Beyond the Evidence of the New Hypertension Guidelines. Blood pressure measurement – is it good enough for accurate diagnosis of hypertension? Time might be in, for a paradigm shift (I)

Despite widespread availability of a large body of evidence in the area of hypertension, the translation of that evidence into viable recommendations aimed at improving the quality of health care is very difficult, sometimes to the point of questionable acceptability and overall credibility of the guidelines advocating those recommendations. The scientific community world-wide and especially professionals interested in the topic of hypertension are witnessing currently an unprecedented debate over the issue of appropriateness of using different drugs/drug classes for the treatment of hypertension. An endless supply of recent and less recent "drug-news", some in support of, others against the current guidelines, justifying the use of selected types of drug treatment or criticising other, are coming out in the scientific literature on an almost weekly basis. The latest of such debate (at the time of writing this paper) pertains the safety profile of ARBs vs ACE inhibitors. To great extent, the factual situation has been fuelled by the new hypertension guidelines (different for USA, Europe, New Zeeland and UK) through, apparently small inconsistencies and conflicting messages, that might have generated substantial and perpetuating confusion among both prescribing physicians and their patients, regardless of their country of origin. The overwhelming message conveyed by most guidelines and opinion leaders is the widespread use of diuretics as first-line agents in all patients with blood pressure above a certain cut-off level and the increasingly aggressive approach towards diagnosis and treatment of hypertension. This, apparently well-justified, logical and easily comprehensible message is unfortunately miss-obeyed by most physicians, on both parts of the Atlantic. Amazingly, the message assumes a universal simplicity of both diagnosis and treatment of hypertension, while ignoring several hypertension-specific variables, commonly known to have high level of complexity, such as: - accuracy of recorded blood pressure and the great inter-observer variability, - diversity in the competency and training of diagnosing physician, - individual patient/disease profile with highly subjective preferences, - difficulty in reaching consensus among opinion leaders, - pharmaceutical industry's influence, and, nonetheless, - the large variability in the efficacy and safety of the antihypertensive drugs. The present 2-series article attempts to identify and review possible causes that might have, at least in part, generated the current healthcare anachronism (I); to highlight the current trend to account for the uncertainties related to the fixed blood pressure cut-off point and the possible solutions to improve accuracy of diagnosis and treatment of hypertension (II)

General practitioners' conceptions about treatment of depression and factors that may influence their practice in this area. A postal survey

BACKGROUND: The way GPs work does not appear to be adapted to the needs of depressive patients. Therefore we wanted to examine Swedish GPs' conceptions of depressive disorders and their treatment and GPs' ideas of factors that may influence their manner of work with depressive patients. METHODS: A postal questionnaire to a stratified sample of 617 Swedish GPs. RESULTS: Most respondents assumed antidepressive drugs effective and did not assume that psychotherapy can replace drugs in depression treatment though many of them looked at psychotherapy as an essential complement. Nearly all respondents thought that clinical experiences had great importance in decision situations, but patients' own preferences and official clinical guidelines were also regarded as essential. As influences on their work, almost all surveyed GPs regarded experiences from general practice very important, and a majority also emphasised experiences from private life. Courses arranged by pharmaceutical companies were seen as essential sources of knowledge. A majority thought that psychiatrists did not provide sufficient help, while most respondents perceived they were well backed up by colleagues. CONCLUSION: GPs tend to emphasize experiences, both from clinical work and private life, and overlook influences of collegial dealings and ongoing CME as well as the effects of the pharmaceutical companies' marketing activities. Many GPs appear to need more evidence based knowledge about depressive disorders. Interventions to improve depression management have to be supporting and interactive, and should be combined with organisational reforms to improve co-operation with psychiatrists

Primary prevention of secondary disorders: A proposal and agenda

This paper calls for consideration of a new class of preventive interventions designed explicitly to prevent comorbidity of psychiatric disorders. Epidemiologic data show that successful interventions of this type could be extremely valuable, as up to half of lifetime psychiatric disorders and an even larger percent of chronic and seriously impairing disorders occur to people with a prior history of some other disorder. Furthermore, a review of etiologic hypotheses concerning the causes of comorbidity suggests that interventions aimed at primary prevention of secondary disorders might be feasible. However, more basic risk factor research is needed on the causes of comorbidity before we can make a clear assessment of feasibility and discover promising intervention targets. A number of methodological problems arise in carrying out this type of formative research. These problems are reviewed and suggestions are offered for solutions involving innovations in measurement, design, and data analysis.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/44044/1/10464_2004_Article_BF00942174.pd

Forecasting drug utilization and expenditure in a metropolitan health region

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>New pharmacological therapies are challenging the healthcare systems, and there is an increasing need to assess their therapeutic value in relation to existing alternatives as well as their potential budget impact. Consequently, new models to introduce drugs in healthcare are urgently needed. In the metropolitan health region of Stockholm, Sweden, a model has been developed including early warning (horizon scanning), forecasting of drug utilization and expenditure, critical drug evaluation as well as structured programs for the introduction and follow-up of new drugs. The aim of this paper is to present the forecasting model and the predicted growth in all therapeutic areas in 2010 and 2011.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Linear regression analysis was applied to aggregate sales data on hospital sales and dispensed drugs in ambulatory care, including both reimbursed expenditure and patient co-payment. The linear regression was applied on each pharmacological group based on four observations 2006-2009, and the crude predictions estimated for the coming two years 2010-2011. The crude predictions were then adjusted for factors likely to increase or decrease future utilization and expenditure, such as patent expiries, new drugs to be launched or new guidelines from national bodies or the regional Drug and Therapeutics Committee. The assessment included a close collaboration with clinical, clinical pharmacological and pharmaceutical experts from the regional Drug and Therapeutics Committee.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The annual increase in total expenditure for prescription and hospital drugs was predicted to be 2.0% in 2010 and 4.0% in 2011. Expenditures will increase in most therapeutic areas, but most predominantly for antineoplastic and immune modulating agents as well as drugs for the nervous system, infectious diseases, and blood and blood-forming organs.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The utilisation and expenditure of drugs is difficult to forecast due to uncertainties about the rate of adoption of new medicines and various ongoing healthcare reforms and activities to improve the quality and efficiency of prescribing. Nevertheless, we believe our model will be valuable as an early warning system to start developing guidance for new drugs including systems to monitor their effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness in clinical practice.</p

Evolutionary Psychology and Mental Health

AN EVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE revolutionized our understanding of behavior over a generation ago, but most mental health clinicians and researchers still view evolution as an interesting or even threatening alternative, instead of recognizing it as an essential basic science for understanding mental disorders. Many factors explain this lag in incorporating new knowledge, but the most important may be the clinician’s pragmatic focus on finding ways to help people now. Evolutionary researchers have not found a new treatment for a single mental disorder, so why should mental health clinicians and researchers care about evolutionary psychology (EP)? This chapter attempts to answer that question. The greatest value of an evolutionary approach is not some specific find- ing or new therapy, but is instead the framework it provides for uniting all aspects of a biopsychosocial model. Perhaps equally valuable is the deeper empathy fostered by an evolutionary perspective on life’s vicissitudes. An evolutionary perspective does not compete with other theories that try to explain why some people have mental disorders and others do not. Instead, it asks a fundamentally differ- ent question: Why has natural selection left all humans so vulnerable to mental disorders? At first, the question seems senseless. Natural selection shapes mecha- nisms that work, so how can it help us understand why the mind fails? It is also difficult to see how it is useful to know why we are vulnerable. Who cares why all humans are vulnerable to depression, when the goal is to help the individual who is depressed here and now? Surmounting these conceptual hurdles is a challenge that requires time and effort. Researchers and clinicians will make the effort when they know what evolution offers to the understanding of mental disorders.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145726/1/Nesse - 2015 - Evolutionary Psychology and Mental Health.pdfDescription of Nesse - 2015 - Evolutionary Psychology and Mental Health.pdf : Chapte

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome