Clinical relevance of potentially inappropriate medications and potential prescribing omissions according to explicit criteria-a validation study

Quantification of the prevalence of harms in healthcare related to drug treatment: reflections regarding the use of definitions developed for other settings to estimate the magnitude of the problem

The prevalence of harms in healthcare related to drug treatment is often quantified using terms developed for pharmacovigilance and pharmaceutical care. In this overview, we guide through the definitions and the settings for which they were developed, with the underlying intention to facilitate the interpretation of hitherto available research intended to contribute information regarding the magnitude of the problem in healthcare and to provide guidance for future research. To start, the regulatory/academic definitions of an adverse drug reaction (ADR) and a drug-related problem (DRP) are considerably broader than a literal interpretation would suggest. ADRs are defined for the pharmacovigilance setting, and for drug safety reasons the opposite of the benefit of the doubt rules; if it cannot be excluded that the medication has caused or contributed to an event, it will be a suspected ADR. DRPs represent the pharmaceutical care setting where every aspect is included that could potentially be problematic; a manifested problem is not required. When quantifying the prevalence of harms related to drug treatment in the healthcare setting, however, it may not be considered reasonable to count every circumstance that could possibly be an ADR or everything that could potentially be problematic. Therefore, definitions developed for the pharmacovigilance and the pharmaceutical care settings are not fully applicable to estimate the magnitude of drug treatment problems in healthcare. Proposed guidance for the future includes cautious interpretation of research results, as well as a conscious choice of definitions according to purpose and tempered reporting in research.

Cost savings from medication reviews in community pharmacies for nursing home residents in Estonia: a case study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to assess the cost savings from medication reviews conducted for individuals living in nursing homes in Estonia. Medication reviews performed as part of the automated dose dispensing (ADD) service by community pharmacies might help identify suboptimal medicine regimens.

METHODS

We use a case study approach to identify suboptimal use of medication in treatment plans and estimate the potential cost saving from medication reviews. To achieve this, we assess 101 treatment plans submitted for medication review by nursing homes in Estonia between 2021 and 2023. Additionally, we run OLS regressions to identify the most important determinants of medication cost savings.

RESULTS

We estimate an average direct cost saving of €43.62 per patient per year, which corresponds to 8.27% of the average annual medication costs. If medication reviews were conducted for all elderly individuals over 75 years old who use six or more prescription medicines, nearly 2% of Estonia's pharmaceutical budget could be saved. Regression analysis indicates that the most significant contributors to these cost savings are suboptimal use of generics, incorrect dosages (too high), and the elimination of incorrect medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that annual medication reviews conducted as part of the ADD service might help reduce medication expenditure when offered to a wider public.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in polymedicated older adults with atrial fibrillation and multimorbidity: a Swedish national register-based cohort study

Introduction

Current research on potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in polymedicated older adults with atrial fibrillation (AF) and multimorbidity is predominantly focused on PIP of oral anticoagulants (OAC). Our study aimed to assess (i) the overall prevalence of PIP in older multimorbid adults with AF, (ii) potential associated factors of PIP, and (iii) the association of PIP with adverse health outcomes in a nationwide sample of Swedish older adults.

Methods

Swedish national registries were linked to establish a cohort with a 2-year follow-up of older adults (≥65y) who, on 1 January 2017, had a diagnosis of AF and had at least one comorbidity (n = 203,042). PIP was assessed using the reduced STOPP/START version 2 screening tool. The STOPP criteria identify potentially inappropriate prescribed medications (PIM), while the START criteria identify potential prescribing omissions (PPO). PIP is identified as having at least one PIM and/or PPO. Cox regression analyses were conducted to examine the association between PIP and adverse health outcomes: mortality, hospitalisation, stroke, bleeding, and falls.

Results

PIP was highly prevalent in older adults with AF, with both polypharmacy (69.6%) and excessive polypharmacy (85.9%). In the study population, benzodiazepines (22.9%), hypnotic Z-medications (17.8%) and analgesics (8.7%) were the most frequent PIM. Anticoagulants (34.3%), statins (11.1%), vitamin D and calcium (13.4%) were the most frequent PPO. Demographic factors and polypharmacy were associated with different PIM and PPO categories, with the nature of these associations differing based on the specific type of PIM and PPO. The co-occurrence of PIM and PPO, compared to appropriate prescribing, was associated with an increased risk of adverse health outcomes compared to all appropriately prescribed medications: cardiovascular (CV) (Hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval] = 1.97 [1.88-2.07]) and overall mortality (HR = 2.09 [2.03-2.16]), CV (HR = 1.34 [1.30-1.37]) and overall hospitalisation (HR = 1.48 [1.46-1.51]), stroke (HR = 1.93 [1.78-2.10]), bleeding (HR = 1.10 [1.01-1.21]), and falls (HR = 1.63 [1.56-1.71]).

Conclusion

The present study reports a high prevalence of PIP in multimorbid polymedicated older adults with AF. Additionally, a nuanced relationship between prescribing patterns, patient characteristics, and adverse health outcomes was observed. These findings emphasise the importance of implementing tailored interventions to optimise medication management in this patient population.

Reliability and validity of the Swedish indicator 'Drugs that should be avoided in older people'-an appraisal of a set of potentially inappropriate medications

PURPOSE

To analyse the reliability and validity of the Swedish indicator 'Drugs that should be avoided in older people'.

METHODS

From a previous study that included consecutive primary care patients ≥ 65 years of age, all patients ≥ 75 years of age were analysed. Two physicians independently screened their medication lists and medical records, applying the Swedish indicator which includes potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs): long-acting benzodiazepines, drugs with anticholinergic action, tramadol, propiomazine, codeine, and glibenclamide. The clinical relevance of identified PIMs was independently assessed. Thereafter, the physicians determined in consensus whether some medical action related to the drug treatment was medically justified and prioritised before the next regular visit. If so, the drug treatment was considered inadequate, and if not, adequate.

RESULTS

A total of 1,146 drugs were assessed in 149 patients (75‒99 years, 62% female, 0‒20 drugs per patient). In 29 (19%) patients, at least one physician identified ≥ 1 PIM according to the indicator at issue; 24 (16%) patients were concordantly identified with ≥ 1 such PIM (kappa: 0.89). Of 26 PIMs concordantly identified, the physicians concordantly assessed four as clinically relevant and 12 as not clinically relevant (kappa: 0.17). After the consensus discussion, six (4%) patients had ≥ 1 PIM according to the studied indicator that merited action. Using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the indicator did not outperform chance in identifying inadequate drug treatment: 0.56 (95% confidence interval: 0.46 to 0.66).

CONCLUSION

The Swedish indicator has strong reliability regarding PIM detection but does not validly reflect the adequacy of drug treatment.

Drug-Drug Interactions and Their Association with Adverse Health Outcomes in the Older Community-Dwelling Population: A Prospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

Evidence on associations between drug-drug interactions (DDIs) and health outcomes in the older community-dwelling population is limited.

OBJECTIVE

We estimate potentially clinically important DDI prevalence and examine the association between DDIs and (1) adverse drug events (ADEs), (2) emergency hospital attendance and (3) health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in an older community-dwelling population in Ireland.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study of community-dwelling older adults (N = 904) aged ≥ 70 years from 15 general practices in Ireland recruited in 2010 (wave-1) and followed-up over 2 years (wave-2; 2012-2013), with linked national pharmacy claims data. Individuals dispensed two or more drugs (wave-1: N = 842; wave-2: N = 763) were included. DDI prevalence at baseline, follow-up and 6 months prior to each health outcome was estimated. Multi-level regression was used to model the association between DDI-exposure and health outcomes at follow-up. DDI prevalence, adjusted incidence-rate ratios (aIRR), adjusted odds ratios (aOR), β coefficients and robust standard error (RSE) from multi-level regression analyses, and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported.

RESULTS

At wave-1, n = 196 (23.3% [95% CI 20.5-26.3]), individuals were potentially exposed to ≥ 1 DDI, increasing to n = 345 (45.2% [41.7-48.9]) at wave-2. At 2-year follow-up, the median number of ADEs was 3 (interquartile range [IQR 2-5]); 229 (30.1%) had ≥ 1 emergency hospital attendance, and the mean EQ-5D was 0.74 (± 0.23). Evidence for the association between DDI-exposure and emergency hospital attendance at follow-up was lacking (aOR = 1.38 [0.42-4.53]). DDI-exposure was associated with an increasing number of ADEs (aIRR = 1.26 [1.03-1.55]), and decreasing EQ-5D utility (β = - 0.07, [-0.11 to -0.04], RSE = 0.02). Aspirin-warfarin, clarithromycin-prednisolone, amiodarone-furosemide, clarithromycin-salbutamol, rosuvastatin-warfarin, amiodarone-bisoprolol, and aspirin-nicorandil were common DDIs 6 months preceding these health outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We found a two-fold increase in DDI prevalence between wave 1 and 2. DDI exposure was associated with increasing ADEs and declining HRQoL at 2-year follow-up. Common DDIs involved anticoagulants, cardiovascular and antimicrobial drugs, which should be targeted for medicine optimisation.

Characteristics of clinical-pharmacological recommendations in psychiatry in Germany

OBJECTIVE

Psychiatric patients in general, and elderly psychiatric patients in particular, are at risk of adverse drug reactions due to comorbidities and inappropriate polypharmacy. Interdisciplinary and clinical-pharmacologist-led medication reviews may contribute to medication safety in the field of psychiatry. In this study, we reported the frequency and characteristics of clinical-pharmacological recommendations in psychiatry, with a particular focus on geriatric psychiatry.

METHOD

A clinical pharmacologist, in collaboration with the attending psychiatrists and a consulting neurologist, conducted interdisciplinary medication reviews in a general psychiatric ward with a geropsychiatric focus at a university hospital over a 25-week period. All clinical and pharmacological recommendations were recorded and evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 316 recommendations were made during 374 medication reviews. Indications/contraindications of drugs were the most frequently discussed topics (59/316; 18.7 %), followed by dose reductions (37/316; 11.7 %), and temporary or permanent discontinuation of medications (36/316; 11.4 %). The most frequent recommendations for dose reduction involvedbenzodiazepines (9/37; 24.3 %). An unclear or absent indication was the most common reason for recommending temporary or permanent discontinuation of the medication (6/36; 16.7 %).

CONCLUSION

Interdisciplinary clinical pharmacologist-led medication reviews represented a valuable contribution to medication management in psychiatric patients, particularly the elderly ones.

Identification of Medication Prescription Errors and Factors of Clinical Relevance in 314 Hospitalized Patients for Improved Multidimensional Clinical Decision Support Algorithms

Potential medication errors and related adverse drug events (ADE) pose major challenges in clinical medicine. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) help identify preventable prescription errors leading to ADEs but are typically characterized by high sensitivity and low specificity, resulting in poor acceptance and alert-overriding. With this cross-sectional study we aimed to analyze CDSS performance, and to identify factors that may increase CDSS specificity. Clinical pharmacology services evaluated current pharmacotherapy of 314 patients during hospitalization across three units of two Swiss tertiary care hospitals. We used two CDSSs (pharmaVISTA and MediQ), primarily for the evaluation of drug-drug interactions (DDI). Additionally, we evaluated potential drug-disease, drug-age, drug-food, and drug-gene interactions. Recommendations for change of therapy were forwarded without delay to treating physicians. Among 314 patients, automated analyses by both CDSSs produced an average of 15.5 alerts per patient. In contrast, additional expert evaluation resulted in only 0.8 recommendations per patient to change pharmacotherapy. For clinical pharmacology experts, co-factors such as comorbidities and laboratory results were decisive for the classification of CDSS alerts as clinically relevant in individual patients in about 70% of all decisions. Such co-factors should therefore be used for the development of multidimensional CDSS alert algorithms with improved specificity. In combination with local expert services, this poses a promising approach to improve drug safety in clinical practice.

Performance of 3 Sets of Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing in Older People to Identify Inadequate Drug Treatment

IMPORTANCE

Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) are used in research to reflect the quality of drug treatment in older people and have been suggested for inclusion in core outcome sets for evaluation of interventions for improved prescribing. Their validation so far, however, is primarily restricted to expert opinion-based processes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of 3 explicit PIM/PPO criteria sets as diagnostic tools to identify inadequate drug treatment in older patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This diagnostic study analyzed patients aged 65 years or older consecutively included from 2 primary health care centers from October to November 2017. Data were analyzed from February to August 2022.

EXPOSURES

The PIMs/PPOs were concordantly identified by 2 specialist physicians (2018-2019) retrospectively after a planned physician visit, using 3 European PIM/PPO criteria sets and without knowledge of this diagnostic study.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, reflecting the ability of PIM/PPO criteria sets to identify the reference standard of inadequate drug treatment, determined by 2 specialist physicians in consensus. Inadequate drug treatment implied that additional action related to the medication could be medically justified before the next regular visit.

RESULTS

A total of 302 patients were analyzed (median age, 74 [IQR, 69-81] years; 178 women [59%]; median number of drugs in the medication list, 6 [IQR, 3-9]); 98 patients (32%) had inadequate drug treatment. A total of 0 to 8 PIMs/PPOs per patient were identified using the Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions (STOPP)/Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment (START) criteria, 0 to 6 with the European EU(7)-PIM list, and 0 to 12 with the Swedish set of indicators of prescribing quality. The areas under the ROC curve for the 3 sets to identify the reference standard for inadequate drug treatment were 0.60 (95% CI, 0.53-0.66) for the STOPP/START criteria, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.63-0.75) for the EU(7)-PIM list, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67-0.80) for the Swedish set. For comparison, the area under the ROC curve was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65-0.78) using the number of drugs in the medication list.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this diagnostic study, the evaluated PIM/PPO sets had poor to fair performance as diagnostic tools to identify inadequate drug treatment, comparable with a simple count of the number of drugs in the medication list. These findings suggest that use of PIMs/PPOs as indicators of drug treatment quality in core outcome sets for the evaluation of interventions for improved prescribing may need reconsideration.