ABSTRACT
Importance: Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) exposes patients to an increased risk of adverse outcomes. Many lists of explicit criteria provide guidance on identifying PIM and recommend alternative prescribing, but the complexity of available lists limits their applicability and the amount of data available on PIM prescribing. Objective: To determine PIM prevalence and the most frequently prescribed PIMs according to 6 well-known PIM lists and to develop a best practice synthesis for clinicians. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used anonymized electronic health record data of Swiss primary care patients aged 65 years or older with drug prescriptions from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021, extracted from a large primary care database in Switzerland, the FIRE project. Data analyses took place from October 2022 to September 2023. Exposure: PIM prescription according to PIM criteria operationalized for use with FIRE data. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were PIM prevalence (percentage of patients with 1 or more PIMs) and PIM frequency (percentage of prescriptions identified as PIMs) according to the individual PIM lists and a combination of all 6 lists. The PIM lists used were the American 2019 Updated Beers criteria, the French list by Laroche et al, the Norwegian General Practice Norwegian (NORGEP) criteria, the German PRISCUS list, the Austrian list by Mann et al, and the EU(7) consensus list of 7 European countries. Results: This study included 115â¯867 patients 65 years or older (mean [SD] age, 76.0 [7.9] years; 55.8% female) with 1â¯211â¯227 prescriptions. Among all patients, 86â¯715 (74.8%) were aged 70 years or older, and 60â¯670 (52.4%) were aged 75 years or older. PIM prevalence among patients 65 years or older was 31.5% (according to Beers 2019), 15.4% (Laroche), 16.1% (NORGEP), 12.7% (PRISCUS), 31.2% (Mann), 37.1% (EU[7]), and 52.3% (combined list). PIM prevalence increased with age according to every PIM list (eg, according to Beers 2019, from 31.5% at age 65 years or older to 37.4% for those 75 years or older, and when the lists were combined, PIM prevalence increased from 52.3% to 56.7% in those 2 age groups, respectively). PIM frequency was 10.3% (Beers 2019), 3.9% (Laroche), 4.3% (NORGEP), 2.4% (PRISCUS), 6.7% (Mann), 9.7% (EU[7]), and 19.3% (combined list). According to the combined list, the 5 most frequently prescribed PIMs were pantoprazole (9.3% of all PIMs prescribed), ibuprofen (6.9%), diclofenac (6.3%), zolpidem (4.5%), and lorazepam (3.7%). Almost two-thirds (63.5%) of all PIM prescriptions belonged to 5 drug classes: analgesics (26.9% of all PIMs prescribed), proton pump inhibitors (12.1%), benzodiazepines and benzodiazepine-like drugs (11.2%), antidepressants (7.0%), and neuroleptics (6.3%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study of adults aged 65 or older, PIM prevalence was high, varied considerably depending on the criteria applied, and increased consistently with age. However, only few drug classes accounted for the majority of all prescriptions that were PIM according to any of the 6 PIM lists, and by considering this manageable number of drug classes, clinicians could essentially comply with all 6 PIM lists. These results raise awareness of the most common PIMs and emphasize the need for careful consideration of their risks and benefits and targeted deprescribing.
Subject(s)
Inappropriate Prescribing , Potentially Inappropriate Medication List , Primary Health Care , Humans , Switzerland/epidemiology , Aged , Cross-Sectional Studies , Primary Health Care/statistics & numerical data , Potentially Inappropriate Medication List/statistics & numerical data , Female , Male , Inappropriate Prescribing/statistics & numerical data , Aged, 80 and over , Prevalence , Practice Patterns, Physicians'/statistics & numerical dataABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Patients with 'late presentation' (LP) of chronic hepatitis C infection (HCV) have already developed advanced liver disease before receiving direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment. Even after successful treatment, the risk of morbidity and premature death remains elevated, leading to an unnecessary disease burden. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of LP within the prospective observational Swiss Hepatitis C Cohort (SCCS) and evaluate risk factors as determinants of LP. METHODS: Treatment-naïve participants of SCCS who received DAA treatment between 2014 and 2019 were included. Demographic, clinical and behavioural data were compared between the LP and non-LP strata. LP prevalence was calculated over time and by year. LASSO regression was used to identify potential risk factors for LP, and odds ratios were calculated by refitting logistic regression models. RESULTS: In this explorative, retrospective case-control study using data of n â =â 5829 SCCS members, a total of 21.3% received their first HCV treatment. The cumulative LP prevalence decreased from mid-2015 and stabilised at 46.5% ( n â =â 579) by the end of 2019. Male gender, higher age and a history of alcohol overuse were associated with a higher risk of LP. CONCLUSION: Despite the study's limitations, LP prevalence was higher than anticipated, considering Switzerland's availability period and universal access to DAAs. Therefore, any HCV LP should be viewed as a healthcare system failure, primarily in high-income economies. As LP is directly linked to the disease burden, it must be included as a mandatory parameter in surveillance response systems of HCV elimination programs.
Subject(s)
Hepatitis C, Chronic , Hepatitis C , Humans , Antiviral Agents/adverse effects , Case-Control Studies , Cohort Studies , Hepacivirus , Hepatitis C/diagnosis , Hepatitis C/drug therapy , Hepatitis C/epidemiology , Hepatitis C, Chronic/diagnosis , Hepatitis C, Chronic/drug therapy , Hepatitis C, Chronic/epidemiology , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Switzerland/epidemiologyABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Primary care databases collect electronic medical records with routine data from primary care patients. The identification of chronic diseases in primary care databases often integrates information from various electronic medical record components (EMR-Cs) used by primary care providers. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence of selected chronic conditions using a large Swiss primary care database and to examine the importance of different EMR-Cs for case identification. METHODS: Cross-sectional study with 120,608 patients of 128 general practitioners in the Swiss FIRE ("Family Medicine Research using Electronic Medical Records") primary care database in 2019. Sufficient criteria on three individual EMR-Cs, namely medication, clinical or laboratory parameters and reasons for encounters, were combined by logical disjunction into definitions of 49 chronic conditions; then prevalence estimates and measures of importance of the individual EMR-Cs for case identification were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 185,535 cases (i.e. patients with a specific chronic condition) were identified. Prevalence estimates were 27.5% (95% CI: 27.3-27.8%) for hypertension, 13.5% (13.3-13.7%) for dyslipidaemia and 6.6% (6.4-6.7%) for diabetes mellitus. Of all cases, 87.1% (87.0-87.3%) were identified via medication, 22.1% (21.9-22.3%) via clinical or laboratory parameters and 19.3% (19.1-19.5%) via reasons for encounters. The majority (65.4%) of cases were identifiable solely through medication. Of the two other EMR-Cs, clinical or laboratory parameters was most important for identifying cases of chronic kidney disease, anorexia/bulimia nervosa and obesity whereas reasons for encounters was crucial for identifying many low-prevalence diseases as well as cancer, heart disease and osteoarthritis. CONCLUSIONS: The EMR-C medication was most important for chronic disease identification overall, but identification varied strongly by disease. The analysis of the importance of different EMR-Cs for estimating prevalence revealed strengths and weaknesses of the disease definitions used within the FIRE primary care database. Although prioritising specificity over sensitivity in the EMR-C criteria may have led to underestimation of most prevalences, their sex- and age-specific patterns were consistent with published figures for Swiss general practice.
Subject(s)
Electronic Health Records , Primary Health Care , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , Switzerland/epidemiology , Chronic DiseaseABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Benzodiazepines and other sedative hypnotics (BSH) are potentially inappropriate and harmful medications in older people due to their higher susceptibility for adverse drug events. BSH prescription rates are constantly high among elderly patients and even increase with higher age and comorbidity. Deprescribing BSH can be challenging both for healthcare providers and for patients for various reasons. Thus, physicians and patients may benefit from a supportive tool to facilitate BSH deprescribing in primary care consultations. This study intends to explore effectiveness, safety, acceptance and feasibility of such a tool. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: In this prospective, cluster randomised, controlled, two-arm, double-blinded trial in the ambulatory primary care setting, we will include general practitioners (GPs) from German-speaking Switzerland and their BSH consuming patients aged 65 years or older, living at home or in nursing homes. GPs will be randomly assigned to either intervention or control group. In the intervention group, GPs will participate in a 1-hour online training on how to use a patient support tool (decision-making guidance plus tapering schedule and non-pharmaceutical alternative treatment suggestions for insomnia). The control group GPs will participate in a 1-hour online instruction about BSH epidemiology and sleep hygiene counselling. This minimal intervention aims to prevent unblinding of control group GPs without jeopardising their 'usual care'.The primary outcome will be the percentage of patients who change their BSH use (ie, stop, reduce or switch to a non-BSH insomnia treatment) within 6 months from the initial consultation. EXPECTED BENEFIT: Based on the results of the study, we will learn how GPs and their patients benefit from a supportive tool that facilitates BSH deprescribing in primary care consultations. The study will emphasise on exploring barriers and facilitators to BSH deprescribing among patients and providers. Positive results given, the study will improve medication safety and the quality of care for patients with sleeping disorders. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Canton of Zurich (KEK-ZH Ref no. 2023-00054, 4 April 2023). Informed consent will be sought from all participating GPs and patients. The results of the study will be publicly disseminated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN34363838.
Subject(s)
Deprescriptions , General Practitioners , Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders , Aged , Humans , Prospective Studies , Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders/drug therapy , Switzerland , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Benzodiazepines , Primary Health Care , Randomized Controlled Trials as TopicABSTRACT
ACKGROUND AND AIMS: The prevalence of chronic hepatitis C in Switzerland is currently estimated at approximately 32,000 affected individuals (0.37% of the permanent resident population). An estimated 40% of affected individuals in Switzerland is undiagnosed. The Swiss Federal Office of Public Health requires laboratories to report all positive hepatitis C virus (HCV) test results. Approximately 900 newly diagnosed cases are reported annually. The number of HCV tests performed, however, is not collected by the Federal Office of Public Health and positive rates are therefore unknown. The aim of this study was to describe the longitudinal course of the numbers of hepatitis C antibody tests and of positive rates in Switzerland for the years 2007 to 2017. METHODS: Twenty laboratories were asked to provide the number of HCV antibody tests performed and the number of positive antibody tests per year. Using data from the Federal Office of Public Health reporting system for the years 2012 to 2017, we calculated a factor to correct our values for multiple tests of the same person. RESULTS: The annual number of HCV antibody tests performed tripled linearly from 2007 to 2017 (from 42,105 to 121,266) while the number of positive HCV antibody test results increased by only 75% over the same period (from 1360 to 2379). The HCV antibody test positive rate steadily decreased from 3.2% in 2007 to 2.0% in 2017. After correction for multiple tests per person, the person-level HCV antibody tested positive rate decreased from 2.2% to 1.7% from 2012 to 2017. CONCLUSION: In the Swiss laboratories considered, more HCV antibody tests were performed each year in the period (2007-2017) before and during the approval of the new hepatitis C drugs. At the same time, the HCV antibody positive rates decreased, both on a per-test as well as a per-person level. This study is the first to describe the evolution of tests performed and of positive rates for HCV antibody in Switzerland at the national level over several years. In order to more accurately guide future measures to achieve the goal of eliminating hepatitis C by 2030, we recommend annual collection and publication of positive rates by health authorities, along with mandatory reporting of numbers of tests and people treated.
Subject(s)
Hepatitis C , Humans , Switzerland/epidemiology , Longitudinal Studies , Retrospective Studies , Hepatitis C/diagnosis , Hepatitis C/epidemiology , HepacivirusABSTRACT
Objectives: To provide a thorough assessment of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the utilization of inpatient and outpatient mental healthcare in Switzerland. Methods: Retrospective cohort study using nationwide hospital data (n > 8 million) and claims data from a large Swiss health insurer (n > 1 million) in 2018-2020. Incidence proportions of different types of psychiatric inpatient admissions, psychiatric consultations, and psychotropic medication claims were analyzed using interrupted time series models for the general population and for the vulnerable subgroup of young people. Results: Inpatient psychiatric admissions in the general population decreased by 16.2% (95% confidence interval: -19.2% to -13.2%) during the first and by 3.9% (-6.7% to -0.2%) during the second pandemic shutdown, whereas outpatient mental healthcare utilization was not substantially affected. We observed distinct patterns for young people, most strikingly, an increase in mental healthcare utilization among females aged <20 years. Conclusion: Mental healthcare provision for the majority of the population was largely maintained, but special attention should be paid to young people. Our findings highlight the importance of monitoring mental healthcare utilization among different populations.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Mental Health Services , Humans , Female , Adolescent , Retrospective Studies , Switzerland/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , PandemicsABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Helping smokers to quit is an important task of general practitioners (GPs). However, achieving tobacco abstinence is difficult, and smokers who fail may still want to improve their health in other ways. Therefore, Swiss GPs developed a multithematic coaching concept that encourages health behavior changes beyond smoking cessation alone. AIMS AND METHODS: To compare the effectiveness of such coaching with state-of-the-art smoking cessation counseling, we conducted a pragmatic cluster-randomized two-arm trial with 56 GPs in German-speaking Switzerland and 149 of their cigarette smoking patients. GPs were instructed in either multithematic health coaching or smoking cessation counseling. After 12 months, we compared their patients' improvements in cigarette consumption, body weight, physical inactivity, alcohol consumption, stress, unhealthy diet, and a health behavior of their own choice, using hierarchical logistic regression models and Fisher's exact and t tests. RESULTS: Over 95% of all participants achieved clinically relevant improvements in at least one health behavior, with no difference between study arms (health coaching vs. smoking cessation counseling: aOR = 1.21, 95% CI = [0.03-50.76]; and aOR = 1.78, 95% CI = [0.51-6.25] after non-responder imputation). Rates of clinically relevant improvements in the individual health behaviors did not differ between study arms either (they were most frequent in physical activity, achieved by 3 out of 4 patients), nor did the extent of the improvements. CONCLUSIONS: Multithematic health coaching and state-of-the art smoking cessation counseling were found to be comparable interventions, both in terms of smoking cessation success and, quite unexpectedly, their effects on other health behaviors. IMPLICATIONS: The findings of our study suggest that in general practice, multithematic health coaching is an effective smoking cessation intervention, and conversely, monothematic smoking cessation counseling also achieves the beneficial effects of a multithematic health behavior intervention. This opens up the possibility for GPs to support their smoking patients in improving their health behavior in additional and more flexible ways.
Subject(s)
General Practice , Smoking Cessation , Humans , Smokers/psychology , Smoking Cessation/psychology , Motivation , Health BehaviorABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Medication safety in patients with polypharmacy at transitions of care is a focus of the current Third WHO Global Patient Safety Challenge. Medication review and communication between health care professionals are key targets to reduce medication-related harm. OBJECTIVE: To study whether a hospital discharge intervention combining medication review with enhanced information transfer between hospital and primary care physicians can delay hospital readmission and impact health care utilization or other health-related outcomes of older inpatients with polypharmacy. DESIGN: Cluster-randomized controlled trial in 21 Swiss hospitals between January 2019 and September 2020, with 6 months follow-up. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-eight senior physicians and their blinded junior physicians included 609 patients ≥ 60 years taking ≥ 5 drugs. INTERVENTIONS: Participating hospitals were randomized to either integrate a checklist-guided medication review and communication stimulus into their discharge processes, or follow usual discharge routines. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was time-to-first-readmission to any hospital within 6 months, analyzed using a shared frailty model. Secondary outcomes covered readmission rates, emergency department visits, other medical consultations, mortality, drug numbers, proportions of patients with potentially inappropriate medication, and the patients' quality of life. KEY RESULTS: At admission, 609 patients (mean age 77.5 (SD 8.6) years, 49.4% female) took a mean of 9.6 (4.2) drugs per patient. Time-to-first-readmission did not differ significantly between study arms (adjusted hazard ratio 1.14 (intervention vs. control arm), 95% CI [0.75-1.71], p = 0.54), nor did the 30-day hospital readmission rates (6.7% [3.3-10.1%] vs. 7.0% [3.6-10.3%]). Overall, there were no clinically relevant differences between study arms at 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of a structured medication review with enhanced information transfer neither delayed hospital readmission nor improved other health-related outcomes of older inpatients with polypharmacy. Our results may help researchers in balancing practicality versus stringency of similar hospital discharge interventions. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18427377, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN18427377.
Subject(s)
Patient Discharge , Polypharmacy , Humans , Female , Aged , Male , Quality of Life , Medication Review , Switzerland/epidemiology , HospitalsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARSCoV2) pandemic forced hospitals to redistribute resources for the treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), yet the impact on elective and emergency inpatient procedure volumes is unclear. METHODS: We analyzed anonymized data on 234 921 hospitalizations in 2017-2020 (55.9% elective) from a big Swiss health insurer. We used linear regression models to predict, based on pre-pandemic data, the expected weekly numbers of procedures in 2020 in the absence of a pandemic and compared these to the observed numbers in 2020. Compensation effects were investigated by discretely integrating the difference between the two numbers over time. RESULTS: During the first COVID-19 wave in spring 2020, elective procedure numbers decreased by 52.9% (95% confidence interval -64.5% to -42.5%), with cardiovascular and orthopedic elective procedure numbers specifically decreasing by 45.5% and 72.4%. Elective procedure numbers normalized during summer with some compensation of postponed procedures, leaving a deficit of -9.9% (-15.8% to -4.5%) for the whole year 2020. Emergency procedure numbers also decreased by 17.1% (-23.7% to -9.8%) during the first wave, but over the whole year 2020, net emergency procedure volumes were similar to control years. CONCLUSION: Inpatient procedure volumes in Switzerland decreased considerably in the beginning of the pandemic but recovered quickly after the first wave. Still, there was a net deficit in procedures at the end of the year. Health system leaders must work to ensure that adequate access to non-COVID-19 related care is maintained during future pandemic phases in order to prevent negative health consequences.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Insurance , Humans , COVID-19/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Retrospective Studies , Pandemics/prevention & control , Switzerland/epidemiology , Inpatients , Elective Surgical ProceduresABSTRACT
Purpose: The frequency of medication prescribing and polypharmacy has increased in recent years in different settings, including Swiss general practice. We aimed to describe patient age- and sex-specific rates of polypharmacy and of prescriptions of the most frequent medication classes, and to explore practitioner variability in prescribing. Methods: Retrospective cross-sectional study based on anonymized electronic medical records data of 111 811 adult patients presenting to 116 Swiss general practitioners in 2019. We used mixed-effects regression analyses to assess the association of patient age and sex with polypharmacy (≥5 medications) and with the prescription of specific medication classes (second level of the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical Classification System). Practitioner variability was quantified in terms of the random effects distributions. Results: The prevalence of polypharmacy increased with age from 6.4% among patients aged 18-40 years to 19.7% (41-64 years), 45.3% (65-80 years), and 64.6% (81-92 years), and was higher in women than in men, particularly at younger ages. The most frequently prescribed medication classes were antiinflammatory and antirheumatic products (21.6% of patients), agents acting on the renin-angiotensin system (19.9%), analgesics (18.7%), and drugs for acid related disorders (18.3%). Men were more often prescribed agents targeting the cardiovascular system, whereas most other medications were more often prescribed to women. The highest practitioner variabilities were observed for vitamins, for antiinflammatory and antirheumatic products, and for mineral supplements. Conclusion: Based on practitioner variability, prevalence, and risk potential, antiinflammatory drugs and polypharmacy in older patients appear to be the most pressing issues in current drug prescribing routines.
ABSTRACT
Increasing oncological treatment costs are a major global concern with the risk of entailing two-tiered health care. Among cost determining factors is the price of individual drugs. In recognition of the central role of this factor, we present a comprehensive overview of the development of monthly prices of oncological drugs introduced over the last 15 years in Switzerland. We identified all oncological drugs newly reimbursed by mandatory health insurance in 2005-2019, and searched public repositories for their package prices, indications with approval dates, and treatment regimens for the calculation of (indication-specific) monthly prices. We found 81 products covering 77 different substances (39.5% protein kinase inhibitors, 21.0% monoclonal antibodies). Most indications related to the topography "blood", followed by "lung and thorax" and "digestive tract". From 20052009 to 20152019, the median monthly product price over all distinct indications of all products decreased by 7.56% (CHF 5,699 [interquartile range 4,4837,321] to CHF 5,268 [4,0196,967]), whereas it increased by 73.7% for monoclonal antibodies. In December 2019, six products had monthly prices over CHF 10,000, all approved for hematological or dermatological cancers. Our analysis suggests that individual price developments of oncological drugs are presently not the major driver of rising cancer treatment costs. However, rising launch prices of some new, mostly hematological drugs are of concern and require continued monitoring.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents/economics , Drug Costs/trends , Neoplasms/drug therapy , Antineoplastic Agents/classification , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Humans , Insurance, Health, Reimbursement , Neoplasms/economics , SwitzerlandABSTRACT
IMPORTANCE: The high cost of cancer medicines is a public health challenge. Policy makers in the US and Europe are debating reforms to drug pricing that would cover both the prices of new medicines when entering the market and price increases after they are launched. OBJECTIVE: To assess launch prices, postlaunch price changes, and clinical benefit of cancer drugs in the US compared with 3 European countries (England, Germany, and Switzerland). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This economic evaluation identified all new drugs that were approved for use in the US, England, Germany, and Switzerland with initial indications for treatment of adult solid tumor and hematologic cancers. Analysis included drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2019, and by the European Medicines Agency and Swissmedic until December 31, 2019. Prices were adjusted for currency and inflation. Clinical benefit of drugs indicated for solid tumors was assessed using the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale. Using Spearman rank correlation coefficients, correlations between clinical benefit and launch prices and postlaunch price changes for each country were evaluated. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Launch prices, postlaunch price changes, and clinical benefit of cancer drugs. RESULTS: The cohort included 65 drugs: 47 (72%) approved for solid tumors and 18 (28%) for hematologic cancers. In all countries, the lowest median monthly treatment costs at launch were greater in 2018-2019 vs 2009-2010: $14â¯580 vs $5790 in the US, $5888 vs $4289 in Germany, $6593 vs $5784 in Switzerland, and $6867 vs $3939 in England. Between 2009 and 2019, 48 of 65 (74%) cancer drugs had price increases in the US that were greater than inflation. Only 1 of 62 (2%) drugs in England, 0 of 60 drugs in Germany, and 7 of 56 drugs (13%) in Switzerland had a median price increase greater than inflation. There were no associations between launch prices or postlaunch price changes and clinical benefit in any assessed country. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: During this economic evaluation study period, launch prices of cancer drugs were substantially higher in the US than in the assessed similar high-income European countries, a gap that increased in the years after approval. Cancer drug prices frequently increased faster than inflation in the US but decreased on inflation-adjusted terms in Europe. Price changes were not associated with clinical benefit in any country.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents , Neoplasms , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Drug Costs , Europe , Humans , Neoplasms/drug therapy , PolicyABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To study the implementation of a cluster randomised controlled effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial testing the effectiveness of a medication review at hospital discharge combined with a communication stimulus between hospital physicians (HPs) and general practitioners (GPs) on rehospitalisation of multimorbid older patients. DESIGN: Extension of Grant's mixed method process evaluation framework to trials with multilevel clustering. SETTING: General internal medicine wards in Swiss hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience samples of 15 chief physicians (of 21 hospitals participating in the effectiveness trial), 60 (74) senior HPs, 65 (164) junior HPs and 187 (411) GPs. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY: Two-hour teaching sessions for senior HPs on a patient-centred, checklist-guided discharge routine. PROCESS EVALUATION COMPONENTS: Data collection on recruitment, delivery and response from chief physicians (semistructured interviews), senior HPs, junior HPs, GPs (surveys) and patients (via HPs). Quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, and interviews analysed using thematic analysis. OUTCOME MEASURES: Intervention dose (quantitative), implementation fidelity (qualitative), feasibility and acceptability, facilitators and barriers, implementation support strategies. RESULTS: Recruitment of hospitals was laborious but successful, with 21 hospitals recruited. Minimal workload and a perceived benefit for the clinic were crucial factors for participation. Intervention dose was high (95% of checklist activities carried out), but intervention fidelity was limited (discharge letters) or unknown (medication review). Recruitment and retention of patients was challenging, partly due to patient characteristics (old, frail) and the COVID-19 pandemic: Only 612 of the anticipated 2100 patients were recruited, and 31% were lost to follow-up within the first month after discharge. The intervention was deemed feasible and helpful by HPs, and the relevance of the topic appreciated by both HPs and GPs. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this evaluation will support interpretation of the findings of the effectiveness study and may inform researchers and policy makers who aim at improving hospital discharge. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18427377.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Patient Discharge , Hospitals , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Sex differences in cardiovascular prevention have been reported, yet the role of sex with regard to different modifiable risk factors such as low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), systolic blood pressure (BP), and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) in primary care settings is unclear. Therefore, we studied sex differences in assessment and measured values of LDL-C, BP, and HbA1c in primary and secondary cardiovascular prevention delivered by general practitioners. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was based on electronic medical records of 59,092 primary care patients (51.9% women) aged 40-79 years in Switzerland. Multilevel regression was used to model associations of sex with assessment and measured values of LDL-C, BP, and HbA1c in 2018. RESULTS: In both primary and secondary prevention, women had lower LDL-C assessment rates (age-adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.71 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 0.75] and 0.70 [CI 0.51 to 0.95]), and higher measured LDL-C values than men (age-adjusted difference 0.30 mmol/L [CI 0.25 to 0.35] and 0.28 mmol/L [CI 0.07 to 0.48]). Compared with men, women in primary prevention displayed lower BP and HbA1c assessment frequencies (aOR 0.77 [CI 0.73 to 0.81] and 0.76 [CI 0.71 to 0.80]) and measured values (age-adjusted difference -2.49 mmHg [CI -2.99 to -1.79] and -0.19% [CI -0.24 to -0.14]), while there was no sex difference in secondary prevention. Age-dependent increases in measured values of LDL-C, BP, and HbA1c were greater in women than men. CONCLUSIONS: Control of LDL-C in women in primary care should be improved to reduce sex-based inequalities in prevention of cardiovascular disease.
Subject(s)
Cardiovascular Diseases , Cholesterol, LDL/blood , Heart Disease Risk Factors , Sex Factors , Adult , Aged , Cardiovascular Diseases/diagnosis , Cardiovascular Diseases/epidemiology , Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Primary Health Care , Risk Factors , Switzerland/epidemiologyABSTRACT
Sample size calculations for trials with time-to-event outcomes are usually based on the assumption that an event - prototypically death in survival analysis - occurs only once per sample unit. However, events like changes in disease status or switches between treatment modalities may repeat over time. In trials with such outcomes, standard sample size formulae derived from the classical survival time models are not applicable. Instead, modeling the repeating transition events must precede the actual sample size calculation. Markov chains are an obvious choice to model transitions. Accordingly, in order to determine the sample size for a one-arm feasibility and acceptability study of a new drug intake route, we model switches of administration routes by a homogeneous finite-state, higher-order Markov chain. Assumptions about its transition matrix translate into multinomial distributions of the preferred administration routes at given points in time. From these distributions, the required sample size can then be calculated according to the study's specific question. In this manuscript, we first introduce the method for the case of drug intake preferences, before we briefly discuss how the proposed method can also be used for power-based sample size calculation in multi-arm trials.
Subject(s)
Heroin , Research Design , Humans , Markov Chains , Sample Size , Survival AnalysisABSTRACT
Guidelines recommend initiation of statins depending on cardiovascular risk and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. In this retrospective cohort study, we aimed to assess guideline concordance of statin treatment decisions and to find determinants of undertreatment in Swiss primary care in the period 2016-2019. We drew on electronic medical records of 8060 statin-naive patients (50.0% female, median age 59 years) with available LDL-C levels and cardiovascular risk. Guideline concordance was assessed based on the recommendations of the European Society of Cardiology, and multilevel logistic regression was performed to find determinants of undertreatment. We found that statin treatment was initiated in 10.2% of patients (50.0% female, median age 59 years) during one year of follow up. Treatment decisions were classified as guideline-concordant in 63.0%, as undertreatment in 35.8% and as overtreatment in 1.2%. Among determinants of undertreatment were small deviation from LDL-C treatment thresholds (odds ratio per decrease by 1 mmol/L: 2.09 [95% confidence interval 1.87-2.35]), high compared with very high cardiovascular risk (1.64 [1.30-2.05]), female sex (1.31 [1.05-1.64]), and being treated by older general practitioners (per 10 year decrease: 0.74 [0.61-0.90]). In conclusion, undertreatment of patients at high or very high cardiovascular risk was common, but general practitioners considered cardiovascular risk and LDL-C in their treatment decisions.
Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Agents , Neoplasms , Costs and Cost Analysis , Drug Costs , Neoplasms/drug therapy , SwitzerlandABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: To address low-value interventions in healthcare, “Choosing Wisely” campaigns provide recommendations of interventions to avoid (RIAs). These are usually developed by expert panels rather than general practitioners (GPs). The aim of our study was to develop RIAs for ambulatory general medicine based on the suggestions of GPs, with their involvement from the very beginning. METHODS: This was a nationwide online Delphi survey among Swiss Society of General Internal Medicine members. In round one, each participant suggested two interventions perceived as particularly inappropriate. In round two, the 16 most frequent RIAs were rated by importance on a 0–100 scale and compared with “Choosing Wisely” lists. We calculated descriptive statistics for suggestions and importance ratings, and used regression models to search for associations with GP characteristics. RESULTS: Response rates were 7.4% (538/7318) for round one and 18.2% (1357/7468) for round two. GPs provided 1074 suggestions. Out of the 16 most frequent RIAs, 13 corresponded to existing “Choosing Wisely” lists. The RIAs rated most important were: antibiotics in viral infections, unnecessarily duplicated tests and imaging in unspecific low back pain (means 88.5–91.7, standard deviations 18.6–19.9). None of the GPs’ characteristics were associated with any of the five highest rated RIAs except for working in a hospital setting. CONCLUSION: Most RIA suggestions from GPs were concordant with previously published recommendations of interventions to avoid, independently of GPs knowledge of these and reflecting their high clinical relevance. In addition, our study revealed some more relevant topics and may help to develop future “Choosing Wisely” recommendations, with the final goal to reduce low-value care.
Subject(s)
General Practice , General Practitioners , Motivation , Humans , Surveys and Questionnaires , SwitzerlandABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Increasing cancer drug prices are a challenge for patients and health systems in the USA and Europe. By contrast with the USA, national authorities in European countries often directly negotiate drug prices with manufacturers. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) developed frameworks to evaluate the clinical value of cancer therapies: the ASCO-Value Framework (ASCO-VF) and the ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). We aimed to assess the association between the clinical benefit of approved cancer drugs based on these frameworks and their drug prices in the USA and four European countries (England, Switzerland, Germany, and France). METHODS: For this cost-benefit analysis, we identified all new drugs with initial indications for adult cancers that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between Jan 1, 2009, and Dec 31, 2017, and by the European Medicines Agency up until Sept 1, 2019. For drugs indicated for solid tumours, we assessed clinical benefit using ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS. We compared monthly drug treatment costs between benefit levels using hierarchical linear regression models, and calculated Spearman's correlation coefficients between costs and benefit levels for individual countries. FINDINGS: Our cohort included 65 drugs: 47 (72%) drugs were approved for solid tumours and 18 (28%) were approved for haematological malignancies. The monthly drug treatment costs in the USA were a median of 2·31 times (IQR 1·79-3·17) as high as in the assessed European countries. There were no significant associations between monthly treatment costs for solid tumours and clinical benefit in all assessed countries, using the ESMO-MCBS (p=0·16 for the USA, p=0·98 for England, p=0·54 for Switzerland, p=0·52 for Germany, and p=0·40 for France), and for all assessed countries except France using ASCO-VF (p=0·56 for the USA, p=0·47 for England, p=0·26 for Switzerland, p=0·23 for Germany, and p=0·037 for France). INTERPRETATION: Cancer drugs with low or uncertain clinical benefit might be prioritised for price negotiations. Value frameworks could help identify therapies providing high clinical benefit that should be made rapidly available across countries. FUNDING: Swiss Cancer Research Foundation (Krebsforschung Schweiz).
Subject(s)
Cost-Benefit Analysis , Drug Costs , Medical Oncology/economics , Neoplasms/economics , Antineoplastic Agents/economics , Antineoplastic Agents/therapeutic use , England/epidemiology , Europe/epidemiology , France/epidemiology , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Neoplasms/epidemiology , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
AIMS: To estimate the prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and related risk factors in people in opioid agonist treatment (OAT), to compare airflow limitation severity and age-specific COPD prevalence rates with those in the general population, and to assess the OAT patients' willingness to adopt life-style changes and to use therapeutic offers for COPD management. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study in a random sample of OAT patients. SETTING: Out-patient centres for substance addiction medicine in Zurich, Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 125 participants, recruited from November 2016 to April 2017 through invitation letters followed by phone or personal contact. MEASUREMENTS: Standardized questionnaires about drug use, smoking habits and medical history, completed during face-to-face interviews or from medical records. Spirometry without and-depending on the result-with bronchodilation. FINDINGS: Almost one-third [30.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 22.6-39.0%] of the 119 participants with valid spirometry tests were diagnosed with COPD. Among males aged 30-59 years, the age-adjusted prevalence of at least moderate airflow limitation (GOLD grade ≥ 2) was 2.4 (95% CI = 1.3-4.4) times as high as in the ever-smoking Swiss population in the same age group. Smoking tobacco (92.0%) and substance inhalation (cannabis = 97.6%, cocaine = 69.6%, heroin = 68.0%) were highly prevalent among all participants. The participants expressed considerable interest in life-style changes and use of therapeutic offers for COPD management, with smoking cessation being least (20.2% of tobacco smokers interested) and pharmacological treatment to alleviate COPD symptoms most popular. CONCLUSIONS: In Switzerland, COPD prevalence and multiple risk factors for COPD appear to be high among people in OAT compared with the general population. Individuals in OAT appear to develop COPD at a younger average age compared with the general population and are open to life-style changes and other COPD management approaches.