Zentrale Gegenparteien für den außerbörslichen Derivatehandel in der Praxis

Die aus der geringen Transparenz und mangelnden Standardisierung des außerbörslichen Derivatehandels resultierenden Gefahren sind durch die internationale Finanzkrise deutlich aufgedeckt worden. Nach dem Willen von Regulierungsbehörden soll diesem bisher weitgehend unregulierten Marktsegment durch den vermehrten Einsatz zentraler Gegenparteien (Central Clearing Counterparties (CCPs)) ein unmittelbarer Ordnungsrahmen gegeben werden. Seit kurzem wird deshalb der Markt für Kreditderivate teilweise zentral abgewickelt. Wie auch bei dem schon länger etablierten Segment für Zinsswaps zeigt sich, dass vor allem ein Anbieter das Abwicklungsvolumen auf sich vereint. Die Arbeit soll die Anbieter zentraler Clearingdienste - am Beispiel von LCH.Clearnet, Eurex und ICE Clear - charakterisieren und diskutieren, welche Faktoren für den Erfolg von CCPs auf Teilmärkten des außerbörslichen Derivatemarktes verantwortlich sind. -- The lack of transparency and standardization of trading derivatives over-thecounter (OTC) is supposed to be one of the reasons of the international financial crisis. Regulators are willing to regulate the OTC-market directly by the increased use of central clearing counterparties (CCPs). Recently, therefore, the market for Credit Default Swaps is cleared centrally and several vendors have already placed their platforms. Primarily one provider processes the clearing volume on this market, which already could be proved for the market of interest rate swaps. The paper characterizes clearing organizations - drawing on the examples of LCH.Clearnet, Eurex and ICE Clear - and discusses factors that are responsible for the success of CCPs on the OTC-market.Zentrale Gegenpartei,Finanzkrise,Clearing,außerbörsliche Derivate,Zinsderivate,Kreditderivate,Credit Default Swaps

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

Ökonomische Analyse europäischer Bankenregulierung: Verbriefung und Interbankenmarkt im Fokus

Die Bankenneuregulierung der Europäische Kommission sieht eine Beschränkung der Kreditvergabe im Interbankenmarkt auf 25 % des Eigenkapitals sowie einen Selbsteinbehalt des Originators in Höhe von 5 % am gesamten zu verbriefenden Forderungsportfolio vor. Eine starre Regulierung führt aber nicht zwingend zu einer dauerhaften Krisenprävention, wie die vorliegende Arbeit modelltheoretisch belegt. Eine starre Kreditvergabebeschränkung erreicht zwar eine Mindestdiversifikation und Eigenkapitalaufstockung im Bankensektor, wodurch das systemische Risiko gesenkt wird. Allerdings geht dies mit steigenden Transaktionskosten einher. Anhand eines Modells von Fender und Mitchell werden die Auswirkungen auf die Screening-Anstrengungen bei Verbriefungen mit komplettem Portfolioselbsteinbehalt, Einbehalt der Equity Tranche und Einbehalt eines vertikalen Anteils durch den Originator untersucht. Aus dem Modell wird ersichtlich, dass ein vertikaler Einbehalt kleiner 100 % des Forderungspools, wie er von der Europäischen Kommission vorgesehen ist, in keiner Situation zu einem optimalen Screening-Einsatz führt, sondern sogar teilweise eine Verschlechterung im Vergleich zum Einbehalt der Equity Tranche darstellt. Eine pauschale Regulierung ist deshalb abzulehnen und eine qualitative, dynamische Regulierung, die mehr Transparenz schafft, zu befürworten. -- The new regulation for banks by the European Commission contains a restriction to 25 % of the equity for credit allocation on the interbank market and an enduring participation of the originator in the whole receivables portfolio of 5 %. But an inflexible regulation does not permanently prevent the market from further financial crisis, which is theoretically analysed in the presented paper. Indeed an inflexible restriction of the equity for credit allocation achieves a minimum diversification and an equity increase on the banking sector, which reduces the systemic risk. Admittedly, this can only occur by acceptance of increasing transaction costs. By applying a model from Fender and Mitchell the impact of the screening efforts for securitizations with complete retention of the portfolio, the retention of the equity tranche and the retention of the vertical fraction by the originator is analysed. The model shows that a vertical retention smaller than 100 % of the pool of receivables, as proposed by the European Commission, does not lead to an optimal level of screening in any situation and might even cause a worsening in comparison to the retention of the equity tranche. Considering the complexity of the financial system, a sweeping regulation must be rejected and a qualitative, dynamic regulation that establishes a higher level of transparency is recommended.Bankenregulierung,Verbriefung,Selbstbehalt,Interbankenmarkt

Swiss GPs’ preferences for antidepressant treatment in mild depression : vignette-based quantitative analysis

Background: GPs frequently prescribe antidepressants in mild depression. The aim of this study was to examine, how often Swiss GPs recommend antidepressants in various clinical presentations of mild depression and which factors contribute to antidepressant treatment recommendations. Methods: We conducted an online survey among Swiss GPs with within-subject effect analysis. Alternating case vignettes described a typical female case of mild depression according to International Classification of Diseases, 10th edition criteria, with and without anxiety symptoms and sleep problems. GPs indicated for each vignette their preferred treatments (several recommendations were possible). Additionally, we assessed GP characteristics, attitudes towards depression treatments, and elements of clinical decision-making. Results: Altogether 178 GPs completed the survey. In the initial description of a case with mild depression, 11% (95%-CI: 7%-17%) of GPs recommended antidepressants. If anxiety symptoms were added to the same case, 29% (23%-36%) recommended antidepressants. If sleep problems were mentioned, 47% (40%-55%) recommended antidepressants, and if both sleep problems and anxiety symptoms were mentioned, 63% (56%-70%) recommended antidepressants. Several factors were independently associated with increased odds of recommending antidepressants, specifically more years of practical experience, an advanced training in psychosomatic and psychosocial medicine, self-dispensation, and a higher perceived effectiveness of antidepressants. By contrast, a higher perceived influence of patient characteristics and the use of clinical practice guidelines were associated with reduced odds of recommending antidepressants. Conclusions: Consistent with depression practice guidelines, Swiss GPs rarely recommended antidepressants in mild depression if no co-indications (i.e., sleep problems and anxiety symptoms) were depicted. However, presence of sleep problems and anxiety symptoms, many years of practical experience, overestimation of antidepressants’ effectiveness, self-dispensation, an advanced training in psychosomatic and psychosocial medicine, and non-use of clinical practice guidelines may independently lead to antidepressant over-prescribing