Why are eligible patients not prescribed aspirin in primary care? A qualitative study indicating measures for improvement

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence-based guidelines, aspirin prescribing for the secondary prevention of stroke is sub-optimal. Little is known about why general practitioners do not prescribe aspirin to indicated patients. We sought to identify and describe factors that lead general practitioners (GPs) not to prescribe aspirin to eligible stroke patients. This was the first stage of a study exploring the need for and means of improving levels of appropriate aspirin prescribing. METHOD: Qualitative interviews with 15 GPs in the West Midlands. RESULTS: Initially, many GPs did not regard their prescribing as difficult or sub-optimal. However on reflection, they gave several reasons that lead to them not prescribing aspirin for eligible patients or being uncertain. These include: difficulties in applying generic guidelines to individuals presenting in consultations, patient resistance to taking aspirin, the prioritisation of other issues in a time constrained consultation and problems in reviewing the medication of existing stroke patients. CONCLUSION: In order to improve levels of appropriate aspirin prescribing, the nature and presentation risk information available to GPs and patients must be improved. GPs need support in assessing the risks and benefits of prescribing for patients with combinations of complicating risk factors, while means of facilitating improved GP-patient dialogue are required to help address patient uncertainty. A decision analysis based support system is one option. Decision analysis could synthesise current evidence and identify risk data for a range of patient profiles commonly presenting in primary care. These data could then be incorporated into a user-friendly computerised decision support system to help facilitate improved GP-patient communication. Measures of optimum prescribing based upon aggregated prescribing data must be interpreted with caution. It is not possible to assess whether low levels of prescribing reflect appropriate or inappropriate use of aspirin in specific patients where concordance between the GP and the patient is practised

Hereditary sensory and autonomic neuropathies: types II, III, and IV

The hereditary sensory and autonomic neuropathies (HSAN) encompass a number of inherited disorders that are associated with sensory dysfunction (depressed reflexes, altered pain and temperature perception) and varying degrees of autonomic dysfunction (gastroesophageal reflux, postural hypotention, excessive sweating). Subsequent to the numerical classification of four distinct forms of HSAN that was proposed by Dyck and Ohta, additional entities continue to be described, so that identification and classification are ongoing. As a group, the HSAN are rare diseases that affect both sexes. HSAN III is almost exclusive to individuals of Eastern European Jewish extraction, with incidence of 1 per 3600 live births. Several hundred cases with HSAN IV have been reported. The worldwide prevalence of HSAN type II is very low. This review focuses on the description of three of the disorders, HSAN II through IV, that are characterized by autosomal recessive inheritance and onset at birth. These three forms of HSAN have been the most intensively studied, especially familial dysautonomia (Riley-Day syndrome or HSAN III), which is often used as a prototype for comparison to the other HSAN. Each HSAN disorder is likely caused by different genetic errors that affect specific aspects of small fiber neurodevelopment, which result in variable phenotypic expression. As genetic tests are routinely used for diagnostic confirmation of HSAN III only, other means of differentiating between the disorders is necessary. Diagnosis is based on the clinical features, the degree of both sensory and autonomic dysfunction, and biochemical evaluations, with pathologic examinations serving to further confirm differences. Treatments for all these disorders are supportive

Three wound-dressing strategies to reduce surgical site infection after abdominal surgery: the Bluebelle feasibility study and pilot RCT

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infection (SSI) affects up to 20% of people with a primary closed wound after surgery. Wound dressings may reduce SSI. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility of a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dressing types or no dressing to reduce SSI in primary surgical wounds. DESIGN: Phase A - semistructured interviews, outcome measure development, practice survey, literature reviews and value-of-information analysis. Phase B - pilot RCT with qualitative research and questionnaire validation. Patients and the public were involved. SETTING: Usual NHS care. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing elective/non-elective abdominal surgery, including caesarean section. INTERVENTIONS: Phase A - none. Phase B - simple dressing, glue-as-a-dressing (tissue adhesive) or 'no dressing'. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Phase A - pilot RCT design; SSI, patient experience and wound management questionnaires; dressing practices; and value-of-information of a RCT. Phase B - participants screened, proportions consented/randomised; acceptability of interventions; adherence; retention; validity and reliability of SSI measure; and cost drivers. DATA SOURCES: Phase A - interviews with patients and health-care professionals (HCPs), narrative data from published RCTs and data about dressing practices. Phase B - participants and HCPs in five hospitals. RESULTS: Phase A - we interviewed 102 participants. HCPs interpreted 'dressing' variably and reported using available products. HCPs suggested practical/clinical reasons for dressing use, acknowledged the weak evidence base and felt that a RCT including a 'no dressing' group was acceptable. A survey showed that 68% of 1769 wounds (727 participants) had simple dressings and 27% had glue-as-a-dressing. Dressings were used similarly in elective and non-elective surgery. The SSI questionnaire was developed from a content analysis of existing SSI tools and interviews, yielding 19 domains and 16 items. A main RCT would be valuable to the NHS at a willingness to pay of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. Phase B - from 4 March 2016 to 30 November 2016, we approached 862 patients for the pilot RCT; 81.1% were eligible, 59.4% consented and 394 were randomised (simple, n = 133; glue, n = 129; no dressing, n = 132); non-adherence was 3 out of 133, 8 out of 129 and 20 out of 132, respectively. SSI occurred in 51 out of 281 participants. We interviewed 55 participants. All dressing strategies were acceptable to stakeholders, with no indication that adherence was problematic. Adherence aids and patients' understanding of their allocated dressing appeared to be key. The SSI questionnaire response rate overall was 67.2%. Items in the SSI questionnaire fitted a single scale, which had good reliability (test-retest and Cronbach's alpha of > 0.7) and diagnostic accuracy (c-statistic = 0.906). The key cost drivers were hospital appointments, dressings and redressings, use of new medicines and primary care appointments. LIMITATIONS: Multiple activities, often in parallel, were challenging to co-ordinate. An amendment took 4 months, restricting recruitment to the pilot RCT. Only 67% of participants completed the SSI questionnaire. We could not implement photography in theatres. CONCLUSIONS: A main RCT of dressing strategies is feasible and would be valuable to the NHS. The SSI questionnaire is sufficiently accurate to be used as the primary outcome. A main trial with three groups (as in the pilot) would be valuable to the NHS, using a primary outcome of SSI at discharge and patient-reported SSI symptoms at 4-8 weeks. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Phase A - Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06792113; Phase B - Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN49328913. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Funding was also provided by the Medical Research Council ConDuCT-II Hub (reference number MR/K025643/1)

Dealing with Time in Health Economic Evaluation: Methodological Issues and Recommendations for Practice

Time is an important aspect of health economic evaluation, as the timing and duration of clinical events, healthcare interventions and their consequences all affect estimated costs and effects. These issues should be reflected in the design of health economic models. This article considers three important aspects of time in modelling: (1) which cohorts to simulate and how far into the future to extend the analysis; (2) the simulation of time, including the difference between discrete-time and continuous-time models, cycle lengths, and converting rates and probabilities; and (3) discounting future costs and effects to their present values. We provide a methodological overview of these issues and make recommendations to help inform both the conduct of cost-effectiveness analyses and the interpretation of their results. For choosing which cohorts to simulate and how many, we suggest analysts carefully assess potential reasons for variation in cost effectiveness between cohorts and the feasibility of subgroup-specific recommendations. For the simulation of time, we recommend using short cycles or continuous-time models to avoid biases and the need for half-cycle corrections, and provide advice on the correct conversion of transition probabilities in state transition models. Finally, for discounting, analysts should not only follow current guidance and report how discounting was conducted, especially in the case of differential discounting, but also seek to develop an understanding of its rationale. Our overall recommendations are that analysts explicitly state and justify their modelling choices regarding time and consider how alternative choices may impact on results