Clinical practice guideline for deprescribing opioid analgesics: summary of recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Long term opioids are commonly prescribed to manage pain. Dose reduction or discontinuation (deprescribing) can be challenging, even when the potential harms of continuation outweigh the perceived benefits. The Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for deprescribing opioid analgesics was developed using robust guideline development processes and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and contains deprescribing recommendations for adults prescribed opioids for pain. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: Eleven recommendations provide advice about when, how and for whom opioid deprescribing should be considered, while noting the need to consider each person's goals, values and preferences. The recommendations aim to achieve: implementation of a deprescribing plan at the point of opioid initiation; initiation of opioid deprescribing for persons with chronic non-cancer or chronic cancer-survivor pain if there is a lack of overall and clinically meaningful improvement in function, quality of life or pain, a lack of progress towards meeting agreed therapeutic goals, or the person is experiencing serious or intolerable opioid-related adverse effects; gradual and individualised deprescribing, with regular monitoring and review; consideration of opioid deprescribing for individuals at high risk of opioid-related harms; avoidance of opioid deprescribing for persons nearing the end of life unless clinically indicated; avoidance of opioid deprescribing for persons with a severe opioid use disorder, with the initiation of evidence-based care, such as medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder; and use of evidence-based co-interventions to facilitate deprescribing, including interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary or multimodal care. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THESE GUIDELINES: To our knowledge, these are the first evidence-based guidelines for opioid deprescribing. The recommendations intend to facilitate safe and effective deprescribing to improve the quality of care for persons taking opioids for pain.

Prevalence, incidence and management of atopic dermatitis in Australian general practice using routinely collected data from MedicineInsight.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of atopic dermatitis (AD) has increased significantly in industrialised countries in recent decades but data about the incidence or prevalence of AD in Australia are sparse. We aimed to determine the prevalence and incidence of AD among patients seen in Australian general practice and the use of specified medicines. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study of 2.1 million patients attending 494 general practices in the MedicineInsight program from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2018. We assessed the prevalence (lifetime and current), incidence, management and severity of AD. RESULTS: The lifetime (ever diagnosed) prevalence of AD in this general practice population was 16.4% and was greater in females (17.3%) than males (15.3%). One in five patients with AD were classified as having moderate-to-severe disease. Prevalence over the last two years was 6.3%. The incidence of AD in 2018 was 2.0% and was greater in females (2.2%) and for patients aged 0-4 years (3.9%). Patients with AD had an increased risk of insomnia, anxiety and depression, compared to those with no recorded AD. For AD patients, topical corticosteroids were the most commonly prescribed AD medication (36.5%) and topical calcineurin inhibitors the least (0.1%), with systemic corticosteroids (15.6%) more commonly prescribed than other immunosuppressants (0.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide important insights into the epidemiology of AD and its management in Australian general practice. This information is likely to be useful in planning effective interventions to support GPs in the optimal management of patients with AD.

Context matters: using an Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework to develop and encourage uptake of opioid deprescribing guideline recommendations at the point-of-care.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the development and use of an Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework when formulating recommendations for the Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline for Deprescribing Opioid Analgesics. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Evidence was derived from an overview of systematic reviews and qualitative studies conducted with healthcare professionals and people who take opioids for pain. A multidisciplinary guideline development group conducted extensive EtD framework review and iterative refinement to ensure that guideline recommendations captured contextual factors relevant to the guideline target setting and audience. RESULTS: The guideline development group considered and accounted for the complexities of opioid deprescribing at the individual and health system level, shaping recommendations and practice points to facilitate point-of-care use. Stakeholders exhibited diverse preferences, beliefs, and values. This variability, low certainty of evidence, and system-level policies and funding models impacted the strength of the generated recommendations, resulting in the formulation of four 'conditional' recommendations. CONCLUSION: The context within which evidence-based recommendations are considered, as well as the political and health system environment, can contribute to the success of recommendation implementation. Use of an EtD framework allowed for the development of implementable recommendations relevant at the point-of-care through consideration of limitations of the evidence and relevant contextual factors.

Clinical Observation, Management and Function Of low back pain Relief Therapies (COMFORT): A cluster randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain (LBP) is commonly treated with opioid analgesics despite evidence that these medicines provide minimal or no benefit for LBP and have an established profile of harms. International guidelines discourage or urge caution with the use of opioids for back pain; however, doctors and patients lack practical strategies to help them implement the guidelines. This trial will evaluate a multifaceted intervention to support general practitioners (GPs) and their patients with LBP implement the recommendations in the latest opioid prescribing guidelines. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a cluster randomised controlled trial that will evaluate the effect of educational outreach visits to GPs promoting opioid stewardship alongside non-pharmacological interventions including heat wrap and patient education about the possible harms and benefits of opioids, on GP prescribing of opioids medicines dispensed. At least 40 general practices will be randomised in a 1:1 ratio to either the intervention or control (no outreach visits; GP provides usual care). A total of 410 patient-participants (205 in each arm) who have been prescribed an opioid for LBP will be enrolled via participating general practices. Follow-up of patient-participants will occur over a 1-year period. The primary outcome will be the cumulative dose of opioid dispensed that was prescribed by study GPs over 1 year from the enrolment visit (in morphine milligram equivalent dose). Secondary outcomes include prescription of opioid medicines, benzodiazepines, gabapentinoids, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs by study GPs or any GP, health services utilisation and patient-reported outcomes such as pain, quality of life and adverse events. Analysis will be by intention to treat, with a health economics analysis also planned. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial received ethics approval from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/511). The results will be disseminated via publications in journals, media and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12622001505796.

Management of patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in primary care.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Approximately 65% of cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related deaths in Australia occur in people with diabetes or pre-diabetes. The aim of this study was to investigate general practice management of risk factors among patients with both conditions. METHOD: This was a cross-sectional study of 33,559 adult patients with both type 2 diabetes and CVD at 1 November 2018, using the general practice data program MedicineInsight. RESULTS: One-third of patients did not have a record in their current medications list for all three recommended medicines to reduce cardiovascular risk. Potentially suboptimal monitoring and achievement of targets for diabetes and cardiovascular risk factors was also identified. Most patients using metformin-based combination therapy were prescribed blood glucose-lowering medicines that do not have evidence of cardiovascular benefit. DISCUSSION: These data suggest opportunities to support general practices to optimise patient management. Datasets such as MedicineInsight can help practices identify patients who may benefit from recall.

Cumulative annual coverage of meningococcal B vaccination in Australian general practice for three at-risk groups, 2014 to 2019.

Neisseria meningitidis serogroup B (MenB) is the most common cause of meningococcal disease in adolescents and young adults. In Australia, MenB vaccination has been available through private prescription since 2014 and has been recommended for at-risk groups including adolescents, young adults who smoke and people medically at risk. For each of these at-risk groups, we estimated cumulative annual coverage of MenB vaccination between 2014 and 2019. We also evaluated factors associated with vaccination coverage in 2019. Our analyses used electronic health records in the national MedicineInsight database for people regularly attending general practices. Cumulative vaccination coverage increased among the at-risk groups between 2014 and 2019: from 0.09% to 1.65% for adolescents, from 0.01% to 0.15% for young adults who smoke, and from 0.35% to 12.09% for people medically at risk. However, vaccination coverage in 2019 remained very low across these groups. Data sparsity prevented the evaluation of factors associated with vaccination coverage for smokers. We observed variation in the relative risk of being vaccinated by age, sex, socioeconomic and clinical factors for adolescents and people medically at risk. Still, the absolute magnitude of coverage was low across all subgroups examined, and indicates a need for strategies to increase vaccination uptake among at-risk groups irrespective of patient and practice characteristics. Our study provides baseline data for monitoring menB vaccination uptake among recommended groups in light of limited national data, especially for medically at-risk groups.