Dataset Information

Time trends in prostate cancer screening in Swiss primary care (2010 to 2017) - A retrospective study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Following years of controversy regarding screening for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen, evidence evolves towards a more restrained and preference-based use. This study reports the impact of landmark trials and updated recommendations on the incidence rate of prostate cancer screening by Swiss general practitioners.

Methods

We performed a retrospective analysis of primary care data, separated in 3 time periods based on dates of publications of important prostate-specific antigen screening recommendations. 1: 2010-mid 2012 including 2 updates; 2: mid 2012-mid 2014 including a Smarter Medicine recommendation; 3: mid-2014-mid-2017 maintenance period. Period 2 including the Smarter Medicine recommendation was defined as reference period. We further assessed the influence of patient's age and the number of prostate-specific-antigen (PSA) tests, by the patient and within each time period, on the mean PSA concentration. Uni- and multivariable analyses were used as needed.

Results

36,800 men aged 55 to 75 years were included. 14.6% had ? 2 chronic conditions, 11.7% had ? 1 prostate-specific antigen test, (mean 2.60 ng/ml [SD 12.3]). 113,921 patient-years were covered. Data derived from 221 general practitioners, 33.5% of GP were women, mean age was 49.4 years (SD 10.0), 67.9% used prostate-specific antigen testing. Adjusted incidence rate-ratio (95%-CI) dropped significantly over time periods: Reference Period 2: incidence rate-ratio 1.00; Period 1: incidence rate-ratio 1.74 (1.59-1.90); Period 3: incidence rate-ratio 0.61 (0.56-0.67). A higher number of chronic conditions and a patient age between 60-69 years were significantly associated with higher screening rate. Increasing numbers of PSA testing per patient, as well as increasing age, were independently and significantly associated with an increase in the PSA value.

Conclusion

Swiss general practitioners adapted screening behavior as early as evidence of a limited health benefit evolved, while using a risk-adapted approach whenever performing multiple testing. Updated recommendations might have helped to maintain this decrease. Further recommendations and campaigns should aimed at older patients with multimorbidity, to sustain a further decline in prostate-specific antigen screening practices.

SUBMITTER: Zechmann S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6565361 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Time trends in prostate cancer screening in Swiss primary care (2010 to 2017) - A retrospective study.

Zechmann Stefan S Di Gangi Stefania S Kaplan Vladimir V Meier Rahel R Rosemann Thomas T Valeri Fabio F Senn Oliver O

PloS one 20190613 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>Following years of controversy regarding screening for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen, evidence evolves towards a more restrained and preference-based use. This study reports the impact of landmark trials and updated recommendations on the incidence rate of prostate cancer screening by Swiss general practitioners.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a retrospective analysis of primary care data, separated in 3 time periods based on dates of publications of important ...[more]

PMID: 31194773

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimTo describe population-level time trends in prescribing patterns of type 2 diabetes therapy, and in short-term clinical outcomes (glycated haemoglobin [HbA1c], weight, blood pressure, hypoglycaemia and treatment discontinuation) after initiating new therapy.Materials and methodsWe studied 81 532 people with type 2 diabetes initiating a first- to fourth-line drug in primary care between 2010 and 2017 inclusive in United Kingdom electronic health records (Clinical Practice Research Datalink). Trends in new prescriptions and subsequent 6- and 12-month adjusted changes in glycaemic response (reduction in HbA1c), weight, blood pressure and rates of hypoglycaemia and treatment discontinuation were examined.ResultsUse of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors as second-line therapy near doubled (41% of new prescriptions in 2017 vs. 22% in 2010), replacing sulphonylureas as the most common second-line drug (29% in 2017 vs. 53% in 2010). Sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitors, introduced in 2013, comprised 17% of new first- to fourth-line prescriptions by 2017. First-line use of metformin remained stable (91% of new prescriptions in 2017 vs. 91% in 2010). Over the study period there was little change in average glycaemic response and in the proportion of people discontinuing treatment. There was a modest reduction in weight after initiating second- and third-line therapy (improvement in weight change 2017 vs. 2010 for second-line therapy: -1.5 kg, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.9, -1.1; P < 0.001), and a slight reduction in systolic blood pressure after initiating first-, second- and third-line therapy (improvement in systolic blood pressure change 2017 vs. 2010 range: -1.7 to -2.1 mmHg; all P < 0.001). Hypoglycaemia rates decreased over time with second-line therapy (incidence rate ratio 0.94 per year, 95% CI 0.88, 1.00; P = 0.04), mirroring the decline in use of sulphonylureas.ConclusionsRecent changes in prescribing of therapy for people with type 2 diabetes have not led to a change in glycaemic response and have resulted in modest improvements in other population-level short-term clinical outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundThe US opioid epidemic has led to similar concerns about prescribed opioids in the UK. In new users, initiation of or escalation to more potent and high dose opioids may contribute to long-term use. Additionally, physician prescribing behaviour has been described as a key driver of rising opioid prescriptions and long-term opioid use. No studies to our knowledge have investigated the extent to which regions, practices, and prescribers vary in opioid prescribing whilst accounting for case mix. This study sought to (i) describe prescribing trends between 2006 and 2017, (ii) evaluate the transition of opioid dose and potency in the first 2 years from initial prescription, (iii) quantify and identify risk factors for long-term opioid use, and (iv) quantify the variation of long-term use attributed to region, practice, and prescriber, accounting for case mix and chance variation.Methods and findingsA retrospective cohort study using UK primary care electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink was performed. Adult patients without cancer with a new prescription of an opioid were included; 1,968,742 new users of opioids were identified. Mean age was 51 ± 19 years, and 57% were female. Codeine was the most commonly prescribed opioid, with use increasing 5-fold from 2006 to 2017, reaching 2,456 prescriptions/10,000 people/year. Morphine, buprenorphine, and oxycodone prescribing rates continued to rise steadily throughout the study period. Of those who started on high dose (120-199 morphine milligram equivalents [MME]/day) or very high dose opioids (≥200 MME/day), 10.3% and 18.7% remained in the same MME/day category or higher at 2 years, respectively. Following opioid initiation, 14.6% became long-term opioid users in the first year. In the fully adjusted model, the following were associated with the highest adjusted odds ratios (aORs) for long-term use: older age (≥75 years, aOR 4.59, 95% CI 4.48-4.70, p < 0.001; 65-74 years, aOR 3.77, 95% CI 3.68-3.85, p < 0.001, compared to <35 years), social deprivation (Townsend score quintile 5/most deprived, aOR 1.56, 95% CI 1.52-1.59, p < 0.001, compared to quintile 1/least deprived), fibromyalgia (aOR 1.81, 95% CI 1.49-2.19, p < 0.001), substance abuse (aOR 1.72, 95% CI 1.65-1.79, p < 0.001), suicide/self-harm (aOR 1.56, 95% CI 1.52-1.61, p < 0.001), rheumatological conditions (aOR 1.53, 95% CI 1.48-1.58, p < 0.001), gabapentinoid use (aOR 2.52, 95% CI 2.43-2.61, p < 0.001), and MME/day at initiation (aOR 1.08, 95% CI 1.07-1.08, p < 0.001). After adjustment for case mix, 3 of the 10 UK regions (North West [16%], Yorkshire and the Humber [15%], and South West [15%]), 103 practices (25.6%), and 540 prescribers (3.5%) had a higher proportion of patients with long-term use compared to the population average. This study was limited to patients prescribed opioids in primary care and does not include opioids available over the counter or prescribed in hospitals or drug treatment centres.ConclusionsOf patients commencing opioids on very high MME/day (≥200), a high proportion stayed in the same category for a subsequent 2 years. Age, deprivation, prescribing factors, comorbidities such as fibromyalgia, rheumatological conditions, recent major surgery, and history of substance abuse, alcohol abuse, and self-harm/suicide were associated with long-term opioid use. Despite adjustment for case mix, variation across regions and especially practices and prescribers in high-risk prescribing was observed. Our findings support greater calls for action for reduction in practice and prescriber variation by promoting safe practice in opioid prescribing.

Project description:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer mortality in Switzerland, and kills 1600 people annually. Most deaths could be prevented by screening, but the 2012 Swiss national health survey found that only 40% of 50-75-year-olds had been tested within recommended intervals (26% with colonoscopy in the last 10 year, 7% with fecal occult blood test [FOBT] in the last 2 years, and 7% with both). If screening starts at age 50, in the average risk population absolute risk of dying from CRC at age 80 can be cut from 2% to 1%, reducing relative risk by 50%. Since 2013, Switzerland has reimbursed screening by colonoscopy every 10 years or FOBT every 2 years for adults 50-69 years old. Conforming to current recommendations, the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) officially recognizes both screening modalities. When patients are offered a choice of screening test (colonoscopy vs. FOBT), they are as likely to opt for one as the other. Patient preferences are unlikely to vary much between PCP practices, so distribution of colonoscopy and FOBT within each practice should also be roughly equal. Family physicians are recognized as the most trusted professional to discuss CRC screening in Switzerland. However, many primary care physicians (PCPs) prefer prescribing colonoscopy over FOBT, but physician preference for method seems to vary widely between regions. If physician preferences and local medical culture currently influence choice of method more strongly than patient preferences, encouraging PCPs to diagnose patient preferences for screening method may reduce the number of PCPs who prescribe only one method. An earlier study in Switzerland showed that training PCPs and giving them educational support and decision aids raised the number who intend to prescribe colonoscopy and FOBT in equal proportions. A randomized controlled trial in the US showed that when patients were offered both FOBT and colonoscopy rather than only colonoscopy alone, more patients were screened for CRC. Offering choice of method may thus increase overall screening rates. The Swiss Sentinel Surveillance Network (Sentinella) is a cooperative surveillance project including the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH), PCPs representatives and the five Swiss institutes of family medicine. A sample of 150 to 250 general practitioners, internists and pediatricians in private practices from all regions of Switzerland report weekly morbidity data to the network using irreversibly anonymized patient data collected during consultations. In 2017, 91 out of 129 eligible PCPs of the Sentinella network participated in a cross-sectional data collection on CRC screening. The Sentinella network appears ideally suited to perform an intervention in order to modify screening practices and measure outcomes using the same collection form as in 2017. This study will test the benefits of a prepackaged training program in participatory medicine sent by post to PCPs in Switzerland. The package is designed to improve their diagnoses of patient preferences for screening and screening method (colonoscopy or FOBT). The study begins with the hypothesis that giving PCPs evidence summaries on CRC screening, decision aids for patients, and performance feedback on the 2017 data collection will increase the number of PCPs whose patients include at least one screened with FOBT, and who will prescribe at least one FOBT/FIT (Fecal Immunochemical Test) instead of prescribing only colonoscopy. This might reduce variation in care between PCP practices by increasing variation in methods of screening prescribed within each PCP practices. Analyses from the 2017 data collection suggest that fewer patients refused CRC testing in practices that offered both methods than in practices that offered only colonoscopy. This intervention might increase screening rates overall, while respecting patient’s autonomy to refuse the test and to be prescribed the test they prefer. The study will compare outcomes among PCPs allocated to the intervention group to those in the control group, and will be measured by collecting anonymous structured patient data on 40 consecutive patients by PCPs and questionnaires filled by PCPs. The study is designed to fit within the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework for structuring data collection. RE-AIM ensures that a study’s outcomes for future implementation and dissemination works are collected. The RE-AIM criteria will be used to identify the translatability and public health impact of this intervention, and for making clear to future stakeholders the internal and external validity of study results.

Dataset Information

Time trends in prostate cancer screening in Swiss primary care (2010 to 2017) - A retrospective study.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Time trends in prostate cancer screening in Swiss primary care (2010 to 2017) - A retrospective study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure