Agreement in dry eye management between optometrists and general practitioners in primary health care in the Netherlands

The final publication is available at Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clae.2015.03.005 © 2015. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Purpose: To investigate the agreement in dry eye care management between general practitioners (GPs) and optometrists in the Netherlands. Methods: A web-based survey was used to investigate the agreement in symptoms associated with dry eye, causes of developing dry eye, and investigative techniques used in practice, between GPs and optometrists. Additional questions surveyed knowledge of the latest research, and co-management of dry eye disease in primary healthcare. The anonymised questionnaire contained 16 forced-choice questions with Likert scales, and was sent to 1471 general medical practitioners and 870 registered optometrists. The response data was stored on an online database, and was converted directly to text format for analysis using SPSS 21 statistical analysis software. Results: 138 optometrists and 93 GPs responded to the survey (Cronbach α = 0.885, optometrists, and 0.833, GPs). Almost no agreement was found for all the questions: a statistically significant difference (Chi-square p 0.0001), and dry eye symptoms, except for ‘burning sensation of the eye’ and ‘irritation of the eye’ as agreed symptoms, and agreement that dry eye is an age-related disease. Conclusions: As the optometrist and the GP are the gatekeepers for secondary healthcare, the fundamental differences in the methods of investigation and interpretation of dry eye-related symptoms, the possible cause of developing dry eye disease, and the therapy given by GPs and optometrists in the Netherlands, may have a significant impact on consistency of patient care.The authors extend their appreciation to the University of Applied Sciences Utrecht for funding this researc

Teaching students to evaluate sources: getting back to basics

Video of conference presentation available from: [LINK]https://iu.mediaspace.kaltura.com/media/1_718gp4a8[/LINK]Librarians and instructors regularly see students struggle with evaluating information. Is there a way to teach source evaluation in a one-shot session that leads to better student performance? We’ll present results of our research project, which compared multiple sections of students over two semesters. Some students were taught the CRAAP method, while others learned via the 6 journalistic question words. Was one method retained better than the other? Did student performance on quizzes and final papers differ based on the evaluation method they were taught? This presentation will engage you to think critically about teaching source evaluation in order to improve student learning

Listening to women: experiences of using closed-loop in type 1 diabetes pregnancy

Introduction: Recent high-profile calls have emphasized that women's experiences should be considered in maternity care provisioning. We explored women's experiences of using closed-loop during type 1 diabetes (T1D) pregnancy to inform decision-making about antenatal rollout and guidance and support given to future users. Methods: We interviewed 23 closed-loop participants in the Automated insulin Delivery Among Pregnant women with T1D (AiDAPT) trial after randomization to closed-loop and ∼20 weeks later. Data were analyzed thematically. Results: Women described how closed-loop lessened the physical and mental demands of diabetes management, enabling them to feel more normal and sleep better. By virtue of spending increased time-in-range, women also worried less about risks to their baby and being judged negatively by health care professionals. Most noted that intensive input and support during early pregnancy had been crucial to adjusting to, and developing confidence in, the technology. Women emphasized that attaining pregnancy glucose targets still required ongoing effort from themselves and the health care team. Women described needing education to help them determine when, and how, to intervene and when to allow the closed-loop to operate without interference. All women reported more enjoyable pregnancy experiences as a result of using closed-loop; some also noted being able to remain longer in paid employment. Conclusions: Study findings endorse closed-loop use in T1D pregnancy by highlighting how the technology can facilitate positive pregnancy experiences. To realize fully the benefits of closed-loop, pregnant women would benefit from initial intensive oversight and support together with closed-loop specific education and training. Clinical Trial Registration number: NCT04938557

Baseline representativeness of patients in clinics enrolled in the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial: comparison of trial and non-trial clinics in the same health systems

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic primary care trials aim to test interventions in real world health care settings, but clinics willing and able to participate in trials may not be representative of typical clinics. This analysis compared patients in participating and non-participating clinics from the same health systems at baseline in the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial. METHODS: This observational analysis relied on secondary electronic health record and administrative claims data in 5 of 6 health systems in the PROUD trial. The sample included patients 16-90 years at an eligible primary care visit in the 3 years before randomization. Each system contributed 2 randomized PROUD trial clinics and 4 similarly sized non-trial clinics. We summarized patient characteristics in trial and non-trial clinics in the 2 years before randomization ( baseline ). Using mixed-effect regression models, we compared trial and non-trial clinics on a baseline measure of the primary trial outcome (clinic-level patient-years of opioid use disorder (OUD) treatment, scaled per 10,000 primary care patients seen) and a baseline measure of the secondary trial outcome (patient-level days of acute care utilization among patients with OUD). RESULTS: Patients were generally similar between the 10 trial clinics (n = 248,436) and 20 non-trial clinics (n = 341,130), although trial clinics\u27 patients were slightly younger, more likely to be Hispanic/Latinx, less likely to be white, more likely to have Medicaid/subsidized insurance, and lived in less wealthy neighborhoods. Baseline outcomes did not differ between trial and non-trial clinics: trial clinics had 1.0 more patient-year of OUD treatment per 10,000 patients (95% CI: - 2.9, 5.0) and a 4% higher rate of days of acute care utilization than non-trial clinics (rate ratio: 1.04; 95% CI: 0.76, 1.42). CONCLUSIONS: trial clinics and non-trial clinics were similar regarding most measured patient characteristics, and no differences were observed in baseline measures of trial primary and secondary outcomes. These findings suggest trial clinics were representative of comparably sized clinics within the same health systems. Although results do not reflect generalizability more broadly, this study illustrates an approach to assess representativeness of clinics in future pragmatic primary care trials

Twisting the arm: structural constraints in bicyclic expanded-ring N-heterocyclic carbenes

A series of diaryl, mono-aryl/alkyl and dialkyl mono- and bicyclic expanded-ring N-heterocyclic carbenes (ER-NHCs) have been prepared and their complexation to Au(I) investigated through the structural analysis of fifteen Au(NHC)X and/or [Au(NHC)2]X complexes. The substituted diaryl 7-NHCs are the most sterically encumbered with large buried volume (%VB) values of 40–50% with the less flexible six-membered analogues having %VB values at least 5% smaller. Although the bicyclic systems containing fused 6- and 7-membered rings (6,7-NHCs) are constrained with relatively acute NCN bond angles, they have the largest %VB values of the dialkyl derivatives reported here, a feature related to the fixed conformation of the heterocyclic rings and the compressional effect of a pre-set methyl substituent

Receipt of medications for opioid use disorder among youth engaged in primary care: data from 6 health systems

PURPOSE: Little is known about prevalence and treatment of OUD among youth engaged in primary care (PC). Medications are the recommended treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) for adolescents and young adults (youth). This study describes the prevalence of OUD, the prevalence of medication treatment for OUD, and patient characteristics associated with OUD treatment among youth engaged in PC. METHODS: This cross-sectional study includes youth aged 16-25 years engaged in PC. Eligible patients had ≥ 1 PC visit during fiscal years (FY) 2014-2016 in one of 6 health systems across 6 states. Data from electronic health records and insurance claims were used to identify OUD diagnoses, office-based OUD medication treatment, and patient demographic and clinical characteristics in the FY of the first PC visit during the study period. Descriptive analyses were conducted in all youth, and stratified by age (16-17, 18-21, 22-25 years). RESULTS: Among 303,262 eligible youth, 2131 (0.7%) had a documented OUD diagnosis. The prevalence of OUD increased by ascending age groups. About half of youth with OUD had documented depression or anxiety and one third had co-occurring substance use disorders. Receipt of medication for OUD was lowest among youth 16-17 years old (14%) and highest among those aged 22-25 (39%). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of youth engaged in 6 health systems across 6 states, there was low receipt of medication treatment, and high prevalence of other substance use disorders and mental health disorders. These findings indicate an urgent need to increase medication treatment for OUD and to integrate treatment for other substance use and mental health disorders

Closed-Loop Insulin Delivery during Pregnancy in Women with Type 1 Diabetes.

BACKGROUND: In patients with type 1 diabetes who are not pregnant, closed-loop (automated) insulin delivery can provide better glycemic control than sensor-augmented pump therapy, but data are lacking on the efficacy, safety, and feasibility of closed-loop therapy during pregnancy. METHODS: We performed an open-label, randomized, crossover study comparing overnight closed-loop therapy with sensor-augmented pump therapy, followed by a continuation phase in which the closed-loop system was used day and night. Sixteen pregnant women with type 1 diabetes completed 4 weeks of closed-loop pump therapy (intervention) and sensor-augmented pump therapy (control) in random order. During the continuation phase, 14 of the participants used the closed-loop system day and night until delivery. The primary outcome was the percentage of time that overnight glucose levels were within the target range (63 to 140 mg per deciliter [3.5 to 7.8 mmol per liter]). RESULTS: The percentage of time that overnight glucose levels were in the target range was higher during closed-loop therapy than during control therapy (74.7% vs. 59.5%; absolute difference, 15.2 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 6.1 to 24.2; P=0.002). The overnight mean glucose level was lower during closed-loop therapy than during control therapy (119 vs. 133 mg per deciliter [6.6 vs. 7.4 mmol per liter], P=0.009). There were no significant differences between closed-loop and control therapy in the percentage of time in which glucose levels were below the target range (1.3% and 1.9%, respectively; P=0.28), in insulin doses, or in adverse-event rates. During the continuation phase (up to 14.6 additional weeks, including antenatal hospitalizations, labor, and delivery), glucose levels were in the target range 68.7% of the time; the mean glucose level was 126 mg per deciliter (7.0 mmol per liter). No episodes of severe hypoglycemia requiring third-party assistance occurred during either phase. CONCLUSIONS: Overnight closed-loop therapy resulted in better glucose control than sensor-augmented pump therapy in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. Women receiving day-and-night closed-loop therapy maintained glycemic control during a high proportion of the time in a period that encompassed antenatal hospital admission, labor, and delivery. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN71510001.)

Automated closed-loop insulin delivery for the management of type 1 diabetes during pregnancy: the AiDAPT RCT

Background There are over 2000 pregnancies annually in women with type 1 diabetes in the UK. Despite recent improvements in diabetes technology, most women cannot achieve and maintain the recommended pregnancy glucose targets. Thus, one in two babies experience complications requiring neonatal care unit admission. Recent studies demonstrate that hybrid closed-loop therapy, in which algorithms adjust insulin delivery according to continuous glucose measurements, is effective for managing type 1 diabetes outside of pregnancy, but efficacy during pregnancy is unclear. Objective To examine the clinical efficacy of hybrid closed-loop compared to standard insulin therapy in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. Design A multicentre, parallel-group, open-label, randomised, controlled trial in pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. Setting Nine antenatal diabetes clinics in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Participants Pregnant women with type 1 diabetes and above-target glucose levels, defined as glycated haemoglobin A1c of ≥ 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) in early pregnancy. Interventions A hybrid closed-loop system compared to standard insulin delivery (via insulin pump or multiple daily injections) with continuous glucose monitoring. Outcome measures The primary outcome is the difference between the intervention and control groups in percentage time spent in the pregnancy glucose target range (3.5–7.8 mmol/l) as measured by continuous glucose monitoring from 16 weeks’ gestation until delivery. Secondary outcomes include overnight time in range, time above range (> 7.8 mmol/l), glycated haemoglobin A1c, safety outcomes (diabetic ketoacidosis, severe hypoglycaemia, adverse device events), psychosocial functioning obstetric and neonatal outcomes. Results The percentage of time that maternal glucose levels were within target range was higher with closed-loop than standard insulin therapy: 68.2 ± 10.5 in closed-loop and 55.6 ± 12.5 in the control group (mean‑adjusted difference 10.5 percentage points, 95% confidence interval 7.0 to 14.0; p < 0.001). Results were consistent in secondary outcomes, with less time above range (−10.2%, 95% confidence interval −13.8 to −6.6%; p < 0.001), higher overnight time in range (12.3%, 95% confidence interval 8.3 to 16.2%; p < 0.001) and lower glycated haemoglobin A1c (−0.31%, 95% confidence interval −0.50 to −0.12%; p < 0.002) all favouring closed-loop. The treatment effect was apparent from early pregnancy and consistent across clinical sites, maternal glycated haemoglobin A1c categories and previous insulin regimen. Maternal glucose improvements were achieved with 3.7 kg less gestational weight gain and without additional hypoglycaemia or total daily insulin dose. There were no unanticipated safety problems (six vs. five severe hypoglycaemia cases, one diabetic ketoacidosis per group) and seven device-related adverse events associated with closed-loop. There were no between-group differences in patient-reported outcomes. There was one shoulder dystocia in the closed-loop group and four serious birth injuries, including one neonatal death in the standard care group. Limitations Our results cannot be extrapolated to closed-loop systems with higher glucose targets, and our sample size did not provide definitive data on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Conclusions Hybrid closed-loop therapy significantly improved maternal glycaemia during type 1 diabetes pregnancy. Our results support National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline recommendations that hybrid closed-loop therapy should be offered to all pregnant women with type 1 diabetes. Future work Future trials should examine the effectiveness of hybrid closed-loop started before pregnancy, or as soon as possible after pregnancy confirmation

PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial protocol: a pragmatic, cluster-randomized implementation trial in primary care for opioid use disorder treatment

BACKGROUND: Most people with opioid use disorder (OUD) never receive treatment. Medication treatment of OUD in primary care is recommended as an approach to increase access to care. The PRimary Care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) trial tests whether implementation of a collaborative care model (Massachusetts Model) using a nurse care manager (NCM) to support medication treatment of OUD in primary care increases OUD treatment and improves outcomes. Specifically, it tests whether implementation of collaborative care, compared to usual primary care, increases the number of days of medication for OUD (implementation objective) and reduces acute health care utilization (effectiveness objective). The protocol for the PROUD trial is presented here. METHODS: PROUD is a hybrid type III cluster-randomized implementation trial in six health care systems. The intervention consists of three implementation strategies: salary for a full-time NCM, training and technical assistance for the NCM, and requiring that three primary care providers have DEA waivers to prescribe buprenorphine. Within each health system, two primary care clinics are randomized: one to the intervention and one to Usual Primary Care. The sample includes all patients age 16-90 who visited the randomized primary care clinics from 3 years before to 2 years after randomization (anticipated to be \u3e 170,000). Quantitative data are derived from existing health system administrative data, electronic medical records, and/or health insurance claims ( electronic health records, [EHRs]). Anonymous staff surveys, stakeholder debriefs, and observations from site visits, trainings and technical assistance provide qualitative data to assess barriers and facilitators to implementation. The outcome for the implementation objective (primary outcome) is a clinic-level measure of the number of patient days of medication treatment of OUD over the 2 years post-randomization. The patient-level outcome for the effectiveness objective (secondary outcome) is days of acute care utilization [e.g. urgent care, emergency department (ED) and/or hospitalizations] over 2 years post-randomization among patients with documented OUD prior to randomization. DISCUSSION: The PROUD trial provides information for clinical leaders and policy makers regarding potential benefits for patients and health systems of a collaborative care model for management of OUD in primary care, tested in real-world diverse primary care settings