Prescribing Patterns of Pain Medications in Unspecific Low Back Pain in Primary Care: A Retrospective Analysis

Acute low back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent diseases worldwide. Since there is evidence of excessive prescriptions of analgesics, i.e., opioids, the aim of this study was to describe the use of pain medications in patients with LBP in the Swiss primary care setting. A retrospective, observational study was performed using medical prescriptions of 180 general practitioners (GP) during years 2009–2020. Patterns of pain medications (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol, and opioids) as well as co-medications were analyzed in patients with a LBP diagnosis. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses assessed GP and patient characteristics associated with the prescription of pain medication. Patients included were 10,331 (mean age 51.7 years, 51.2% female); 6449 (62.4%) received at least one pain medication and of these 86% receive NSAIDs and 22% opioids. GP characteristics (i.e., self-employment status) and patient characteristics (male gender and number of consultations) were associated with significantly higher odds of receiving any pain medication in multivariable analysis. 3719 patients (36%) received co-medications. Proton-pump-inhibitors and muscle relaxants were the most commonly used co-medications. In conclusion, two-thirds of LBP patients were treated with pain medications. Prescribing patterns were conservative, with little use of strong opioids and co-medications

Antiepileptic drug use in Austrian nursing home residents

AbstractPurposeCurrently around 30% of all newly developed seizures are diagnosed in persons older than 65 years. Five to 17% of nursing home-residents take antiepileptic drugs. The aim of our study was to analyze the type and frequency of prescribed antiepileptic drugs, as well as their indication, co-morbidities and co-medications in institutionalized elderly in Austria.MethodsThis was a retrospective, cross-sectional study, which included all residents of the seven public nursing homes in Innsbruck, Austria. The data of 828 probands were extracted from the charts at site and maintained anonymously. The data collection was followed by descriptive statistics.Key findings70 (8.5%; 26 M/44 F) of the 828 (192 M/636 F) residents took at least one antiepileptic medication. In 51.5% the reason for the prescription were epileptic seizures – yielding a minimum prevalence of 4.5%. The most often used antiepileptic drugs were gabapentin (37%), levetiracetam (24%) and valproate (18.5%). The three most common co-morbidities were arterial hypertension (49%), ischemic stroke (36%) and other cerebrovascular diseases (29%). Six to nine co-medications were prescribed in 41%, 26% had more than 10 additional drugs and 91% were treated with proconvulsive co-medications (64/70, median 2, range 0–6).SignificanceAustrian nursing home residents receive more frequently newer antiepileptic drugs compared to other countries, but co-prescription of proconvulsive drugs is common

Risks and benefits HIV preexposure prophylaxis with tenofovir/emtricitabine in an older male with comorbidities

Renal toxicity in a 73 year old man using tenofovir/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC) as pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is described. Reduced renal reserve, a higher exposure to co-medications and co-morbidities can present a challenge when assessing the risks and benefits of tenofovir based PrEP in the ageing population

Co-prescription of opioids with benzodiazepine and other co-medications among opioid users: differential in opioid doses

Purpose: This study investigated the patterns of opioid co-prescription with benzodiazepine and other concomitant medications among opioid users. Opioid dose in each type of co-prescription was also examined. Patients and methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted among opioid users receiving concomitant medications at an outpatient tertiary hospital setting in Malaysia. Opioid prescriptions (morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone, dihydrocodeine and tramadol) that were co-prescribed with other medications (opioid + benzodiazepines, opioid + antidepressants, opioid + anticonvulsants, opioid + antipsychotics and opioid + hypnotics) dispensed from January 2013 to December 2014 were identified. The number of patients, number of co-prescriptions and the individual mean opioid daily dose in each type of co-prescription were calculated. Results: A total of 276 patients receiving 1059 co-prescription opioids with benzodiazepine and other co-medications were identified during the study period. Of these, 12.3% of patients received co-prescriptions of opioid + benzodiazepine, 19.3% received opioid + anticonvulsant, 6.3% received opioid + antidepressant and 10.9% received other co-prescriptions, including antipsychotics and hypnotics. The individual mean opioid dose was <100 mg/d of morphine equivalents in all types of co-prescriptions, and the dose ranged from 31 to 66 mg/d in the coprescriptions of opioid + benzodiazepine. Conclusion: Among the opioid users receiving concomitant medications, the co-prescriptions of opioid with benzodiazepine were prescribed to 12.3% of patients, and the individual opioid dose in this co-prescription was moderate. Other co-medications were also commonly used, and their opioid doses were within the recommended dose. Future studies are warranted to evaluate the adverse effect and clinical outcomes of the co-medications particularly in long-term opioid users with chronic non-cancer pain

Long-acting inhaled therapy (beta-agonists, anticholinergics and steroids) for COPD: a network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is aimed at relieving symptoms, improving quality of life and preventing or treating exacerbations.Treatment tends to begin with one inhaler, and additional therapies are introduced as necessary. For persistent or worsening symptoms, long-acting inhaled therapies taken once or twice daily are preferred over short-acting inhalers. Several Cochrane reviews have looked at the risks and benefits of specific long-acting inhaled therapies compared with placebo or other treatments. However for patients and clinicians, it is important to understand the merits of these treatments relative to each other, and whether a particular class of inhaled therapies is more beneficial than the others. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of treatment options for patients whose chronic obstructive pulmonary disease cannot be controlled by short-acting therapies alone. The review will not look at combination therapies usually considered later in the course of the disease.As part of this network meta-analysis, we will address the following issues.1. How does long-term efficacy compare between different pharmacological treatments for COPD?2. Are there limitations in the current evidence base that may compromise the conclusions drawn by this network meta-analysis? If so, what are the implications for future research? SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in existing Cochrane reviews by searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). In addition, we ran a comprehensive citation search on the Cochrane Airways Group Register of trials (CAGR) and checked manufacturer websites and reference lists of other reviews. The most recent searches were conducted in September 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel-group RCTs of at least 6 months' duration recruiting people with COPD. Studies were included if they compared any of the following treatments versus any other: long-acting beta2-agonists (LABAs; formoterol, indacaterol, salmeterol); long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMAs; aclidinium, glycopyrronium, tiotropium); inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs; budesonide, fluticasone, mometasone); combination long-acting beta2-agonist (LABA) and inhaled corticosteroid (LABA/ICS) (formoterol/budesonide, formoterol/mometasone, salmeterol/fluticasone); and placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We conducted a network meta-analysis using Markov chain Monte Carlo methods for two efficacy outcomes: St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score and trough forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1). We modelled the relative effectiveness of any two treatments as a function of each treatment relative to the reference treatment (placebo). We assumed that treatment effects were similar within treatment classes (LAMA, LABA, ICS, LABA/ICS). We present estimates of class effects, variability between treatments within each class and individual treatment effects compared with every other.To justify the analyses, we assessed the trials for clinical and methodological transitivity across comparisons. We tested the robustness of our analyses by performing sensitivity analyses for lack of blinding and by considering six- and 12-month data separately. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 71 RCTs randomly assigning 73,062 people with COPD to 184 treatment arms of interest. Trials were similar with regards to methodology, inclusion and exclusion criteria and key baseline characteristics. Participants were more often male, aged in their mid sixties, with FEV1 predicted normal between 40% and 50% and with substantial smoking histories (40+ pack-years). The risk of bias was generally low, although missing information made it hard to judge risk of selection bias and selective outcome reporting. Fixed effects were used for SGRQ analyses, and random effects for Trough FEV1 analyses, based on model fit statistics and deviance information criteria (DIC). SGRQ SGRQ data were available in 42 studies (n = 54,613). At six months, 39 pairwise comparisons were made between 18 treatments in 25 studies (n = 27,024). Combination LABA/ICS was the highest ranked intervention, with a mean improvement over placebo of -3.89 units at six months (95% credible interval (CrI) -4.70 to -2.97) and -3.60 at 12 months (95% CrI -4.63 to -2.34). LAMAs and LABAs were ranked second and third at six months, with mean differences of -2.63 (95% CrI -3.53 to -1.97) and -2.29 (95% CrI -3.18 to -1.53), respectively. Inhaled corticosteroids were ranked fourth (MD -2.00, 95% CrI -3.06 to -0.87). Class differences between LABA, LAMA and ICS were less prominent at 12 months. Indacaterol and aclidinium were ranked somewhat higher than other members of their classes, and formoterol 12 mcg, budesonide 400 mcg and formoterol/mometasone combination were ranked lower within their classes. There was considerable overlap in credible intervals and rankings for both classes and individual treatments. Trough FEV1 Trough FEV1 data were available in 46 studies (n = 47,409). At six months, 41 pairwise comparisons were made between 20 treatments in 31 studies (n = 29,271). As for SGRQ, combination LABA/ICS was the highest ranked class, with a mean improvement over placebo of 133.3 mL at six months (95% CrI 100.6 to 164.0) and slightly less at 12 months (mean difference (MD) 100, 95% CrI 55.5 to 140.1). LAMAs (MD 103.5, 95% CrI 81.8 to 124.9) and LABAs (MD 99.4, 95% CrI 72.0 to 127.8) showed roughly equivalent results at six months, and ICSs were the fourth ranked class (MD 65.4, 95% CrI 33.1 to 96.9). As with SGRQ, initial differences between classes were not so prominent at 12 months. Indacaterol and salmeterol/fluticasone were ranked slightly better than others in their class, and formoterol 12, aclidinium, budesonide and formoterol/budesonide combination were ranked lower within their classes. All credible intervals for individual rankings were wide. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This network meta-analysis compares four different classes of long-acting inhalers for people with COPD who need more than short-acting bronchodilators. Quality of life and lung function were improved most on combination inhalers (LABA and ICS) and least on ICS alone at 6 and at 12 months. Overall LAMA and LABA inhalers had similar effects, particularly at 12 months. The network has demonstrated the benefit of ICS when added to LABA for these outcomes in participants who largely had an FEV1 that was less than 50% predicted, but the additional expense of combination inhalers and any potential for increased adverse events (which has been established by other reviews) require consideration. Our findings are in keeping with current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines

Adherence to antihypertensive or antihyperlipidemic co-medications in diabetes: patterns, predictors, and intervention

Adherence and persistence to chronic preventive medications remain poor in high- and low-middle-income countries, which may lead to poor health outcomes and increased health care costs. Medication adherence refers to whether patients take their medications as prescribed, whereas persistence refers to whether they continue to take the medication. In patients with type 2 diabetes, medication taking is particularly complex because they often need not only antidiabetic medication, but also antihypertensive and antihyperlipidemic co-medications which may give particular adherence and persistence problems. This thesis aims to get more insight in the patterns and factors associated with non-adherence and non-persistence to antihypertensive and antihyperlipidemic medications among patients with type 2 diabetes. These insights were used to develop a targeted and tailored pharmacist-led intervention to improve adherence to antihypertensive medications among these patients. We focused on patient populations in the Netherlands as example of high-income countries and Indonesia as example of low- and middle-income countries. We concluded that both non-modifiable and modifiable factors are relevant for interventions to improve non-adherence and/or non-persistence to cardiometabolic medications. Non-modifiable factors, including the medication involved and the time since medication initiation, are important for targeting interventions. Modifiable factors, including lack of knowledge, motivation and forgetfulness, can be addressed in a tailored intervention. While the extent of pharmacist involvement in patient care may vary between the Netherlands and Indonesia, a targeted and tailored pharmacist-led intervention that is effective and can be integrated into the community pharmacy workflow is needed in both countries

The effects of co-medications on lamotrigine clearance in Japanese children with epilepsy

名古屋大学Nagoya University博士(医学)doctoral thesi

Non-AIDS-related comorbidities in people living with HIV-1 aged 50 years and older: The AGING POSITIVE study.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the profile of non-AIDS-related comorbidities (NARC) in the older HIV-1-infected population and to explore the factors associated with multiple NARC. METHODS: This was a multicentre, cross-sectional study including HIV-1-infected patients aged ≥50 years, who were virologically suppressed and had been on a stable antiretroviral therapy (ART) regimen for at least 6 months. A multiple regression model explored the association between demographic and clinical variables and the number of NARC. RESULTS: Overall, 401 patients were enrolled. The mean age of the patients was 59.3 years and 72.6% were male. The mean duration of HIV-1 infection was 12.0 years and the median exposure to ART was 10.0 years. The mean number of NARC was 2.1, and 34.7% of patients had three or more NARC. Hypercholesterolemia was the most frequent NARC (60.8%), followed by arterial hypertension (39.7%) and chronic depression/anxiety (23.9%). Arterial hypertension and diabetes mellitus were the most frequently treated NARC (95.6% and 92.6% of cases, respectively). The linear regression analysis showed a positive relationship between age and NARC (B=0.032, 95% confidence interval 0.015-0.049; p=0.0003) and between the duration of HIV-1 infection and NARC (B=0.039, 95% confidence interval 0.017-0.059; p=0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: A high prevalence of NARC was found, the most common being metabolic, cardiovascular, and psychological conditions. NARC rates were similar to those reported for the general population, suggesting a larger societal problem beyond HIV infection. A multidisciplinary approach is essential to reduce the burden of complex multi-morbid conditions in the HIV-1-infected population.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

A call to caution when hydroxychloroquine is given to elderly COVID-19 patients.

INTRODUCTION: Hydroxychloroquine use in COVID-19 patients was widespread and uncontrolled until recently. Patients vulnerable to severe COVID-19 are at risk for hydroxychloroquine interactions with comorbidities and co-medications contributing to detrimental, including fatal adverse treatment effects. METHODS: This is a retrospective survey of health conditions and co-medications of COVID-19 patients who were pre-screened for enrolment into a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled hydroxychloroquine multicenter trial. RESULTS: Our survey involved 305 patients (median age 71 (IQR: 59-81) years). The majority of patients (N = 279, 92%) considered for inclusion into the clinical trial were not eligible mainly due to safety concerns caused by health conditions or co-medications. Most common were QT prolonging drugs (N = 188, 62%) and hematologic/hemato-oncologic diseases (N = 39, 13%) which prohibited the administration of hydroxychloroquine in our clinical trial. Additionally, 165 (54%) patients had health conditions and 167 (55%) were on co-medications that did not prohibit hydroxychloroquine treatment but had a risk of adverse interactions with hydroxychloroquine. Most common were diabetes (N = 86, 28%), renal insufficiency (N = 69, 23%) and heart failure (N = 58, 19%). CONCLUSION: The majority of hospitalized COVID-19 patients had health conditions or took co-medications precluding safe treatment with hydroxychloroquine. Therefore, especially in elderly, hydroxychloroquine should be administered with extreme caution and only in clinical trials

Intravenous magnesium sulfate for treating adults with acute asthma in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Asthma is a chronic respiratory condition characterised by airways inflammation, constriction of airway smooth muscle and structural alteration of the airways that is at least partially reversible. Exacerbations of asthma can be life threatening and place a significant burden on healthcare services. Various guidelines have been published to inform management personnel in the acute setting; several include the use of a single bolus of intravenous magnesium sulfate (IV MgSO4) in cases that do not respond to first-line treatment. However, the effectiveness of this approach remains unclear, particularly in less severe cases. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of IV MgSO4 in adults treated for acute asthma in the emergency department. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials from the Cochrane Airways Review Group Specialised Register (CAGR) up to 2 May 2014. We also searched www.ClinicalTrials.gov and reference lists of other reviews, and we contacted trial authors to ask for additional information. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adults treated in the emergency department (ED) for exacerbations of asthma if they compared any dose of IV MgSO4 with placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors screened titles and abstracts for inclusion, and at least two review authors independently extracted study characteristics, risk of bias and numerical data. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, and we contacted trial investigators to obtain missing information.We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios using study participants as the unit of analysis, and we analysed continuous data as mean differences or standardised mean differences using fixed-effect models. We rated all outcomes using GRADE and presented results in Summary of findings table 1.We carried out subgroup analyses on the primary outcome for baseline severity of exacerbations and whether or not ipratropium bromide was given as a co-medication. Unpublished data and studies at high risk of bias for blinding were removed from the main analysis in sensitivity analyses. MAIN RESULTS: Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, randomly assigning 2313 people with acute asthma to the comparisons of interest in this review.Most studies were double-blinded trials comparing a single infusion of 1.2 g or 2 g IV MgSO4 over 15 to 30 minutes versus a matching placebo. Eleven were conducted at a single centre, and three were multi-centre trials. Participants in almost all of the studies had already been given at least oxygen, nebulised short-acting beta2-agonists and IV corticosteroids in the ED; in some studies, investigators also administered ipratropium bromide. Ten studies included only adults, and four included both adults and children; these were included because the mean age of participants was over 18 years.Intravenous MgSO4 reduced hospital admissions compared with placebo (odds ratio (OR) 0.75, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.92; I(2) = 28%, P value 0.18; n = 972; high-quality evidence). In absolute terms, this odds ratio translates into a reduction of seven hospital admissions for every 100 adults treated with IV MgSO4 (95% CI two to 13 fewer). The test for subgroup differences revealed no statistical heterogeneity between the three severity subgroups (I(2) = 0%, P value 0.73) or between the four studies that administered nebulised ipratropium bromide as a co-medication and those that did not (I(2) = 0%, P value 0.82). Sensitivity analyses in which unpublished data and studies at high risk for blinding were removed from the primary analysis did not change conclusions.Within the secondary outcomes, high- and moderate-quality evidence across three spirometric indices suggests some improvement in lung function with IV MgSO4. No difference was found between IV MgSO4and placebo for most of the non-spirometric secondary outcomes, all of which were rated as low or moderate quality (intensive care admissions, ED treatment duration, length of hospital stay, readmission, respiration rate, systolic blood pressure).Adverse events were inconsistently reported and were not meta-analysed. The most commonly cited adverse events in the IV MgSO4 groups were flushing, fatigue, nausea and headache and hypotension (low blood pressure). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence that a single infusion of 1.2 g or 2 g IV MgSO4 over 15 to 30 minutes reduces hospital admissions and improves lung function in adults with acute asthma who have not responded sufficiently to oxygen, nebulised short-acting beta2-agonists and IV corticosteroids. Differences in the ways the trials were conducted made it difficult for the review authors to assess whether severity of the exacerbation or additional co-medications altered the treatment effect of IV MgSO4. Limited evidence was found for other measures of benefit and safety.Studies conducted in these populations should clearly define baseline severity parameters and systematically record adverse events. Studies recruiting participants with exacerbations of varying severity should consider subgrouping results on the basis of accepted severity classifications