Medication incidents in primary care medicine: protocol of a study by the Swiss Federal Sentinel Reporting System.

BACKGROUND/RATIONALE: Patient safety is a major concern in healthcare systems worldwide. Although most safety research has been conducted in the inpatient setting, evidence indicates that medical errors and adverse events are a threat to patients in the primary care setting as well. Since information about the frequency and outcomes of safety incidents in primary care is required, the goals of this study are to describe the type, frequency, seasonal and regional distribution of medication incidents in primary care in Switzerland and to elucidate possible risk factors for medication incidents. Label="METHODS AND ANALYSIS" ="METHODS"/> <AbstractText STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We will conduct a prospective surveillance study to identify cases of medication incidents among primary care patients in Switzerland over the course of the year 2015. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing drug treatment by 167 general practitioners or paediatricians reporting to the Swiss Federal Sentinel Reporting System. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Any erroneous event, as defined by the physician, related to the medication process and interfering with normal treatment course. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Lack of treatment effect, adverse drug reactions or drug-drug or drug-disease interactions without detectable treatment error. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Medication incidents. RISK FACTORS: Age, gender, polymedication, morbidity, care dependency, hospitalisation. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics to assess type, frequency, seasonal and regional distribution of medication incidents and logistic regression to assess their association with potential risk factors. Estimated sample size: 500 medication incidents. LIMITATIONS: We will take into account under-reporting and selective reporting among others as potential sources of bias or imprecision when interpreting the results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No formal request was necessary because of fully anonymised data. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT0229537

ICE COLD ERIC – International collaborative effort on chronic obstructive lung disease: exacerbation risk index cohorts – Study protocol for an international COPD cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a systemic disease; morbidity and mortality due to COPD are on the increase, and it has great impact on patients' lives. Most COPD patients are managed by general practitioners (GP). Too often, GPs base their initial assessment of patient's disease severity mainly on lung function. However, lung function correlates poorly with COPD-specific health-related quality of life and exacerbation frequency. A validated COPD disease risk index that better represents the clinical manifestations of COPD and is feasible in primary care seems to be useful. The objective of this study is to develop and validate a practical COPD disease risk index that predicts the clinical course of COPD in primary care patients with GOLD stages 2–4.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>We will conduct 2 linked prospective cohort studies with COPD patients from GPs in Switzerland and the Netherlands. We will perform a baseline assessment including detailed patient history, questionnaires, lung function, history of exacerbations, measurement of exercise capacity and blood sampling. During the follow-up of at least 2 years, we will update the patients' profile by registering exacerbations, health-related quality of life and any changes in the use of medication. The primary outcome will be health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be exacerbation frequency and mortality. Using multivariable regression analysis, we will identify the best combination of variables predicting these outcomes over one and two years and, depending on funding, even more years.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Despite the diversity of clinical manifestations and available treatments, assessment and management today do not reflect the multifaceted character of the disease. This is in contrast to preventive cardiology where, nowadays, the treatment in primary care is based on patient-specific and fairly refined cardiovascular risk profile corresponding to differences in prognosis. After completion of this study, we will have a practical COPD-disease risk index that predicts the clinical course of COPD in primary care patients with GOLD stages 2–4. In a second step we will incorporate evidence-based treatment effects into this model, such that the instrument may guide physicians in selecting treatment based on the individual patients' prognosis.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov Archive NCT00706602</p

Where is the supporting evidence for treating mild to moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations with antibiotics? A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Randomised trials comparing different drugs head-to-head are extremely valuable for clinical decision-making. However, it is scientifically and ethically sensible to demand strong evidence that a drug is effective by showing superiority over a placebo before embarking on head-to-head comparisons of potentially ineffective drugs. Our aim was to study the evolvement of evidence from placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials on the effects of antibiotics for the treatment of mild to moderate exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. METHODS: We conducted a historical systematic review. Through electronic databases and hand-searches, we identified placebo-controlled and head-to-head antibiotic trials for the treatment of mild to moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations. We compared the numbers of patients recruited in placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials between 1957 and 2005. Using cumulative meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials, we determined when, if ever, placebo-controlled trials had shown convincing evidence that antibiotics are effective in preventing treatment failure in patients with mild to moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations. RESULTS: The first head-to-head trial was published in 1963. It was followed by another 100 trials comparing different antibiotics in a total of 34,029 patients with mild to moderate chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations. Over time, the cumulative odds ratio in placebo-controlled trials remained inconclusive throughout with odds ratios ranging from 0.39 (95% confidence intervals 0.04-4.22) to the most recent estimate (1995) of 0.81 (95% confidence intervals 0.52-1.28, P = 0.37). CONCLUSION: Placebo-controlled trials do not support the use of antibiotics in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with mild to moderate exacerbations. Conducting head-to-head trials is, therefore, scientifically and ethically questionable. This underscores the requirement to perform or study systematic reviews of placebo-controlled trials before conducting head-to-head trials

Safeguarding in international development research: evidence review

This evidence review, undertaken in March-April 2019 by a team led by Dr David Orr at the University of Sussex, aims to characterise the nature of safeguarding issues and challenges that may arise in the specific context of international development research, identify existing guidance and review its implementation. This rapid review was guided by two overarching questions: 1.What is known about the prevalence and nature of vulnerability, power imbalances, and safeguarding concerns within international development research? 2.How is safeguarding currently addressed within international development research, what is the evidence on how fit for purpose it is, and what models of good practice can be identified? A draft set of principles and best practice guidance, drawn from the findings of this evidence review, are set out in this 10 page briefing paper

Ambient Air Pollution and Dysanapsis: Associations with Lung Function and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in the Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease Study

Rationale: Outdoor air pollution is a potential risk factor for lower lung function and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Little is known about how airway abnormalities and lung growth might modify this relationship. Objectives: To evaluate the associations of ambient air pollution exposure with lung function and COPD and examine possible interactions with dysanapsis. Methods: We made use of cross-sectional postbronchodilator spirometry data from 1,452 individuals enrolled in the CanCOLD (Canadian Cohort Obstructive Lung Disease) study with linked ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) air pollution estimates. Dysanapsis, or the ratio of the airway-to-lung volume calculated from thoracic computed tomography images, was used to examine possible interactions. Measurements and Main Results: In adjusted models, 101.7 ml (95% confidence interval [CI], -166.2 to -37.2) and 115.0 ml (95% CI, -196.5 to -33.4) lower FEV1 were demonstrated per increase of 2.4 ug/m3 PM2.5 and 9.2 ppb NO2, respectively. Interaction between air pollution and dysanapsis was not statistically significant when modeling the airway-to-lung ratio as a continuous variable. However, a 109.8 ml (95% CI, -209.0 to -10.5] lower FEV1 and an 87% (95% CI, 12% to 213%) higher odds of COPD were observed among individuals in the lowest, relative to highest, airway-to-lung ratio, per 2.4 μg/m3 increment of PM2.5. Conclusions: Ambient air pollution exposure was associated with lower lung function, even at relatively low concentrations. Individuals with dysanaptic lung growth might be particularly susceptible to inhaled ambient air pollutants, especially those at the extremes of dysanapsis. Keywords: air quality; chronic airflow obstruction; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; computed tomography; pulmonary function test

Respiratory rehabilitation after acute exacerbation of COPD may reduce risk for readmission and mortality – a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) represent a major burden for patients and health care systems. Respiratory rehabilitation may improve prognosis in these patients by addressing relevant risk factors for exacerbations such as low exercise capacity. To study whether respiratory rehabilitation after acute exacerbation improves prognosis and health status compared to usual care, we quantified its effects using meta-analyses. METHODS: Systematic review of randomized controlled trials identified by searches in six electronic databases, contacts with experts, hand-searches of bibliographies of included studies and conference proceedings. We included randomized trials comparing the effect of respiratory rehabilitation and usual care on hospital admissions, health-related quality of life (HRQL), exercise capacity and mortality in COPD patients after acute exacerbation. Two reviewers independently selected relevant studies, extracted the data and evaluated the study quality. We pooled the results using fixed effects models where statistically significant heterogeneity (p < or = 0.1) was absent. RESULTS: We identified six trials including 230 patients. Respiratory rehabilitation reduced the risk for hospital admissions (pooled relative risk 0.26 [0.12-0.54]) and mortality (0.45 [0.22-0.91]). Weighted mean differences on the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire were 1.37 (95% CI 1.13-1.61) for the fatigue domain, 1.36 (0.94-1.77) for emotional function and 1.88 (1.67-2.09) for mastery. Weighted mean differences for the St. Georges Respiratory Questionnaire total score, impacts and activities domains were -11.1 (95% CI -17.1 to -5.2), -17.1 (95% CI -23.6 to -10.7) and -9.9 (95% CI -18.0 to -1.7). In all trials, rehabilitation improved exercise capacity (64-215 meters in six-minute walk tests and weighted mean difference for shuttle walk test 81 meter, 95% CI 48-115). CONCLUSION: Evidence from six trials suggests that respiratory rehabilitation is effective in COPD patients after acute exacerbation. Larger trials, however, are needed to further investigate the role of respiratory rehabilitation after acute exacerbation and its potential to reduce costs caused by COPD

The effect of pulmonary rehabilitation on mortality, balance, and risk of fall in stable patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review

Objectives: To evaluate the impact of pulmonary rehabilitation on survival and fall (including balance) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) at stability. Design: Systematic Review. Methods: OVID, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Collaboration Library were searched for literature dating from January 1980 up to November 2014 as well as an update in October 2015. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full text records, extracted data and assessed studies for risk of bias; any disagreements were resolved by a third member of the team, and consensus was always sought. Results: Initial searches yielded 3216 records but after review, only 7 studies were included and no studies focused solely on falls. Two cohort studies found some positive benefits of pulmonary rehabilitation on balance but the results were inconsistent across the studies. Regarding survival, two randomised controlled trials were conducted; one study showed significant survival benefit at 1 year while the other one showed non-significant survival benefit at 3 years. Neither were adequately powered and in both, survival was a secondary outcome. Conclusions: There was only limited inconclusive evidence to show that pulmonary rehabilitation has a significant beneficial effect on balance or survival

Combining scores from different patient reported outcome measures in meta-analyses: when is it justified?

BACKGROUND: Combining outcomes and the use of standardized effect measures such as effect size and standardized response mean across instruments allows more comprehensive meta-analyses and should avoid selection bias. However, such analysis ideally requires that the instruments correlate strongly and that the underlying assumption of similar responsiveness is fulfilled. The aim of the study was to assess the correlation between two widely used health-related quality of life instruments for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and to compare the instruments' responsiveness on a study level. METHODS: We systematically identified all longitudinal studies that used both the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) and the St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) through electronic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and PubMed. We assessed the correlation between CRQ (scale 1 – 7) and SGRQ (scale 1 – 100) change scores and compared responsiveness of the two instruments by comparing standardized response means (change scores divided by their standard deviation). RESULTS: We identified 15 studies with 23 patient groups. CRQ change scores ranged from -0.19 to 1.87 (median 0.35, IQR 0.14–0.68) and from -16.00 to 3.00 (median -3.00, IQR -4.73–0.25) for SGRQ change scores. The correlation between CRQ and SGRQ change scores was 0.88. Standardized response means of the CRQ (median 0.51, IQR 0.19–0.98) were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than for the SGRQ (median 0.26, IQR -0.03–0.40). CONCLUSION: Investigators should be cautious about pooling the results from different instruments in meta-analysis even if they appear to measure similar constructs. Despite high correlation in changes scores, responsiveness of instruments may differ substantially and could lead to important between-study heterogeneity and biased meta-analyses