Search

Background: Sex differences in clinical outcomes have been observed for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). These could be related to sex disparities in treatment. Objectives: To determine whether there are sex disparities in medication prescribing amongst patients with T2DM. Methods: A cohort study was conducted using the Groningen Initiative to ANalyze Type 2 diabetes Treatment (GIANTT) database, which includes data from primary care patients with T2DM from the north of the Netherlands. Data on demographics, physical examinations, laboratory measurements and prescribing were extracted. A set of validated prescribing quality indicators assessing the prevalence, start, intensification and safety of glucose‐, lipid‐, blood pressure‐ and albuminuria‐lowering medication was applied for the calendar year 2019. Univariate logistic regression analyses were conducted. Results: We included 10,456 patients (47% females). Females were less often treated with metformin (81.7% vs. 86.5%; OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.61–0.80), and were less often prescribed a renin‐angiotensin‐aldosterone inhibitor (RAAS‐i) when treated with multiple blood pressure‐lowering medicines (81.9% vs. 89.3%; OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.46–0.64) or when having albuminuria (74.7% vs. 82.1%; OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49–0.85) than males. Statin treatment was less frequently started (19.7% vs. 24.7%; OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.58–0.96) and prescribed (58.7% vs. 63.9%; OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73–0.89) in females. There were no differences in starting and intensifying glucose‐, blood pressure‐ and albuminuria‐lowering medication. Conclusions: Sex disparities in medication prescribing amongst T2DM patients were seen, including less starting with statins and potential undertreatment with RAAS‐i in females. Such disparities may partly explain higher excess risks for cardiovascular and renal complications associated with diabetes observed in females. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives To assess whether medication beliefs differ between women who use or not use medication for their somatic chronic diseases during pregnancy and whether this association varies across diseases. Design Cross-sectional web-based survey. Setting Multinational study in Europe. Participants Pregnant women or women with children less than 1 year old from European countries and with asthma, allergy, cardiovascular, rheumatic diseases, diabetes, epilepsy and/or inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). Primary and secondary outcome measure Differences in scores of the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ). Results In total, 1219 women were included (ranging from 736 for allergy to 49 for IBD). Women using medication for their chronic disease (n=770; 63%) had higher scores on the BMQ subscales necessity (16.6 vs 12.1, p<0.001) and benefits (16.2 vs 15.4, p<0.001), and lower values on the subscales overuse (12.5 vs 13.1; p=0.005) and harm (9.8 vs 10.7, p<0.001) than women not using medication. No significant differences were shown for the concerns subscale (12.5 vs 12.3, p=0.484). Beliefs varied somewhat across diseases but in general more positive beliefs among women using medication were shown. Epilepsy was the disease where less differences were observed between women using and not using medication. Conclusion Women’s beliefs were associated with medication use during pregnancy with only small differences across the diseases. Knowing pregnant women’s beliefs could help identify women who are reluctant to use medication and could guide counselling to support making well-informed treatment decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the original publication of the article, the headings of columns 3 and 4 in the data table. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Previously, an app has been developed for healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients to report adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to national medicines agencies and to receive drug safety information.Objective: This study aimed to assess (1) European HCPs' and patients' interest in an app for this two-way risk communication; (2) their preferences and perceptions towards specific app characteristics; and (3) which HCPs and patients are particularly interested in the app. In addition, these aspects were studied specifically for the countries where such an app was already available, i.e. Croatia, The Netherlands, and The UK.Methods: European HCPs and patients were asked to complete a web-based survey developed in the context of the Web-Recognizing Adverse Drug Reactions (Web-RADR) project. Data on app interest and preferences and perceptions towards app characteristics were analysed descriptively. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the association of HCP characteristics and patient characteristics on the level of interest in the app (i.e. very interested vs. not/somewhat interested).Results: In total, 399 HCPs and 656 patients completed the survey. About half of the patients (48%; ranging from 38% from The Netherlands to 54% from The UK), and 61% of the HCPs (ranging from 42% from The Netherlands to 54% from The UK) were very interested in the app. A faster means of reporting ADRs and easier access to the reporting form were the main perceived benefits. HCPs and patients who already use a health app were particularly interested in the app (HCPs: odds ratio [OR] 3.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.96-6.30, patients: OR 1.64; 95% CI 1.19-2.27).Conclusions: An app is positively perceived by HCPs and patients for reporting ADRs quickly and for receiving drug safety information from national medicines agencies. In particular, HCPs and patients who already use other health apps were interested in the app. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: National competent authorities (NCAs) use Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs) to communicate new drug safety issues to healthcare professionals (HCPs). More knowledge is needed about the effectiveness of DHPCs and the extent to which they raise awareness of new safety issues among HCPs.Objective: The objective was to assess and compare general practitioners' (GPs'), cardiologists', and pharmacists' familiarity with DHPCs as communication tools, their awareness of specific drug safety issues, and the sources through which they had become aware of the specific issues.Methods: GPs, cardiologists, and pharmacists from nine European countries (Croatia, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the UK) completed a web-based survey. The survey was conducted in the context of the Strengthening Collaboration for Operating Pharmacovigilance in Europe (SCOPE) Joint Action. Respondents were asked about their familiarity with DHPCs in general and their awareness of safety issues that had recently been communicated and involved the following drugs: combined hormonal contraceptives, diclofenac, valproate, and ivabradine. Those HCPs who were aware of the specific safety issues were subsequently asked to indicate the source through which they had become aware of them. Differences between professions in familiarity with DHPCs and awareness were tested using a Pearson χ2 test per country and post hoc Pearson χ2 tests in the case of statistically significant differences.Results: Of the 3288 included respondents, 54% were GPs, 40% were pharmacists, and 7% were cardiologists. The number of respondents ranged from 67 in Denmark to 916 in Spain. Most respondents (92%) were familiar with DHPCs, with one significant difference between the professions: pharmacists were more familiar than GPs in Italy (99 vs 90%, P = 0.004). GPs' awareness ranged from 96% for the diclofenac issue to 70% for the ivabradine issue. A similar pattern was shown for pharmacists (91% aware of the diclofenac issue to 66% of the ivabradine issue). Cardiologists' awareness ranged from 91% for the ivabradine issue to 34% for the valproate issue. Overall, DHPCs were a common source through which GPs (range: 45% of those aware of the contraceptives issue to 60% of those aware of the valproate issue), cardiologists (range: 33% for the contraceptives issue to 61% for the valproate issue), and pharmacists (range: 41% for the contraceptives issue to 51% for the ivabradine issue) had become aware of the specific safety issues, followed by information on websites or in newsletters.Conclusions: GPs, cardiologists, and pharmacists were to a similar extent (highly) familiar with DHPCs, but they differed in awareness levels of specific safety issues. Cardiologists were less aware of safety issues associated with non-cardiology drugs even if these had cardiovascular safety concerns. This implies that additional strategies may be needed to reach specialists when communicating safety issues regarding drugs outside their therapeutic area but with risks related to their field of specialisation. DHPCs were an important source for the different professions to become aware of specific safety issues, but other sources were also often used. NCAs should consider the use of a range of sources when communicating important safety issues to HCPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]