Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Br J Gen Pract ; 73(735): e752-e759, 2023 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37487641

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Routinely collected clinical data based on electronic medical records could be used to define frailty. AIM: To estimate the ability of four potential frailty measures that use electronic medical record data to identify older patients who were frail according to their GP. DESIGN AND SETTING: This retrospective cohort study used data from 36 GP practices in the Dutch PHARMO Data Network. METHOD: The measures were the Dutch Polypharmacy Index, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), Chronic Disease Score (CDS), and Frailty Index. GPs' clinical judgement of patients' frailty status was considered the reference standard. Performance of the measures was assessed with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Analyses were done in the total population and stratified by age and sex. RESULTS: Of 31 511 patients aged ≥65 years, 3735 (11.9%) patients were classified as frail by their GP. The CCI showed the highest AUC (0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.78 to 0.80), followed by the CDS (0.69, 95% CI = 0.68 to 0.70). Overall, the measures showed poorer performance in males and females aged ≥85 years than younger age groups (AUC 0.55-0.58 in females and 0.57-0.60 in males). CONCLUSION: This study showed that of four frailty measures based on electronic medical records in primary care only the CCI had an acceptable performance to assess frailty compared with frailty assessments done by professionals. In the youngest age groups diagnostic performance was acceptable for all measures. However, performance declined with older age and was least accurate in the oldest age group, thereby limiting the use in patients of most interest.


Subject(s)
Frailty , Aged , Male , Female , Humans , Frailty/diagnosis , Frail Elderly , Retrospective Studies , Geriatric Assessment , Chronic Disease , Primary Health Care
2.
Br J Gen Pract ; 73(732): e493-e501, 2023 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37385759

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: GPs have been shown to be important providers of medical care during pregnancy, however, little evidence exists on their awareness of pregnancy when prescribing medication to women. AIM: To assess GPs' awareness of pregnancy and its association with prescribing medication with potential safety risks. DESIGN AND SETTING: Population-based study using confirmed pregnancy records linked to GP records from the PHARMO Perinatal Research Network. METHOD: GPs' awareness of pregnancy, defined as the presence of a pregnancy confirmation in the GP information system during pregnancy, was assessed from 2004 to 2020. GP prescriptions of medication with potential safety risks were selected during pregnancy and its association with GPs' awareness of pregnancy was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A pregnancy confirmation was present in the GP records for 48% (n = 67 496/140 976) of selected pregnancies, increasing from 28% (n = 34/121) in 2004 to 63% in 2020 (n = 5763/9124). During 3% (n = 4489/140 976) of all pregnancies, the GP prescribed highly hazardous medication with teratogenic effects that should have been (temporarily) avoided. Pregnancy was GP confirmed for only 13% (n = 585/4489) at the first occurrence of such a prescription. Comparative analyses showed that women without a pregnancy confirmation were 59% more likely to be prescribed this highly hazardous medication (odds ratio [OR] 1.59, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.49 to 1.70) compared with those with a confirmed pregnancy. CONCLUSION: Results of this study indicate a potential issue with GP awareness about pregnancy status at the time medication with potential safety risks is prescribed. Although pregnancy registration by GPs improved over the years, inadequate use still seems to be made of the available information systems for appropriate drug surveillance.


Subject(s)
Prescriptions , Substance-Related Disorders , Humans , Female , Pregnancy , Odds Ratio
3.
J Bone Miner Res ; 34(11): 1993-2000, 2019 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31220365

ABSTRACT

Population screening for fracture risk may reduce the fracture incidence. In this randomized pragmatic trial, the SALT Osteoporosis Study (SOS), we studied whether screening for fracture risk and subsequent treatment in primary care can reduce fractures compared with usual care. A total of 11,032 women aged 65 to 90 years with ≥1 clinical risk factor for fractures were individually randomized to screening (n = 5575) or usual care (n = 5457). Participants in the screening group underwent a screening program, including bone densitometry and vertebral fracture assessment. Participants with a high 10-year fracture probability (FRAX) or a vertebral fracture were offered treatment with anti-osteoporosis medication by their general practitioner. Incident fractures as reported by questionnaires were verified with medical records. Follow-up was completed by 94% of the participants (mean follow-up = 3.7 years). Of the 5575 participants in the screening group, 1417 (25.4%) had an indication for anti-osteoporosis medication. Screening and subsequent treatment had no statistically significant effect on the primary outcome fracture (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.87-1.08), nor on the secondary outcomes osteoporotic fractures (HR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.81-1.03), major osteoporotic fractures (HR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.80-1.04), hip fractures (HR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.71-1.15), falls (odds ratio [OR] = 0.91; 95% CI 0.72-1.15), or mortality (HR = 1.03; 95% CI 0.91-1.17). Post hoc explorative finding suggested that screening might be most effective after a recent fracture (HR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.44-0.96 for major osteoporotic fractures and HR = 0.38; 95% CI 0.18-0.79 for hip fractures). The results of this study might have been compromised by nonparticipation and medication nonadherence in the screening group. Overall, this study does not provide sufficient indications to consider screening for fracture prevention. However, we cannot exclude its clinical relevance to reduce (major) osteoporotic fractures and hip fractures because of the relatively small number of women with a treatment indication in the intervention group. © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.


Subject(s)
Hip Fractures , Mass Screening , Osteoporosis , Osteoporotic Fractures , Surveys and Questionnaires , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Hip Fractures/epidemiology , Hip Fractures/prevention & control , Humans , Osteoporosis/diagnosis , Osteoporosis/drug therapy , Osteoporosis/epidemiology , Osteoporotic Fractures/epidemiology , Osteoporotic Fractures/prevention & control
4.
Am J Clin Nutr ; 107(6): 1043-1053, 2018 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29868916

ABSTRACT

Background: Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the causal role of vitamin D on noncommunicable disease outcomes is inconclusive. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate whether there are beneficial or harmful effects of cholecalciferol (vitamin D3) supplementation according to subgroups of remeasured serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] on cardiovascular and glucometabolic surrogate markers with the use of individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis of RCTs. Design: Twelve RCTs (16 wk to 1 y of follow-up) were included. For standardization, 25(OH)D concentrations for all participants (n = 2994) at baseline and postintervention were re-measured in bio-banked serum samples with the use of a certified liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method traceable to a reference measurement procedure. IPD meta-analyses were performed according to subgroups of remeasured 25(OH)D. Main outcomes were blood pressure and glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c). Secondary outcomes were LDL, HDL, and total cholesterol and triglycerides; parathyroid hormone (PTH); fasting glucose, insulin, and C-peptide; and 2-h glucose. In secondary analyses, other potential effect modifiers were studied. Results: Remeasurement of 25(OH)D resulted in a lower mean 25(OH)D concentration in 10 of 12 RCTs. Vitamin D supplementation had no effect on the main outcomes of blood pressure and HbA1c. Supplementation resulted in 10-20% lower PTH concentrations, irrespective of the 25(OH)D subgroups. The subgroup analyses according to achieved 25(OH)D concentrations showed a significant decrease in LDL-cholesterol concentrations after vitamin D supplementation in 25(OH)D subgroups with <75, <100, and <125 nmol of -0.10 mmol/L (95% CI: -0.20, -0.00 mmol/L), -0.10 mmol/L (95% CI: -0.18, -0.02 mmol/L), and -0.07 mmol/L (95% CI: -0.14, -0.00 mmol/L), respectively. Patient features that modified the treatment effect could not be identified. Conclusions: For the main outcomes of blood pressure and HbA1c, the data support no benefit for vitamin D supplementation. For the secondary outcomes, in addition to its effect on PTH, we observed indications for a beneficial effect of vitamin D supplementation only on LDL cholesterol, which warrants further investigation. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as NCT02551835.


Subject(s)
Calcifediol/pharmacology , Cardiovascular Diseases/blood , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/blood , Adult , Calcifediol/administration & dosage , Calcium/administration & dosage , Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/prevention & control , Glycated Hemoglobin , Humans , Parathyroid Hormone/blood
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...