Blood pressure measurements for diagnosing hypertension in primary care:room for improvement

Background: In the adult population, about 50% have hypertension, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and subsequent premature death. Little is known about the quality of the methods used to diagnose hypertension in primary care. Objectives: The objective was to assess the frequency of use of recognized methods to establish a diagnosis of hypertension, and specifically for OBPM, whether three distinct measurements were taken, and how correctly the blood pressure levels were interpreted. Methods: A retrospective population-based cohort study using electronic medical records of patients aged between 40 and 70 years, who visited their general practitioner (GP) with a new-onset of hypertension in the years 2012, 2016, 2019, and 2020. A visual chart review of the electronic medical records was used to assess the methods employed to diagnose hypertension in a random sample of 500 patients. The blood pressure measurement method was considered complete if three or more valid office blood pressure measurements (OBPM) were performed, or home-based blood pressure measurements (HBPM), the office- based 30-minute method (OBP30), or 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements (24 H-ABPM) were used. Results: In all study years, OBPM was the most frequently used method to diagnose new-onset hypertension in patients. The OBP-30 method was used in 0.4% (2012), 4.2% (2016), 10.6% (2019), and 9.8% (2020) of patients respectively, 24 H-ABPM in 16.0%, 22.2%, 17.2%, and 19.0% of patients and HBPM measurements in 5.4%, 8.4%, 7.6%, and 7.8% of patients, respectively. A diagnosis of hypertension based on only one or two office measurements occurred in 85.2% (2012), 87.9% (2016), 94.4% (2019), and 96.8% (2020) of all patients with OBPM. In cases of incomplete measurement and incorrect interpretation, medication was still started in 64% of cases in 2012, 56% (2016), 60% (2019), and 73% (2020). Conclusion: OBPM is still the most often used method to diagnose hypertension in primary care. The diagnosis was often incomplete or misinterpreted using incorrect cut-off levels. A small improvement occurred between 2012 and 2016 but no further progress was seen in 2019 or 2020. If hypertension is inappropriately diagnosed, it may result in under treatment or in prolonged, unnecessary treatment of patients. There is room for improvement in the general practice setting.</p

Comorbidity in incident osteoarthritis cases and matched controls using electronic health record data

Background: Comorbidities are common in patients with osteoarthritis (OA). This study aimed to determine the association of a wide range of previously diagnosed comorbidities in adults with newly diagnosed OA compared with matched controls without OA. Methods: A case–control study was conducted. The data were derived from an electronic health record database that contains the medical records of patients from general practices throughout the Netherlands. Incident OA cases were defined as patients with one or more diagnostic codes recorded in their medical records that correspond to knee, hip, or other/peripheral OA. Additionally, the first OA code had to be recorded between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2019. The date of cases’ first OA diagnosis was defined as the index date. Cases were matched (by age, sex, and general practice) to up to 4 controls without a recorded OA diagnosis. Odds ratios were derived for each 58 comorbidities separately by dividing the comorbidity prevalence of cases by that of their matched controls at the index date. Results: 80,099 incident OA patients were identified of whom 79,937 (99.8%) were successfully matched with 318,206 controls. OA cases had higher odds for 42 of the 58 studied comorbidities compared with matched controls. Musculoskeletal diseases and obesity showed large associations with incident OA. Conclusions: Most of the comorbidities under study had higher odds in patients with incident OA at the index date. While previously known associations were confirmed in this study, some associations were not described earlier

Occurrence of comorbidity following osteoarthritis diagnosis: a cohort study in the Netherlands

Objective To determine the risk of comorbidity following diagnosis of knee or hip osteoarthritis (OA). Design A cohort study was conducted using the Integrated Primary Care Information database, containing electronic health records of 2.5 million patients from the Netherlands. Adults at risk for OA were included. Diagnosis of knee or hip OA (=exposure) and 58 long-term comorbidities (=outcome) were defined by diagnostic codes following the International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) coding system. Time between the start of follow-up and incident diagnosis of OA was defined as unexposed, and between diagnosis of OA and the end of follow-up as exposed. Age and sex adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) comparing comorbidity rates in exposed and unexposed patient time were estimated with 99.9% confidence intervals (CI). Results The study population consisted of 1,890,712 patients. For 30 of the 58 studied comorbidities, exposure to knee OA showed a HR larger than 1. Largest positive associations (HR with (99.9% CIs)) were found for obesity 2.55 (2.29-2.84) and fibromyalgia 2.06 (1.53-2.77). For two conditions a HR<1 was found, other comorbidities showed no association with exposure to knee OA. For 26 comorbidities, exposure to hip OA showed a HR larger than 1. The largest were found for polymyalgia rheumatica 1.81 (1.41-2.32) and fibromyalgia 1.70 (1.10-2.63). All other comorbidities showed no associations with hip OA. Conclusion This study showed that many comorbidities were diagnosed more often in patients with knee or hip OA. This suggests that the management of OA should consider the risk of other long-term-conditions

Epidemiology and management of hepatitis B and C in primary care in the Netherlands: data from the Rijnmond Primary Care database

BACKGROUND: The Dutch guideline for general practitioners (GPs) advises biannual surveillance of hepatitis B (HBV) patients and referral of every hepatitis C (HCV) patient. We aimed to study the prevalence, incidence, and the management of hepatitis B and C in primary care. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study using the Rijnmond Primary Care database (RPCD), including health care data of medical records of GPs of approximately 200,000 patients in the area of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Patient records were selected based on laboratory results, International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) codes, and free-text words. RESULTS: In total, 977 patients were included: 717 HBV, 252 HCV, and 8 HBV/HCV coinfected patients. Between 2013 and 2019, the prevalence of HBV and HCV declined from 5.21 to 2.99/1,000 person-years (PYs) and 1.50 to 0.70/1,000 PYs, respectively. We observed that the majority of the patients had been referred to a medical specialist at least once (71% HBV and 89% HCV patients). However, among chronic patients, we observed that 36.2% of the HBV patients did not receive adequate surveillance by their GP (≥2 alanine aminotransferase checks within 3 years) or a medical specialist. In addition, 44.4% of the HCV patients had no record about successful antiviral treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated a declining prevalence in viral hepatitis B and C in primary care in the Netherlands. However, a substantial part of the patients did not receive adequate surveillance or antiviral therapy. It is therefore crucial to involve GPs in case finding and in follow-up after treatment

Patient perspectives on telemedicine during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed-methods community-based study

Abstract Background Detailed community-based perspectives on patient experiences with telemedicine are currently lacking, yet essential to assess clinical applicability of telemedicine during and beyond pandemics, alike COVID-19. The aim of this study was to expose patient perspectives on virtual compared to in-person consultations, including determinants of these preferences. Methods We invited 5864 participants of the population-based Rotterdam Study to fill in a validated questionnaire using both close-ended and free-text questions. The questionnaire was sent on 30 July 2020, following a period of lockdowns and closures of non-essential workplaces. It assessed preferences for physician contact, healthcare utilisation, socioeconomic factors, and overall health. Those who experienced at least one virtual consultation (telephone or video call) between March 2020 and the beginning of July 2020 were asked whether those consultations were more, equally or less pleasant than in-person consultations, and to detail their experiences through free-text comments. These narrative data were examined using thematic analysis. Results 4514 participants completed the questionnaire (response rate 77.0%, 58.7% women, mean age 70.8 ± 10.5 years). 1103 participants (24.4%) reported having had experience with virtual consultations. Half of these participants considered virtual consultations less pleasant than in-person consultations (N = 556; 50.4%), while 11.5% found it more pleasant. In total, we coded free-text comments of 752 participants. Prominent themes behind patient preferences for virtual or in-person consultations were lack of nonverbal communication, lack of physical examination, consultation scheduling, personal circumstances, and the presence of somatic and/or language barriers. Conclusions Based on the experiences of a large elderly patient population, we showed that preference for virtual or in-person consultations is dependent on personal and situational variety, and their interplay. Healthcare providers should consider patients’ complex care needs and evaluate the potential added value of nonverbal communication and physical examination before scheduling a virtual consultation

Blood pressure measurements for diagnosing hypertension in primary care: room for improvement

Abstract Background In the adult population, about 50% have hypertension, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and subsequent premature death. Little is known about the quality of the methods used to diagnose hypertension in primary care. Objectives The objective was to assess the frequency of use of recognized methods to establish a diagnosis of hypertension, and specifically for OBPM, whether three distinct measurements were taken, and how correctly the blood pressure levels were interpreted. Methods A retrospective population-based cohort study using electronic medical records of patients aged between 40 and 70 years, who visited their general practitioner (GP) with a new-onset of hypertension in the years 2012, 2016, 2019, and 2020. A visual chart review of the electronic medical records was used to assess the methods employed to diagnose hypertension in a random sample of 500 patients. The blood pressure measurement method was considered complete if three or more valid office blood pressure measurements (OBPM) were performed, or home-based blood pressure measurements (HBPM), the office- based 30-minute method (OBP30), or 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements (24 H-ABPM) were used. Results In all study years, OBPM was the most frequently used method to diagnose new-onset hypertension in patients. The OBP-30 method was used in 0.4% (2012), 4.2% (2016), 10.6% (2019), and 9.8% (2020) of patients respectively, 24 H-ABPM in 16.0%, 22.2%, 17.2%, and 19.0% of patients and HBPM measurements in 5.4%, 8.4%, 7.6%, and 7.8% of patients, respectively. A diagnosis of hypertension based on only one or two office measurements occurred in 85.2% (2012), 87.9% (2016), 94.4% (2019), and 96.8% (2020) of all patients with OBPM. In cases of incomplete measurement and incorrect interpretation, medication was still started in 64% of cases in 2012, 56% (2016), 60% (2019), and 73% (2020). Conclusion OBPM is still the most often used method to diagnose hypertension in primary care. The diagnosis was often incomplete or misinterpreted using incorrect cut-off levels. A small improvement occurred between 2012 and 2016 but no further progress was seen in 2019 or 2020. If hypertension is inappropriately diagnosed, it may result in under treatment or in prolonged, unnecessary treatment of patients. There is room for improvement in the general practice setting

Additional file of: Blood pressure measurements for diagnosing hypertension in primary care: room for improvement

Abstract Background In the adult population, about 50% have hypertension, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and subsequent premature death. Little is known about the quality of the methods used to diagnose hypertension in primary care. Objectives The objective was to assess the frequency of use of recognized methods to establish a diagnosis of hypertension, and specifically for OBPM, whether three distinct measurements were taken, and how correctly the blood pressure levels were interpreted. Methods A retrospective population-based cohort study using electronic medical records of patients aged between 40 and 70 years, who visited their general practitioner (GP) with a new-onset of hypertension in the years 2012, 2016, 2019, and 2020. A visual chart review of the electronic medical records was used to assess the methods employed to diagnose hypertension in a random sample of 500 patients. The blood pressure measurement method was considered complete if three or more valid office blood pressure measurements (OBPM) were performed, or home-based blood pressure measurements (HBPM), the office- based 30-minute method (OBP30), or 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements (24 H-ABPM) were used. Results In all study years, OBPM was the most frequently used method to diagnose new-onset hypertension in patients. The OBP-30 method was used in 0.4% (2012), 4.2% (2016), 10.6% (2019), and 9.8% (2020) of patients respectively, 24 H-ABPM in 16.0%, 22.2%, 17.2%, and 19.0% of patients and HBPM measurements in 5.4%, 8.4%, 7.6%, and 7.8% of patients, respectively. A diagnosis of hypertension based on only one or two office measurements occurred in 85.2% (2012), 87.9% (2016), 94.4% (2019), and 96.8% (2020) of all patients with OBPM. In cases of incomplete measurement and incorrect interpretation, medication was still started in 64% of cases in 2012, 56% (2016), 60% (2019), and 73% (2020). Conclusion OBPM is still the most often used method to diagnose hypertension in primary care. The diagnosis was often incomplete or misinterpreted using incorrect cut-off levels. A small improvement occurred between 2012 and 2016 but no further progress was seen in 2019 or 2020. If hypertension is inappropriately diagnosed, it may result in under treatment or in prolonged, unnecessary treatment of patients. There is room for improvement in the general practice setting

Blood pressure measurements for diagnosing hypertension in primary care: room for improvement

Abstract Background In the adult population, about 50% have hypertension, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and subsequent premature death. Little is known about the quality of the methods used to diagnose hypertension in primary care. Objectives The objective was to assess the frequency of use of recognized methods to establish a diagnosis of hypertension, and specifically for OBPM, whether three distinct measurements were taken, and how correctly the blood pressure levels were interpreted. Methods A retrospective population-based cohort study using electronic medical records of patients aged between 40 and 70 years, who visited their general practitioner (GP) with a new-onset of hypertension in the years 2012, 2016, 2019, and 2020. A visual chart review of the electronic medical records was used to assess the methods employed to diagnose hypertension in a random sample of 500 patients. The blood pressure measurement method was considered complete if three or more valid office blood pressure measurements (OBPM) were performed, or home-based blood pressure measurements (HBPM), the office- based 30-minute method (OBP30), or 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements (24 H-ABPM) were used. Results In all study years, OBPM was the most frequently used method to diagnose new-onset hypertension in patients. The OBP-30 method was used in 0.4% (2012), 4.2% (2016), 10.6% (2019), and 9.8% (2020) of patients respectively, 24 H-ABPM in 16.0%, 22.2%, 17.2%, and 19.0% of patients and HBPM measurements in 5.4%, 8.4%, 7.6%, and 7.8% of patients, respectively. A diagnosis of hypertension based on only one or two office measurements occurred in 85.2% (2012), 87.9% (2016), 94.4% (2019), and 96.8% (2020) of all patients with OBPM. In cases of incomplete measurement and incorrect interpretation, medication was still started in 64% of cases in 2012, 56% (2016), 60% (2019), and 73% (2020). Conclusion OBPM is still the most often used method to diagnose hypertension in primary care. The diagnosis was often incomplete or misinterpreted using incorrect cut-off levels. A small improvement occurred between 2012 and 2016 but no further progress was seen in 2019 or 2020. If hypertension is inappropriately diagnosed, it may result in under treatment or in prolonged, unnecessary treatment of patients. There is room for improvement in the general practice setting

Additional file of: Blood pressure measurements for diagnosing hypertension in primary care: room for improvement

Abstract Background In the adult population, about 50% have hypertension, a risk factor for cardiovascular disease and subsequent premature death. Little is known about the quality of the methods used to diagnose hypertension in primary care. Objectives The objective was to assess the frequency of use of recognized methods to establish a diagnosis of hypertension, and specifically for OBPM, whether three distinct measurements were taken, and how correctly the blood pressure levels were interpreted. Methods A retrospective population-based cohort study using electronic medical records of patients aged between 40 and 70 years, who visited their general practitioner (GP) with a new-onset of hypertension in the years 2012, 2016, 2019, and 2020. A visual chart review of the electronic medical records was used to assess the methods employed to diagnose hypertension in a random sample of 500 patients. The blood pressure measurement method was considered complete if three or more valid office blood pressure measurements (OBPM) were performed, or home-based blood pressure measurements (HBPM), the office- based 30-minute method (OBP30), or 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure measurements (24 H-ABPM) were used. Results In all study years, OBPM was the most frequently used method to diagnose new-onset hypertension in patients. The OBP-30 method was used in 0.4% (2012), 4.2% (2016), 10.6% (2019), and 9.8% (2020) of patients respectively, 24 H-ABPM in 16.0%, 22.2%, 17.2%, and 19.0% of patients and HBPM measurements in 5.4%, 8.4%, 7.6%, and 7.8% of patients, respectively. A diagnosis of hypertension based on only one or two office measurements occurred in 85.2% (2012), 87.9% (2016), 94.4% (2019), and 96.8% (2020) of all patients with OBPM. In cases of incomplete measurement and incorrect interpretation, medication was still started in 64% of cases in 2012, 56% (2016), 60% (2019), and 73% (2020). Conclusion OBPM is still the most often used method to diagnose hypertension in primary care. The diagnosis was often incomplete or misinterpreted using incorrect cut-off levels. A small improvement occurred between 2012 and 2016 but no further progress was seen in 2019 or 2020. If hypertension is inappropriately diagnosed, it may result in under treatment or in prolonged, unnecessary treatment of patients. There is room for improvement in the general practice setting

Normalisation of SARS-CoV-2 concentrations in wastewater: The use of flow, electrical conductivity and crAssphage

Over the course of the Corona Virus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic in 2020–2022, monitoring of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ribonucleic acid (SARS-CoV-2 RNA) in wastewater has rapidly evolved into a supplementary surveillance instrument for public health. Short term trends (2 weeks) are used as a basis for policy and decision making on measures for dealing with the pandemic. Normalisation is required to account for the dilution rate of the domestic wastewater that can strongly vary due to time- and location-dependent sewer inflow of runoff, industrial discharges and extraneous waters. The standard approach in sewage surveillance is normalisation using flow measurements, although flow based normalisation is not effective in case the wastewater volume sampled does not match the wastewater volume produced. In this paper, two alternative normalisation methods, using electrical conductivity and crAssphage have been studied and compared with the standard approach using flow measurements. For this, a total of 1116 24-h flow-proportional samples have been collected between September 2020 and August 2021 at nine monitoring locations. In addition, 221 stool samples have been analysed to determine the daily crAssphage load per person. Results show that, although crAssphage shedding rates per person vary greatly, on a population-level crAssphage loads per person per day were constant over time and similar for all catchments. Consequently, crAssphage can be used as a quantitative biomarker for populations above 5595 persons. Electrical conductivity is particularly suitable to determine dilution rates relative to dry weather flow concentrations. The overall conclusion is that flow normalisation is necessary to reliably determine short-term trends in virus circulation, and can be enhanced using crAssphage and/or electrical conductivity measurement as a quality check.Sanitary Engineerin