The effects of pharmacist intervention on emergency department visits in patients 80 years and older: subgroup analyses by number of prescribed drugs and appropriate prescribing

Development and external validation of a prognostic model for time to readmission or death in multimorbid patients

OBJECTIVE

To develop and externally validate a prognostic model built on important factors predisposing multimorbid patients to all-cause readmission and/or death. In addition to identify patients who may benefit most from a comprehensive clinical pharmacist intervention.

METHODS

A multivariable prognostic model was developed based on data from a randomised controlled trial investigating the effect of pharmacist-led medicines management on readmission rate in multimorbid, hospitalised patients. The derivation set comprised 386 patients randomised in a 1:1 manner to the intervention group, i.e. with a pharmacist included in their multidisciplinary treatment team, or the control group receiving standard care at the ward. External validation of the model was performed using data from an independent cohort, in which 100 patients were randomised to the same intervention, or standard care. The setting was an internal medicines ward at a university hospital in Norway.

RESULTS

The number of patients who were readmitted or had died within 18 months after discharge was 297 (76.9 %) in the derivation set, i.e. the randomized controlled trial, and 69 (71.1 %) in the validation set, i.e. the independent cohort. Charlson comorbidity index (CCI; low, moderate or high), previous hospital admissions within the previous six months and heart failure were the strongest prognostic factors and were included in the final model. The efficacy of the pharmaceutical intervention did not prove significant in the model. A prognostic index (PI) was constructed to estimate the hazard of readmission or death (low, intermediate or high-risk groups). Overall, the external validation replicated the result. We were unable to identify a subgroup of the multimorbid patients with better efficacy of the intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

A prognostic model including CCI, previous admissions and heart failure can be used to obtain valid estimates of risk of readmission and death in patients with multimorbidity.

Medication review in hospitalised patients to reduce morbidity and mortality

BACKGROUND

A medication review can be defined as a structured evaluation of a patient's medication conducted by healthcare professionals with the aim of optimising medication use and improving health outcomes. Optimising medication therapy though medication reviews may benefit hospitalised patients.

OBJECTIVES

We examined the effects of medication review interventions in hospitalised adult patients compared to standard care or to other types of medication reviews on all-cause mortality, hospital readmissions, emergency department contacts and health-related quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

In this Cochrane Review update, we searched for new published and unpublished trials using the following electronic databases from 1 January 2014 to 17 January 2022 without language restrictions: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). To identify additional trials, we searched the reference lists of included trials and other publications by lead trial authors, and contacted experts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of medication reviews delivered by healthcare professionals for hospitalised adult patients. We excluded trials including outpatients and paediatric patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for data clarification and relevant unpublished data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we included a total of 25 trials (15,076 participants), of which 15 were new trials (11,501 participants). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 20 months. We found that medication reviews in hospitalised adults may have little to no effect on mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.05; 18 trials, 10,108 participants; low-certainty evidence); likely reduce hospital readmissions (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 17 trials, 9561 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce emergency department contacts (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.03; 8 trials, 3527 participants; low-certainty evidence) and have very uncertain effects on health-related quality of life (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.30; 4 trials, 392 participants; very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Medication reviews in hospitalised adult patients likely reduce hospital readmissions and may reduce emergency department contacts. The evidence suggests that mediation reviews may have little to no effect on mortality, while the effect on health-related quality of life is very uncertain. Almost all trials included elderly polypharmacy patients, which limits the generalisability of the results beyond this population.

Prevalence and Categorization of Drug-Related Problems in the Emergency Department

BACKGROUND

Drug-related problems (DRPs) are common among patients seen in the emergency department (ED), but the true incidence is not clear.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this study was to determine the prevalence of DRPs among patients seen in a U.S. ED. The secondary objective was to categorize these DRPs by problem type and by medication class.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational cohort study of a random sample of ED patients between December 2011 and March 2013. ED pharmacists screened randomly selected patients for the presence of a DRP contributing to the ED visit. Four independent auditors evaluated the results to achieve consensus for the presence or absence of DRPs and categorization of the DRPs.

RESULTS

Among 1039 patients screened for DRPs, 308 (29.6%) were found to have at least 1 DRP contributing to the ED visit. Among a total of 443 DRPs, the most commonly identified categories were adverse drug reaction (n = 193 [43.6%]), ineffective medication (n = 69 [15.6%]), and subtherapeutic dosage (n = 68 [15.3%]). The most commonly implicated drug classes were cardiovascular medications (n = 113 [26.5%]), anti-infective medications (n = 52 [12.2%]), and analgesic medications (n = 58 [13.6%]).

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial proportion of ED visits are associated in part or in total with DRPs. Adverse drug reactions and cardiovascular medications are the most common category and medication class implicated, respectively.

Effect of pharmacist-led inhaler technique assessment service on readmissions in hospitalized COPD patients: a randomized, controlled pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of pharmacist-led inhaler technique assessment service on readmissions and CAT-score in hospitalized COPD patients. Furthermore, to provide an effect estimate for sample size calculations for future studies and to gain experience on the feasibility of such studies.

METHODS

A randomized controlled pilot study. Patients were randomized 1:1 to intervention or standard care. The primary endpoint was the difference in time to first readmission after hospital discharge between the treatment groups.

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant effect on the time to readmission (median 41 days in the intervention group (19 patients) and 95 days in the control group (20 patients), HR 1.74, 95% CI 0.81-3.75, p = 0.16). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups in CAT-score 2 months after discharge, median scores being 25.5 and 24 in the intervention and the control group, respectively (p = 0.29). There was, however, a reduction of 3.5 units in CAT-score from baseline to 2 months after discharge in the intervention group, compared to no change in the control group.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacist-led inhaler technique training had no effect on time to readmission or CAT-score. Future studies in larger populations should consider focusing on patients with less severe COPD, exploring CAT-score as a primary endpoint, consider stratifying for important baseline variables and evaluate the acceptability of the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Date of registration 01/10/2018.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov identifier: NCT03691324.

The effects of a pharmacist-led medication review in a nursing home: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In this study, an intensive review of pharmaceutical care for elderly patients was conducted in a Veterans Administration nursing home in Taiwan and its effects were evaluated.

METHODS

One hundred participants were enrolled in this randomized controlled study with even distribution. The inclusion criteria were age 65 years or older, prescriptions for at least 5 oral medicines daily, and ≥2 chronic diseases, for the period May 2013 to October 2014. Subjects were excluded if they had previously been included in an intensive medication review conducted by a pharmacist. The primary outcomes were numbers of drugs prescribed, potential inappropriate medications, and numbers of drug-related problems. The secondary outcomes were self-reported medical usages, measurements of quality of life, results of a satisfaction survey, and health status.

RESULTS

A total of 80 cases (42 in the intervention group with medication reconciliation and 38 in the control group without medication reconciliation) completed the study. Baseline characteristics were not statistically different between the 2 groups. The overall prevalence of potential inappropriate medication was 74.3%. There were no differences between the 2 groups, with the exception of "medical problems," which showed a significantly higher prevalence in the intervention group (P < .05). The intervention group reported greater satisfaction regarding pharmacist visits and medication compliance (P < .01). The mean number of drug-related problems was significantly lower after the intervention (P < .01).

CONCLUSION

In this study, the intensive review of the elderly patients' medications revealed that the only significant effect of pharmaceutical care was on "all outcomes." A possible reason for this is the rather advanced ages of some patients who needed a considerable number of medications to treat several chronic diseases. Another reason may be the small sample size. However, participants who received the pharmacist intervention did have higher satisfaction with medication reconciliation and fewer drug-related problems.

Effect of medicines management versus standard care on readmissions in multimorbid patients: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of pharmacist-led medicines management in multimorbid, hospitalised patients on long-term hospital readmissions and survival.

DESIGN

Parallel-group, randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Recruitment from an internal medicine hospital ward in Oslo, Norway. Patients were enrolled consecutively from August 2014 to the predetermined target number of 400 patients. The last participant was enrolled March 2016. Follow-up until 31 December 2017, that is, 21-40 months.

PARTICIPANTS

Acutely admitted multimorbid patients ≥18 years, using minimum four regular drugs from minimum two therapeutic classes. 399 patients were randomly assigned, 1:1, to the intervention or control group. After excluding 11 patients dying in-hospital and 2 erroneously included, the primary analysis comprised 386 patients (193 in each group) with median age 79 years (range 23-96) and number of diseases 7 (range 2-17).

INTERVENTION

Intervention patients received pharmacist-led medicines management comprising medicines reconciliation at admission, repeated medicines reviews throughout the stay and medicines reconciliation and tailored information at discharge, according to the integrated medicines management model. Control patients received standard care.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary endpoint was difference in time to readmission or death within 12 months. Overall survival was a priori the clinically most important secondary endpoint.

RESULTS

Pharmacist-led medicines management had no significant effect on the primary endpoint time to readmission or death within 12 months (median 116 vs 184 days, HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.04, p=0.106). A statistically significantly increased overall survival was observed during 21-40 months follow-up (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.90, p=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacist-led medicines management had no statistically significant effect on time until readmission or death. A statistically significant increased overall survival was seen. Further studies should be conducted to investigate the effect of such an intervention on a larger scale.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02336113.

Pharmacist impact on health outcomes in a homeless population

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze the effect of clinical pharmacy services on health outcomes and medication adherence concerning hypertension and diabetes in the homeless population.

METHODS

This was a retrospective quasi-experimental study conducted between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016. The primary outcomes included median blood pressure and median glycosylated hemoglobin (A1C) change from baseline. The secondary end points included adherence to hypertension and diabetes medication, in addition to the differences in the number of admissions to urgent care clinics, emergency departments, or hospitals pre- and postpharmacist clinic visit.

RESULTS

One-hundred ninety-eight homeless patients were seen by a pharmacist over the study time frame, and 116 of these patients were included. There was a decrease in systolic and diastolic blood pressure in the 6-months postpharmacist visit (139 mm Hg vs. 135 mm Hg, P = 0.413, and 85 mm Hg vs. 82 mm Hg, P = 0.197, respectively). The percentage of patients who met the blood pressure goals increased from 55% to 66% (P = 0.093). A statistically significant decrease in A1C was found (7.7% vs 7.2%, P = 0.038). The number of patients who met the A1C goal increased from 20% to 41% (P = 0.267) after pharmacist intervention. No medication class was associated with a median proportion of days covered of 80% or greater. However, differences were seen with biguanides (34% vs. 43%, P = 0.004), calcium channel blockers (44% vs. 59%, P < 0.001), and thiazides (28% vs. 39%, P = 0.039) pre- and postintervention. There was no difference in the number of visits to emergency departments or urgent care clinics, or hospitalizations.

CONCLUSION

Homeless patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes who had at least 1 visit with a pharmacist showed some improved health outcomes. Statistically significant benefits were seen in diabetes management, but not for blood pressure control.

Prevalence and risk factors of drug-related hospitalizations in multimorbid patients admitted to an internal medicine ward

Background

Knowledge of risk factors for drug-related hospitalizations (DRHs) is limited.

Aim

To examine the prevalence of DRHs and the relationships between DRHs and various variables in multimorbid patients admitted to an internal medicine ward.

Methods

Multimorbid patients ≥ 18 years, using minimum of four regular drugs from minimum two therapeutic classes, were included from the Internal Medicine ward, Oslo University Hospital, Norway, from August 2014 to March 2016. Clinical pharmacists prospectively conducted medicines reconciliations and reviews to reveal drug-related problems (DRPs). Blinded for identified DRPs, an interdisciplinary group retrospectively made comprehensive, clinical assessments of each patient case to classify hospitalizations as drug-related (DRH) or non-drug-related (non-DRH). Age, sex distribution, Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), renal function, aberrant genotype frequencies, body-mass index, number of drugs, proportion of patients which received assistance for drug administration from the home care service, and/or through multidose-dispensed drugs, and occurrence of specific DRP subgroups, were compared separately between patients with DRHs versus non-DRHs, followed by multiple logistic regression analysis.

Results

Hospitalizations were classified as drug-related in 155 of the 404 included patients (38%). Factors significantly associated with DRHs were occurrence of adverse effect DRPs (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 3.3, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.4–8.0), adherence issues (OR 2.9, 1.1–7.2), home care (OR 1.9, 1.1–3.5), drug monitoring DRPs (OR 1.9, 1.2–3.0), and CCI score ≥6 (OR 0.33, 0.14–0.77). Frequencies of aberrant genotypes did not differ between the patient groups, but in 41 patients with DRHs (26.5%), gene-drug interactions influenced the assessments of DRHs.

Conclusion

DRHs are prevalent in multimorbid patients with adverse effect DRPs and adherence issues as the most important risk factors.

Multifaceted Pharmacist-led Interventions in the Hospital Setting: A Systematic Review

Clinical pharmacy services often comprise complex interventions. In this MiniReview, we conducted a systematic review aiming to evaluate the impact of multifaceted pharmacist-led interventions in a hospital setting. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library and CINAHL for peer-reviewed articles published from 2006 to 1 March 2018. Controlled trials concerning hospitalized patients in any setting receiving patient-related multifaceted pharmacist-led interventions were considered. All types of outcome were accepted. Inclusion and data extraction were performed. Study characteristics were collected, and risk of bias assessment was conducted utilizing the Cochrane Risk of Bias tools. All stages were conducted by at least two independent reviewers. The review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017075808). A total of 11,896 publications were identified, and 28 publications were included. Of these, 17 were conducted in Europe. Six of the included publications were multi-centre studies, and 16 were randomized trials. Usual care was the comparator. Significant results on quality of medication use were reported as positive in eleven studies (n = 18; 61%) and negative in one (n = 18, 6%). Hospital visits were reduced significantly in seven studies (n = 16; 44%). Four studies (n = 12; 33%) reported a positive significant effect on either length of stay or time to revisit, and one study reported a negative effect (n = 12; 6%). All studies investigating mortality (n = 6), patient-reported outcome (n = 7) and cost-effectiveness (n = 1) showed no significant results. This MiniReview indicates that multifaceted pharmacist-led interventions in a hospital setting may improve the quality of medication use and reduce hospital visits and length of stay, while no effect was seen on mortality, patient-reported outcome and cost-effectiveness.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 7 February 2018, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people aged 65 years and older, prescribed polypharmacy (four or more medicines), which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 32 studies, 20 from this update. Included studies consisted of 18 randomised trials, 10 cluster randomised trials (one of which was a stepped-wedge design), two non-randomised trials and two controlled before-after studies. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support (CDS); and 31 were complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical-care based approaches (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patient's outcomes), one of which incorporated a CDS component as part of their multi-faceted intervention. Interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists and geriatricians, and all were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low.It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool), mean difference (MD) -4.76, 95% CI -9.20 to -0.33; 5 studies, N = 517; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.05; 7 studies; N = 1832; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs, (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.02; 11 studies; N = 3079; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.81, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.64; 2 studies; N = 569; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPOs (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 5 studies; N = 1310; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in hospital admissions (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 4052; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in quality of life (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 3211; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in eight studies (N = 10,087) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as reviews of patients' prescriptions, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they may be slightly beneficial in terms of reducing potential prescribing omissions (PPOs); but this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias.

Professional, structural and organisational interventions in primary care for reducing medication errors

BACKGROUND

Medication-related adverse events in primary care represent an important cause of hospital admissions and mortality. Adverse events could result from people experiencing adverse drug reactions (not usually preventable) or could be due to medication errors (usually preventable).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of professional, organisational and structural interventions compared to standard care to reduce preventable medication errors by primary healthcare professionals that lead to hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and mortality in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and two trial registries on 4 October 2016, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We also searched several sources of grey literature.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials in which healthcare professionals provided community-based medical services. We also included interventions in outpatient clinics attached to a hospital where people are seen by healthcare professionals but are not admitted to hospital. We only included interventions that aimed to reduce medication errors leading to hospital admissions, emergency department visits, or mortality. We included all participants, irrespective of age, who were prescribed medication by a primary healthcare professional.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently extracted data. Each of the outcomes (hospital admissions, emergency department visits, and mortality), are reported in natural units (i.e. number of participants with an event per total number of participants at follow-up). We presented all outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE tool to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 studies (169,969 participants) in the review addressing various interventions to prevent medication errors; four studies addressed professional interventions (8266 participants) and 26 studies described organisational interventions (161,703 participants). We did not find any studies addressing structural interventions. Professional interventions included the use of health information technology to identify people at risk of medication problems, computer-generated care suggested and actioned by a physician, electronic notification systems about dose changes, drug interventions and follow-up, and educational interventions on drug use aimed at physicians to improve drug prescriptions. Organisational interventions included medication reviews by pharmacists, nurses or physicians, clinician-led clinics, and home visits by clinicians.There is a great deal of diversity in types of professionals involved and where the studies occurred. However, most (61%) of the interventions were conducted by pharmacists or a combination of pharmacists and medical doctors. The studies took place in many different countries; 65% took place in either the USA or the UK. They all ranged from three months to 4.7 years of follow-up, they all took place in primary care settings such as general practice, outpatients' clinics, patients' homes and aged-care facilities. The participants in the studies were adults taking medications and the interventions were undertaken by healthcare professionals including pharmacists, nurses or physicians. There was also evidence of potential bias in some studies, with only 18 studies reporting adequate concealment of allocation and only 12 studies reporting appropriate protection from contamination, both of which may have influenced the overall effect estimate and the overall pooled estimate. Professional interventionsProfessional interventions probably make little or no difference to the number of hospital admissions (risk ratio (RR) 1.24, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.96; 2 studies, 3889 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Professional interventions make little or no difference to the number of participants admitted to hospital (adjusted RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.06; 1 study, 3661 participants; high-certainty evidence). Professional interventions may make little or no difference to the number of emergency department visits (adjusted RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.02; 2 studies, 1067 participants; low-certainty evidence). Professional interventions probably make little or no difference to mortality in the study population (adjusted RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.17; 1 study, 3538 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Organisational interventionsOverall, it is uncertain whether organisational interventions reduce the number of hospital admissions (adjusted RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.03; 11 studies, 6203 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Overall, organisational interventions may make little difference to the total number of people admitted to hospital in favour of the intervention group compared with the control group (adjusted RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.99; 13 studies, 152,237 participants; low-certainty evidence. Overall, it is uncertain whether organisational interventions reduce the number of emergency department visits in favour of the intervention group compared with the control group (adjusted RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.15; 5 studies, 1819 participants; very low-certainty evidence. Overall, it is uncertain whether organisational interventions reduce mortality in favour of the intervention group (adjusted RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.03; 12 studies, 154,962 participants; very low-certainty evidence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on moderate- and low-certainty evidence, interventions in primary care for reducing preventable medication errors probably make little or no difference to the number of people admitted to hospital or the number of hospitalisations, emergency department visits, or mortality. The variation in heterogeneity in the pooled estimates means that our results should be treated cautiously as the interventions may not have worked consistently across all studies due to differences in how the interventions were provided, background practice, and culture or delivery of the interventions. Larger studies addressing both professional and organisational interventions are needed before evidence-based recommendations can be made. We did not identify any structural interventions and only four studies used professional interventions, and so more work needs to be done with these types of interventions. There is a need for high-quality studies describing the interventions in more detail and testing patient-related outcomes.

Drug-related problems and medication reviews among old people with dementia

BACKGROUND

Drug-related problems, including medication errors and adverse drug events, are common among old people. Due to, for example, greater susceptibility to side effects, people with dementia are even more at risk of drug-related problems. The objectives of this study were to assess the occurrence and character of drug-related problems found among old people with dementia or cognitive impairment.

METHODS

Data from a randomized controlled clinical trial exploring the effects of a pharmacist intervention as part of a hospital ward team in patients 65 years and older with dementia or cognitive impairment were used. The study was conducted between 2012 and 2014 in the orthopedic and medicine wards in two hospitals located in Northern Sweden. Drug-related problems identified in this patient group were classified and described, and associations with different factors were investigated.

RESULTS

Clinical pharmacists identified at least one DRP in 66% (140/212) of participants in the intervention group, for a total of 310 DRPs. Ineffective drug/inappropriate drug and unnecessary drug therapy were the most common drug-related problems. Discontinuation of drug therapy was the most common action carried out. Drug-related problems were more common among people prescribed a larger number of drugs and among people with an earlier stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug-related problems are common among people with dementia and cognitive impairment. Comprehensive medication reviews conducted by clinical pharmacists as part of a health care team might be important to prevent, identify and solve these problems.

Characterisation of Drug-Related Problems and Associated Factors at a Clinical Pharmacist Service-Naïve Hospital in Northern Sweden

Background

Polypharmacy and increased sensitivity to side effects cause adverse drug events, drug–drug interactions and medication errors in the elderly.

Objective

The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence and type of drug-related problems and associated factors among patients admitted to a clinical pharmacist service-naïve medical ward in an inland hospital in northern Sweden.

Methods

During September–November 2015 and February–April 2016, clinical pharmacists working as part of a ward team on the medical ward conducted 103 medication reviews. Drug-related problems were identified and classified. Associated factors, drug classes and specific drugs involved were also investigated.

Results

The clinical pharmacists identified 133 drug-related problems in 66% [68/103] of the study population. The most common drug-related problems in this study were inappropriate drug use and interactions. Cardiovascular drugs and psychotropic drugs were most commonly involved. Drug-related problems were more frequently observed at higher age, increasing number of drugs prescribed and in patients with reduced renal function. In the multivariate analysis, only the number of prescribed drugs was still significant.

Conclusion

Drug-related problems were commonly observed among patients admitted to the medical ward. Medication reviews conducted by clinical pharmacists as part of a ward team resulted in several interventions to improve the patients’ drug treatment.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing and associated factors in elderly patients at hospital discharge in Brazil: a cross-sectional study

Background The Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions/Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (STOPP/START) criteria is used to identify instances of potentially inappropriate prescribing in a patient's medication regimen. Objective To determine the prevalence and predictors of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) among elderly patients at hospital discharge. Setting A university hospital medical clinic in Brazil. Method Discharge prescriptions were examined using the STOPP/START criteria. Subjects were inpatients aged ≥60 years receiving at least one medication prior to hospitalization and with a history of cardiovascular disease. The prevalence of PIMs and PPOs was determined and a multivariable binary regression analysis was performed to identify independent predictors associated with PIMs or PPOs. Main outcome measure Prevalence of PIMs and PPOs. Results Of the 230 subjects, 13.9% were prescribed at least one PIM. The most frequently prescribed PIMs were glibenclamide or chlorpropamide prescribed for type 2 diabetes mellitus (31.0%), and aspirin at doses >150 mg/day (14.3%). Ninety patients had at least one PPO (39.1%). The most prevalent PPOs were statins (29.8%) and antiplatelet therapy (13.7%) for diabetes mellitus when coexisting major cardiovascular risk factors were present. No predictors for PIMs were found. In contrast, diabetes was a risk factor while dyslipidaemia was a protective factor for PPOs. Conclusion PIMs and PPOs commonly occur with elderly people at hospital discharge. Diabetes and dyslipidaemia were significantly associated with PPOs. Our findings show the need for interventions to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing, such as a pharmacist medication review process at hospital discharge.

Long-Term Outcomes of Medication Intervention Using the Screening Tool of Older Persons Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions Screening Tool to Alert Doctors to Right Treatment Criteria

OBJECTIVES

To compare 24-month outcomes of participants of a prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) assigned to undergo a medication intervention of orally communicated recommendations based on Screening Tool of Older Persons potentially inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) and Screening Tool to Alert Doctors to Right Treatment (START) (intervention group) with outcomes of those assigned to undergo written medication review (control group).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Chronic care geriatric facility.

PARTICIPANTS

Of 359 participants from a prospective RCT conducted between April 2012 and September 2013, 306 were evaluable for another 12-month follow-up.

MEASUREMENTS

Outcomes at 24-month follow-up included quality of prescribing (assessed according to STOPP/START), hospitalizations, falls, costs of medications, and all-cause mortality. Outcomes were compared with those reported at the beginning (baseline) and end (12-month follow-up) of the RCT.

RESULTS

There was a significant rise in potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) (P = .01) and potentially prescriptions omissions (PPOs) (P < .001) in the intervention group between 12 and 24 months, although the prevalence of PIPs was significantly lower in the intervention group (33.3%) than the control group (48.4%) at 24-month follow-up (P = .02). Costs of medications were significantly lower in the intervention group than the control group (P < .001) at 24-month follow-up. The average number of falls in both groups dropped significantly between baseline and study closure (P = .04 and P = .008, respectively). There was no significant difference in hospitalizations and mortality between the two groups at 24-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The effect of an orally communicated medication intervention with the STOPP/START criteria on falls was maintained over time. Direct communication between pharmacists and prescribing physicians is more efficient than written medication review and is recommended every 6 months in geriatric facilities.

A Systematic Review of Opioid and Benzodiazepine Misuse in Older Adults

OBJECTIVE

The authors assessed the prevalence of opioid and benzodiazepine prescription drug misuse in older adults, the risk factors associated with misuse, and age-appropriate interventions.

METHODS

Following PRISMA guidelines, a literature search of PubMed, PsycINFO, and EMBASE for peer-reviewed journal articles in English through April 2014 with updates through November 2015 was conducted for reports on misuse of prescription benzodiazepines and opioids in older adults. Relevant publications were reviewed that included participants age ≥65 years. Reference lists were manually searched for key identified articles and geriatric journals through April 2016. Information on the study design, sample, intervention, comparators, outcome, time frame, and risk of bias were abstracted for each article.

RESULTS

Of 4,932 reviewed reports, 15 were included in this systematic review. Thirteen studies assessed the prevalence of prescription drug misuse and included studies related to opioid shopping behavior, assessment of morbidity and mortality associated with opioid and/or benzodiazepine use, frequency and characteristics of opioid prescribing, frequency of substance use disorders and nonprescription use of pain relievers, and health conditions and experiences of long-term benzodiazepine users. One study identified risk factors for misuse, and one study described the effects of provider education and an electronic support tool as an intervention.

CONCLUSION

There is a dearth of high quality research on prescription drug misuse in older adults. Existing studies are heterogeneous, making it difficult to draw broad conclusions. The need for further research specific to prescription drug misuse among older adults is discussed.

The impact of pharmaceutical care interventions for medication underuse in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

The aim of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis of controlled trials assessing the impact of pharmaceutical care interventions (e.g. medication reviews) on medication underuse in older patients (≥65 years).

METHODS

The databases MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for controlled studies, and data on interventions, patient characteristics and exposure, and outcome assessment were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's 'risk of bias' table. Results from reported outcomes were synthesized in multivariate random effects meta-analysis, subgroup meta-analysis and meta-regression.

RESULTS

From 954 identified articles, nine controlled studies, mainly comprising a medication review, were included (2542 patients). These interventions were associated with significant reductions in the mean number of omitted drugs per patient (estimate from six studies with 1469 patients: - 0.44; 95% confidence interval -0.61, -0.26) and the proportion of patients with ≥1 omitted drugs (odds ratio from eight studies with 1833 patients: 0.29; 95% confidence interval 0.13, 0.63). The only significant influential factor for improving success was the utilization of explicit screening instruments when conducting a medication review (P = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

Pharmaceutical care interventions, including medication reviews, can significantly reduce medication underuse in older people. The use of explicit screening instruments alone or in combination with implicit reasoning is strongly recommendable for clinical practice.