Screening tools for frailty in primary health care: A systematic review

Frailty is the loss of resources in several domains leading to the inability to respond to physical or psychological stress. The evaluation of frailty is generally carried out using the Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment. For this evolving and potentially reversible syndrome, screening and early intervention are a priority in primary health care, and general practitioners require a simple screening tool. The aim of the present work was to review the literature for validated screening instruments for frailty in primary health care setting. A search was carried out on PubMed and Cochrane Central in June 2011. A total of 10 instruments screening for frailty in primary health care were listed, analysed and compared. It is difficult to show which tool today is the best for screening for frailty in the elderly in primary care settings. Two instruments are potentially suitable – the Tilburg Frailty Indicator and the SHARE Frailty Index. In addition, these instruments require validation in larger studies in primary health care settings and with more quality criteria. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2012; 12: 189–197.     

Reduction of alcohol consumption by brief alcohol intervention in primary care: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Numerous trials of the efficacy of brief alcohol intervention have been conducted in various settings among individuals with a wide range of alcohol disorders. Nevertheless, the efficacy of the intervention is likely to be influenced by the context. We evaluated the evidence of efficacy of brief alcohol interventions aimed at reducing long-term alcohol use and related harm in individuals attending primary care facilities but not seeking help for alcohol-related problems. METHODS: We selected randomized trials reporting at least 1 outcome related to alcohol consumption conducted in outpatients who were actively attending primary care centers or seeing providers. Data sources were the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ISI Web of Science, ETOH database, and bibliographies of retrieved references and previous reviews. Study selection and data abstraction were performed independently and in duplicate. We assessed the validity of the studies and performed a meta-analysis of studies reporting alcohol consumption at 6 or 12 months of follow-up. RESULTS: We examined 19 trials that included 5639 individuals. Seventeen trials reported a measure of alcohol consumption, of which 8 reported a significant effect of intervention. The adjusted intention-to-treat analysis showed a mean pooled difference of -38 g of ethanol (approximately 4 drinks) per week (95% confidence interval, -51 to -24 g/wk) in favor of the brief alcohol intervention group. Evidence of other outcome measures was inconclusive. CONCLUSION: Focusing on patients in primary care, our systematic review and meta-analysis indicated that brief alcohol intervention is effective in reducing alcohol consumption at 6 and 12 months.     

Longer-term primary prevention for alcohol misuse in young people: a systematic review

Objective To identify and summarize rigorous evaluations of psychosocial and educational interventions aimed at the primary prevention of alcohol misuse by young people aged up to 25 years, especially over the longer term (>3 years). Methods Cochrane Collaboration Systematic Review. Data sources A comprehensive search of 22 databases and recursive checking of bibliographies for randomized and non‐randomized controlled trials and interrupted time‐series studies. Main outcome measures Objective or self‐report measures of alcohol use and misuse. Results Fifty‐six studies were selected for inclusion in the systematic review. Twenty of the 56 studies showed evidence of ineffectiveness. No firm conclusions about the effectiveness of prevention interventions in the short‐ and medium term were possible. Over the longer term (>3 years), the Strengthening Families Programme (SFP) showed promise as an effective prevention intervention. The Number Needed to Treat (NNT) for the SFP over 4 years for three alcohol initiation behaviours (alcohol use, alcohol use without permission and first drunkenness) was 9 (for all three behaviours). One study also highlighted the potential value of culturally focused skills training over the longer‐term (NNT = 17 over 3.5 years for 4+ drinks in the last week) Conclusions (1) Research into important outcome variables needs to be undertaken; (2) the methodology of evaluations needs to be improved; (3) the SFP needs to be evaluated on a larger scale and in different settings; (4) culturally focused interventions require further development and rigorous evaluation; and (5) an international register of alcohol and drug misuse prevention interventions should be established and criteria agreed for rating prevention interventions in terms of safety, efficacy and effectiveness.     

New therapies for alcohol problems: application to primary care

Primary care physicians are frequently involved in the longitudinal care of patients with alcohol problems and in helping patients to decrease their alcohol consumption. Recent clinical trials provide evidence in support of new treatment strategies for these patients. Brief interventions have been used successfully to reduce alcohol consumption in patients with hazardous and harmful drinking. Twelve-step facilitation, cognitive behavioral, and motivational enhancement therapies have produced sustained drinking reductions in patients with alcohol dependence. Pharmacologic therapies, such as naltrexone and acamprosate, have been effective in decreasing alcohol consumption when provided along with psychosocial counseling in patients with alcohol dependence. The current review highlights the application of these new therapies to primary care physicians' efforts on behalf of their patients with alcohol problems.     

Brief interventions for alcohol problems: a review

Relatively brief interventions have consistently been found to be effective in reducing alcohol consumption or achieving treatment referral of problem drinkers. To date, the literature includes at least a dozen randomized trials of brief referral or retention procedures, and 32 controlled studies of brief interventions targeting drinking behavior, enrolling over 6000 problem drinkers in both health care and treatment settings across 14 nations. These studies indicate that brief interventions are more effective than no counseling, and often as effective as more extensive treatment. The outcome literature is reviewed, and common motivational elements of effective brief interventions are described. There is encouraging evidence that the course of harmful alcohol use can be effectively altered by well-designed intervention strategies which are feasible within relatively brief-contact contexts such as primary health care settings and employee assistance programs. Implications for future research and practice are considered.     

The prevalence and impact of alcohol problems in major depression: a systematic review

Major depression and alcohol problems are common in primary care, yet little is known about the prevalence of alcohol problems in patients with depression or alcohol's effect on depression outcomes. We strove to answer the following questions: How common are alcohol problems in patients with depression? Does alcohol affect the course of depression, response to antidepressant therapy, risk of suicide/death, social functioning and health care utilization? In which alcohol categories and treatment settings have patients with depression and alcohol problems been evaluated? English language studies from MEDLINE, PsychINFO, and Cochrane Controlled Trial Registry were reviewed. Studies were selected using predefined criteria if they reported on the prevalence or effects of alcohol problems in depression. Thirty-five studies met criteria and revealed a median prevalence of current or lifetime alcohol problems in depression of 16% (range 5-67%) and 30% (range 10-60%), respectively. This compares with 7% for current and 16-24% for lifetime alcohol problems in the general population. There is evidence that antidepressants improve depression outcomes in persons with alcohol dependence. Alcohol problems are associated with worse outcomes with respect to depression course, suicide/death risk, social functioning, and health care utilization. The majority of the studies, 34 of 35 (97%), evaluated alcohol abuse and dependence, and 25 of 35 (71%) were conducted in psychiatric inpatients. We conclude that alcohol problems are more common in depression than in the general population, are associated with adverse clinical and health care utilization outcomes, and that antidepressants can be effective in the presence of alcohol dependence. In addition, the literature focuses almost exclusively on patients with alcohol abuse or dependence in psychiatric inpatient settings, and excludes patients with less severe alcohol problems and primary care outpatient settings.     

Screening and intervention for alcohol problems

OBJECTIVE: To describe adult primary care physicians’ and psychiatrists’ approach to alcohol screening and treatment, and to identify correlates of more optimal practices. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mailed survey. PARTICIPANTS: A national systematic sample of 2,000 physicians practicing general internal medicine, family medicine, obstetrics-gynecology, and psychiatry. MEASUREMENTS: Self-reported frequency of screening new outpatients, and treatment recommendations in patients with diagnosed alcohol problems, on 5-point Likert-type scales. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 853 respondent physicians (adjusted response rate, 57%), 88% usually or always ask new outpatients about alcohol use. When evaluating patients who drink, 47% regularly inquire about maximum amounts on an occasion, and 13% use formal alcohol screening tools. Only 82% routinely offer intervention to diagnosed problem drinkers. Psychiatrists had the most optimal practices; more consistent screening and intervention was also associated with greater confidence in alcohol history taking, familiarity with expert guidelines, and less concern that patients will object. CONCLUSIONS: Most primary care physicians and psychiatrists ask patients about alcohol use, but fewer use recommended screening protocols of offer formal treatment. A substantial minority of physicians miss the opportunity to intervene in alcohol problems. Efforts to improve physicians’ screening and intervention for alcohol problems should address their confidence in their skills, familiarity with expert recommendations, and beliefs that patients object to their involvement Presented in part at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine, Chicago, Ill, April 1998.     

Efficacy of brief interventions for hazardous drinkers in primary care: systematic review and meta-analyses

BACKGROUND: Because recent research in primary care has challenged the findings of previous reviews on the efficacy of brief interventions (BIs) on hazardous drinkers, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to update the evidence of BIs as applied in the primary care setting. METHODS: We obtained source material by searching electronic databases and reference lists and hand-searching journals. We selected randomized trials providing frequency data that allowed assessment of the efficacy of BIs on an intention-to-treat basis. Results were summarized by the odds ratio (OR) of response. When appropriate, risk difference (RD) and its inverse (number needed to treat [NNT] to achieve a positive result) were also computed. Fixed and/or random effect models were fitted according to heterogeneity estimates. RESULTS: Thirteen studies provided data for a dose-effect analysis, 12 for comparison of BIs with reference categories. No clear evidence of a dose-effect relationship was found. BIs outperformed minimal interventions and usual care (random effects model OR = 1.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.27-1.90; RD = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.06-0.16; NNT = 10, 95% CI = 7-17). Similar results were obtained when two influential studies were removed (fixed effect model OR = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.32-1.87; RD = 0.11, 95% CI = 0.07-0.15; NNT = 9, 95% CI = 7-15). The heterogeneity between individual estimates was accounted for by the type of hazardous drinkers (heavy versus moderate) and by the characteristics of the included individuals (treatment seekers versus nontreatment seekers). The funnel plot did not show evidence of publication bias. CONCLUSION: Our results, although indicating smaller effect sizes than previous meta-analyses, do support the moderate efficacy of BIs. Further research is outlined.     

Performance of BNP and NT-proBNP for diagnosis of heart failure in primary care patients: a systematic review

National and international guidelines have been published recommending the use of natriuretic peptides as an aid to the diagnosis of heart failure (HF) in acute settings; however, few specific recommendations exist for governing the use of these peptides in primary care populations. To summarize the available data relevant to the diagnosis of HF in primary care patient population, we systematically reviewed the literature to identify original articles that investigated the diagnostic accuracy of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) and N-terminal proBNP (NT-proBNP) in primary care settings. The search yielded 25,864 articles in total: 12 investigating BNP and 20 investigating NT-proBNP were relevant to our objective and included in the review. QUADAS-2 and GRADE were used to assess the quality of the included articles. Diagnostic data were pooled based on three cutpoints: lowest and optimal, as chosen by study authors, and manufacturers’ suggested. The effect of various determinants (e.g., age, gender, BMI, and renal function) on diagnostic performance was also investigated. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of BNP and NT-proBNP using the lowest [0.85 (sensitivity) and 0.54 (specificity)], optimal (0.80 and 0.61), and manufacturers’ (0.74 and 0.67) cutpoints showed good performance for diagnosing HF. Similar performance was seen for NT-proBNP: lowest (0.90 and 0.50), optimal (0.86 and 0.58), and manufacturers’ (0.82 and 0.58) cutpoints. Overall, we rated the strength of evidence as high because further studies will be unlikely to change the estimates diagnostic performance.     

Screening and behavioral counseling interventions in primary care to reduce alcohol misuse: recommendation statement

This statement summarizes the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations on behavioral counseling interventions to reduce alcohol misuse in primary care patients and updates the 1996 recommendations on this topic. The complete information on which this statement is based, including evidence tables and references, is available in the accompanying article in this issue and in the systematic evidence review on this topic. The complete USPSTF recommendation statement (which includes a brief review of the supporting evidence), the accompanying journal article, and the complete systematic evidence review are available through the USPSTF Web site (http://www.preventiveservices.ahrq.gov). The journal article and the USPSTF recommendation statement are available in print through the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Publications Clearinghouse (telephone, 800-358-9295; e-mail, ahrqpubs@ahrq.gov).