Patient perspective on decisions to switch disease-modifying treatments in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: There are now large cohorts of people with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (pwRRMS) who have taken several Disease-Modifying Treatments (DMTs). Studies about switching DMTs mostly focus on clinical outcomes rather than patients' decision-making. Neurologists are now required to support decisions at various times during the relapsing disease course and they do so with concerns about DMTs risks. This qualitative study investigates how pwRRMS weigh up the pros and cons of DMTs, focusing on perceptions of effectiveness and risks when new treatments are considered. OBJECTIVE: To increase understanding of people's experiences of decision-making when switching DMTs. METHODS: 30 semi-structured interviews were conducted with pwRRMS in England. 16 participants had switched DMT and their experiences were compared with those who had only taken one DMT. Interviews were analysed thematically to answer: what main factors influence people's decision-making to switch DMTs and why? RESULTS: Of the 16 participants with experience of switching DMT, eight had taken two or more DMTs; eight had taken three or more. Two was the DMT median. This study demonstrated that despite the term "switching" implying that similar treatments are inter-changeable, for pwRRMS taking new treatments involves different emotions, routines, risks, prognosis and communication experiences. Two meta themes identified were: 1) A distinctive, rapid and emotional decision-making process where old emotions related to MS prognosis are revisited. 2) Switching has a different impact on communication for escalation or de-escalation processes. CONCLUSION: Switching DMT involves different routines, risks, prognosis and communication experiences. These decisions are emotionally difficult because of the fear about transitioning to secondary progressive MS, and DMT effectiveness uncertainty. Patient centred decision aids should include information about first and consecutive treatment decisions.

'Warning: allergic to penicillin': association between penicillin allergy status in 2.3 million NHS general practice electronic health records, antibiotic prescribing and health outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of reported penicillin allergy (PenA) and the impact these records have on health outcomes in the UK general population are unknown. Without such data, justifying and planning enhanced allergy services is challenging. OBJECTIVES: To determine: (i) prevalence of PenA records; (ii) patient characteristics associated with PenA records; and (iii) impact of PenA records on antibiotic prescribing/health outcomes in primary care. METHODS: We carried out cross-sectional/retrospective cohort studies using patient-level data from electronic health records. Cohort study: exact matching across confounders identified as affecting PenA records. Setting: English NHS general practices between 1 April 2013 and 31 March 2014. Participants: 2.3 million adult patients. Outcome measures: prevalence of PenA, antibiotic prescribing, mortality, MRSA infection/colonization and Clostridioides difficile infection. RESULTS: PenA prevalence was 5.9% (IQR = 3.8%-8.2%). PenA records were more common in older people, females and those with a comorbidity, and were affected by GP practice. Antibiotic prescribing varied significantly: penicillins were prescribed less frequently in those with a PenA record [relative risk (RR)  = 0.15], and macrolides (RR = 4.03), tetracyclines (RR = 1.91) nitrofurantoin (RR = 1.09), trimethoprim (RR = 1.04), cephalosporins (RR = 2.05), quinolones (RR = 2.10), clindamycin (RR = 5.47) and total number of prescriptions were increased in patients with a PenA record. Risk of re-prescription of a new antibiotic class within 28 days (RR = 1.32), MRSA infection/colonization (RR = 1.90) and death during the year subsequent to 1 April 2013 (RR = 1.08) increased in those with PenA records. CONCLUSIONS: PenA records are common in the general population and associated with increased/altered antibiotic prescribing and worse health outcomes. We estimate that incorrect PenA records affect 2.7 million people in England. Establishing true PenA status (e.g. oral challenge testing) would allow more people to be prescribed first-line antibiotics, potentially improving health outcomes.

Factors associated with antibiotic prescribing for adults with acute conditions: an umbrella review across primary care and a systematic review focusing on primary dental care.

INTRODUCTION: One way to slow the spread of resistant bacteria is by improved stewardship of antibiotics: using them more carefully and reducing the number of prescriptions. With an estimated 7%-10% of antibiotic prescriptions globally originating from dental practices and up to 80% prescribed unnecessarily, dentistry has an important role to play. To support the design of new stewardship interventions through knowledge transfer between contexts, this study aimed to identify factors associated with the decision to prescribe antibiotics to adults presenting with acute conditions across primary care (including dentistry). METHODS: Two reviews were undertaken: an umbrella review across primary healthcare and a systematic review in dentistry. Two authors independently selected and quality assessed the included studies. Factors were identified using an inductive thematic approach and mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Comparisons between dental and other settings were explored. Registration number: PROSPERO_CRD42016037174. RESULTS: Searches identified 689 publications across primary care and 432 across dental care. Included studies (nine and seven, respectively) were assessed as of variable quality. They covered 46 countries, of which 12 were low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Across the two reviews, 30 factors were identified, with 'patient/condition characteristics', 'patient influence' and 'guidelines & information' the most frequent. Two factors were unique to dental studies: 'procedure possible' and 'treatment skills'. No factor related only to LMICs. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive list of factors associated with antibiotic prescribing to adults with acute conditions in primary care settings around the world has been collated and should assist theory-informed design of new context-specific stewardship interventions.

Shaping dental contract reform: a clinical and cost-effective analysis of incentive-driven commissioning for improved oral health in primary dental care.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a new blended dental contract incentivising improved oral health compared with a traditional dental contract based on units of dental activity (UDAs). DESIGN: Non-randomised controlled study. SETTING: Six UK primary care dental practices, three working under a new blended dental contract; three matched practices under a traditional contract. PARTICIPANTS: 550 new adult patients. INTERVENTIONS: A new blended/incentive-driven primary care dentistry contract and service delivery model versus the traditional contract based on UDAs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was as follows: percentage of sites with gingival bleeding on probing. Secondary outcomes were as follows: extracted and filled teeth (%), caries (International Caries Detection and Assessment System (ICDAS)), oral health-related quality of life (Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14)). Incremental cost-effective ratios used OHIP-14 and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from the EQ-5D-3L. RESULTS: At 24 months, 291/550 (53%) patients returned for final assessment; those lost to follow-up attended 6.46 appointments on average (SD 4.80). The primary outcome favoured patients in the blended contract group. Extractions and fillings were more frequent in this group. Blended contracts were financially attractive for the dental provider but carried a higher cost for the service commissioner. Differences in generic health-related quality of life were negligible. Positive changes over time in oral health-related quality of life in both groups were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first UK study to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a blended contract in primary care dentistry. Although the primary outcome favoured the blended contract, the results are limited because 47% patients did not attend at 24 months. This is consistent with 39% of adults not being regular attenders and 27% only visiting their dentist when they have a problem. Promotion of appropriate attendance, especially among those with high need, necessitates being factored into recruitment strategies of future studies.

A randomised controlled trial of complete denture impression materials.

OBJECTIVES: There is continuing demand for non-implant prosthodontic treatment and yet there is a paucity of high quality Randomised Controlled Trial (RCT) evidence for best practice. The aim of this research was to provide evidence for best practice in prosthodontic impressions by comparing two impression materials in a double-blind, randomised, crossover, controlled, clinical trial. METHODS: Eighty-five patients were recruited, using published eligibility criteria, to the trial at Leeds Dental Institute, UK. Each patient received two sets of dentures; made using either alginate or silicone impressions. Randomisations determined the order of assessment and order of impressions. The primary outcome was patient blinded preference for unadjusted dentures. Secondary outcomes were patient preference for the adjusted dentures, rating of comfort, stability and chewing efficiency, experience of each impression, and an OHIP-EDENT questionnaire. RESULTS: Seventy-eight (91.8%) patients completed the primary assessment. 53(67.9%) patients preferred dentures made from silicone impressions while 14(17.9%) preferred alginate impressions. 4(5.1%) patients found both dentures equally satisfactory and 7 (9.0%) found both equally unsatisfactory. There was a 50% difference in preference rates (in favour of silicone) (95%CI 32.7-67.3%, p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: There is significant evidence that dentures made from silicone impressions were preferred by patients. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Given the strength of the clinical findings within this paper, dentists should consider choosing silicone rather than alginate as their material of choice for secondary impressions for complete dentures. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 01528038. This article forms part of a project for which the author (TPH) won the Senior Clinical Unilever Hatton Award of the International Assocation for Dental Research, Capetown, South Africa, June 2014.