Continuation rates of alpha-blockers mono-therapy in adult men, prescribed by urologists or general practitioners:A pharmacy-based study

PURPOSE: α-Blockers are commonly used for the treatment of male lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). The Dutch GP guideline on male LUTS contains an advice to discontinue treatment after 3-6 months of successful treatment. The guideline for urologists does not support this advice. It is unclear if these differences lead to other patterns of (dis)continuation of α-blockers. We aim to study continuation rates of α-blockers, prescribed by a urologist or a general practitioner (GP), and to predict discontinuation after 1 year. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective inception cohort study on prescription patterns of α-blockers among Dutch men between 2006 and 2014, using the IADB.nl pharmacy prescription database from the University of Groningen. We selected men aged 30 years or older with a first α-blocker prescription between 2006 and 2013, and analysed continuation of prescriptions. RESULTS: The database included 12,191 individual patients with at least one α-blocker prescriptions from a urologist (44.5%) or a GP (55.5%). The median treatment period for patients who started in the GPs office was 210 days, compared to 150 days for patients with a prescription from a urologist. Of all patients, 60.3% (GP prescriptions) and 66.1% (urologists' prescriptions) had discontinued treatment (Chi-square p < 0.001). Discontinuation rates were age dependent with higher rates in the youngest age groups. CONCLUSION: In this study, the discontinuation rate 1 year after the initiation of treatment was high. Although Dutch GP's and urologist's guidelines differ with respect to a discontinuation advice, we could not find clinically relevant difference in (temporary) discontinuation rates

The patient pathway for overactive bladder management:A quantitative analysis

PURPOSE: We aimed to explore the pathways followed by patients with overactive bladder (OAB) from referral to the urologist to final treatment. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study of female patients diagnosed with OAB in a large Dutch nonacademic teaching hospital. The number, sequence, and duration of treatment steps offered were analyzed, and the effectiveness, reasons for discontinuation, and possible case-mix variables influencing OAB treatment were studied. RESULTS: In total, 120 patients were enrolled and required a median of 2 steps (range, 1-6) of treatment over a median total duration of 28 weeks (range, 5-256). Treatment typically started with drug therapy, including antimuscarinics (38%; 95% CI, 30%-47%), antimuscarinics plus pelvic floor muscle therapy (21%; 95% CI, 15%-29%), or mirabegron (11%; 95% CI, 6%-18%). However, 52% of patients required further treatment, with botulinum toxin A (BoNT-A) injections being most effective (67%; 95% CI, 42%-85%), followed by antimuscarinics plus percutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (50%; 95% CI, 25%-75%), and antimuscarinics plus pelvic floor muscle therapy (36%; 95% CI, 21%-54%). Other therapies showed lower effectiveness. Common reasons for discontinuation were insufficient response and side effects. Overall, 22 patients were lost to follow-up. CONCLUSION: Most patients try at least two treatments before they experience satisfactory symptom relief, with treatment evaluations requiring time because therapeutic onsets differ by patient and treatment. Our data can help to manage expectations among urologists and patients when seeking treatment for OAB

Evaluation of the First Year(s) of Physicians Collaboration on an Interdisciplinary Electronic Consultation Platform in the Netherlands:Mixed Methods Observational Study

BACKGROUND: Complexity of health problems and aging of the population create an ongoing burden on the health care system with the general practitioner (GP) being the gatekeeper in primary care. In GPs daily practice, collaboration with specialists and exchange of knowledge from the secondary care play a crucial role in this system. Communication between primary and secondary care has shortcomings for health care workers that want to practice sustainable patient-centered health care. Therefore, a new digital interactive platform was developed: Prisma. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe the development of a digital consultation platform (Prisma) to connect GPs with hospital specialists via the Siilo application and to evaluate the first year of use, including consultations, topic diversity, and number of participating physicians. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods observational study, analyzing qualitative and quantitative data for cases posted on the platform between June 2018 and May 2020. Any GP can post questions to an interdisciplinary group of secondary care specialists, with the platform designed to facilitate discussion and knowledge exchange for all users. RESULTS: In total, 3674 cases were posted by 424 GPs across 16 specialisms. Most questions and answers concerned diagnosis, nonmedical treatment, and medication. Mean response time was 76 minutes (range 44-252). An average of 3 users engaged with each case (up to 7 specialists). Almost half of the internal medicine cases received responses from at least two specialisms in secondary care, contrasting with about one-fifth for dermatology. Of note, the growth in consultations was steepest for dermatology. CONCLUSIONS: Digital consultations offer the possibility for GPs to receive quick responses when seeking advice. The interdisciplinary approach of Prisma creates opportunities for digital patient-centered networking

Recruitment through media and general practitioners resulted in comparable samples in an RCT on incontinence

Objectives: The objective of the study was to assess the impact of recruitment strategy on the baseline characteristics of patients recruited in a randomized controlled trial for treating women with urinary incontinence. Study Design and Setting: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of baseline data from an earlier trial. Women were recruited through the media (including social media) or from participating general practices. Baseline characteristics were compared by univariate testing. Logistic regression analysis was performed to study the association between recruitment type and multiple baseline characteristics. Results: The only differences between recruitment methods were in patient age, with those recruited through the media being significantly older than those recruited through general practice. The mean age difference was 5.0 years (95% confidence interval: 2.2–7.9). Conclusion: Samples recruited through the media and through case identification were largely comparable. Therefore, recruitment through the media may be a viable alternative to recruitment through primary care. This may be especially relevant for research on eHealth treatment for conditions with which patients experience barriers when seeking health care

Comparing Single-Incision Midurethral Sling with Bulking Agents for Female Stress Urinary Incontinence:Rationale for a Non-Randomized Controlled Trial

Objectives: Midurethral slings are considered the gold standard for the surgical treatment of stress urinary incontinence (SUI), with an efficacy up to 80%. Another therapeutic option is the use of bulking agents, which create an artificial mass in the urethral submucosa, with an efficacy varying from 64% to 74%. Although bulking agents have a lower risk of complications than midurethral sling surgery, they are mainly used in case a midurethral sling is not an option or if midurethral sling surgery failed to cure stress urinary incontinence. In this study, we offer all patients with SUI in secondary care a choice between a single-incision midurethral sling procedure and treatment with a bulking agent. We want to examine patient preference and patient satisfaction for both procedures. We expect that offering both interventions in combination with standardized counselling will result in high patient satisfaction. Design: In this non-randomized controlled trial, 266 patients will be objectively counselled for both interventions, after which all patients will choose between single-incision midurethral slings and polyacrylamide hydrogel (PAHG), followed by the standard care procedure for women with SUI. Participants/Materials, Setting, Methods: From January 1, 2021, onward, all consecutive adult patients (between 18 and 80 years of age) attending the outpatient gynaecology department with objectively confirmed, moderate to severe SUI will be eligible for enrolment in this non-randomized study. The primary outcome is patient satisfaction at 1 year, measured by the Patient Global Impression of Improvement; secondary outcomes are patient satisfaction at 3 months, objective and subjective cure at 3 months and 1 year, adverse events, post-operative pain, and cost-effectiveness. Differences in outcome measures will be assessed through logistic and linear regression analyses, both unadjusted and adjusted with covariate adjustment using the propensity score. Results: No results are available yet. Limitations: The major disadvantage of this study design is the potential confounding bias. We intend to eliminate this bias by applying propensity scoring. Conclusion: By designing a non-randomized patient preference trial, we not only expect to demonstrate high patient satisfaction with both interventions but also provide insight into the possible role of PAHG-injections in the treatment of female SUI as a first-choice non-conservative treatment.</p

One year effectiveness of an app-based treatment for urinary incontinence in comparison to care as usual in Dutch general practice:A pragmatic randomised controlled trial over 12 months

OBJECTIVE: To assess the long-term effectiveness of app-based treatment for female stress, urgency, or mixed urinary incontinence (UI) compared to care-as-usual in primary care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial. SETTING: Primary care in the Netherlands from 2015 to 2018, follow-up at 12 months. POPULATION: Women with ≥2 UI-episodes per week, access to mobile apps, wanting treatment. 262 women randomised equally to app or care-as-usual; 89 (68%) and 83 (63%) attended one year follow-up. INTERVENTIONS: The standalone app included conservative management for UI with motivation aids (e.g., reminders). Care-as-usual delivered according to the Dutch GP guideline for UI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Effectiveness assessed by the change in symptom severity score (ICIQ-UI-SF) and the change in quality of life (ICIQ-LUTS-QoL) with linear regression on an intention-to-treat basis. RESULTS: Clinically relevant improvement of UI severity for both app (-2.17 ± 2.81) and care-as-usual (-3.43 ± 3.6), with a non-significant mean difference of 0.903 (-0.66 to 1.871). CONCLUSION: App-based treatment is a viable alternative to care-as-usual for UI in primary care in terms of effectiveness after one year

Cost-effectiveness of an app-based treatment for urinary incontinence in comparison with care-as-usual in Dutch general practice:a pragmatic randomised controlled trial over 12 months

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cost-effectiveness of app-based treatment for female stress, urgency, or mixed urinary incontinence (UI) compared to care-as-usual in Dutch primary care. DESIGN: A pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial. SETTING: Primary care in the Netherlands from 2015 to 2018, follow-up at 12 months. POPULATION: Women with ≥2 UI-episodes per week, access to mobile apps, wanting treatment. INTERVENTIONS: The standalone app included conservative management for UI with motivation aids (e.g., reminders). Care-as-usual delivered according to the Dutch GP guideline for UI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs and cost-effectiveness and -utility were assessed from a societal perspective, based on Incontinence Impact Adjusted Life Years (IIALYs), Quality Adjusted Life years (QALYs) and medical, non-medical and productivity costs. Information on costs was obtained with the iMCQ and iPCQ questionnaires (Medical Consumption and Productivity Cost Questionnaires). RESULTS: 262 women randomised equally to app or care-as-usual; 89 (68%) and 83 (63%) attended follow-up. Costs were lower for app-based treatment with €-161 (95%CI: -180 to -151) per year. Cost-effectiveness showed small mean differences in effect for IIALY (0.04) and QALY (-0.03) and thus larger ICER (-€3,696) and ICUR (€6,379) (Incremental Cost-Effectiveness and Cost-utility Ratios). CONCLUSION: App-based treatment is a cost-effective alternative to care-as-usual for women with UI in Dutch primary care

Effectiveness and costs of a new framework for selecting absorbent urinary incontinence products compared with current practice:a cohort study

Objectives To improve continence care in the Netherlands, a new framework has been developed in which a shift has been made from incontinence severity as the sole criterion for selecting incontinence products to a focus on patient need for daily life activities. The impact of the framework on daily care has not been assessed. We aimed to compare treatment effectiveness and costs between participants who did and did not undergo re-evaluation according to the new framework. Design Cohort study Setting Twelve pharmacies in the Netherlands Participants Existing users of absorbent incontinence materials for urinary incontinence. Interventions Participants were offered the option to have their incontinence products re-evaluated within the new framework at their pharmacy. Primary and secondary outcome measures Effectiveness and cost outcomes were assessed at 3 and 6 months through questionnaires. These questionnaires included the International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire (ICIQ) Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms Quality of Life Module, ICIQ Urinary Incontinence Short Form, ICIQ Absorbent Pads, questions about satisfaction and the iPCQ and iMCQ. Results 303 users consented and 279 completed the baseline questionnaire. Of these participants, 72 agreed to a re-evaluation of their incontinence materials. There was a small improvement at 3 months in the re-evaluation group compared with the other group on most outcomes. However, these improvements were not clinically relevant. Moreover, these differences did not change much from 3 to 6 months. Small differences were also observed in the changes in costs, but with very wide CIs on both sides of zero (euro99.38; 95% CI -633.48 to 832.23). Conclusions The current study showed no clinically relevant effect of a newly implemented framework for selecting incontinence materials in pharmacies when compared with an existing method. Given that the study also showed no differences in effectiveness and costs, introducing the new framework in pharmacies may not lead to better incontinence care.</p

App-Based Treatment in Primary Care for Urinary Incontinence:A Pragmatic, Randomized Controlled Trial

PURPOSE: Electronic application (app)-based treatment is promising for common diseases with good conservative management options, such as urinary incontinence (UI) in women, but its effectiveness compared with usual care is unclear. This study set out to determine if app-based treatment for women with stress, urgency, or mixed UI was noninferior to usual care in the primary care setting. METHODS: The URinControl trial is a pragmatic, noninferiority randomized controlled trial in Dutch primary care including adult women with 2 episodes of UI per week. From July 2015 to July 2018, we screened 350 women for eligibility. A stand-alone app-based treatment with pelvic floor muscle and bladder training (URinControl) was compared with usual care according to the Dutch general practitioner guideline for UI treatment. Outcomes measured were change in symptom severity score from baseline to 4 months (primary outcome), impact on disease-specific quality of life, patient-perceived improvement, and number of UI episodes. Noninferiority (<1.5 points) was assessed with linear regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 262 eligible women were randomized equally; 195 of them had follow-up through 4 months. The change in symptom severity with app-based treatment (-2.16 points; 95% CI, -2.67 to -1.65) was noninferior to that with usual care (-2.56 points; 95% CI, -3.28 to -1.84), with a mean difference of 0.058 points (95% CI, -0.776 to 0.891) between groups. Neither treatment was superior to the other, and both groups showed improvements in outcome measures after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: App-based treatment for women with UI was at least as effective as usual care in the primary care setting. As such, app-based treatments, with their potential advantages of privacy, accessibility, and lower cost, may provide women with a good alternative to consultation