Aims: Heart failure is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, but little is known on heart failure epidemiology and treatment in primary care. This study described patients with heart failure treated by general practitioners, with focus on drug prescriptions and especially on the only specific treatment for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, namely sacubitril/valsartan. Methods and results: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study using data from an electronic medical record database of Swiss general practitioners from 2016 to 2019. Multilevel logistic regression was used to find determinants of sacubitril/valsartan prescription; odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were reported. We identified 1288 heart failure patients (48.5% women; age: median 85 years, interquartile range 77–90 years) by means of diagnosis code, representing 0.5% of patients consulting a general practitioner during the observation period. About 73.6% received a renin–angiotensin–aldosterone system inhibitor, 67.8% a beta-blocker, 34.6% a calcium channel blocker, 86.1% a diuretic, and 40.1% another cardiac drug. Sacubitril/valsartan was prescribed in 6% predominantly male patients (OR 2.10, CI 1.25–3.84), of younger age (OR 0.59 per increase in 10 years, CI 0.49–0.71), with diabetes mellitus (OR 1.76, CI 1.07–2.90). The recommended starting dose for sacubitril/valsartan was achieved in 67.1% and the target dose in 28.6% of patients. Conclusions: Prevalence of heart failure among patients treated by general practitioners was low. Considering the disease burden and association with multimorbidity, awareness of heart failure in primary care should be increased, with the aim to optimize heart failure therapy.

Introduction Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are major risk factors for potentially inappropriate prescribing (eg, overprescribing and underprescribing), and systematic medication reviews are complex and time consuming. In this trial, the investigators aim to determine if a systematic software-based medication review improves medication appropriateness more than standard care in older, multimorbid patients with polypharmacy. Methods and analysis Optimising PharmacoTherapy In the multimorbid elderly in primary CAre is a cluster randomised controlled trial that will include outpatients from the Swiss primary care setting, aged ≥65 years with ≥three chronic medical conditions and concurrent use of ≥five chronic medications. Patients treated by the same general practitioner (GP) constitute a cluster, and clusters are randomised 1:1 to either a standard care sham intervention, in which the GP discusses with the patient if the medication list is complete, or a systematic medication review intervention based on the use of the 'Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing'-Assistant (STRIPA). STRIPA is a web-based clinical decision support system that helps customise medication reviews. It is based on the validated ‘Screening Tool of Older Person’s Prescriptions’ (STOPP) and ‘Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment’ (START) criteria to detect potentially inappropriate prescribing. The trial’s follow-up period is 12 months. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The primary endpoint is medication appropriateness, as measured jointly by the change in the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) and Assessment of Underutilisation (AOU). Secondary endpoints include the degree of polypharmacy, overprescribing and underprescribing, the number of falls and fractures, quality of life, the amount of formal and informal care received by patients, survival, patients’ quality adjusted life years, patients’ medical costs, cost-effectiveness of the intervention, percentage of recommendations accepted by GPs, percentage of recommendation rejected by GPs and patients’ willingness to have medications deprescribed. Ethics and dissemination The ethics committee of the canton of Bern in Switzerland approved the trial protocol. The results of this trial will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Main funding Swiss National Science Foundation, National Research Programme (NRP 74) ‘Smarter Healthcare’. Trial registration numbers Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03724539), KOFAM (Swiss national portal) (SNCTP000003060), Universal Trial Number (U1111-1226-8013).

Objectives: Recruiting general practitioners (GPs) and their multimorbid older patients for trials is challenging for multiple reasons (e.g., high workload, limited mobility). The comparability of study participants is important for interpreting study findings. This manuscript describes the baseline characteristics of GPs and patients participating in the ‘Optimizing PharmacoTherapy in older multimorbid adults In primary CAre’ (OPTICA) trial, a study of optimization of pharmacotherapy for multimorbid older adults. The overall aim of this study was to determine if the GPs and patients participating in the OPTICA trial are comparable to the real-world population in Swiss primary care.Design: Analysis of baseline data from GPs and patients in the OPTICA trial and a reference cohort from the FIRE (‘Family medicine ICPC Research using Electronic medical records’) project.Setting: Primary care, Switzerland.Participants: Three hundred twenty-three multimorbid (≥ 3 chronic conditions) patients with polypharmacy (≥ 5 regular medications) aged ≥ 65 years and 43 GPs recruited for the OPTICA trial were compared to 22,907 older multimorbid patients with polypharmacy and 227 GPs from the FIRE database.Methods: We compared the characteristics of GPs and patients participating in the OPTICA trial with other GPs and other older multimorbid adults with polypharmacy in the FIRE database. We described the baseline willingness to have medications deprescribed of the patients participating in the OPTICA trial using the revised Patients’ Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire.Results: The GPs in the FIRE project and OPTICA were similar in terms of sociodemographic characteristics and their work as a GP (e.g. aged in their fifties, ≥ 10 years of experience, ≥ 60% are self-employed, ≥ 80% work in a group practice). The median age of patients in the OPTICA trial was 77 years and 45% of trial participants were women. Patients participating in the OPTICA trial and patients in the FIRE database were comparable in terms of age, certain clinical characteristics (e.g. systolic blood pressure, body mass index) and health services use (e.g. selected lab and vital data measurements). More than 80% of older multimorbid patients reported to be willing to stop ≥ 1 of their medications if their doctor said that this would be possible.Conclusion: The characteristics of patients and GPs recruited into the OPTICA trial are relatively comparable to characteristics of a real-world Swiss population, which indicates that recruiting a generalizable patient sample is possible in the primary care setting. Multimorbid patients in the OPTICA trial reported a high willingness to have medications deprescribed.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03724539), KOFAM (Swiss national portal) (SNCTP000003060), Universal Trial Number (U1111-1226-8013)

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the 2019 published European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guideline on cardiovascular (CV) risk management compared with its predecessor from 2016 in a cohort in general practice. We performed a cross-sectional retrospective study with data from electronic medical records. The study cohort included 103,351 patients with known CV risk. We assessed changes in CV risk classification and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) target values, the impact on LDL-C achievement rates, and the current lipid-lowering treatments. Under the 2019 ESC guideline, CV risk categories changed in 27.5% of patients, LDL-C target levels decreased in 71.4% of patients, and LDL-C target achievement rate dropped from 31.1% to 16.5%. Among non-achievers according to the 2019 guideline, 52.2% lacked lipid-lowering drugs entirely, and 41.5% had conventional drugs at a submaximal intensity. Of patients in the high-risk and very high-risk categories, at least 5% failed to achieve the LDL-C target level despite treatment at maximal intensity with conventional lipid-lowering drugs, making them eligible for PCSK-9 inhibitors. In conclusion, the 2019 ESC/EAS guideline lowered LDL-C target values for the majority of patients in general practice and halved LDL-C target achievement rates. There is still a large undeveloped potential to lower CV risk by introducing conventional lipid-lowering drugs, particularly in patients at high or very high CV risk. A substantial proportion of the patients can only achieve their LDL-C targets using PCSK-9 inhibitors, which would currently require an at least 10-fold increase in prescribing of these drugs.

Background: Financial incentives are often used to improve quality of care in chronic care patients. However, the evidence concerning the effect of financial incentives is still inconclusive. Objective: To test the effect of financial incentives on quality measures (QMs) in the treatment of patients with diabetes mellitus in primary care. We incentivized a clinical QM and a process QM to test the effect of financial incentives on different types of QMs and to investigate the spill-over effect on non-incentivized QMs. Design/Participants: Parallel cluster randomized controlled trial based on electronic medical records database involving Swiss general practitioners (GPs). Practices were randomly allocated. Intervention: All participants received a bimonthly feedback report. The intervention group additionally received potential financial incentives on GP level depending on their performance. Main Measures: Between-group differences in proportions of patients fulfilling incentivized QM (process QM of annual HbA1c measurement and clinical QM of blood pressure level below 140/95 mmHg) after 12 months. Key Results: Seventy-one GPs (median age 52 years, 72% male) from 43 different practices and subsequently 3838 patients with diabetes mellitus (median age 70 years, 57% male) were included. Proportions of patients with annual HbA1c measurements remained unchanged (intervention group decreased from 79.0 to 78.3%, control group from 81.5 to 81.0%, OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.90–1.32, p = 0.39). Proportions of patients with blood pressure below 140/95 improved from 49.9 to 52.5% in the intervention group and decreased from 51.2 to 49.0% in the control group (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.99–1.36, p = 0.06). Proportions of non-incentivized process QMs increased significantly in the intervention group. Conclusion: GP level financial incentives did not result in more frequent HbA1c measurements or in improved blood pressure control. Interestingly, we could confirm a spill-over effect on non-incentivized process QMs. Yet, the mechanism of spill-over effects of financial incentives is largely unclear. Trial Registration: ISRCTN13305645

Laboratory tests are frequently ordered by general practitioners (GPs), but little is known about time trends and between-GP variation of their use. In this retrospective longitudinal study, we analyzed over six million consultations by Swiss GPs during the decade 2009–2018. For 15 commonly used test types, we defined specific laboratory testing rates (sLTR) as the percentage of consultations involving corresponding laboratory testing requests. Patient age- and sex-adjusted time trends of sLTR were modeled with mixed-effect logistic regression accounting for clustering of patients within GPs. We quantified between-GP variation by means of intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Nine out of the 15 laboratory test types considered showed significant temporal increases, most eminently vitamin D (ten-year odds ratio (OR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.71–2.06) and glycated hemoglobin (ten-year OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.82–1.92). Test types both subject to substantial increase and high between-GP variation of sLTR were vitamin D (ICC 0.075), glycated hemoglobin (ICC 0.101), C-reactive protein (ICC 0.202), and vitamin B12 (ICC 0.166). Increasing testing frequencies and large between-GP variation of specific test type use pointed at inconsistencies of medical practice and potential overuse.