Design of a randomized trial of a multidisciplinary intervention for knee osteoarthritis: Pharmacist Initiated Intervention Trial in Osteoarthritis (PhIT-OA)

Pharmacist services for non-hospitalised patients

BACKGROUND

This review focuses on non-dispensing services from pharmacists, i.e. pharmacists in community, primary or ambulatory-care settings, to non-hospitalised patients, and is an update of a previously-published Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the effect of pharmacists' non-dispensing services on non-hospitalised patient outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trial registers in March 2015, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We included non-English language publications. We ran top-up searches in January 2018 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Studies awaiting classification'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials of pharmacist services compared with the delivery of usual care or equivalent/similar services with the same objective delivered by other health professionals.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures of Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. Two review authors independently checked studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risks of bias. We evaluated the overall certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 116 trials comprising 111 trials (39,729 participants) comparing pharmacist interventions with usual care and five trials (2122 participants) comparing pharmacist services with services from other healthcare professionals. Of the 116 trials, 76 were included in meta-analyses. The 40 remaining trials were not included in the meta-analyses because they each reported unique outcome measures which could not be combined. Most trials targeted chronic conditions and were conducted in a range of settings, mostly community pharmacies and hospital outpatient clinics, and were mainly but not exclusively conducted in high-income countries. Most trials had a low risk of reporting bias and about 25%-30% were at high risk of bias for performance, detection, and attrition. Selection bias was unclear for about half of the included studies.Compared with usual care, we are uncertain whether pharmacist services reduce the percentage of patients outside the glycated haemoglobin target range (5 trials, N = 558, odds ratio (OR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 2.22; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may reduce the percentage of patients whose blood pressure is outside the target range (18 trials, N = 4107, OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.55; low-certainty evidence) and probably lead to little or no difference in hospital attendance or admissions (14 trials, N = 3631, OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.11; moderate-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may make little or no difference to adverse drug effects (3 trials, N = 590, OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.24) and may slightly improve physical functioning (7 trials, N = 1329, mean difference (MD) 5.84, 95% CI 1.21 to 10.48; low-certainty evidence). Pharmacist services may make little or no difference to mortality (9 trials, N = 1980, OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.12, low-certaintly evidence).Of the five studies that compared services delivered by pharmacists with other health professionals, no studies evaluated the impact of the intervention on the percentage of patients outside blood pressure or glycated haemoglobin target range, hospital attendance and admission, adverse drug effects, or physical functioning.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The results demonstrate that pharmacist services have varying effects on patient outcomes compared with usual care. We found no studies comparing services delivered by pharmacists with other healthcare professionals that evaluated the impact of the intervention on the six main outcome measures. The results need to be interpreted cautiously because there was major heterogeneity in study populations, types of interventions delivered and reported outcomes.There was considerable heterogeneity within many of the meta-analyses, as well as considerable variation in the risks of bias.

Responsiveness of health state utility values in knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

Adaptive tests are increasingly being used to assess health-related quality of life in patients with a variety of medical conditions, including osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee. This approach has recently been used to assess health state utility valuations (HSUV) for use in quality-adjusted life-year calculations. To accurately assess incremental value for money, these tools must be responsive. Therefore, we examined the responsiveness of the Health Utilities Index mark 3 (HUI3) and Paper Adaptive Test-5D (PAT-5DQOL) in a group of patients with knee OA.

METHODS

We used patient-level data from a randomized controlled trial evaluating a pharmacist-initiated multidisciplinary intervention in newly diagnosed patients with knee OA. The mean change for utility scores from baseline to 6 months was calculated, as well as effect size (ES) and standardized response mean (SRM) for the HUI3 and PAT-5DQOL, and generalized additive model plots, using the Western Ontario and McMaster Osteoarthritis index as a reference standard.

RESULTS

When patients were assessed based on whether their condition had improved, remained unchanged, or worsened over time, the PAT-5DQOL showed greater responsiveness in patients whose condition had either improved or worsened. ES and SRM were generally small for both instruments.

CONCLUSION

The PAT-5DQOL is more responsive to change over time than the HUI3 in patients with knee OA.

Pharmacist-initiated intervention trial in osteoarthritis: a multidisciplinary intervention for knee osteoarthritis

OBJECTIVE

Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is a commonly undiagnosed condition and care is often not provided. Pharmacists are uniquely placed for launching a multidisciplinary intervention for knee OA.

METHODS

We performed a cluster randomized controlled trial with pharmacies providing either intervention care or usual care (14 and 18 pharmacies, respectively). The intervention included a validated knee OA screening questionnaire, education, pain medication management, physiotherapy-guided exercise, and communication with the primary care physician. Usual care consisted of an educational pamphlet. The primary outcome was the pass rate on the Arthritis Foundation's quality indicators for OA. Secondary outcomes included the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the Lower Extremity Function Scale (LEFS), the Paper Adaptive Test-5D (PAT-5D), and the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 (HUI3).

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-nine patients were assigned to the control (n = 66) and intervention (n = 73) groups. There were no differences between the groups in baseline measures. The overall quality indicator pass rate was significantly higher in the intervention arm compared to the control arm (difference of 45.2%; 95% confidence interval 34.5, 55.9). Significant improvements were observed for the intervention care group as compared to the usual care group in the WOMAC global, pain, and function scores at 3 and 6 months (all P < 0.01); the PAT-5D daily activity scores at 3 and 6 months (both P < 0.05); the PAT-5D pain scores at 6 months (P = 0.05); the HUI3 single-attribute pain scores at 3 and 6 months (all P < 0.05); and the LEFS scores at 6 months (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Pharmacists can launch a multidisciplinary intervention to identify knee OA cases, improve the utilization of treatments, and improve function, pain, and quality of life.