Micronized purified flavonoid fraction for the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency, with a focus on postthrombotic syndrome: A narrative review.

INTRODUCTION: Postthrombotic syndrome (PTS) is a form of secondary chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) that occurs after deep vein thrombosis (DVT). Effective treatments for PTS are lacking. Micronized purified flavonoid fraction (MPFF) is a venoactive drug used in the treatment of CVI. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether MPFF is a good candidate to explore as a therapeutic agent for PTS. METHODS: We performed a narrative review in which we identified 14 systematic reviews, 33 randomized controlled trials, and 19 observational studies that discussed the use of MPFF in CVI, as well as studies that reported on the mechanistic action of MPFF in relation to the pathophysiology of PTS. RESULTS: MPFF targets a number of pathophysiologic components of PTS. Based on animal models and human studies investigating objective vascular and lymphatic measures, MPFF promotes venous recanalization after DVT, decreases venous remodeling and reflux, inhibits inflammatory processes, improves venous tone and stasis, improves lymphatic circulation, improves capillary hyperpermeability, and decreases tissue hypoxia. Furthermore, MPFF shows promise in improving clinical manifestations, quality of life, and objective venous parameters of CVI. Studies suggest good patient acceptability and tolerability with the use of MPFF in CVI. CONCLUSION: MPFF is a good candidate to explore as a potential therapy for PTS. Confirmatory high-quality studies are still needed to reinforce the evidence supporting the use of MPFF in CVI. Double-blind randomized controlled trials with clinical endpoints are needed to assess the clinical efficacy of MPFF in the treatment of PTS.

Observer Ratings of Shared Decision Making Do Not Match Patient Reports: An Observational Study in 5 Family Medicine Practices.

BACKGROUND: Measuring shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice is important to improve the quality of health care. Measurement can be done by trained observers and by people participating in the clinical encounter, namely, patients. This study aimed to describe the correlations between patients' and observers' ratings of SDM using 2 validated and 2 nonvalidated SDM measures in clinical consultations. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we recruited 238 complete dyads of health professionals and patients in 5 university-affiliated family medicine clinics in Canada. Participants completed self-administered questionnaires before and after audio-recorded medical consultations. Observers rated the occurrence of SDM during medical consultations using both the validated OPTION-5 (the 5-item "observing patient involvement" score) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-observer). Patients rated SDM using both the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q9) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-patient). RESULTS: Agreement was low between observers' and patients' ratings of SDM using validated OPTION-5 and SDM-Q9, respectively (ρ = 0.07; P = 0.38). Observers' ratings using RCVC-observer were correlated to patients' ratings using either SDM-Q9 (rpb = -0.16; P = 0.01) or RCVC-patients (rpb = 0.24; P = 0.03). Observers' OPTION-5 scores and patients' ratings using RCVC-questions were moderately correlated (rφ = 0.33; P = 0.04). CONCLUSION: There was moderate to no alignment between observers' and patients' ratings of SDM using both validated and nonvalidated measures. This lack of strong correlation emphasizes that observer and patient perspectives are not interchangeable. When assessing the presence, absence, or extent of SDM, it is important to clearly state whose perspectives are reflected.

Effectiveness of interventions for the implementation of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised patients at risk of venous thromboembolism: an updated abridged Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of system-wide interventions designed to increase the implementation of thromboprophylaxis and decrease the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalised medical and surgical patients at risk of VTE. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: Medline, PubMed, Embase, BIOSIS, CINAHL, Web of Science, CENTRAL, DARE, EED, LILACS and clinicaltrials.gov without language restrictions from inception to 7 January 2017, as well as the reference lists of relevant review articles. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: RCTs that evaluated the effectiveness of system-wide interventions such as alerts, multifaceted, education, and preprinted orders when compared with no intervention, existing policy or another intervention. RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs involving 35 997 participants. Eleven RCTs had data available for meta-analysis. Compared with control, we found absolute increase in the prescription of prophylaxis associated with alerts (21% increase, 95% CI [15% to 275%]) and multifaceted interventions (4% increase, 95% CI [3% to 11%]), absolute increase in the prescription of appropriate prophylaxis associated with alerts (16% increase, 95% CI [12% to 20%]) and relative risk reductions (risk ratio 64%, 95% CI [47% to 86%]) in the incidence of symptomatic VTE associated with alerts. Computer alerts were found to be more effective than human alerts, and multifaceted interventions with an alert component appeared to be more effective than multifaceted interventions without, although comparative pooled analyses were not feasible. The quality of evidence for improvement in outcomes was judged to be low to moderate certainty. CONCLUSIONS: Alerts increased the proportion of patients who received prophylaxis and appropriate prophylaxis, and decreased the incidence of symptomatic VTE. Multifaceted interventions increased the proportion of patients who received prophylaxis but were found to be less effective than alerts interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CD008201.

How often do both core competencies of shared decision making occur in family medicine teaching clinics?

OBJECTIVE: To assess how often risk communication and values clarification occur in routine family medicine practice and to explore factors associated with their occurrence. DESIGN: Qualitative and quantitative cross-sectional study. SETTING: Five university-affiliated family medicine teaching clinics across Quebec. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-one health professionals (55% physicians, 35% residents, 10% nurses or dietitians) and 238 patients (76% women; age range 16 to 82 years old). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The presence or absence of risk communication and values clarification during visits in which decisions were made was determined. Factors associated with the primary outcome (both competencies together) were identified. The OPTION5 (observing patient involvement in decision making) instrument was used to validate the dichotomous outcome. RESULTS: The presence of risk communication and values clarification during visits was associated with OPTION5 scores (area under the curve of 0.80, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.86, P < .001). Both core competencies of shared decision making occurred in 150 of 238 (63%) visits (95% CI 54% to 70%). Such an occurrence was more likely when the visit included discussion about beginning something new, treatment options, or postponing a decision, as well as when health professionals preferred a collaborative decision-making style and when the visit included more decisions or was longer. Alone, risk communication occurred in 203 of 238 (85%) visits (95% CI 82% to 96%) and values clarification in 162 of 238 (68%) visits (95% CI 61% to 75%). CONCLUSION: Health professionals in family medicine are making an effort to engage patients in shared decision making in routine daily practice, especially when there is time to do so. The greatest potential for improvement might lie in values clarification; that is, discussing what matters to patients and families.

Interventions for implementation of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients at risk for venous thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. While numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that the appropriate use of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients at risk for VTE is safe, effective, and cost-effective, thromboprophylaxis remains underused or inappropriately used. Our previous review suggested that system-wide interventions, such as education, alerts, and multifaceted interventions were more effective at improving the prescribing of thromboprophylaxis than relying on individual providers' behaviors. However, 47 of the 55 included studies in our previous review were observational in design. Thus, an update to our systematic review, focused on the higher level of evidence of RCTs only, was warranted. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of system-wide interventions designed to increase the implementation of thromboprophylaxis and decrease the incidence of VTE in hospitalized adult medical and surgical patients at risk for VTE, focusing on RCTs only. SEARCH METHODS: Our research librarian conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE Ovid, and subsequently translated it to CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase Ovid, BIOSIS Previews Ovid, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; in the Cochrane Library), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED; in the Cochrane Library), LILACS, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 7 January 2017. We also screened reference lists of relevant review articles. We identified 12,920 potentially relevant records. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all types of RCTs, with random or quasi-random methods of allocation of interventions, which either randomized individuals (e.g. parallel group, cross-over, or factorial design RCTs), or groups of individuals (cluster RCTs (CRTs)), which aimed to increase the use of prophylaxis or appropriate prophylaxis, or decrease the occurrence of VTE in hospitalized adult patients. We excluded observational studies, studies in which the intervention was simply distribution of published guidelines, and studies whose interventions were not clearly described. Studies could be in any language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We collected data on the following outcomes: the number of participants who received prophylaxis or appropriate prophylaxis (as defined by study authors), the occurrence of any VTE (symptomatic or asymptomatic), mortality, and safety outcomes, such as bleeding. We categorized the interventions into alerts (computer or human alerts), multifaceted interventions (combination of interventions that could include an alert component), educational interventions (e.g. grand rounds, courses), and preprinted orders (written predefined orders completed by the physician on paper or electronically). We meta-analyzed data across RCTs using a random-effects model. For CRTs, we pooled effect estimates (risk difference (RD) and risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence interval (CI), adjusted for clustering, when possible. We pooled results if three or more trials were available for a particular intervention. We assessed the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: From the 12,920 records identified by our search, we included 13 RCTs (N = 35,997 participants) in our qualitative analysis and 11 RCTs (N = 33,207 participants) in our meta-analyses. PRIMARY OUTCOME: Alerts were associated with an increase in the proportion of participants who received prophylaxis (RD 21%, 95% CI 15% to 27%; three studies; 5057 participants; I² = 75%; low-certainty evidence). The substantial statistical heterogeneity may be in part explained by patient types, type of hospital, and type of alert. Subgroup analyses were not feasible due to the small number of studies included in the meta-analysis.Multifaceted interventions were associated with a small increase in the proportion of participants who received prophylaxis (cluster-adjusted RD 4%, 95% CI 2% to 6%; five studies; 9198 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Multifaceted interventions with an alert component were found to be more effective than multifaceted interventions that did not include an alert, although there were not enough studies to conduct a pooled analysis. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Alerts were associated with an increase in the proportion of participants who received appropriate prophylaxis (RD 16%, 95% CI 12% to 20%; three studies; 1820 participants; I² = 0; moderate-certainty evidence). Alerts were also associated with a reduction in the rate of symptomatic VTE at three months (RR 64%, 95% CI 47% to 86%; three studies; 5353 participants; I² = 15%; low-certainty evidence). Computer alerts were associated with a reduction in the rate of symptomatic VTE, although there were not enough studies to pool computer alerts and human alerts results separately. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We reviewed RCTs that implemented a variety of system-wide strategies aimed at improving thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients. We found increased prescription of prophylaxis associated with alerts and multifaceted interventions, and increased prescription of appropriate prophylaxis associated with alerts. While multifaceted interventions were found to be less effective than alerts, a multifaceted intervention with an alert was more effective than one without an alert. Alerts, particularly computer alerts, were associated with a reduction in symptomatic VTE at three months, although there were not enough studies to pool computer alerts and human alerts results separately.Our analysis was underpowered to assess the effect on mortality and safety outcomes, such as bleeding.The incomplete reporting of relevant study design features did not allow complete assessment of the certainty of the evidence. However, the certainty of the evidence for improvement in outcomes was judged to be better than for our previous review (low- to moderate-certainty evidence, compared to very low-certainty evidence for most outcomes). The results of our updated review will help physicians, hospital administrators, and policy makers make practical decisions about adopting specific system-wide measures to improve prescription of thromboprophylaxis, and ultimately prevent VTE in hospitalized patients.