Evaluation of a multicomponent intervention consisting of education and feedback to reduce benzodiazepine prescriptions by general practitioners: The BENZORED hybrid type 1 cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Current benzodiazepine (BZD) prescription guidelines recommend short-term use to minimize the risk of dependence, cognitive impairment, and falls and fractures. However, many clinicians overprescribe BZDs and chronic use by patients is common. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions delivered by general practitioners (GPs) on reducing prescriptions and long-term use of BZDs. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention for GPs that seeks to reduce BZD prescriptions and the prevalence of long-term users. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a multicenter two-arm, cluster randomized controlled trial in 3 health districts in Spain (primary health centers [PHCs] in Balearic Islands, Catalonia, and Valencian Community) from September 2016 to May 2018. The 81 PHCs were randomly allocated to the intervention group (n = 41; 372 GPs) or the control group (n = 40; 377 GPs). GPs were not blinded to the allocation; however, pharmacists, researchers, and trial statisticians were blinded to the allocation arm. The intervention consisted of a workshop about the appropriate prescribing of BZDs and tapering-off long-term BZD use using a tailored stepped dose reduction with monthly BZD prescription feedback and access to a support web page. The primary outcome, based on 700 GPs (351 in the control group and 349 in the intervention group), compared changes in BZD prescriptions in defined daily doses (DDDs) per 1,000 inhabitants per day after 12 months. The 2 secondary outcomes were the proportion of long-term users (≥6 months) and the proportion of long-term users over age 65 years. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was used to assess all clinical outcomes. Forty-nine GPs (21 intervention group and 28 control group) were lost to follow-up. However, all GPs were included in the ITT analysis. After 12 months, there were a statistically significant decline in total BZD prescription in the intervention group compared to the control group (mean difference: -3.24 DDDs per 1,000 inhabitants per day, 95% confidence interval (CI): -4.96, -1.53, p < 0.001). The intervention group also had a smaller number of long-term users. The adjusted absolute difference overall was -0.36 (95% CI: -0.55, -0.16, p > 0.001), and the adjusted absolute difference in long-term users over age 65 years was -0.87 (95% CI: -1.44, -0.30, p = 0.003). A key limitation of this clustered design clinical trial is the imbalance of some baseline characteristics. The control groups have a higher rate of baseline BZD prescription, and more GPs in the intervention group were women, GPs with a doctorate degree, and trainers of GP residents. CONCLUSIONS: A multicomponent intervention that targeted GPs and included educational meeting, feedback about BZD prescriptions, and a support web page led to a statistically significant reduction of BZD prescriptions and fewer long-term users. Although the effect size was small, the high prevalence of BZD use in the general population suggests that large-scale implementation of this intervention could have positive effects on the health of many patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN28272199.

Evolution of polypharmacy in a spanish population (2005-2015): A database study.

PURPOSE: To analyze the evolution of the prevalence of polypharmacy and excessive polypharmacy in a Spanish population, and to improve the identification of patients with polypharmacy. METHODS: A descriptive, annual cross-sectional observational study was carried out. PATIENTS: individuals over 14 years of age included in a multiregional primary care database of the Spanish population (BIFAP). ANALYSIS: prescription data. Period 2005-2015. VARIABLES: proportion of patients with polypharmacy (simultaneous prescription of ≥5 drugs) and excessive polypharmacy (≥10 drugs) for at least 6 months, according to sex and age groups. A trend analysis of the studied period was performed (overall, and by sex and age groups). RESULTS: The data are reported on a comparative basis (2005 vs 2015). Number of patients analyzed: 2664743 vs 4 002 877. The prevalence of polypharmacy increased significantly (2.5% vs 8.9%, P-value for trend <0.001), being greater in females throughout the study period and in the group aged ≥80 years (P-value for trends <0.001). The prevalence of excessive polypharmacy also increased significantly (0.1% vs 1%, P-value for trend <0.001), being higher in the group aged ≥80 years (P-value for trend <0.001). The proportion of patients with no chronic treatment decreased (80.2% vs 63.1%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of polypharmacy in this Spanish population has tripled in the period 2005-2015, while excessive polypharmacy has increased 10-fold. These increments are seen in both sexes and in all age groups, particularly in individuals over 80 years of age. The proportion of patients without chronic treatments has decreased.

[Evolution of the use of antidepressants, anxiolytics and hypnotics in Valencia. Period 2000-2010]. / Evolución de la utilización de antidepresivos, ansiolíticos e hipnóticos en la Comunitat Valenciana. Período 2000-2010.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the evolution in the use of antidepressants (AD), anxiolytics (A) and hypnotics (H) in the Comunitat Valenciana (CV) between 2000 and 2010, their expenditure, and the cost of the defined daily dose (DDD). DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Prescriptions covered by the health public service of the CV during the period 2000-2010. MEASUREMENTS: Consumption of the therapeutic groups N06A (antidepressants), N05B (anxiolytics) and N05C (hypnotics) from the pharmacy database of the public Valencian Health Agency measured in defined daily dose per 1.000 inhabitants. RESULTS: During the period of study the use of AD increased by 81.2% and A and H, 11.7%. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were the most prescribed AD and Selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors experienced the higher rise (386.8%). The increase of escitalopram was 1.013%. Lorazepam, alprazolam and diazepam, accounted for the 80.4% of the anxyolitics, and lormetazepam and zolpidem the 88.7% of the hypnotics. The expenditure rise of AD was by 78.2% and that of the A and H was 14.5%; the cost of the DDD of both decreased by 29%. CONCLUSIONS: Antidepressant utilization has experienced a remarkable rise between 2000 and 2010 while that of A and H has been mild even though they are still more consumed than AD. In spite of the reduction of the DDD cost in both therapeutic groups, the whole expenditure on AD in the CV is still growing.

Evaluating the Implementation of a Multicomponent Intervention Consisting of Education and Feedback on Reducing Benzodiazepine Prescriptions by General Practitioners: BENZORED Hybrid Type I Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) in developed countries widely prescribe benzodiazepines (BZDs) for their anxiolytic, hypnotic, and muscle-relaxant effects. Treatment duration, however, is rarely limited, and this results in a significant number of chronic users. Long-term BZD use is associated with cognitive impairment, falls with hip fractures, traffic accidents, and increased mortality. The BENZORED IV trial was a hybrid type-1 trial conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of an intervention to reduce BZD prescription in primary care. The purpose of this qualitative study was to analyze the facilitators and barriers regarding the implementation of the intervention in primary care settings. METHODS: A qualitative interview study with 40 GPs from three Spanish health districts. Focus group meetings with GPs from the intervention arm of the BENZORED IV trial were held at primary healthcare centers in the three districts. For sampling purposes, the GPs were classified as high or low implementers according to the success of the intervention measured at 12 months. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to conduct the meetings and to code, rate, and analyze the data. RESULTS: Three of the 41 CFIR constructs strongly distinguished between high and low implementers: the complexity of the intervention, the individual Stage of Change, and the key stakeholder's engagement. Seven constructs weakly discriminated between the two groups: adaptability in the intervention, external policy and incentives, implementation climate, relative priority, self-efficacy, compatibility, and engaging a formally appointed implementation leader. Fourteen constructs did not discriminate between the two groups, six had insufficient data for evaluation, and eleven had no data for evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: We identified constructs that could explain differences in the efficacy in implementation of the intervention. This information is relevant for the design of successful strategies for implementation of the intervention.

Drug Prescription Profiles in Patients with Polypharmacy in Spain: A Large-Scale Pharmacoepidemiologic Study Using Real-World Data.

We aimed to identify and compare medication profiles in populations with polypharmacy between 2005 and 2015. We conducted a cross-sectional study using information from the Computerized Database for Pharmacoepidemiologic Studies in Primary Care (BIFAP, Spain). We estimated the prevalence of therapeutic subgroups in all individuals 15 years of age and older with polypharmacy (≥5 drugs during ≥6 months) using the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification system level 4, by sex and age group, for both calendar years. The most prescribed drugs were proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), statins, antiplatelet agents, benzodiazepine derivatives, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. The greatest increases between 2005 and 2015 were observed in PPIs, statins, other antidepressants, and ß-blockers, while the prevalence of antiepileptics was almost tripled. We observed increases in psychotropic drugs in women and cardiovascular medications in men. By patient´s age groups, there were notable increases in antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antiepileptics (15-44 years); antidepressants, PPIs, and selective ß-blockers (45-64 years); selective ß-blockers, biguanides, PPIs, and statins (65-79 years); and in statins, selective ß-blockers, and PPIs (80 years and older). Our results revealed important increases in the use of specific therapeutic subgroups, like PPIs, statins, and psychotropic drugs, highlighting opportunities to design and implement strategies to analyze such prescriptions' appropriateness.

[Variability in the measurement of the pharmaceutical prescription quality by autonomous communities]. / Variabilidad en la medición de la calidad de prescripción por comunidades autónomas.

AIM: To examine how the different Spanish health regions are evaluating pharmaceutical prescription quality and the type of prescribing indicators used. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: The 17 Spanish Autonomous Communities during the period from January to December 2007. MEASUREMENTS: Definition and type of prescribing indicators, measurement units. RESULTS: We obtained information from 16 of the 17 CCAA through their health services. All health services had developed quality indicators of drug prescription. The number of indicators varied from 3 to 22 between regions. Most of the regions are using indicators based on adequate selection of drugs. Nine of the 16 CCAA are also including prevalence indicators and only the Basque Country and Cantabria are using indicators based on the quality of the therapeutic process. Nine CCAA use the number of packs as measurement unit and the other seven CCAA measure prescriptions in defined daily doses (ddd). The indicators most frequently used are: percentage of new drugs in 15 CCAA (93%), omeprazole in total IBP drugs in 13 (81.2%), percentage of generic drugs in 11 (68.7%) and selection of NSAID in 10 (62%). CONCLUSION: Each regional health service has developed its own set of drug prescription quality indicators. Consequently, there is great variability between regions in the assessment of the quality of drug prescription. Common indicators are needed in order to establish a benchmarking process between regional health services.

Five Interpersonal Factors Are Predictive of the Response to Treatment of Major Depression With Antidepressants in Primary Care.

Introduction: Factors relating to the interpersonal relationship between the patient and their physician and social environment are important components, which contribute to their response to treatment for major depressive disorder. This study aimed to assess the influence of optimism, perfectionism, therapeutic alliance, empathy, social support, and adherence to medication regimen in the response to antidepressant treatments in the context of normal primary care clinical practice. Method: We conducted a prospective study in which 24 primary care physicians administered sertraline or escitalopram to 89 patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder. The response to treatment and remission of the episode was assessed at 4 and 12 weeks by Cox regression. The effect of adherence to the medication regimen was assessed by multiple regression statistical techniques. Results: Adherence to medication (HR = 0.262, 95% CI = 0.125-0.553, p < 0.001) and patient perfectionism (HR = 0.259, 95% CI = 0.017-0.624, p < 0.01) negatively predicted the initial response to treatment, whereas patient optimism (HR = 1.221, 95% CI = 1.080-1.380, p < 0.05) positively predicted it. Patient optimism (HR = 1.247, 95% CI = 1.1-1.4, p < 0.05), empathy perceived by the patient (HR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1001-1002, p < 0.05), and therapeutic alliance (HR = 1.02, 95% CI = 1001-1.04, p < 0.05) positively predicted episode remission, while patient perfectionism (HR = 0.219, 95% CI = 0.093-0.515, p < 0.001) and low adherence to the treatment regimen (HR = 0.293, 95% CI = 0.145-0.595, p < 0.001) negatively predicted it. Finally, social support (p < 0.01) and therapeutic alliance (p < 0.05) predicted adherence to the medication regimen. Conclusions: In addition to taking the antidepressant drug, other factors including the personal interactions between the patient with their primary care physician and with their social environment significantly influenced the patients' initial response and the final rate of episode remission.

Respuesta de los autores: Homeopatía, una realidad social y asistencial / Author's reply: Homeopathy, social welfare and reality

No disponible

Medicamentos y productos homeopáticos: cada cosa en su lugar / Homeopathic medications and products: Everything in its place

No disponible

Evolución de la utilización de antidepresivos, ansiolíticos e hipnóticos en la Comunitat Valenciana. Período 2000-2010 / Evolution of the use of antidepressants, anxiolytics and hypnotics in Valencia. Period 2000-2010

OBJETIVO: Conocer la evolución de la utilización de antidepresivos (AD), ansiolíticos(A) e hipnóticos (H) en la Comunidad Valenciana (CV) entre los años 2000 y2010, su importe y el coste por dosis diaria definida (DDD). DISEÑO: Estudio observacional retrospectivo. Emplazamiento: Recetas dispensadas cargo del sistema público de salud de la CV durante los años 2000 a 2010. Mediciones: Consumo de los principios activos pertenecientes a los grupos terapéuticos N05B (A), N05C (H) y N06A (AD) obtenidos a partir de la base de datos de farmacia de la Agencia Valenciana de Salud medido en dosis habitante día. RESULTADOS: Durante el período estudiado, el consumo de AD aumentó el 81,2% y el de A e H el 11,7%. Los inhibidores selectivos de la recaptación de serotonina fueron los AD más prescritos y los inhibidores de la recaptación de serotonina y noradrenalina los de mayor crecimiento (386,8%). Escitalopram aumentó el 1.013%. Lorazepam, alprazolam y diacepam, suman el 80,4% de los ansiolíticos prescritos, y lormetazepam y zolpidem el 88,7% de los hipnóticos. El importe de los AD aumentó el 78,2% y el de los A e H el 14,5%; el coste por DDD de ambos grupo descendió el 29%. CONCLUSIONES: La utilización de AD en la CV ha experimentado un gran incremento entre 2000-2010, mientras que el de A e H ha sido moderado, aunque su consumo todavía está por encima del de AD. A pesar de la reducción en el coste de la DDD en ambos grupos, el importe global de la factura en antidepresivos en la CV sigue en aumento

OBJECTIVE: To describe the evolution in the use of antidepressants (AD), anxiolytics (A) and hypnotics (H) in the Comunitat Valenciana (CV) between 2000 and 2010, their expenditure, and the cost of the defined daily dose (DDD).DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. Setting: Prescriptions covered by the health public service of the CV during the period 2000-2010. Measurements: Consumption of the therapeutic groups N06A (antidepressants), N05B (anxiolytics)and N05C (hypnotics) from the pharmacy database of the public Valencian Health Agency measured in defined daily dose per 1.000 inhabitants. RESULTS: During the period of study the use of AD increased by 81.2% and A and H, 11.7%.Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were the most prescribed AD and Selective serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors experienced the higher rise (386.8%). The increase of escitalopram was 1.013%. Lorazepam, alprazolam and diazepam, accounted for the 80.4% of the anxyolitics, and lormetazepam and zolpidem the 88.7% of the hypnotics. The expenditure rise of AD was by 78.2% and that of the A and H was 14.5%; the cost of the DDD of both decreased by 29%. CONCLUSIONS: Antidepressant utilization has experienced a remarkable rise between 2000 and2010 while that of A and H has been mild even though they are still more consumed than AD. In spite of the reduction of the DDD cost in both therapeutic groups, the whole expenditure on AD in the CV is still growing

Medicamentos, cantidad y calidad / Medicines, quantity and quality

No disponible

No disponible

Variabilidad en la medición de la calidad de prescripción por comunidades autónomas / Variability in the measurement of the pharmaceutical prescription quality by autonomous communities

ObjetivoConocer cómo se mide la calidad de la prescripción farmacológica y los indicadores utilizados en las diferentes comunidades autónomas (CC. AA.) del estado español.DiseñoEstudio descriptivo transversal.ÁmbitoNacional, en 17 CC. AA. del territorio español durante el período de enero a diciembre de 2007.MedicionesDefinición y tipos de indicadores de prescripción, unidades de medida.ResultadosSe ha obtenido información de 16 de las 17 CC. AA. a través de los servicios de salud autonómicos. Todos los servicios de salud han desarrollado un programa de evaluación de la prescripción farmacéutica. El número de indicadores varía entre 3 y 22. Los indicadores de selección son los más utilizados. Nueve de las 16 CC. AA. trabajan con indicadores de utilización y solo el País Vasco y Cantabria introducen indicadores de adecuación terapéutica. La medición se realiza en envases en 9 CC. AA. y en dosis diarias definidas en las 7 restantes. Los indicadores que más se repiten son porcentaje de nuevos fármacos, en 15 CC. AA. (93%), omeprazol frente al total de inhibidores de la bomba de protones, en 13 CC. AA. (81,2%), porcentaje de genéricos en 11 CC. AA. (68,7%) y antinflamatorios de elección en 10 CC. AA. (62%).ConclusiónCada servicio de salud autonómico desarrolla un programa de medición de la calidad de prescripción con indicadores propios y existe una gran variabilidad entre las diferentes CC. AA. Es necesaria una política común de calidad de la prestación farmacéutica para favorecer los procesos de benchmarking, comparar resultados, fomentar la investigación y promover la cooperación entre los servicios de salud(AU)

AimTo examine how the different Spanish health regions are evaluating pharmaceutical prescription quality and the type of prescribing indicators used.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingThe 17 Spanish Autonomous Communities during the period from January to December 2007.MeasurementsDefinition and type of prescribing indicators, measurement units.ResultsWe obtained information from 16 of the 17 CCAA through their health services. All health services had developed quality indicators of drug prescription. The number of indicators varied from 3 to 22 between regions. Most of the regions are using indicators based on adequate selection of drugs. Nine of the 16 CCAA are also including prevalence indicators and only the Basque Country and Cantabria are using indicators based on the quality of the therapeutic process. Nine CCAA use the number of packs as measurement unit and the other seven CCAA measure prescriptions in defined daily doses (ddd). The indicators most frequently used are: percentage of new drugs in 15 CCAA (93%), omeprazole in total IBP drugs in 13 (81.2%), percentage of generic drugs in 11 (68.7%) and selection of NSAID in 10 (62%).ConclusionEach regional health service has developed its own set of drug prescription quality indicators. Consequently, there is great variability between regions in the assessment of the quality of drug prescription. Common indicators are needed in order to establish a benchmarking process between regional health services(AU)