Prescribing patterns of antihypertensive medications: A systematic review of literature between 2010 and 2020.

Background: Hypertension has affected over 1.13 billion people worldwide in 2015 and it's one of the most preventable risk-factors for morbidity and mortality. Antihypertensives significantly reduce cardiovascular risks. Several studies on antihypertensives' prescribing patterns were conducted worldwide, and guidelines were developed on hypertension management. However, no systematic reviews were conducted globally to synthesize the evidence from these studies. This review aims to evaluate antihypertensives' prescription patterns, and adherence to international guidelines for hypertension management worldwide. Methods: Full-text antihypertensives' prescribing patterns evaluation studies were included. Reviews, commentaries, guidelines, and editorials were excluded. Various databases were searched including PubMed, Embase, and others. Studies were limited to English only and to articles published from (01/01/2010) to (20/03/2020). Crowe Critical Appraisal Tool (CCAT) was used for quality assessment. Results: The most commonly prescribed antihypertensives as monotherapy in adult patients with no comorbidities were ACEIs/ARBs (Angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors/Angiotensin receptor blockers), followed by CCBs (Calcium channel blockers), and BBs (Beta Blockers). Most commonly prescribed dual combinations were thiazide diuretics+ACEIs/ARBs, BBs + CCBs and CCBs+ACEIs/ARBs. Among diabetic patients, the most common agents were ACEIs/ARBs. Among patients with heart diseases, CCBs were prescribed frequently. While patients with kidney diseases, CCBs and ARBs were most prescribed. Of the 40 studies included in the review, only four studies directly assessed the prescribing patterns of antihypertensives in adherence to clinical practice guidelines. And only two studies confirmed adherence to guidelines. Furthermore, the quality of the majority of studies was moderate (50%), while 25% of articles were reported as either high or low quality. Conclusion: This review revealed that there are areas for improvement for prescribing practices of antihypertensives in concordance with the latest evidence and with clinical practice guidelines.

Investigating physicians' views on non-formulary prescribing: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework.

BACKGROUND: Well-designed and well-maintained drug formularies serve as a reliable resource to guide prescribing decisions; they are associated with improved medicine safety and increased efficiency, while also serving as a cost-effective tool to help manage and predict medicine expenditure. Multiple studies have investigated the inappropriate prescribing of non-formulary drugs (NFDs) with statistics indicating that up to 70% of NFD usage being inappropriate or not following the ascribed NFD policies. AIM: To explore physicians' views and influences on their prescribing of non-formulary drugs. METHOD: Data collection and analysis were underpinned using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Thirteen semi-structured interviews were conducted within Hamad Medical Corporation, the main provider of secondary and tertiary healthcare in Qatar, with physicians who had submitted a NFD request in the preceding 12 months. RESULTS: Three overarching themes were identified: providing evidence-based care for individual patients; influences of others; and formulary management issues. Subthemes were mapped to specific TDF domains: environmental context and resources; social influences; professional role and identity; beliefs about consequences; goals; intentions. CONCLUSION: The behavioral influences identified in this study can be mapped to behavior change strategies facilitating the development of an intervention to promote appropriate prescribing of NFDs with implications for medicine safety and healthcare efficiency.

A scoping review of theories used to investigate clinician adherence to clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Routine utilization of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is an effective strategy to optimize patient care and reduce practice variation. Healthcare professionals' failure to adhere to CPGs introduces risks to both patients and the sustainability of healthcare systems. The integration of theory to investigate adherence provides greater insight into the often complex reasons for suboptimal behaviors. AIM: To determine the coverage of literature surrounding the use of theory in studies of CPG adherence, report the key findings and identify the knowledge gaps. METHOD: In April 2021, three bibliographic databases were searched for studies published since January 2010, adopting theory to investigate health professionals' adherence to CPGs. Two reviewers independently screened the articles for eligibility and charted the data. A narrative approach to synthesis was employed. RESULTS: The review includes 12 articles. Studies were limited to primarily investigations of physicians, quantitative designs, single disease states and few countries. The use of behavioral theories facilitated pooling of data of barriers and facilitators of adherence. The domains and constructs of a number of the reported theories are captured within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF); the most common barriers aligned with the TDF domain of environmental context and resources, fewer studies reported facilitators. CONCLUSION: There is emerging use of behavioral theories investigating physicians' adherence to CPGs. Although limited in number, these studies present specific insight into common barriers and facilitators, thus providing valuable evidence for refining existing and future implementation strategies. Similar investigations of other health professionals are warranted.

Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis with protocols in Diabetes Mellitus Type II: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses (SR/MAs) are strongly encouraged to work from a protocol to facilitate high quality, transparent methodology. The completeness of reporting of a protocol (PRISMA-P) and manuscript (PRISMA) is essential to the quality appraisal (AMSTAR-2) and appropriate use of SR/MAs in making treatment decisions. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to describe the completeness of reporting and quality of SR/MAs, assess the correlations between PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2, and to identify reporting characteristics between similar items of PRISMA-P and PRISMA. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus SR/MAs of hypoglycemic agents with publicly available protocols. Cochrane reviews, guidelines, and specific types of MA were excluded. Two reviewers independently, (i) searched PubMed and Embase between 1/1/2015 to 20/3/2019; (ii) identified protocols of included studies by searching the manuscript bibliography, supplementary material, PROSPERO, and Google; (iii) completed PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2 tools. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and multivariable linear regression. RESULTS: Of 357 relevant SR/MAs, 51 had available protocols and were included. The average score for PRISMA-P was 15.8±3.3 (66%; maximum 24) and 25.2±1.1 (93%; maximum 27) for PRISMA. The quality of SR/MAs assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool identified an overall poor quality (63% critically low, 18% low, 8% moderate, 12% high). The correlation between the PRISMA-P and PRISMA was not significant (r = 0.264; p = 0.06). Correlation was significant between PRISMA-P and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.333; p = 0.02) and PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.555; p<0.01). Discrepancies in reporting were common between similar PRISMA-P and PRISMA items. CONCLUSION: Adherence to protocol reporting guidance was poor while manuscript reporting was comprehensive. Protocol completeness is not associated with a completely reported manuscript. Independently, PRISMA-P and PRISMA scores were weakly associated with higher quality assessments but insufficient as a surrogate for quality. Critical areas for quality improvement include protocol description, investigating causes of heterogeneity, and the impact of risk of bias on the evidence synthesis.