No Added Value of Duloxetine in Patients With Chronic Pain due to Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis:A Cluster-Randomized Trial

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of duloxetine in addition to usual care in patients with chronic osteoarthritis (OA) pain. The cost‐effectiveness and whether the presence of symptoms of centralized pain alters the response to duloxetine were secondary objectives. METHODS: We conducted an open‐label, cluster‐randomized trial. Patients with chronic hip or knee OA pain who had an insufficient response to acetaminophen and nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs were included. Randomization took place at the general practice level, and patients received duloxetine (60 mg/day) in addition to usual care or usual care alone. The presence of centralized pain was defined as a modified PainDETECT Questionnaire score >12. The primary outcome measure was Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) pain scores (scale 0–20) at 3 months after the initiation of treatment. Our aim was to detect a difference between the groups of a clinically relevant effect of 1.9 points (effect size 0.4). We used a linear mixed model with repeated measurements to analyze the data. RESULTS: In total, 133 patients were included, and 132 patients were randomized into treatment groups. A total of 66 patients (at 31 practices) were randomized to receive duloxetine in addition to usual care, and 66 patients (at 35 practices) were randomized to receive usual care alone. We found no differences in WOMAC pain scores between the groups at 3 months (adjusted difference –0.58 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) –1.80, 0.63]) or at 12 months (adjusted difference –0.26 [95% CI –1.86, 1.34]). In the subgroup of patients with centralized pain symptoms, we also found no effect of duloxetine compared to usual care alone (adjusted difference –0.32 [95% CI –2.32, 1.67]). CONCLUSION: We found no effect of duloxetine added to usual care compared to usual care alone in patients with chronic knee or hip OA pain. Another trial including patients with centralized pain symptoms should be conducted to validate our results

Changes in the Diagnosis of Stroke and Cardiovascular Conditions in Primary Care During First 2 COVID-19 Waves in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although there is evidence of disruption in acute cerebrovascular and cardiovascular care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, its downstream effect in primary care is less clear. We investigated how the pandemic affected utilization of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular care in general practices (GPs) and determined changes in GP-recorded diagnoses of selected cerebrovascular and cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: From electronic health records of 166,929 primary care patients aged 30 or over within the Rotterdam region, the Netherlands, we extracted the number of consultations related to cerebrovascular and cardiovascular care, and first diagnoses of selected cerebrovascular and cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes, lipid disorders), conditions, and events (angina, atrial fibrillation, TIA, myocardial infarction, stroke). We quantified changes in those outcomes during the first COVID-19 wave (March–May 2020) and thereafter (June–December 2020) by comparing them to the same period in 2016–2019. We also estimated the number of potentially missed diagnoses for each outcome. RESULTS: The number of GP consultations related to cerebrovascular and cardiovascular care declined by 38% (0.62, 95% confidence interval 0.56–0.68) during the first wave, as compared to expected counts based on prepandemic levels. Substantial declines in the number of new diagnoses were observed for cerebrovascular events: 37% for TIA (0.63, 0.41–0.96) and 29% for stroke (0.71, 0.59–0.84), while no significant changes were observed for cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction [0.91, 0.74–1.14], angina [0.77, 0.48–1.25]). The counts across individual diagnoses recovered following June 2020, but the number of GP consultations related to cerebrovascular and cardiovascular care remained lower than expected throughout the June to December period (0.93, 0.88–0.98). DISCUSSION: While new diagnoses of acute cardiovascular events remained stable during the COVID-19 pandemic, diagnoses of cerebrovascular events declined substantially compared to prepandemic levels, possibly due to incorrect perception of risk by patients. These findings emphasize the need to improve symptom recognition of cerebrovascular events among the general public and to encourage urgent presentation despite any physical distancing measures

Demographic characteristics and quality of life of patients with unexplained complaints: a descriptive study in general practice

OBJECTIVE: About 13% of GPs' consultations involve unexplained complaints (UCs). These complaints can progress to chronic conditions like medically unexplained symptoms, chronic functional symptoms or somatoform disorders. Little is known about the demographic characteristics and quality of life of patients with early stage UCs. Our study objective was to describe these characteristics. Additionally we compared them with other patient groups to serve as a frame of reference. METHODS: Descriptive study in general practices. Patients with early stage UCs who had not had elaborate diagnostic investigations were included. Demographic characteristics were compared to a Dutch general practice population. Quality of life scores were measured with the RAND-36 and compared to another Dutch general practice population and to depressed patients. RESULTS: Data of 466 patients were available for analysis. Mean age was 44 years and 74% were females, mostly higher educated. Of the patients, 63% presented with unexplained fatigue. On average, quality of life was poor (mean RAND-36 domain scores 37-73), also in comparison with other groups. CONCLUSION: General practice patients presenting with UCs have a remarkably poor quality of life. Future research should explore how early identification of patients at risk of developing chronicity can take place. Awareness of potential poor quality of life may influence GPs' medical decision makin

Dizziness reported by elderly patients in family practice: prevalence, incidence, and clinical characteristics

Background: Although dizziness in elderly patients is very common in family practice, most prevalence studies on dizziness are community-based and include a study population that is not representative of family practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence and incidence of dizziness reported by elderly patients in family practice, to describe their final diagnoses as recorded by the family physician, and to compare the clinical characteristics of dizzy patients with those of non-dizzy patients. Methods: Data were obtained from the Second Dutch National Survey of General Practice, a prospective registration study which took place over a 12-month period in 2001. We developed a search strategy consisting of 15 truncated search terms (based on Dutch synonyms for dizziness), and identified all patients aged 65 or older who visited their family physician because of dizziness (N=3,990). We used the mid-time population as denominator to calculate the prevalence and incidence, and for group comparisons we used the Student's t and Chi-square test, and logistic regression analysis. Results: The one-year prevalence of dizziness in family practice in patients aged 65 or older was 8.3%, it was higher in women than in men, and it increased with age. In patients aged 85 or older the prevalence was similar for men and women. The incidence of dizziness was 47.1 per 1000 person-years. For 39% of the dizzy patients the family physicians did not specify a diagnosis, and recorded a symptom diagnosis as the final diagnosis. Living alone, lower level of education, pre-existing cerebrovascular disease, and pre-existing hypertension were independently associated with dizziness. Conclusions: Dizziness in family practice patients increases with age. It is more common in women than in men, but this gender difference disappears in the very old. Because a large proportion of dizzy elderly patients in family practice remains undiagnosed, it would be worthwhile to carry out more diagnostic research on dizziness in a family practice setting

Defining frequent attendance in general practice

Background: General practitioners (GPs) or researchers sometimes need to identify frequent attenders (FAs) in order to screen them for unidentified problems and to test specific interventions. We wanted to assess different methods for selecting FAs to identify the most feasible and effective one for use in a general (group) practice. Methods: In the second Dutch National Survey of General Practice, data were collected on 375 899 persons registered with 104 practices. Frequent attendance is defined as the top 3% and 10% of enlisted patients in each one-year age-sex group measured during the study year. We used these two selections as our reference standard. We also selected the top 3% and 10% FAs (90 and 97 percentile) based on four selection methods of diminishing preciseness. We compared the test characteristics of these four methods. Results: Of all enlisted patients, 24 % did not consult the practice during the study year. The mean number of contacts in the top 10% FAs increased in men from 5.8 (age 15-24 years) to 17.5 (age 64-75 years) and in women from 9.7 to 19.8. In the top 3% of FAs, contacts increased in men from 9.2 to 24.5 and in women from 14 to 27.8. The selection of FAs becomes more precise when smaller age classes are used. All selection methods show acceptable results (kappa 0.849 - 0.942) except the three group method. Conclusion: To correctly identify frequent attenders in general practice, we recommend dividing patients into at least three age groups per se

Optimizing the diagnostic work-up of acute uncomplicated urinary tract infections

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Most diagnostic tests for acute uncomplicated urinary tract infections (UTIs) have been previously studied in so-called single-test evaluations. In practice, however, clinicians use more than one test in the diagnostic work-up. Since test results carry overlapping information, results from single-test studies may be confounded. The primary objective of the Amsterdam Cystitis/Urinary Tract Infection Study (ACUTIS) is to determine the (additional) diagnostic value of relevant tests from patient history and laboratory investigations, taking into account their mutual dependencies. Consequently, after suitable validation, an easy to use, multivariable diagnostic rule (clinical index) will be derived.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Women who contact their GP with painful and/or frequent micturition undergo a series of possibly relevant tests, consisting of patient history questions and laboratory investigations. Using urine culture as the reference standard, two multivariable models (diagnostic indices) will be generated: a model which assumes that patients attend the GP surgery and a model based on telephone contact only. Models will be made more robust using the bootstrap. Discrimination will be visualized in high resolution histograms of the posterior UTI probabilities and summarized as 5^th, 10^th, 25^th50^th, 75^th, 90^th, and 95^thcentiles of these, Brier score and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC) with 95% confidence intervals. Using the regression coefficients of the independent diagnostic indicators, a diagnostic rule will be derived, consisting of an efficient set of tests and their diagnostic values.</p> <p>The course of the presenting complaints is studied using 7-day patient diaries. To learn more about the natural history of UTIs, patients will be offered the opportunity to postpone the use of antibiotics.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>We expect that our diagnostic rule will allow efficient diagnosis of UTIs, necessitating the collection of diagnostic indicators with proven added value. GPs may use the rule (preferably after suitable validation) to estimate UTI probabilities for women with different combinations of test results. Finally, in a subcohort, an attempt is made to identify which indicators (including antibiotic treatment) are useful to prognosticate recovery from painful and/or frequent micturition.</p

Development of a diagnostic protocol for dizziness in elderly patients in general practice: a Delphi procedure

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Dizziness in general practice is very common, especially in elderly patients. The empirical evidence for diagnostic tests in the evaluation of dizziness is scarce. Aim of our study was to determine which set of diagnostic tests should be part of a diagnostic protocol for evaluating dizziness in elderly patients in general practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a Delphi procedure with a panel of 16 national and international experts of all relevant medical specialities in the field of dizziness. A selection of 36 diagnostic tests, based on a systematic review and practice guidelines, was presented to the panel. Each test was described extensively, and data on test characteristics and methodological quality (assessed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies, QUADAS) were presented. The threshold for in- or exclusion of a diagnostic test was set at an agreement of 70%.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>During three rounds 21 diagnostic tests were selected, concerning patient history (4 items), physical examination (11 items), and additional tests (6 items). Five tests were excluded, although they are recommended by existing practice guidelines on dizziness. Two tests were included, although several practice guidelines question their diagnostic value. Two more tests were included that have never been recommended by practice guidelines on dizziness.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In this study we successfully combined empirical evidence with expert opinion for the development of a set of diagnostic tests for evaluating dizziness in elderly patients. This comprehensive set of tests will be evaluated in a cross-sectional diagnostic study.</p

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570