The effect of structured medication review followed by face-to-face feedback to prescribers on adverse drug events recognition and prevention in older inpatients - a multicenter interrupted time series study

Prevalence of cardiovascular drug-related adverse drug reactions consultations in UK primary care: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) represent a significant barrier to achieve optimal treatment outcomes. Cardiovascular drugs, including antihypertensive drugs, lipid-lowering drugs, and antithrombotic drugs, are among the most prescribed medications in the primary care setting.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the prevalence of cardiovascular drug-related ADRs consultations in United Kingdom (UK) primary care and identify risk factors of these ADRs.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of cardiovascular drug users between 2000-2019 using UK IQVIA Medical Research Data. ADRs consultations were identified using database screening method employing standardised designated codes. The overall and annual age-standardised prevalence was estimated using direct standardisation method using 2019 mid-year UK population. Risk factors of ADRs consultations were estimated using logistic regression model stratified by therapeutic areas.

RESULTS

The standardised prevalence of consultations related to cardiovascular drugs ADRs was 10.60 (95% CI. 10.46, 10.75) per 1000 patients. Patients aged 70-79 years had the highest occurrence of ADRs consultations. The most frequently drug classes implicated in the ADRs consultations were statins (n = 9,993 events, 27.09%), beta-blockers (n = 8,538 events, 23.15%), ACEIs/ARBs (n = 8,345 events, 22.62%), and aspirin (n = 6,482 events, 17.57%). Risk factors of ADRs consultations were previous history of cardiovascular diseases, e.g., myocardial infarction and stroke; advanced age, comorbidities; diabetes and dyslipidaemia; and polypharmacy.

CONCLUSIONS

The burden of cardiovascular drug-related ADRs consultations in primary care was considerable. Statins, beta-blockers, ACEIs/ARBs, and aspirin were the most frequently implicated drug classes. Closer clinical monitoring should be performed for patients affected by the ADRs to mitigate the risk of suboptimal treatment outcomes.

Structured medication reviews for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Polypharmacy is common among individuals with multimorbidity, often leading to inappropriate medication use and is associated with an increased risk of frailty, hospitalisation and mortality. Structured medication reviews (SMRs) have emerged as a promising method for optimising medication use. However, research examining their efficacy is limited. This review aims to evaluate the impact of SMRs on improving outcomes for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care settings. Additionally, this review seeks to identify prevailing patterns and trends in the mode of delivery of SMRs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review will be conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL (1997-present). Primary outcomes will include medication-related measures such as dose, frequency and dosage form. Secondary outcomes under investigation will include physical, mental, functional and health service outcomes, as reported. Two independent reviewers will conduct the screening and data extraction, resolving disagreements through discussion. Once eligible studies are identified, the extracted data will be summarised in tabular format. The risk of bias in the articles will be assessed using either the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, depending on the design of the studies retrieved. Subgroup analysis will be performed using demographic variables and modes of delivery where the data supports. If appropriate, a meta-analysis of the data extracted will be conducted to determine the impact of the SMRs on reported outcomes. If a meta-analysis is not possible due to heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis approach will be adopted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This proposed review is exempt from ethical approval as it aims to collate and summarise peer-reviewed, published evidence. This protocol and the subsequent review will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, conferences and patient-led lay summaries.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023454965.

An Observational Cohort Study to Evaluate the Impact of a Tailored Medicines Optimisation Service on Medication Use, Accident and Emergency Department Visits, and Admissions Among Patients Identified with Medication Support Needs in Secondary Care

PURPOSE

Quantifying the impact of pharmacy interventions, such as tailored medicines optimisation, can be challenging owing to the sometimes-indirect nature of their effect on patient outcomes such A&E (Accident & Emergency) attendance, hospital admission and length of stay. This study aimed to assess the impact of the, Lewisham Integrated Medicines Optimisation Service (LIMOS) on medicines self-management, A&E attendances and hospital admissions.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The study was conducted as a retrospective and prospective observational evaluation of patients referred to LIMOS at University Hospital Lewisham between April and September 2016. Only patients with an appropriate referral that received a LIMOS intervention within the study period were considered eligible. The main outcomes examined pre- and post-LIMOS included medicines self-management, A&E attendance, number of admissions, as well as length of stay.

RESULTS

Data were collected for a total of 193 patients. Over half (56.4%, n = 109) identified as female with a mean age of 78 years at the time of referral. The number of hospital admissions decreased significantly post-LIMOS (-0.36 ± 1.87, 95% CI -0.63-0.10). Furthermore, the mean reduction in length of stay was significant and decreased by over a week (19.58 vs 11.09 days post-LIMOS, -7.67 ± 48.57, 95% CI -14.57--0.78). There was a significant increase in A&E visits observed post-intervention (0.78 ± 1.93, 95% CI 0.50-1.06); however, the majority (63%, n =165/261) occurred over 90 days post-intervention. There was a significant reduction in the number of patients self-managing medication post-LIMOS, with the number of patients receiving additional support with their medication increasing (-0.38 ± 0.50, 95% CI -0.45--0.31). LIMOS, therefore, successfully identified patients who were unable to manage their medicines.

CONCLUSION

Specialist pharmacy interventions, which include support with medicines management, have a positive impact on admission avoidance and length of hospital stay.