Medication Review Interventions Research Articles

A mixed methods analysis of the medication review intervention centered around the use of the ‘Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing’ Assistant (STRIPA) in Swiss primary care practices

BackgroundElectronic clinical decision support systems (eCDSS), such as the ‘Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing’ Assistant (STRIPA), have become promising tools for assisting general practitioners (GPs) with conducting medication reviews in older adults. Little is known about how GPs perceive eCDSS-assisted recommendations for pharmacotherapy optimization. The aim of this study was to explore the implementation of a medication review intervention centered around STRIPA in the ‘Optimising PharmacoTherapy In the multimorbid elderly in primary CAre’ (OPTICA) trial.MethodsWe used an explanatory mixed methods design combining quantitative and qualitative data. First, quantitative data about the acceptance and implementation of eCDSS-generated recommendations from GPs (n = 21) and their patients (n = 160) in the OPTICA intervention group were collected. Then, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with GPs from the OPTICA intervention group (n = 8), and interview data were analyzed through thematic analysis.ResultsIn quantitative findings, GPs reported averages of 13 min spent per patient preparing the eCDSS, 10 min performing medication reviews, and 5 min discussing prescribing recommendations with patients. On average, out of the mean generated 3.7 recommendations (SD=1.8). One recommendation to stop or start a medication was reported to be implemented per patient in the intervention group (SD=1.2). Overall, GPs found the STRIPA useful and acceptable. They particularly appreciated its ability to generate recommendations based on large amounts of patient information. During qualitative interviews, GPs reported the main reasons for limited implementation of STRIPA were related to problems with data sourcing (e.g., incomplete data imports), preparation of the eCDSS (e.g., time expenditure for updating and adapting information), its functionality (e.g., technical problems downloading PDF recommendation reports), and appropriateness of recommendations.ConclusionsQualitative findings help explain the relatively low implementation of recommendations demonstrated by quantitative findings, but also show GPs’ overall acceptance of STRIPA. Our results provide crucial insights for adapting STRIPA to make it more suitable for regular use in future primary care settings (e.g., necessity to improve data imports).Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT03724539, date of first registration: 29/10/2018.

Financial impact of medication reviews by clinical pharmacists to reduce in-hospital adverse drug events: a return-on-investment analysis

BackgroundAdverse drug events contribute to rising health care costs. Clinical pharmacists can reduce their risks by identifying and solving drug-related problems (DRPs) through medication review.AimTo develop an economic model to determine whether medication reviews performed by clinical pharmacists could lead to a reduction in health care costs associated with the prevention of potential adverse drug events.MethodTwo pharmacists performed medication reviews during ward rounds in an internal medicine setting over one year. Avoided costs were estimated by monetizing five categories of DRPs (improper drug selection, drug interactions, untreated indications, inadequate dosages, and drug use without an indication). An expert panel assessed potential adverse drug events and their probabilities of occurrence for 20 randomly selected DRPs in each category. The costs of adverse drug events were extracted from internal hospital financial data. A partial economic study from a hospital perspective then estimated the annual costs avoided by resolving DRPs identified by 3 part-time clinical pharmacists (0.9 full-time equivalent) from 2019 to 2020. The return on investment (ROI) of medication review was calculated.ResultsThe estimated annual avoided costs associated with the potential adverse drug events induced by 676 DRPs detected was € 304,170. The cost of a 0.9 full-time equivalent clinical pharmacist was € 112,408. Extrapolated to 1 full-time equivalent, the annual net savings was € 213,069 or an ROI of 1–1.71. Sensitivity analyses showed that the economic model was robust.ConclusionThis economic model revealed the positive financial impact and favorable return on investment of a medication review intervention performed by clinical pharmacists. These findings should encourage the future deployment of a pharmacist-led adverse drug events prevention program.

Cost-effectiveness of a medication review intervention for general practitioners and their multimorbid older patients with polypharmacy

Older adults with multiple chronic conditions and polypharmacy are at an increased risk of having adverse health outcomes, affecting quality of life and generating costs. Primary care has to be effective to guarantee excellent treatment to these patients, who are among the most vulnerable. This project aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of a tool aimed at improving general practitioners' (GPs) performance, namely a medication review intervention centered around an electronic clinical decision support system (eCDSS). We performed a pre-planned within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis of the OPTICA trial, a cluster randomized controlled trial in Swiss primary care practices aimed at optimizing medication appropriateness and reducing prescribing omissions. Trial participants were older adults aged ≥65 years with ≥3 chronic conditions and ≥5 medications. The 160 participants in the intervention group received a medication review intervention centered around an eCDSS provided by their GP and followed by shared decision-making with their GP. The 163 participants in the control group had a medication discussion in line with usual care with their GP. Patients were followed-up for 12 months. Considering the clustered structure of the data at GP practice level, we applied Generalized Structural Equation Models (GSEMs) on a multiple imputed sample to estimate intervention effects on costs and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The intervention strategy was dominant with cost-savings of CHF 1′857 (95 % confidence interval (CI): CHF -3′620 to −93, p-value <0.039, with CHF 1≅USD 1.11 as of November 2023) and a gain of 0.026 incremental QALYs (95 % CI: 0.013 to 0.040, p-value <0.001) per study participant. In robustness analyses, directions of effects were fully consistent, albeit some effect estimates non-significant. Subgroup analyses suggested stronger effects in men and older adults aged 65–74 years or aged ≥85 years. The medication review intervention led to cost savings and an improvement in quality of life, potentially resulting from an accumulation of multiple small positive intervention effects, such as fewer hospitalizations and nursing visits at home.

Development of a Complex Medication Review Intervention Based on Secondment of a Clinical Pharmacist in General Practice

Development of a Complex Medication Review Intervention Based on Secondment of a Clinical Pharmacist in General Practice

An Update on the Building Bridges Study: Examining the effects of two interventions on trust in medical researchers and research attitudes among African American participants

AbstractBackgroundData suggest that establishing trust supports willingness to participate in research studies; yet there is a shortage of standardized systematic studies testing the effectiveness of various methods of building trust. The Building Bridges pilot study examined ways of establishing trust in communities of color comparing two different interventions.MethodUsing African American community leaders’ input, we conducted a mixed method study to investigate participants’ 1) preferred format for community‐based interventions, 2) comfort with discussing dementia with researchers/healthcare providers, and 3) attitudes of trust about research and researchers. African American subjects (age ≥ 45 years) without self‐reported cognitive impairment completed research attitudes (RAQ) and trust in medical researcher questionnaires, pre‐ and post‐intervention; individual medication reviews (n = 48) and/or public community talks (n = 49). Quantitatively, we compared pre‐ and post‐ intervention outcomes with paired Wilcoxon non‐parametric sign rank tests; all qualitative themes were analyzed using Nvivo QSR 12.ResultParticipants’ mean age was 64 (SD = 9.9). See Table 1 for demographics. Quantitatively, there was greater change in research attitudes and trust following a medication review intervention compared to experiencing a community talk (Figure 1); e.g., participants expressed “positive views about medical research in general” on questionnaires following medication reviews (p = 0.007). Qualitatively, we found a similar trend during our focus group discussions. Focus group members expressed more comfort with the medication review than the community talk resulting from “positive bedside manners, positive feedback, personal 1‐on‐1 interactions and race concordance.” Focus group participants noted a willingness to participate in future studies because of trust built from their Building Bridges team interactions. “Commonality, better connection, relatability, affinity and cultural similarities” all influenced trust and willingness to participate in future studies. Factors found to reduce trust included: “negative feedback, stereotypes, predominantly white practitioners in medicine and research, clinician unskillfulness, and not feeling seen as a “whole person” by providers” (Figure 2).ConclusionFindings continue to support our hypothesis that more personalized community engagement approaches have a greater influence on participants’ research attitudes and build interest in research. Additional studies of person‐centered recruitment strategies are essential to understanding how to improve trust and positive research attitudes among communities of color.

Deprescribing in primary care without deterioration of health-related outcomes: A real-life, quality improvement project.

Medication reviews focusing on deprescribing can reduce potentially inappropriate medication; however, evidence regarding effects on health-related outcomes is sparse. In a real-life quality improvement project using a newly developed chronic care model, we investigated how a general practitioner-led medication review intervention focusing on deprescribing affected health-related outcomes. We performed a before-after intervention study including care home residents and community-dwelling patients affiliated with a large Danish general practice. The primary outcomes were changes in self-reported health status, general condition and functional level from baseline to 3-4 months follow-up. Of the 105 included patients, 87 completed the follow-up. From baseline to follow-up, 255 medication changes were made, of which 83% were deprescribing. Mean self-reported health status increased (0.55 [95% CI: 0.22 to 0.87]); the proportion with general condition rated as 'average or above' was stable (0.06 [95% CI: -0.02 to 0.14]); and the proportion with functional level 'without any disability' was stable (-0.05 [95% CI: -0.09 to 0.001]). In conclusion, this general practitioner-led medication review intervention was associated with deprescribing and increased self-reported health status without the deterioration of general condition or functional level in real-life primary care patients. The results should be interpreted carefully given the small sample size and lack of control group.

Medication changes implemented during medication reviews and factors related to deprescribing: Posthoc analyses of a randomized clinical trial in geriatric outpatients with polypharmacy.

To provide posthoc analyses of a clinical trial that reported beneficial effects of medication reviews on health-related quality of life. Specifically, to describe the medication changes with a focus on deprescribing and to explore patient- and medication-related factors that may identify patients most likely to benefit from medication reviews. Posthoc analyses of data from a pragmatic, nonblinded, randomized clinical trial investigating a medication review intervention (NCT03911934) in 408 geriatric outpatients treated with ≥9 medicines. In the medication review group (n = 196), 26% of the medicines prescribed at baseline were discontinued with 82% still being discontinued after 13 months. The most common reason for discontinuation was lack of indication (72% of discontinuations). The medicines most often discontinued in the medication review group compared with usual care included: metoclopramide (11/15 = 73% discontinued vs. 1/12 = 8% in usual care), acetylsalicylic acid (20/48 = 42% vs. 2/47 = 4%), simvastatin (18/48 = 38% vs. 2/58 = 3%), zopiclone (23/59 = 39% vs. 4/54 = 7%), quinine (9/14 = 64% vs. 6/16 = 38%), citalopram (4/18 = 22% vs. 0/20 = 0%) and tramadol (18/37 = 49% vs. 8/30 = 27%). Factors associated with number of deprescribed medicines included: number of prescribed medicines, Drug Burden Index, patient motivation for medicine changes, and prescriptions of metoclopramide, iron preparations, antidepressants other than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or drugs for urinary incontinence. Physician-led medication reviews resulted in persistent deprescribing of medicines in older polypharmacy patients treated with ≥9 medicines. Motivation for having their medicine changed, treatment with more medicines, and a higher burden of sedative and anticholinergic medicines characterized the patients most likely to benefit from physician-led medication reviews.

Optimising prescribing in older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care (OPTICA): cluster randomised clinical trial

ObjectiveTo study the effects of a primary care medication review intervention centred around an electronic clinical decision support system (eCDSS) on appropriateness of medication and the number of prescribing omissions...

Medication review in hospitalised patients to reduce morbidity and mortality.

A medication review can be defined as a structured evaluation of a patient's medication conducted by healthcare professionals with the aim of optimising medication use and improving health outcomes. Optimising medication therapy though medication reviews may benefit hospitalised patients. We examined the effects of medication review interventions in hospitalised adult patients compared to standard care or to other types of medication reviews on all-cause mortality, hospital readmissions, emergency department contacts and health-related quality of life. In this Cochrane Review update, we searched for new published and unpublished trials using the following electronic databases from 1 January 2014 to 17 January 2022 without language restrictions: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). To identify additional trials, we searched the reference lists of included trials and other publications by lead trial authors, and contacted experts. We included randomised trials of medication reviews delivered by healthcare professionals for hospitalised adult patients. We excluded trials including outpatients and paediatric patients. Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for data clarification and relevant unpublished data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. In this updated review, we included a total of 25 trials (15,076 participants), of which 15 were new trials (11,501 participants). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 20 months. We found that medication reviews in hospitalised adults may have little to no effect on mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.05; 18 trials, 10,108 participants; low-certainty evidence); likely reduce hospital readmissions (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 17 trials, 9561 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce emergency department contacts (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.03; 8 trials, 3527 participants; low-certainty evidence) and have very uncertain effects on health-related quality of life (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.30; 4 trials, 392 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Medication reviews in hospitalised adult patients likely reduce hospital readmissions and may reduce emergency department contacts. The evidence suggests that mediation reviews may have little to no effect on mortality, while the effect on health-related quality of life is very uncertain. Almost all trials included elderly polypharmacy patients, which limits the generalisability of the results beyond this population.

Effects of a comprehensive medication review intervention on health-related quality of life and other clinical outcomes in geriatric outpatients with polypharmacy: A pragmatic randomized clinical trial.

AimTo investigate the effects of a comprehensive medication review intervention on health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) and clinical outcomes in geriatric outpatients exposed to polypharmacy.MethodsPragmatic, nonblinded, randomized clinical trial with follow‐up after 4 and 13 months. Participants were geriatric outpatients taking ≥9 medicines. The intervention was an additional consultation with a physician focusing on reviewing medication, informing patients about their medicines and increasing cross‐sectoral communication as supplement to and compared with usual care. The primary outcome was change in HRQoL after 4 months measured with the EuroQoL 5‐dimension 5‐level (EQ‐5D‐5L) questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were HRQoL after 13 months, mortality, admissions, falls and number of medicines after 4 and 13 months.ResultsOf 785 eligible patients, 408 were included (age: mean 80.6 [standard deviation 7.22] years; number of medicines: median 12 [interquartile range 10–14]; females 71%). After 4 months, the adjusted between‐group difference in EQ‐5D‐5L index score was 0.066 in favour of the medication consultation (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.12, P = .02). After 4 months, two (1%) participants had died in the medication‐consultation group and nine (4%) in the usual‐care group (log‐rank test, P = .045). The medication consultation reduced the number of medicines by 2.0 (15.8%) after 4 months and 1.3 (10.7%) after 13 months. There were no statistically significant differences in mortality or HRQoL after 13 months, and no differences in falls or admissions.ConclusionsAn additional consultation with medication review and increased communication as supplement to usual geriatric outpatient care improved HRQoL and reduced mortality after 4 months.

Development and feasibility testing of a training programme for community pharmacists to deliver a culturally responsive medication review intervention

BackgroundCultural differences between health professionals and Indigenous peoples contribute to health inequalities, and effective cross-cultural communication and person-centred healthcare are critical remedial elements. Community pharmacists can play a significant role by reducing medication-related problems through medication reviews, yet barriers to access include cultural and linguistic challenges. The Indigenous Medication Review Service (IMeRSe) aimed to address these barriers via a culturally responsive intervention. The aim of this paper is to present the cross-cultural training framework developed as a component of this intervention and the feasibility evaluation of the first stage of the training framework.MethodsA training framework was developed, emphasising pharmacists’ skills and confidence in effective cross-cultural communication and relationship-building with Indigenous Australians (Please note that the use of the term ‘Indigenous’ in this manuscript includes all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and acknowledges their rich traditions and heterogenous cultures) across three stages: (1) online and workshop-based, covering Indigenous history and health, cross-cultural communication and a holistic, strengths-based approach to intervention delivery; (2) orientation to local Aboriginal Health Services, community and cultural protocols; and (3) ongoing mentoring. The feasibility evaluation of the first stage included the following: self-reported levels of cultural capability, cultural confidence and skills, motivators and barriers to working with Indigenous Australians, assessed pre- and post-training. Participants completed self-administered questionnaires including a 22-item validated Cultural Capability Measurement Tool. Paired t tests assessed change in mean scores of Likert scale data.ResultsStage 1 development resulted in an 8.5-h standardised cross-cultural training programme tested with 39 pharmacists working across urban and rural/remote Australia. Thirty-six pharmacists completed the feasibility evaluation (75.7% female, all non-Indigenous, 75.7% never attended prior cross-cultural training). Participants reported overall acceptability with training; the majority perceived it added value to their practice. Improved cultural capability post-training was reflected in increased scores for 21/22 items, nine reaching statistical significance. There were significant improvements for all 26 confidence and skills statements, and selected motivational and barrier statements, particularly participants role in improving Indigenous health outcomes and cross-cultural communication.ConclusionsThis study provides preliminary evidence that the training programme was feasible to deliver and prepared pharmacists to deliver a culturally responsive medication review intervention. The online knowledge-based modules and face-to-face workshops provide a standardised framework for larger-scale implementation of the intervention training.Trial registrationAustralia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000188235.Prospectively registered 22 January 2018.

A Systematic Review of Interventions to Improve Analgesic Use and Appropriateness in Long-Term Care Facilities.

To systematically review the effectiveness of interventions to improve analgesic use and appropriateness in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Systematic review. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL Plus were searched from inception to June 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled and uncontrolled prospective interventions that included analgesic optimization, and reported postintervention change in analgesic use or appropriateness in LTCFs were included. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed independently by 2 review authors. Eight cluster RCTs, 2 controlled, and 6 uncontrolled studies comprising 9056 residents across 9countries were included. The 16 interventions included education (n= 13), decision support (n= 7), system modifications (n= 6), and/or medication review (n= 3). Six interventions changed analgesic use or appropriateness, all of which included prescribers, 5 involved multidisciplinary collaboration, and 5 included a component of education. Education alone changed analgesic use and appropriateness in 1study. Decision support was effective when combined with education in 3 interventions. Overall, 13studies reported analgesic optimization as part of pain management interventions and 3 studies focused on medication optimization. Two pain management interventions reduced the percentage of residents reporting pain not receiving analgesics by 50% to 60% (P= .03 and P < .001, respectively), and 1improved analgesic appropriateness (P= .03). One reduced nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (P < .001) and another resulted in 3-fold higher odds of opioid prescription in advanced dementia [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-8.7]. One medication optimization intervention reduced NSAID prescription (P= .036), and another reduced as-needed opioid (95% CI 8.6-13.8) and NSAID prescription (95% CI 1.6-4.2). Interventions involving prescribers and enhanced roles for pharmacists and nurses, with a component of education, are most effective at changing analgesic use or appropriateness. Interventions combining education and decision support are also promising. Medication review interventions can change analgesic prescription, although there is currently minimal evidence in relation to possible corresponding improvements in resident-related outcomes.

Medication review interventions to reduce hospital readmissions in older people.

ObjectiveTo assess the efficacy of medication review as an isolated intervention and with several co‐interventions for preventing hospital readmissions in older adults.MethodsOvid MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL were searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of medication review interventions with or without co‐interventions to prevent hospital readmissions in hospitalized or recently discharged adults aged ≥65, until September 13, 2019. Included outcomes were “at least one all‐cause hospital readmission within 30 days and at any time after discharge from the index admission.”ResultsTwenty‐five studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 studies (7,318 participants) contributed to the network meta‐analysis (NMA) on all‐cause hospital readmission within 30 days. Medication review in combination with (a) medication reconciliation and patient education (risk ratio (RR) 0.45; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26–0.80) and (b) medication reconciliation, patient education, professional education and transitional care (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.49–0.84) were associated with a lower risk of all‐cause hospital readmission compared to usual care. Medication review in isolation did not significantly influence hospital readmissions (RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.45–2.51). The NMA on all‐cause hospital readmission at any time included 24 studies (11,677 participants). Medication review combined with medication reconciliation, patient education, professional education and transitional care resulted in a reduction of hospital readmissions (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.74–0.91) compared to usual care. The quality of the studies included in this systematic review raised some concerns, mainly regarding allocation concealment, blinding and contamination.ConclusionMedication review in combination with medication reconciliation, patient education, professional education and transitional care, was associated with a lower risk of hospital readmissions compared to usual care. An effect of medication review without co‐interventions was not demonstrated. Trials of higher quality are needed in this field.

Size of the associations between anticholinergic burden tool scores and adverse outcomes in older patients.

Background Several anticholinergic scales and equations to evaluate the anticholinergic burden have been previously created. Association of these instruments with the anticholinergic outcomes are usually estimated by means of hypothesis contrast tests, which ignore the size of the association effect. Objective To evaluate the effect size of the associations between the scores on cumulative anticholinergic burden instruments with peripheral or central anticholinergic adverse outcomes in older patients. Setting Internal medicine ward of a Tertiary University Hospital. Methods A case-control study was conducted in patients over 65years who were admitted to two internal medicine wards of a Portuguese university hospital. The Anticholinergic Drug Scale, Anticholinergic Risk Scale, Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden scale and Drug Burden Index were used to calculate the patients' anticholinergic burden. Peripheral (dry mouth-swab technique; dry eye-Schirmer test) and central (falls and cognitive impairment-Mini-Mental State Examination) anticholinergic adverse outcomes were investigated. The Barthel Index was used to assess overall physical functionality. The Mann-Whitney test was used to evaluate probabilistic differences in the anticholinergic scores between case and control individuals. To establish the effect size of the associations, the area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristics curve was calculated. Main outcome measure Anticholinergic adverse effects. Results A total of 250 patients (mean age 81.67years, standard deviation 7.768; 50% females) were included. In total, 148 patients (59.2%) presented with dry mouth, 85 (34%) with dry eye, 141 (56.4%) with impaired functionality, 44 (17.6%) with a history of falls and 219 (87.6%) with cognitive impairment. Significant differences (p < 0.05) were obtained for the majority of the associations between Anticholinergic Drug Scale, Anticholinergic Risk Scale, Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden and Drug Burden Index and adverse effects. Conversely, the effect sizes of these associations ranged from "fail" (area under the curve 0.5 to 0.6) to "fair" (area under the curve 0.7 to 0.8). Conclusion Although significant differences in the scores of anticholinergic burden instruments and adverse outcomes may exist, the effect sizes of these associations ranged from 'fail' to 'fair', which limits their utility in preventing anticholinergic adverse outcomes with medication review interventions.

97 Potentially Inappropriate Medications in Patients with Alzheimer’s Disease: Data from NILVAD

Abstract Background Prescription of Potentially Inappropriate Medications (PIMs) is common in older adults and is associated with adverse drug events, hospitalisation and mortality. Less well described are the patterns and predictors of PIM usage in patients with Alzheimer’s Disease (AD), a patient group who may be particularly vulnerable to polypharmacy and medication associated adverse events. Methods Secondary analysis of the NILVAD trial, an international phase three trial of Nilvadipine in mild/moderate AD. The v2 STOPP/START criteria were individually applied by a physician to each participant’s medication list and cross-reference with their medical history to identify PIM usage. Predictors of PIM usage were modelled using binary logistic regression. Results Five-hundred and ten patients with AD were included (mean age 72.8 +/-8.3 years; 62% female). The median number of prescribed medications was 5 (IQR 3-7). Over half (55.5%) were prescribed at least one PIM, whilst a minority of patients (14.8%) were prescribed three or more PIMs. The most frequent PIMs were benzodiazepines &gt;4 weeks without indication (n = 55), long-term Proton-Pump Inhibitor (PPI) use without appropriate indication (n = 49), use of non-steroidal analgesics without use of PPI (n=19) and antimuscarinic use in dementia (n= 18). On multivariate analysis, significant predictors of PIM use were higher total number of medications (p=0.001; OR 1.52; 1.36-1.59) in addition to greater AD severity, as rated using the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale Sum-of-Boxes (CDR-sb) (p=0.024; OR 1.18; 1.02-1.35). Conclusion The majority of older patients with AD were prescribed at least one PIM. Usage of PIMs was associated with greater number of medications and increased dementia severity. Particularly concerning is the potentially inappropriate use of benzodiazepines and anti-muscarinic agents in this population, given recent evidence for the adverse cognitive profile associated with these medications. De-prescribing and medication review interventions aimed particularly at patients with AD are warranted.

‘Optimising PharmacoTherapy In the multimorbid elderly in primary CAre’ (OPTICA) to improve medication appropriateness: study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial

IntroductionMultimorbidity and polypharmacy are major risk factors for potentially inappropriate prescribing (eg, overprescribing and underprescribing), and systematic medication reviews are complex and time consuming. In this trial, the investigators aim...

Interdisciplinary Medication Review Interventions in an Integrated Outpatient Department.

Interdisciplinary Medication Review Interventions in an Integrated Outpatient Department.

Community Pharmacists' Contribution to Medication Reviews for Older Adults: A Systematic Review.

To identify medication review interventions for older adults that involve community pharmacists and evidence of outcomes of these interventions. Systematic review. Cinahl, MEDLINE (Ovid), Scopus, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published between January 2000 and February 2016. Articles involving community pharmacists in medication reviews for outpatients aged 65 and older were included. Evidence of economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes of interventions was summarized. Sixteen articles were found that described 12 medication review interventions, of which 6 were compliance and concordance reviews, 4 were clinical medication reviews, and 2 were prescription reviews according to a previously developed typology. Community pharmacists' contributions to reviewing medications varied from sending the dispensing history to other healthcare providers to comprehensive involvement in medication management. The most commonly assessed outcomes of the interventions were medication changes leading to reduction in actual or potential drug-related problems (n=12) and improved adherence (n=5). Regardless of community pharmacists' contributions to interventions, medication review interventions seem to reduce drug-related problems and increase medication adherence. More well-designed, rigorous studies with more sensitive and specific outcomes measures need to be conducted to assess the effect of community pharmacists' contributions to reviewing medications and improving the health of older adults.

Implementation fidelity of a clinical medication review intervention: process evaluation

Background Implementation of clinical medication reviews in daily practice is scarcely evaluated. The Opti-Med intervention applied a structured approach with external expert teams (pharmacist and physician) to conduct medication reviews. The intervention was effective with respect to resolving drug related problems, but did not improve quality of life. Objective The objective of this process evaluation was to gain more insight into the implementation fidelity of the intervention. Setting Process evaluation alongside a cluster randomized trial in 22 general practices and 518 patients of 65 years and over. Method A mixed methods design using quantitative and qualitative data and the conceptual framework for implementation fidelity was used. Implementation fidelity is defined as the degree to which the various components of an intervention are delivered as intended. Main outcome measure Implementation fidelity for key components of the Opti-Med intervention. Results Patient selection and preparation of the medication analyses were carried out as planned, although mostly by the Opti-Med researchers instead of practice nurses. Medication analyses by expert teams were performed as planned, as well as patient consultations and patient involvement. 48% of the proposed changes in the medication regime were implemented. Cooperation between expert teams members and the use of an online decision-support medication evaluation facilitated implementation. Barriers for implementation were time constraints in daily practice, software difficulties with patient selection and incompleteness of medical files. The degree of embedding of the intervention was found to influence implementation fidelity. The total time investment for healthcare professionals was 94 min per patient. Conclusion Overall, the implementation fidelity was moderate to high for all key components of the Opti-Med intervention. The absence of its effectiveness with respect to quality of life could not be explained by insufficient implementation fidelity.

Impact of early in-hospital medication review by clinical pharmacists on health services utilization.

BackgroundAdverse drug events are a leading cause of emergency department visits and unplanned admissions, and prolong hospital stays. Medication review interventions aim to identify adverse drug events and optimize medication use. Previous evaluations of in-hospital medication reviews have focused on interventions at discharge, with an unclear effect on health outcomes. We assessed the effect of early in-hospital pharmacist-led medication review on the health outcomes of high-risk patients.MethodsWe used a quasi-randomized design to evaluate a quality improvement project in three hospitals in British Columbia, Canada. We incorporated a clinical decision rule into emergency department triage pathways, allowing nurses to identify patients at high-risk for adverse drug events. After randomly selecting the first eligible patient for participation, clinical pharmacists systematically allocated subsequent high-risk patients to medication review or usual care. Medication review included obtaining a best possible medication history and reviewing the patient’s medications for appropriateness and adverse drug events. The primary outcome was the number of days spent in-hospital over 30 days, and was ascertained using administrative data. We used median and inverse propensity score weighted logistic regression modeling to determine the effect of pharmacist-led medication review on downstream health services use.ResultsOf 10,807 high-risk patients, 6,416 received early pharmacist-led medication review and 4,391 usual care. Their baseline characteristics were balanced. The median number of hospital days was reduced by 0.48 days (95% confidence intervals [CI] = 0.00 to 0.96; p = 0.058) in the medication review group compared to usual care, representing an 8% reduction in the median length of stay. Among patients under 80 years of age, the median number of hospital days was reduced by 0.60 days (95% CI = 0.06 to 1.17; p = 0.03), representing 11% reduction in the median length of stay. There was no significant effect on emergency department revisits, admissions, readmissions, or mortality.LimitationsWe were limited by our inability to conduct a randomized controlled trial, but used quasi-random patient allocation methods and propensity score modeling to ensure balance between treatment groups, and administrative data to ensure blinded outcomes ascertainment. We were unable to account for alternate level of care days, and therefore, may have underestimated the treatment effect in frail elderly patients who are likely to remain in hospital while awaiting long-term care.ConclusionsEarly pharmacist-led medication review was associated with reduced hospital-bed utilization compared to usual care among high-risk patients under 80 years of age, but not among those who were older. The results of our evaluation suggest that medication review by pharmacists in the emergency department may impact the length of hospital stay in select patient populations.