[Impact of pharmaceutical intervention in preventing relapses in depression in Primary Care]

Remote pharmaceutical care for patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis

BackgroundAccess to drugs with hospital-restricted dispensation, such as those for patients with rheumatoid arthritis or psoriasis, is regulated by healthcare policy. These drugs have the greatest cost-effective impact on the healthcare system. This is why a model for Pharmaceutical Care based on follow-up teleconsultations was defined in our hospital to improve patient well-being. Objective To evaluate clinical changes on patients when our remote Pharmaceutical Care model is applied and describe the work carried out by pharmacists when applying it. Setting Pharmacy Department of a Hospital in Barcelona, Spain. Method Cross-sectional observational study of the remote Pharmaceutical Care model developed by Clinical Pharmacists. All patients diagnosed with psoriasis or rheumatoid arthritis who were receiving active treatment with Hospital/Specialist only drugs, during the period from May to December 2018, were included. Main outcome measures The corresponding healthcare activity was recorded and to determine the utility of the model, the clinical response to treatment of patients included in the study was recorded. Results The implementation of teleconsultation is statistically related to the biological treatment response of patients with psoriasis (p = 0.006) and rheumatoid arthritis (p = 0.019). In those patients the healthcare activity of calculating and/or recording clinical variables of effectiveness/safety is statistically associated to biological treatment response (65.62% vs 35%, p = 0.015 and 73.14% vs 53.26%, p = 0.003). Conclusions The implementation of the model described lends added value to traditional pharmacotherapeutic management of biological treatments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and psoriasis since response is improved but patient well-being is not diminished.

Pharmacy-based management for depression in adults

BACKGROUND

It is common for peoples not to take antidepressant medication as prescribed, with around 50% of people likely to prematurely discontinue taking their medication after six months. Community pharmacists may be well placed to have a role in antidepressant management because of their unique pharmacotherapeutic knowledge and ease of access for people. Pharmacists are in an ideal position to offer proactive interventions to people with depression or depressive symptoms. However, the effectiveness and acceptability of existing pharmacist-based interventions is not yet well understood. The degree to which a pharmacy-based management approach might be beneficial, acceptable to people, and effective as part of the overall management for those with depression is, to date, unclear. A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) will help answer these questions and add important knowledge to the currently sparse evidence base.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effects of pharmacy-based management interventions compared with active control (e.g. patient information materials or any other active intervention delivered by someone other than the pharmacist or the pharmacy team), waiting list, or treatment as usual (e.g. standard pharmacist advice or antidepressant education, signposting to support available in primary care services, brief medication counselling, and/or (self-)monitoring of medication adherence offered by a healthcare professional outside the pharmacy team) at improving depression outcomes in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMD-CTR) to June 2016; the Cochrane Library (Issue 11, 2018); and Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO to December 2018. We searched theses and dissertation databases and international trial registers for unpublished/ongoing trials. We applied no restrictions on date, language, or publication status to the searches.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all RCTs and cluster-RCTs where a pharmacy-based intervention was compared with treatment as usual, waiting list, or an alternative intervention in the management of depression in adults over 16 years of age. Eligible studies had to report at least one of the following outcomes at any time point: depression symptom change, acceptability of the intervention, diagnosis of depression, non-adherence to medication, frequency of primary care appointments, quality of life, social functioning, or adverse events.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently, and in duplicate, conducted all stages of study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment (including GRADE). We discussed disagreements within the team until we reached consensus. Where data did not allow meta-analyses, we synthesised results narratively.  MAIN RESULTS: Twelve studies (2215 participants) met the inclusion criteria and compared pharmacy-based management with treatment as usual. Two studies (291 participants) also included an active control (both used patient information leaflets providing information about the prescribed antidepressant). Neither of these studies reported depression symptom change. A narrative synthesis of results on acceptability of the intervention was inconclusive, with one study reporting better acceptability of pharmacy-based management and the other better acceptability of the active control. One study reported that participants in the pharmacy-based management group had better medication adherence than the control participants. One study reported adverse events with no difference between groups. The studies reported no other outcomes. Meta-analyses comparing pharmacy-based management with treatment as usual showed no evidence of a difference in the effect of the intervention on depression symptom change (dichotomous data; improvement in symptoms yes/no: risk ratio (RR), 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.86 to 1.05; 4 RCTs, 475 participants; moderate-quality evidence; continuous data: standard mean difference (SMD) -0.04, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10; 5 RCTs, 718 participants; high-certainty evidence), or acceptability of the intervention (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.45; 12 RCTs, 2072 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The risk of non-adherence was reduced in participants receiving pharmacy-based management (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.87; 6 RCTs, 911 participants; high-certainty evidence). We were unable to meta-analyse data on diagnosis of depression, frequency of primary care appointments, quality of life, or social functioning.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of a difference between pharmacy-based management for depression in adults compared with treatment as usual in facilitating depression symptom change. Based on numbers of participants leaving the trials early, there may be no difference in acceptability between pharmacy-based management and controls. However, there was uncertainty due to the low-certainty evidence.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention to improve medication adherence in people with depressive disorders - MAPDep: a study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Depression is a widespread mental disorder which can be treated effectively. However, low adherence to antidepressants is very common. The study of medication adherence in depression (MAPDep study) assesses the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multicomponent strategy to enhance adherence toward medications in patients with depression.

INTERVENTION

The intervention is a multicomponent one consisting of an educational program for psychiatrists and/or a collaborative care program for patients and relatives, plus a reminder system that works through the use of an already available high-quality medication reminder application.

STUDY DESIGN

MAPDep study is an open, multicenter, four-arm cluster randomized controlled trial. The clusters are mental health units where psychiatrists are invited to participate. The clusters are randomly allocated to one of the three interventions or to usual care (control arm). Patients (18-65 years of age) diagnosed with depressive disorder, those taking antidepressant medication for an existing diagnosis of depression, and mobile phone users are selected. In group 1, only patients and relatives receive intervention; in group 2, only psychiatrists receive intervention; and in group 3, patients/relatives and psychiatrists receive intervention. The primary outcome is adherence to the antidepressant drug. The calculated sample size is 400 patients. To examine changes across time, generalized linear mixed model with repeated measures will be used. A cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted. The effectiveness measure is quality-adjusted life years. Deterministic sensitivity analyses are planned.

CONCLUSION

MAPDep study aims to assess a multicomponent strategy to improve adherence toward medications in patients with depression, based not only on clinical effectiveness but also on cost-effectiveness. This methodology will enhance the transferability of the expected results beyond mental health services (patients and psychiatrists) to health care policy decision making.

CLINICAL TRIAL IDENTIFIER

NCT03668457.

Role and impact of pharmacists in Spain: a scoping review

Background The role of the pharmacist has evolved greatly over the last decades, expanding to patient-oriented activities, administrative tasks and public health functions. However, considerable differences emerge across regions. Aim of the review To gather evidence in order to describe and highlight the different characteristics of the pharmacists' role and the impact of their activities in Spain. Method A review of the existing literature was conducted. The literature search was undertaken in PubMed between 01/01/2006 and 15/08/2017. Results were screened and reviewed to extract previously established criteria such as author(s), publication year, language, study design, setting, pharmaceutical activity, patient care programs, targeted diseases and intervention description using DEPICT2 tool. Pharmaceutical intervention were classified into eight outcome measures and categorized by types of outcomes reported: descriptive or impact evaluation regarding the effect of the service (positive, neutral or negative). Results The search strategy resulted in 473 articles and 108 articles met the inclusion criteria. The most common design was observational (n = 76, 70%). Most articles were published after 2011 (75%), in English (69%). Studies were conducted in hospitals (60%) and community pharmacies (30%). Of the 24 pharmaceutical activities identified, medication review was the activity most frequently studied (n = 42), followed by patient education (n = 29), risk and prevention (n = 27) and medication reconciliation (n = 19). Only 39 articles (36%) had outcome measures with impact evaluation. Of the 223 impact outcome measures, 48% (107/223) had a positive effect. Conclusion This review shows the substantial scientific production focusing on pharmacy practice in Spain over the last years. The evidence reviewed reflects the pharmacist role at various professional settings, providing a wide variety of activities on diverse targeted diseases and patient care programs, in line with the increasing specialization of clinical pharmacists over the last years.