Management and Outcomes of Adults Diagnosed with Acute Pulmonary Embolism in Primary Care: Community-Based Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: This study sought to characterize the real-world treatment of chronic noncancer pain (CNCP) in patients on opioid therapy in primary care. Methods: A retrospective cohort study from 2014-18 was conducted at a multidisciplinary primary care clinic in Chilliwack, British Columbia. Included were adults on daily opioid therapy for CNCP. Patients receiving palliative care or ≤1 visit were excluded. Outcomes of interest included use of opioid/nonopioid pharmacotherapy, number/frequency of visits and proportion of patients able to reduce/discontinue opioid therapy. Results: Seventy patients (mean age 53 years, 53% male, 51% back pain) were included. Median follow-up was 6 visits over 12 months. Sixty-two patients (89%) reduced their opioid dose, 6 patients had no change and 2 patients required a dose increase. Mean opioid dose was reduced from 183 to 70 mg morphine equivalents daily. Twenty-four patients (34%) discontinued opioid therapy, 6 patients (9%) transitioned to opioid agonist therapy and 6 patients (9%) breached their opioid treatment agreement. Nonopioid pharmacotherapy included nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (64%), gabapentinoids (63%), tricyclic antidepressants (56%) and nabilone (51%). Discussion: Over half of patients were no longer on opioid therapy by the end of the study. Most patients had a disorder (e.g., back pain) for which opioids are generally not recommended. Overall mean opioid dose was reduced from baseline by approximately 60% over 1 year. Lack of access to specialized pain treatments may have accounted for high nonopioid pharmacotherapy usage. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that treatment of CNCP and opioid tapering can successfully be achieved in a primary care setting. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2020;153:xx-xx.

Download Full-text

Risk of exacerbation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a primary care retrospective cohort study

BMC Family Practice ◽

10.1186/s12875-015-0387-6 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 16 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Josep Montserrat-Capdevila ◽

Pere Godoy ◽

Josep Ramon Marsal ◽

Ferran Barbé ◽

Leonardo Galván

Keyword(s):

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ◽

Primary Care ◽

Cohort Study ◽

Pulmonary Disease ◽

Retrospective Cohort Study ◽

Retrospective Cohort ◽

Chronic Obstructive ◽

Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Download Full-text

Influence of weekday of admission and level of distress on length of hospital stay in patients with low back pain: a retrospective cohort study

BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders ◽

10.1186/s12891-021-04529-6 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Emanuel Brunner ◽

André Meichtry ◽

Davy Vancampfort ◽

Reinhard Imoberdorf ◽

David Gisi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Cohort Study ◽

Low Back Pain ◽

Back Pain ◽

Retrospective Cohort Study ◽

Retrospective Cohort ◽

Negative Binomial ◽

Length Of Hospital Stay ◽

Binomial Model ◽

Low Back

Abstract Background Low back pain (LBP) is often a complex problem requiring interdisciplinary management to address patients’ multidimensional needs. Providing inpatient care for patients with LBP in primary care hospitals is a challenge. In this setting, interdisciplinary LBP management is often unavailable during weekends. Delays in therapeutic procedures may result in a prolonged length of hospital stay (LoS). The impact of delays on LoS might be strongest in patients reporting high levels of psychological distress. Therefore, this study investigates the influence of weekday of admission and distress on LoS of inpatients with LBP. Methods This retrospective cohort study was conducted between 1 February 2019 and 31 January 2020. In part 1, a negative binomial model was fitted to LoS with weekday of admission as a predictor. In part 2, the same model included weekday of admission, distress level, and their interaction as covariates. Planned contrast was used in part 1 to estimate the difference in log-expected LoS between group 1 (admissions Friday/Saturday) and the reference group (admissions Sunday-Thursday). In part 2, the same contrast was used to estimate the corresponding difference in (per-unit) distress trends. Results We identified 173 patients with LBP. The mean LoS was 7.8 days (SD = 5.59). Patients admitted on Friday (mean LoS = 10.3) and Saturday (LoS = 10.6) had longer stays, but not those admitted on Sunday (LoS = 7.1). Analysis of the weekday effect and planned contrast showed that admission on Friday or Saturday was associated with a significant increase in LoS (log ratio = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.21 to 0.63). A total of 101 patients (58%) returned questionnaires, and complete data on distress were available from 86 patients (49%). According to the negative binomial model for LoS and the planned contrast, the distress effect on LoS was significantly influenced (difference in slopes = 0.816, 95% CI = 0.03 to 1.60) by dichotomic weekdays of admission (Friday/Saturday vs. Sunday-Thursday). Conclusions Delays in interdisciplinary LBP management over the weekend may prolong LoS. This may particularly affect patients reporting high levels of distress. Our study provides a platform to further explore whether interdisciplinary LBP management addressing patients’ multidimensional needs reduces LoS in primary care hospitals.

Download Full-text

LDL-cholesterol change and goal attainment following statin intensity titration among Asians in primary care: a retrospective cohort study

Lipids in Health and Disease ◽

10.1186/s12944-020-01427-z ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Hao Sen Andrew Fang ◽

Qiao Gao ◽

Mong Li Lee ◽

Wynne Hsu ◽

Ngiap Chuan Tan

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Cohort Study ◽

Real World ◽

Retrospective Cohort Study ◽

Retrospective Cohort ◽

Goal Attainment ◽

Real World Data ◽

World Data ◽

Asian Patients

Abstract Background Clinical trials have demonstrated that either initiating or up-titrating a statin dose substantially reduce Low-Density Lipoprotein-Cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. However, statin adherence in actual practice tends to be suboptimal, leading to diminished effectiveness. This study aims to use real-world data to determine the effect on LDL-C levels and LDL-C goal attainment rates, when selected statins are titrated in Asian patients. Methods A retrospective cohort study over a 5-year period, from April 2014 to March 2019 was conducted on a cohort of multi-ethnic adult Asian patients with clinical diagnosis of Dyslipidaemia in a primary care clinic in Singapore. The statins were classified into low-intensity (LI), moderate-intensity (MI) and high-intensity (HI) groups according to the 2018 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) Blood Cholesterol Guidelines. Patients were grouped into “No statin”, “Non-titrators” and “Titrators” cohorts based on prescribing patterns. For the “Titrators” cohort, the mean percentage change in LDL-C and absolute change in LDL-C goal attainment rates were computed for each permutation of statin intensity titration. Results Among the cohort of 11,499 patients, with a total of 266,762 visits, there were 1962 pairs of LDL-C values associated with a statin titration. Initiation of LI, MI and HI statin resulted in a lowering of LDL-C by 21.6% (95%CI = 18.9–24.3%), 28.9% (95%CI = 25.0–32.7%) and 25.2% (95%CI = 12.8–37.7%) respectively. These were comparatively lower than results from clinical trials (30 to 63%). The change of LDL-C levels due to up-titration, down-titration, and discontinuation were − 12.4% to − 28.9%, + 13.2% to + 24.6%, and + 18.1% to + 32.1% respectively. The improvement in LDL-C goal attainment ranged from 26.5% to 47.1% when statin intensity was up-titrated. Conclusion In this study based on real-world data of Asian patients in primary care, it was shown that although statin titration substantially affected LDL-C levels and LDL-C goal attainment rates, the magnitude was lower than results reported from clinical trials. These results should be taken into consideration and provide further insight to clinicians when making statin adjustment recommendations in order to achieve LDL-C targets in clinical practice, particularly for Asian populations.

Download Full-text