Ability to detect potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients: comparative analysis between PIM-Check and STOPP/STARTv2

Optimizing pharmaceutical management of clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

The clinical trials pharmacists have an essential role in managing the pharmaceutical part of interventional studies. The primary objective of this article was to provide a template for improving trials management for the growing number of studies without increasing personnel resources.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted between 2016 and 2020 at the service of pharmacy at Lausanne University Hospital in Switzerland.

RESULTS

The number of clinical trials (in progress) managed at the pharmacy increased from 77 to 115 (+49%) between 2016 and 2020. The majority of these studies were in oncology and were sponsored by industry. Therefore, different changes in routine tasks were decided during the 5 years term to meet the above challenge. These modifications allowed to improve pharmaceutical and administrative management of clinical trials, without increasing personnel resources. The management template was accepted by the sponsors, and no issues were mentioned by national and international audit authorities.

CONCLUSION

Changes could be made in the routine practice of the clinical trials pharmacists to improve the management of studies, while the number of trials is increasing every year.

Pharmacological Risk Assessment Among Older Patients with Polypharmacy Using the Clinical Decision Support System Janusmed Risk Profile: A Cross-Sectional Register Study

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy in older people is steadily increasing and a combination of many medicines may result in adverse effects, especially if the medicines interact pharmacodynamically. Examples are additive or synergistic effects increasing the risk of falls, haemorrhage, serotonin syndrome and torsade de pointes. The clinical decision support system Janusmed Risk Profile has been developed to find such risks based on a patients' medication list.

OBJECTIVES

The main aim of this retrospective register-based study was to study what pharmacodynamic risks older patients (aged 65 years or older) on polypharmacy (defined as using five or more medicines) are exposed to. Second, we studied if the introduction of the Janusmed Risk Profile in the main electronic health record system in Region Stockholm influenced the proportion of patients prescribed combinations that increase the risk for the nine adverse-effect categories defined (anticholinergic effects, haemorrhage, constipation, orthostatism, QT prolongation, renal toxicity, sedation, seizures and serotonin syndrome).

METHODS

Data on all prescription medicines to individuals aged 65 years or older, and with at least five concomitant medicines were retrieved and analysed for the risk categories in the Janusmed Risk Profile. The proportions of patients with a high/moderate risk during a 4-month period before (period 1) and after (period 2) the introduction were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 127,719 patients in period 1 (November 2016-February 2017), and 131,458 patients in period 2 (November 2017-February 2018) were included in the study. The proportion of patients with a high or moderate risk for each of the nine properties (anticholinergic effects, haemorrhage, constipation, orthostatism, QT prolongation, renal toxicity, sedation, seizures and serotonergic effects) were 10.9, 34.7, 32.8, 33.6, 17.2, 0.7, 15.4, 0.5 and 2.4%, respectively, in period 1 and 10.4, 35.5, 32.8, 33.3, 10.8, 0.71, 14.9, 0.5 and 2.3% in period 2. The changes for sedation and QT prolongation were statistically significant, with the most pronounced decrease for QT prolongation from 17.2 to 10.8% (p < 0.001). When analysing patients at a high risk, the decrease was significant for haemorrhage, orthostatism, QT prolongation and sedation.

CONCLUSIONS

Older people are exposed to combinations of medications that increase the risk for potentially severe adverse effects. Prescribers seem to respond especially to warnings for QT prolongation, presented in the Janusmed Risk Profile implemented in the electronic health record system.

Impact of Pharmaceutical Interventions with STOPP/START and PIM-Check in Older Hospitalized Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction

Pharmaceutical interventions can reduce negative outcomes related to potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs).

Objective

The objective of this study was to compare the impact of interventions on the reduction of PIPs and on different clinical outcomes using two electronic explicit tools.

Methods

A randomized controlled trial was conducted in patients hospitalized between 2018 and 2019 at the Acute Care for Elders unit at Lausanne University Hospital in Switzerland. A medication review was conducted using PIM-Check in the first arm and STOPP/START in the second arm. Proposed interventions were communicated to the physicians. Clinical outcomes evaluated were incidence of falls, delirium, activities of daily living (ADL), length of stay, number of drugs at discharge and hospital readmission.

Results

The 123 included patients (60 in the first arm and 63 in the second arm) were 86.3 ± 6.6 years old, had 3.5 ± 1.7 diseases and were treated by 6.2 ± 2.7 drugs at admission. There was a significant decrease in PIPs in each arm, but no significant difference between arms. The deprescription of nervous system drugs was significantly higher with STOPP/START than with PIM-Check (Chi-square p = 0.025). ADL scores between home and discharge were significantly higher in the STOPP/START arm than in the PIM-Check arm (4.42 vs 3.77; p = 0.040). The predictors of ADL score improvement were the deprescription of nervous system drugs (β = 0.423; 95% CI 0.034–0.812; p = 0.033), the use of STOPP/START (β = 0.798, 95% CI 0.305–1.290; p = 0.002) and a shorter length of hospital stay (β = −0.033, 95% CI − 0.056 to − 0.010; p = 0.005).

Conclusions

Although PIM-Check was non-inferior to STOPP/START in reducing the number of PIPs, STOPP/START had a significantly higher impact on ADL. The use of STOPP/START or the deprescription of two nervous system drugs would allow the patient to acquire almost one more basic function of living. On the other hand, a loss of one point on the ADL score was observed per month of hospitalization.

Clinical Trials Registration Number

NCT04028583.

Impact of Pharmaceutical Interventions in Hospitalized Patients: A Comparative Study Between Clinical Pharmacists and an Explicit Criteria-Based Tool

Background

It has been well recognized that pharmaceutical interventions (PIs) can prevent patient harm related to prescribing errors. Various tools have been developed to facilitate the detection and the reduction of inappropriate prescriptions and some have shown benefit on clinical outcomes.

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical, economical, and organizational impact of interventions generated by clinical pharmacists in hospitalized patients, and to evaluate the performance of an explicit tool, the Potentially Inappropriate Medication Checklist for Patients in Internal Medicine (PIM-Check), in detecting each pharmacist's intervention.

Methods

A cohort retrospective study was conducted on hospitalized patients. The impact of PIs based on pharmacists’ standard examination was evaluated using the Clinical, Economic, and Organizational (CLEO) tool. The performance of PIM-Check in detecting each intervention was assessed by conducting a retrospective medication review based on available information collected from patients’ records. A qualitative analysis was also conducted to identify the types of PIs that PIM-Check failed to detect.

Results

The study was performed on 162 patients with a median age of 68 years (interquartile range = 46–77 years) and a median hospital stay of 5 days (interquartile range = 4–7 days). The pharmacists generated 1.9 PIs per patient (n = 304) of which 31% were detected by PIM-Check. The acceptance rate of the interventions by physicians was 84% (n = 255). Among the accepted interventions, 53% (n = 136) had a clinical impact graded CL ≥ 2C (moderate or major), whereas the majority of them were not detected by PIM-Check (63%; 86 out of 136). In addition, 46% of accepted interventions (n = 117) were associated with a cost decrease, among which 62% were not detected by PIM-Check (73 out of 117). The qualitative analysis shows that PIM-Check mostly failed to detect PIs related to dose adjustment, overprescribing, and therapy monitoring.

Conclusions

According to the CLEO tool evaluation of PIs, our results show that clinical pharmacists’ interventions are associated with improved clinical outcomes. In comparison with pharmacists’ interventions, PIM-Check failed in detecting the majority of interventions associated with a moderate or major impact.