Development of the core of an ICF-based instrument for the assessment of work capacity and guidance in return to work of employees on sick leave: a multidisciplinary modified Delphi study.

BACKGROUND: Several occupational health disciplines are involved in return to work guidance, implying that good interdisciplinary collaboration is important. A shared conceptual framework and a common language for the assessment of work capacity and guidance in return to work is expected to be at the benefit of appropriate and sustainable employability of sick employees. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) can be considered a shared conceptual framework and is also promising in terms of a common language. The purpose of the current study is to reach multidisciplinary consensus among occupational health professionals on the content of an ICF-based instrument for the assessment of work capacity and guidance in return to work. METHODS: To obtain multidisciplinary consensus we conducted a modified Delphi study among twelve occupational health experts, including four occupational physicians, four insurance physicians and four labour experts. The study included two e-mail rounds and two virtual meetings. In the consecutive rounds the experts assessed ICF items as well as a list of non-ICF-based work-related environmental factors on their relevance for the assessment of the work capacity and guidance in return to work together with their interpretability. RESULTS: The four consecutive Delphi rounds resulted in 20 items that are minimally needed for the assessment of the work capacity and return to work possibilities of employees on sick leave. The final list included six items on personal functioning, seven items on social functioning and seven items on physical functioning. CONCLUSIONS: This set of items forms the core of an ICF-based instrument, which is expected to facilitate interdisciplinary and intradisciplinary communication because of the use of a shared conceptual framework. As such, it should be of help in the guidance in return to work of employees on sick leave and contribute to appropriate and sustainable employability.

General practitioners' deprescribing decisions in older adults with polypharmacy: a case vignette study in 31 countries.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) should regularly review patients' medications and, if necessary, deprescribe, as inappropriate polypharmacy may harm patients' health. However, deprescribing can be challenging for physicians. This study investigates GPs' deprescribing decisions in 31 countries. METHODS: In this case vignette study, GPs were invited to participate in an online survey containing three clinical cases of oldest-old multimorbid patients with potentially inappropriate polypharmacy. Patients differed in terms of dependency in activities of daily living (ADL) and were presented with and without history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). For each case, we asked GPs if they would deprescribe in their usual practice. We calculated proportions of GPs who reported they would deprescribe and performed a multilevel logistic regression to examine the association between history of CVD and level of dependency on GPs' deprescribing decisions. RESULTS: Of 3,175 invited GPs, 54% responded (N = 1,706). The mean age was 50 years and 60% of respondents were female. Despite differences across GP characteristics, such as age (with older GPs being more likely to take deprescribing decisions), and across countries, overall more than 80% of GPs reported they would deprescribe the dosage of at least one medication in oldest-old patients (> 80 years) with polypharmacy irrespective of history of CVD. The odds of deprescribing was higher in patients with a higher level of dependency in ADL (OR =1.5, 95%CI 1.25 to 1.80) and absence of CVD (OR =3.04, 95%CI 2.58 to 3.57). INTERPRETATION: The majority of GPs in this study were willing to deprescribe one or more medications in oldest-old multimorbid patients with polypharmacy. Willingness was higher in patients with increased dependency in ADL and lower in patients with CVD.

Deprescribing preventive cardiovascular medication in patients with predicted low cardiovascular disease risk in general practice - the ECSTATIC study: a cluster randomised non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of cardiovascular medication for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is potentially inappropriate when potential risks outweigh the potential benefits. It is unknown whether deprescribing preventive cardiovascular medication in patients without a strict indication for such medication is safe and cost-effective in general practice. METHODS: In this pragmatic cluster randomised controlled non-inferiority trial, we recruited 46 general practices in the Netherlands. Patients aged 40-70 years who were using antihypertensive and/or lipid-lowering drugs without CVD and with low risk of future CVD were followed for 2 years. The intervention was an attempt to deprescribe preventive cardiovascular medication. The primary outcome was the difference in the increase in predicted (10-year) CVD risk in the per-protocol (PP) population with a non-inferiority margin of 2.5 percentage points. An economic evaluation was performed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. We used multilevel (generalised) linear regression with multiple imputation of missing data. RESULTS: Of 1067 participants recruited between 7 November 2012 and 18 February 2014, 72% were female. Overall, their mean age was 55 years and their mean predicted CVD risk at baseline was 5%. Of 492 participants in the ITT intervention group, 319 (65%) quit the medication (PP intervention group); 135 (27%) of those participants were still not taking medication after 2 years. The predicted CVD risk increased by 2.0 percentage points in the PP intervention group compared to 1.9 percentage points in the usual care group. The difference of 0.1 (95% CI -0.3 to 0.6) fell within the non-inferiority margin. After 2 years, compared to the usual care group, for the PP intervention group, systolic blood pressure was 6 mmHg higher, diastolic blood pressure was 4 mmHg higher and total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels were both 7 mg/dl higher (all P < 0.05). Cost and quality-adjusted life years did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the ECSTATIC study show that an attempt to deprescribe preventive cardiovascular medication in low-CVD-risk patients is safe in the short term when blood pressure and cholesterol levels are monitored after stopping. An attempt to deprescribe medication can be considered, taking patient preferences into consideration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with Dutch trial register on 20 June 2012 ( NTR3493 ).

How general practitioners would deprescribe in frail oldest-old with polypharmacy - the LESS study.

BACKGROUND: Many oldest-old (> 80-years) with multimorbidity and polypharmacy are at high risk of inappropriate use of medication, but we know little about whether and how GPs would deprescribe, especially in the frail oldest-old. We aimed to determine whether, how, and why Swiss GPs deprescribe for this population. METHODS: GPs took an online survey that presented case-vignettes of a frail oldest-old patient with and without history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and asked if they would deprescribe any of seven medications. We calculated percentages of GPs willing to deprescribe at least one medication in the case with CVD and compared these with the case without CVD using paired t-tests. We also included open-ended questions to capture reasons for deprescribing and asked which factors could influence their decision to deprescribe by asking for their agreement on a 5-point-Likert-scale. RESULTS: Of the 282 GPs we invited, 157 (56%) responded: 73% were men; mean age was 56. In the case-vignette without CVD, 98% of GPs deprescribed at least one medication (usually cardiovascular preventive medications) stating it had no indication nor benefit. They would lower the dose or prescribe pain medication as needed to reduce side effects. Their response was much the same when the patient had a history of CVD. GPs reported they were influenced by 'risk' and 'benefit' of medications, 'quality of life', and 'life expectancy', and prioritized the patient's wishes and priorities when deprescribing. CONCLUSION: Swiss GPs were willing to deprescribe cardiovascular preventive medication when it lacked indication but tended to retain pain medication. Developing tools for GPs to assist them in balancing the risks and benefits of medication in the context of patient values may improve deprescribing activities in practice.

Deprescribing Potentially Inappropriate Preventive Cardiovascular Medication: Barriers and Enablers for Patients and General Practitioners.

BACKGROUND: The use of preventive cardiovascular medication by patients with low cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk is potentially inappropriate. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify barriers to and enablers of deprescribing potentially inappropriate preventive cardiovascular medication experienced by patients and general practitioners (GPs). METHODS: A total of 10 GPs participating in the ECSTATIC trial (Evaluating Cessation of STatins and Antihypertensive Treatment In primary Care) audiotaped deprescribing consultations with low-CVD-risk patients. After initial conventional content analysis, 2 researchers separately coded all barriers to and enablers of deprescribing medication using framework analysis. We performed a within-case and cross-case analysis to explore barriers and enablers among both patients and GPs. RESULTS: Patients (n = 49) and GPs (n = 10) expressed barriers and enablers with regard to the appropriateness of the medication and the deprescribing process. A family history for CVD was identified as a barrier to deprescribing medication for both patients and GPs. Patients feared possible consequences of deprescribing and were influenced by the opinion of their GP. Additionally, a presumed disapproving opinion from specialists influenced the GPs' willingness to deprescribe medication. CONCLUSIONS: Patients appreciated discussing their doubts regarding deprescribing potentially inappropriate preventive cardiovascular medication. Furthermore, they acknowledged their GP's expertise and took their opinion toward deprescribing into consideration. The GPs' decisions to deprescribe were influenced by the low CVD risk of the patients, additional risk factors, and the alleged specialist's opinion toward deprescribing. We recommend deprescribing consultations to be patient centered, with GPs addressing relevant themes and probable consequences of deprescribing preventive cardiovascular medication.

Understanding deprescribing of preventive cardiovascular medication: a Q-methodology study in patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with low cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk potentially use preventive cardiovascular medication unnecessarily. Our aim was to identify various viewpoints and beliefs concerning the preventive CVD management of patients with low CVD risk using preventive cardiovascular medication. Furthermore, we investigated whether certain viewpoints were related to a preference for deprescription or the continuation of preventive cardiovascular medication. METHODS: In 2015, we purposively sampled patients from the intervention arm of the Evaluating Cessation of STatins and Antihypertensive Treatment In primary Care (ECSTATIC) trial in the Netherlands for this study. Participants made Q-sorts by ranking 43 statements concerning preventive CVD management from "totally disagree" to "totally agree". These Q-sorts were analyzed using PQMethod 2.35 software. A varimax procedure presented the distinguishing viewpoints that were favored by our participants. We used group discussion quotations to underline our findings. For validation purposes, we asked participants how well each viewpoint fitted them. RESULTS: Of 291 invited patients, 33 participated. Thirty-one Q-sorts were analyzed. The following three viewpoints were found: 1) a controlling viewpoint, in which patients held the belief that monitoring blood pressure and cholesterol levels is important (n=13, of which seven had their medication deprescribed and six continued their medication); 2) an autonomous viewpoint, in which patients showed a dislike of medication (n=8, of which seven had their medication deprescribed and one had it continued); and 3) an afraid viewpoint, in which patients were fearful of developing CVD (n=8, of which two had their medication deprescribed and six had it continued). Seventy-four percent of the participants believed that the viewpoint to which they were assigned was a good fit. CONCLUSION: Three well-discriminating viewpoints about preventive CVD management were determined. Knowing and recognizing these viewpoints is effective for general practitioners when discussing the deprescribing of preventive cardiovascular medications with patients and may be used to promote implementation of deprescription.

High prevalence of autoimmune disease in the rare inflammatory bone disorder sternocostoclavicular hyperostosis: survey of a Dutch cohort.

BACKGROUND: Sternocostoclavicular hyperostosis (SCCH; ORPHA178311) is a rare inflammatory disorder of the axial skeleton, the precise pathophysiology of which remains to be established. We addressed the potential association of SCCH with autoimmune processes by evaluating the lifetime prevalence of autoimmune disease in 70 patients with adult-onset SCCH and 518 SCCH-unaffected first-degree relatives (parents, siblings and children). Danish hospital registry data for autoimmune diseases were used as reference data. RESULTS: The mean age of interviewed patients was 56.3 years (range 26-80 years) and 86% were female. Interviewed patients belonged to 63 families, with four families having clusters of 2-3 patients. A diagnosis of at least one autoimmune disease was reported in 20 SCCH patients (29%) and in 47 relatives (9.1%), compared to an estimated 3.9% prevalence of autoimmune disease in the Danish reference population. A diversity of autoimmune diseases was reported in SCCH patients and relatives, most frequently psoriasis vulgaris (14%). Palmoplantar pustulosis was reported by 28 patients (40%). In SCCH patients, inclusion of palmoplantar pustulosis as putative autoimmune disease increased the overall prevalence to 54%. CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence of autoimmune disease in patients with sternocostoclavicular hyperostosis and their first-degree relatives suggests that autoimmunity may play a role in the still elusive pathophysiology of the intriguing osteogenic response to inflammation observed in this rare bone disorder.

Change in calculated cardiovascular risk due to guideline revision: A cross-sectional study in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines and accompanying risk charts concerning cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) are regularly revised worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether revision of the Dutch CVRM guideline has led to the reclassification of patients and, accordingly, to changes in drug recommendations. METHODS: All medical records (year 2011) of patients aged 40-65 years with no history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) but using antihypertensive and/or lipid-lowering drugs, were selected from the Registration Network of General Practices associated with Leiden University Medical Center. Multiple imputation techniques for missing determinants were used. The individual cardiovascular risk was calculated and the resulting drug recommendation was assessed according to both the 2006 and 2012 versions of the guideline. RESULTS: In total, 2075 patients were selected, of whom 1248 fulfilled the guideline criteria (systolic blood pressure 115-180 mmHg and total cholesterol/high-density-lipoprotein-cholesterol ratio 3.5-8). According to the 2012 guideline, 58.2% of the patients had low risk and 249 patients (20.0%) shifted to a different risk category. For 150 of these patients (12.0%), this category shift implied a shift in drug recommendation. The probability of shifting in drug recommendation increased with increasing age, cholesterol level, and blood pressure, and by being male. CONCLUSION: Guideline revision may have important implications: based on identical values for risk factors, according to the latest revision of the Dutch CVRM guideline 20% of patients shifted in risk category and 12% of the patients shifted in drug recommendation.