Deprescribing of antidepressants: development of indicators of high-risk and overprescribing using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are first-line medications for many psychiatric disorders. However, their widespread long-term use in some indications (e.g., mild depression and insomnia) is concerning. Particularly in older adults with comorbidities and polypharmacy, who are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions, the risks and benefits of treatment should be regularly reviewed. The aim of this consensus process was to identify explicit criteria of potentially inappropriate antidepressant use (indicators) in order to support primary care clinicians in identifying situations, where deprescribing of antidepressants should be considered. METHODS: We used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to identify the indicators of high-risk and overprescribing of antidepressants. We combined a structured literature review with a 3-round expert panel, with results discussed in moderated meetings in between rounds. Each of the 282 candidate indicators was scored on a 9-point Likert scale representing the necessity of a critical review of antidepressant continuation (1-3 = not necessary; 4-6 = uncertain; 7-9 = clearly necessary). Experts rated the indicators for the necessity of review, since decisions to deprescribe require considerations of patient risk/benefit balance and preferences. Indicators with a median necessity rating of ≥ 7 without disagreement after 3 rating rounds were accepted. RESULTS: The expert panel comprised 2 general practitioners, 2 clinical pharmacologists, 1 gerontopsychiatrist, 2 psychiatrists, and 3 internists/geriatricians (total N = 10). After 3 assessment rounds, there was consensus for 37 indicators of high-risk and 25 indicators of overprescribing, where critical reviews were felt to be necessary. High-risk prescribing indicators included settings posing risks of drug-drug, drug-disease, and drug-age interactions or the occurrence of adverse drug reactions. Indicators with the highest ratings included those suggesting the possibility of cardiovascular risks (QTc prolongation), delirium, gastrointestinal bleeding, and liver injury in specific patient subgroups with additional risk factors. Overprescribing indicators target patients with long treatment durations for depression, anxiety, and insomnia as well as high doses for pain and insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: Explicit indicators of antidepressant high-risk and overprescribing may be used directly by patients and health care providers, and integrated within clinical decision support tools, in order to improve the overall risk/benefit balance of this commonly prescribed class of prescription drugs.

Fatigue as the Chief Complaint­Epidemiology, Causes, Diagnosis, and Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a main or secondary reason for 10-20% of all consultations with a primary care physician. METHODS: This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a comprehensive, selective literature search on the epidemiology, etiology, and diagnostic evaluation of fatigue as a leading symptom of disease, as well as on the treatment of its common causes. Information was also included from the literature search we conducted for the German clinical practice guideline on fatigue that was issued by the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Allgemeinmedizin und Familienmedizin, DEGAM). RESULTS: Fatigue can be due to any of a broad spectrum of diseases, including decompensation of already known conditions. Sleep disorders and sleep-related disorders of breathing, depression (18.5%), and excessive psychosocial stress are the most common causes of persistent fatigue. Previously undiagnosed cancer is a rare cause, accounting for only 0.6% of cases (95% confidence interval [0.3; 1.3]). Anemia and other organic causes are rare as well (4.3% [2.7; 6.7]). Investigations beyond the history, physical examination, and simple laboratory tests are needed only in the presence of additional symptoms or findings. If the diagnosis remains unclear, watchful waiting and regularly scheduled follow-up help prevent an excessive focus on somatic causes, leading to overdiagnosis. Irrespective of specific causes, psychoeducative and psychotherapeutic approaches should be discussed with the patient, as well as an individually adapted exercise program. CONCLUSION: The work-up of fatigue as a chief complaint should be guided by investigating common and/or potentially dangerous disorders. Since the latter are rare, an exclusively somatic focus should be avoided in order to prevent overdiagnosis.

Perimenopause and Postmenopause - Diagnosis and Interventions. Guideline of the DGGG and OEGGG (S3-Level, AWMF Registry Number 015-062, September 2020).

Aim The aim of the interdisciplinary S3-guideline Perimenopause and Postmenopause - Diagnosis and Interventions is to provide help to physicians as they inform women about the physiological changes which occur at this stage of life and the treatment options. The guideline should serve as a basis for decisions taken during routine medical care. This short version lists the statements and recommendations given in the long version of the guideline together with the evidence levels, the level of recommendation, and the strength of consensus. Methods The statements and recommendations are largely based on methodologically high-quality publications. The literature was evaluated by experts and mandate holders using evidence-based medicine (EbM) criteria. The search for evidence was carried out by the Essen Research Institute for Medical Management (EsFoMed). To some extent, this guideline also draws on an evaluation of the evidence used in the NICE guideline on Menopause and the S3-guidelines of the AWMF and has adapted parts of these guidelines. Recommendations Recommendations are given for the following subjects: diagnosis and therapeutic interventions for perimenopausal and postmenopausal women, urogynecology, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, dementia, depression, mood swings, hormone therapy and cancer risk, as well as primary ovarian insufficiency.

The differential diagnosis of tiredness: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Tiredness is one of the most frequent complaints in primary care. Although often self-limiting and frequently associated with psychosocial stress, patients but also their physicians are often uncertain regarding a serious cause and appropriate diagnostic work-up. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting on differential diagnosis of fatigue in primary care. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and conference abstracts were searched for primary care based studies of patients presenting with tiredness. Twenty-six studies were included. We report on anaemia, malignancy, serious organic disease, depression and the chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) as causes of tiredness as presenting complaint. RESULTS: We found considerable heterogeneity of estimates which was reduced by limiting our analysis to high quality studies. Prevalences were as follows-anaemia: 2.8 % (CI (confidence interval) 1.6-4.8 %); malignancy: 0.6 % (CI 0.3-1.3 %); serious somatic disease: 4.3 % (CI 2.7-6.7 %); depression 18.5 % (CI 16.2-21.0 %). Pooling was not appropriate for CFS. In studies with control groups of patients without the symptom of tiredness, prevalence of somatic disease was identical to those complaining of tiredness. Depression, however, was more frequent among those with tiredness. CONCLUSIONS: Serious somatic disease is rare in patients complaining of tiredness. Since prevalence is similar in patients without tiredness, the association may not be causal. Extensive investigations are only warranted in case of specific findings from the history or clinical examination. Instead, attention should focus on depression and psychosocial problems.

A patient-administered Medical Risk Related History questionnaire (EMRRH) for use in 10 European countries (multicenter trial).

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to produce a standardized medical risk-related history (MRRH) in order to identify the medically compromised patient (MCP) attending the general dental practitioner for treatment, to develop such a history (EMRRH), and to validate it in dental practices in 10 European countries. STUDY DESIGN: The Dutch MRRH, adapted to allow for legal and cultural differences of the participating countries was introduced. After consensus and repeated testing, the questionnaire was validated. In this last phase, 1000 patients older than 18 attending dental practices were selected, 100 per country; 994 medical histories were suitable for statistical analysis. Validation was carried out by a physician accustomed to making preoperative assessments, including the ASA risk classification. RESULTS: Mean specificity per country was 99.1 and per EMRRH item was 99.0. Mean sensitivity per country was 93.2 and per item was 93.7. Cohen's kappa for the countries involved was 0.81 to 0.98 and for subsequent questions was 0.81 to 0.97. CONCLUSION: The EMRRH was found to be valid in the detection of medically compromised patients in 10 European countries.

Enhancing recognition of early Parkinsonism in the community.

Because Parkinsonism is underdiagnosed in the community, we have validated screening modalities in the field setting and developed a screening procedure to enhance recognition of undiagnosed patients. In a first survey, we identified suspect cases among patients consulting 9 general practitioners (GPs) over a 3-week period using in parallel: (1) a published questionnaire; (2) a standardized examination by the GPs; (3) clinical impression of the GPs; or (4) pre-established diagnoses. Parkinsonism was ascertained by two neurologists with a 1-year follow-up and FP-CIT-SPECT. In total, 1,411 patients consulted the GPs, 1,030 participated in the study, 87 possible cases were identified by at least one of four screening modalities, 12 suffered from Parkinsonism, and 4 of these 12 were de novo cases. Statistical analysis demonstrated that with appropriate evaluation, the questionnaire is highly sensitive and excludes most nonaffected persons, and that the GPs' clinical impression is more specific. We therefore tested in a second survey the efficacy of a serial screening, starting with the questionnaire, followed by a standardized GP evaluation, and then by neurological examination. Of 1,353 participants seen by 9 GPs during a 3-week period, 5 de novo cases were identified. This simple screening protocol significantly enhances recognition of incipient Parkinsonism.