A critical appraisal of acute sore throat guidelines using the AGREE II instrument: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Conflicting international guidelines exist on the management of sore throat by antibiotics. OBJECTIVES: To assess with the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE) instrument the quality of guidelines for uncomplicated acute group A beta-haemolytic streptococcal (GABHS) sore-throat. To make a sensitivity analysis restricted to guidelines with a rigour of development score higher than 60% and to describe their recommendations on scores, tests, and antibiotic therapy, including their justification. METHODS: A guideline literature review of acute GABHS sore throat, published between January 2000 and December 2019 in primary care and secondary care. The PubMed database, the Canadian Medical Association Infobase on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the International Network Guidelines were used. The quality of guidelines was assessed using the AGREE II instrument. The guidelines were classified into 2 categories: high-quality guidelines had to rate >60% for the rigour of development score, the others were classified as low-quality guidelines. RESULTS: Significant heterogeneity between the 15 guidelines concerned the scores of the 6 assessment domains. Among them, 6 guidelines presented a score above 60% with regards to the rigor of development domain and used a systematic literature search method, citing meta-analyses of recent randomised clinical trials. Most of the 6 high-quality guidelines no longer recommended the systematic use of diagnostic scores and tests, nor antibiotic therapy to prevent acute rheumatic fever or loco-regional complications, except for high-risk patients. CONCLUSION: Major discrepancies emphasise the need for only high-quality guidelines, based on adequately assessed evidence. Restricted antibiotic prescriptions to severe cases or high-risk patients would avoid antibiotic resistance.

Impact of multimorbidity on healthcare professional task shifting potential in patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: a French cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the transferability of processes of care from general practitioners (GPs) to allied healthcare professionals and the determinants of such transferability. DESIGN: French national cross-sectional multicentre study SETTING: 128 family practices providing supervised training for residents in general practice. PARTICIPANTS: All patients consulting with their GP over a total number of 20 days (ie, 1 day a week from December 2011 to April 2012). Encounters where type 2 diabetes was one of the managed health problems were selected for analysis. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Processes that were associated with specific health problems were collected by 54 residents. Potential process transferability was the main outcome assessed, as well as the professionals involved in the collaboration and the eventual conditions associated with transfer. RESULTS: From 8572 processes of care that concerned 1088 encounters of patients with diabetes, 21.9% (95% CI 21.1% to 22.8%) were considered eligible for transfer from GPs to allied healthcare professionals (78.1% to nurses, 36.7% to pharmacists). Processes were transferable with condition(s) for 70.6% (ie, a protocol, shared record or supervision). The most transferable processes concerned health maintenance (32.1%) and cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension (28.7%), dyslipidaemia (25.3%) and diabetes (24.3%)). Multivariate analysis showed that educational processes or a long-term condition status were associated with increased transferability (OR 3.26 and 1.47, respectively), whereas patients with higher intellectual occupations or those with two or more associated health problems were associated with lower transferability (OR 0.33 and 0.81, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: A significant part of GP activity relating to patients with multimorbidity including type 2 diabetes could be transferred to allied healthcare professionals, mainly on prevention and global education to cardiovascular risk factors. The organisational and finance conditions of team work as views of patients and healthcare professionals must be explored before implementation in primary care.

Efficacy and safety of insulin in type 2 diabetes: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: It is essential to anticipate and limit the social, economic and sanitary cost of type 2 diabetes (T2D), which is in constant progression worldwide. When blood glucose targets are not achieved with diet and lifestyle intervention, insulin is recommended whether or not the patient is already taking hypoglycaemic drugs. However, the benefit/risk balance of insulin remains controversial. Our aim was to determine the efficacy and safety of insulin vs. hypoglycaemic drugs or diet/placebo on clinically relevant endpoints. METHODS: A systematic literature review (Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library) including all randomised clinical trials (RCT) analysing insulin vs. hypoglycaemic drugs or diet/placebo, published between 1950 and 2013, was performed. We included all RCTs reporting effects on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, death by cancer, cardiovascular morbidity, microvascular complications and hypoglycaemia in adults ≥ 18 years with T2D. Two authors independently assessed trial eligibility and extracted the data. Internal validity of studies was analyzed according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Risk ratios (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (95 % CI) were calculated, using the fixed effect model in first approach. The I(2) statistic assessed heterogeneity. In case of statistical heterogeneity, subgroup and sensitivity analyses then a random effect model were performed. The alpha threshold was 0.05. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were non-fatal cardiovascular events, hypoglycaemic events, death from cancer, and macro- or microvascular complications. RESULTS: Twenty RCTs were included out of the 1632 initially identified studies. 18 599 patients were analysed: Insulin had no effect vs. hypoglycaemic drugs on all-cause mortality RR = 0.99 (95 % CI =0.92-1.06) and cardiovascular mortality RR = 0.99 (95 % CI =0.90-1.09), nor vs. diet/placebo RR = 0.92 (95 % CI = 0.80-1.07) and RR = 0.95 (95 % CI 0.77-1.18) respectively. No effect was found on secondary outcomes either. However, severe hypoglycaemia was more frequent with insulin compared to hypoglycaemic drugs RR = 1.70 (95 % CI = 1.51-1.91). CONCLUSIONS: There is no significant evidence of long term efficacy of insulin on any clinical outcome in T2D. However, there is a trend to clinically harmful adverse effects such as hypoglycaemia and weight gain. The only benefit could be limited to reducing short term hyperglycemia. This needs to be confirmed with further studies.

Are concomitant treatments confounding factors in randomized controlled trials on intensive blood-glucose control in type 2 diabetes? a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Open-label, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are subject to observer bias. If patient management is conducted without blinding, a difference between groups may be explained by other factors than study treatment. One factor may come from taking concomitant treatments with an efficacy on the studied outcomes. In type 2 diabetes, some antihypertensive or lipid-lowering drugs are effective against diabetic complications. We wanted to determine if these concomitant treatments were correctly reported in articles of RCTs on type 2 diabetes and if they might have influenced the outcome. METHODS: We performed a systematic review using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (from January 1950 to July 2010). Open-label RCTs assessing the effectiveness of intensive blood-glucose control in type 2 diabetes were included. We chose five therapeutic classes with proven efficacy against diabetes complications: angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs), angiotensin II receptor antagonists (AIIRAs), fibrates, statins, and aspirin. Differences between concomitant treatments were considered statistically significant when p < 0.05. RESULTS: A total of eight open-label RCTs were included, but only three (37.5%) of them published concomitant treatments. In two studies (ACCORD and ADVANCE), a statistically significant difference was observed between the two groups for aspirin (p = 0.02) and ACEIs (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Few concomitant treatments were published in this sample of open-label RCTs. We cannot completely eliminate an observer bias for these studies. This bias probably influenced the results to an extent that has yet to be determined.

[Cooperation between general practitioners and pharmacists: a systematic review]. / Coopération entre médecins généralistes et pharmaciens : une revue systématique de la littérature.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the emphasis on interprofessional cooperation between general practitioners and pharmacists, the effectiveness of interventions in this area is poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of interventions based on cooperation between general practitioners and pharmacists. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database and the PASCAL database. Keywords and/or search terms ("family physician(s)" or "general practitioner(s)" and "pharmacist(s)") were cross-referenced. We included the results of all randomized clinical trials published in English or French and assessed the effectiveness of pharmacist interventions designed to complement the work of general practitioners. RESULTS: In total, 22 articles were included. Sixteen trials showed that pharmacist interventions in the management of chronic health conditions and drug therapy management benefit patients. The evidence suggests that pharmacist interventions have a positive impact on the management of arterial hypertension and hypercholesterolemia and the management of drug-related problems. The criteria used for the trials were generally procedural or surrogate criteria and never included cost-effectiveness analyses. DISCUSSION: Cooperation between pharmacists and general practitioners can contribute to improving the quality of primary care, especially in the areas of cardiometabolic and prescription problems.

Reappraisal of metformin efficacy in the treatment of type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The UK Prospective Diabetes Study showed that metformin decreases mortality compared to diet alone in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Since then, it has been the first-line treatment in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes. However, metformin-sulphonylurea bitherapy may increase mortality. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials evaluated metformin efficacy (in studies of metformin versus diet alone, versus placebo, and versus no treatment; metformin as an add-on therapy; and metformin withdrawal) against cardiovascular morbidity or mortality in patients with type 2 diabetes. We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane database. Primary end points were all-cause mortality and cardiovascular death. Secondary end points included all myocardial infarctions, all strokes, congestive heart failure, peripheral vascular disease, leg amputations, and microvascular complications. Thirteen randomised controlled trials (13,110 patients) were retrieved; 9,560 patients were given metformin, and 3,550 patients were given conventional treatment or placebo. Metformin did not significantly affect the primary outcomes all-cause mortality, risk ratio (RR)=0.99 (95% CI: 0.75 to 1.31), and cardiovascular mortality, RR=1.05 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.64). The secondary outcomes were also unaffected by metformin treatment: all myocardial infarctions, RR=0.90 (95% CI: 0.74 to 1.09); all strokes, RR=0.76 (95% CI: 0.51 to 1.14); heart failure, RR=1.03 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.59); peripheral vascular disease, RR=0.90 (95% CI: 0.46 to 1.78); leg amputations, RR=1.04 (95% CI: 0.44 to 2.44); and microvascular complications, RR=0.83 (95% CI: 0.59 to 1.17). For all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality, there was significant heterogeneity when including the UK Prospective Diabetes Study subgroups (I(2)=41% and 59%). There was significant interaction with sulphonylurea as a concomitant treatment for myocardial infarction (p=0.10 and 0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although metformin is considered the gold standard, its benefit/risk ratio remains uncertain. We cannot exclude a 25% reduction or a 31% increase in all-cause mortality. We cannot exclude a 33% reduction or a 64% increase in cardiovascular mortality. Further studies are needed to clarify this situation.

How do French GPs consider participating in primary care research: the DRIM study.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting GPs is an issue faced by most research teams in primary care. OBJECTIVES: To assess GPs' willingness and expectations with regard to research in French primary care and to identify factors that may increase their participation in research projects. METHODS: Cross-sectional study conducted with a representative sample of 452 GPs from the Rhone-Alpes region in France. RESULTS: Among 284 GPs (63%) who participated, 85 [29.9%, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 26.4-35.3%] were willing to participate in research as investigators and 83 (29.2%, 95% CI: 23.9-34.5%) had already participated in research projects. Multivariate analysis showed that an earlier participation in research projects [odds ratio (OR) = 3.3], a training practice (OR = 2.3), membership in a research network (OR = 2.1) and younger age (OR = 1.9 for 10 years less) were associated with the willingness to participate in future research projects. Whereas 55% of practitioners who already had an experience in research had participated in a therapeutic trial, those willing to participate in the future preferred to participate in descriptive (26%) or etiologic (22%) studies. Preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic procedures and quality of care were the domains, which interested GPs most. The most expected clinical themes concerned cardiovascular, metabolic, musculoskeletal and respiratory problems. CONCLUSIONS: To meet the expectations of French GPs willing to participate in primary care research, it is advisable to diversify studies with respect to their types, domains and themes. Linkage to universities and research networks should also be encouraged.