Prescribing Patterns of Pain Medications in Unspecific Low Back Pain in Primary Care: A Retrospective Analysis

Acute low back pain (LBP) is one of the most prevalent diseases worldwide. Since there is evidence of excessive prescriptions of analgesics, i.e., opioids, the aim of this study was to describe the use of pain medications in patients with LBP in the Swiss primary care setting. A retrospective, observational study was performed using medical prescriptions of 180 general practitioners (GP) during years 2009–2020. Patterns of pain medications (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol, and opioids) as well as co-medications were analyzed in patients with a LBP diagnosis. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses assessed GP and patient characteristics associated with the prescription of pain medication. Patients included were 10,331 (mean age 51.7 years, 51.2% female); 6449 (62.4%) received at least one pain medication and of these 86% receive NSAIDs and 22% opioids. GP characteristics (i.e., self-employment status) and patient characteristics (male gender and number of consultations) were associated with significantly higher odds of receiving any pain medication in multivariable analysis. 3719 patients (36%) received co-medications. Proton-pump-inhibitors and muscle relaxants were the most commonly used co-medications. In conclusion, two-thirds of LBP patients were treated with pain medications. Prescribing patterns were conservative, with little use of strong opioids and co-medications

Ambient temperature and kidney function in primary care patients

Introduction Exposure to high ambient temperatures is associated with a risk of acute kidney injury. However, evidence comes from emergency departments or extreme weather exposures. It is unclear whether temperature-related adverse kidney outcomes can also be detected at a community level in a temperate climate zone. Methods In a 9.5-year retrospective cohort study we correlated estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) values of Swiss adult primary care patients from the FIRE cohort (Family medicine Research using Electronic medical records) with same-day maximum local ambient temperature data. We investigated 5 temperature groups (< 15 °C, 15–19 °C, 20–24 °C, 25–29 °C and  ≥ 30 °C) as well as possible interactions for patients with increased kidney vulnerability (chronic heart failure, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, therapy with renin–angiotensin–aldosterone-system (RAAS) inhibitors, diuretics or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs). Results We included 18,000 primary care patients who altogether provided 132,176 creatinine measurements. In the unadjusted analysis, higher ambient temperatures were associated with lower eGFR across all age and vulnerability groups. In the adjusted models, we did not find a consistent association.The highest ambient temperature differences (> 25 or > 30 versus < 15 °C) were associated with marginally reduced kidney function only in patients with ≥ 3 risk factors for kidney vulnerability, with a maximum estimated glomerular filtration rate reduction of −2.9 ml/min/1.73m$^{2}$ (SE 1.0), P 0.003. Discussion In a large primary care cohort from a temperate climate zone, we did not find an association between ambient temperatures and kidney function. A marginal inverse association in highly vulnerable patients is of unclear clinical relevance

Multimorbidity: can general practitioners identify the health conditions most important to their patients? Results from a national cross-sectional study in Switzerland

Faced with patients suffering from more than one chronic condition, or multimorbidity, general practitioners (GPs) must establish diagnostic and treatment priorities. Patients also set their own priorities to handle the everyday burdens associated with their multimorbidity and these may be different from the priorities established by their GP. A shared patient-GP agenda, driven by knowledge of each other's priorities, would seem central to managing patients with multimorbidity. We evaluated GPs' ability to identify the health condition most important to their patients. Data on 888 patients were collected as part of a cross-sectional Swiss study on multimorbidity in family medicine. For the main analyses on patients-GP agreement, data from 572 of these patients could be included. GPs were asked to identify the two conditions which their patient considered most important, and we tested whether either of them agreed with the condition mentioned as most important by the patient. In the main analysis, we studied the agreement rate between GPs and patients by grouping items medically-related into 46 groups of conditions. Socio-demographic and clinical variables were fitted into univariate and multivariate models. In 54.9% of cases, GPs were able to identify the health condition most important to the patient. In the multivariate model, the only variable significantly associated with patient-GP agreement was the number of chronic conditions: the higher the number of conditions, the less likely the agreement. GPs were able to correctly identify the health condition most important to their patients in half of the cases. It therefore seems important that GPs learn how to better adapt treatment targets and priorities by taking patients' perspectives into account

Canakinumab in patients with COVID-19 and type 2 diabetes - A multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Patients with type 2 diabetes and obesity have chronic activation of the innate immune system possibly contributing to the higher risk of hyperinflammatory response to SARS-CoV2 and severe COVID-19 observed in this population. We tested whether interleukin-1β (IL-1β) blockade using canakinumab improves clinical outcome. METHODS: CanCovDia was a multicenter, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy of canakinumab plus standard-of-care compared with placebo plus standard-of-care in patients with type 2 diabetes and a BMI > 25 kg/m$^{2}$ hospitalised with SARS-CoV2 infection in seven tertiary-hospitals in Switzerland. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to a single intravenous dose of canakinumab (body weight adapted dose of 450-750 mg) or placebo. Canakinumab and placebo were compared based on an unmatched win-ratio approach based on length of survival, ventilation, ICU stay and hospitalization at day 29. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510493. FINDINGS: Between October 17, 2020, and May 12, 2021, 116 patients were randomly assigned with 58 in each group. One participant dropped out in each group for the primary analysis. At the time of randomization, 85 patients (74·6 %) were treated with dexamethasone. The win-ratio of canakinumab vs placebo was 1·08 (95 % CI 0·69-1·69; p = 0·72). During four weeks, in the canakinumab vs placebo group 4 (7·0%) vs 7 (12·3%) participants died, 11 (20·0 %) vs 16 (28·1%) patients were on ICU, 12 (23·5 %) vs 11 (21·6%) were hospitalised for more than 3 weeks, respectively. Median ventilation time at four weeks in the canakinumab vs placebo group was 10 [IQR 6.0, 16.5] and 16 days [IQR 14.0, 23.0], respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in HbA1c after four weeks despite a lower number of anti-diabetes drug administered in patients treated with canakinumab. Finally, high-sensitive CRP and IL-6 was lowered by canakinumab. Serious adverse events were reported in 13 patients (11·4%) in each group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with type 2 diabetes who were hospitalised with COVID-19, treatment with canakinumab in addition to standard-of-care did not result in a statistically significant improvement of the primary composite outcome. Patients treated with canakinumab required significantly less anti-diabetes drugs to achieve similar glycaemic control. Canakinumab was associated with a prolonged reduction of systemic inflammation. FUNDING: Swiss National Science Foundation grant #198415 and University of Basel. Novartis supplied study medication

The impact of an individualized risk-adjusted approach on hypertension treatment in primary care

Previous studies suggest that up to 60% of all patients with hypertension receive inappropriate treatment. Current 2013 European Society of Hypertension/European Society of Cardiology (ESH/ESC) guidelines recommend taking cardiovascular risk factors into account when assessing treatment for patients with hypertension. The authors hypothesize that this approach will reduce the proportion of patients receiving inappropriate treatment. In this cross-sectional study using electronic medical records of Swiss primary care patients, the authors estimate the proportion of patients receiving inappropriate treatment using two approaches: (1) based on a blood pressure threshold of 140/90 mm Hg; and (2) based on cardiovascular risk factors. A total of 22 434 patients with hypertension were identified. Based on these approaches, 72.7% and 44.6% of patients, respectively, qualified for drug treatment. In addition, 23.0% and 10.8% of patients, respectively, received inappropriate treatment. Application of the 2013 ESH/ESC guidelines reduced the proportion of patients receiving inappropriate treatment by 50%. This shows the major impact of risk adjustment and highlights the need for a patient-centered approach in hypertension treatment