Missed drug therapy alerts as a consequence of incomplete electronic patient records in Dutch community pharmacies

Prevalence and Severity of Potential Drug–Drug Interactions in Patients with Multiple Sclerosis with and without Polypharmacy

Polypharmacy (PP) is a common problem in modern medicine, especially known to affect patients with chronic diseases such as multiple sclerosis (MS). With an increasing number of drugs taken, the risk of potential drug–drug interactions (pDDIs) is rising. This study aims to assess the prevalence and clinical relevance of polypharmacy and pDDIs in patients with MS. Pharmacological data of 627 patients with MS were entered into two drug–drug-interaction databases to determine the number and severity of pDDIs for each patient. The patients were divided into those with and without PP (total PP and prescription medication PP (Rx PP)). Of the 627 patients included, 53.3% and 38.6% had total PP and Rx PP, respectively. On average, every patient took 5.3 drugs. Of all patients, 63.8% had at least one pDDI with a mean of 4.6 pDDIs per patient. Less than 4% of all pDDIs were moderately severe or severe. Medication schedules should be checked for inappropriate medication and for possible interacting drugs to prevent pDDIs. Physicians as well as pharmacists should be more sensitive towards the relevance of pDDIs and know how they can be detected and avoided.

Prescribing cascades in community-dwelling adults: protocol for a systematic review

Introduction: Internationally, health systems face the challenge of managing a growing ageing population living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Potentially inappropriate prescribing is common among patients with polypharmacy, increasing the risk for adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Several prescribing indicator sets exist to improve prescribing and reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing, but do not address prescribing cascades. Prescribing cascades occur when a medication is prescribed to treat an ADR to another prescribed medication, whether intentionally or unintentionally, and constitute an important area to consider when characterising problematic polypharmacy. This is a protocol for a systematic review examining prescribing cascades in community-dwelling adults. Methods: The review will be reported adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A systematic search of Medline (Ovid), EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library will be conducted from inception to March 2021, using a predetermined strategy. Grey literature will be searched using Open Grey, MedNar, Dart Europe, and the Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP) databases. No restrictions will be placed on language or publication year. Inclusion criteria are: population - community-dwelling adults (≥18 years); risk - prescription medication with the potential to cause side effects; outcomes - initiation of a new medicine to 'treat' or reduce the risk of experiencing an ADR. Prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case control and case series studies will be included. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts; studies meeting inclusion criteria will undergo independent full-text screening by two reviewers.  A narrative synthesis will be conducted. Study quality will be independently assessed using the relevant Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. Discussion: This systematic review will identify examples of prescribing cascades for community-dwelling adults and contribute to developing an evidence base regarding such cascades. Registration: PROSPERO [ CRD42021243163, 31/03/2021].

The Development of Practice Recommendations for Drug-Disease Interactions by Literature Review and Expert Opinion

Background

Drug-disease interactions negatively affect the benefit/risk ratio of drugs for specific populations. In these conditions drugs should be avoided, adjusted, or accompanied by extra monitoring. The motivation for many drug-disease interactions in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) is sometimes insufficiently supported by (accessible) evidence. As a consequence the translation of SmPC to clinical practice may lead to non-specific recommendations. For the translation of this information to the real world, it is necessary to evaluate the available knowledge about drug-disease interactions, and to formulate specific recommendations for prescribers and pharmacists. The aim of this paper is to describe a standardized method how to develop practice recommendations for drug-disease interactions by literature review and expert opinion.

Methods

The development of recommendations for drug-disease interactions will follow a six-step plan involving a multidisciplinary expert panel (1). The scope of the drug-disease interaction will be specified by defining the disease and by describing relevant effects of this drug-disease interaction. Drugs possibly involved in this drug-disease interaction are selected by checking the official product information, literature, and expert opinion (2). Evidence will be collected from the official product information, guidelines, handbooks, and primary literature (3). Study characteristics and outcomes will be evaluated and presented in standardized reports, including preliminary conclusions on the clinical relevance and practice recommendations (4). The multidisciplinary expert panel will discuss the reports and will either adopt or adjust the conclusions (5). Practice recommendations will be integrated in clinical decision support systems and published (6). The results of the evaluated drug-disease interactions will remain up-to-date by screening new risk information, periodic literature review, and (re)assessments initiated by health care providers.

Actionable Recommendations

The practice recommendations will result in advices for specific DDSI. The content and considerations of these DDSIs will be published and implemented in all Clinical Decision Support Systems in the Netherlands.

Discussion

The recommendations result in professional guidance in the context of individual patient care. The professional will be supported in the decision making in concerning pharmacotherapy for the treatment of a medical problem, and the clinical risks of the proposed medication in combination with specific diseases.

Prescription and over-the-counter medication record integration: A holistic patient-centered approach

OBJECTIVE

Nonprescription or over-the-counter (OTC) medications play a crucial role in a patient's ability to make choices to manage his or her own health care. Often these nonprescription choices are unknown to health care practitioners and thus are often not included as part of patients' health records. The exclusion of these therapies can pose risks to patient safety. There is a significant need to address the capture of OTC medication use in both the physician and pharmacy electronic health records (EHRs) and during the practitioner-patient medication history and reconciliation process.

DATA SOURCES

On October 26, 2016, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores Foundation hosted a forum for a select group of health care industry professionals to work on a series of recommendations to improve the documentation of OTC medication use by patients. This diverse group of more than a dozen stakeholders included community pharmacy leaders from multiple chain pharmacies, pharmacy system vendors, e-prescribing vendors, health information technology experts, and multiple industry representatives, including individuals from the public sector. This commentary is a summary of the insights and suggestions where the group was in general agreement.

SUMMARY

Successful OTC medication EHR integration will require system-level buy-in across multiple layers of the health care industry to improve patient safety. Forum participants suggested incremental steps that could be taken by multiple stakeholders to lay the foundation for integration within an appropriate regulatory structure.

CONCLUSION

Based on the results of the stakeholder forum, an agreement formed around one approach that the group supported as feasible: the creation of a consistent and uniform identification method for OTC medications in cooperation with government regulatory authorities.

Considerations of prescribers and pharmacists for the use of non-selective β-blockers in asthma and COPD patients: An explorative study

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Despite recommendations in prevailing guidelines to avoid the use of non-selective (NS) β-blockers in patients with asthma or COPD, on average, 10 patients per community pharmacy receive NS β-blockers monthly. The aim of our study was to identify the reasons of prescribers and pharmacists to treat asthma and COPD patients with NS β-blockers.

METHODS

Fifty-three community pharmacists in the Netherlands selected patients with actual concurrent use of inhalation medication and NS β-blockers. For at least 5 patients, each pharmacist screened all medication surveillance signals and actions taken at first dispensing. Each pharmacist selected 3 different initial prescribers for a short interview to explore their awareness of the co-morbidity and reasons to apply NS β-blockers.

RESULTS

Pharmacists identified 827 asthma/COPD patients with actual use of NS β-blockers. From these, 153 NS β-blocker prescribers were selected and interviewed (64 general practitioners, 45 ophthalmologists, 24 cardiologists, and 20 other prescribers). One hundred seven prescribers were aware of the drug-disease interaction of the asthma or COPD co-morbidity when initiating the NS β-blocker, and 46 were not. From these, 40 prescribers did not consider the contraindication to be relevant. For 299 patients, medication surveillance signals and actions at first dispensing were retrieved. Patients used predominantly ocular timolol (39.8%), and the oral preparations propranolol (30.8%) and carvedilol (15.1%). In 154 cases, the pharmacy system generated a warning alert.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of prescribers was unaware of the co-morbidity or did not regard NS β-blockers contraindicated, despite prevailing clinical guidelines. Improvement programs should target prescribers' awareness and knowledge of NS β-blockers in patients with asthma or COPD.

Clinical Decision Support and Optional Point of Care Testing of Renal Function for Safe Use of Antibiotics in Elderly Patients: A Retrospective Study in Community Pharmacy Practice

Objective

The aim was to investigate the management of drug therapy alerts on safe use of antibiotics in elderly patients with (potential) renal impairment and the contribution of optional creatinine point of care testing (PoCT) in community pharmacy practice.

Methods

Community pharmacists used a clinical decision support system (CDSS) for seven antibiotics. Alerts were generated during prescription processing in the case of previously registered renal impairment and when no information on renal function was available for patients aged 70 and over. Pharmacists could perform PoCT when renal function could not be retrieved from other health care professionals. Actions were registered in the CDSS. A retrospective descriptive analysis of alert management, performed PoCT and medication dispensing histories was performed.

Results

A total of 351 pharmacists registered the management of 88,391 alerts for 64,763 patients. For 68,721 alerts (77.7%), the pharmacist retrieved a renal function above the threshold for intervention. 1.7% of the alerts (n = 1532) led to a prescription modification because of renal impairment; in 3.0% of the alerts (n = 2631), the patient had renal impairment, but the pharmacist judged that no intervention was needed. Pharmacists performed 1988 PoCTs (2.2% of the alerts), which led to 15 prescription modifications (0.8% of the PoCT).

Conclusion

Community pharmacists performed CDSS-based interventions to prevent potentially inappropriate (dosing of) antibiotics in elderly patients with renal impairment. Pharmacists were well able to retrieve information on renal function, using PoCT in a limited number of cases. The intervention rate could be greatly increased by better registration of information on renal function. Performing PoCT seems especially worthwhile in the highest age groups.

Better specification of triggers to reduce the number of drug interaction alerts in primary care

OBJECTIVE

Drug interaction alerts (drug-drug and drug-disease interaction alerts) for chronic medications substantially contribute to alert fatigue in primary care. The aim of this study was to determine which events require (re)assessment of a drug interaction and whether using these events as triggers in clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) would affect the alert rate.

METHODS

Two random 5% data samples from the CDSSs of 123 community pharmacies were used: dataset 1 and 2. The top 10 of most frequent drug interaction alerts not involving laboratory values were selected. To reach consensus on events that should trigger alerts (e.g. first time dispensing, dose modification) for these drug interactions, a two-step consensus process was used. An expert panel of community pharmacists participated in an online survey and a subsequent consensus meeting. A CDSS with alerts based on the consensus was simulated in both datasets.

RESULTS

Dataset 1 and 2 together contained 1,672,169 prescriptions which led to 591,073 alerts. Consensus on events requiring alerts was reached for the ten selected drug interactions. The simulation showed a reduction of the alert rate of 93.0% for the ten selected drug interactions (comparable for dataset 1 and 2), corresponding with a 28.3% decrease of the overall drug interaction alert rate.

CONCLUSION

By consensus-based better specification of the events that trigger drug interaction alerts in primary care, the alert rate for these drug interactions was reduced by over 90%. This promising approach deserves further investigation to assess its consequences and applicability in daily practice.

Nature and management of duplicate medication alerts

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the nature of duplicate medication (DM) alerts, their management by community pharmacists, and potential characteristics of DM alerts that lead to interventions by pharmacists.

METHODS

Observational study in 53 community pharmacies. Each pharmacist registered the nature and management of 24 DM alerts on a structured form.

RESULTS

On average, the clinical decision support systems generated 20.4 DM alerts per 100 dispensed drugs. In half of the 1272 registered alerts, the pharmacists judged that there was no risk for concurrent use of both prescriptions. In 32% of the alerts, the DM alert was generated for an intentional combination. In 17% of the alerts, there was a risk for unintentional concurrent use. In 32% of the alerts the pharmacists decided that one or more actions were needed: the electronic patient record was updated in 15% of the alerts and in 19% of the alerts the pharmacists performed an external action-for example, informing the patient or modifying the prescription (including 5 therapeutic prescription modifications and 22 logistic prescription modifications). Alerts concerning first dispensing were more likely to be followed by an external action than alerts concerning refills (40% vs 14%, P < .001).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In community pharmacy, prescription modifications based on DM alerts are rare, but DM alerts lead with some regularity to other actions-for example, patient instruction and update of the electronic patient record. As the current DM alerts are diverse and nonspecific in detecting situations where external action is considered relevant, other ways of alerting should therefore be considered.

Quick assessment of drug-related admissions over time (QUADRAT study)

PURPOSE

To develop a computerized prescreening procedure for the identification of possible/probably Hospital Admissions potential Related to Medications (HARMs).

METHOD

Pairs of drugs and reasons for hospitalization (generated automatically from the PHARMO record linkage database by using two data mining techniques) were assessed manually to determine whether they represented pharmacologically plausible adverse drug events (PP-ADEs). Two crude samples of these PP-ADEs (from 2005 and 2008) were examined manually to establish causality and preventability on the basis of hospital discharge letters plus medication dispensing data. The results were used to calculate the positive predictive value (PPV) of the crude causality PP-ADEs, the net percentage of possible/probably HARMs, and their potential preventability.

RESULTS

Data mining by Gamma Poisson Shrinkage and trend analysis produced 1330 and 2941 significant drug-event pairs, respectively. After manual assessment, 307 different PP-ADEs remained. The annual prevalence of these PP-ADEs was stable at approximately 8% throughout 2000-2009. Manual assessment of two samples of crude PP-ADEs showed that their causality PPV was 53.7% (95%CI: 52.7%-54.7%) in 2005 and 47.9% (95%CI: 46.9%-49.0%) in 2008. The net contribution of possible/probably HARMs to all acute admissions was 4.6% (95%CI: 4.5%-4.8%) in 2005 and 3.9% (95%CI: 3.8%-4.0%) in 2008. The potential preventability of all possible/probably HARMs in the two samples was 19.3% (95%CI: 18.5-20.1).

CONCLUSION

Automated pre-selection of PP-ADEs is an efficient way to monitor crude trends. Further validation and manual assessment of the automatically selected hospitalizations is necessary to get a more detailed and precise picture.