with restricted mobility (the POWER Study): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Regular physical activity has multiple health benefits, especially in older people. Therefore, the World Health Organization recommends at least 2.5 h of moderate physical activity per week. The aim of the POWER Study was to investigate whether volunteer-assisted walking improves the physical performance and health of older people. METHODS: We approached people aged 65 years and older with restricted mobility due to physical limitations and asked them to participate in this multicentre randomised controlled trial. The recruitment took place in nursing homes and the community setting. Participants randomly assigned to the intervention group were accompanied by volunteer companions for a 30-50 min walk up to three times a week for 6 months. Participants in the control group received two lectures that included health-related topics. The primary endpoint was physical function as measured with the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) at baseline and 6 and 12 months. The secondary and safety endpoints were quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), fear of falling (Falls Efficacy Scale), cognitive executive function (the Clock Drawing Test), falls, hospitalisations and death. RESULTS: The sample comprised 224 participants (79% female). We failed to show superiority of the intervention with regard to physical function (SPPB) or other health outcomes in the intention-to-treat analyses. However, additional exploratory analyses suggest benefits in those who undertook regular walks. The intervention appears to be safe regarding falls. CONCLUSIONS: Regular physical activity is essential to preserve function and to improve health and quality of life. Against the background of a smaller-than-planned sample size, resulting in low power, and the interference of the COVID-19 pandemic, we suggest that community based low-threshold interventions deserve further exploration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with the German Clinical Trials Register ( www.germanctr.de ), with number DRKS00015188 on 31/08/2018.

Safety outcomes of direct oral anticoagulants in older adults with atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of (subgroup analyses from) randomized controlled trials.

Balancing stroke prevention and risk of bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is challenging. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are by now considered standard of care for treating patients with AF in international guidelines. Our objective was to assess the safety of long-term intake of DOACs in older adults with AF. We included RCTs in elderly (≥ 65 years) patients with AF. A systematic search in MEDLINE and EMBASE was performed on 19 April 2022. For determination of risk of bias, the RoB 2 tool was applied. We pooled outcomes using random-effects meta-analyses. The quality of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Eleven RCTs with a total of 63,374 patients were identified. Two RCTs compared apixaban with either warfarin or aspirin, four edoxaban with either placebo, aspirin, or vitamin K antagonists (VKAs), two dabigatran with warfarin and three rivaroxaban with warfarin. DOACs probably reduce mortality in elderly patients with AF (HR 0.89 95%CI 0.77 to 1.02). Low-dose DOACs likely reduce bleeding compared to VKAs (HR ranged from 0.47 to 1.01). For high-dose DOACS the risk of bleeding varied widely (HR ranged from 0.80 to 1.40). We found that low-dose DOACs probably decrease mortality in AF patients. Moreover, apixaban and probably edoxaban are associated with fewer major or clinically relevant bleeding (MCRB) events compared to VKAs. For dabigatran and rivaroxaban, the risk of MCRB varies depending on dose. Moreover, subgroup analyses indicate that in the very old (≥ 85) the risk for MCRB events might be increased when using DOACs.Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42020187876.

Physio-metabolic and clinical consequences of wearing face masks-Systematic review with meta-analysis and comprehensive evaluation.

Background: As face masks became mandatory in most countries during the COVID-19 pandemic, adverse effects require substantiated investigation. Methods: A systematic review of 2,168 studies on adverse medical mask effects yielded 54 publications for synthesis and 37 studies for meta-analysis (on n = 8,641, m = 2,482, f = 6,159, age = 34.8 ± 12.5). The median trial duration was only 18 min (IQR = 50) for our comprehensive evaluation of mask induced physio-metabolic and clinical outcomes. Results: We found significant effects in both medical surgical and N95 masks, with a greater impact of the second. These effects included decreased SpO2 (overall Standard Mean Difference, SMD = -0.24, 95% CI = -0.38 to -0.11, p < 0.001) and minute ventilation (SMD = -0.72, 95% CI = -0.99 to -0.46, p < 0.001), simultaneous increased in blood-CO2 (SMD = +0.64, 95% CI = 0.31-0.96, p < 0.001), heart rate (N95: SMD = +0.22, 95% CI = 0.03-0.41, p = 0.02), systolic blood pressure (surgical: SMD = +0.21, 95% CI = 0.03-0.39, p = 0.02), skin temperature (overall SMD = +0.80 95% CI = 0.23-1.38, p = 0.006) and humidity (SMD +2.24, 95% CI = 1.32-3.17, p < 0.001). Effects on exertion (overall SMD = +0.9, surgical = +0.63, N95 = +1.19), discomfort (SMD = +1.16), dyspnoea (SMD = +1.46), heat (SMD = +0.70), and humidity (SMD = +0.9) were significant in n = 373 with a robust relationship to mask wearing (p < 0.006 to p < 0.001). Pooled symptom prevalence (n = 8,128) was significant for: headache (62%, p < 0.001), acne (38%, p < 0.001), skin irritation (36%, p < 0.001), dyspnoea (33%, p < 0.001), heat (26%, p < 0.001), itching (26%, p < 0.001), voice disorder (23%, p < 0.03), and dizziness (5%, p = 0.01). Discussion: Masks interfered with O2-uptake and CO2-release and compromised respiratory compensation. Though evaluated wearing durations are shorter than daily/prolonged use, outcomes independently validate mask-induced exhaustion-syndrome (MIES) and down-stream physio-metabolic disfunctions. MIES can have long-term clinical consequences, especially for vulnerable groups. So far, several mask related symptoms may have been misinterpreted as long COVID-19 symptoms. In any case, the possible MIES contrasts with the WHO definition of health. Conclusion: Face mask side-effects must be assessed (risk-benefit) against the available evidence of their effectiveness against viral transmissions. In the absence of strong empirical evidence of effectiveness, mask wearing should not be mandated let alone enforced by law. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021256694, identifier: PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021256694.

Potentially Inadequate Medications in the Elderly: PRISCUS 2.0.

BACKGROUND: The term potentially inadequate medication (PIM) is used to describe substances that may be unsuitable for use inthe elderly and should be avoided. The PRISCUS list, published in 2010, was the first catalog of PIM designed for the Germandrug market to become adopted in practice. While 24% of German patients aged ≥ 65 years were prescribed at least one PIMper year in 2009, the proportion in 2019 was only 14.5%. METHODS: In a three-round Delphi process, experts from clinical practice and research evaluated whether selected substancesare PIM for the elderly. The participants were provided with dedicated literature including systematic reviews carried out for theparticular purposes of this project. RESULTS: Fifty-nine persons took part in the Delphi process and, in addition, contributed comments and therapeutic alternatives.Altogether, 187 substances were classed as PIM. One hundred thirty-three of the substances now listed were not in the originalPRISCUS list: these include some oral antidiabetics, all of the selective COX-2 inhibitors, and moderately long acting benzodiazepinessuch as oxazepam. For some other substances, e.g., proton pump inhibitors (PPI), the advisability of treatment formore than 8 weeks was considered as potentially inappropriate, as was the use of ibuprofen in doses >1200 mg/day and formore than 1 week without PPI. Risperidone for more than 6 weeks is also PIM. CONCLUSION: The new, greatly extended PRISCUS list must now be validated in epidemiological and prospective studies and itspracticability in routine daily use must be verified.

Efficacy and safety of adrenergic alpha-1 receptor antagonists in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis supporting the development of recommendations to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Adrenergic alpha-1 receptor antagonists (alpha-1 antagonists) are frequently used medications in the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) suggestive of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) and in the management of therapy-resistant arterial hypertension, two conditions frequently found in older adults. This systematic review aims at presenting a complete overview of evidence over the benefits and risks of alpha-1 antagonist treatment in people ≥ 65 years, and at deriving recommendations for a safe application of alpha-1 antagonists in older adults from the evidence found. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed (last update March 25th 2022) including multiple databases (Medline/Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Library) and using the PICOS framework to define search terms. The selection of the studies was done by two independent reviewers in a two-step approach, followed by a systematic data extraction. Quality appraisal was performed for each study included using standardised appraisal tools. The studies retrieved and additional literature were used for the development of recommendations, which were rated for strength and quality according to the GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included: 3 meta-analyses, 6 randomised controlled trials and 9 observational trials. Doxazosin in the management of arterial hypertension was associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, particularly heart failure, than chlorthalidone. Regarding treatment of LUTS suggestive of BPH, alpha-1 antagonists appeared to be effective in the relief of urinary symptoms and improvement of quality of life. They seemed to be less effective in preventing disease progression. Analyses of the risk profile indicated an increase in vasodilation related adverse events and sexual adverse events for some agents. The risk of falls and fractures as well as the effects of long-term treatment remained unclear. All meta-analyses and 5 out of 6 interventional studies were downgraded in the quality appraisal. 7 out of 9 observational studies were of good quality. CONCLUSIONS: It cannot be recommended to use doxazosin as first-line antihypertensive agent neither in older adults nor in younger patients. In the management of BPH alpha-1 antagonists promise to effectively relieve urinary symptoms with uncertainty regarding their efficacy in preventing long-term progression events.

Assessing the quality of evidence on safety: specifications for application and suggestions for adaptions of the GRADE-criteria in the context of preparing a list of potentially inappropriate medications for older adults.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews that synthesize safety outcomes pose challenges (e.g. rare events), which raise questions for grading the strength of the body of evidence. This is maybe one reason why in many potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) lists the recommendations are not based on formalized systems for assessing the quality of the body of evidence such as GRADE. In this contribution, we describe specifications and suggest adaptions of the GRADE system for grading the quality of evidence on safety outcomes, which were developed in the context of preparing a PIM-list, namely PRISCUS. METHODS: We systematically assessed each of the five GRADE domains for rating-down (study limitations, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, publication bias) and the criteria for rating-up, considering if special considerations or revisions of the original approach were indicated. The result was gathered in a written document and discussed in a group-meeting of five members with various background until consensus. Subsequently, we performed a proof-of-concept application using a convenience sample of systematic reviews and applied the approach to systematic reviews on 19 different clinical questions. RESULTS: We describe specifications and suggest adaptions for the criteria "study limitations", imprecision, "publication bias" and "rating-up for large effect". In addition, we suggest a new criterion to account for data from subgroup-analyses. The proof-of-concept application did not reveal a need for further revision and thus we used the approach for the systematic reviews that were prepared for the PRISCUS-list. We assessed 51 outcomes. Each of the proposed adaptions was applied. There were neither an excessive number of low and very low ratings, nor an excessive number of high ratings, but the different methodological quality of the safety outcomes appeared to be well reflected. CONCLUSION: The suggestions appear to have the potential to overcome some of the challenges when grading the methodological quality of harms and thus may be helpful for producers of evidence syntheses considering safety.

Factors influencing the implementation of person-centred care in nursing homes by practice development champions: a qualitative process evaluation of a cluster-randomised controlled trial (EPCentCare) using Normalization Process Theory.

BACKGROUND: Person-centred care (PCC) has been suggested as the preferred model of dementia care in all settings. The EPCentCare study showed that an adapted PCC approach was difficult to implement and had no effect on prescription of antipsychotics in nursing home residents in Germany. This paper reports the qualitative process evaluation to identify facilitators and barriers of the implementation of PCC in German nursing homes from the perspective of participating practice development champions. METHODS: Five individual and 14 group interviews were conducted with 66 participants (staff and managers) from 18 nursing homes. The analysis was based on inductive coding to identify factors influencing the PCC implementation process. Identified factors were systematised and structured by mapping them to the four constructs (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action, reflexive monitoring) of the Normalization Process Theory (NPT) as a framework that explains implementation processes. RESULTS: Facilitating implementation factors included among others broadening of the care perspective (coherence), tolerance development within the care team regarding challenging behaviour (cognitive participation), testing new approaches to solutions as a multi-professional team (collective action), and perception of effects of PCC measures (reflexive monitoring). Among the facilitating factors reported in all the NPT constructs, thus affecting the entire implementation process, were the involvement of relatives, multi-professional teamwork and effective collaboration with physicians. Barriers implied uncertainties about the implementation and expectation of a higher workload (coherence), concerns about the feasibility of PCC implementation in terms of human resources (cognitive participation), lack of a person-centred attitude by colleagues or the institution (collective action), and doubts about the effects of PCC (reflexive monitoring). Barriers influencing the entire implementation process comprised insufficient time resources, lack of support, lack of involvement of the multi-professional team, and difficulties regarding communication with the attending physicians. CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide a comprehensive and detailed overview of facilitators and barriers structured along the implementation process. Thus, our findings may assist both researchers and clinicians to develop and reflect more efficiently on PCC implementation processes in nursing homes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02295462 ; November 20, 2014.

Does the relative importance of the OxCAP-MH's capability items differ according to mental ill-health experience?

BACKGROUND: Some capability dimensions may be more important than others in determining someone's well-being, and these preferences might be dependent on ill-health experience. This study aimed to explore the relative preference weights of the 16 items of the German language version of the OxCAP-MH (Oxford Capability questionnaire-Mental Health) capability instrument and their differences across cohorts with alternative levels of mental ill-health experience. METHODS: A Best-Worst-Scaling (BWS) survey was conducted in Austria among 1) psychiatric patients (direct mental ill-health experience), 2) (mental) healthcare experts (indirect mental ill-health experience), and 3) primary care patients with no mental ill-health experience. Relative importance scores for each item of the German OxCAP-MH instrument were calculated using Hierarchical Bayes estimation. Rank analysis and multivariable linear regression analysis with robust standard errors were used to explore the relative importance of the OxCAP-MH items across the three cohorts. RESULTS: The study included 158 participants with complete cases and acceptable fit statistic. The relative importance scores for the full cohort ranged from 0.76 to 15.72. Findings of the BWS experiment indicated that the items Self-determination and Limitation in daily activities were regarded as the most important for all three cohorts. Freedom of expression was rated significantly less important by psychiatric patients than by the other two cohorts, while Having suitable accommodation appeared significantly less important by the expert cohort. There were no further significant differences in the relative preference weights of OxCAP-MH items between the cohorts or according to gender. CONCLUSIONS: Our study indicates significant between-item but limited mental ill-health related heterogeneity in the relative preference weights of the different capability items within the OxCAP-MH. The findings support the future development of preference-based value sets elicited from the general population for comparative economic evaluation purposes.

Quality of chronic care in general practices in Salzburg, Austria, and South Tyrol, Italy: a comparative process of care intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Quality indicators to assess the quality of primary care have only been applied on a national or regional level in European countries, and there have been no comparisons between regions of different countries. In the interventional pre-post-study "Improvement of Quality by Benchmarking - IQuaB" (level of evidence: 3), we aimed to improve and compare quality of process care in 57 participating general practices in Salzburg, Austria, and South Tyrol, Italy. METHODS: The intervention consisted of self-audit, benchmarking and quality circles. Quality indicators for eight common chronic diseases (e. g., diabetes) were extracted from the electronic health records in 2012, 2013 and 2014. Based on 19 quality indicators, a supra-regional quality score was calculated and compared using Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: A relatively weak baseline performance was identified in both regions. In all three assessments, the median quality score increased in both regions and was significantly higher in South Tyrol than in Salzburg. During the study period the median supra-regional quality score increased from 20.00 to 38.00 in the Salzburg sample and from 47.00 to 79.50 in the South Tyrolian sample. The differences between the two regions were significant at baseline and after intervention (2012: p=0.015, 2014: p=0.001). DISCUSSION: Despite data extraction challenges in Austria, we are convinced that our data highlight real differences in (processual) quality of care between the two regions. CONCLUSIONS: The reasons underlying the persisting differences between the two regions may include: (1) different functions in electronic health records, (2) benchmarking as an integral part of the electronic health record, (3) gate-keeping system and use of registration lists, (4) state-supported quality initiatives.

Efficacy and safety of Z-substances in the management of insomnia in older adults: a systematic review for the development of recommendations to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Z-drugs are usually prescribed as first line pharmacological therapy for insomnia. However, the benefits and risks of Z-drugs may differ for older adults. This systematic review investigated the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of Z-drugs in the management of insomnia in older adults. METHODS: The Cochrane database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for systematic reviews, meta-analyses, controlled interventional and observational studies using a pre-formulated search term. The target population was older adults (≥65 years old) with insomnia. Studies were included if they reported efficacy and/or safety outcomes of the use of Z-drugs for the management of insomnia compared to placebo, usual or no treatment, or other pharmacological agents. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included (8 interventional and 10 observational studies). In short-term interventional studies, Z-drugs were similarly or better efficacious in improving both sleep and daytime parameters than placebo or other pharmacological treatments, while showing good results on measures of safety. However, in longer-term observational studies, Z-drugs significantly increased the risk for falls and fractures in comparison to no treatment or melatonin agonists. CONCLUSIONS: Analyzing the evidence from short-term interventional studies, Z-drugs appear effective and safe for treatment of insomnia in older adults, but they may have unfavorable side effects when used for longer periods of time. We, therefore, recommend discontinuing Z-drugs, principally because of the high risk for falls and fractures. Nonetheless, quality and quantity of evidence are low. Due to the scarcity of data, especially concerning drug dependence after longer periods of treatment and due to the significantly increased risk for falls and fractures, further studies are needed to evaluate the benefit-risk profile of Z-drugs use in older patients, particularly for long-term use.

Safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42020210645. INTRODUCTION: We aimed to assess the safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in older patients with type 2 diabetes with inadequate glycaemic control. METHODS: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in older (⩾65 years) patients with type 2 diabetes. The intervention group was randomized to treatment with any DPP-4 inhibitors. A systematic search in MEDLINE and Embase was performed in December 2020. For assessing the risk of bias, RoB 2 tool was applied. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. We pooled outcomes using random effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: We identified 16 RCTs that included 19,317 patients with a mean age of greater than 70 years. The mean HbA1c level ranged between 7.1 and 10.0 g/dl. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care alone may increase mortality slightly [risk ratio (RR) 1.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.21]. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care increases the risk for hypoglycaemia (RR 1.08; 95% CI 1.01-1.16), but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. DPP-4 inhibitors added to standard care may reduce mortality compared with sulfonylureas (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.75-1.04). DPP-4 inhibitors probably reduce the risk for hypoglycaemia compared with sulfonylureas (magnitude of effect not quantifiable because of heterogeneity) but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. There is insufficient evidence on hospitalizations, falls, fractures, renal impairment and pancreatitis. CONCLUSION: There is no evidence that DPP-4 inhibitors in addition to standard care decrease mortality but DPP-4 inhibitors increase hypoglycaemia risk. Second-line therapy in older patients should be considered cautiously even in drugs with a good safety profile such as DPP-4 inhibitors. In case second-line treatment is necessary, DPP-4 inhibitors appear to be preferable to sulfonylureas. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors in older adults with type 2 diabetes: Introduction:: We performed the review to assess the safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors in older type 2 diabetes patients with blood sugar outside the normal level.Methods:: To answer the question, we searched various electronic databases. We included studies in older (⩾65 years) patients with type 2 diabetes that assessed the safety of DPP-4 inhibitors. The data from the different studies were quantitatively summarized using statistical methods. We assessed the quality of the data to judge the certainty of the findings.Results:: We identified 16 studies that included 19,317 patients with a mean age greater than 70 years. The average blood sugar level of patients in the included studies was slightly or moderately increased. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care alone may increase mortality slightly. Adding DPP-4 inhibitors to standard care increases the risk for hypoglycaemia, but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. DPP-4 inhibitors added to standard care may reduce mortality compared with sulfonylureas. DPP-4s probably reduce the risk of hypoglycaemia compared with sulfonylureas (magnitude of effect not quantifiable because of heterogeneity) but difference in overall adverse events is negligible. There is insufficient evidence on hospitalizations, falls, fractures, renal impairment and pancreatitis.Conclusion:: There is no evidence that DPP-4 inhibitors in addition to standard care decrease mortality but DPP-4 inhibitors increase the risk that blood sugar falls below normal. Adding DPP-4 inhibitorss to standard care in older patients should be considered cautiously even in drugs with a good safety profile such as DPP-4 inhibitors. In case additional treatment is necessary, DPP-4 inhibitors appear to be preferable to sulfonylureas.

Methodological problems of SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care tests when used in mass testing.

The aim of the current study is to perform model calculations on the possible use of SARS-CoV-2-rapid point-of-care tests as mass tests, using the quality criteria extracted from evidence-based research as an example for the Federal Republic of Germany. In addition to illustrating the problem of false positive test results, these calculations are used to examine their possible influence on the 7-day incidence. For a substantial period of time, this parameter formed the decisive basis for decisions on measures to protect the population in the wake of the COVID pandemic, which were taken by the government. Primarily, model calculations were performed for a base model of 1,000,000 SARS-CoV-2-rapid point-of-care tests per week using various sensitivities and specificities reported in the literature, followed by sequential testing of the test positives obtained by a SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Furthermore, a calculation was performed for an actual maximum model based on self-test contingents by the German Federal Ministry of Health. Assuming a number of 1,000,000 tests per week at a prevalence of 0.5%, a high number of false positive test results, a low positive predictive value, a high negative predictive value, and an increase in the 7-day incidence due to the additional antigen rapid tests of approx. 5/100,000 were obtained. A previous maximum calculation based on contingent numbers for self-tests given by the German Federal Ministry of Health even showed an additional possible influence on the 7-day incidence of 84.6/100,000. The model calculations refer in each case to representative population samples that would have to be drawn if the successive results were comparable which should be given, as far-reaching actions were based on this parameter. The additionally performed SARS-CoV-2-rapid point-of-care tests increase the 7-day incidence in a clear way depending on the number of tests and clearly show their dependence on the respective number of tests. SARS-CoV-2-rapid point-of-care tests as well as the SARS-CoV-2-PCR test method should both be used exclusively in the presence of corresponding respiratory symptoms and not in symptom-free persons.

Are quality promotion initiatives in Austrian and Italian general practices associated with higher patient satisfaction and quality of life? Results from the interventional study 'IQuaB'.

The objective was to assess the changes in quality of life (QoL) and patient satisfaction of chronically ill patients in general practices in Salzburg (Austria) and South Tyrol (Italy) after implementation of a combined intervention addressing quality of care of general practitioners (GPs). Furthermore, the correlation between QoL/patient satisfaction and quality of care provided by the GPs (measured by a quality score based on quality indicators [QIs]) was investigated. The non-controlled pre-post study involved GPs and patients with chronic conditions. The intervention consisted of self-audit, benchmarking and quality circles. QIs were extracted in the participating practices in 2012 (preintervention) and 2014 (postintervention). Before and after the intervention, a patient survey was conducted including EQ-5D (measuring health-related QoL), a patient participation scale and parts of the European Task Force on Patient Evaluations of General Practice questionnaire (measuring patient satisfaction). Mann-Whitney U-tests, chi-square tests and Spearman's rank correlation were applied for statistical analysis. Fifty-six GPs participated in the study. 1,710 patients returned the questionnaire in 2012, and 1,374 in 2014. Mean EQ-5D index (QoL) was similar in Salzburg and South Tyrol in both years: 2012 Salzburg 0.85 (95% CI 0.84-0.87), South Tyrol 0.85 (95% CI 0.84-0.86); 2014 Salzburg 0.84 (95% CI 0.83-0.86), South Tyrol 0.84 (95% CI 0.83-0.86). Patient satisfaction was higher in Salzburg than in South Tyrol at baseline (EUROPEP: mean percentage of best response 61.5% vs. 49.1%, p < 0.000) and also at follow-up (61.9% vs. 49.2%; p < 0.000). No significant correlation between quality score and QoL/patient satisfaction was detected. Thus, the impact of the intervention was not significant within the intermediate time periods analysed in the study. Improvements in quality of care do not necessarily also improve patient-relevant outcomes, which are probably more associated with other factors than with medical quality (e.g. availability of the GP, waiting times and communication-related issues).

Expert-based medication reviews to reduce polypharmacy in older patients in primary care: a northern-Italian cluster-randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence regarding clinically relevant effects of interventions aiming at reducing polypharmacy is weak, especially for the primary care setting. This study was initiated with the objective to achieve clinical benefits for older patients (aged 75+) by means of evidence-based reduction of polypharmacy (defined as ≥8 prescribed drugs) and inappropriate prescribing in general practice. METHODS: The cluster-randomised controlled trial involved general practitioners and patients in a northern-Italian region. The intervention consisted of a review of patient's medication regimens by three experts who gave specific recommendations for drug discontinuation. Main outcome measures were non-elective hospital admissions or death within 24 months (composite primary endpoint). Secondary outcomes were drug numbers, hospital admissions, mortality, falls, fractures, quality of life, affective status, cognitive function. RESULTS: Twenty-two GPs/307 patients participated in the intervention group, 21 GPs/272 patients in the control group. One hundred twenty-five patients (40.7%) experienced the primary outcome in the intervention group, 87 patients (32.0%) in the control group. The adjusted rates of occurrence of the primary outcome did not differ significantly between the study groups (intention-to-treat analysis: adjusted odds ratio 1.46, 95%CI 0.99-2.18, p = 0.06; per-protocol analysis: adjusted OR 1.33, 95%CI 0.87-2.04, p = 0.2). Hospitalisations as single endpoint occurred more frequently in the intervention group according to the unadjusted analysis (OR 1.61, 95%CI 1.03-2.51, p = 0.04) but not in the adjusted analysis (OR 1.39, 95%CI 0.95-2.03, p = 0.09). Falls occurred less frequently in the intervention group (adjusted OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.31-0.98; p = 0.04). No significant differences were found regarding the other outcomes. Definitive discontinuation was obtained for 67 (16.0%) of 419 drugs rated as inappropriate. About 6% of the prescribed drugs were PIMs. CONCLUSIONS: No conclusive effects were found regarding mortality and non-elective hospitalisations as composite respectively single endpoints. Falls were significantly reduced in the intervention group, although definitive discontinuation was achieved for only one out of six inappropriate drugs. These results indicate that (1) even a modest reduction of inappropriate medications may entail positive clinical effects, and that (2) focusing on evidence-based new drug prescriptions and prevention of polypharmacy may be more effective than deprescribing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials (ID ISRCTN: 38449870), date: 11/09/2013.

A pragmatic randomised controlled trial referring to a Personalised Self-management SUPport Programme (P-SUP) for persons enrolled in a disease management programme for type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or for coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and coronary heart disease (CHD) are two chronic diseases that cause a tremendous burden. To reduce this burden, several programmes for optimising the care for these diseases have been developed. In Germany, so-called disease management programmes (DMPs), which combine components of Disease Management and the Chronic Care Model, are applied. These DMPs have proven effective. Nevertheless, there are opportunities for improvement. Current DMPs rarely address self-management of the disease, make no use of peer support, and provide no special assistance for persons with low health literacy and/or low patient activation. The study protocol presented here is for the evaluation of a programme that addresses these possible shortcomings and can be combined with current German DMPs for T2DM and CHD. This programme consists of four components: 1) Meetings of peer support groups 2) Personalised telephone-based health coaching for patients with low literacy and/or low patient activation 3) Personalised patient feedback 4) A browser-based web portal METHODS: Study participants will be adults enrolled in a DMP for T2DM and/or CHD and living in North Rhine-Westphalia, a state of the Federal Republic of Germany. Study participants will be recruited with the assistance of their general practitioners by the end of June 2021. Evaluation will be performed as a pragmatic randomised controlled trial with one intervention group and one waiting control group. The intervention group will receive the intervention for 18 months. During this time, the waiting control group will continue with usual care and the usual measures of their DMPs. After 18 months, the waiting control group will also receive a shortened intervention. The primary outcome is number of hospital days. In addition, the effects on self-reported health-state, physical activity, nutrition, and eight different psychological variables will be investigated. Differences between values at month 18 and at the beginning will be compared to judge the effectiveness of the intervention. DISCUSSION: If the intervention proves effective, it may be included into the DMPs for T2DM and CHD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered in the German Clinical Trials Registry (Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (DRKS)) in early 2019 under the number 00020592. This registry has been affiliated with the WHO Clinical Trials Network ( https://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do ) since 2008. It is based on the WHO template, but contains some additional categories for which information has to be given ( https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=entryfields&messageDE=Beschreibung%20der%20Eingabefelder&messageEN=Description%20of%20entry%20fields ). A release and subsequent number assignment only take place when information for all categories has been given.

Typology of drug discontinuation trials - Methodological recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: Due to the increasing concerns about polypharmacy, there is a growing need for clinical recommendations for drug discontinuation. This requires studies investigating the process on several levels. This paper addresses the methodological problems of drug discontinuation trials (DDTs). To that end, we offer a new typology of research aims and corresponding methodological recommendations for trials evaluating drug discontinuation. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Multi-stage development process, including literature search and expert panels. RESULTS: Clinical trials are only required in cases of scientific uncertainty. We identified three situations of uncertainty associated with drug discontinuation from which we derived three study types: 1) Uncertainty regarding the effectiveness and/or safety of a drug; 2) Uncertainty regarding the procedure of discontinuing a previously taken drug; 3) Uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of complex strategies used to discontinue one or more drugs. We developed specific methodological recommendations for each study type. CONCLUSION: We offer a comprehensive definition of research aims, study designs, and methodological recommendations regarding DDTs. The typology we propose can help investigators clarify their research aims and study design. The type-specific methodological recommendation should improve the quality of future drug discontinuation trials.

Epidemiology and associated factors of polypharmacy in older patients in primary care: a northern Italian cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: A precondition for developing strategies to reduce polypharmacy and its well-known harmful consequences is to study its epidemiology and associated factors. The objective of this study was to analyse the prevalence of polypharmacy (defined as ≥8 prescribed drugs), of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and major drug-drug interactions (DDIs) among community-dwelling general practice patients aged ≥75 years and to identify characteristics being associated with polypharmacy. METHODS: This cross-sectional study is derived from baseline data (patients' demographic/biometric characteristics, diagnoses, medication-related data, cognitive/affective status, quality of life) of a northern-Italian cluster-RCT. PIMs and DDIs were assessed using the 2012 Beers criteria and the Lexi-Interact® database. Data were analysed using descriptive methods, Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, Fisher's exact tests and Spearman correlations. RESULTS: Of the eligible patients aged 75+, 13.4% were on therapy with ≥8 drugs. Forty-three general practitioners and 579 patients participated in the study. Forty five point nine percent of patients were treated with ≥1 Beers-listed drugs. The most frequent PIMs were benzodiazepines/hypnotics (19.7% of patients) and NSAIDs (6.6%). Sixty seven point five percent of patients were exposed to ≥1 major DDI, 35.2% to ≥2 major DDIs. Antithrombotic/anticoagulant medications (30.4%) and antidepressants/antipsychotics (23.1%) were the most frequently interacting drugs. Polypharmacy was significantly associated with a higher number of major DDIs (Spearman's rho 0.33, p < 0.001) and chronic conditions (Spearman's rho 0.20, p < 0.001), higher 5-GDS scores (thus, lower affective status) (Spearman's rho 0.12, p = 0.003) and lower EQ-5D-5L scores (thus, lower quality of life) (Spearman's rho - 0.14, p = 0.001). Patients' age/sex, 6-CIT scores (cognitive status), BMI or PIM use were not correlated with the number of drugs. CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of polypharmacy, PIMs and major DDIs was considerable. Results indicate that physicians should particularly observe their patients with multiple conditions, reduced health and affective status, independently from other patients' characteristics. Careful attention about indication, benefit and potential risk should be paid especially to patients on therapy with specific drug classes identified as potentially inappropriate or prone to major DDIs in older persons (e.g., benzodiazepines, NSAIDs, protonic pump inhibitors, antithrombotics/anticoagulants, antidepressants/antipsychotics). TRIAL REGISTRATION: The cluster-RCT on which this cross-sectional analysis is based was registered with Current Controlled Trials Ltd. (ID ISRCTN: 38449870 ) on 2013-09-11.

Second-generation antidepressants for treatment of seasonal affective disorder.

BACKGROUND: Seasonal affective disorder (SAD) is a seasonal pattern of recurrent depressive episodes that is often treated with second-generation antidepressants (SGAs), light therapy, or psychotherapy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of second-generation antidepressants (SGAs) for the treatment of seasonal affective disorder (SAD) in adults in comparison with placebo, light therapy, other SGAs, or psychotherapy. SEARCH METHODS: This is an update of an earlier review first published in 2011. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2020, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (all years), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2011 to January 2020), together with the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR) (all available years), for reports of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We hand searched the reference lists of all included studies and other systematic reviews. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished/ongoing trials. We ran a separate update search for reports of adverse events in the Ovid databases.  SELECTION CRITERIA: For efficacy we included RCTs of SGAs compared with other SGAs, placebo, light therapy, or psychotherapy in adult participants with SAD. For adverse events we also included non-randomised studies. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text publications against the inclusion criteria. Data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment were conducted individually. We pooled data for meta-analysis where the participant groups were similar, and the studies assessed the same treatments with the same comparator and had similar definitions of outcome measures over a similar duration of treatment. MAIN RESULTS: In this update we identified no new RCT on the effectiveness of SGAs in SAD patients. We included 2 additional single-arm observational studies that reported on adverse events of SGAs.  For efficacy we included three RCTs of between five and eight weeks' duration with a total of 204 participants. For adverse events we included two RCTs and five observational (non-randomised) studies of five to eight weeks' duration with a total of 249 participants. All participants met the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) criteria for SAD. The average age ranged from 34 to 42 years, and the majority of participants were female (66% to 100%). Results from one trial with 68 participants showed that fluoxetine (20/36) was numerically superior to placebo (11/32) in achieving clinical response; however, the confidence interval (CI) included both a potential benefit as well as no benefit of fluoxetine (risk ratio (RR) 1.62, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.83, very low-certainty evidence). The number of adverse events was similar in both groups (very low-certainty evidence). Two trials involving a total of 136 participants compared fluoxetine versus light therapy. Meta-analysis showed fluoxetine and light therapy to be approximately equal in treating seasonal depression: RR of response 0.98 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.24, low-certainty evidence), RR of remission 0.81 (95% CI 0.39 to 1.71, very low-certainty evidence). The number of adverse events was similar in both groups (low-certainty evidence). We did not identify any eligible study comparing SGA with another SGA or with psychotherapy. Two RCTs and five non-randomised studies reported adverse event data on a total of 249 participants who received bupropion, fluoxetine, escitalopram, duloxetine, nefazodone, reboxetine, light therapy, or placebo. We were only able to obtain crude rates of adverse events, therefore caution is advised regarding interpretation of this information. Between 0% and 100% of participants who received an SGA suffered an adverse event, and between 0% and 25% of participants withdrew from the study due to adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence for the effectiveness of SGAs is limited to one small trial of fluoxetine compared with placebo showing a non-significant effect in favour of fluoxetine, and two small trials comparing fluoxetine against light therapy suggesting equivalence between the two interventions. The lack of available evidence precluded us from drawing any overall conclusions on the use of SGAs for SAD. Further, larger RCTs are required to expand and strengthen the evidence base on this topic, and should also include comparisons with psychotherapy and other SGAs. Data on adverse events were sparse, and a comparative analysis was not possible. The data we obtained on adverse events is therefore not robust, and our confidence in the data is limited. Overall, up to 25% of participants treated with SGAs for SAD withdrew from the study early due to adverse events.