Multimorbidity: A complex reality in primary health care

The focus of primary health care (PHC) in developed countries is now largely centred on the treatment and management of long-term or chronic diseases. Due to shared risk factors and interaction among diseases, chronic conditions are increasingly occurring in clusters.1 In Canada, more than 50% of adults aged 65 years and older report having at least two chronic diseases.2 The co-occurrence of multiple chronic diseases in an individual, or multimorbidity, is also understood to be the norm rather than the exception in PHC.3 Multimorbidity is associated with reduced quality of life, limited functional status, polypharmacy, increased mortality, and high health care costs.3 Deemed an “endless struggle” by PHC providers, multimorbidity is becoming more prevalent in younger patients and is no longer confined to elderly populations. 1,4 This phenomenon is pushing PHC providers and researchers alike to understand its multifaceted nature. A better understanding of the etiology behind multimorbidity can lead to a transformed clinical approach that will, in turn, be cost-saving in the long-run. To achieve this, three main components are necessary

Canadian guidelines for clinical practice: an analysis of their quality and relevance to the care of adults with comorbidity

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinical guidelines have been the subject of much criticism in primary care literature partly due to potential conflicts in their implementation among patients with multiple chronic conditions. We assessed the relevance of selected Canadian clinical guidelines on chronic diseases for patients with comorbidity and examined their quality.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We selected 16 chronic medical conditions according to their frequency of occurrence, complexity of treatment, and pertinence to primary care. Recent Canadian clinical guidelines (2004 - 2009) on these conditions, published in English or French, were retrieved. We assessed guideline relevance to the care of patients with comorbidity with a tool developed by Boyd and colleagues. Quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Regarding relevance, 56.2% of guidelines addressed treatment for patients with multiple chronic conditions and 18.8% addressed the issue for older patients. Fifteen guidelines (93.8%) included specific recommendations for patients with one concurrent condition; only three guidelines (18.8%) addressed specific recommendations for patients with two comorbid conditions and one for more than two concurrent comorbid conditions. Quality of the evaluated guidelines was good to very good in four out of the six domains measured using the AGREE instrument. The domains with lower mean scores were Stakeholder Involvement and Applicability.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The quality of the Canadian guidelines examined is generally good, yet their relevance for patients with two or more chronic conditions is very limited and there is room for improvement in this respect.</p

Fabriques du cinéma expérimental

International audienc

Princípios de acaso e diversão : uma conversa com Martin Arnold

International audienc

MRI versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women with familial risk (FaMRIsc): a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

Background: Approximately 15% of all breast cancers occur in women with a family history of breast cancer, but for whom no causative hereditary gene mutation has been found. Screening guidelines for women with familial risk of breast cancer differ between countries. We did a randomised controlled trial (FaMRIsc) to compare MRI screening with mammography in women with familial risk. Methods: In this multicentre, randomised, controlled trial done in 12 hospitals in the Netherlands, women were eligible to participate if they were aged 30–55 years and had a cumulative lifetime breast cancer risk of at least 20% because of a familial predisposition, but were BRCA1, BRCA2, and TP53 wild-type. Participants who were breast-feeding, pregnant, had a previous breast cancer screen, or had a previous a diagnosis of ductal carcinoma in situ were eligible, but those with a previously diagnosed invasive carcinoma were excluded. Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to receive either annual MRI and clinical breast examination plus biennial mammography (MRI group) or annual mammography and clinical breast examination (mammography group). Randomisation was done via a web-based system and stratified by centre. Women who did not provide consent for randomisation could give consent for registration if they followed either the mammography group protocol or the MRI group protocol in a joint decision with their physician. Results from the registration group were only used in the analyses stratified by breast density. Primary outcomes were number, size, and nodal status of detected breast cancers. Analyses were done by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NL2661. Findings: Between Jan 1, 2011, and Dec 31, 2017, 1355 women provided consent for randomisation and 231 for registration. 675 of 1355 women were randomly allocated to the MRI group and 680 to the mammography group. 218 of 231 women opting to be in a registration group were in the mammography registration group and 13 were in the MRI registration group. The mean number of screening rounds per woman was 4·3 (SD 1·76). More breast cancers were detected in the MRI group than in the mammography group (40 vs 15; p=0·0017). Invasive cancers (24 in the MRI group and eight in the mammography group) were smaller in the MRI group than in the mammography group (median size 9 mm [5–14] vs 17 mm [13–22]; p=0·010) and less frequently node positive (four [17%] of 24 vs five [63%] of eight; p=0·023). Tumour stages of the cancers detected at incident rounds were significantly earlier in the MRI group (12 [48%] of 25 in the MRI group vs one [7%] of 15 in the mammography group were stage T1a and T1b cancers; one (4%) of 25 in the MRI group and two (13%) of 15 in the mammography group were stage T2 or higher; p=0·035) and node-positive tumours were less frequent (two [11%] of 18 in the MRI group vs five [63%] of eight in the mammography group; p=0·014). All seven tumours stage T2 or higher were in the two highest breast density categories (breast imaging reporting and data system categories C and D; p=0·0077) One patient died from breast cancer during follow-up (mammography registration group). Interpretation: MRI screening detected cancers at an earlier stage than mammography. The lower number of late-stage cancers identified in incident rounds might reduce the use of adjuvant chemotherapy and decrease breast cancer-related mortality. However, the advantages of the MRI screening approach might be at the cost of more false-positive results, especially at high breast density. Funding: Dutch Government ZonMw, Dutch Cancer Society, A Sister's Hope, Pink Ribbon, Stichting Coolsingel, J&T Rijke Stichting