In France, around 5% of the general population are taking drug treatments for diabetes mellitus (mainly type 2 diabetes mellitus, T2DM). Although the management of T2DM has become more complex, most of these patients are managed by their general practitioner and not a diabetologist for their antidiabetics treatments; this increases the risk of potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) of hypoglycaemic agents (HAs). Inappropriate prescribing can be assessed by approaches that are implicit (expert judgement based) or explicit (criterion based). In a mixed, multistep process, we first systematically reviewed the published definitions of PIPs for HAs in patients with T2DM. The results will be used to create the first list of explicit definitions. Next, we will complete the definitions identified in the systematic review by conducting a qualitative study with two focus groups of experts in the prescription of HAs. Lastly, a Delphi survey will then be used to build consensus among participants; the results will be validated in consensus meetings. We developed a method for determining explicit definitions of PIPs for HAs in patients with T2DM. The resulting explicit definitions could be easily integrated into computerised decision support tools for the automated detection of PIPs.

Potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) of antidiabetic drugs (ADs) (PIPADs) to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been reported in some studies. The detection of PIPs in electronic databases requires the development of explicit definitions. This approach is widely used in geriatrics but has not been extended to PIPADs in diabetes mellitus. The objective of the present literature review was to identify all explicit definitions of PIPADs in patients with T2DM. We performed a systematic review of the literature listed on Medline (via PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and, Embase between 2010 and 2021. The query included a combination of three concepts ("T2DM" AND "PIPs" AND "ADs") and featured a total of 86 keywords. Two independent reviewers selected publications, extracted explicit definitions of PIPADs, and then classified the definitions by therapeutic class and organ class. Of the 4,093 screened publications, 39 were included. In all, 171 mentions of PIPADs (corresponding to 56 unique explicit definitions) were identified. More than 50% of the definitions were related to either metformin (34%) or sulfonylureas (29%). More than 75% of the definitions were related to either abnormal renal function (56%) or age (22%). In addition, 20% (n = 35) mentions stated that biguanides were inappropriate in patients with renal dysfunction and 17.5% (n = 30) stated that sulfonylureas were inappropriate above a certain age. The definitions of PIPADs were heterogeneous and had various degrees of precision. Our results showed that researchers focused primarily on the at-risk situations related to biguanide prescriptions in patients with renal dysfunction and the prescription of sulfonylureas to older people. Our systematic review of the literature revealed a lack of consensus on explicit definitions of PIPADs, which were heterogeneous and limited (in most cases) to a small number of drugs and clinical situations.

Purpose: The management of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients has changed over the past decade, and a large number of antidiabetic drug treatment options are now available. This complexity poses challenges for healthcare professionals and may result in potentially inappropriate prescriptions of antidiabetic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus which can be limited using screening tools. The effectiveness of explicit tools such as lists of potentially inappropriate prescriptions has been widely demonstrated. The aim was to set up nominal groups of healthcare professionals from several disciplines and develop a list of explicit definition of potentially inappropriate prescriptions of antidiabetic drugs. Methods: In a qualitative, nominal-groups approach, 30 diabetologists, general practitioners, and pharmacists in France developed explicit definitions of potentially inappropriate prescriptions of antidiabetic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A nominal group technique is a structured method that encourages all the participants to contribute and makes it easier to reach an agreement quickly. Each meeting lasted for two hours. Results: The three nominal groups comprised 14 pharmacists, 10 diabetologists, and 6 general practitioners and generated 89 explicit definitions. These definitions were subsequently merged and validated by the steering committee and nominal group participants, resulting in 38 validated explicit definitions of potentially inappropriate prescriptions of antidiabetic drugs. The definitions encompassed four contexts: (i) the temporary discontinuation of a medication during acute illness (n = 9; 24%), (ii) dose level adjustments (n = 23; 60%), (iii) inappropriate treatment initiation (n = 3; 8%), and (iv) the need for further monitoring in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 3; 8%). Conclusion: The results of our qualitative study show that it is possible to develop a specific list of explicit definitions of potentially inappropriate prescriptions of antidiabetic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus by gathering the opinions of healthcare professionals caring for these patients. This list of 38 explicit definitions necessitates additional confirmation by expert consensus before use in clinical practice.

Introduction: Explicit definitions for potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) are useful for optimizing drug use. The objective of the present study was to validate a list of definitions of PIPs for antidiabetic drugs in a Delphi survey with general practitioners, diabetologists, community pharmacists, hospital pharmacists and pharmacologists from mainland France, Belgium, and Switzerland. Methods: The experts gave their opinion on each explicit definition and could suggest new definitions. Definitions with a 1-to-9 Likert score of between 7 and 9 from at least 75% of the participants were validated. The results were discussed during consensus meetings after each round. Results: 46 participants were recruited, and 38 (82.6%) completed the survey. The Delphi survey resulted in a consensus list of 41 explicit definitions of PIPs for antidiabetic drugs in four groups: (i) the need to temporarily discontinue a medication in the event of acute illness (n = 9; 22%), (ii) the need to review and adjust the dosing regimen (n = 26; 36.6%), (iii) the initiation of an inappropriate drug (n = 3; 7.3%), and (iv) the need for further monitoring of a people with type 2 diabetes (n = 3; 7.3%). Conclusions: The list is specific for antidiabetic drugs (other than insulin) for people with type 2 diabetes. This explicit list could be implemented in a clinical decision support system for the automatic detection of PIPs and might help healthcare professionals involved in the management of people living with type 2 diabetes.

Aim: The management of type 2 diabetes patients poses challenges for non-diabetologists healthcare professionals and may result in potentially inappropriate prescriptions of antidiabetic drugs which can be limited using screening tools. The aim was to set up nominal groups of healthcare professionals from several disciplines and develop a list of explicit definition of potentially inappropriate prescriptions of antidiabetic drugs. Methods: In a qualitative, nominal-groups approach, expert diabetologists, general practitioners, and pharmacists in France developed explicit definitions of potentially inappropriate prescriptions of antidiabetic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes. The study was overseen by a steering committee and complied with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research. Results: Three nominal groups comprised a total of 30 participants (14 pharmacists, 10 diabetologists, and 6 general practitioners) and generated 89 explicit definitions. These definitions were subsequently merged and validated by the steering committee and nominal group participants, resulting in 38 validated explicit definitions of potentially inappropriate prescriptions of antidiabetic drugs. The definitions encompassed four contexts: (i) the temporary discontinuation of a medication during acute illness (n=9; 24%), (ii) dose level adjustments (n=23; 60%), (iii) inappropriate treatment initiation (n=3; 8%), and (iv) the need for further monitoring in the management of type 2 diabetes (n=3; 8%). Conclusion: This qualitative study is the first to have produced a specific tool of explicit definitions of potentially inappropriate prescriptions of antidiabetic drugs. Although the new list provides valuable insights, it must be validated by expert consensus (e.g. in a Delphi survey) before implementation in practice

BACKGROUND Identifying and selecting relevant scientific evidence is central to evidence-based medicine but challenging to teach early in medical training. Educational interventions have shown inconsistent effects on objectively measured performance, leaving limited evidence on how to improve students’ practical evidence retrieval and selection. OBJECTIVE To evaluate whether adding a brief introduction to citation searching to standard literature-searching instruction improves the relevance and methodological quality of evidence selected by undergraduate medical students. METHODS We conducted a pragmatic controlled quasi-experimental study among second-year medical students in Lille, France. Two pre-existing teaching sessions received the same 45-minute standard literature-searching course. Control students completed the study assessment before, and intervention students after, an additional 15-minute introduction to citation searching, including its automation using BibliZap. BibliZap is an open-source tool for automated multilevel forward and backward citation searching. Students searched 1 of 6 randomly assigned clinical questions for 30 minutes and submitted up to 10 references; BibliZap use was optional and tracked. Two blinded experts independently evaluated academic articles. The primary outcome was the rate of expert top picks, defined as references experts considered particularly important for the assigned question; secondary outcomes assessed relevance and quality. Intention-to-teach analyses compared assigned groups irrespective of BibliZap use; per-use analyses compared controls with intervention students who used BibliZap. Models accounted for the number of references submitted and were adjusted for prespecified participant characteristics. RESULTS Among 450 participating students (79.1% of the class), 222 were controls and 228 intervention students; 71 (31%) intervention students used BibliZap. Median search duration was 21 minutes in both groups (Q1-Q3, 14-28 and 15-27), and the median number of references submitted was 7 (Q1-Q3, 6-8 and 6-9, respectively). In intention-to-teach analyses, citation-searching training increased expert top picks by 14% (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.25; P=.006), articles experts would include in a talk (IRR 1.10, 95% CI 1.03-1.18; P=.003), and mean relevance grade (+0.30/10, 95% CI 0.20-0.40; P<.001). For expert top picks, the IRR was 1.09 (95% CI 0.98-1.21) with no tracked BibliZap use, 1.24 (95% CI 1.09-1.41) with at least 1 seed, and 1.37 (95% CI 1.14-1.66) with at least 2 seeds. The intervention also reduced nonacademic references by 51% (IRR 0.49, 95% CI 0.33-0.74) and students selected articles with greater methodological rigor (proportional odds ratio 1.42, 95% CI 1.16-1.74; both P<.001). CONCLUSIONS Adding a brief introduction to citation searching to standard literature-searching instruction improved the relevance and quality of evidence selected by undergraduate medical students. These findings support citation searching as a practical component of early literature-searching education and warrant evaluation of whether its benefits persist and generalize beyond a single teaching session.