Neue „Choosing wisely“ Empfehlungen zu unangemessenen medizinischen Interventionen: Sicht von Schweizer Hausärzten

Aim: As part of the “Choosing wisely” campaign expert-driven recommendations of inappropriate interventions which lead to overdiagnosis and overtreatment are being published. The aim of our work was to describe an innovative method for developing recommendations together with general practitioners (GPs) and to compare the results with the “Choosing wisely” campaign lists as well as with the Swiss “Smarter medicine” shortlist. Methods: We asked 109 GPs who attended a medical education conference to form groups (of 5 to 7 GPs each) and develop three interventions that are relevant to their work and should be avoided. We then compared the most frequently suggested interventions with those of the “Choosing wisely” campaign list and the “Smarter medicine” campaign shortlist. Finally, we asked the Swiss Young GPs Association (JHaS) members for additional suggestions. Results: Five groups suggested avoidance of check-up examinations, especially in younger or asymptomatic individuals. Further unnecessary interventions, which were mentioned with similar frequency, included resting or exercise electrocardiography in asymptomatic individuals and cholesterol analysis in individuals older than 75 years, or statin therapy in primary prevention and/or high age. Four groups suggested avoiding arthroscopy or magnetic resonance imaging of the knee joint after an injury (in the absence of joint instability or blockade), and three groups recommended to avoid imaging diagnostic procedures in patients with unspecific headache (in the absence of red flags). There was no consistency between interventions of the GPs’ list and the list of the Swiss “Smarter medicine” official campaign. The interventions that were most frequently mentioned by the GPs are also present on the lists issued by are present on lists of medical societies that have joined the “Choosing wisely” campaign. The response rate from the Swiss Young GPs association members was impressively low. Conclusion: The perspective of users (GPs) is crucial for the development of lists of potentially inappropriate interventions. In order to enhance the degree of identification with and adherence to the recommendations. The interventions suggested in our study could lead to further recommendations on interventions to be avoided in primary care, ideally in collaboration with the “Smarter medicine” campaign. Empathic communication with patients about harms and benefits of potentially inappropriate interventions is crucial for the implementation of this policy

Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Primary Care in Switzerland

IMPORTANCE: Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) exposes patients to an increased risk of adverse outcomes. Many lists of explicit criteria provide guidance on identifying PIM and recommend alternative prescribing, but the complexity of available lists limits their applicability and the amount of data available on PIM prescribing. OBJECTIVE: To determine PIM prevalence and the most frequently prescribed PIMs according to 6 well-known PIM lists and to develop a best practice synthesis for clinicians. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This cross-sectional study used anonymized electronic health record data of Swiss primary care patients aged 65 years or older with drug prescriptions from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021, extracted from a large primary care database in Switzerland, the FIRE project. Data analyses took place from October 2022 to September 2023. EXPOSURE: PIM prescription according to PIM criteria operationalized for use with FIRE data. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcomes were PIM prevalence (percentage of patients with 1 or more PIMs) and PIM frequency (percentage of prescriptions identified as PIMs) according to the individual PIM lists and a combination of all 6 lists. The PIM lists used were the American 2019 Updated Beers criteria, the French list by Laroche et al, the Norwegian General Practice Norwegian (NORGEP) criteria, the German PRISCUS list, the Austrian list by Mann et al, and the EU(7) consensus list of 7 European countries. RESULTS: This study included 115 867 patients 65 years or older (mean [SD] age, 76.0 [7.9] years; 55.8% female) with 1 211 227 prescriptions. Among all patients, 86 715 (74.8%) were aged 70 years or older, and 60 670 (52.4%) were aged 75 years or older. PIM prevalence among patients 65 years or older was 31.5% (according to Beers 2019), 15.4% (Laroche), 16.1% (NORGEP), 12.7% (PRISCUS), 31.2% (Mann), 37.1% (EU[7]), and 52.3% (combined list). PIM prevalence increased with age according to every PIM list (eg, according to Beers 2019, from 31.5% at age 65 years or older to 37.4% for those 75 years or older, and when the lists were combined, PIM prevalence increased from 52.3% to 56.7% in those 2 age groups, respectively). PIM frequency was 10.3% (Beers 2019), 3.9% (Laroche), 4.3% (NORGEP), 2.4% (PRISCUS), 6.7% (Mann), 9.7% (EU[7]), and 19.3% (combined list). According to the combined list, the 5 most frequently prescribed PIMs were pantoprazole (9.3% of all PIMs prescribed), ibuprofen (6.9%), diclofenac (6.3%), zolpidem (4.5%), and lorazepam (3.7%). Almost two-thirds (63.5%) of all PIM prescriptions belonged to 5 drug classes: analgesics (26.9% of all PIMs prescribed), proton pump inhibitors (12.1%), benzodiazepines and benzodiazepine-like drugs (11.2%), antidepressants (7.0%), and neuroleptics (6.3%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this cross-sectional study of adults aged 65 or older, PIM prevalence was high, varied considerably depending on the criteria applied, and increased consistently with age. However, only few drug classes accounted for the majority of all prescriptions that were PIM according to any of the 6 PIM lists, and by considering this manageable number of drug classes, clinicians could essentially comply with all 6 PIM lists. These results raise awareness of the most common PIMs and emphasize the need for careful consideration of their risks and benefits and targeted deprescribing

Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Primary Care in Switzerland.

IMPORTANCE Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) exposes patients to an increased risk of adverse outcomes. Many lists of explicit criteria provide guidance on identifying PIM and recommend alternative prescribing, but the complexity of available lists limits their applicability and the amount of data available on PIM prescribing. OBJECTIVE To determine PIM prevalence and the most frequently prescribed PIMs according to 6 well-known PIM lists and to develop a best practice synthesis for clinicians. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cross-sectional study used anonymized electronic health record data of Swiss primary care patients aged 65 years or older with drug prescriptions from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021, extracted from a large primary care database in Switzerland, the FIRE project. Data analyses took place from October 2022 to September 2023. EXPOSURE PIM prescription according to PIM criteria operationalized for use with FIRE data. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcomes were PIM prevalence (percentage of patients with 1 or more PIMs) and PIM frequency (percentage of prescriptions identified as PIMs) according to the individual PIM lists and a combination of all 6 lists. The PIM lists used were the American 2019 Updated Beers criteria, the French list by Laroche et al, the Norwegian General Practice Norwegian (NORGEP) criteria, the German PRISCUS list, the Austrian list by Mann et al, and the EU(7) consensus list of 7 European countries. RESULTS This study included 115 867 patients 65 years or older (mean [SD] age, 76.0 [7.9] years; 55.8% female) with 1 211 227 prescriptions. Among all patients, 86 715 (74.8%) were aged 70 years or older, and 60 670 (52.4%) were aged 75 years or older. PIM prevalence among patients 65 years or older was 31.5% (according to Beers 2019), 15.4% (Laroche), 16.1% (NORGEP), 12.7% (PRISCUS), 31.2% (Mann), 37.1% (EU[7]), and 52.3% (combined list). PIM prevalence increased with age according to every PIM list (eg, according to Beers 2019, from 31.5% at age 65 years or older to 37.4% for those 75 years or older, and when the lists were combined, PIM prevalence increased from 52.3% to 56.7% in those 2 age groups, respectively). PIM frequency was 10.3% (Beers 2019), 3.9% (Laroche), 4.3% (NORGEP), 2.4% (PRISCUS), 6.7% (Mann), 9.7% (EU[7]), and 19.3% (combined list). According to the combined list, the 5 most frequently prescribed PIMs were pantoprazole (9.3% of all PIMs prescribed), ibuprofen (6.9%), diclofenac (6.3%), zolpidem (4.5%), and lorazepam (3.7%). Almost two-thirds (63.5%) of all PIM prescriptions belonged to 5 drug classes: analgesics (26.9% of all PIMs prescribed), proton pump inhibitors (12.1%), benzodiazepines and benzodiazepine-like drugs (11.2%), antidepressants (7.0%), and neuroleptics (6.3%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this cross-sectional study of adults aged 65 or older, PIM prevalence was high, varied considerably depending on the criteria applied, and increased consistently with age. However, only few drug classes accounted for the majority of all prescriptions that were PIM according to any of the 6 PIM lists, and by considering this manageable number of drug classes, clinicians could essentially comply with all 6 PIM lists. These results raise awareness of the most common PIMs and emphasize the need for careful consideration of their risks and benefits and targeted deprescribing

What interventions do general practitioners recommend avoiding? A nationwide survey from Switzerland

Background: To address low-value interventions in healthcare, “Choosing Wisely” campaigns provide recommendations of interventions to avoid (RIAs). These are usually developed by expert panels rather than general practitioners (GPs). The aim of our study was to develop RIAs for ambulatory general medicine based on the suggestions of GPs, with their involvement from the very beginning. Methods: This was a nationwide online Delphi survey among Swiss Society of General Internal Medicine members. In round one, each participant suggested two interventions perceived as particularly inappropriate. In round two, the 16 most frequent RIAs were rated by importance on a 0–100 scale and compared with “Choosing Wisely” lists. We calculated descriptive statistics for suggestions and importance ratings, and used regression models to search for associations with GP characteristics. Results: Response rates were 7.4% (538/7318) for round one and 18.2% (1357/7468) for round two. GPs provided 1074 suggestions. Out of the 16 most frequent RIAs, 13 corresponded to existing “Choosing Wisely” lists. The RIAs rated most important were: antibiotics in viral infections, unnecessarily duplicated tests and imaging in unspecific low back pain (means 88.5–91.7, standard deviations 18.6–19.9). None of the GPs’ characteristics were associated with any of the five highest rated RIAs except for working in a hospital setting. Conclusion: Most RIA suggestions from GPs were concordant with previously published recommendations of interventions to avoid, independently of GPs knowledge of these and reflecting their high clinical relevance. In addition, our study revealed some more relevant topics and may help to develop future “Choosing Wisely” recommendations, with the final goal to reduce low-value care

Impact of a deprescribing tool on the use of sedative hypnotics among older patients: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial in Swiss primary care (the HYPE trial)

INTRODUCTION Benzodiazepines and other sedative hypnotics (BSH) are potentially inappropriate and harmful medications in older people due to their higher susceptibility for adverse drug events. BSH prescription rates are constantly high among elderly patients and even increase with higher age and comorbidity. Deprescribing BSH can be challenging both for healthcare providers and for patients for various reasons. Thus, physicians and patients may benefit from a supportive tool to facilitate BSH deprescribing in primary care consultations. This study intends to explore effectiveness, safety, acceptance and feasibility of such a tool. METHODS AND ANALYSIS In this prospective, cluster randomised, controlled, two-arm, double-blinded trial in the ambulatory primary care setting, we will include general practitioners (GPs) from German-speaking Switzerland and their BSH consuming patients aged 65 years or older, living at home or in nursing homes. GPs will be randomly assigned to either intervention or control group. In the intervention group, GPs will participate in a 1-hour online training on how to use a patient support tool (decision-making guidance plus tapering schedule and non-pharmaceutical alternative treatment suggestions for insomnia). The control group GPs will participate in a 1-hour online instruction about BSH epidemiology and sleep hygiene counselling. This minimal intervention aims to prevent unblinding of control group GPs without jeopardising their 'usual care'.The primary outcome will be the percentage of patients who change their BSH use (ie, stop, reduce or switch to a non-BSH insomnia treatment) within 6 months from the initial consultation. EXPECTED BENEFIT Based on the results of the study, we will learn how GPs and their patients benefit from a supportive tool that facilitates BSH deprescribing in primary care consultations. The study will emphasise on exploring barriers and facilitators to BSH deprescribing among patients and providers. Positive results given, the study will improve medication safety and the quality of care for patients with sleeping disorders. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Canton of Zurich (KEK-ZH Ref no. 2023-00054, 4 April 2023). Informed consent will be sought from all participating GPs and patients. The results of the study will be publicly disseminated

Medication Review and Enhanced Information Transfer at Discharge of Older Patients with Polypharmacy: a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial in Swiss Hospitals

Background: Medication safety in patients with polypharmacy at transitions of care is a focus of the current Third WHO Global Patient Safety Challenge. Medication review and communication between health care professionals are key targets to reduce medication-related harm. Objective: To study whether a hospital discharge intervention combining medication review with enhanced information transfer between hospital and primary care physicians can delay hospital readmission and impact health care utilization or other health-related outcomes of older inpatients with polypharmacy. Design: Cluster-randomized controlled trial in 21 Swiss hospitals between January 2019 and September 2020, with 6 months follow-up. Participants: Sixty-eight senior physicians and their blinded junior physicians included 609 patients ≥ 60 years taking ≥ 5 drugs. Interventions: Participating hospitals were randomized to either integrate a checklist-guided medication review and communication stimulus into their discharge processes, or follow usual discharge routines. Main measures: Primary outcome was time-to-first-readmission to any hospital within 6 months, analyzed using a shared frailty model. Secondary outcomes covered readmission rates, emergency department visits, other medical consultations, mortality, drug numbers, proportions of patients with potentially inappropriate medication, and the patients' quality of life. Key results: At admission, 609 patients (mean age 77.5 (SD 8.6) years, 49.4% female) took a mean of 9.6 (4.2) drugs per patient. Time-to-first-readmission did not differ significantly between study arms (adjusted hazard ratio 1.14 (intervention vs. control arm), 95% CI [0.75-1.71], p = 0.54), nor did the 30-day hospital readmission rates (6.7% [3.3-10.1%] vs. 7.0% [3.6-10.3%]). Overall, there were no clinically relevant differences between study arms at 1, 3, and 6 months after discharge. Conclusions: The combination of a structured medication review with enhanced information transfer neither delayed hospital readmission nor improved other health-related outcomes of older inpatients with polypharmacy. Our results may help researchers in balancing practicality versus stringency of similar hospital discharge interventions. Study registration: ISRCTN18427377, https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN18427377. Keywords: communication; health care quality improvement; hospital medicine; medication safety; primary care