Chronic disease management in patients with intellectual disabilities: a matched study in Dutch general practice.

BACKGROUND: Disease management programmes (DMPs) aim to deliver standardised, high- quality care to patients with chronic diseases. Although chronic diseases are common among people with intellectual disabilities (ID), this approach may be suboptimal for meeting their care needs. AIM: To examine differences between patients with and without ID who have a chronic illness in DMP enrolment and disease monitoring in Dutch general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Observational study utilising the Nivel Primary Care Database (2015-2018) comparing patients with ID and cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with matched (1:5) controls with these conditions but without ID. METHOD: Using conditional logistic regression, enrolment in DMP per chronic disease was examined and differences tested between groups in the frequencies of consultations, medication prescriptions, and routine examinations. RESULTS: A total of 2653 patients with chronic illness with ID were matched with 13 265 controls without ID. Patients with both diabetes mellitus and ID were more likely than controls to be enrolled in DMP (odds ratio [OR] = 1.44, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.27 to 1.64). Independent of DMP enrolment, patients with chronic illness with ID were more likely than controls to have frequent consultations. Patients with both diabetes mellitus and ID and patients with both COPD and ID who were not enrolled in DMPs had more medication prescriptions than non-enrolled patients with diabetes or COPD but without ID (OR = 1.46, 95% CI = 1.10 to 1.95; OR = 1.28, 95% CI = 0.99 to 1.66, respectively). Most patients with ID and their controls enrolled in DMPs received routine examinations at similar frequencies. CONCLUSION: Although DMPs do not specifically address the needs of patients with both chronic illness and ID, these patients do not seem underserved in the management of chronic diseases in terms of consultation, medication, and tests.

Performance of the SCORE and Globorisk cardiovascular risk prediction models: a prospective cohort study in Dutch general practice.

BACKGROUND: GPs frequently use 10-year-risk estimations of cardiovascular disease (CVD) to identify high- risk patients. AIM: To assess the performance of four models for predicting the 10-year risk of CVD in Dutch general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective cohort study. Routine data (2009- 2019) was used from 46 Dutch general practices linked to cause of death statistics. METHOD: The outcome measures were fatal CVD for SCORE and first diagnosis of fatal or non- fatal CVD for SCORE fatal and non-fatal (SCORE- FNF), Globorisk-laboratory, and Globorisk-office. Model performance was assessed by examining discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: The final number of patients for risk prediction was 1981 for SCORE and SCORE-FNF, 3588 for Globorisk-laboratory, and 4399 for Globorisk- office. The observed percentage of events was 18.6% (n = 353) for SCORE- FNF, 6.9% (n = 230) for Globorisk-laboratory, 7.9% (n = 323) for Globorisk-office, and 0.3% (n = 5) for SCORE. The models showed poor discrimination and calibration. The performance of SCORE could not be examined because of the limited number of fatal CVD events. SCORE-FNF, the model that is currently used for risk prediction of fatal plus non-fatal CVD in Dutch general practice, was found to underestimate the risk in all deciles of predicted risks. CONCLUSION: Wide eligibility criteria and a broad outcome measure contribute to the model applicability in daily practice. The restriction to fatal CVD outcomes of SCORE renders it less usable in routine Dutch general practice. The models seriously underestimate the 10-year risk of fatal plus non-fatal CVD in Dutch general practice. The poor model performance is possibly because of differences between patients that are eligible for risk prediction and the population that was used for model development. In addition, selection of higher-risk patients for CVD risk assessment by GPs may also contribute to the poor model performance.

Prevalence of primary aldosteronism in primary care: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Primary aldosteronism (PA) is the most frequent cause of secondary hypertension. Reported prevalences of PA vary considerably because of a large heterogeneity in study methodology. AIM: To examine the proportion of patients with PA among patients with newly diagnosed, never treated hypertension. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study set in primary care. METHOD: GPs measured aldosterone and renin in adult patients with newly diagnosed, never treated hypertension. Patients with elevated aldosterone-to-renin ratio and increased plasma aldosterone concentration underwent a saline infusion test to confirm or exclude PA. The source population was meticulously assessed to detect possible selection bias. RESULTS: Of 3748 patients with newly diagnosed hypertension, 343 patients were screened for PA. In nine out of 74 patients with an elevated aldosterone-to-renin ratio and increased plasma aldosterone concentration the diagnosis of PA was confirmed by a saline infusion test, resulting in a prevalence of 2.6% (95% confidence interval = 1.4 to 4.9). All patients with PA were normokalaemic and 8 out of 9 patients had sustained blood pressure >150/100 mmHg. Screened patients were younger (P<0.001) or showed higher blood pressure (P<0.001) than non-screened patients. CONCLUSION: In this study a prevalence of PA of 2.6% in a primary care setting was established, which is lower than estimates reported from other primary care studies so far. This study supports the screening strategy as recommended by the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline. The low proportion of screened patients (9.2%), of the large cohort of eligible patients, reflects the difficulty of conducting prevalence studies in primary care clinical practice.