Design of therapeutic education workshops for home haemodialysis in a patient-centered chronic kidney diseases research: a qualitative study.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: A quarter of patients do not receive any information on the modalities of renal remplacement therapy (RRT) before its initiation. In our facility, we provide therapeutic education workshops for all RRT except for home hemodialysis (HHD). The objectives of this study were to identify and describe the needs of CKD patients and caregivers for RRT with HHD and design therapeutic education workshops. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Two sequential methods of qualitative data collection were conducted. Interviews with patients treated with HHD and doctors specialized in HHD were performed to define the interview guide followed by semi-structured interviews with the help of HHD patients from our center. ANALYTIC APPROACH: Thematic analysis was conducted and were rooted in the principles of qualitative analysis for social scientists. Data were analyzed by two investigators. Transcribed interviews were entered into RQDA 3.6.1 software for data organization and coding purposes (Version 3.6.1). RESULTS: In total, five interviews were performed. We identified six themes related to the barriers, facilitators, and potential solutions to home dialysis therapy: (1) HHD allows autonomy and freedom with constraints, (2) safety of the care environment, (3) the caregiver and family environment, (4) patient's experience and experiential knowledge, (5) self-care experience and impact on life, and (6) factors that impact the choice of treatment with HHD. We designed therapeutic education workshops in a group of patients and caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Our study confirmed previous results obtained in literature on the major barriers, facilitators, and potential solutions to HHD including the impact of HHD on the caregiver, the experiences of patients already treated with HHD, and the role of nurses and nephrologists in informing and educating patients. A program to develop patient-to-patient peer mentorship allowing patients to discuss their dialysis experience may be relevant.

Efficacy of a CO2-releasing suppository in dyschezia: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Constipation has a significant impact on quality of life. Aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and the efficacy for relieving dyschezia symptoms of a CO2-releasing suppository in a randomized, placebo-controlled, clinical trial. METHODS: Fifty-three office-based primary care physicians and 24 gastroenterologists conducted the study in France, between November 2010 and January 2012. Patients (aged 18-75 years) with dyschezia were eligible. Patients were randomly allocated a once-a-day suppository (CO2-releasing suppository or placebo) for 21 days. Primary endpoint was the change, from Day 0 to Day 21, in the intensity of discomfort related to dyschezia based on a self-assessed 0-100 visual analogue scale. RESULTS: A total of 323 patients were randomized, i.e. 166 into the intervention group and 157 into the placebo group. Co-variance analysis showed a greater reduction in discomfort visual analogue scale score in the intervention group (-34.5mm; standard error of the mean: 1.8mm) than in the placebo group (-26.2mm; standard error of the mean: 1.9 mm; p<0.001). The greater efficacy of the CO2-releasing suppository was confirmed for all secondary efficacy parameters. No significant side effects for either treatment were observed. CONCLUSION: A CO2-releasing suppository is more effective than a placebo for the relief of symptoms of dyschezia. This efficacy is associated with a good safety profile.

Comparison of general practitioners and rheumatologists' prescription patterns for patients with knee osteoarthritis.

BACKGROUND: To compare the prescription modalities of general practitioners (GPs) and rheumatologists (RHs) for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis (OA) and to determine correlates with prescription of low-dose NSAIDs. METHODS: This observational, prospective, national survey was carried out among a national representative sample of GPs (n = 808) and RHs (n = 134). Each physician completed a medical questionnaire for the 2 most recent patients fulfilling the ACR criteria for knee OA. RESULTS: GPs and RHs included 1,570 and 251 patients, respectively. Mean pain level of the knee (on a VAS, 0-100 mm) was greater for GP patients than for RH patients (49.8 ± 16.3 vs. 46.2 ± 17.1 mm, respectively; p < 0.01). As compared with patients of RHs, those of GPs more frequently had another joint affected by OA: 71.2% vs. 63.7% (p < 0.0001) and more often had hypertension and diabetes mellitus (p < 0.05). As compared with RHs, GPs more frequently prescribed low-dose NSAIDs (p < 0.0001), oral NSAIDs (p < 0.05), and topical NSAIDs (p < 0.0001) but less frequently symptomatic slow-acting drugs for OA (p < 0.01). Moreover, GPs more frequently recommended rehabilitation (p < 0.01) and loss of weight (p < 0.0001). Logistic regression analysis revealed an association of low-dose NSAIDs prescription and prescription by GPs, prescription of topical NSAIDs, no prescription of oral NSAIDs or coxibs and no intra-articular injection of steroids. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified speciality-related variability in some aspects of the management of knee OA. The clinical profile of patients with knee OA differed between GPs and RHs.

Management of osteoporosis and associated quality of life in post menopausal women.

BACKGROUND: The study aimed to describe the characteristics of women treated for recently-diagnosed osteoporosis, to identify variables associated with different treatment regimens and to assess impact on quality of life. METHODS: This is an observational, cross-sectional pharmacoepidemiological study performed in France. A random sample of 684 general practitioners, gynaecologists and rheumatologists included the first three post-menopausal osteoporotic women consulting in the previous six months on the basis of densitometry or fracture. Data on osteoporosis, fracture risk factors, treatments and comorbidities was collected with a physician questionnaire. Data on quality of life was collected using the SF-12. RESULTS: Data were analysed for 1,306 patients, of whom 1,117 (85.5%) had been evaluated by densitometry within the previous six months and 554 (42.4%) had experienced a fracture, most frequently of the spine or wrist within the previous six months. Osteoporotic fracture risk factors were reported in 1,028 women (78.7%). 746 women (57.1%) were currently receiving treatment, most frequently weekly or monthly bisphosphonates. Five variables were associated with prescription choice: age (p < 0.0001), physician speciality (p < 0.0001), previous fracture history (p = 0.0002), ongoing treatment at the time of consultation (p = 0.0091) and paraclinical investigations performed in the previous six months (p = 0.0060). SF-12 scores were lower in women complaining of pain, with recent fractures and with spine or hip fractures and in women consulting rheumatologists. CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of women diagnosed with osteoporosis had been evaluated by densitometry, in agreement with national guidelines. Treatment choice varied between physician groups.

Compliance and treatment satisfaction of post menopausal women treated for osteoporosis. Compliance with osteoporosis treatment.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to anti-osteoporosis treatments is poor, exposing treated women to increased fracture risk. Determinants of poor adherence are poorly understood. The study aims to determine physician- and patient- rated treatment compliance with osteoporosis treatments and to evaluate factors influencing compliance. METHODS: This was an observational, cross-sectional pharmacoepidemiological study with a randomly-selected sample of 420 GPs, 154 rheumatologists and 110 gynaecologists practicing in France. Investigators included post-menopausal women with a diagnosis of osteoporosis and a treatment initiated in the previous six months. Investigators completed a questionnaire on clinical features, treatments and medical history, and on patient compliance. Patients completed a questionnaire on sociodemographic features, lifestyle, attitudes and knowledge about osteoporosis, treatment compliance, treatment satisfaction and quality of life. Treatment compliance was evaluated with the Morisky Medication-taking Adherence Scale. Variables collected in the questionnaires were evaluated for association with compliance using multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: 785 women were evaluated. Physicians considered 95.4% of the sample to be compliant, but only 65.5% of women considered themselves compliant. The correlation between patient and physician perceptions of compliance was low (κ: 0.11 [95% CI: 0.06 to 0.16]). Patient-rated compliance was highest for monthly bisphosphonates (79.7%) and lowest for hormone substitution therapy (50.0%). Six variables were associated with compliance: treatment administration frequency, perceptions of long-term treatment acceptability, perceptions of health consequences of osteoporosis, perceptions of knowledge about osteoporosis, exercise and mental quality of life. CONCLUSION: Compliance to anti-osteoporosis treatments is poor. Reduction of dosing regimen frequency and patient education may be useful ways of improving compliance.