Factors facilitating the implementation of a clinical decision support system in primary care practices: a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how to implement innovations in primary care practices is key to improve primary health care. Aiming to contribute to this understanding, we investigate the implementation of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) as part of the innovation fund project AdAM (01NVF16006). Originating from complexity theory, the practice change and development model (PCD) proposes several interdependent factors that enable organizational-level change and thus accounts for the complex settings of primary care practices. Leveraging the PCD, we seek to answer the following research questions: Which combinations of internal and external factors based on the PCD contribute to successful implementation in primary care practices? Given these results, how can implementation in the primary care setting be improved? METHODS: We analyzed the joint contributions of internal and external factors on implementation success using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA). QCA is a set-theoretic approach that allows to identify configurations of multiple factors that lead to one outcome (here: successful implementation of a CDSS in primary care practices). Using survey data, we conducted our analysis based on a sample of 224 primary care practices. RESULTS: We identified two configurations of internal and external factors that likewise enable successful implementation. The first configuration enables implementation based on a combination of Strong Inside Motivation, High Capability for Development, and Strong Outside Motivation; the second configuration based on a combination of Strong Inside Motivators, Many Options for Development and the absence of High Capability for Development. CONCLUSION: In line with the PCD, our results demonstrate the importance of the combination of internal and external factors for implementation outcomes. Moreover, the two identified configurations show that different ways exist to achieve successful implementation in primary care practices. TRIAL REGISTRATION: AdAM was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03430336 ) on February 6, 2018.

"I must, and I can live with that": a thematic analysis of patients' perspectives on polypharmacy and a digital decision support system for GPs.

BACKGROUND: To investigate patients' perspectives on polypharmacy and the use of a digital decision support system to assist general practitioners (GPs) in performing medication reviews. METHODS: Qualitative interviews with patients or informal caregivers recruited from participants in a cluster-randomized controlled clinical trial (cRCT). The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: We conducted 13 interviews and identified the following seven themes: the patients successfully integrated medication use in their everyday lives, used medication plans, had both good and bad personal experiences with their drugs, regarded their healthcare providers as the main source of medication-related information, discussed medication changes with their GPs, had trusting relationships with them, and viewed the use of digital decision support tools for medication reviews positively. No unwanted adverse effects were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Despite drug-related problems, patients appeared to cope well with their medications. They also trusted their GPs, despite acknowledging polypharmacy to be a complex field for them. The use of a digital support system was appreciated and linked to the hope that reasons for selecting specific medication regimens would become more comprehensible. Further research with a more diverse sampling might add more patient perspectives. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03430336 . Registered on February 6, 2018.

Patient Characteristics and General Practitioners' Advice to Stop Statins in Oldest-Old Patients: a Survey Study Across 30 Countries.

BACKGROUND: Statins are widely used to prevent cardiovascular disease (CVD). With advancing age, the risks of statins might outweigh the potential benefits. It is unclear which factors influence general practitioners' (GPs) advice to stop statins in oldest-old patients. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the influence of a history of CVD, statin-related side effects, frailty and short life expectancy, on GPs' advice to stop statins in oldest-old patients. DESIGN: We invited GPs to participate in this case-based survey. GPs were presented with 8 case vignettes describing patients > 80 years using a statin, and asked whether they would advise stopping statin treatment. MAIN MEASURES: Cases varied in history of CVD, statin-related side effects and frailty, with and without shortened life expectancy (< 1 year) in the context of metastatic, non-curable cancer. Odds ratios adjusted for GP characteristics (ORadj) were calculated for GPs' advice to stop. KEY RESULTS: Two thousand two hundred fifty GPs from 30 countries participated (median response rate 36%). Overall, GPs advised stopping statin treatment in 46% (95%CI 45-47) of the case vignettes; with shortened life expectancy, this proportion increased to 90% (95CI% 89-90). Advice to stop was more frequent in case vignettes without CVD compared to those with CVD (ORadj 13.8, 95%CI 12.6-15.1), with side effects compared to without ORadj 1.62 (95%CI 1.5-1.7) and with frailty (ORadj 4.1, 95%CI 3.8-4.4) compared to without. Shortened life expectancy increased advice to stop (ORadj 50.7, 95%CI 45.5-56.4) and was the strongest predictor for GP advice to stop, ranging across countries from 30% (95%CI 19-42) to 98% (95% CI 96-99). CONCLUSIONS: The absence of CVD, the presence of statin-related side effects, and frailty were all independently associated with GPs' advice to stop statins in patients aged > 80 years. Overall, and within all countries, cancer-related short life expectancy was the strongest independent predictor of GPs' advice to stop statins.

Patient-perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a medication review in primary care: a qualitative thematic analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although polypharmacy can cause adverse health outcomes, patients often know little about their medication. A regularly conducted medication review (MR) can help provide an overview of a patient's medication, and benefit patients by enhancing their knowledge of their drugs. As little is known about patient attitudes towards MRs in primary care, the objective of this study was to gain insight into patient-perceived barriers and facilitators to the implementation of an MR. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study with a convenience sample of 31 patients (age ≥ 60 years, ≥3 chronic diseases, taking ≥5 drugs/d); in Hesse, Germany, in February 2016. We conducted two focus groups and, in order to ensure the participation of elderly patients with reduced mobility, 16 telephone interviews. Both relied on a semi-structured interview guide dealing with the following subjects: patients' experience of polypharmacy, general design of MRs, potential barriers and facilitators to implementation etc. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed by two researchers using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Patients' average age was 74 years (range 62-88 years). We identified barriers and facilitators for four main topics regarding the implementation of MRs in primary care: patient participation, GP-led MRs, pharmacist-led MRs, and the involvement of healthcare assistants in MRs. Barriers to patient participation concerned patient autonomy, while facilitators involved patient awareness of medication-related problems. Barriers to GP-led MRs concerned GP's lack of resources while facilitators related to the trusting relationship between patient and GP. Pharmacist-led MRs might be hindered by a lack of patients' confidence in pharmacists' expertise, but facilitated by pharmacies' digital records of the patients' medications. Regarding the involvement of healthcare assistants in MRs, a potential barrier was patients' uncertainty regarding the extent of their training. Patients could, however, imagine GPs delegating some aspects of MRs to them. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that patients regard MRs as beneficial and expect indications for their medicines to be checked, and possible interactions to be identified. To foster the implementation of MRs in primary care, it is important to consider barriers and facilitators to the four identified topics.

Changes in prescribed medicines in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Treatment complexity rises in line with the number of drugs, single doses, and administration methods, thereby threatening patient adherence. Patients with multimorbidity often need flexible, individualised treatment regimens, but alterations during the course of treatment may further increase complexity. The objective of our study was to explore medication changes in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in general practice. METHODS: We retrospectively analysed data from the cluster-randomised PRIMUM trial (PRIoritisation of MUltimedication in Multimorbidity) conducted in 72 general practices. We developed an algorithm for active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), strength, dosage, and administration method to assess changes in physician-reported medication data during two intervals (baseline to six-months: ∆1; six- to nine-months: ∆2), analysed them descriptively at prescription and patient levels, and checked for intervention effects. RESULTS: Of 502 patients (median age 72 years, 52% female), 464 completed the study. Changes occurred in 98.6% of patients (changes were 19% more likely in the intervention group): API changes during ∆1 and ∆2 occurred in 414 (82.5%) and 338 (67.3%) of patients, dosage alterations in 372 (74.1%) and 296 (59.2%), and changes in API strength in 158 (31.5%) and 138 (27.5%) respectively. Administration method changed in 79 (16%) of patients in both ∆1 and ∆2. Simvastatin, metformin and aspirin were most frequently subject to alterations. CONCLUSION: Medication regimens in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy changed frequently. These are mostly due to discontinuations and dosage alterations, followed by additions and restarts. These findings cast doubt on the effectiveness of cross-sectional assessments of medication and support longitudinal assessments where possible. TRIAL REGISTRATION: 1. Prospective registration: Trial registration number: NCT01171339 ; Name of registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Date of registration: July 27, 2010; Date of enrolment of the first participant to the trial: August 12, 2010. 2. Peer reviewed trial registration: Trial registration number: ISRCTN99526053 ; Name of registry: Controlled Trials; Date of registration: August 31, 2010; Date of enrolment of the first participant to the trial: August 12, 2010.

Burden of cardiovascular disease across 29 countries and GPs' decision to treat hypertension in oldest-old.

OBJECTIVES: We previously found large variations in general practitioner (GP) hypertension treatment probability in oldest-old (>80 years) between countries. We wanted to explore whether differences in country-specific cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden and life expectancy could explain the differences. DESIGN: This is a survey study using case-vignettes of oldest-old patients with different comorbidities and blood pressure levels. An ecological multilevel model analysis was performed. SETTING: GP respondents from European General Practice Research Network (EGPRN) countries, Brazil and New Zeeland. SUBJECTS: This study included 2543 GPs from 29 countries. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: GP treatment probability to start or not start antihypertensive treatment based on responses to case-vignettes; either low (<50% started treatment) or high (≥50% started treatment). CVD burden is defined as ratio of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) lost due to ischemic heart disease and/or stroke and total DALYs lost per country; life expectancy at age 60 and prevalence of oldest-old per country. RESULTS: Of 1947 GPs (76%) responding to all vignettes, 787 (40%) scored high treatment probability and 1160 (60%) scored low. GPs in high CVD burden countries had higher odds of treatment probability (OR 3.70; 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.00-4.57); in countries with low life expectancy at 60, CVD was associated with high treatment probability (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.12-4.25); but not in countries with high life expectancy (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.56-1.98). CONCLUSIONS: GPs' choice to treat/not treat hypertension in oldest-old was explained by differences in country-specific health characteristics. GPs in countries with high CVD burden and low life expectancy at age 60 were most likely to treat hypertension in oldest-old. Key Points • General practitioners (GPs) are in a clinical dilemma when deciding whether (or not) to treat hypertension in the oldest-old (>80 years of age). • In this study including 1947 GPs from 29 countries, we found that a high country-specific cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden (i.e. myocardial infarction and/or stroke) was associated with a higher GP treatment probability in patients aged >80 years. • However, the association was modified by country-specific life expectancy at age 60. While there was a positive association for GPs in countries with a low life expectancy at age 60, there was no association in countries with a high life expectancy at age 60. • These findings help explaining some of the large variation seen in the decision as to whether or not to treat hypertension in the oldest-old.

Variation in GP decisions on antihypertensive treatment in oldest-old and frail individuals across 29 countries.

BACKGROUND: In oldest-old patients (>80), few trials showed efficacy of treating hypertension and they included mostly the healthiest elderly. The resulting lack of knowledge has led to inconsistent guidelines, mainly based on systolic blood pressure (SBP), cardiovascular disease (CVD) but not on frailty despite the high prevalence in oldest-old. This may lead to variation how General Practitioners (GPs) treat hypertension. Our aim was to investigate treatment variation of GPs in oldest-olds across countries and to identify the role of frailty in that decision. METHODS: Using a survey, we compared treatment decisions in cases of oldest-old varying in SBP, CVD, and frailty. GPs were asked if they would start antihypertensive treatment in each case. In 2016, we invited GPs in Europe, Brazil, Israel, and New Zealand. We compared the percentage of cases that would be treated per countries. A logistic mixed-effects model was used to derive odds ratio (OR) for frailty with 95% confidence intervals (CI), adjusted for SBP, CVD, and GP characteristics (sex, location and prevalence of oldest-old per GP office, and years of experience). The mixed-effects model was used to account for the multiple assessments per GP. RESULTS: The 29 countries yielded 2543 participating GPs: 52% were female, 51% located in a city, 71% reported a high prevalence of oldest-old in their offices, 38% and had >20 years of experience. Across countries, considerable variation was found in the decision to start antihypertensive treatment in the oldest-old ranging from 34 to 88%. In 24/29 (83%) countries, frailty was associated with GPs' decision not to start treatment even after adjustment for SBP, CVD, and GP characteristics (OR 0.53, 95%CI 0.48-0.59; ORs per country 0.11-1.78). CONCLUSIONS: Across countries, we found considerable variation in starting antihypertensive medication in oldest-old. The frail oldest-old had an odds ratio of 0.53 of receiving antihypertensive treatment. Future hypertension trials should also include frail patients to acquire evidence on the efficacy of antihypertensive treatment in oldest-old patients with frailty, with the aim to get evidence-based data for clinical decision-making.

[Multimorbidity in general practice and the Ariadne principles. A person-centred approach]. / Multimorbilidad en medicina de familia y los principios Ariadne. Un enfoque centrado en la persona.

Multimorbidity, defined as the coexistence of two or more chronic conditions in one same individual, has negative consequences for people suffering from it and it poses a real challenge for health systems. In primary care, where most of these patients are attended, the clinical management of multimorbidity can be a complex task due, among others, to the high volume of clinical information that needs to be handled, the scarce scientific evidence available to approach multimorbidity, and the need for coordination among multiple health providers to guarantee continuity of care. Moreover, the adequate implementation of the care plan in these patients requires a process of shared decision making between patient and physician. One of the available tools to support this process, which is specifically directed to patients with multimorbidity in primary care, is described in the present article: the Ariadne principles.

Physician's Prescribing Preference as an Instrumental Variable: Exploring Assumptions Using Survey Data.

BACKGROUND: Physician's prescribing preference is increasingly used as an instrumental variable in studies of therapeutic effects. However, differences in prescribing patterns among physicians may reflect differences in preferences or in case-mix. Furthermore, there is debate regarding the possible assumptions for point estimation using physician's preference as an instrument. METHODS: A survey was sent to general practitioners (GPs) in The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland, Switzerland, and Germany, asking whether they would prescribe levothyroxine to eight fictitious patients with subclinical hypothyroidism. We investigated (1) whether variation in physician's preference was observable and to what extent it was explained by characteristics of GPs and their patient populations and (2) whether the data were compatible with deterministic and stochastic monotonicity assumptions. RESULTS: Levothyroxine prescriptions varied substantially among the 526 responding GPs. Between-GP variance in levothyroxine prescriptions (logit scale) was 9.9 (95% confidence interval: 8.0, 12) in the initial mixed effects logistic model, 8.3 (6.7, 10) after adding a fixed effect for country and 8.2 (6.6, 10) after adding GP characteristics. The occurring prescription patterns falsified the deterministic monotonicity assumption. All cases in all countries were more likely to receive levothyroxine if a different case of the same GP received levothyroxine, which is compatible with the stochastic monotonicity assumption. The data were incompatible with this assumption for a different definition of the instrument. CONCLUSIONS: Our study supports the existence of physician's preference as a determinant in treatment decisions. Deterministic monotonicity will generally not be plausible for physician's preference as an instrument. Depending on the definition of the instrument, stochastic monotonicity may be plausible.

Reporting of patient-centred outcomes in heart failure trials: are patient preferences being ignored?

Older people often suffer from multiple diseases. Therefore, universal cross-disease outcomes (e.g. functional status, quality of life, overall survival) are more relevant than disease-specific outcomes, and a range of potential outcomes are needed for medical decision-making. To assess how patient-relevant outcomes have penetrated randomized controlled trials (RCTs), reporting of these outcomes was reviewed in heart failure trials that included patients with multimorbidity. We systematically reviewed RCTs (Jan 2011-June 2012) and evaluated reported outcomes. Heart failure was chosen as condition of interest as this is common among older patients with multimorbidity. The main outcome was the proportion of RCTs reporting all-cause mortality, all-cause hospital admission, and outcomes in four domains of health, i.e. functional, signs and symptoms, psychological, and social domains. Of the 106 included RCTs, 50 (47 %) reported all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality and 29 (27 %) reported all-cause hospitalization and cardiovascular hospitalization. Of all trials, 68 (64 %) measured outcomes in the functional domain, 80 (75 %) in the domain of signs and symptoms, 65 (61 %) in the psychological domain, and 59 (56 %) in the social domain. Disease-specific instruments were more often used than non-disease-specific instruments. This review shows increasing attention for more patient-relevant outcomes; this is promising and indicates more awareness of the importance of a variety of outcomes desirable for patients. However, patients' individual goal attainments were universally absent. For continued progress in patient-centred care, efforts are needed to develop these outcomes, study their merits and pitfalls, and intensify their use in research.

The Ariadne principles: how to handle multimorbidity in primary care consultations.

Multimorbidity is a health issue mostly dealt with in primary care practice. As a result of their generalist and patient-centered approach, long-lasting relationships with patients, and responsibility for continuity and coordination of care, family physicians are particularly well placed to manage patients with multimorbidity. However, conflicts arising from the application of multiple disease oriented guidelines and the burden of diseases and treatments often make consultations challenging. To provide orientation in decision making in multimorbidity during primary care consultations, we developed guiding principles and named them after the Greek mythological figure Ariadne. For this purpose, we convened a two-day expert workshop accompanied by an international symposium in October 2012 in Frankfurt, Germany. Against the background of the current state of knowledge presented and discussed at the symposium, 19 experts from North America, Europe, and Australia identified the key issues of concern in the management of multimorbidity in primary care in panel and small group sessions and agreed upon making use of formal and informal consensus methods. The proposed preliminary principles were refined during a multistage feedback process and discussed using a case example. The sharing of realistic treatment goals by physicians and patients is at the core of the Ariadne principles. These result from i) a thorough interaction assessment of the patient's conditions, treatments, constitution, and context; ii) the prioritization of health problems that take into account the patient's preferences - his or her most and least desired outcomes; and iii) individualized management realizes the best options of care in diagnostics, treatment, and prevention to achieve the goals. Goal attainment is followed-up in accordance with a re-assessment in planned visits. The occurrence of new or changed conditions, such as an increase in severity, or a changed context may trigger the (re-)start of the process. Further work is needed on the implementation of the formulated principles, but they were recognized and appreciated as important by family physicians and primary care researchers.Please see related article: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/12/222.

Informational continuity of medication management in transitions of care: Qualitative interviews with stakeholders from the HYPERION-TransCare study.

BACKGROUND: The transition of patients between inpatient and outpatient care can lead to adverse events and medication-related problems due to medication and communication errors, such as medication discontinuation, the frequency of (re-)hospitalizations, and increased morbidity and mortality. Older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy are particularly at high risk during transitions of care. Previous research highlighted the need for interventions to improve transitions of care in order to support information continuity, coordination, and communication. The HYPERION-TransCare project aims to improve the continuity of medication management for older patients during transitions of care. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a qualitative design, 32 expert interviews were conducted to explore the perspectives of key stakeholders, which included healthcare professionals, patients and one informal caregiver, on transitions of care. Interviews were conducted between October 2020 and January 2021, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using content analysis. We narratively summarized four main topics (stakeholders' tasks, challenges, ideas for solutions and best practice examples, and patient-related factors) and mapped them in a patient journey map. Lacking or incomplete information on patients' medication and health conditions, inappropriate communication and collaboration between healthcare providers within and across settings, and insufficient digital support limit the continuity of medication management. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms that medication management during transitions of care is a complex process that can be compromised by a variety of factors. Legal requirements and standardized processes are urgently needed to ensure adequate exchange of information and organization of medication management before, during and after hospital admissions. Despite the numerous barriers identified, the findings indicate that involved healthcare professionals from both the inpatient and outpatient care settings have a common understanding.

Digital Medication Management in Polypharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate drug prescriptions for patients with polypharmacy can have avoidable adverse consequences. We studied the effects of a clinical decision-support system (CDSS) for medication management on hospitalizations and mortality. METHODS: This stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized, controlled trial involved an open cohort of adult patients with polypharmacy in primary care practices (=clusters) in Westphalia-Lippe, Germany. During the period of the intervention, their medication lists were checked annually using the CDSS. The CDSS warns against inappropriate prescriptions on the basis of patient-related health insurance data. The combined primary endpoint consisted of overall mortality and hospitalization for any reason. The secondary endpoints were mortality, hospitalizations, and high-risk prescription. We analyzed the quarterly health insurance data of the intention- to-treat population with a mixed logistic model taking account of clustering and repeated measurements. Sensitivity analyses addressed effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and other effects. RESULTS: 688 primary care practices were randomized, and data were obtained on 42 700 patients over 391 994 quarter years. No significant reduction was found in either the primary endpoint (odds ratio [OR] 1.00; 95% confidence interval [0.95; 1.04]; p = 0.8716) or the secondary endpoints (hospitalizations: OR 1.00 [0.95; 1.05]; mortality: OR 1.04 [0.92; 1.17]; high-risk prescription: OR 0.98 [0.92; 1.04]). CONCLUSION: The planned analyses did not reveal any significant effect of the intervention. Pandemicadjusted analyses yielded evidence that the mortality of adult patients with polypharmacy might potentially be lowered by the CDSS. Controlled trials with appropriate follow-up are needed to prove that a CDSS has significant effects on mortality in patients with polypharmacy.

Implementation of a virtual community of practice to promote the empowerment of middle-aged people with multimorbidity: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Empowering people living with multimorbidity (multiple chronic conditions) to gain greater confidence in managing their health can enhance their quality of life. Education focused on self-management is a key tool for fostering patient empowerment and is mostly provided on an individual basis. Virtual communities of practice (VCoP) present a unique opportunity for online education in chronic condition self-management within a social context. This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness/cost-effectiveness of individualised, online self-management education compared with VCoP among middle-aged individuals living with multiple chronic conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: People aged 30-60, living with ≥2 chronic conditions and receiving care in primary care (PC) centres and outpatient hospital-based clinics in Madrid and Canary Islands will enrol in an 18-month parallel-design, blinded (intervention assessment and data analysts), pragmatic (adhering to the intention-to-treat principle), individually randomised trial. The trial will compare two 12-month web-based educational offers of identical content; one delivered individually (control) and the other with online social interaction (VCoP, intervention). Using repeated measures mixed linear models, with the patient as random effect and allocation groups and time per group as fixed effects, we will estimate between-arm differences in the change in Patient Activation Measure from baseline to 12 months (primary endpoint), including measurements at 6-month and 18-month follow-up. Other outcomes will include measures of depression and anxiety, treatment burden, quality of life. In addition to a process evaluation of the VCoP, we will conduct an economic evaluation estimating the relative cost-effectiveness of the VCoP from the perspectives of both the National Health System and the Community. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by Clinical Research Ethics Committees of Gregorio Marañón University Hospital in Madrid/Nuestra Señora Candelaria University Hospital in Santa Cruz de Tenerife. The results will be disseminated through workshops, policy briefs, peer-reviewed publications and local/international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06046326.

The Relationship of Continuity of Care, Polypharmacy and Medication Appropriateness: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Worldwide, polypharmacy and medication appropriateness-related outcomes (MARO) are growing public health concerns associated with potentially inappropriate prescribing, adverse health effects, and avoidable costs to health systems. Continuity of care (COC) is a cornerstone of high-quality care that has been shown to improve patient-relevant outcomes. However, the relationship between COC and polypharmacy/MARO has not been systematically explored. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the operationalization of COC, polypharmacy, and MARO as well as the relationship between COC and polypharmacy/MARO. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search in PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL. Quantitative observational studies investigating the associations between COC and polypharmacy and/or COC and MARO by applying multivariate regression analysis techniques were eligible. Qualitative or experimental studies were not included. Information on the definition and operationalization of COC, polypharmacy, and MARO and reported associations was extracted. COC measures were assigned to the relational, informational, or management dimension of COC and further classified as objective standard, objective non-standard, or subjective. Risk of bias was assessed by using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included. Overall, substantial differences existed in terms of the COC dimensions and related COC measures. Relational COC was investigated in each study, while informational and management COC were only covered among three studies. The most frequent type of COC measure was objective non-standard (n = 16), followed by objective standard (n = 11) and subjective measures (n = 3). The majority of studies indicated that COC is strongly associated with both polypharmacy and MARO, such as potentially inappropriate medication (PIM), potentially inappropriate drug combination (PIDC), drug-drug interaction (DDI), adverse drug events (ADE), unnecessary drug use, duplicated medication, and overdose. More than half of the included studies (n = 15) had a low risk of bias, while five studies had an intermediate and seven studies a high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Differences regarding the methodological quality of included studies as well as the heterogeneity in terms of the operationalization and measurement of COC, polypharmacy, and MARO need to be considered when interpreting the results. Yet, our findings suggest that optimizing COC may be helpful in reducing polypharmacy and MARO. Therefore, COC should be acknowledged as an important risk factor for polypharmacy and MARO, and the importance of COC should be considered when designing future interventions targeting these outcomes.

Recommendations for the primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease in primary care: study protocol for a systematic guideline review.

INTRODUCTION: Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) was the main cause of death in Germany in 2021, with major risk factors (ie, hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidaemia, obesity and certain lifestyle factors) being highly prevalent. Preventing ASCVD by assessment and modification of these risk factors is an important challenge for general practitioners. This study aims to systematically review and synthesise recent recommendations of national and international guidelines regarding the primary prevention of ASCVD in adults in primary care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to evaluate primary prevention strategies for ASCVD. CPGs will be retrieved from MEDLINE and the Turning Research Into Practice database, guideline-specific databases and websites of guidelines-producing societies, with searches limited to publications from 2016 onwards. We will include CPGs in English, Spanish, German or Dutch languages that provide evidence-based recommendations for ASCVD prevention. The study population will include adults without diagnosed ASCVD. Two independent reviewers will assess guideline eligibility and quality by means of the mini-checklist MiChe, and extract study characteristics and relevant recommendations for further consistency analysis. A third reviewer will resolve disagreements. Findings will be presented as a narrative synthesis and in tabular form. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require ethical approval. Our systematic review will inform the CPG of the German College of General Practitioners and Family Physicians on the primary prevention of ASCVD. The review results will also be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at local, national and international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023394605.

Amitriptyline's anticholinergic adverse drug reactions-A systematic multiple-indication review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Half the US population uses drugs with anticholinergic properties. Their potential harms may outweigh their benefits. Amitriptyline is among the most frequently prescribed anticholinergic medicinal products, is used for multiple indications, and rated as strongly anticholinergic. Our objective was to explore and quantify (anticholinergic) adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in patients taking amitriptyline vs. placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults and healthy individuals. METHODS: We searched electronic databases from their inception until 09/2022, and clinical trial registries from their inception until 09/2022. We also performed manual reference searches. Two independent reviewers selected RCTs with ≥100 participants of ≥18 years, that compared amitriptyline (taken orally) versus placebo for all indications. No language restrictions were applied. One reviewer extracted study data, ADRs, and assessed study quality, which two others verified. The primary outcome was frequency of anticholinergic ADRs as a binary outcome (absolute number of patients with/without anticholinergic ADRs) in amitriptyline vs. placebo groups. RESULTS: Twenty-three RCTs (mean dosage 5mg to 300mg amitriptyline/day) and 4217 patients (mean age 40.3 years) were included. The most frequently reported anticholinergic ADRs were dry mouth, drowsiness, somnolence, sedation, fatigue, constitutional, and unspecific anticholinergic ADRs. Random-effects meta-analyses showed anticholinergic ADRs had a higher odd's ratio for amitriptyline versus placebo (OR = 7.41; [95% CI, 4.54 to 12.12]). Non-anticholinergic ADRs were as frequent for amitriptyline as placebo. Meta-regression analysis showed anticholinergic ADRs were not dose-dependent. DISCUSSION: The large OR in our analysis shows that ADRs indicative of anticholinergic activities can be attributed to amitriptyline. The low average age of participants in our study may limit the generalizability of the frequency of anticholinergic ADRs in older patients. A lack of dose-dependency may reflect limited reporting of the daily dosage when the ADRs occurred. The exclusion of small studies (<100 participants) decreased heterogeneity between studies, but may also have reduced our ability to detect rare events. Future studies should focus on older people, as they are more susceptible to anticholinergic ADRs. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42020111970.

Anticholinergic burden measures, symptoms, and fall-associated risk in older adults with polypharmacy: Development and validation of a prognostic model.

BACKGROUND: Anticholinergic burden has been associated with adverse outcomes such as falls. To date, no gold standard measure has been identified to assess anticholinergic burden, and no conclusion has been drawn on which of the different measure algorithms best predicts falls in older patients from general practice. This study compared the ability of five measures of anticholinergic burden to predict falls. To account for patients' individual susceptibility to medications, the added predictive value of typical anticholinergic symptoms was further quantified in this context. METHODS AND FINDINGS: To predict falls, models were developed and validated based on logistic regression models created using data from two German cluster-randomized controlled trials. The outcome was defined as "≥ 1 fall" vs. "no fall" within a 6-month follow-up period. Data from the RIME study (n = 1,197) were used in model development, and from PRIMUM (n = 502) for external validation. The models were developed step-wise in order to quantify the predictive ability of anticholinergic burden measures, and anticholinergic symptoms. In the development set, 1,015 patients had complete data and 188 (18.5%) experienced ≥ 1 fall within the 6-month follow-up period. The overall predictive value of the five anticholinergic measures was limited, with neither the employed anticholinergic variable (binary / count / burden), nor dose-dependent or dose-independent measures differing significantly in their ability to predict falls. The highest c-statistic was obtained using the German Anticholinergic Burden Score (0.73), whereby the optimism-corrected c-statistic was 0.71 after interval validation using bootstrapping and 0.63 in the external validation. Previous falls and dizziness / vertigo had the strongest prognostic value in all models. CONCLUSIONS: The ability of anticholinergic burden measures to predict falls does not appear to differ significantly, and the added value they contribute to risk classification in fall-prediction models is limited. Previous falls and dizziness / vertigo contributed most to model performance.

Prescribing Cascades: How to Detect Them, Prevent Them, and Use Them Appropriately.

BACKGROUND: A prescribing cascade is the treatment of an adverse drug reaction (ADR) with another drug. In this review, we discuss (a) the different types of prescribing cascade and (b) the measures that can be taken so that they will be recognized and dealt with appropriately, both in the hospital and in the outpatient setting. METHODS: This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective literature search. RESULTS: The literature distinguishes intentional from unintentional prescribing cascades, and appropriate from inappropriate ones. We further distinguish prophylactic from therapeutic prescribing cascades and draw a line between those that are necessary and those that are merely appropriate. The following main questions are essential for dealing with prescribing cascades appropriately: (1) Did the precipitating drug cause a clinically relevant ADR or risk of an ADR? (2) Is the precipitating drug still indicated? (3) Can an ADR be avoided by altering the treatment with the precipitating drug, or by (4) switching to another drug instead? (5) Can the drug used to treat the ADR actually affect it beneficially? (6) Do the benefits of the prescribing cascade outweigh its risks? CONCLUSION: Prescribing cascades are not problematic in themselves; on the contrary, they are sometimes a necessary part of good prescribing practice. There is still a lack of practically implementable instruments to help physicians detect prescribing cascades reliably, assess them properly, and put them to appropriate use.

Stakeholder Perspectives on the Development and Implementation of a Polypharmacy Management Program in Germany: Results of a Qualitative Study.

Structured management programs have been developed for single diseases but rarely for patients with multiple medications. We conducted a qualitative study to investigate the views of stakeholders on the development and implementation of a polypharmacy management program in Germany. Overall, we interviewed ten experts in the fields of health policy and clinical practice. Using content analysis, we identified inclusion criteria for the selection of suitable patients, the individual elements that should make up such a program, healthcare providers and stakeholders that should be involved, and factors that may support or hinder the program's implementation. All stakeholders were well aware of polypharmacy-related risks and challenges, as well as the urgent need for change. Intervention strategies should address all levels of care and include all concerned patients, caregivers, healthcare providers and stakeholders, and involved parties should agree on a joint approach.