How Patient-Centred Are Inhaler Device Choices? A Survey of Canadian Prescribers.

Background: The choice of inhaler device type can play a crucial role in managing asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). With various devices available, differences in choice and application may lead to confusion for both prescribers and patients. Furthermore, improper use of a device may lead to suboptimal or inadequate treatment. Objectives: The primary objective was to identify factors that prescribers consider when selecting an inhaler device for a patient. The secondary objective was to evaluate the rankings of these factors, including identification of which factors had greater importance and frequency for prescribers' choice of inhaler device for patients. Methods: A 10-question online survey was developed and distributed in late 2021 to prescribers (physicians, nurse practitioners, and pharmacists) in western Canada in an outpatient setting. Prescribers were asked to use their own words to describe the factors they considered important and were then asked to rank the stated factors in order of importance for 2 scenarios: an 83-year-old woman with COPD and a 21-year-old man with asthma. The results were examined qualitatively and quantitatively. Recurring themes were identified, and each response was categorized on the basis of its corresponding theme. Results: In all, 82 respondents completed the survey (yielding a total of 164 responses across the 2 scenarios). Overall, prescriber experience (84/164, 51%), cost (84/164, 51%), patient ease of use (59/164, 36%), and other patient considerations (49/164, 30%) were the factors most frequently mentioned. The prescriber's experience was most often mentioned as a factor for scenario 1 (COPD), whereas cost was most often mentioned for scenario 2 (asthma). In both scenarios, prescriber experience was the highest-ranked factor. Conclusions: When determining the appropriate type of inhaler device, respondents frequently prioritized their own experience, as well as cost and ease of use. However, many respondents ranked prescriber experience higher than all other factors.

Contexte: Le choix du type d'inhalateur peut jouer un rôle crucial dans la gestion de l'asthme et de la maladie pulmonaire obstructive chronique (MPOC). Étant donné la diversité des dispositifs disponibles, les différences de choix et d'application peuvent prêter à confusion tant pour les prescripteurs que pour les patients. De plus, la mauvaise utilisation d'un appareil peut conduire à un traitement sous-optimal ou inadéquat. Objectifs: L'objectif principal consistait à identifier les facteurs pris en compte par les prescripteurs lors de la sélection de l'inhalateur pour un patient. L'objectif secondaire consistait à évaluer le classement de ces facteurs, notamment l'identification des facteurs les plus importants et des inhalateurs les plus fréquemment choisis par les prescripteurs. Méthodes: Un sondage en ligne de 10 questions a été préparé et distribué fin 2021 aux prescripteurs (médecins, infirmières praticiennes et pharmaciens) de l'ouest du Canada en milieu ambulatoire. Les prescripteurs devaient, dans leurs propres mots, décrire les facteurs qui leur semblaient importants avant de les classer par ordre d'importance dans le cadre de deux scénarios : une femme de 83 ans atteinte de MPOC et un homme de 21 ans avec de l'asthme. Les résultats ont fait l'objet d'un examen qualitatif et quantitatif. Des thèmes récurrents ont été identifiés et chaque réponse a été catégorisée en fonction du thème correspondant. Résultats: Au total, 82 répondants ont répondu au sondage (total de 164 réponses dans les 2 scénarios). Dans l'ensemble, l'expérience du prescripteur (84/164, 51 %), le coût (84/164, 51 %), la facilité d'utilisation pour le patient (59/164, 36 %) et d'autres considérations en rapport avec le patient (49/164, 30 %) étaient les facteurs déterminants les plus fréquemment mentionnés. Pour le scénario 1 (MPOC), l'expérience du prescripteur était le facteur le plus souvent mentionné, alors que le coût l'était pour le scénario 2 (asthme). Dans les deux scénarios, l'expérience du prescripteur était le facteur le plus important. Conclusions: Lors de la détermination du type d'inhalateur approprié, les répondants ont souvent donné la priorité à leur expérience personnelle, ainsi qu'au coût et à la facilité d'utilisation. Cependant, de nombreux répondants ont accordé une note plus élevée à l'expérience du prescripteur qu'à d'autres facteurs.

PEER simplified lipid guideline 2023 update: Prevention and management of cardiovascular disease in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To update the 2015 clinical practice guideline and provide a simplified approach to lipid management in the prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) for primary care. METHODS: Following the Institute of Medicine's Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust, a multidisciplinary, pan-Canadian guideline panel was formed. This panel was represented by primary care providers, free from conflicts of interest with industry, and included the patient perspective. A separate scientific evidence team performed evidence reviews on statins, ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitors, fibrates, bile acid sequestrants, niacin, and omega-3 supplements (docosahexaenoic acid with eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA] or EPA ethyl ester alone [icosapent]), as well as on 11 supplemental questions. Recommendations were finalized by the guideline panel through use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. RECOMMENDATIONS: All recommendations are presented in a patient-centred manner designed with the needs of family physicians and other primary care providers in mind. Many recommendations are similar to those published in 2015. Statins remain first-line therapy for both primary and secondary CVD prevention, and the Mediterranean diet and physical activity are recommended to reduce cardiovascular risk (primary and secondary prevention). The guideline panel recommended against using lipoprotein a, apolipoprotein B, or coronary artery calcium levels when assessing cardiovascular risk, and recommended against targeting specific lipid levels. The team also reviewed new evidence pertaining to omega-3 fatty acids (including EPA ethyl ester [icosapent]) and proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 inhibitors, and outlined when to engage in informed shared decision making with patients on interventions to lower cardiovascular risk. CONCLUSION: These updated evidence-based guidelines provide a simplified approach to lipid management for the prevention and management of CVD. These guidelines were created by and for primary health care professionals and their patients.

Lipid-lowering therapies for cardiovascular disease prevention and management in primary care: PEER umbrella systematic review of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefits and harms of lipid-lowering therapies used to prevent or manage cardiovascular disease including bile acid sequestrants (BAS), ezetimibe, fibrates, niacin, omega-3 supplements, proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitors, and statins. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and a grey literature search. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials published between January 2017 and March 2022 looking at statins, ezetimibe, PCSK9 inhibitors, fibrates, BAS, niacin, and omega-3 supplements for preventing cardiovascular outcomes were selected. Outcomes of interest included major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), cardiovascular mortality, all-cause mortality, and adverse events. SYNTHESIS: A total of 76 systematic reviews were included. Four randomized controlled trials were also included for BAS because no efficacy systematic review was identified. Statins significantly reduced MACE (6 systematic reviews; median risk ratio [RR]=0.74; interquartile range [IQR]=0.71 to 0.76), cardiovascular mortality (7 systematic reviews; median RR=0.85, IQR=0.83 to 0.86), and all-cause mortality (8 systematic reviews; median RR=0.91, IQR=0.88 to 0.92). Major adverse cardiovascular events were also significantly reduced by ezetimibe (3 systematic reviews; median RR=0.93, IQR=0.93 to 0.94), PCSK9 inhibitors (14 systematic reviews; median RR=0.84, IQR=0.83 to 0.87), and fibrates (2 systematic reviews; mean RR=0.86), but these interventions had no effect on cardiovascular or all-cause mortality. Fibrates had no effect on any cardiovascular outcomes when added to a statin. Omega-3 combination supplements had no effect on MACE or all-cause mortality but significantly reduced cardiovascular mortality (5 systematic reviews; median RR=0.93, IQR=0.93 to 0.94). Eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester alone significantly reduced MACE (1 systematic review, RR=0.78) and cardiovascular mortality (2 systematic reviews; RRs of 0.82 and 0.82). In primary cardiovascular prevention, only statins showed consistent benefits on MACE (6 systematic reviews; median RR=0.75, IQR=0.73 to 0.78), cardiovascularall-cause mortality (7 systematic reviews, median RR=0.83, IQR=0.81 to 0.90), and all-cause mortality (8 systematic reviews; median RR=0.91, IQR=0.87 to 0.91). CONCLUSION: Statins have the most consistent evidence for the prevention of cardiovascular complications with a relative risk reduction of about 25% for MACE and 10% to 15% for mortality. The addition of ezetimibe, a PCSK9 inhibitor, or eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester to a statin provides additional MACE risk reduction but has no effect on all-cause mortality.

Lignes directrices simplifiées de PEER sur les lipides : actualisation 2023: Prévention et prise en charge des maladies cardiovasculaires en soins primaires.

OBJECTIF: Actualiser le guide de pratique clinique de 2015 et présenter une approche simplifiée de la prise en charge des lipides dans la prévention des maladies cardiovasculaires (MCV) en première ligne. MÉTHODES: Conformément aux recommandations de l'Institute of Medicine dans Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust, un panel pancanadien d'experts multidisciplinaires en lignes directrices a été formé. Ce panel était représentatif des cliniciens en soins primaires, libre de tout conflit d'intérêts avec l'industrie, et il tenait compte des points de vue des patients. Une équipe distincte, responsable des données probantes scientifiques, a passé en revue l'information sur les statines, l'ézétimibe, les inhibiteurs de la proprotéine convertase subtilisine-kexine de type 9, les fibrates, les chélateurs des acides biliaires, la niacine et les suppléments d'omega-3 (acide docosahexaénoïque avec acide eicosapentaénoïque [EPA] ou ester éthylique de l'EPA seul [icosapent]), ainsi que sur la réponse à 11 questions supplémentaires. Le panel des lignes directrices a finalisé les recommandations en utilisant la méthodologie GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). RECOMMANDATIONS: Toutes les recommandations sont présentées de manière à être centrées sur le patient et conçues en ayant à l'esprit les besoins des médecins de famille et des autres cliniciens des soins primaires. De nombreuses recommandations sont semblables à celles publiées en 2015. Les statines demeurent le traitement de première intention pour la prévention tant primaire que secondaire des MCV, et le régime méditerranéen et l'activité physique sont recommandés pour réduire le risque cardiovasculaire (en prévention primaire et secondaire). Le panel des lignes directrices a recommandé de ne pas utiliser le dosage des lipoprotéines a, des apolipoprotéines B ou le score calcique coronarien (SCC) dans l'évaluation du risque cardiovasculaire, et de ne pas cibler de seuils précis de taux lipidiques. L'équipe a aussi passé en revue de nouvelles données concernant les acides gras omega-3 (y compris l'ester éthylique d'EAP [icosapent]) et les inhibiteurs de la proprotéine convertase subtilisine-kexine de type 9, et a précisé les moments où il convient de procéder à une prise de décision partagée avec les patients sur les interventions pour diminuer le risque cardiovasculaire. CONCLUSION: Ces lignes directrices actualisées et fondées sur des données probantes présentent une approche simplifiée de la prise en charge des lipides pour la prévention et le traitement des MCV. Ce guide de pratique clinique a été conçu par et pour des professionnels de la santé en soins primaires et leurs patients.

Bedtime versus morning use of antihypertensives in frail continuing care residents (BedMed-Frail): protocol for a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point pragmatic trial.

INTRODUCTION: BedMed-Frail explores risks and benefits of switching antihypertensives from morning to bedtime in a frail population at greater risk of hypotensive adverse effects. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Design: Prospective parallel randomised, open-label, blinded end-point trial.Participants: Hypertensive continuing care residents, in either long-term care or supportive living, who are free from glaucoma, and using ≥1 once daily antihypertensive.Setting: 16 volunteer continuing care facilities in Alberta, Canada, with eligible residents identified using electronic health claims data.Intervention: All non-opted out eligible residents are randomised centrally by the provincial health data steward to bedtime versus usual care (typically morning) administration of once daily antihypertensives. Timing changes are made (maximum one change per week) by usual care facility pharmacists.Follow-up: Via linked governmental healthcare databases tracking hospital, continuing care and community medical services.Primary outcome: Composite of all-cause death, or hospitalisation for myocardial infarction/acute-coronary syndrome, stroke, or congestive heart failure.Secondary outcomes: Each primary outcome element on its own, all-cause unplanned hospitalisation or emergency department visit, non-vertebral fracture and, as assessed roughly 135 days postrandomisation, fall in the last 30 days, deteriorated cognition, urinary incontinence, decubitus skin ulceration, inappropriate or disruptive behaviour a minimum of 4 days per week, and receipt of antipsychotic medication or physical restraints in the last 7 days.Process outcome: Proportion of blood pressure medication doses taken at bedtime (broken down monthly).Primary outcome analysis: Cox-Proportional Hazards Survival Analysis.Sample size: The trial will continue until a projected 368 primary outcome events have occurred.Current status: Enrolment is ongoing with 642 randomisations to date (75% female, mean age 88 years). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: BedMed-Frail has ethical approval from the University of Alberta Health Ethics Review Board (Pro00086129) and will publish results in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04054648.

Evaluation of the quality of colonoscopies performed by Alberta North Zone surgeons, family physicians and internists: a quality improvement initiative.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, endoscopy is primarily performed by gastroenterologists and surgeons, and some studies report that colonoscopies performed by nongastroenterologists have more complications and higher rates of future colorectal cancer. Our objective was to determine whether rural-based nongastroenterologist endoscopists are achieving quality benchmarks in colonoscopy. METHODS: This quality improvement initiative prospectively evaluated 6 key performance indicators (KPIs) (cecal intubations, polyp detection [males and females; for first-time colonoscopies on patients aged ≥ 50 yr], bowel preparations, patient comfort and withdrawal times) on consecutive colonoscopies performed by participating Alberta North Zone endoscopists. The study period was June 2018 to March 2020. Overall and individual endoscopist's KPIs were compared with standard benchmarks. Additional performance indicators included mean number of polyps per colonoscopy and an exploration of study-defined sedation-related level of consciousness. RESULTS: Data were collected on 6212 colonoscopies performed by 16 endoscopists (9 surgeons, 5 family physicians and 2 internists) in 6 hospitals. All 6 KPI benchmarks were achieved when results were pooled over all endoscopists in the study. Overall, cecal intubation occurred in 6006 of 6209 (96.7%, 95% confidence interval 94.5%-99.0%) cases. Polyp detection was 65.9% (592/898) and 49.8% (348/699) for male and female patients, respectively, aged 50 years or older. Variability in individual endoscopist results existed, especially for the mean number of polyps per 100 colonoscopies and sedation-related level of consciousness. INTERPRETATION: Overall, Alberta North Zone endoscopists are performing high-quality colonoscopies, collectively achieving all 6 KPIs. To understand endoscopic performance and encourage individual and group reflection on endoscopic practices, Canadian endoscopists are encouraged to participate in similar colonoscopy quality initiative studies.

Tolerability of bedtime diuretics: a prospective cohort analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to validate, or refute, the common belief that bedtime diuretics are poorly tolerated due to nocturia. DESIGN: Prespecified prospective cohort analysis embedded within the randomised BedMed trial, in which hypertensive participants are randomised to morning versus bedtime antihypertensive administration. SETTING: 352 community family practices across 4 Canadian provinces between March 2017 and September 2020. PARTICIPANTS: 552 hypertensive patients (65.6 years old, 57.4% female) already established on a single once-daily morning antihypertensive and randomised to switch that antihypertensive to bedtime. Of these, 203 used diuretics (27.1% thiazide alone, 70.0% thiazide/non-diuretic combinations) and 349 used non-diuretics. INTERVENTION: Switching the established antihypertensive from morning to bedtime, and comparing the experience of diuretic and non-diuretic users. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: Adherence to bedtime allocation time at 6 months (defined as the willingness to continue with bedtime use, not an assessment of missed doses). Secondary 6-month outcomes: (1) nocturia considered to be a major burden and (2) increase in overnight urinations/week. All outcomes were self-reported and additionally collected at 6 weeks. RESULTS: At 6 months: Adherence to bedtime allocation time was lower in diuretic users than non-diuretic users (77.3% vs 89.8%; difference 12.6%; 95% CI 5.8% to 19.8%; p<0.0001; NNH 8.0), and more diuretic users considered nocturia a major burden (15.6% vs 1.3%; difference 14.2%; 95% CI 8.9% to 20.6%; p<0.0001; NNH 7.0). Compared with baseline, diuretic users experienced 1.0 more overnight urinations/week (95% CI 0.0 to 1.75; p=0.01). Results did not differ between sexes. CONCLUSIONS: Switching diuretics to bedtime did promote nocturia, but only 15.6% found nocturia a major burden. At 6 months, 77.3% of diuretic users were adherent to bedtime dosing. Bedtime diuretic use is viable for many hypertensive patients, should it ever become clinically indicated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02990663.

Who provides chronic disease management? Population-based retrospective cohort study in Alberta.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportions of patients who receive care from family physicians, specialists, and nurse practitioners for the management of common chronic medical conditions. DESIGN: Population-based retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Province of Alberta. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged 19 years or older who were registered for provincial health services and each had 2 or more interactions with the same provider between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2017, for any of 7 specified chronic medical conditions: hypertension, diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma, heart failure, ischemic heart disease, and chronic kidney disease. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Numbers of patients being managed for these conditions and which provider types were involved in their care. RESULTS: Albertans receiving care for the chronic medical conditions being studied (n=970,783) had a mean (SD) age of 56.8 (16.3) years and 49.1% were female. Family physicians were the sole providers of care for 85.7% of patients with a diagnosis of hypertension, 70.9% with diabetes, 59.8% with COPD, and 65.5% with asthma. Specialists were sole providers of care for 49.1% of patients with ischemic heart disease, 42.2% with chronic kidney disease, and 35.6% with heart failure. Nurse practitioners were involved in the care of less than 1% of patients with these conditions. CONCLUSION: Family physicians were involved in the care of most patients with any of 7 chronic medical conditions included in this study and were the sole providers of care for the majority of patients with hypertension, diabetes, COPD, and asthma. Guideline working group representation and the setting of clinical trials should reflect this reality.

Risk and distribution of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease-related hospitalizations among primary care patients.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the extent of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) hospitalization in easily identifiable high-risk subgroups within a typical primary care practice. DESIGN: Prospective cohort analysis of administrative claims data. SETTING: British Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: British Columbia residents who were 50 years or older on December 31, 2014, and received a physician diagnosis of COPD between 1996 and 2014. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rate of acute exacerbation of COPD (AECOPD) or pneumonia hospitalization in 2015, broken down by risk identifiers including previous AECOPD admission, 2 or more community respirologist consultations, nursing home residence, or none of these. RESULTS: Of the 242,509 identified COPD patients (12.9% of British Columbia residents ≥50 years), 2.8% were hospitalized for AECOPD in 2015 (0.038 AECOPD hospitalizations per patient-year). The 12.0% with prior AECOPD hospitalization accounted for 57.7% of new AECOPD hospitalizations (0.183 hospitalizations per patient-year); the 7.7% with respirologist involvement accounted for 20.4% (0.102 hospitalizations per patient-year); and the 2.2% in nursing homes accounted for 3.6% (0.061 hospitalizations per patient-year). Those with any of the 3 risk identifiers accounted for only 1.5% more COPD hospitalizations (59.2%) than those with prior AECOPD hospitalization, suggesting prior AECOPD hospitalization is the most important indication of risk. A typical primary care practice held a median of 23 (interquartile range=4 to 65) COPD patients, of whom roughly 20 (86.4%) had none of these risk identifiers. This low-risk majority had only 0.018 AECOPD hospitalizations per patient-year. CONCLUSION: Most AECOPD hospitalizations occur in patients with previous such admissions. When time and resources are limited, COPD initiatives targeting primary care practices should focus more on the 2 to 3 patients with prior AECOPD hospitalization or more symptomatic disease, and less on the low-risk majority.

Top studies of 2021 relevant to primary care: From the PEER team.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize 10 high-quality studies or guidelines from 2021 that have strong relevance to physicians in comprehensive family practice. SELECTING THE EVIDENCE: Routine literature surveillance of abstracts in high-impact journals and EvidenceAlerts was completed by the PEER (Patients, Experience, Evidence, Research) team, a group of health care professionals with a research interest in evidence-based medicine and primary care. Abstracts were screened, selected, and ranked by the PEER team. MAIN MESSAGE: The articles from 2021 that are most likely to impact primary care practice discuss the following topics: empagliflozin for heart failure with preserved ejection fraction; semaglutide for weight loss; stopping antidepressants in primary care; inhaled budesonide for COVID-19; acetylsalicylic acid for preeclampsia prevention; quarter-dose blood pressure medications for hypertension; aggressive blood pressure control for elderly patients; kangaroo care for low-birth-weight infants; footwear for knee osteoarthritis; and delayed antibiotics for pediatric respiratory infections. Two "honourable mention" studies are also briefly reviewed. CONCLUSION: Research from 2021 produced several high-quality studies in cardiovascular care but also addressed a variety of conditions relevant to primary care including weight loss, depression, and COVID-19.

Les meilleures études de 2021 adéquates pour les soins de première ligne: De l'équipe du groupe PEER.

OBJECTIF: Résumer 10 études ou lignes directrices de grande qualité publiées en 2021 qui présentent un intérêt marqué pour les médecins qui ont une pratique familiale complète. SÉLECTION DES DONNÉES PROBANTES: L'équipe PEER (Patients, Experience, Evidence, Research), un groupe de professionnels de la santé dont la recherche s'intéresse à la médecine fondée sur les données probantes et à la médecine de première ligne, a systématiquement surveillé les résumés publiés dans les revues savantes importantes et dans EvidenceAlerts. L'équipe PEER a passé au crible, sélectionné et placé les résumés en ordre d'importance. MESSAGE PRINCIPAL: Les articles publiés en 2021 qui influeront le plus probablement sur la pratique de première ligne traitent des sujets suivants : empagliflozine contre l'insuffisance cardiaque avec fraction d'éjection préservée; sémaglutide pour perdre du poids; arrêter les antidépresseurs en première ligne; budésonide par inhalation contre la COVID-19; acide acétylsalicylique en prévention de la prééclampsie; quart de dose d'antihypertenseurs contre l'hypertension; contrôle énergique de la tension artérielle chez les patients âgés; méthode kangourou pour les nouveau-nés de faible poids; chaussures pour la gonarthrose; et report de l'antibiothérapie pour les infections respiratoires pédiatriques. On jette également un coup d'œil rapide à deux « mentions honorables ¼. CONCLUSION: En 2021, la recherche a produit plusieurs études de grande qualité dans le domaine des soins cardiovasculaires, mais elle a également porté sur une gamme d'affections présentant un intérêt pour les soins de première ligne, dont la perte pondérale, la dépression et la COVID-19.

PEER simplified chronic pain guideline: Management of chronic low back, osteoarthritic, and neuropathic pain in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a clinical practice guideline to support the management of chronic pain, including low back, osteoarthritic, and neuropathic pain in primary care. METHODS: The guideline was developed with an emphasis on best available evidence and shared decision-making principles. Ten health professionals (4 generalist family physicians, 1 pain management-focused family physician, 1 anesthesiologist, 1 physical therapist, 1 pharmacist, 1 nurse practitioner, and 1 psychologist), a patient representative, and a nonvoting pharmacist and guideline methodologist comprised the Guideline Committee. Member selection was based on profession, practice setting, and lack of financial conflicts of interest. The guideline process was iterative in identification of key questions, evidence review, and development of guideline recommendations. Three systematic reviews, including a total of 285 randomized controlled trials, were completed. Randomized controlled trials were included only if they reported a responder analysis (eg, how many patients achieved a 30% or greater reduction in pain). The committee directed an Evidence Team (composed of evidence experts) to address an additional 11 complementary questions. Key recommendations were derived through committee consensus. The guideline and shared decision-making tools underwent extensive review by clinicians and patients before publication. RECOMMENDATIONS: Physical activity is recommended as the foundation for managing osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain; evidence of benefit is unclear for neuropathic pain. Cognitive-behavioural therapy or mindfulness-based stress reduction are also suggested as options for managing chronic pain. Treatments for which there is clear, unclear, or no benefit are outlined for each condition. Treatments for which harms likely outweigh benefits for all or most conditions studied include opioids and cannabinoids. CONCLUSION: This guideline for the management of chronic pain, including osteoarthritis, low back pain, and neuropathic pain, highlights best available evidence including both benefits and harms for a number of treatment interventions. A strong recommendation for exercise as the primary treatment for chronic osteoarthritic and low back pain is made based on demonstrated long-term evidence of benefit. This information is intended to assist with, not dictate, shared decision making with patients.

Lignes directrices simplifiées de PEER sur la douleur chronique: Gestion de la douleur chronique lombaire, arthrosique et neuropathique en première ligne.

OBJECTIF: Formuler des lignes directrices de pratique clinique pour soutenir la prise en charge de la douleur chronique, y compris la douleur lombaire, arthrosique et neuropathique, dans les soins primaires. MÉTHODES: Ces lignes directrices ont été élaborées en mettant l'accent sur les meilleures données probantes disponibles et sur les principes de décision partagée. Dix professionnels de la santé (4 omnipraticiens, 1 médecin de famille spécialisée en gestion de la douleur, 1 anesthésiste, 1 physiothérapeute, 1 pharmacienne, 1 infirmière praticienne et 1 psychologue), 1 représentant des patients, et 1 pharmacienne et spécialiste de la méthodologie des lignes directrices sans droit de vote composaient le comité des lignes directrices. Les membres ont été sélectionnés en fonction de leur profession, de leur milieu de pratique, et de l'absence d'un conflit d'intérêts de nature financière. Les lignes directrices sont le fruit d'un processus itératif incluant la détermination des questions clés, l'examen des données probantes et la formulation des recommandations des lignes directrices. Trois revues systématiques, totalisant 285 études avec répartition aléatoire et contrôlées ont été réalisées. Ces études n'étaient incluses que si elles avaient rapporté une analyse des répondants (p. ex. combien de patients ont obtenu un soulagement d'au moins 30% de la douleur). Le comité a confié à une équipe d'examen des données (composée de spécialistes des données probantes) la tâche de répondre à 11 autres questions complémentaires. Les principales recommandations découlent d'un consensus au sein du comité. Des cliniciens et des patients ont minutieusement examiné les lignes directrices et les outils de décision partagée avant leur publication. RECOMMANDATIONS: L'activité physique est recommandée comme fondement de la gestion de la douleur arthrosique et lombaire chronique; les données probantes étayant un bienfait ne sont pas concluantes dans le cas de la douleur neuropathique. La thérapie cognitivo-comportementale ou la réduction du stress basée sur la pleine conscience sont également suggérées comme des options pour gérer la douleur chronique. Les traitements pour lesquels le bienfait est clair, non concluant ou absent sont décrits sous chaque affection. Les traitements dont les préjudices surpassent probablement les bienfaits pour toutes les affections étudiées, ou la plupart d'entre elles, sont les opioïdes et les cannabinoïdes. CONCLUSION: Ces lignes directrices sur la gestion de la douleur chronique, y compris la douleur arthrosique, lombaire et neuropathique, met en lumière les meilleures données probantes disponibles, y compris les bienfaits et préjudices pour un certain nombre d'interventions thérapeutiques. Une forte recommandation en faveur de l'exercice comme principal traitement de la douleur arthrosique et lombaire chronique repose sur des données probantes ayant démontré un bienfait depuis longtemps. Cette information vise à contribuer au processus de décision partagée avec le patient et non à le dicter.

Bedtime versus morning use of antihypertensives for cardiovascular risk reduction (BedMed): protocol for a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end-point pragmatic trial.

INTRODUCTION: Sleep-time blood pressure correlates more strongly with adverse cardiovascular events than does daytime blood pressure. The BedMed trial evaluates whether bedtime antihypertensive administration, as compared with conventional morning use, reduces major adverse cardiovascular events. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: DesignProspective randomised, open-label, blinded end-point trial.ParticipantsHypertensive primary care patients using blood pressure lowering medication and free from glaucoma.SettingCommunity primary care providers in 5 Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario) are mailing invitations to their eligible patients. Social media campaigns (Google, Facebook) are additionally running in the same provinces.InterventionConsenting participants are allocated via central randomisation to bedtime vs morning use of all antihypertensives.Follow-up(1) Telephone or email questionnaire at 1 week, 6 weeks, 6 months and every 6 months thereafter, and (2) accessing linked governmental healthcare databases tracking hospital and community medical services.Primary outcomeComposite of all-cause death, or hospitalisation for myocardial infarction/acute-coronary syndrome, stroke or congestive heart failure.Secondary outcomesEach primary outcome element on its own, all-cause hospitalisation or emergency department visit, long-term care admission, non-vertebral fracture, new glaucoma diagnosis, 18-month cognitive decline from baseline (via Short Blessed Test).Select other outcomesSelf-reported nocturia burden at 6 weeks and 6 months (no, minor or major burden), 1-year self-reported overall health score (EQ-5D-5L), self-reported falls, total cost of care (acute and community over study duration) and mean sleep-time systolic blood pressure after 6 months (via 24-hour monitor in a subset of 302 sequential participants).Primary outcome analysisCox proportional hazards survival analysis.Sample sizeThe trial will continue until a projected 254 primary outcome events have occurred.Current statusEnrolment ongoing (3227 randomised to date). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: BedMed has ethics approval from six research ethics review boards and will publish results in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02990663.