Optimizing clinical approaches to COVID-19 patients in primary care.

There is insufficient evidence from medical studies for clinical approaches to patients with COVID-19 in primary care. Patients often urge the therapeutic use and preventive administration of various medicines, often controlled by studies insufficiently or completely unverified. The aim of the project, commissioned by the Committee of the Society of General Practice of the Czech Medical Association JEP, was to compensate for this deficiency by interdisciplinary consensus and thus provide general practitioners (GPs) with a basic support in accessing patients with COVID-19. Representatives of GPs identified the most common questionable diagnostic or therapeutic approaches and formulated 17 theses, taking into account their own experience, existing Czech and foreign professional recommendations. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, modified for the needs of pandemic situation, was chosen to seek consensus. Representatives of 7 medical specialties accepted the participation in the 20-member panel. The panel evaluated in 2 rounds, with the comments and opinions of others available to all panelists before the second round. The outcome of the evaluation was agreement on 10 theses addressing the administration of vitamin D, inhaled corticosteroids in patients with COPD and bronchial asthma, acetylsalicylic acid, indications for D-dimer levels examination, preventive administration of LMWH, importance of pulse oximetry, indication for emergency services, indication for antibiotics and rules for distant contact. The panel disagreed on 6 theses recommending the administration of ivermectin, isoprinosine, colchicine and corticosteroids in patients with COVID-19 in primary care. One thesis, taking into account the use of D-dimers in primary care was evaluated as uncertain. The most discussed theses, on which there was also no agreement, were outpatient administration of corticosteroids and the importance of elevation of D-dimers levels or their dynamic increase in a symptomatic patient with COVID-19 as an indication for referral to hospital. The results of the consensus identified topics that need to be further discussed and on which it is appropriate to focus further research.

A pedometer-based walking intervention with and without email counseling in general practice: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners play a fundamental role in combatting the current epidemic of physical inactivity, and pedometer-based walking interventions are able to increase physical activity levels of their patients. Supplementing these interventions with email counseling driven by feedback from the pedometer has the potential to further improve their effectiveness but it has to be yet confirmed in clinical trials. Therefore, the aim of our pilot randomized controlled trial is to evaluate the feasibility and potential efficacy of future trials designed to assess the additional benefit of email counseling added to a pedometer-based intervention in a primary care setting. METHODS: Physically inactive patients were opportunistically recruited from four general practices and randomized to a 12-week pedometer-based intervention with or without email counseling. To explore the feasibility of future trials, we assessed the speed and efficiency of recruitment, adherence to wearing the pedometer, and engagement with email counseling. To evaluate the potential efficacy, daily step-count was the primary outcome and blood pressure, waist and hip circumference, and body mass were the secondary outcomes. Additionally, we conducted a qualitative analysis of structured interviews with the participating general practitioners. RESULTS: The opportunistic recruitment has been shown to be feasible and acceptable, but relatively slow and inefficient; moreover, general practitioners selectively recruited overweight and obese patients. Patients manifested high adherence, wearing the pedometer on 83% (± 20) of days. All patients from the counseling group actively participated in email communication and responded to 46% (± 22) of the emails they received. Both groups significantly increased their daily step-count (pedometer-plus-email, + 2119, p = 0.002; pedometer-alone, + 1336, p = 0.03), but the difference between groups was not significant (p = 0.18). When analyzing both groups combined, there was a significant decrease in body mass (- 0.68 kg, p = 0.04), waist circumference (- 1.73 cm, p = 0.03), and systolic blood pressure (- 3.48 mmHg, p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that adding email counseling to a pedometer-based intervention in a primary care setting is feasible and might have the potential to increase the efficacy of such an intervention in increasing physical activity levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT03135561 , date: April 26, 2017).