WHO guide to good prescribing is 25 years old: quo vadis?

INTRODUCTION: Twenty-five years ago, the World Health Organization (WHO) published the Guide to Good Prescribing (GGP), followed by the accompanying Teacher's Guide to Good Prescribing (TGGP). The GGP is based on a normative 6-step model for therapeutic reasoning and prescribing, and provides a six-step guide for students to the process of rational prescribing. METHOD: We reviewed the need to update both WHO publications by evaluating their use and impact, including new (theoretical) insights and demands. Based on information from literature, Internet, and other (personal) sources, we draw the following conclusions. RESULTS: 1. An update of the GGP and TGGP, both in terms of content and form, is necessary because of the current need for these tools (irrational medicine use and unavailability of medicines), the lack of similar documents, and the lack of connection with recent developments, such as Internet and modern education; 2. The basic (6-step) model of the GGP is effective in terms of rational prescribing in the undergraduate situation and is still consistent with current theories about (context) learning, clinical decision-making, and clinical practice; 3. The dissemination and introduction of the GGP and TGGP in education has been successful so far, but is still not optimal because of lack of support and cooperation. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the evaluation results, a plan for the revision of the GGP and TGGP is presented.

The prescribing performance and confidence of final-year medical students.

It is widely believed that medical students are not as well prepared or as sufficiently skilled in prescribing as they should be at the outset of their careers. However, a preclinical context-learning pharmacotherapy program has been found to improve students' therapeutic skills during an ensuing clinical clerkship in internal medicine.(1) In this Commentary, we argue that a similar approach during a clinical clerkship may further enhance therapeutic skills at the end of the clerkship.

The feasibility of incorporating structured therapeutic consultations with real patients into the clinical clerkship internal medicine.

This study aims to determine the feasibility of incorporating structured therapeutic consultations (TCs) into the clinical clerkship internal medicine. TCs were considered feasible if students were able to draw up a therapeutic plan and carry out a TC, and if students and their supervisors considered TCs workable and useful. From March 2008 to October 2009, medical students carried out a "diagnostic" and subsequent "therapeutic" consultation with the same patient during their clinical clerkship internal medicine at the VU University Medical Center. After the diagnosis was established, the student had to formulate a therapeutic plan and then carry out a TC with the patient, supervised by a clinician. The supervisor assessed the therapeutic plan and how the student conducted the TC. Both the student and the supervisor received a questionnaire about the workability and usefulness of the TC. On average, students' performance in drawing up a therapeutic plan was awarded a score of 4.4 on a five-point scale, and the TC performance of 96 % of the students was considered amply sufficient or better. Eighty-three percent of the supervisors agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that the TC is a worthwhile addition to the clerkship, and 67 % of the students indicated that they would like to perform more TCs. This study shows that incorporating a structured TC with a real patient into the clinical clerkship internal medicine is both feasible and worthwhile. This may be an important step to improving the prescribing skills and attitudes of junior doctors and residents and to reducing their prescribing errors after graduation.

Do medical students copy the drug treatment choices of their teachers or do they think for themselves?

PURPOSE: Although the importance of rational prescribing is generally accepted, the teaching of pharmacotherapy to undergraduate medical students is still unsatisfactory. Because clinical teachers are an important role model for medical students, it is of interest to know whether this extends to therapeutic decision-making. The aim of this study was to find out which factors contribute to the drug choices made by medical students and their teachers (general practitioners and clinical specialists). METHODS: Final-year medical students (n = 32), and general practitioners (n = 29), lung specialists (n = 26), orthopaedic surgeons (n = 24), and internists (n = 24) serving as medical teachers from all eight medical schools in the Netherlands participated in the study. They were asked to prescribe treatment (drug or otherwise) for uncomplicated (A) and complicated (B) written patient cases and to indicate which factors influenced their choice of treatment, using a list of factors reported in the literature to influence drug prescribing. RESULTS: Final-year medical students primarily based their drug choice on the factors 'effectiveness of the drugs' and 'examples from medical teachers'. In contrast, clinical teachers primarily based their drug choice on the factors 'clinical experience', 'effectiveness of the drugs', 'side effects of the drugs', 'standard treatment guidelines', and 'scientific literature'. CONCLUSIONS: Medical teachers would appear to base their drug choice mainly on clinical experience and drug-related factors, whereas final-year medical students base their drug choice mainly on examples provided by their medical teachers. It is essential that medical teachers clearly explain to their students how they arrive at a specific choice of medication since medical students tend to copy the therapeutic drug choices from their teachers, mainly because of a lack of experience. Presenting students with clinical therapeutic problems early during undergraduate training will not only give them a chance to gain experience in solving medical problems but will also give meaning to what they are studying as opposed to merely reproducing what they learn or copying what they are told.

The effect of rosiglitazone on asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA) in critically ill patients.

Asymmetric dimethylarginine (ADMA) plays a crucial role in the arginine-nitric oxide pathway. Critically ill patients have elevated levels of ADMA which proved to be a strong and independent risk factor for ICU mortality. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)-gamma agonist rosiglitazone on ADMA plasma levels in critically ill patients. In a randomized controlled pilot study, ADMA, arginine and symmetric dimethylarginine (SDMA) were measured in 21 critically ill patients on the intensive care unit (ICU). Twelve patients received 4mg rosiglitazone once a day for a maximum of 6 weeks or until discharge or death. Nine patients served as control patients. In addition, total sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA score), kidney function and liver function were determined. Compared to the ADMA levels of healthy individuals as specified in earlier studies, ADMA plasma levels of critically ill patients were significantly higher (0.42+/-0.06 versus 0.73+/-0.2micromol/L, respectively; p<0.001). Both ADMA (B=3.5; 95% CI: 0.5-6.5; p=0.023) and SDMA (B=1.7; 95% CI: 0.7-2.7; p=0.001) were independently related to SOFA scores. Overall, rosiglitazone treatment had no effect on ADMA levels, which only significantly differed between the rosiglitazone and control groups at day 7 (p=0.028). The SOFA score in the rosiglitazone group was lower compared to the control group but the difference was only statistically significant at day 10 (p=0.01). In conclusion, in critically ill patients plasma ADMA levels were elevated and associated with the extent of multiple organ failure, but no significant ADMA-lowering effect of the PPAR-gamma agonist rosiglitazone was observed.

A context-learning pharmacotherapy program for preclinical medical students leads to more rational drug prescribing during their clinical clerkship in internal medicine.

The irrational prescribing of drugs seems to be a general problem in medical practice, occasionally leading to serious consequences. In order to improve the drug prescribing performance of medical students, a compulsory context-learning pharmacotherapy module was implemented in 1998 in the medical curriculum of 2nd-4th-year medical students at theVU University Medical Center (VUmc), Amsterdam, The Netherlands. As part of this program, preclinical medical students are taught how to select, prescribe, and evaluate a drug regimen rationally. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of this preclinical pharmacotherapy program on the quality of rational prescribing during the ensuing clinical clerkship of these students in internal medicine. The results of this study indicate that preclinical context-learning in pharmacotherapy leads to the use of more rational prescribing modalities by medical students during their ensuing clinical clerkship in internal medicine. This effect was obtained not only with respect to the clinical topics in which training had been given as part of the pharmacotherapy curriculum, but also for other disease situations that the students dealt with. This implies that students not only remember the specific information they have learned during the training, but are also able to apply the acquired skills in new situations (transfer effect).

Efficacy of temazepam in frequent users: a series of N-of-1 trials.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines are frequently prescribed for sleep disturbances. However, benzodiazepines are associated with side effects, and may be ineffective when used for a prolonged period of time. OBJECTIVES: To investigate for individual patients whether placebo was as effective as temazepam, or whether 10 mg was as effective as 20 mg temazepam, and whether these results influenced their future temazepam use. METHODS: A series of randomized double-blind N-of-1 trials were conducted in general practices in The Netherlands for patients who were using temazepam regularly. Each patient received five pairs of treatments consisting of one week of temazepam (10 or 20 mg) and one week of the control intervention (placebo or 10 mg temazepam). Per pair, the sequence of treatments was randomized. Main outcome measures were: time to fall asleep, and the individual main complaint. RESULTS: Twelve out of 15 patients completed their trial. In three patients there was no difference, in five a large difference, and in four a small difference in favour of temazepam. At follow-up, seven patients had stopped or reduced their temazepam use. CONCLUSION: The results regarding the efficacy of temazepam varied across patients. N-of-1 trials seem to be valuable in patients who are motivated to stop or reduce their temazepam use. They clearly demonstrate the efficacy of temazepam, and may give patients additional confidence to discontinue regular hypnotic use. The value of N-of-1 trials for patients who are less motivated is unclear, as the size of treatment effect does not seem to influence future hypnotic use.

Switching from NSAIDs to paracetamol: a series of n of 1 trials for individual patients with osteoarthritis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate for individual patients who have been using NSAIDs regularly, whether paracetamol is as effective as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in the treatment of pain and disability related to osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. METHODS: A series of n of 1 trials were conducted in general practices in Amsterdam and the surrounding area. Each patient was his or her own control and received five pairs of treatments comprising two weeks of an NSAID and two weeks of paracetamol. For each pair, the order of treatments was randomised. Outcome measures were severity of individual main complaints, intensity of pain, satisfaction with drugs, function test, and side effects. RESULTS: Thirteen patients were selected. Six patients did not complete the study. For five patients completing the study little or no difference was found between NSAIDs and paracetamol, for one patient the results favoured the NSAID, and for one patient there was no association between outcome and type of drug. It was recommended that six patients changed to paracetamol; the others continued with NSAIDs. Three months after the end of the study, four of the six patients for whom paracetamol had been recommended were taking NSAIDs for practical reasons or perceived lack of efficacy. CONCLUSION: The results of the n of 1 trials varied across patients. n of 1 trials can be used to investigate which treatment is best for any specific person, thus avoiding unnecessary prolonged treatment with NSAIDs. However, practical reasons may cause patients to switch from NSAIDs to paracetamol or not.