Community-based intervention to optimise falls risk management: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: falls are the leading causes of accidental death and fragility fractures in older adults. Interventions that assess and reduce falls risk are underutilised. OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted community-based programme aimed at optimising evidence-based management of patients at risk for fall-related fractures. DESIGN: this was a randomised trial performed from 2003 to 2006. SETTING: community-based intervention in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: eligible patients were community-dwelling, aged > or =55 years and identified to be at risk for fall-related fractures. A total of 201 patients were allocated to the intervention group or to usual care. INTERVENTION: components of the intervention included assessment of falls risk, functional status and home environment, and patient education. MEASUREMENTS: primary outcome was the implementation of appropriate falls risk assessment at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included falls and fractures at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: the mean age of participants was 72 years, and 41% had fallen with injury in the previous year. Compared to usual care, the intervention increased the number of referrals made to physiotherapy [21% (21/101) vs 6.0% (6/100); relative risk (RR) 3.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.46-8.22] and occupational therapy [15% (15/101) vs 0%; RR 30.7, 95% CI 1.86 to >500]. At 12 months, the number of falls in the intervention group was greater than in the usual care group [23% (23/101) vs 11% (11/100); RR 2.07, 95% CI 1.07-4.02]. CONCLUSIONS: compared to usual care, a multi-faceted intervention increased referrals to physiotherapy and occupational therapy but did not reduce risk of falls. Similar falls reduction interventions cannot be recommended based on the results of this study.

Community-based randomised controlled trial evaluating falls and osteoporosis risk management strategies.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis-related fractures are a significant public health concern. Interventions that increase detection and treatment of osteoporosis, as well as prevention of fractures and falls, are substantially underutilized. This paper outlines the protocol for a pragmatic randomised trial of a multifaceted community-based care program aimed at optimizing the evidence-based management of falls and fractures in patients at risk. DESIGN: 6-month randomised controlled study. METHODS: This population-based study was completed in the Algoma District of Ontario, Canada a geographically vast area with Sault Ste Marie (population 78,000) as its main city. Eligible patients were allocated to an immediate intervention protocol (IP) group, or a delayed intervention protocol (DP) group. The DP group received usual care for 6 months and then was crossed over to receive the interventions. Components of the intervention were directed at the physicians and their patients and included patient-specific recommendations for osteoporosis therapy as outlined by the clinical practice guidelines developed by Osteoporosis Canada, and falls risk assessment and treatment. Two primary outcomes were measured including implementation of appropriate osteoporosis and falls risk management. Secondary outcomes included quality of life and the number of falls, fractures, and hospital admissions over a twelve-month period. The patient is the unit of allocation and analysis. Analyses will be performed on an intention to treat basis. DISCUSSION: This paper outlines the protocol for a pragmatic randomised trial of a multi-faceted, community-based intervention to optimize the implementation of evidence based management for patients at risk for falls and osteoporosis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial has been registered with clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT00465387).

Impact of reference-based pricing of nitrates on the use and costs of anti-anginal drugs.

BACKGROUND: Reference-based pricing limits reimbursement for a group of drugs that are deemed therapeutically equivalent to the cost of the lowest-priced product within that group. We estimated the effect of reference-based pricing of nitrate drugs used for long-term prophylaxis on prescribing of and expenditures on nitrates and other anti-anginal drugs dispensed to senior citizens in British Columbia. METHODS: We assessed trends in the monthly volume of prescriptions of anti-anginal drugs and the associated drug ingredient cost paid by the province's publicly funded drug subsidy program, Pharmacare, and by the patients themselves for the period April 1994 to May 1999. Trends in monthly rates of nitrate expenditures per 100,000 senior citizens before the introduction of reference-based pricing were extrapolated to infer what expenditures would have been without the policy. RESULTS: During the 3 1/2 years after reference-based pricing was introduced, Pharmacare expenditures on nitrates prescribed to senior citizens declined by $14.9 million (95% confidence interval $10.7 to $19.1 million). Most of these savings were due to the lower prices that Pharmacare paid for sustained-release nitroglycerin tablets and the nitroglycerin patch, which were the 2 most frequently prescribed nitrates before the introduction of reference-based pricing; $1.2 million (8%) of the savings represented expenditures by senior citizens who purchased drugs that were only partially reimbursed. There were no compensatory increases in expenditures for other anti-anginal drugs. Use of sublingual nitroglycerin--a marker for deteriorating health in patients with angina--did not increase after the introduction of reference-based pricing. The nitroglycerin patch is now the most frequently prescribed nitrate, owing to the fact that Pharmacare resumed the provision of full subsidies for the drug after its manufacturers voluntarily reduced retail prices. INTERPRETATION: Evidence to date suggests that reference-based pricing of nitrates has achieved its primary goal of reducing drug expenditures. The effects of this policy on patient health, associated health care costs and administrative costs remain to be investigated.

Bupropion versus selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors for treatment of depression.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the benefits and risks of bupropion and selective serotonin-reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in adults with depression. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (1966-September 1999), Embase (1980-August 1999), PsyclNFO (1887-August 1999), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-August 1999), and CIANHL databases were searched. References from the selected citations, review articles, and the manufacturer were also screened. STUDY SELECTION: Included studies were randomized, double-blind, controlled trials evaluating bupropion versus SSRIs for depression in adults. Studies were assessed independently in duplicate. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. DATA ANALYSIS: Data are reported as absolute weighted mean differences or relative risks and 95% confidence intervals comparing bupropion relative to SSRIs. Data not combined are presented qualitatively. DATA SYNTHESIS: Six full-length studies were included of 257 citations identified. SSRI comparators were fluoxetine, sertraline, and paroxetine. No differences in Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) and Clinical Global Impressions Scale for Improvement of illness (CGI-I) were found, but data were not able to be quantitatively combined. The absolute weighted mean differences were 0.10 (95% CI -0.2 to 0.4) for the CGI for Severity of Illness and 0.37 (95% CI -0.85 to 1.6) for the Hamilton Rating Scale for Anxiety measurements. Relative risks of bupropion compared with SSRIs were 0.6 (95% CI 0.41 to 0.89), 0.31 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.57), and 0.27 (95% CI 0.15 to 0.48) for nausea, diarrhea, and somnolence, respectively. Sexual arousal disorder, orgasmic dysfunction, and sexual desire disorder occurred less with bupropion than with SSRIs, with relative risks of 0.46 (95% CI 0.26 to 0.83), 0.22 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.40), and 0.65 (95% CI 0.51 to 0.84), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Bupropion and SSRIs have similar effectiveness; however, bupropion was associated with less nausea, diarrhea, somnolence, and sexual dysfunction.

A meta-analysis comparing low-molecular-weight heparins with unfractionated heparin in the treatment of venous thromboembolism: examining some unanswered questions regarding location of treatment, product type, and dosing frequency.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy and safety of unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) and to examine current controversies in the treatment of venous thromboembolism (VTE) (ie, setting, product type, and frequency of administration). METHODS: Data were abstracted from MEDLINE, HEALTH, previous reviews, personal files, clinical experts, and conference abstracts. Randomized controlled trials of patients diagnosed with acute VTE that compared LMWHs with UFH were included. Independent duplicate assessment was done for methodological quality and data extraction. Data are reported as pooled relative risks (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) comparing LMWHs with UFH as determined by the random effects model. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included. There was no statistically significant difference in risk between UFH and LMWHs for recurrent VTE (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.65-1.12]), pulmonary embolism (RR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.64-1.62]), major bleeding (RR, 0.63 [95% CI, 0.37-1.05]), minor bleeding (RR, 1.18 [95% CI, 0.87-1.61]), and thrombocytopenia (RR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.45-1.62]). There was a statistically significant difference for risk of total mortality (RR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.59-0.98]) in favor of LMWHs. Inpatient treatment may reduce the risk of major bleeding vs outpatient therapy. Once-daily therapy is as safe and effective as twice-daily therapy when compared indirectly. Different products could not be statistically compared, but qualitative analysis shows that there are no apparent differences in efficacy and safety. CONCLUSIONS: Low-molecular-weight heparins are at least as effective as UFH in preventing recurrent VTE. It is unlikely that LMWHs are superior in the treatment of VTE, but they do show a statistically significant decrease in total mortality. No differences were seen in the development of recurrent VTE dependent on treatment setting. There were no apparent differences between once-daily and twice-daily therapy or among products. Inpatient therapy may be associated with less major bleeding; therefore, if LMWHs are given in the outpatient setting, patients should be rigorously monitored.

Can we use anxiolytics during pregnancy without anxiety?

QUESTIONOne of my patients suffers from anxiety and was using lorazepam to treat it. When she became pregnant, she stopped the medication immediately, but now she is worried about the potential effect on the baby because she was using the drug just after conception. Is this class of drugs safe during pregnancy? What should she do if she needs antianxiety treatment during the rest of her pregnancy?ANSWEREvidence to date from cohort studies did not identify a notable association between use of benzodiazepines and increased risk of major malformations, including oral cleft. In contrast, data from case-control studies show a slightly increased risk of oral cleft. Hence, level 2 ultrasonography is recommended to rule out visible forms of cleft lip. Using benzodiazepines late in pregnancy could cause withdrawal syndrome in newborns.

Benzodiazepine use in pregnancy and major malformations or oral cleft: meta-analysis of cohort and case-control studies.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if exposure to benzodiazepines during the first trimester of pregnancy increases risk of major malformations or cleft lip or palate. DESIGN: Meta-analysis. SETTING: Studies from 1966 to present. SUBJECTS: Studies were located with Medline, Embase, Reprotox, and from references of textbooks, reviews, and included articles. Included studies were original, concurrently controlled studies in any language. INTERVENTIONS: Data extraction and quality assessment were done independently and in duplicate. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maternal exposure to benzodiazepines in at least the first trimester; incidence of major malformations or oral cleft alone, measured as odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals with a random effects model. RESULTS: Of over 1400 studies reviewed, 74 were retrieved and 23 included. In the analysis of cohort studies fetal exposure to benzodiazepine was not associated with major malformations (odds ratio 0.90; 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 1. 35) or oral cleft (1.19; 0.34 to 4.15). Analysis of case-control studies showed an association between exposure to benzodiazepines and development of major malformations (3.01; 1.32 to 6.84) or oral cleft alone (1.79; 1.13 to 2.82). CONCLUSIONS: Pooled data from cohort studies showed no association between fetal exposure to benzodiazepines and the risk of major malformations or oral cleft. On the basis of pooled data from case-control studies, however, there was a significant increased risk for major malformations or oral cleft alone. Until more research is reported, level 2 ultrasonography should be used to rule out visible forms of cleft lip.