Change in antihypertensive drug prescribing after guideline implementation: a controlled before and after study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Antihypertensive drug choices and treatment levels are not in accordance with the existing guidelines. We aimed to assess the impact of a guideline implementation intervention on antihypertensive drug prescribing.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this controlled before and after study, the effects of a multifaceted (education, audit and feedback, local care pathway) quality programme was evaluated. The intervention was carried out in a health centre between 2002 and 2003. From each health care unit (n = 31), a doctor-nurse pair was trained to act as peer facilitators in the intervention.</p> <p>All antihypertensive drugs prescribed by 25 facilitator general practitioners (intervention GPs) and 53 control GPs were retrieved from the nationwide Prescription Register for three-month periods in 2001 and 2003. The proportions of patients receiving specific antihypertensive drugs and multiple antihypertensive drugs were measured before and after the intervention for three subgroups of hypertension patients: hypertension only, with coronary heart disease, and with diabetes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In all subgroups, the use of multiple concurrent medications increased. For intervention patients with hypertension only, the odds ratio (OR) was 1.12 (95% CI 0.99, 1.25; p = 0.06) and for controls 1.13 (1.05, 1.21; p = 0.002). We observed no statistically significant differences in the change in the prescribing of specific antihypertensive agents between the intervention and control groups. The use of agents acting on the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system increased in all subgroups (hypertension only intervention patients OR 1.19 (1.06, 1.34; p = 0.004) and controls OR 1.24 (1.15, 1.34; p < 0.0001).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A multifaceted guideline implementation intervention does not necessarily lead to significant changes in prescribing performance. Rigorous planning of the interventions and quality projects and their evaluation are essential.</p

Prevalence of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) among Finnish prisoners:cross-sectional clinical study

Abstract Objective: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the prevalence of self-reported temporomandibular disorders (TMD) symptoms and clinically diagnosed TMD among Finnish prisoners. Material and methods: Altogether 100 prisoners from the Pelso Prison, Vaala, Finland, underwent dental and TMD clinical examinations performed by a calibrated and well-trained dentist. Symptom Questionnaire and clinical examination according to a Finnish pre-final version of the DC/TMD (Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders) Axis I protocol were used to evaluate the prevalence of TMD sub-diagnoses. Results: The most common TMD symptoms were facial pain (54.0%), temporomandibular joint noises (43.0%) and headache (37.0%). The prevalence of joint-related TMD diagnoses was four and a half times higher than diagnoses attributed with pain (76.0% vs. 17.0%). The most common TMD diagnoses were degenerative joint disease (33.0%) and disc displacement with reduction (33.0%). Conclusions: The prevalence of self-reported TMD symptoms and clinical assessed TMD, especially join-related TMD diagnoses, is high among Finnish prisoners. Examination and treatment of TMD should become a common practice also in prison dental care

Randomized controlled trials in de-implementation research:a systematic scoping review

Abstract Background: Healthcare costs are rising, and a substantial proportion of medical care is of little value. De-implementation of low-value practices is important for improving overall health outcomes and reducing costs. We aimed to identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on de-implementation interventions and to provide guidance to improve future research. Methods: MEDLINE and Scopus up to May 24, 2021, for individual and cluster RCTs comparing de-implementation interventions to usual care, another intervention, or placebo. We applied independent duplicate assessment of eligibility, study characteristics, outcomes, intervention categories, implementation theories, and risk of bias. Results: Of the 227 eligible trials, 145 (64%) were cluster randomized trials (median 24 clusters; median follow-up time 305 days), and 82 (36%) were individually randomized trials (median follow-up time 274 days). Of the trials, 118 (52%) were published after 2010, 149 (66%) were conducted in a primary care setting, 163 (72%) aimed to reduce the use of drug treatment, 194 (85%) measured the total volume of care, and 64 (28%) low-value care use as outcomes. Of the trials, 48 (21%) described a theoretical basis for the intervention, and 40 (18%) had the study tailored by context-specific factors. Of the de-implementation interventions, 193 (85%) were targeted at physicians, 115 (51%) tested educational sessions, and 152 (67%) multicomponent interventions. Missing data led to high risk of bias in 137 (60%) trials, followed by baseline imbalances in 99 (44%), and deficiencies in allocation concealment in 56 (25%). Conclusions: De-implementation trials were mainly conducted in primary care and typically aimed to reduce low-value drug treatments. Limitations of current de-implementation research may have led to unreliable effect estimates and decreased clinical applicability of studied de-implementation strategies. We identified potential research gaps, including de-implementation in secondary and tertiary care settings, and interventions targeted at other than physicians. Future trials could be improved by favoring simpler intervention designs, better control of potential confounders, larger number of clusters in cluster trials, considering context-specific factors when planning the intervention (tailoring), and using a theoretical basis in intervention design

Reporting of costs and economic impacts in randomized trials of de-implementation interventions for low-value care:a systematic scoping review

Abstract Background: De-implementation of low-value care can increase health care sustainability. We evaluated the reporting of direct costs of de-implementation and subsequent change (increase or decrease) in health care costs in randomized trials of de-implementation research. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Scopus databases without any language restrictions up to May 2021. We conducted study screening and data extraction independently and in duplicate. We extracted information related to study characteristics, types and characteristics of interventions, de-implementation costs, and impacts on health care costs. We assessed risk of bias using a modified Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Results: We screened 10,733 articles, with 227 studies meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 50 included information on direct cost of de-implementation or impact of de-implementation on health care costs. Studies were mostly conducted in North America (36%) or Europe (32%) and in the primary care context (70%). The most common practice of interest was reduction in the use of antibiotics or other medications (74%). Most studies used education strategies (meetings, materials) (64%). Studies used either a single strategy (52%) or were multifaceted (48%). Of the 227 eligible studies, 18 (8%) reported on direct costs of the used de-implementation strategy; of which, 13 reported total costs, and 12 reported per unit costs (7 reported both). The costs of de-implementation strategies varied considerably. Of the 227 eligible studies, 43 (19%) reported on impact of de-implementation on health care costs. Health care costs decreased in 27 studies (63%), increased in 2 (5%), and were unchanged in 14 (33%). Conclusion: De-implementation randomized controlled trials typically did not report direct costs of the de-implementation strategies (92%) or the impacts of de-implementation on health care costs (81%). Lack of cost information may limit the value of de-implementation trials to decision-makers. Trial registration: OSF (Open Science Framework): https://osf.io/ueq32

Genome-wide association reveals contribution of MRAS to painful temporomandibular disorder in males

Abstract Painful temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are the leading cause of chronic orofacial pain, but its underlying molecular mechanisms remain obscure. Although many environmental factors have been associated with higher risk of developing painful TMD, family and twin studies support a heritable genetic component as well. We performed a genome-wide association study assuming an additive genetic model of TMD in a discovery cohort of 999 cases and 2031 TMD-free controls from the Orofacial Pain: Prospective Evaluation and Risk Assessment (OPPERA) study. Using logistic models adjusted for sex, age, enrollment site, and race, we identified 3 distinct loci that were significant in combined or sex-segregated analyses. A single-nucleotide polymorphism on chromosome 3 (rs13078961) was significantly associated with TMD in males only (odds ratio = 2.9, 95% confidence interval: 2.02–4.27, P = 2.2 × 10⁻⁸). This association was nominally replicated in a meta-analysis of 7 independent orofacial pain cohorts including 160,194 participants (odds ratio = 1.16, 95% confidence interval: 1.0–1.35, P = 2.3 × 10⁻²). Functional analysis in human dorsal root ganglia and blood indicated this variant is an expression quantitative trait locus, with the minor allele associated with decreased expression of the nearby muscle RAS oncogene homolog (MRAS) gene (beta = −0.51, P = 2.43 × 10⁻⁵). Male mice, but not female mice, with a null mutation of Mras displayed persistent mechanical allodynia in a model of inflammatory pain. Genetic and behavioral evidence support a novel mechanism by which genetically determined MRAS expression moderates the resiliency to chronic pain. This effect is male-specific and may contribute to the lower rates of painful TMD in men