Suchergebnisse

To access publisher's full text version of this article click on the hyperlink below ; Introduction: Previous evidence has been conflicting regarding the effect of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic lockdowns on obstetric intervention and preterm birth rates. The literature to date suggests potentially differential underlying mechanisms based on country economic setting. We aimed to study these outcomes in an Icelandic population where uniform lockdown measures were implemented across the country. Material and methods: The study included all singleton births (n = 20 680) during 2016-2020 identified from the population-based Icelandic Medical Birth Register. We defined two lockdown periods during March-May and October-December in 2020 according to government implemented nationwide lockdown. We compared monthly rates of cesarean section, induction of labor and preterm birth during lockdown with the same time periods in the 4 previous years (2016-2019) using logit binomial regression adjusted for confounders. Results: Our results indicated a reduction in the overall cesarean section rate, which was mainly evident for elective cesarean section, both during the first (adjusted odd ratio [aOR] 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-0.99) and second (aOR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52-0.99) lockdown periods, and not for emergency cesarean section. No change during lockdown was observed in induction of labor. Our results also suggested a reduction in the overall preterm birth rate during the first lockdown (aOR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.97) and in the months immediately following the lockdown (June-September) (aOR 0.67, 95% CI 0.49-0.89). The reduction during the first lockdown was mainly evident for medically indicated preterm birth (although not statistically significant) and the reduction during June-September was mainly evident for spontaneous preterm birth. Conclusions: This study suggested a reduction in elective cesarean section during COVID-19 lockdown, possibly reflecting changes in prioritization of non-urgent health care during lockdown. ...

Publisher's version (útgefin grein) ; Background Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use is widespread. There have been increasing concerns about overuse of high-dose PPIs for durations longer than clinically necessary. Objective To evaluate the impact of national education initiatives on reducing PPI use in Australia. Design Population-based, controlled interrupted time series analysis of PPI dispensing claims data for Australian adults from July 2012 to June 2018; we used statin dispensing as a control. Interventions A year-long educational initiative led by NPS MedicineWise (previously the National Prescribing Service) from April 2015. Simultaneously, Choosing Wisely released recommendations in April 2015 and May 2016. Both promoted review of prolonged PPI use and encouraged stepping down or ceasing treatment, where appropriate. Measurements We examined monthly changes in PPI (and statin) dispensing (stratified by high, standard and low tablet strength), rates of switching from higher to lower strength PPIs and rates of PPI (and statin) discontinuation. Results We observed 12 040 021 PPI dispensings to 579 594 people. We observed a sustained -1.7% (95% CI: -2.7 to -0.7%) decline in monthly dispensing of standard strength PPIs following the initiatives until the end of the study period. There were no significant changes in high or low strength PPI (or statin) dispensings, switching to lower strength PPIs, or PPI (and statin) treatment discontinuation. Conclusion Our findings suggest that these educational initiatives alone were insufficient in curbing overuse of PPIs on a national level. Concerted efforts with policy levers such as imposing tighter restrictions on subsidised use of PPIs may be more effective. Noting low strength esomeprazole is not publicly subsidised in Australia, availability of these preparations may also facilitate more appropriate practice ; This research is supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre of Research Excellence in Medicines and Ageing (ID: 1060407) and a Cooperative Research Centre Project (CRC-P) Grant from the Australian Government Department of Industry, Innovation and Science (ID: CRC-P-439). Dr Zoega was supported by a Scientia Fellowship from UNSW Sydney. Dr Schaffer was supported by a NHMRC Early Career Fellowship (#1158763). ; Peer Reviewed

IntroductionHCTZ is first-line treatment for hypertension and among the most commonly used medicines in Australia. Recent evidence suggests increased risks of lip and skin cancers in association with HCTZ use.
Objectives and ApproachTo determine the risk of SCC of the lip and melanoma among people prescribed HCTZ in Australia we conducted a case-control study nested within a cohort of Department of Veterans' Affairs clients 65 years and older in 2004-2015. We identified incident cases of SCC of the lip (lip cancer) and of cutaneous melanoma (malignant melanoma), each matched by sex and age with up to 20 controls through risk-set sampling. We ascertained HCTZ use from dispensing data and classified use according to ever/never use and cumulative use. We estimated odds ratios (ORs) associating HCTZ use with lip cancer and malignant melanoma using conditional logistic regression, adjusting for predefined confounders obtained from dispensing and hospitalisation data.
ResultsFor lip cancer (45 cases) ever-use of HCTZ yielded an OR of 2.6 (95%CI: 1.4–5.0) and high HCTZ use (>25,000mg) an OR of 4.7 (1.61–13.7). For malignant melanoma (659 cases) ever-use of HCTZ resulted in an OR of 1.2 (1.0–1.5) and high HCTZ use in an OR of 1.2 (0.8–1.8).
Conclusion / ImplicationsOur study provides further evidence that the photosensitising properties of HCTZ may promote SCC carcinogenesis, and possibly melanoma, in susceptible sun-exposed tissues. Our findings are the first from the Australian population—already at elevated risk of developing skin cancer—and add to the growing body of data supporting the need for skin cancer prevention advice and behaviours, and potentially heightened surveillance, for individuals prescribed this medication.

Publisher's version (útgefin grein) ; Background The global Choosing Wisely campaign has identified the following psychotropic prescribing as low-value (harmful or wasteful): (1) benzodiazepine use in the elderly, (2) antipsychotic use in dementia and (3) prescribing two or more antipsychotics concurrently. We aimed to quantify the extent of these prescribing practices in the Australian population. Methods We applied indicators to dispensing claims of a 10% random sample of Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme beneficiaries to quantify annual rates of each low-value practice from 2013 to 2016. We also assessed patient factors and direct medicine costs (extrapolated to the entire Australian population) associated with each practice in 2016. Results We observed little change in the rates of the three practices between 2013 and 2016. In 2016, 15.3% of people aged ≥65 years were prescribed a benzodiazepine, 0.5% were prescribed antipsychotics in the context of dementia and 0.2% of people aged ≥18 years received two or more antipsychotics concurrently. The likelihood of elderly people receiving benzodiazepines or antipsychotics in the context of dementia increased with age and the likelihood of receiving all three practices increased with comorbidity burden. In 2016, direct medicine costs to the government of all three practices combined, extrapolated to national figures, were > $21 million AUD. Conclusions Our indicators suggest that the frequency of these three practices has not changed appreciably in recent years and that they incur significant costs. Worryingly, people with the greatest risk of harm from these prescribing practices are often the most likely to receive them. ; This research was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre for Research Excellence in Medicines and Ageing (CREMA), a Project Grant for measuring low-value care for targeted policy action and JB received funding support from an NHMRC Postgraduate award. These funding bodies played no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data or in writing the manuscript. ; Peer Reviewed

IntroductionRecent evidence from the USA and Nordic countries suggests a possible association between psychostimulant use during gestation and adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes.
Objectives and ApproachWe employed a distributed cohort analysis using linked administrative data for women who gave birth in New South Wales (NSW; Australia) and Ontario (Canada), whereby a common protocol was implemented separately in each jurisdiction. The study population comprised women who were hospitalized for a singleton delivery over an 8 (NSW) and 4 (Ontario) year period, respectively, with the NSW cohort restricted to social security beneficiaries. Psychostimulant exposure was defined as at least one dispensing of methylphenidate, amphetamine, dextroamphetamine or lisdexamfetamine during pregnancy. We examined the risk of maternal and neonatal outcomes among psychostimulant exposed mothers compared with unexposed mothers.
ResultsThere were 140,356 eligible deliveries in NSW and 449,499 in Ontario during the respective study periods. Fewer than 1% of these pregnancies were exposed to psychostimulants during gestation, although use was higher in Ontario (0.30% vs 0.11% in NSW). Preliminary unadjusted analyses indicated possible associations between psychostimulant use in pregnancy and higher risks of pre-term birth (relative risk [RR] 1.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4-2.0 (Ontario); RR 1.8, 95% CI 1.2-2.6 (NSW)) and pre-eclampsia (RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.5-2.6 (Ontario); RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.2-3.5 (NSW)). Similarly, psychostimulant use was associated with higher risks of low birthweight (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.3-1.9 (Ontario); RR 2.0, 95% CI 1.3-3.0 (NSW)) and admission to neonatal intensive care (RR 2.1, 95% CI 1.9-2.3 (Ontario); RR 1.5, 95% CI 1.1-1.9 (NSW)).
Conclusion / ImplicationsUnadjusted analyses indicate an increased risk of adverse maternal and birth outcomes associated with psychostimulant exposure during pregnancy, potentially representing a placental effect. We are currently refining the analyses, employing propensity score methods to adjust for confounding.

National health care registries in the Nordic countries share many attributes, but different legal and ethical frameworks represent a challenge to promoting effective joint research. Internationally, there is a lack of knowledge about how ethical matters are considered in Nordic registry-based research, and a lack of knowledge about how Nordic ethics committees operate and what is needed to obtain an approval. In this paper, we review ethical aspects of registry-based research, the legal framework, the role of ethics review boards in the Nordic countries, and the structure of the ethics application. We discuss the role of informed consent in registry-based research and how to safeguard the integrity of study participants, including vulnerable subjects and children. Our review also provides information on the different government agencies that contribute registry-based data, and a list of the major health registries in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Both ethical values and conditions for registry-based research are similar in the Nordic countries. While Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden have chosen different legal frameworks, these differences can be resolved through mutual recognition of ethical applications and by harmonizing the different systems, likely leading to increased collaboration and enlarged studies.

National health care registries in the Nordic countries share many attributes, but different legal and ethical frameworks represent a challenge to promoting effective joint research. Internationally, there is a lack of knowledge about how ethical matters are considered in Nordic registry-based research, and a lack of knowledge about how Nordic ethics committees operate and what is needed to obtain an approval. In this paper, we review ethical aspects of registry-based research, the legal framework, the role of ethics review boards in the Nordic countries, and the structure of the ethics application. We discuss the role of informed consent in registry-based research and how to safeguard the integrity of study participants, including vulnerable subjects and children. Our review also provides information on the different government agencies that contribute registry-based data, and a list of the major health registries in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Both ethical values and conditions for registry-based research are similar in the Nordic countries. While Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden have chosen different legal frameworks, these differences can be resolved through mutual recognition of ethical applications and by harmonizing the different systems, likely leading to increased collaboration and enlarged studies.

Jonas F Ludvigsson,1,2 Siri E Håberg,3 Gun Peggy Knudsen,3 Pierre Lafolie,4,5 Helga Zoega,6 Catharina Sarkkola,7 Stephanie von Kraemer,7 Elisabete Weiderpass,1,7–10 Mette Nørgaard11 1Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, 2Department of Pediatrics, Örebro University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden; 3Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway; 4Department of Medicine, Clinical Pharmacology Unit, 5The Stockholm Regional Ethical Review Board, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden; 6Center of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland; 7Genetic Epidemiology Group, Folkhälsan Research Center, Helsinki, Finland; 8Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Tromsø, 9The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, 10Department of Research, Cancer Registry of Norway, Oslo, Norway; 11Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark Abstract: National health care registries in the Nordic countries share many attributes, but different legal and ethical frameworks represent a challenge to promoting effective joint research. Internationally, there is a lack of knowledge about how ethical matters are considered in Nordic registry-based research, and a lack of knowledge about how Nordic ethics committees operate and what is needed to obtain an approval. In this paper, we review ethical aspects of registry-based research, the legal framework, the role of ethics review boards in the Nordic countries, and the structure of the ethics application. We discuss the role of informed consent in registry-based research and how to safeguard the integrity of study participants, including vulnerable subjects and children. Our review also provides information on the different government agencies that contribute registry-based data, and a list of the major health registries in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Both ethical values and conditions for registry-based research are similar in the Nordic countries. While Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden have chosen different legal frameworks, these differences can be resolved through mutual recognition of ethical applications and by harmonizing the different systems, likely leading to increased collaboration and enlarged studies. Keywords: ethical review, ethics, institutional review board, Nordic countries, registry-based research, informed consent

Publisher's version (útgefin grein) ; Purpose: To describe recent international trends in antiepileptic drug (AED) use during pregnancy and individual patterns of use including discontinuation and switching. Methods: We studied pregnancies from 2006 to 2016 within linked population-based registers for births and dispensed prescription drugs from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and New South Wales, Australia and claims data for public and private insurance enrollees in the United States. We examined the prevalence of AED use: the proportion of pregnancies with ≥1 prescription filled from 3 months before pregnancy until birth, and individual patterns of use by trimester. Results: Prevalence of AED use in almost five million pregnancies was 15.3 per 1000 (n = 75 249) and varied from 6.4 in Sweden to 34.5 per 1000 in the publicly-insured US population. AED use increased in all countries in 2006-2012 ranging from an increase of 22% in Australia to 104% in Sweden, and continued to rise or stabilized in the countries in which more recent data were available. Lamotrigine, clonazepam, and valproate were the most commonly used AEDs in the Nordic countries, United States, and Australia, respectively. Among AED users, 31% only filled a prescription in the 3 months before pregnancy. Most filled a prescription in the first trimester (59%) but few filled prescriptions in every trimester (22%). Conclusions: Use of AEDs in pregnancy rose from 2006 to 2016. Trends and patterns of use of valproate and lamotrigine reflected the safety data available during this period. Many women discontinued AEDs during pregnancy while some switched to another AED. ; This study was funded by NordForsk as part of the Nordic Pregnancy Drug Safety Studies (NorPreSS) (Project No: 83539) and the Research Council of Norway as part of the International Pregnancy Drug Safety Studies (InPreSS) (Project No: 273366). Linkage of Danish data was supported by the Danish Council for Independent Research (Project No: DFF‐6110‐00019) and Karen Elise Jensens Fond (2016), and grant NNF18OC0052029 from Novo Nordisk Fonden (Li). Linkage of the Australian data was supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council Project grant (No. 1028543). We thank Anders Engeland (Norwegian Institute of Public Health, University of Bergen, Norway), Anna Heino (National Institute for Health and Welfare, Finland), Mette Nørgaard (Aarhus University, Denmark), Pär Karlsson (Karolinska Institutet, Sweden), Jennifer Yland (Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, USA), Gregory Brill and Helen Mogun (Brigham and Women's Hospital & Harvard Medical School, USA) for providing assistance with analyses. The authors would like to thank the NSW Ministry of Health, the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing and the Department of Human Services for providing data. The authors also thank the Centre for Health Record Linkage (CHeReL) and the Australian Institute for Health and Welfare for conducting the linkage of records. ; Peer Reviewed