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.

Associations of Mental Health Issues with Health Literacy and Vaccination Readiness against COVID-19 in Long-Term Care Facilities-A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

Vaccinations against COVID-19 are of the utmost importance in long-term care facilities. During the pandemic, mental health issues increased significantly. This cross-sectional analysis aimed to assess the associations of depression and anxiety with health literacy in people in need of care and the association of depression and burnout with vaccination readiness against COVID-19 in health care workers (HCWs). Within our cross-sectional study, people in need of care were assessed for symptoms of depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (GAD-7), and health literacy (HLS-EU-Q16). Among HCWs, we assessed symptoms of depression (PHQ-9) and burnout (MBI-HSS), as well as psychological antecedents of vaccination (5C) to measure vaccination readiness against COVID-19. A multivariate regression analysis was performed. Symptoms of a major depression were significantly associated with reduced health literacy (p = 0.010) in people in need of care. Among HCWs, symptoms of depression and burnout reduced vaccination readiness against COVID-19 significantly. In particular, collective responsibility was reduced in HCWs suffering from burnout symptoms (p = 0.001). People in need of care and their HCWs could benefit from intensified target group-specific vaccination counseling. Additionally, more attention should be paid to the protection of mental health in long-term care facilities.

[" Not Even in The Corridor!" - Subjective Perception Of Institutional Measures During The Covid-19 Pandemic Of Nursing Home Residents: A Qualitative Study]. / " nicht mal auf den Gang!" ­ Das subjektive Empfinden institutioneller Maßnahmen während der Covid-19 Pandemie von Pflegeheimbewohnern. Eine qualitative Studie.

BACKGROUND: In the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, institutional measures were decreed to protect nursing home residents from infection. Their appropriateness has been a subject of controversy. The aim of this work was to better understand the subjective perception of the protective measures during the Covid-19 pandemic by the nursing home residents in Bavaria and to shed light on the role of nursing staff and general practitioners in coping with the crisis. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with residents of inpatient long-term care facilities. Data analysis was carried out by means of structured content analysis according to Kuckartz. RESULTS: A total of ten nursing home residents with various degrees of care were interviewed, five of whom had already been infected with Covid-19 at the time of the survey. The respondents reported, on the one hand, their need for protection and, on the other hand, the isolation they experienced during the pandemic. Trust in the care provided by the nursing staff was emphasized. A reliable personal contact to already known general practitioners was missing. CONCLUSION: The role of nurses and general practitioners deserves more attention and may be a key to better acceptance and management of such crisis situations.

Expectations of general practitioners on a practice based research network in Germany- a qualitative study within the Bavarian Research Practice Network (BayFoNet).

BACKGROUND: Despite general practitioners' (GPs') key role in Germany`s primary health care, clinical research in general practice is scarce. Clinical research is mainly conducted at inpatient facilities, although their results are rarely transferable. German GPs have no extra time or funding for research, as well as limited research training. To support clinical research in German primary health care, practice-based research networks (PBRNs) are developed. As they will be based on an active involvement of GPs, we need more information on GPs` participation-readiness. The aim of this study was to explore facilitators and barriers to participation in the Bavarian Research Practice Network (BayFoNet) from the GPs`perspective before clinical trials will be performed. METHODS: We have performed semi-structured qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of 20 Bavarian GPs in 2022 under the application of the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR). Transcriptions were analysed according to Kuckartz` qualitative content analysis. The five domains of the CFIR framework served as initial deductive codes. RESULTS: N = 14 interviewees already agreed to participate in BayFoNet, whereas n = 6 interviewees opted not to participate in BayFoNet at the time of data collection. Main facilitators to conduct clinical research within BayFoNet were the motivation to contribute to evidence strength and quality in general practice, professional development and training of practice staff, as well as networking. Barriers for an active participation were bad experiences with previous clinical studies and lack of resources. CONCLUSIONS: PBRNS in Germany have to be promoted and the entire practice team has to be involved at an early stage of development. Professional training of general practice staff and a living network might enhance engagement. Participatory approaches could help to develop acceptable and feasible study designs. Furthermore, PBRNs should support patient recruitment and data collection in general practices and disseminate the results of their research projects regularly to maintain GPs` engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: DRKS00028805, NCT05667207.

Prescribing cascades in ambulatory care: A structured synthesis of evidence.

The strength of evidence for specific ambulatory care prescribing cascades, in which a marker drug is used to treat an adverse event caused by an index drug, has not been well characterized. To perform a structured, systematic, and transparent review of the evidence supporting ambulatory care prescribing cascades. Ninety-four potential prescribing cascades identified through a previously published systematic review. Systematic search of the literature to further characterize prescribing cascades. (1) Grading of evidence based on observational studies investigating associations between index and marker drugs, including: Level I-strong evidence [i.e. multiple high-quality studies]; Level II-moderate evidence [i.e. single high-quality study]; Level III-fair evidence [no high-quality studies but one or more moderate-quality studies]; and Level IV-poor evidence [other]. (2) Listing of the adverse event associated with the index drug in the product's United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label. (3) Synthesis of the evidence supporting mechanisms linking index drugs and associated adverse events. Of 99 potential cascades, 94 were supported by one or more confirmatory observational studies and were therefore included in this review. The 94 cascades related to 30 types of adverse drug reactions affecting 10 different anatomic/physiologic systems and were investigated by a total of 88 confirmatory studies, including prescription sequential symmetry analysis (n = 51), cohort (n = 30), and case-control (n = 7) studies. Overall, the evidence from observational studies was strong for 18 (19.1%) prescribing cascades, moderate for 61 (64.9%), fair for 13 (13.8%), and poor for 2 (2.1%). Although the evidence supporting mechanisms that link index drugs and associated adverse events was variable, FDA labels included information about the adverse event associated with the index drug for most (n = 86) but not all of the 94 prescribing cascades. Although we identified 18 of 94 prescribing cascades supported by strong clinical evidence and most adverse events associated with index drugs are included in FDA label, the evidentiary basis for prescribing cascades varies, with many requiring further evidence of clinical relevance.

Psychological Determinants of Vaccination Readiness against COVID-19 and Seasonal Influenza of the Chronically Ill in Primary Care in Germany-A Cross-Sectional Survey.

Vaccines against COVID-19 and influenza are highly recommended for the chronically ill. They often suffer from co-morbid mental health issues. This cross-sectional observational study analyzes the associations between depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (OASIS) with vaccination readiness (5C) against COVID-19 and influenza in chronically ill adults in primary care in Germany. Sociodemographic data, social activity (LSNS), patient activation measure (PAM), and the doctor/patient relationship (PRA) are examined as well. Descriptive statistics and linear mixed-effects regression models are calculated. We compare data from n = 795 study participants. The symptoms of depression are negatively associated with confidence in COVID-19 vaccines (p = 0.010) and positively associated with constraints to get vaccinated against COVID-19 (p = 0.041). There are no significant associations between symptoms of depression and vaccination readiness against influenza. Self-reported symptoms of a generalized anxiety disorder seem not to be associated with vaccination readiness. To address confidence in COVID-19 vaccines among the chronically ill, targeted educational interventions should be elaborated to consider mental health issues like depression. As general practitioners play a key role in the development of a good doctor/patient relationship, they should be trained in patient-centered communication. Furthermore, a standardized implementation of digital vaccination management systems might improve immunization rates in primary care.

Hepatic Impairment as a Risk Factor for Drug Safety: Suitability and Comparison of Four Liver Scores as Screening Tools.

Hepatic impairment (HI) influences the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of drugs and represents an important risk factor for drug safety. A reliable screening tool for HI identification at hospital admission by pharmacists would be desirable but is currently lacking. Therefore, we tested four liver scores as potential screening instruments. We retrospectively recorded liver/bile diagnoses, symptoms and abnormalities (summarized as hepatic findings) of 200 surgical patients followed by an assessment of the relevance of these findings for drug therapy (rating). The agreement between the Model of Endstage Liver Disease (MELD), Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease fibrosis score (NFS), Fibrosis 4 index (FIB-4), and aspartate-aminotransferase to platelet ratio index (APRI) and the rating was quantified by Cohen's Kappa. The performance of the scores in this setting was further evaluated by their sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). Of 200 patients, 18 (9%) had hepatic findings relevant for drug therapy. Fair agreement was found for FIB-4 and MELD and slight agreement for APRI and NFS compared to the rating. The highest values for sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 41.2% (MELD), 99.3% (APRI), 66.7% (APRI), and 93.6% (MELD), respectively. Due to low performance, none of the scores can be recommended for clinical use as a single screening tool for HI at hospital admission.

Modelling Adverse Events with the TOP Phenotyping Framework.

The detection and prevention of medication-related health risks, such as medication-associated adverse events (AEs), is a major challenge in patient care. A systematic review on the incidence and nature of in-hospital AEs found that 9.2% of hospitalised patients suffer an AE, and approximately 43% of these AEs are considered to be preventable. Adverse events can be identified using algorithms that operate on electronic medical records (EMRs) and research databases. Such algorithms normally consist of structured filter criteria and rules to identify individuals with certain phenotypic traits, thus are referred to as phenotype algorithms. Many attempts have been made to create tools that support the development of algorithms and their application to EMRs. However, there are still gaps in terms of functionalities of such tools, such as standardised representation of algorithms and complex Boolean and temporal logic. In this work, we focus on the AE delirium, an acute brain disorder affecting mental status and attention, thus not trivial to operationalise in EMR data. We use this AE as an example to demonstrate the modelling process in our ontology-based framework (TOP Framework) for modelling and executing phenotype algorithms. The resulting semantically modelled delirium phenotype algorithm is independent of data structure, query languages and other technical aspects, and can be run on a variety of source systems in different institutions.

Association between bisphosphonate use and COVID-19 related outcomes.

Background: Although there are several efficacious vaccines against COVID-19, vaccination rates in many regions around the world remain insufficient to prevent continued high disease burden and emergence of viral variants. Repurposing of existing therapeutics that prevent or mitigate severe COVID-19 could help to address these challenges. The objective of this study was to determine whether prior use of bisphosphonates is associated with reduced incidence and/or severity of COVID-19. Methods: A retrospective cohort study utilizing payer-complete health insurance claims data from 8,239,790 patients with continuous medical and prescription insurance January 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020 was performed. The primary exposure of interest was use of any bisphosphonate from January 1, 2019 to February 29, 2020. Bisphosphonate users were identified as patients having at least one bisphosphonate claim during this period, who were then 1:1 propensity score-matched to bisphosphonate non-users by age, gender, insurance type, primary-care-provider visit in 2019, and comorbidity burden. Main outcomes of interest included: (a) any testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection; (b) COVID-19 diagnosis; and (c) hospitalization with a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 1, 2020 and June 30, 2020. Multiple sensitivity analyses were also performed to assess core study outcomes amongst more restrictive matches between BP users/non-users, as well as assessing the relationship between BP-use and other respiratory infections (pneumonia, acute bronchitis) both during the same study period as well as before the COVID outbreak. Results: A total of 7,906,603 patients for whom continuous medical and prescription insurance information was available were selected. A total of 450,366 bisphosphonate users were identified and 1:1 propensity score-matched to bisphosphonate non-users. Bisphosphonate users had lower odds ratios (OR) of testing for SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR = 0.22; 95%CI:0.21-0.23; p<0.001), COVID-19 diagnosis (OR = 0.23; 95%CI:0.22-0.24; p<0.001), and COVID-19-related hospitalization (OR = 0.26; 95%CI:0.24-0.29; p<0.001). Sensitivity analyses yielded results consistent with the primary analysis. Bisphosphonate-use was also associated with decreased odds of acute bronchitis (OR = 0.23; 95%CI:0.22-0.23; p<0.001) or pneumonia (OR = 0.32; 95%CI:0.31-0.34; p<0.001) in 2019, suggesting that bisphosphonates may protect against respiratory infections by a variety of pathogens, including but not limited to SARS-CoV-2. Conclusions: Prior bisphosphonate-use was associated with dramatically reduced odds of SARS-CoV-2 testing, COVID-19 diagnosis, and COVID-19-related hospitalizations. Prospective clinical trials will be required to establish a causal role for bisphosphonate-use in COVID-19-related outcomes. Funding: This study was supported by NIH grants, AR068383 and AI155865, a grant from MassCPR (to UHvA) and a CRI Irvington postdoctoral fellowship, CRI2453 (to PH).

The COVID-19 pandemic challenged the world to rapidly develop strategies to combat the virus responsible for the disease. While several effective vaccines and new drugs have since become available, these therapies are not always easy to access and take time to generate and distribute. To address these challenges, researchers have tried to find ways to repurpose existing medications that are already commonly used and known to be safe. One potential candidate are bisphosphonates, a family of drugs used to reduce bone loss in patients with osteoporosis. Bisphosphonates have been shown to boost the immune response to viral infections, and it has been observed that patients prescribed these drugs are less likely to develop or die from pneumonia. But whether bisphosphonates are effective against COVID-19 had not been fully explored. To investigate, Thompson, Wang et al. analyzed insurance claims data from about 8 million patients between January 2019 and June 2020, including around 450,000 individuals that had filled a prescription for bisphosphonates. Patients prescribed bisphosphonates were then compared to non-users that were similar in terms of their gender, age, the type of health insurance they had, their access to healthcare, and other health comorbidities. The study revealed that bisphosphonate users were around three to five times less likely to be tested for, diagnosed with, or hospitalized for COVID-19 during the first four months of the pandemic. They were also less commonly diagnosed with other respiratory infections in 2019, like bronchitis or pneumonia. Although the results suggest that bisphosphonates provide some protection against COVID-19, they cannot directly prove it. Verifying that bisphosphonates can treat or prevent COVID-19 and/or other respiratory infections requires more studies that follow patients in real-time rather than studying previously collected data. If such studies confirm the link, bisphosphonates could be a helpful tool to protect against COVID-19 or other virus outbreaks. The drugs are widely available, safe, and affordable, and therefore may provide an alternative for patients who cannot access other medications or vaccines.

Process evaluation in practice based research networks: a study protocol for a mixed-methods implementation study.

INTRODUCTION: General practitioners often criticise clinical trials for their poor applicability in primary care, which may at least partially explain why their engagement in primary care research remains limited. In order to enhance primary care research, the German government has funded six regional practice based research networks (PBRNs). Within the Bavarian PBRN (BayFoNet), two cluster-randomised pilot trials will be conducted. This paper presents the protocol of the process evaluation accompanying both trials, which aims to explore relevance, feasibility, acceptability and credibility of clinical research in primary care from the perspectives of BayFoNet researchers, general practitioners, and patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The BayFoNet will be established by recruiting general practices (GPs) as prospective research collaborators in two cluster randomised pilot trials. Research teams will provide training in good clinical practice, and support practices in patient recruitment, data collection and documentation. Our process evaluation explores barriers and facilitators in the set up of the BayFoNet PBRN and both cluster randomised pilot trials, under the application of the consolidated framework for implementation research and the theoretical domains framework. In a mixed-methods concept, we will use qualitative and quantitative approaches to evaluate both pilot cluster-randomised trials as well as the BayFoNet itself: focus groups with researchers, semi-structured interviews with general practitioners and questionnaires for patients participating in the pilot cluster-randomised trials at three different time points. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research ethical approval for this study was granted by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Department, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich (AZ 21-1135). Results will be published in international peer-reviewed journals and summaries will be provided to the funders of the study as well as other PBRNs, GP teams and patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: DRKS00028805, NCT05667207.

Single and combined use of fall-risk-increasing drugs and fracture risk: a population-based case-control study.

BACKGROUND: while many drug groups are associated with falls in older people, less is known about absolute increases in risk and how these risks vary across different groups of drugs or individuals. METHOD AND DESIGN: we conducted a population based nested case-control study among people aged ≥65 years in the Scottish regions of Tayside and Fife. Cases were individuals hospitalised with a fracture between 2010 and 2020, to whom we matched up to 10 controls. We examined relative and absolute risks of drug groups known as 'Fall-Risk-Increasing Drugs' (FRIDs), alone and in combination, and among younger and older (≥75 years) adults. Adjusting for previous hospitalisations, drug use and laboratory data, we used conditional logistic regression to quantify associations between drug exposures and outcomes. We conducted four sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of our findings. RESULTS: the cohort comprised 246,535 people aged ≥65 years, of whom 18,456 suffered an incident fracture. Fracture risks were significantly increased for most FRIDs examined. Absolute risks were much larger among older vs younger people and both relative and absolute risks increased with the number of FRIDs combined. Overall, the highest absolute increase in risk were found in people aged ≥75 years for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (number needed to harm 53), tricyclic antidepressants (NNH 81), antipsychotics (NNH 75) and use of three or more FRIDs (NNH ≤66). CONCLUSION: patients aged ≥75 years prescribed antidepressants or antipsychotics or taking three or more drugs that increase risk of falls may benefit most from deprescribing interventions.

CBT-Intervention for panic disorder in primary care: 5 years follow-up of a cRCT during the Covid-19 pandemic.

A practice team-based exercise programme with elements of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and case management for patients with panic disorder with or without agoraphobia in primary care showed significant positive effects. Here, we analyse the long-term effects (>5 years) of this intervention in the stressful context of the Covid-19 pandemic. All participants of the original PARADIES cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT; 2012-2016) were invited to participate in a follow-up during the Covid-19 pandemic. Clinical outcomes were anxiety symptoms, number and severity of panic attacks, agoraphobic avoidance behaviour, Covid-specific anxiety symptom severity, depression, and patient assessment of chronic illness care. Data were analysed cross-sectionally for group differences (intervention, control) and longitudinally (T0: baseline, T1: 6 months and TCorona: >60 months). Of the original 419 participants, 100 participated in the 60 months follow-up (October 2020-May 2021). In the cross-sectional analysis, the anxiety symptom severity in the intervention group was lower than in the control group (p = .011, Cohen's d = .517). In the longitudinal analysis, both groups showed an increase of anxiety and depression symptoms compared to pre-pandemic level. The intervention may have had a lasting impact regarding anxiety severity despite the challenging context of the Covid-19 pandemic. However, we cannot say to what extend the intervention still played a role in participants' lives; other factors may also have helped with coping. The increase of anxiety and depression symptoms in both groups over time could be attributed to external circumstances.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people in need of care or support: protocol for a SARS-CoV-2 registry.

INTRODUCTION: People in need of care or support are severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We lack valid data of long-term assessments. We present a register study to detect the physical and psychosocial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on people in need of care or support in Bavaria, Germany. To describe the persons' life conditions comprehensively, we assess the perspectives and needs of the respective care teams too. Results will serve as evidence-based source to manage the pandemic and long-term prevention strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The 'Bavarian ambulatory COVID-19 Monitor' is a multicentre registry including a purposive sample of up to 1000 patient-participants across three study sites in Bavaria. The study group consists of 600 people in need of care with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. Control group 1 comprises 200 people in need of care with a negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, while control group 2 comprises 200 people with a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test but are not in need of care. We assess the clinical course of infection, psychosocial aspects and care needs using validated measures. Follow-up is every 6 months for up to 3 years. Additionally, we assess up to 400 people linked to these patient-participants (caregivers, general practitioners (GPs)) for their health and needs. Main analyses are stratified by level of care I-V (I=minor/V=most severe impairment of independence), inpatient/outpatient care setting, sex and age. We use descriptive and inferential statistics to analyse cross-sectional data and changes over time. In qualitative interviews with 60 stakeholders (people in need of care, caregivers, GPs, politicians), we explore interface problems of different functional logics, of everyday and professional perspectives. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Institutional Review Board of the University Hospital LMU Munich (#20-860) and the study sites (Universities of Wurzburg and Erlangen) approved the protocol. We disseminate the results by peer-reviewed publications, international conferences, governmental reports, etc.

Detecting Medication Risks among People in Need of Care: Performance of Six Instruments.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous tools exist to detect potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) and potential prescribing omissions (PPO) in older people, but it remains unclear which tools may be most relevant in which setting. OBJECTIVES: This cross sectional study compares six validated tools in terms of PIM and PPO detection. METHODS: We examined the PIM/PPO prevalence for all tools combined and the sensitivity of each tool. The pairwise agreement between tools was determined using Cohen's Kappa. RESULTS: We included 226 patients in need of care (median (IQR age 84 (80-89)). The overall PIM prevalence was 91.6 (95% CI, 87.2-94.9)% and the overall PPO prevalence was 63.7 (57.1-69.9%)%. The detected PIM prevalence ranged from 76.5%, for FORTA-C/D, to 6.6% for anticholinergic drugs (German-ACB). The PPO prevalences for START (63.7%) and FORTA-A (62.8%) were similar. The pairwise agreement between tools was poor to moderate. The sensitivity of PIM detection was highest for FORTA-C/D (55.1%), and increased to 79.2% when distinct items from STOPP were added. CONCLUSION: Using a single screening tool may not have sufficient sensitivity to detect PIMs and PPOs. Further research is required to optimize the composition of PIM and PPO tools in different settings.

Which Adverse Events and Which Drugs Are Implicated in Drug-Related Hospital Admissions? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Adverse drug events (ADEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are leading causes of iatrogenic injury, which can result in emergency department (ED) visits or admissions to inpatient wards. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide up-to-date estimates of the prevalence of (preventable) drug-related ED visits and hospital admissions, as well as the type and prevalence of implicated ADRs/ADEs and drugs. A literature search of studies published between January 2012 and December 2021 was performed in PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Retrospective and prospective observational studies investigating acute admissions to EDs or inpatient wards due to ADRs or ADEs in the general population were included. Meta-analyses of prevalence rates were conducted using generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) with the random-effect method. Seventeen studies reporting ADRs and/or ADEs were eligible for inclusion. The prevalence rates of ADR- and ADE-related admissions to EDs or inpatient wards were estimated at 8.3% ([95% CI, 6.4-10.7%]) and 13.9% ([95% CI, 8.1-22.8%]), respectively, of which almost half (ADRs: 44.7% [95% CI: 28.1; 62.4]) and more than two thirds (ADEs: 71.0% [95% CI, 65.9-75.6%]) had been classified as at least possibly preventable. The ADR categories most frequently implicated in ADR-related admissions were gastrointestinal disorders, electrolyte disturbances, bleeding events, and renal and urinary disorders. Nervous system drugs were found to be the most commonly implicated drug groups, followed by cardiovascular and antithrombotic agents. Our findings demonstrate that ADR-related admissions to EDs and inpatient wards still represent a major and often preventable health care problem. In comparison to previous systematic reviews, cardiovascular and antithrombotic drugs remain common causes of drug-related admissions, while nervous system drugs appear to have become more commonly implicated. These developments may be considered in future efforts to improve medication safety in primary care.

Proton pump inhibitors and the risk of cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Observational research has indicated that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) might increase the long-term risk of cardiovascular events. This study evaluated the evidence from observational studies for an effect of PPI monotherapy on the risk of incident cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality. METHODS: The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus were systematically searched up to September 2021. The primary outcome was first cardiovascular event, i.e. first myocardial infarction or first ischaemic stroke. The secondary outcome was cardiovascular mortality. Studies were included following a detailed risk of bias assessment with the ROBINS-I tool. Sensitivity and bias analyses adjusted for potential publication bias, immortal time bias, and unmeasured confounding. RESULTS: We included ten studies with 75,371 first cardiovascular events, as well as seven studies on cardiovascular mortality with 50,329 cardiovascular deaths in total. The pooled hazard ratios (HRs) for PPI use and cardiovascular events were 1.05 with a 95% confidence interval of (0.96; 1.15) before and 0.99 (0.93; 1.04) after adjusting for observational study design bias. The pooled HRs for PPI use and cardiovascular mortality were 1.27 (1.11; 1.44) before and 1.06 (0.96; 1.16) after adjusting for publication bias and observational study design bias. CONCLUSION: It is questionable, whether PPI monotherapy constitutes a cardiovascular risk factor.

Prescribing Cascades: How to Detect Them, Prevent Them, and Use Them Appropriately.

BACKGROUND: A prescribing cascade is the treatment of an adverse drug reaction (ADR) with another drug. In this review, we discuss (a) the different types of prescribing cascade and (b) the measures that can be taken so that they will be recognized and dealt with appropriately, both in the hospital and in the outpatient setting. METHODS: This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective literature search. RESULTS: The literature distinguishes intentional from unintentional prescribing cascades, and appropriate from inappropriate ones. We further distinguish prophylactic from therapeutic prescribing cascades and draw a line between those that are necessary and those that are merely appropriate. The following main questions are essential for dealing with prescribing cascades appropriately: (1) Did the precipitating drug cause a clinically relevant ADR or risk of an ADR? (2) Is the precipitating drug still indicated? (3) Can an ADR be avoided by altering the treatment with the precipitating drug, or by (4) switching to another drug instead? (5) Can the drug used to treat the ADR actually affect it beneficially? (6) Do the benefits of the prescribing cascade outweigh its risks? CONCLUSION: Prescribing cascades are not problematic in themselves; on the contrary, they are sometimes a necessary part of good prescribing practice. There is still a lack of practically implementable instruments to help physicians detect prescribing cascades reliably, assess them properly, and put them to appropriate use.

Prescribing cascades in community-dwelling adults: A systematic review.

The misattribution of an adverse drug reaction (ADR) as a symptom or illness can lead to the prescribing of additional medication, referred to as a prescribing cascade. The aim of this systematic review is to identify published prescribing cascades in community-dwelling adults. A systematic review was reported in line with the PRISMA guidelines and pre-registered with PROSPERO. Electronic databases (Medline [Ovid], EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library) and grey literature sources were searched. Inclusion criteria: community-dwelling adults; risk-prescription medication; outcomes-initiation of new medicine to "treat" or reduce ADR risk; study type-cohort, cross-sectional, case-control, and case-series studies. Title/abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment were conducted independently in duplicate. A narrative synthesis was conducted. A total of 101 studies (reported in 103 publications) were included. Study sample sizes ranged from 126 to 11 593 989 participants and 15 studies examined older adults specifically (≥60 years). Seventy-eight of 101 studies reported a potential prescribing cascade including calcium channel blockers to loop diuretic (n = 5), amiodarone to levothyroxine (n = 5), inhaled corticosteroid to topical antifungal (n = 4), antipsychotic to anti-Parkinson drug (n = 4), and acetylcholinesterase inhibitor to urinary incontinence drugs (n = 4). Identified prescribing cascades occurred within three months to one year following initial medication. Methodological quality varied across included studies. Prescribing cascades occur for a broad range of medications. ADRs should be included in the differential diagnosis for patients presenting with new symptoms, particularly older adults and those who started a new medication in the preceding 12 months.

Patient characteristics and changes in anxiety symptoms in patients with panic disorder: Post-hoc analysis of the PARADIES cluster randomised trial.

Anxiety disorders are among the most common mental health problems in primary care. The PARADIES (Patient Activation foR Anxiety DIsordErS) intervention combined elements of cognitive behavioural therapy with case management and has demonstrated efficacy. Our aim was to explore patient characteristics, which may influence the course of anxiety symptoms over a 12 months period. Multiple linear regression was used to quantify associations of baseline characteristics (demographics, clinical parameters, medication use) with changes in anxiety symptoms as measured by the Beck anxiety inventory. Treatment modalities (e.g. adherence to appointment schedules) were considered as confounders. We examined univariate associations between dependent and independent variables before considering all independent variables in a multivariate final model. To find the best model to explain BAI score changes, we performed step-wise selection of independent variables based on Akaike information criteria. We tested for interaction terms between treatment allocation (intervention vs control) and independent variables using the multivariate model. We repeated these analyses in control vs intervention groups separately. From the original trial (N = 419), 236 patients (56.3%) were included. In the multivariate model, receiving the intervention (p<0.001), higher anxiety symptom severity (p<0.001) and longer illness duration at baseline (p = 0.033) were significantly associated with changes in anxiety symptom severity to the better while depression severity at baseline (p<0.001) was significantly associated with changes in anxiety symptoms to the worse. In stratified analyses, the control group showed significant associations between depression symptom severity and illness duration with anxiety symptom changes while baseline severity of anxiety symptoms remained significantly associated with anxiety symptom changes in both groups. A brief primary-care-based exposure training combined with case management is effective in a broad range of patients with panic disorder with/without agoraphobia, including those with longer illness duration and co-existing symptoms of depression at baseline.