Adoption of new medicines in primary care: A comparison between the uptake of new oral anticoagulants and diabetes medicines.

AIMS: To gain insight in the uptake and practice variation in the prescription of 2 new medicine groups for common conditions in primary care (direct-acting oral anticoagulants [DOACs] and incretin-based therapies) from introduction, around 2007, to 2019 and the correlation between the adoption of those medicines in primary care. METHODS: Prescription data from general practices in the Dutch Nivel Primary Care Database from 2007 to 2019 were used. The percentage of patients with prescriptions for DOACs of all patients with prescriptions for DOACs and vitamin K antagonists was calculated per practice per year, as was the percentage of patients prescribed incretin-based therapies as a proportion of all patients with diabetes medication. Multilevel models were used to estimate practice variation for DOACs and incretin-based therapies, expressed as intraclass correlation coefficients. Linear regression analysis was used to study the association between the prescription of DOACs and incretin-based therapies. RESULTS: Per year, 46-424 general practices and 179 933-1 654 376 patients were included. In 2019, the mean percentage of patients per practice using DOACs or incretin-based therapies was 54.9 and 9.7%, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient decreased from 0.75 to 0.024 for DOACs and from 0.33 to 0.074 for incretin-based medicines during the study period. No clear correlation was found between the prescription of DOACs and incretin-based therapies. CONCLUSION: DOACs and incretin-based therapies have different adoption profiles and practice variation is large, especially in the years before these medicines were introduced in guidelines. Early adopters of both medicine classes differ.

Marketing of medicines in primary care: An analysis of direct marketing mailings and advertisements.

INTRODUCTION: Marketing materials from pharmaceutical companies attempt to create a positive image of marketed, often new, medicines. To gain more insight in strategies pharmaceutical companies use to influence primary care practitioners' attitudes towards marketed medicines, we investigated the use of persuasion strategies in direct marketing mailings and advertisements from pharmaceutical companies sent to general practitioners. METHODS: General practitioners in the Netherlands were recruited to collect all direct marketing mailings, meaning all leaflets, letters and other information sent by pharmaceutical industries to the practice during one month (June 2022). Direct marketing mailings and advertisements in collected medical journals concerning medicines or diseases (together called marketing materials) were analysed according to presence of one of the seven common persuasion strategies, i.e. reciprocity, consistency/commitment, social proof, liking, authority, scarcity and unity; as well as marketed medicine and year of introduction. RESULTS: Twenty general practices collected 68 unique marketing materials concerning 37 different medicines. Direct factor Xa inhibitors (n = 12), glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues (n = 5) and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (n = 4) were the most frequently marketed medicines. The median year of introduction of all marketed medicines was 2012. All seven persuasion strategies were identified, with liking (64.7% of all materials) and authority (29.4%) as most prominent strategies, followed by social proof (17.6%), unity (14.7%), scarcity (13.2%), reciprocity (11.8%) and consistency/commitment (2.9%). In addition to those strategies, we identified emotional pressure (30.9%) as one commonly used new strategy. CONCLUSION: Marketing materials sent to general practices use a wide range of persuasion strategies in an attempt to influence prescription behaviour. Primary care practitioners should be aware of these mechanisms through which pharmaceutical companies try to influence their attitudes towards new medicines.

[What can you do to not be influenced?] / Wat kunt u doen om niet beïnvloed te worden?

OBJECTIVES: To identify persuasion strategies in paper-based marketing materials about medicines, sent to general practices. DESIGN: Observational study. METHOD: Twenty Dutch general practices collected all mail from pharmaceutical companies during one month. These materials were assessed by researchers with backgrounds in pharmacy and marketing for the presence of seven persuasion strategies, described by Cialdini. The researchers also identified the marketed medicines. RESULTS: The general practitioners collected 68 unique marketing materials involving 37 different medicines with a median introduction year of 2012 (range 1966-2022). Factor Xa inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues, and sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors were the most marketed drugs. All persuasion strategies described by Cialdini were observed: liking (65% of all materials), authority (29%), social proof (18%), unity (15%), scarcity (13%), reciprocity (12%), and consistency/commitment (3%). Emotional pressure was identified as a new strategy (31%). This strategy leverages the prescriber's professional responsibility by appealing to the physician's duty to do what is best for the patient. CONCLUSION: General practitioners regularly receive paper-based marketing materials about new medicines that attempt to influence the recipient. In the context of rational use of medicines, it is recommended to be vigilant about such persuasion strategies and to make physicians (both practicing and in training) aware of these strategies, including possible mechanisms to resist them whenever possible.

[Current and future therapeutic options for COVID-19]. / Recente en toekomstige behandelingen bij covid-19.

The anti-inflammatory agents dexamethasone (corticosteroid), and tocilizumab and sarilumab (IL6-inhibitors) are effective in the treatment of late COVID-19. Other anti-inflammatory agents, like anakinra (IL1-inhibitor), baricitinib and tofacitinib (JAK-inhibitors) and lenzilumab (GM-CSF-inhibitor) have also shown positive results in late COVID-19. For the treatment of early COVID-19, the inhalation corticosteroid budesonide is regarded as an off-label treatment option. Virus-inhibitors, like remdesivir, molnupiravir and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir decrease the risk of hospitalization and the development of severe COVID-19 by patients with early symptoms. Monoclonal antibodies have shown limited or no efficacy against the omicron-variant of SARS-CoV-2. Fluvoxamine, l-arginine, AT-527 and ensovibep are considered as potential promising new therapies for the treatment of early COVID-19.

Newer long-acting insulin prescriptions for patients with type 2 diabetes: prevalence and practice variation in a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about prescription patterns of expensive non-recommended newer long-acting insulins (glargine 300 U/mL and degludec) for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). AIM: To identify practice variation in, and practice- and patient-related characteristics associated with, the prescription of newer long-acting insulins to patients with T2DM in primary care. DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective cohort study in Dutch general practices (Nivel Primary Care Database). METHOD: A first prescription for intermediate or long-acting insulins in 2018 was identified in patients aged ≥40 years using other T2DM drugs. Per practice, the median percentage and interquartile range (IQR) of patients with newer insulin prescriptions were calculated. Multilevel logistic regression models were constructed to calculate intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and quantify the association of patient and practice characteristics with prescriptions for newer insulins (odds ratios [ORs] and 95% confidence intervals [CIs]). RESULTS: In total, 7757 patients with prescriptions for intermediate or long-acting insulins from 282 general practices were identified. A median percentage of 21.2% (IQR 12.5-36.4%) of all patients prescribed intermediate or long-acting insulins per practice received a prescription for newer insulins. After multilevel modelling, the ICC decreased from 20% to 19%. Female sex (OR 0.77, 95% CI = 0.69 to 0.87), age ≥86 years compared with 40-55 years (OR 0.22, 95% CI = 0.15 to 0.34), prescriptions for metformin (OR 0.66, 95% CI = 0.53 to 0.82), sulfonylurea (OR 0.58, 95% CI = 0.51 to 0.66), or other newer T2DM drugs (OR 3.10, 95% CI = 2.63 to 3.66), and dispensing practices (OR 1.78, 95% CI = 1.03 to 3.10) were associated with the prescription of newer insulins. CONCLUSION: The inter-practice variation in the prescription of newer insulins is large and could only be partially explained by patient- and practice-related differences. This indicates substantial opportunities for improvement.

Alignment between outcomes and minimal clinically important differences in the Dutch type 2 diabetes mellitus guideline and healthcare professionals' preferences.

To evaluate the clinical benefit of new medicines for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), the Dutch guideline committee T2DM in primary care established the importance of outcomes and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). The present study used an online questionnaire to investigate healthcare professionals' opinions about the importance of outcomes and preferences for MCIDs. A total of 211 physicians, pharmacists, practice nurses, diabetes nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants evaluated the importance of mortality, macro- and microvascular morbidity, HbA1c, body weight, quality of life, (overall) hospital admissions and severe and other hypoglycemia on a 9-point scale. All outcomes were considered critical (mean scores 7-9), except for body weight and other hypoglycemia (mean scores 4-6). Only HbA1c and hospital admissions were valued differently by the guideline committee (not critical). Other relevant outcomes according to the respondents were adverse events, ease of use and costs. Median MCIDs were 4 mmol/mol for HbA1c (guideline: 5 mmol/mol) and 3 kg for body weight (guideline: 5 kg weight gain and 2,5 kg weight loss). Healthcare professionals preferred relative risk reductions of 20% for mortality (guideline: 10%) and macrovascular morbidity (guideline: 25%) and 50% for other hypoglycaemia (guideline: 25%). The MCID of 25% for microvascular morbidity, hospital admissions and severe hypoglycaemia corresponded to the guideline-MCID. Healthcare professionals' preferences were thus comparable to the views of the guideline committee. However, healthcare professionals had a stricter view on the importance of HbA1c and hospital admissions and the MCIDs for mortality and other hypoglycemia.

Healthcare Professionals' Preferred Efficacy Endpoints and Minimal Clinically Important Differences in the Assessment of New Medicines for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease.

BACKGROUND: Registration authorities evaluate effects of new medicines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on airway obstruction, dyspnea, health status and exacerbations. To establish clinical relevance, minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) are used. The aim of this study was to investigate which efficacy endpoints and MCIDs healthcare professionals consider clinically relevant for new COPD medicines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 7,731 Healthcare professionals received an electronic questionnaire. Participants were asked for: 1) preferred efficacy endpoints for new COPD medicines and 2) cut-off values defining clinical relevance for forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV1), Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) and St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Those cut-off values were compared to the MCIDs used by registration authorities, namely 100 ml for FEV1, 1 unit for TDI and 4 units for SGRQ. RESULTS: 227 Healthcare professionals responded to the questionnaire. Most preferred efficacy endpoints were exacerbations (51.0%), airway obstruction (46.9%) and health status (44.9%). Mean cut-off values for TDI and SGRQ were significantly higher than the corresponding MCIDs, mean differences 1.5 (95%CI = 1.3-1.8, p < 0.001) and 7.0 (95%CI = 5.1-8.8, p < 0.001), respectively. The mean cut-off value for FEV1 was comparable to the MCID (mean difference 2.2, 95%CI = -19.9-24.3, p = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals largely agree with efficacy endpoints used for the evaluation of new COPD medicines. However, they seem to prefer higher cut-off values for clinical relevance for TDI and SGRQ than the registration authorities. Effects of new medicines on TDI and SGRQ that are considered clinically relevant by registration authorities do, therefore, not necessarily reflect healthcare professionals' perspectives on clinical relevance.