Isabelle Peytremann-Bridevaux

Effectiveness of Interventions Targeting Frequent Users of Emergency Departments: A Systematic Review

STUDY OBJECTIVE Frequent users of emergency departments (EDs) are a relatively small group of vulnerable patients accounting for a disproportionally high number of ED visits. Our objective is to perform a systematic review of the type and effectiveness of interventions to reduce the number of ED visits by frequent users. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Library, and ISI Web of Science for randomized controlled trials, nonrandomized controlled trials, interrupted time series, and controlled and noncontrolled before-and-after studies describing interventions targeting adult frequent users of EDs. Primary outcome of interest was the reduction in ED use. We also explored costs analyses and various clinical (alcohol and drug use, psychiatric symptoms, mortality) and social (homelessness, insurance status, social security support) outcomes. RESULTS We included 11 studies (3 randomized controlled trials, 2 controlled and 6 noncontrolled before-and-after studies). Heterogeneity in both study designs and definitions of frequent users precluded meta-analyses of the results. The most studied intervention was case management (n=7). Only 1 of 3 randomized controlled trials showed a significant reduction in ED use compared with usual care. Six of the 8 before-and-after studies reported a significant reduction in ED use, and 1 study showed a significant increase. ED cost reductions were demonstrated in 3 studies. Social outcomes such as reduction of homelessness were favorable in 3 of 3 studies, and clinical outcomes trended toward positive results in 2 of 3 studies. CONCLUSION Interventions targeting frequent users may reduce ED use. Case management, the most frequently described intervention, reduced ED costs and seemed to improve social and clinical outcomes. It appears to be beneficial to patients and justifiable for hospitals to implement case management for frequent users in the framework of a clear and consensual definition of frequent users and standardized outcome measures.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II) Screening for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in asymptomatic individuals without personal history of CRC or polyps, and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II. METHODS A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary studies regarding colonoscopy for screening for colorectal cancer was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy in these circumstances. RESULTS Available evidence for CRC screening comes from small case-controlled studies, with heterogeneous results, and from indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening and studies on flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. Most guidelines recommend screening colonoscopy every 10 years starting at age 50 in average-risk individuals. In individuals with a higher risk of CRC due to family history, there is a consensus that it is appropriate to offer screening colonoscopy at < 50 years. EPAGE II considered screening colonoscopy appropriate above 50 years in average-risk individuals. Panelists deemed screening colonoscopy appropriate for younger patients, with shorter surveillance intervals, where family or personal risk of colorectal cancer is higher. A positive FOBT or the discovery of adenomas at sigmoidoscopy are considered appropriate indications. CONCLUSIONS Despite the lack of evidence based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), colonoscopy is recommended by most published guidelines and EPAGE II criteria available online (http://www.epage.ch), as a screening option for CRC in individuals at average risk of CRC, and undisputedly as the main screening tool for CRC in individuals at moderate and high risk of CRC.

Associations between obesity and health conditions may be overestimated if self‐reported body mass index is used

In numerous studies, body mass index (BMI) is estimated using self-reported height and weight (1). In a recent systematic review, Connor Gorber et al. (2) showed that selfreported BMI is most often lower than measured BMI, i.e. that some obese individuals are misclassified as being non-obese. Prevalence of obesity is therefore underestimated (2). Moreover, it appears intuitive that any associations between obesity defined using self-reported BMI and health conditions will be underestimated because of this misclassification. However, misclassification due to self-report is not random. Moderately obese individuals are more likely to side with non-obese than severely obese, the latter having a BMI which is further away from the obese/non-obese cut-off value. Thus, a counterintuitive consequence of this nonrandom misclassification of self-reported BMI is that any association between obesity and health conditions is likely to be overestimated. Consider the following hypothetical example. Selfreported height and weight were gathered in a cohort of 1000 women. After 10 years of follow-up, self-reported BMI was shown to be strongly associated with the risk of diabetes (upper part of Table 1). The relative risk (RR) of diabetes for obese women (self-reported BMI ≥ 30 kg m − 2 ) was 20.0/10.3 = 1.95. Suppose now that height and weight were also measured and that measured BMI was, on average, 1 unit higher than obesity reviews (2007) 8 , 373–374

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II) – Surveillance after polypectomy and after resection of colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for surveillance after polypectomy and after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer (CRC), and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II. METHODS A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews and primary studies regarding the evaluation and management of surveillance colonoscopy after polypectomy and after resection of CRC was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy for these conditions. RESULTS Most CRCs arise from adenomatous polyps. The characteristics of removed polyps, especially the distinction between low-risk adenomas (1 or 2, small [< 1 cm], tubular, no high-grade dysplasia) vs. high-risk adenomas (large [> or = 1 cm], multiple [> 3], high-grade dysplasia or villous features), have an impact on advanced adenoma recurrence. Most guidelines recommend a 3-year follow-up colonoscopy for high-risk adenomas and a 5-year colonoscopy for low-risk adenomas. Despite the lack of evidence to support or refute any survival benefit for follow-up colonoscopy after curative-intent CRC resection, surveillance colonoscopy is recommended by most guidelines. The timing of the first surveillance colonoscopy differs. The expert panel considered that 56 % of the clinical indications for colonoscopy for surveillance after polypectomy were appropriate. For surveillance after CRC resection, it considered colonoscopy appropriate 1 year after resection. CONCLUSIONS Colonoscopy is recommended as a first-choice procedure for surveillance after polypectomy by all published guidelines and by the EPAGE II criteria. Despite the limitations of the published studies, colonoscopy is also recommended by most of the guidelines and by EPAGE II criteria for surveillance after curative-intent CRC resection.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Presentation of methodology, general results, and analysis of complications.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS Appropriate use of colonoscopy is a key component of quality management in gastrointestinal endoscopy. In an update of a 1998 publication, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (EPAGE II) defined appropriateness criteria for various colonoscopy indications. This introductory paper therefore deals with methodology, general appropriateness, and a review of colonoscopy complications. METHODS The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to evaluate the appropriateness of various diagnostic colonoscopy indications, with 14 multidisciplinary experts using a scale from 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate). Evidence reported in a comprehensive updated literature review was used for these decisions. Consolidation of the ratings into three appropriateness categories (appropriate, uncertain, inappropriate) was based on the median and the heterogeneity of the votes. The experts then met to discuss areas of disagreement in the light of existing evidence, followed by a second rating round, with a subsequent third voting round on necessity criteria, using much more stringent criteria (i. e. colonoscopy is deemed mandatory). RESULTS Overall, 463 indications were rated, with 55 %, 16 % and 29 % of them being judged appropriate, uncertain and inappropriate, respectively. Perforation and hemorrhage rates, as reported in 39 studies, were in general < 0.1 % and < 0.3 %, respectively CONCLUSIONS The updated EPAGE II criteria constitute an aid to clinical decision-making but should in no way replace individual judgment. Detailed panel results are freely available on the internet (www.epage.ch) and will thus constitute a reference source of information for clinicians.

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II) – Iron-deficiency anemia and hematochezia

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for the investigation of iron-deficiency anemia (IDA) and hematochezia, and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II. METHODS A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews and primary studies regarding the evaluation and management of IDA and hematochezia was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy for these conditions. RESULTS IDA occurs in 2 %-5 % of adult men and postmenopausal women. Examination of both the upper and lower gastrointestinal tract is recommended in patients with iron deficiency. Colonoscopy for IDA yields one colorectal cancer (CRC) in every 9-13 colonoscopies. Hematochezia is a well-recognized alarm symptom and such patients are likely to be referred for colonoscopy. Colonoscopy is unanimously recommended in patients aged > or = 50. Diverticulosis, vascular ectasias, and ischemic colitis are common causes of acute lower gastrointestinal bleeding (LGIB); CRC is found in 0.2 %-11 % of the colonoscopies performed for LGIB. Most patients with scant hematochezia have an anorectal or a distal source of bleeding. The expert panel considered most clinical indications for colonoscopy as appropriate in the presence of IDA (58 %) or hematochezia (83 %). CONCLUSION Despite the limitations of the published studies, guidelines unanimously recommend colonoscopy for the investigation of IDA and hematochezia in patients aged > or = 50 years. These indications were also considered appropriate by EPAGE II, as were indications in patients at low risk for CRC with no obvious cause of bleeding found during adequate previous investigations.

Chronic disease management: a qualitative study investigating the barriers, facilitators and incentives perceived by Swiss healthcare stakeholders

BackgroundChronic disease management has been implemented for some time in several countries to tackle the increasing burden of chronic diseases. While Switzerland faces the same challenge, such initiatives have only emerged recently in this country. The aim of this study is to assess their feasibility, in terms of barriers, facilitators and incentives to participation.MethodsTo meet our aim, we used qualitative methods involving the collection of opinions of various healthcare stakeholders, by means of 5 focus groups and 33 individual interviews. All the data were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was then performed and five levels were determined to categorize the data: political, financial, organisational/ structural, professionals and patients.ResultsOur results show that, at each level, stakeholders share common opinions towards the feasibility of chronic disease management in Switzerland. They mainly mention barriers linked to the federalist political organization as well as to financing such programs. They also envision difficulties to motivate both patients and healthcare professionals to participate. Nevertheless, their favourable attitudes towards chronic disease management as well as the fact that they are convinced that Switzerland possesses all the resources (financial, structural and human) to develop such programs constitute important facilitators. The implementation of quality and financial incentives could also foster the participation of the actors.ConclusionsEven if healthcare stakeholders do not have the same role and interest regarding chronic diseases, they express similar opinions on the development of chronic disease management in Switzerland. Their overall positive attitude shows that it could be further implemented if political, financial and organisational barriers are overcome and if incentives are found to face the scepticism and non-motivation of some stakeholders.

PACIC Instrument: disentangling dimensions using published validation models

OBJECTIVE To better understand the structure of the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) instrument. More specifically to test all published validation models, using one single data set and appropriate statistical tools. DESIGN Validation study using data from cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS A population-based sample of non-institutionalized adults with diabetes residing in Switzerland (canton of Vaud). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE French version of the 20-items PACIC instrument (5-point response scale). We conducted validation analyses using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The original five-dimension model and other published models were tested with three types of CFA: based on (i) a Pearson estimator of variance-covariance matrix, (ii) a polychoric correlation matrix and (iii) a likelihood estimation with a multinomial distribution for the manifest variables. All models were assessed using loadings and goodness-of-fit measures. RESULTS The analytical sample included 406 patients. Mean age was 64.4 years and 59% were men. Median of item responses varied between 1 and 4 (range 1-5), and range of missing values was between 5.7 and 12.3%. Strong floor and ceiling effects were present. Even though loadings of the tested models were relatively high, the only model showing acceptable fit was the 11-item single-dimension model. PACIC was associated with the expected variables of the field. CONCLUSIONS Our results showed that the model considering 11 items in a single dimension exhibited the best fit for our data. A single score, in complement to the consideration of single-item results, might be used instead of the five dimensions usually described.

Adding non-randomised studies to a Cochrane review brings complementary information for healthcare stakeholders: an augmented systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundTo reduce the burden of asthma, chronic disease management (CDM) programmes have been widely implemented and evaluated. Reviews including randomised controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that CDM programmes for asthma are effective. Other study designs are however often used for pragmatic reasons, but excluded from these reviews because of their design. We aimed to examine what complementary information could be retrieved from the addition of non-randomised studies to the studies included in a published Cochrane review on asthma CDM programmes, for healthcare stakeholders involved in the development, implementation, conduct or long-term sustainability of such programmes.MethodsExtending a previously published Cochrane review, we performed a systematic review (augmented review) including any type of study designs instead of only those initially accepted by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review group. After double data selection and extraction, we compared study and intervention characteristics, assessed methodological quality and ran meta-analyses, by study design.ResultsWe added 37 studies to the 20 studies included in the Cochrane review. The applicability of results was increased because of the larger variety of settings and asthma population considered. Also, adding non-randomised studies provided new evidence of improvements associated with CDM intervention (i.e. healthcare utilisation, days off work, use of action plan). Finally, evidence of CDM effectiveness in the added studies was consistent with the Cochrane review in terms of direction of effects.ConclusionsThe evidence of this augmented review is applicable to a broader set of patients and settings than those in the original Cochrane review. It also strengthens the message that CDM programmes have a beneficial effect on quality of life and disease severity, meaningful outcomes for the everyday life of patients with asthma. Despite the moderate to low methodological quality of all studies included, calling for caution in results interpretation and improvements in CDM evaluation methods and reporting, the inclusion of a broader set of study designs in systematic reviews of complex interventions, such as chronic disease management, is likely to be of high value and interest to patients, policymakers and other healthcare stakeholders.

Mortality of patients with COPD participating in chronic disease management programmes: a happy end?

Background Concerns about increased mortality could question the role of COPD chronic disease management (CDM) programmes. We aimed at extending a recent Cochrane review to assess the effects of CDM on mortality in patients with COPD. Methods Mortality data were available for 25 out of 29 trials identified in a COPD integrated care systematic review. Meta-analysis using random-effects models was performed, followed by subgroup analyses according to study length (3–12 months vs >12 months), main intervention component (exercise, self-management, structured follow-up) and use of an action plan. Results The meta-analysis showed no impact of CDM on mortality (pooled OR: 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.28). Conclusions These results do not suggest that CDM programmes expose patients with COPD to excessive mortality risk.