Search

Objective: To provide family physicians with an overview of the evidence for managing superficial cutaneous abscesses.Sources Of Information: PubMed (from 1950), EMBASE (from 1974), The Cochrane Library (from 1966), and Google (from 1998) were searched as were reference lists of identified articles. Summary sites, such as ACP Journal Club and InfoPOEMs, and background resources were also reviewed.Main Message: There are many areas of debate regarding abscess management, including pain control, necessity of culture and sensitivity testing, empiric treatment with antibiotics, and open versus primary closure of wounds. Usefulness of cultures and empiric antibiotic treatment has risen to the forefront with the increasing incidence of community-acquired, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus.Conclusion: In immunocompetent patients with no confounding risk factors, incision and drainage under local anesthetic is generally sufficient for abscess management. There is no compelling evidence for routine cultures or empiric treatment with antibiotics. Further research is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The choice of inhaler device type can play a crucial role in managing asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). With various devices available, differences in choice and application may lead to confusion for both prescribers and patients. Furthermore, improper use of a device may lead to suboptimal or inadequate treatment., Objectives: The primary objective was to identify factors that prescribers consider when selecting an inhaler device for a patient. The secondary objective was to evaluate the rankings of these factors, including identification of which factors had greater importance and frequency for prescribers' choice of inhaler device for patients., Methods: A 10-question online survey was developed and distributed in late 2021 to prescribers (physicians, nurse practitioners, and pharmacists) in western Canada in an outpatient setting. Prescribers were asked to use their own words to describe the factors they considered important and were then asked to rank the stated factors in order of importance for 2 scenarios: an 83-year-old woman with COPD and a 21-year-old man with asthma. The results were examined qualitatively and quantitatively. Recurring themes were identified, and each response was categorized on the basis of its corresponding theme., Results: In all, 82 respondents completed the survey (yielding a total of 164 responses across the 2 scenarios). Overall, prescriber experience (84/164, 51%), cost (84/164, 51%), patient ease of use (59/164, 36%), and other patient considerations (49/164, 30%) were the factors most frequently mentioned. The prescriber's experience was most often mentioned as a factor for scenario 1 (COPD), whereas cost was most often mentioned for scenario 2 (asthma). In both scenarios, prescriber experience was the highest-ranked factor., Conclusions: When determining the appropriate type of inhaler device, respondents frequently prioritized their own experience, as well as cost and ease of use. However, many respondents ranked prescriber experience higher than all other factors., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (2024 Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacists. All content in the Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy is copyrighted by the Canadian Society of Hospital Pharmacy. In submitting their manuscripts, the authors transfer, assign, and otherwise convey all copyright ownership to CSHP.)

Background: Although statins are often discontinued when myalgia arises, a causal relationship may not always exist. How well-tolerated statins are when rechallenge is blinded and controlled is unclear., Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42023437648) to evaluate the success of statin rechallenge versus matched placebo in those who were previously statin intolerant. Our primary outcome was intolerance; our secondary outcome was the myalgia or global symptom score. Medline, Embase, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and CENTRAL were searched from inception to May 1, 2023. Eligible trials were randomized controlled trials with parallel or crossover designs examining statin rechallenge in statin-intolerant adults. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias (Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of-bias tool 1). Relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) were estimated using fixed effect Mantel-Haenszel statistics. Of 1,941 studies screened, 8 met our inclusion criteria (8 to 491 participants from Asia, Europe, North America, and Oceana). Compared to placebo, intolerance was more common in statin users [325/906 (36%) vs 233/911 (26%), RR 1.40, 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.60, I2 = 0%, 7 trials, number needed to harm 10] and there was no statistically significant difference in myalgia or global symptom score on a 100-point scale [MD 1.08, 95% CI, -1.51 to 3.67, I2 = 0%, 5 trials]. Limitations include only 1 trial asking participants about intolerable symptoms (vs inferring intolerance from discontinuation or trial withdrawal); the small number of trials; the possibility of attrition bias; and the potential for carryover effects in crossover/n-of-1 trial designs., Conclusions: Of those previously intolerant of statins who were rechallenged with a statin and compared to placebo recipients, medication intolerance was more common amongst statin recipients. However, there was no significant difference in mean myalgia or global symptom score between statin and placebo, and only one-third of those previously believed to be statin intolerant were unable to tolerate a statin on blinded rechallenge; one-quarter were intolerant of placebo., Competing Interests: The authors declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Kraut et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Introduction: BedMed-Frail explores risks and benefits of switching antihypertensives from morning to bedtime in a frail population at greater risk of hypotensive adverse effects., Methods and Analysis: Design : Prospective parallel randomised, open-label, blinded end-point trial. Participants : Hypertensive continuing care residents, in either long-term care or supportive living, who are free from glaucoma, and using ≥1 once daily antihypertensive. Setting : 16 volunteer continuing care facilities in Alberta, Canada, with eligible residents identified using electronic health claims data. Intervention : All non-opted out eligible residents are randomised centrally by the provincial health data steward to bedtime versus usual care (typically morning) administration of once daily antihypertensives. Timing changes are made (maximum one change per week) by usual care facility pharmacists. Follow-up : Via linked governmental healthcare databases tracking hospital, continuing care and community medical services. Primary outcome : Composite of all-cause death, or hospitalisation for myocardial infarction/acute-coronary syndrome, stroke, or congestive heart failure. Secondary outcomes : Each primary outcome element on its own, all-cause unplanned hospitalisation or emergency department visit, non-vertebral fracture and, as assessed roughly 135 days postrandomisation, fall in the last 30 days, deteriorated cognition, urinary incontinence, decubitus skin ulceration, inappropriate or disruptive behaviour a minimum of 4 days per week, and receipt of antipsychotic medication or physical restraints in the last 7 days. Process outcome : Proportion of blood pressure medication doses taken at bedtime (broken down monthly). Primary outcome analysis : Cox-Proportional Hazards Survival Analysis. Sample size : The trial will continue until a projected 368 primary outcome events have occurred. Current status : Enrolment is ongoing with 642 randomisations to date (75% female, mean age 88 years)., Ethics and Dissemination: BedMed-Frail has ethical approval from the University of Alberta Health Ethics Review Board (Pro00086129) and will publish results in a peer-reviewed journal., Trial Registration Number: NCT04054648., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Falls among older adults are associated with adverse sequelae including fractures, chronic pain and disability, which can lead to loss of independence and increased risks of nursing home admissions. The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly increased the uptake of telehealth, but the effectiveness of virtual, home-based fall prevention programmes is not clearly known. We aim to synthesise the trials on telerehabilitation and home-based falls prevention programmes to determine their effectiveness in reducing falls and adverse outcomes, as well as to describe the safety risks associated with telerehabilitation., Methods and Analysis: This protocol was developed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Database searches from inception to August 2022 will be conducted without language restrictions of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Ovid HealthSTAR, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Physiotherapy EvidenceDatabase (PEDro) and the Cochrane Library. Grey literature including major geriatrics conference proceedings will be reviewed. Using Covidence software, two independent reviewers will in duplicate determine the eligibility of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Eligible RCTs will compare telerehabilitation and home-based fall prevention programmes to usual care among community-dwelling older adults and will report at least one efficacy outcome: falls, fractures, hospitalisations, mortality or quality of life; or at least one safety outcome: pain, myalgias, dyspnoea, syncope or fatigue. Secondary outcomes include functional performance in activities of daily living, balance and endurance. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. DerSimonian-Laird random effects models will be used for the meta-analysis. Heterogeneity will be assessed using the I 2 statistic and Cochran's Q statistic. We will assess publication bias using the Egger's test. Prespecified subgroup analyses and univariate meta-regression will be used., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethics approval is not required. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42022356759., Competing Interests: Competing interests: KL was a clinician member of the Steering Group for the Alberta Health Services Seniors’ Health Priority Setting Partnership, which was a volunteer role that ended in 2019. The other authors do not have any competing interests to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Purpose: To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on potentially inappropriate prescribing and over-the-counter (OTC) medication use among adults aged 65 years and older in primary care settings. This protocol outlines the planned scope and methods for a systematic review of the benefits and harms and acceptability of interventions to reduce potentially inappropriate prescriptions and OTC medication use., Methods: De novo systematic reviews will be conducted to synthesize the available evidence on (a) the benefits and harms of interventions to reduce potentially inappropriate prescriptions and OTC medications compared to no intervention, usual care, or non- or minimally active intervention among adults aged 65 years and older and (b) the acceptability of these interventions or attributes among patients. Outcomes of interest for the benefits and harms review are all-cause mortality, hospitalization, non-serious adverse drug reactions, quality of life, emergency department visits, injurious falls, medical visits, and the number of medications (and number of pills). Outcomes for the acceptability review are the preference for and relative importance of different interventions or their attributes. For the benefits and harms review, we will search MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials. For the acceptability review, we will search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database for experimental and observational studies with a comparator. Websites of relevant organizations, other grey literature sources, and reference lists of included studies and reviews will be searched. Title and abstract screening will be completed by two independent reviewers using the liberal accelerated approach. Full-text review, data extraction, risk of bias assessments, and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) will be completed independently by two reviewers, with any disagreements resolved by consensus or by consulting with a third reviewer. The GRADE approach will be used to assess the certainty of the evidence for outcomes., Discussion: The results of this systematic review will be used by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to inform their recommendation on potentially inappropriate prescribing and OTC medication use among adults aged 65 years and older., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO (KQ1: CRD42022302313; KQ2: CRD42022302324); Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/urj4b/ )., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Long-term prescription of opioids by healthcare professionals has been linked to poor individual patient outcomes and high resource utilization. Supportive strategies in this population regarding acute healthcare settings may have substantial impact., Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of primary studies. The studies were included according to the following criteria: 1) age 18 and older; 2) long-term prescribed opioid therapy; 3) acute healthcare setting presentation from a complication of opioid therapy; 4) evaluating a supportive strategy; 5) comparing the effectiveness of different interventions; 6) addressing patient or healthcare related outcomes. We performed a qualitative analysis of supportive strategies identified. We pooled patient and system related outcome data for each supportive strategy., Results: A total of 5664 studies were screened and 19 studies were included. A total of 9 broad categories of supportive strategies were identified. Meta-analysis was performed for the "supports for patients in pain" supportive strategy on two system-related outcomes using a ratio of means. The number of emergency department (ED) visits were significantly reduced for cohort studies (n = 6, 0.36, 95% CI [0.20-0.62], I 2 = 87%) and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n = 3, 0.71, 95% CI [0.61-0.82], I 2 = 0%). The number of opioid prescriptions at ED discharge was significantly reduced for RCTs (n = 3, 0.34, 95% CI [0.14-0.82], I 2 = 78%)., Conclusion: For patients presenting to acute healthcare settings with complications related to long-term opioid therapy, the intervention with the most robust data is "supports for patients in pain".

Purpose: To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening in primary care for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer by systematically reviewing evidence of (a) effectiveness; (b) test accuracy; (c) individuals' values and preferences; and (d) strategies aimed at improving screening rates., Methods: De novo reviews will be conducted to evaluate effectiveness and to assess values and preferences. For test accuracy and strategies to improve screening rates, we will integrate studies from existing systematic reviews with search updates to the present. Two Cochrane reviews will provide evidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes from the conservative management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. We will search Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central (except for individuals' values and preferences, where Medline, Scopus, and EconLit will be searched) via peer-reviewed search strategies and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. We will search ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. Two reviewers will screen potentially eligible studies and agree on those to include. Data will be extracted by one reviewer with verification by another. Two reviewers will independently assess risk of bias and reach consensus. Where possible and suitable, we will pool studies via meta-analysis. We will compare accuracy data per outcome and per comparison using the Rutter and Gatsonis hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model and report relative sensitivities and specificities. Findings on values and preferences will be synthesized using a narrative synthesis approach and thematic analysis, depending on study designs. Two reviewers will appraise the certainty of evidence for all outcomes using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and come to consensus., Discussion: The publication of guidance on screening in primary care for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer by the Task Force in 2013 focused on cytology. Since 2013, new studies using human papillomavirus tests for cervical screening have been published that will improve our understanding of screening in primary care settings. This review will inform updated recommendations based on currently available studies and address key evidence gaps noted in our previous review.

Purpose: To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care by systematically reviewing direct evidence on the effectiveness and acceptability of screening adults 40 years and older in primary care to reduce fragility fractures and related mortality and morbidity, and indirect evidence on the accuracy of fracture risk prediction tools. Evidence on the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatment will be reviewed, if needed to meaningfully influence the Task Force's decision-making., Methods: A modified update of an existing systematic review will evaluate screening effectiveness, the accuracy of screening tools, and treatment benefits. For treatment harms, we will integrate studies from existing systematic reviews. A de novo review on acceptability will be conducted. Peer-reviewed searches (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO [acceptability only]), grey literature, and hand searches of reviews and included studies will update the literature. Based on pre-specified criteria, we will screen studies for inclusion following a liberal-accelerated approach. Final inclusion will be based on consensus. Data extraction for study results will be performed independently by two reviewers while other data will be verified by a second reviewer; there may be some reliance on extracted data from the existing reviews. The risk of bias assessments reported in the existing reviews will be verified and for new studies will be performed independently. When appropriate, results will be pooled using either pairwise random effects meta-analysis (screening and treatment) or restricted maximum likelihood estimation with Hartun-Knapp-Sidnick-Jonkman correction (risk prediction model calibration). Subgroups of interest to explain heterogeneity are age, sex, and menopausal status. Two independent reviewers will rate the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach, with consensus reached for each outcome rated as critical or important by the Task Force., Discussion: Since the publication of other guidance in Canada, new trials have been published that are likely to improve understanding of screening in primary care settings to prevent fragility fractures. A systematic review is required to inform updated recommendations that align with the current evidence base.

Objective: To determine the stability of warfarin anticoagulation using a nationally representative sample of Canadian primary care patients and providers., Design: Prospective cohort study., Setting: Primary care practices associated with the Canadian Primary Care Sentinel Surveillance Network., Participants: Adult warfarin users with 7 or more evaluable international normalized ratio (INR) readings., Main Outcomes Measures: International normalized ratio time in therapeutic range (TTR) determined using the Rosendaal method; TTR above 75% was considered good INR control and TTR below 60% was considered poor INR control. The primary outcome was the proportion of all warfarin users (using an INR target range of 2.0 to 3.5) with good INR control during their first year taking warfarin who have poor INR control the following year. Secondary outcomes included the TTR using an INR target of 2.0 to 3.0 when restricted to patients with known atrial fibrillation (AF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE); and the proportion of INR values below the target of 2.0 and above the targets of 3.0 and 3.5 in the year before the availability of other oral anticoagulants., Results: Among 18 303 adult warfarin users (mean age of 71.0 years, 46.6% female), the median TTR (INR target range of 2.0 to 3.5) was 77.4% (interquartile range of 64.6% to 86.4%). The TTR was above 75% in 56.0% of patients and below 60% in 19.3% of patients. Of those exhibiting good INR control in year 1 of anticoagulation therapy, only 10.2% had poor control the following year. When restricted to patients with known AF or VTE (89.7% with AF and 13.5% with VTE), and assuming an INR target range of 2.0 to 3.0, the TTR was 67.8% (interquartile range of 54.8% to 77.9%). Of these patients, 27.9% had INR values below 2.0, and 19.4% and 8.6% had values above 3.0 and 3.5, respectively., Conclusion: Primary care warfarin management produces a TTR comparable to that in randomized trials, with out-of-range INR values 3 times more likely to predispose to thrombosis (INR of < 2.0) than to hemorrhage (INR of > 3.5). A history of good INR control does predict future INR stability and meaningfully informs decisions to switch established warfarin users onto newer agents., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

Objective: To summarize the best available evidence regarding various topics related to primary care management of opioid use disorder (OUD)., Data Sources: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Google, and the references of included studies and relevant guidelines., Study Selection: Published systematic reviews and newer randomized controlled trials from the past 5 to 10 years that investigated patient-oriented outcomes related to managing OUD in primary care, diagnosis, pharmacotherapies (including buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone), tapering strategies, psychosocial interventions, prescribing practices, and management of comorbidities., Synthesis: From 8626 articles, 39 systematic reviews and an additional 26 randomized controlled trials were included. New meta-analyses were performed where possible. One cohort study suggests 1 case-finding tool might be reasonable to assist with diagnosis (positive likelihood ratio of 10.3). Meta-analysis demonstrated that retention in treatment improves when buprenorphine or methadone are used (64% to 73% vs 22% to 39% for control), when OUD is treated in primary care (86% vs 67% in specialty care, risk ratio [RR] of 1.25, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.47), and when counseling is added to pharmacotherapy (74% vs 62% for controls, RR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.36). Retention was also improved with naltrexone (33% vs 25% for controls, RR = 1.35, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.64) and reduced with medication-related contingency management (eg, loss of take-home doses as a punitive measure; 68% vs 77% for no contingency, RR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.99)., Conclusion: There is reasonable evidence that patients with OUD should be managed in the primary care setting. Diagnostic criteria for OUD remain elusive, with 1 reasonable case-finding tool. Methadone and buprenorphine improve treatment retention, while medication-related contingency methods could worsen retention. Counseling is beneficial when added to pharmacotherapy., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

Objective: To use the best available evidence and principles of shared, informed decision making to develop a clinical practice guideline for a simplified approach to managing opioid use disorder (OUD) in primary care., Methods: Eleven health care and allied health professionals representing various practice settings, professions, and locations created a list of key questions relevant to the management of OUD in primary care. These questions related to the treatment setting, diagnosis, treatment, and management of comorbidities in OUD. The questions were researched by a team with expertise in evidence evaluation using a series of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials. The Guideline Committee used the systematic reviews to create recommendations., Recommendations: Recommendations outline the role of primary care in treating patients with OUD, as well as pharmacologic and psychotherapy treatments and various prescribing practices (eg, urine drug testing and contracts). Specific recommendations could not be made for management of comorbidities in patients with OUD owing to limited evidence., Conclusion: The recommendations will help simplify the complex management of patients with OUD in primary care. They will aid clinicians and patients in making informed decisions regarding their care., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

Introduction: Opioids are routinely used to treat a variety of chronic conditions associated with pain. However, they are a class of medications with a significant potential for adverse health effects, with and without misuse. Opioid misuse, as defined as inappropriate use of appropriately prescribed opioids, is becoming more well-recognized publicly but does not have clear treatment options. Opioid misuse has been linked to variety of poor outcomes and its consequences have a significant impact on healthcare resource utilization. The evidence on harm reduction strategies to mitigate adverse events prompting presentation to acute care settings for patients presenting with long-term opioid use is sparse., Methods and Analysis: We will perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to catalog effective harm reduction strategies and identify the most effective ones to reduce avoidable healthcare utilization in patients on long-term opioid therapy who present to acute health care settings with complications attributed to opioid misuse. A search strategy will be developed and executed by an information specialist; electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library) and additional sources will be searched. Search themes will include opioids, chronic drug use, and acute healthcare settings. Citation screening, selection, quality assessment, and data abstraction will be performed in duplicate. A comprehensive inventory of harm reduction strategies will be developed. Data will be collected on patient-related outcomes associated with each identified harm reduction strategy. When sufficiently homogeneous data on interventions, population, and outcomes is available, it will be pooled for aggregate analysis. Evaluation of the methodological quality of individual studies and of the quality of the body of evidence will be performed. Our primary objective will be to identify harm reduction strategies that have been shown to result in clinically relevant and statistically significant improvements in patient outcomes and/or decreased healthcare utilization., Discussion: This study will better characterize harm reduction strategies for patients on long-term prescribed opioids presenting to acute healthcare settings. It will also add new knowledge and generate greater understanding of key knowledge gaps of the long-term prescribed opioid use and its impact on healthcare utilization., Systematic Review Registration: CRD42018088962 .

Background & Aims: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common gastrointestinal (GI) disorders, affecting about 10% of the general population globally. The aim of this consensus was to develop guidelines for the management of IBS., Methods: A systematic literature search identified studies on the management of IBS. The quality of evidence and strength of recommendations were rated according to the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Statements were developed through an iterative online platform and then finalized and voted on by a multidisciplinary group of clinicians and a patient., Results: Consensus was reached on 28 of 31 statements. Irritable bowel syndrome is diagnosed based on symptoms; serological testing is suggested to exclude celiac disease, but routine testing for C-reactive protein (CRP), fecal calprotectin or food allergies is not recommended. A trial of a low fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, polyols (FODMAP) diet is suggested, while a gluten-free diet is not. Psyllium, but not wheat bran, supplementation may help reduce symptoms. Alternative therapies such as peppermint oil and probiotics are suggested, while herbal therapies and acupuncture are not. Cognitive behavioural therapy and hypnotherapy are suggested psychological therapies. Among the suggested or recommended pharmacological therapies are antispasmodics, certain antidepressants, eluxadoline, lubiprostone, and linaclotide. Loperamide, cholestyramine and osmotic laxatives are not recommended for overall IBS symptoms. The nature of the IBS symptoms (diarrhea-predominant or constipation-predominant) should be considered in the choice of pharmacological treatments., Conclusions: Patients with IBS may benefit from a multipronged, individualized approach to treatment, including dietary modifications, psychological and pharmacological therapies.

Objective: To summarize high-quality studies for 10 topics from 2018 that have strong relevance to primary care practice., Quality of Evidence: Study selection involved routine literature surveillance by a group of primary care health professionals. This included screening abstracts of important journals and Evidence Alerts, as well as searching ACP Journal Club ., Main Message: Topics of the 2018 articles include whether low-dose acetylsalicylic acid improves health outcomes like cardiovascular disease (CVD); whether a low-carbohydrate diet is better than a low-fat diet for weight loss (and whether genetics matter); whether vaginal estradiol is superior to placebo for vulvovaginal symptoms of menopause; whether opioid management is better than nonopioid management for chronic back or osteoarthritis pain; whether additional water intake will decrease recurrent urinary tract infections; whether omega-3 fatty acids prevent CVD or reduce dry eyes; whether the new drug icosapent improves CVD; whether bath additives help eczema; whether acetaminophen can prevent recurrent febrile seizures; and recommendations for glycemic targets in diabetes based on reviews of evidence and other guidelines. Five "runner-up" studies are also briefly reviewed., Conclusion: Research from 2018 produced several high-quality studies in CVD but also spanned the breadth of primary care including pediatrics, women's health, and pain management, among other areas., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

Objective: To identify the most commonly presenting conditions in primary care globally, and to compare common reasons for visits (RFVs) as reported by clinicians and patients, as well as among countries of different economic classifications., Data Sources: Twelve scientific databases were searched up to January 2016, and a dual independent review was performed to select primary care studies., Study Selection: Studies were included if they contained 20 000 visits or more (or equivalent volume by patient-clinician interactions) and listed 10 or more RFVs. Dual independent data extraction of study characteristics and RFV rankings was performed. Data analysis was descriptive, with pooled rankings of RFVs across studies., Synthesis: Eighteen studies met inclusion criteria (median 250 000 patients or 83 161 visits). Data were from 12 countries across 5 continents. The 10 most common clinician-reported RFVs were upper respiratory tract infection, hypertension, routine health maintenance, arthritis, diabetes, depression or anxiety, pneumonia, acute otitis media, back pain, and dermatitis. The 10 most common patient-reported RFVs were symptomatic conditions including cough, back pain, abdominal symptoms, pharyngitis, dermatitis, fever, headache, leg symptoms, unspecified respiratory concerns, and fatigue. Globally, upper respiratory tract infection and hypertension were the most common clinician-reported RFVs. In developed countries the next most common RFVs were depression or anxiety and back pain, and in developing countries they were pneumonia and tuberculosis. There was a paucity of available data, particularly from developing countries., Conclusion: There are differences between clinician-reported and patient-reported RFVs to primary care, as well as between developed and developing countries. The results of our review are useful for the development of primary care guidelines, the allocation of resources, and the design of training programs and curricula., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

The objective of this study is to determine whether human body odors undergo seasonal modulation. We utilized google trends search volume from the United States of America from January 1, 2010 to June 24, 2017 for a number of predetermined body odors. Regression modeling of time series data was completed. Our primary outcome was to determine the proportion of the variability in Internet searches for each unpleasant odor (about the mean) that is explained by a seasonal model. We determined that the seasonal (sinusoidal) model provided a significantly better fit than the null model (best straight line fit) for all searches relating to human body odors (P <.0001 for each). This effect was easily visible to the naked eye in the raw time series data. Seasonality explained 88% of the variability in search volume for flatulence (i.e. R2 = 0.88), 65% of the variability in search volume for axillary odor, 60% of the variability in search volume for foot odor, and 58% of the variability in search volume for bad breath. Flatulence and bad breath tended to peak in January, foot odor in February, and Axillary odor in July. We conclude that searching by the general public for information on unpleasant body odors undergoes substantial seasonal variation, with the timing of peaks and troughs varying with the body part involved. The symptom burden of such smells may have a similar seasonal variation, as might the composition of the commensal bacterial microflora that play a role in creating them.

Objective: To summarize 10 high-quality studies from 2017 that have strong relevance to primary care practice., Quality of Evidence: Study selection involved routine literature surveillance by a group of primary care health professionals. This included screening abstracts of important journals and Evidence Alerts, as well as searching the American College of Physicians Journal Club., Main Message: Topics of the 2017 articles include whether treating subclinical hypothyroidism improves outcomes or symptoms; whether evolocumab reduces cardiovascular disease as well as low-density lipoprotein levels; whether lifestyle interventions reduce medication use in patients with diabetes; whether vitamin D prevents cardiovascular disease, cancer, or upper respiratory tract infections; whether canagliflozin reduces clinical events in patients with diabetes; how corticosteroid injections affect knee osteoarthritis; whether drained abscesses benefit from antibiotic treatment; whether patients with diabetes benefit from bariatric surgery; whether exenatide reduces clinical events in patients with diabetes; and whether tympanostomy tubes affect outcomes in recurrent acute otitis media or chronic otitis media. We provide brief summaries, context where needed, and final recommendations for 10 studies with potential effects on primary care. We also briefly review 5 "runner-up" studies., Conclusion: Research from 2017 produced several high-quality studies in diabetes management. These have demonstrated benefit for alternative therapies and offered evidence not previously available. This year's selection of studies also provided information on a variety of conditions and therapies that are, or might become, more common in primary care settings., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

Objective: To develop a clinical practice guideline for a simplified approach to medical cannabinoid use in primary care; the focus was on primary care application, with a strong emphasis on best available evidence and a promotion of shared, informed decision making., Methods: The Evidence Review Group performed a detailed systematic review of 4 clinical areas with the best evidence around cannabinoids: pain, nausea and vomiting, spasticity, and adverse events. Nine health professionals (2 generalist family physicians, 2 pain management-focused family physicians, 1 inner-city family physician, 1 neurologist, 1 oncologist, 1 nurse practitioner, and 1 pharmacist) and a patient representative comprised the Prescribing Guideline Committee (PGC), along with 2 nonvoting members (pharmacist project managers). Member selection was based on profession, practice setting, location, and lack of financial conflicts of interest. The guideline process was iterative through content distribution, evidence review, and telephone and online meetings. The PGC directed the Evidence Review Group to address and provide evidence for additional questions as needed. The key recommendations were derived through consensus of the PGC. The guideline was drafted, refined, and distributed to a group of clinicians and patients for feedback, then refined again and finalized by the PGC., Recommendations: Recommendations include limiting medical cannabinoid use in general, but also outline potential restricted use in a small subset of medical conditions for which there is some evidence (neuropathic pain, palliative and end-of-life pain, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and spasticity due to multiple sclerosis or spinal cord injury). Other important considerations regarding prescribing are reviewed in detail, and content is offered to support shared, informed decision making., Conclusion: This simplified medical cannabinoid prescribing guideline provides practical recommendations for the use of medical cannabinoids in primary care. All recommendations are intended to assist with, not dictate, decision making in conjunction with patients., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)

Objective: To determine the effects of medical cannabinoids on pain, spasticity, and nausea and vomiting, and to identify adverse events., Data Sources: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database, and the references of included studies were searched., Study Selection: Systematic reviews with 2 or more randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that focused on medical cannabinoids for pain, spasticity, or nausea and vomiting were included. For adverse events, any meta-analysis for the conditions listed or of adverse events of cannabinoids was included., Synthesis: From 1085 articles, 31 relevant systematic reviews were identified including 23 for pain, 5 for spasticity, 6 for nausea and vomiting, and 12 for adverse events. Meta-analysis of 15 RCTs found more patients taking cannabinoids attained at least a 30% pain reduction: risk ratio (RR) of 1.37 (95% CI 1.14 to 1.64), number needed to treat (NNT) of 11. Sensitivity analysis found study size and duration affected findings (subgroup differences, P ≤ .03), with larger and longer RCTs finding no benefit. Meta-analysis of 4 RCTs found a positive global impression of change in spasticity (RR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.95, NNT = 7). Other results were not consistently statistically significant, but when positive, a 30% or more improvement in spasticity had an NNT of 10. Meta-analysis of 7 RCTs for control of nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy found an RR of 3.60 (95% CI 2.55 to 5.09) with an NNT of 3. Adverse effects caused more patients to stop treatment (number needed to harm [NNH] of 8 to 22). Individual adverse events were very common, including dizziness (NNH = 5), sedation (NNH = 5), confusion (NNH = 15), and dissociation (NNH = 20). "Feeling high" was reported in 35% to 70% of users. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) evaluation reduced evidence ratings of benefit to low or very low., Conclusion: There is reasonable evidence that cannabinoids improve nausea and vomiting after chemotherapy. They might improve spasticity (primarily in multiple sclerosis). There is some uncertainty about whether cannabinoids improve pain, but if they do, it is neuropathic pain and the benefit is likely small. Adverse effects are very common, meaning benefits would need to be considerable to warrant trials of therapy., (Copyright© the College of Family Physicians of Canada.)