Search

Purpose To investigate the prevalence and initiation of statins as well as treatment intensity in the oldest old, with younger olds as a reference. Methods A population-based cohort was used, including record-linked data from the Total Population Register, the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register, and the Swedish Patient Register. In each year over the study period (2009–2015), statin use was described in individuals 85 years or older and 65–84 years of age, and initiation rates were calculated among individuals with no statin treatment during a preceding 3-year period. Results A total of 1,764,836 individuals ≥ 65 years in 2009, increasing to 2,022,764 in 2015, were included in the analyses. In individuals 85 years or older, the prevalence of statin therapy increased from 11% in 2009 to 16% in 2015, the corresponding initiation rates being 1.3% and 1.7%, respectively. Corresponding prevalence and incidence figures in 65–84-year-olds were 23 to 25% and 3.0 to 3.3%, respectively. Overall, the proportion of individuals initiating statin with high-intensity treatment (atorvastatin ≥ 40 mg or rosuvastatin ≥ 20 mg) in the oldest old increased from 1 to 36% during the study period, and a similar increase was seen in the younger age group. Over the study years, the presence of an established indication for statin treatment varied between 70 and 76% in the oldest old and between 30 and 39% in the younger olds. Conclusion Prevalence and initiation of statin therapy are increasing among the oldest old, despite the fact that randomized controlled trials focusing on this age group are lacking and safety signals are difficult to detect.

Background According to previous studies, older patients frequently have serum concentrations of antidepressant medication above the recommended reference range. Objective The aim of this study was to investigate whether prescribed doses of antidepressants and the proportion of individuals with serum concentrations above the recommended reference range in older individuals (≥ 65 years) have changed over a 10-year period in Norway. Methods Serum concentration measurements and prescribed daily doses of antidepressants in 2007 and 2017 were extracted from a therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) database at the Center for Psychopharmacology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, Oslo, Norway. The database contains routine follow-up serum concentration measurements of psychotropic drugs for patients from all parts of the country. For citalopram, escitalopram, sertraline, mirtazapine and venlafaxine, the differences between 2007 and 2017 in mean prescribed doses and the proportion of patients with at least one serum concentration above the reference range, according to the Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Neuropsychopharmakologie und Pharmakopsychiatrie (AGNP) guidelines, were compared. For the proportion of patients with serum concentrations above the recommended reference range, differences between individuals aged 65–79 and ≥ 80 years were also examined. Results The analyses of prescribed doses included 806 patients from 2007 and 1932 patients from 2017, with 972 and 2441 TDM samples, respectively. Between 2007 and 2017, modest reductions in prescribed daily doses were observed for citalopram (20 vs. 17 mg/day) and escitalopram (11 vs. 10 mg/day), but the proportion of patients with serum concentrations above the recommended reference range was unchanged for both drugs, i.e. 11.5% vs. 12.4% for citalopram and 3.6% vs. 2.9% for escitalopram. For mirtazapine and venlafaxine, prescribed doses were reduced from 28 to 25 mg/day and 150 to 125 mg/day, respectively. A significant reduction in the proportion of individuals with serum concentrations above the recommended reference range was observed for mirtazapine (27.1% vs. 11.5%) and for individuals aged ≥ 80 years using venlafaxine (60.0% vs. 30.0%). For sertraline, no differences in prescribed doses or serum concentrations above the recommended reference range were observed. Conclusions Over a 10-year period, prescribed doses of antidepressants have been slightly reduced in older Norwegian patients, but a considerable proportion is still exposed to high serum concentrations of antidepressants. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40266-020-00784-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Adequate knowledge in pharmacology is crucial in many professions but a non-negligible proportion of students fail the exams and knowledge of underlying factors is largely lacking. This study was performed to evaluate to what extent various factors are related to student performance in pharmacology-related courses in higher education, linking administrative data to attendance at non-mandatory teaching sessions and questionnaire replies. A total of 596 students (median age: 22 years; 70% female) were included from eight courses which are part of either the medical, pharmacy, dentistry, nursing, or biomedical analyst degree programs at the Sahlgrenska Academy, Gothenburg, Sweden. In all, 380 (64%) students passed the regular program- and course-specific exam. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that a high participation rate in non-mandatory teaching sessions, as well as a perceived great interest in pharmacology, was associated with students’ passing of the exam; adjusted odds ratio (95% confidence interval): 1.30 (1.19 to 1.42; per 10 percentage unit increase in attendance) and 3.38 (1.86 to 6.12), respectively. Working for wages during the course weeks and pre-university grades used in the program application were significant factors in subgroups of students, negatively and positively associated with the exam results, respectively. Age, having Swedish as a second language, and time spent studying were only associated with the exam result in the univariate analyses. To conclude, both students and teachers can contribute significantly to successful education within pharmacology, students by participating in the teaching sessions and teachers by encouraging students to find the subject interesting. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40670-020-01026-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose To describe methodological and reporting issues in non-randomised comparative drug safety studies pooled in meta-analyses, with focus on confounding by indication. Methods All studies included in statistically significant meta-analyses in a recent publication investigating fall risk properties of cardiovascular drugs were reviewed. Study characteristics were extracted and assessed. Results Nine studies, including between 498 and 321,995 individuals, contributed data to the significant meta-analyses in which loop diuretics and beta-blockers were associated with falls, five published in 2015. Five individual studies reported a statistically significant association. In the five cohort studies, characteristics of exposed vs unexposed individuals were either not reported (n = 3) or differed substantially regarding morbidity (n = 2). Drug treatment was determined at baseline, and data on falls were collected for up to 2 years thereafter. Out of the four case-control studies, the cases and controls in only one study were matched for morbidity. Morbidity characteristics of fallers compared with non-fallers were either not reported (n = 2) or they differed (n = 1) or were reported according to the matched-for diseases (n = 1). Confounding by indication was explicitly discussed in two studies. None of the abstract conclusions considered causality issues or the possibility of confounding by indication. Conclusions Confounding by indication is a major issue in non-randomised comparative drug safety studies, a problem which may be concealed in meta-analyses. To enhance such research, compared groups need to be balanced regarding relevant factors including morbidities and characteristics adequately reported. Confounding by indication needs to be explicitly discussed and highlighted in the abstract conclusion.

Background The prescribing of psychotropic drugs, i.e. antidepressants, sedatives (anxiolytics, hypnotics), and antipsychotics is considerable and a large proportion is prescribed by general practitioners (GPs). There are concerns about dependency and medicalisation, and treatment decisions in psychiatry may appear arbitrary. Increased knowledge of GPs’ opinions on the prescribing of psychotropics may lead to more rational use of these drugs. We aimed to quantify GPs’ attitudes, beliefs and behaviour towards various aspects of psychotropic drug prescribing. Methods A questionnaire was distributed to physicians in all 199 GP practices in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden. The questions concerned determinants of psychotropic drug prescribing that had been identified in a previous, qualitative study. Results Questionnaires from 516 physicians (64% of whom were specialists in family medicine, 21% interns in family medicine, 15% others) at 152 GP practices (59% of which were state owned, 72% in an urban area, with a median of 7808 registered patients) were returned (estimated response rate: 48%). A majority – 62% – of GPs found it easier to start prescribing psychotropic drugs than to stop (95% confidence interval, 57%, 66%) vs. 8% (6%, 10%). Most GPs considered psychotherapy more suitable than psychotropic drugs in cases of mild psychiatric disease: 81% (77%, 84%) vs. 4% (3%, 6%). The problems treated with psychotropic drugs were considered to be mostly socioeconomic, or mostly medical, by similar proportions of physicians: 38% (34%, 42%) vs. 40% (36%, 45%). GPs were on average satisfied with their levels of antidepressant and sedative prescribing in relation to medical needs. More GPs regarded their prescribing of antipsychotics as being too low rather than too high: 33% (28%, 39%) vs. 7% (4%, 10%). Conclusions This study illustrates the complexities of psychiatric drug treatment in primary care and identifies potential drivers of increased prescribing of psychotropics. The manifold factors, medical and non-medical, that affect prescribing decisions may explain a sense of arbitrariness surrounding psychotropic drug treatment. This notwithstanding, GPs seem mostly content with their prescribing. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0885-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose Indicators based on the number of drugs in the medication list are sometimes used to reflect quality of drug treatment. This study aimed to evaluate the concurrent validity of such polypharmacy indicators, i.e., their ability to differentiate between appropriate and suboptimal drug treatment. Methods In 200 hip fracture patients (≥65 years of age), consecutively recruited to a randomized controlled study in Sahlgrenska University Hospital in 2009, quality of drug treatment at study entry was assessed according to a gold standard as well as to indicators based on the number of drugs in the medication list. As gold standard, two specialist physicians independently assessed and then agreed on the quality for each patient, after initial screening with Screening Tool of Older Persons’ potentially inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) and Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment (START). Suboptimal drug treatment was defined as ≥1 STOPP/START outcomes assessed as clinically relevant at the individual level. Results A total of 141 (71 %) patients had suboptimal drug treatment according to the gold standard. The corresponding figures according to the indicators ≥5 and ≥10 drugs were 149 (75) and 49 (25 %), respectively. The sensitivity for the indicators ≥5 and ≥10 drugs to detect suboptimal drug treatment was 0.86 (95 % confidence interval: 0.80; 0.92) and 0.32 (0.25; 0.40), respectively. The specificity was 0.53 (0.41; 0.65) and 0.93 (0.82; 0.97). Conclusions The findings suggest that no polypharmacy indicator could serve as a general indicator of prescribing quality; cut-offs for such indicators need to be chosen according to purpose.

To describe the discipline clinical pharmacology of today in the Swedish healthcare system from the performers’ point of view. A questionnaire was administered in December 2012 to physicians working within the specialty clinical pharmacology in the Swedish healthcare system (7 sites; 1–26 physicians per site). The questionnaire included questions pertaining to the characteristics of the responder and statements to which the responder indicated his/her level of agreement using a score ranging from 1 (total disagreement) to 5 (total agreement). A total of 61 completed questionnaires were returned (response rate: 97 %; 55 % male; 74 % specialists and/or consultants). In the preceding month, 79 % of the responders had performed educational activities, 74 % had functioned as an “expert”, and 75 % had performed research. The academic merits of the responders were high, with 72 % having at least a PhD degree and 23 % being professors. Among those performing research, the focus of 83 % was related to the field of clinical pharmacology, with the main sub-areas being pharmacoepidemiology (59 %) and/or pharmacogenetics (41 %). Regarding the apprehension questions, the responders strongly agreed that the specialty clinical pharmacology meets a need in the healthcare system (4.5 ± 0.7), that they wanted to continue to work within the specialty (4.5 ± 0.7), that their personal professional prospects were good (3.9 ± 1.0), and that they would recommend a colleague to specialize within the field (3.9 ± 1.1). The responders from the largest and first established site (Karolinska University Hospital) agreed with these points to a significantly greater extent than responders from other sites. The majority of the performers of clinical pharmacology in Swedish healthcare consider this specialty to be important to the medical community. By carrying out educational activities, providing expertise, and performing research, the performers seem to be content with their work and future prospects. Performers within the largest and oldest site in Sweden, generally held the most positive view of the specialty.

To compare drug treatment changes in older hip fracture patients with and without multi-dose drug dispensing (MDD) after discharge from hospital.Hip fracture patients (aged 65 years or older) for whom the same prescribing procedure was used at discharge and at the 6-month follow-up were extracted from two patient cohorts consecutively recruited in 2008 (n = 100) and 2009 (n = 99), respectively. Of these hip fracture patients, 107 patients used MDD and 47 used ordinary prescriptions (OP) throughout the study period. Drug treatment was registered at discharge and at the 6-month follow-up. Each drug was classified as changed (withdrawn, dosage adjusted or added) or unchanged. The association between MDD and changes in drug treatment was analysed with generalised estimating equations (GEE). Age, sex, cognition, year of study and type of drug (fall-risk-increasing, fracture-preventing or other) were included in the model.A total of 1,980 drugs were prescribed at discharge and at the 6-month follow-up to the 154 patients. Of the 1,413 drugs prescribed via MDD, 597 (43%) drugs were unchanged. The corresponding figure for drugs prescribed via OP was 166 out of 567 (29%) prescribed drugs. Analysis with GEE revealed an odds ratio (95% confidence interval) of 1.66 (1.20-2.31) to 1.77 (1.38-2.27) for a drug to be classified as unchanged when prescribed via the MDD system.MDD is associated with fewer changes in drug treatment compared with OP. Further studies of risks and benefits from this prescribing procedure are urged.

Hip fracture is a common diagnosis in the older population, with often serious consequences. Drug treatment may be of significance for both falls and fractures.To investigate drug treatment in older hip fracture patients, focusing on use of fall-risk-increasing and fracture-preventing drugs before and after the fracture.This was an observational study conducted in Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. The participants were 100 consecutive hip fracture patients agedor =65 years with a median age of 86 (range 66-97) years. Seventy-three patients were female, and 87 patients had at least one strong risk factor for a fracture. Four patients died during the hospital stay, and a further 18 died within 6 months after discharge. Treatment with fall-risk-increasing and fracture-preventing drugs at admission to hospital, at discharge and 6 months after the hip fracture was measured.The numbers of patients treated with fall-risk-increasing drugs were 93 (93%), 96 (100%) and 73 (94%) at admission, discharge and 6-month follow-up, respectively. The median (range) number of such drugs was 3 (0-9), 4 (1-10) and 3 (0-10), respectively. A total of 17 (17%), 32 (33%) and 29 (37%) patients were treated with fracture-preventing drugs, predominantly calcium plus vitamin D, at admission, discharge and 6-month follow-up, respectively. Five patients (5%) used bisphosphonates or selective estrogen receptor modulators at admission. No additional patients had these drugs prescribed during the hospital stay. At 6-month follow-up, four more patients were treated with bisphosphonates.Treatment with fall-risk-increasing drugs was extensive among older hip fracture patients both before and after the fracture. The proportion of patients with fracture-preventing drugs was low at admission and increased slightly during the follow-up period. Hence, drug treatment in older hip fracture patients can be improved regarding both fall-risk-increasing drugs and fracture-preventing drugs.

Background Psychotropic drug prescribing is problematic and knowledge of factors affecting the initiation and maintenance of such prescribing is incomplete. Such knowledge could provide a basis for the design of interventions to change prescribing patterns for psychotropics. The aim of this study was to explore the views of general practitioners (GPs), GP interns, and heads of primary care units on factors affecting the prescribing of psychotropic drugs in primary care. Methods We performed four focus group discussions in Gothenburg, Sweden, with a total of 21 participants (GPs, GP interns, and heads of primary care units). The focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using manifest content analysis. Results Three different themes emerged from the focus group discussions. The first theme Seeking care for symptoms, reflects the participants’ understanding of why patients approach primary care and comprised categories such as knowledge, attitudes, and society and the media. The second theme, Lacking a framework, resources, and treatment alternatives, which reflects the conditions for the physician-patient interaction, comprised categories such as economy and resources, technology, and organizational aspects. The third theme, Restricting or maintaining prescriptions, with the subthemes Individual factors and External influences, reflects the physicians’ internal decision making and comprised categories such as emotions, knowledge, and pharmaceutical industry. Conclusion The results of the present study indicate that a variety of factors may affect the prescribing of psychotropic medications in primary care. Many factors were related to characteristics of the patient, the physician or their interaction, rather than the patients’ medical needs per se. The results may be useful for interventions to improve psychotropic prescribing in primary care.

Background Spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) is an important method for pharmacovigilance, but under-reporting and poor quality of reports are major limitations. The aim of this study was to evaluate if repeated one-page ADR information letters affect (i) the reporting rate of ADRs and (ii) the quality of the ADR reports. Methods All 151 primary healthcare units in the Region Västra Götaland, Sweden, were randomly allocated (1:1) to an intervention (n = 77) or a control group (n = 74). The intervention consisted of one-page ADR information letters administered at three occasions during 2008 to all physicians and nurses in the intervention units. The number of ADR reports received from the 151 units was registered, as was the quality of the reports, which was defined as high if the ADR was to be reported according to Swedish regulations, that is, if the ADR was (i) serious, (ii) unexpected, and/or (iii) related to the use of new drugs and not labelled as common in the Summary of Product Characteristics. A questionnaire was administered to evaluate if the ADR information letter had reached the intended recipient. Results Before the intervention, no significant differences in reporting rate or number of high quality reports could be detected between the randomization groups. In 2008, 79 reports were sent from 37 intervention units and 52 reports from 30 control units (mean number of reports per unit ± standard deviation: 1.0 ± 2.5 vs. 0.7 ± 1.2, P = 0.34). The number of high quality reports was higher in intervention units than in control units (37 vs. 15 reports, 0.5 ± 0.9 vs. 0.2 ± 0.6, P = 0.048). According to the returned questionnaires (n = 1,292, response rate 57%), more persons in the intervention than in the control group had received (29% vs. 19%, P < 0.0001) and read (31% vs. 26%, P < 0.0001) an ADR information letter. Conclusions This study suggests that repeated ADR information letters to physicians and nurses do not increase the ADR reporting rate, but may increase the number of high quality reports.

Background In the region of Västra Götaland in Sweden, prescribing guidelines, drawn up by 24 expert groups and determined by the regional board for drugs, are since 2006 available in the form of an annually published booklet. This study investigates, for the first time, the use of and attitudes towards this publication. Methods A questionnaire was administered to doctors working in primary health care in the region of Västra Götaland in Sweden. Questions included characteristics of the responding doctor and use of the prescribing guidelines booklet, as well as attitude questions constructed as statements to which the responder should grade his level of agreement from 1 (total disagreement) to 6 (total agreement). Results Totally 603 filled-in questionnaires were returned (estimated response rate 60%). The majority of the doctors (n = 571, 97%) responded that they use the prescribing guidelines booklet, and when prescribing a drug for a new diagnosis, a drug from the booklet is chosen in most cases [median (25th – 75th percentile) 80 (75–90)]. However, at renewal of a drug prescription, active change to a drug from the prescribing guidelines booklet occurs less often [median (25th – 75th percentile) 50 (20–70)]. The booklet also includes short therapy advice sections, which 231 doctors (42%) use every day and 191 (34%) use every week. The attitudes towards the prescribing guidelines booklet were generally positive. Doctors in privately run primary health care units and doctors running their own business were generally more negative and judged themselves to be less adherent to the prescribing guidelines booklet compared with doctors in publicly run primary health care units. Conclusion The prescribing guidelines booklet is frequently used and is generally appreciated, though differences exist between subgroups of users.