― 文献名 ―
 Giulio Formoso et al: Feasibility and effectiveness of a low cost campaign on antibiotic prescribing in Italy: community level, controlled, non-randomised trial.BMJ 2013;347:f5391

 ― 要約 ―
To test the hypothesis that a multifaceted, local public campaign could be feasible and influence antibiotic prescribing for outpatients.

Community level, controlled, non-randomised trial.

Provinces of Modena and Parma in Emilia-Romagna, northern Italy, November 2011 to February 2012.

1 150 000 residents of Modena and Parma (intervention group) and 3 250 000 residents in provinces in the same region but where no campaign had been implemented (control group).

Campaign materials (mainly posters, brochures, and advertisements on local media, plus a newsletter on local antibiotic resistance targeted at doctors and pharmacists). General practitioners and paediatricians in the intervention area participated in designing the campaign messages.

【Main outcomes measures】
Primary outcome was the average change in prescribing rates of antibiotics for outpatient in five months, measured as defined daily doses per 1000 inhabitants/day, using health districts as the unit of analysis.

Antibiotic prescribing was reduced in the intervention area compared with control area (−4.3%, 95% confidence interval −7.1% to −1.5%). This result was robust to “sensitivity analysis” modifying the baseline period from two months (main analysis) to one month. A higher decrease was observed for penicillins resistant to β lactamase and a lower decrease for penicillins susceptible to β lactamase, consistent with the content of the newsletter on antibiotic resistance directed at health professionals. The decrease in expenditure on antibiotics was not statistically significant in a district level analysis with a two month baseline period (main analysis), but was statistically significant in sensitivity analyses using either a one month baseline period or a more powered doctor level analysis. Knowledge and attitudes of the target population about the correct use of antibiotics did not differ between the intervention and control areas.

A local low cost information campaign targeted at citizens, combined with a newsletter on local antibiotic resistance targeted at doctors and pharmacists, was associated with significantly decreased total rates of antibiotic prescribing but did not affect the population’s knowledge and attitudes about antibiotic resistance.



― 文献名 ―
 HOWARD TANDETER et al. A ‘ minimal core curriculum ‘ for Family Medicine in undergraduate 
medical education: A European Delphi survey among EURACT representatives. European Journal of General Practice, 2011; 17: 217-220

 ― この文献を読んだ背景 ―
 ― 要約 ―


欧州家庭医療/総合診療指導者委員会(Council of the European Academy of Teachers in General Practice and Family Medicine)の中の全ての欧州国家とイスラエルの代表者であり、家庭医かつ指導医である40名のグループを対象にデルファイ法を用いて実施した。

1   27票 特有の医学である家庭医療の紹介、継続性・包括性・協調性という家庭医療の重要原則
2  21票 全人的アプローチ:生物心理社会モデル

3  20票 症状早期の鑑別しにくい時期のマネージメント、不確実性の扱い方

4  17票 コミュニケーションスキル:患者、患者家族、難しい患者

5  17票 複数の健康問題のマネージメント:優先順位づけ

6  17票 流行状況や発生率に基づいた意思決定

7  17票 予防・健康増進、患者教育

8  16票 患者中心性

9  16票 外来スキル:外来のステージ

10 15票 慢性疾患ケア、慢性の疾患・健康問題のマネージメント:DM,HT,CHF,肥満

11 14票 疾患の原因・ケアの資源としての家族:家族背景、家族図、ライフサイクル

12  13票 家庭医療に特徴的なヘルスケア:全年齢、男性/女性、病気を治す・予防する、救急

13  12票 コミュニティ志向:コミュニティ中心のケア、地域ニーズ評価

14  12票 家庭医療にコモンな症状

15  10票 プライマリとセカンダリーの境界:紹介、ゲートキーピング、擁護者



 ― 考察とディスカッション ―



― 文献名 ―

 Ketan Dhatariya. Uncertainties: Should inpatient hyperglycaemia be treated? BMJ 2013;346:f134 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f134

― この文献を選んだ背景 ―

 Usually, we try to control blood glucose of patients who are admitted with acute illness.
But after reading this article, I found that this is not confirmed with good evidence and realized the importance of knowing that some of our usual care may lack sufficient evidence.

― 要約 ―

   Two large scale randomised controlled trials in the 1990s were the first such trials to show that the control of blood glucose helped to prevent long term complications in people with types 1 and 2 diabetes.1 2 Glucose concentrations can rise not only in people with pre-existing diabetes, but also, for short periods, in people without the condition–in particular, during times of acute illness, when it is called stress hyperglycaemia.3
 Data show that raised blood glucose concentrations in people with and without a previous diagnosis of diabetes are associated with short term harm. However, whereas the benefits of good glycaemic control over a long period in people with diabetes are well established, uncertainty remains about whether treating transient hyperglycaemia, in particular in hospital inpatients, makes any difference to short term outcomes.

What is the evidence of the uncertainty?
   Since the two trials in the 1990s,1 2 other studies have also shown that hyperglycaemia in inpatients with and without pre-existing diabetes is associated with poor outcomes. However, most trials were observational, with only a few randomised controlled trials. A meta-analysis of 34 randomised control trials assessing perioperative insulin infusion in 2192 surgical patients concluded that “perioperative insulin infusion may reduce mortality but increases hypoglycaemia in patients who are undergoing surgery.”5 However, only 14 of these studies included patients with diabetes, with 13 studies
excluding them and the rest not reporting whether patients with diabetes were included.

   Observational data from an unselected cohort of over 1500 acute general medical admissions with and without diabetes showed that length of stay, readmission rates, and 30 day mortality rates rose with higher blood glucose concentrations.6 Other observational evidence from hospital episode statistics based on discharge coding of over four million patients showed that those who also had diabetes stayed in hospital the longest, regardless of the specialty.7

   People with stress hyperglycaemia may be at risk of developing type 2 diabetes in the long term. However, evidence from intervention studies is sparse or conflicting on whether aggressive treatment of the hyperglycaemia during a patient’s hospital stay makes a difference to short or long term outcomes or even affects outcomes related to their cause for admission. Indeed, data from well conducted large randomised controlled trials and observational studies show that the use of glucose lowering agents–in particular, insulin–are associated with increased levels of harm, in the form of severe hypoglycaemia.10 11

   A few randomised controlled trials show that short term, tight glycaemic control using insulin therapy in intensive care seemed to reduce mortality, infection rate, and length of hospital stay.12 13 Other well conducted randomised controlled trials in intensive care patients have been either equivocal14 15 or associated with harm, with the largest such study of over 6000 patients showing that tight glycaemic control was associated with higher incidence of severe hypoglycaemia and increased mortality.16

   There are good theoretical reasons why glucose reduction with insulin should be beneficial, with reductions in endothelial dysfunction, immune dysfunction, and the maintenance of adequate vasodilatation.20 But insulin use in any patient with hyperglycaemia is fraught with problems and is often used incorrectly or ineffectively–the use of subcutaneous “sliding scales” being one such problem.21 Precipitating severe hypoglycaemia by aggressive glucose lowering with insulin is a major concern.
Uncertainty also remains about the glucose targets that should be aimed for and the best agents to achieve these.

   The data presented show that high glucose concentration in people with and without diabetes is associated with poor outcomes. However, as the author found no directly relevant systematic reviews it remains to be determined if the raised blood glucose is the cause of the poor outcomes or if it is just an epiphenomenon.

What should we do in the light of the uncertainty?
   If the patients are found to be hyperglycaemic then efforts should be made to control their glucose concentrations on the basis of pragmatic consensus documents drawing largely on the best available observational data previously described. 



― 文献名 ―

 Glucose Levels and Risk of Dementia
Paul K. Crane, M.D., M.P.H., Rod Walker, M.S., Rebecca A. Hubbard, Ph.D., Ge Li, M.D., Ph.D., David M. Nathan, M.D., Hui Zheng, Ph.D., Sebastien Haneuse, Ph.D., Suzanne Craft, Ph.D., Thomas J. Montine, M.D., Ph.D., Steven E. Kahn, M.B., Ch.B., Wayne McCormick, M.D., M.P.H., Susan M. McCurry, Ph.D., James D. Bowen, M.D., and Eric B. Larson, M.D., M.P.H.
N Engl J Med 2013; 369:540-548August 8, 2013DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1215740

― この文献を選んだ背景 ―
 Many patients with dementia come to our clinic, and sometimes it is difficult to examine for a stable life. It is important to know the risk factor to develop dementia, and to prevent it. I found this article about the glucose level and risk of dementia. I read it.

― 要約 ―
Diabetes is a risk factor for dementia. It is unknown whether higher glucose levels increase the risk of dementia in people without diabetes.

We used 35,264 clinical measurements of glucose levels and 10,208 measurements of glycated hemoglobin levels from 2067 participants without dementia to examine the relationship between glucose levels and the risk of dementia. Participants were from the Adult Changes in Thought study and included 839 men and 1228 women whose mean age at baseline was 76 years; 232 participants had diabetes, and 1835 did not. We fit Cox regression models, stratified according to diabetes status and adjusted for age, sex, study cohort, educational level, level of exercise, blood pressure, and status with respect to coronary and cerebrovascular diseases, atrial fibrillation, smoking, and treatment for hypertension.

During a median follow-up of 6.8 years, dementia developed in 524 participants (74 with diabetes and 450 without). Among participants without diabetes, higher average glucose levels within the preceding 5 years were related to an increased risk of dementia (P=0.01); with a glucose level of 115 mg per deciliter (6.4 mmol per liter) as compared with 100 mg per deciliter (5.5 mmol per liter), the adjusted hazard ratio for dementia was 1.18 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.33). Among participants with diabetes, higher average glucose levels were also related to an increased risk of dementia (P=0.002); with a glucose level of 190 mg per deciliter (10.5 mmol per liter) as compared with 160 mg per deciliter (8.9 mmol per liter), the adjusted hazard ratio was 1.40 (95% CI, 1.12 to 1.76).

Our results suggest that higher glucose levels may be a risk factor for dementia, even among persons without diabetes. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health.)

― 考察とディスカッション ―

  I got the information that it is important to check the glucose level without diagnosing DM. I think We should do “health maintenance” about DM and high glucose level to prevent dementia. It is important that family physicians know this evidence to prevent dementia. How do you think about a risk factor of the dementia ?






― 文献名 ―
 Marie-Claude Audetat, Suzanne Laurin, Gilbert Sanche, Caroline Beique, Nathalie Caire Fon, Jean-Guy Blais and Bernard Charlin: Clinical reasoning difficulties: A taxonomy for clinical teachers Medical Teacher 2013 35: e984-e989

 ― この文献を選んだ背景 ―


 ― 要約 ―


1.A parallel between the processes of clinical reasoning and educational reasoning.
 臨床教育者が学習者を指導する際に、患者の臨床推論と学習者診断を同時並行で行っており、そのプロセスはい ずれも問題解決的思考(情報収集→仮説形成→診断→対応)という点で共通しているというモデル。


   モントリオール大学における家庭医療学・救急医学において医学教育に携わっている家庭医4人を選抜した。基準としては1.15年以上の臨床家・教育者としての経歴 2.臨床推論で困難なレジデントに関わる委員会に関わっている 3.FDの委員会、活動に関わっている 4.臨床推論における困難なレジデントの特定・改善プログラムに携わっている を考慮した。



 ― 考察とディスカッション ―


高血圧スクリーニング 年1回と現状の比較

― 文献名 ―
 Gregory M. Garrison, MD, MS, and Sara Oberbelman, MD. Screening for hypertension annually compared with current practice. Annals of Family Medicine. 2013 Mar-Apr; 11(2):116-121.

 ― この文献を選んだ背景 ―

 In the clinics or hospitals where I have ever worked, every patient was routinely checked their blood pressure. Sometimes I found high blood pressure in these patients, but if they didn’t have any symptoms and usual blood pressures were within the normal range, I told them that it was just because of the length of waiting time… This time, I wonder if this routine blood pressure check is effective or not, then chose this article.

 ― 要約 ―
Hypertension is the most common diagnosis in ambulatory care, yet little evidence exists regarding recommended screening intervals or the sensitivity and specificity of a routine office-based blood pressure measurement, the most common screening test. Screening for hypertension is usually performed by measuring blood pressure at every outpatient visit, which often results in transiently elevated findings among adults who do not have a diagnosis of hypertension. We hypothesize that a more limited annual screening strategy may increase specificity while maintaining sensitivity.
A retrospective case-control study of 372 adults without hypertension and 68 patients with newly diagnosed hypertension was conducted to compare the usual screening practice of checking blood pressure at every visit with a second strategy that considered only annual blood pressure measurements. 
*subjects: family medicine patients at Mayo Clinic Rochester
*study period: 5 years
→Figure 1, Figure 2
Specificity improved from 70.4% (95% Cl, 65.5%-75.0%) for the usual practice to 82.0% (95% Cl, 77.7%-85.8%) for the annual screening strategy. No statistically significant difference in sensitivity existed between the 2 methods. 
→Table 2
A limited annual screening strategy for hypertension can improve specificity without sacrificing sensitivity when compared with routine screening at every visit in previously normotensive adults.

 ― 考察とディスカッション ―
 Screening for hypertension is recommended to all adults. But if large numbers of disease-free individuals are screened repeatedly, then even highly specific tests can generate a number of false-positive results, for which patients must undergo further testing. In this article, to reduce the frequency of screening by 60.7%, they could achieve a significant decrease in the false-positive rate from 29.6% to 18.0%. 
Which strategy would you like to choose?