Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (22)
- Conference Proceeding (2)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (25)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (25)
Keywords
- Multimorbidity (5)
- Polypharmacy (4)
- multimorbidity (3)
- polypharmacy (3)
- Elderly (2)
- General practice (2)
- Medication Appropriateness Index (2)
- Multiple chronic conditions (2)
- Primary care (2)
- general practice (2)
Institute
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.
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.
Introduction: Multimorbidity is a major concern in primary care. Nevertheless, evidence of prevalence and patterns of multimorbidity, and their determinants, are scarce. The aim of this study is to systematically review studies of the prevalence, patterns and determinants of multimorbidity in primary care.
Methods: Systematic review of literature published between 1961 and 2013 and indexed in Ovid (CINAHL, PsychINFO, Medline and Embase) and Web of Knowledge. Studies were selected according to eligibility criteria of addressing prevalence, determinants, and patterns of multimorbidity and using a pretested proforma in primary care. The quality and risk of bias were assessed using STROBE criteria. Two researchers assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion (Kappa = 0.86).
Results: We identified 39 eligible publications describing studies that included a total of 70,057,611 patients in 12 countries. The number of health conditions analysed per study ranged from 5 to 335, with multimorbidity prevalence ranging from 12.9% to 95.1%. All studies observed a significant positive association between multimorbidity and age (odds ratio [OR], 1.26 to 227.46), and lower socioeconomic status (OR, 1.20 to 1.91). Positive associations with female gender and mental disorders were also observed. The most frequent patterns of multimorbidity included osteoarthritis together with cardiovascular and/or metabolic conditions.
Conclusions: Well-established determinants of multimorbidity include age, lower socioeconomic status and gender. The most prevalent conditions shape the patterns of multimorbidity. However, the limitations of the current evidence base means that further and better designed studies are needed to inform policy, research and clinical practice, with the goal of improving health-related quality of life for patients with multimorbidity. Standardization of the definition and assessment of multimorbidity is essential in order to better understand this phenomenon, and is a necessary immediate step.
Multimorbilidad en medicina de familia y los principios Ariadne : un enfoque centrado en la persona
(2017)
La multimorbilidad, definida como la presencia de dos o más enfermedades crónicas en un mismo individuo, conlleva consecuencias negativas para la persona e importantes retos para los sistemas sanitarios. En atención primaria, donde recae esencialmente la atención de este grupo de pacientes, la consulta es más compleja que la de un paciente con una única enfermedad debido, entre otros, al hecho de tener que manejar mayor cantidad de información clínica, disponer de poca evidencia científica para abordar la multimorbilidad, y tener que coordinar la labor de múltiples profesionales para garantizar la continuidad asistencial. Además, para poder implementar correctamente los planes de tratamiento en estos pacientes es necesario un proceso de toma de decisiones compartida médico-paciente. Entre las distintas herramientas disponibles para apoyar dicho proceso, recientemente se ha desarrollado una dirigida específicamente a pacientes con multimorbilidad en atención primaria y que se describe en el presente artículo: los principios Ariadne.
Background Evidence-based guidelines potentially improve healthcare. However, their de-novo-development requires substantial resources - especially for complex conditions, and adaptation may be biased by contextually influenced recommendations in source guidelines. In this paper we describe a new approach to guideline development - the systematic guideline review method (SGR), and its application in the development of an evidence-based guideline for family physicians on chronic heart failure (CHF). Methods A systematic search for guidelines was carried out. Evidence-based guidelines on CHF management in adults in ambulatory care published in English or German between the years 2000 and 2004 were included. Guidelines on acute or right heart failure were excluded. Eligibility was assessed by two reviewers, methodological quality of selected guidelines was appraised using the AGREE-instrument, and a framework of relevant clinical questions for diagnostics and treatment was derived. Data were extracted into evidence tables, systematically compared by means of a consistency analysis and synthesized in a preliminary draft. Most relevant primary sources were re-assessed to verify the cited evidence. Evidence and recommendations were summarized in a draft guideline. Results Of 16 included guidelines five were of good quality. A total of 35 recommendations were systematically compared: 25/35 were consistent, 9/35 inconsistent, and 1/35 unratable (derived from a single guideline). Of the 25 consistencies, 14 based on consensus, seven on evidence and four differed in grading. Major inconsistencies were found in 3/9 of the inconsistent recommendations. We re-evaluated the evidence for 17 recommendations (evidence-based, differing evidence levels and minor inconsistencies) the majority was congruent. Incongruencies were found, where the stated evidence could not be verified in the cited primary sources, or where the evaluation in the source guidelines focused on treatment benefits and underestimated the risks. The draft guideline was completed in 8.5 man-months. The main limitation to this study was the lack of a second reviewer. Conclusions The systematic guideline review including framework development, consistency analysis and validation is an effective, valid, and resource saving-approach to the development of evidence-based guidelines.
Background: Chronic congestive heart failure (CHF) is a complex disease with rising prevalence, compromised quality of life (QoL), unplanned hospital admissions, high mortality and therefore high burden of illness. The delivery of care for these patients has been criticized and new strategies addressing crucial domains of care have been shown to be effective on patients' health outcomes, although these trials were conducted in secondary care or in highly organised Health Maintenance Organisations. It remains unclear whether a comprehensive primary care-based case management for the treating general practitioner (GP) can improve patients' QoL. Methods/Design: HICMan is a randomised controlled trial with patients as the unit of randomisation. Aim is to evaluate a structured, standardized and comprehensive complex intervention for patients with CHF in a 12-months follow-up trial. Patients from intervention group receive specific patient leaflets and documentation booklets as well as regular monitoring and screening by a prior trained practice nurse, who gives feedback to the GP upon urgency. Monitoring and screening address aspects of disease-specific selfmanagement, (non)pharmacological adherence and psychosomatic and geriatric comorbidity. GPs are invited to provide a tailored structured counselling 4 times during the trial and receive an additional feedback on pharmacotherapy relevant to prognosis (data of baseline documentation). Patients from control group receive usual care by their GPs, who were introduced to guidelineoriented management and a tailored health counselling concept. Main outcome measurement for patients' QoL is the scale physical functioning of the SF-36 health questionnaire in a 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes are the disease specific QoL measured by the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy questionnaire (KCCQ), depression and anxiety disorders (PHQ-9, GAD-7), adherence (EHFScBS and SANA), quality of care measured by an adapted version of the Patient Chronic Illness Assessment of Care questionnaire (PACIC) and NTproBNP. In addition, comprehensive clinical data are collected about health status, comorbidity, medication and health care utilisation. Discussion: As the targeted patient group is mostly cared for and treated by GPs, a comprehensive primary care-based guideline implementation including somatic, psychosomatic and organisational aspects of the delivery of care (HICMAn) is a promising intervention applying proven strategies for optimal care. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN30822978.
Hintergrund Die chronische Herzinsuffizienz erfordert als Systemerkrankung hausärztliche sowie spezialärztliche Versorgung. Die evidenzbasierte DEGAM-Leitlinie (LL) zur hausärztlichen Versorgung der Herzinsuffizienz wurde formal interdisziplinär konsentiert, nachdem der Entwurf ein mehrstufiges internes und externes Reviewverfahren durchlaufen hatte. Methode Wissenschaftliche Fachgesellschaften und Organisationen (FG/O) wurden zu einem Nominalen Gruppenprozeß (NGP) eingeladen und entsandten autorisierte Teilnehmer. Diese erhielten den LL-Entwurf inkl. Methodenreport sowie eine Liste zentraler LL-Empfehlungen für ein persönliches Ranking (44-Items; 6-stufige Likert-Skala). Beim Konsentierungstreffen wurden aus dem 1. Ranking Themen ohne deutliche Übereinstimmung (Likert =4) identifiziert, unter Hinzunahme weiterer Themenvorschläge in priorisierter Reihenfolge diskutiert und erneut abgestimmt. Der überarbeitete LL-Entwurf wurde in einem zweiten Ranking im Delphi-Verfahren konsentiert. Ergebnisse Im Abstimmungsprozess mit 10 Vertretern aus 11 FG/O wurden ~35 Themen diskutiert. Bei zwei Empfehlungen mit fehlender Evidenz wurde ein von internationalen LL abweichender Konsens getroffen (z.B. ß-Blocker bei asymptomatischen Patienten nur nach durchgemachtem Herzinfarkt). Vier Formulierungen bewertenden Charakters zur BNP-Bestimmung wurden zugunsten einer Negativempfehlung gestrichen, eine Empfehlung mit der STIKO harmonisiert (Pneumokokkenimpfung), bei weiteren wurden ergänzende Konditionen im Wortlaut eingefügt oder sprachliche Änderungen vorgenommen. Fünf Themen wurden neu erstellt (z.B. kontraindizierte Pharmaka). Bis auf drei (z.B. Flussdiagramme nicht vollständig konsensfähig: unangemessene Vereinfachung vs. fehlende Praktikabilität) wurden alle Empfehlungen der LL konsentiert. Schlussfolgerungen Der NGP ist für evidenzbasierte LL eine geeignete Vorgehensweise. Interdisziplinarität ist insbesondere bei Entscheidungsunsicherheit (fehlende oder inkonsistente Evidenz) und zur Schnittstellendefinition wertvoll.
Mit den Krankheiten häuft sich im Alter auch die Zahl der einzunehmenden Medikamente. Das bringt viele Probleme mit sich. Das Institut für Allgemeinmedizin der Goethe-Universität untersucht in enger Kooperation mit der Universität Maastricht die Folgen der Multimedikation und entwickelt gemeinsam mit Hausärzten Strategien, um unerwünschte Wirkungen zu vermeiden.
Background: Multimorbidity is associated with negative effects both on people’s health and on healthcare systems. A key problem linked to multimorbidity is polypharmacy, which in turn is associated with increased risk of partly preventable adverse effects, including mortality. The Ariadne principles describe a model of care based on a thorough assessment of diseases, treatments (and potential interactions), clinical status, context and preferences of patients with multimorbidity, with the aim of prioritizing and sharing realistic treatment goals that guide an individualized management. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention that implements the Ariadne principles in a population of young-old patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. The intervention seeks to improve the appropriateness of prescribing in primary care (PC), as measured by the medication appropriateness index (MAI) score at 6 and 12 months, as compared with usual care.
Methods/Design: Design: pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial. Unit of randomization: family physician (FP). Unit of analysis: patient. Scope: PC health centres in three autonomous communities: Aragon, Madrid, and Andalusia (Spain). Population: patients aged 65–74 years with multimorbidity (≥3 chronic diseases) and polypharmacy (≥5 drugs prescribed in ≥3 months). Sample size: n = 400 (200 per study arm). Intervention: complex intervention based on the implementation of the Ariadne principles with two components: (1) FP training and (2) FP-patient interview. Outcomes: MAI score, health services use, quality of life (Euroqol 5D-5L), pharmacotherapy and adherence to treatment (Morisky-Green, Haynes-Sackett), and clinical and socio-demographic variables. Statistical analysis: primary outcome is the difference in MAI score between T0 and T1 and corresponding 95% confidence interval. Adjustment for confounding factors will be performed by multilevel analysis. All analyses will be carried out in accordance with the intention-to-treat principle.
Discussion: It is essential to provide evidence concerning interventions on PC patients with polypharmacy and multimorbidity, conducted in the context of routine clinical practice, and involving young-old patients with significant potential for preventing negative health outcomes.
Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02866799
Introduction End-of-life care is an essential task performed by most healthcare providers and often involves decision-making about how and where patients want to receive care. To provide decision support to healthcare professionals and patients in this difficult situation, we will systematically review a knowledge cluster of the end-of-life care preferences of older patients with multimorbidity that we previously identified using an evidence map.
Methods and analysis We will systematically search for studies reporting end-of-life care preferences of older patients (mean age ≥60) with multimorbidity (≥2 chronic conditions) in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index Expanded, PSYNDEX and The Cochrane Library from inception to September 2019. We will include all primary studies that use quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies, irrespective of publication date and language.
Two independent reviewers will assess eligibility, extract data and describe evidence in terms of study/population characteristics, preference assessment method and end-of-life care elements that matter to patients (eg, life-sustaining treatments). Risk of bias/applicability of results will be independently assessed by two reviewers using the Mixed-Methods Appraisal Tool. Using a convergent integrated approach on qualitative/quantitative studies, we will synthesise information narratively and, wherever possible, quantitatively.
Ethics and dissemination Due to the nature of the proposed systematic review, ethics approval is not required. Results from our research will be disseminated at relevant (inter-)national conferences and via publication in peer-reviewed journals. Synthesising evidence on end-of-life care preferences of older patients with multimorbidity will improve shared decision-making and satisfaction in this final period of life.
