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.     

Oral antineoplastic agents: how do we care about adherence?

AimsOral therapies, including hormone‐based or targeted therapies, have recently taken an increasing place in cancer treatment. In this context, a state of the art of the available studies dealing with the adherence of adult patients to oral anticancer treatment is warranted. The purpose of this review is to address (i) the association between assessment methods and measured adherence, (ii) the putative factors related to adherence and (iii) new ways of improving adherence to oral cancer therapies.MethodsWe conducted a literature‐based narrative review of studies obtained from Pubmed using medical subject heading terms and free‐text terms combining concepts related to oral anticancer medication and adherence.ResultsThe analysis is based on 48 studies published since 1990, mostly assessing hormone‐based therapy in breast cancer and targeted therapies in chronic myeloid leukaemia. Various methods of adherence were reported including self‐report, medication measurement or combinations of methods. Adherence rates were found to vary from 14% to 100%. Beside patient related‐factors, adherence rate discrepancies were found to be dependent on the method used. Furthermore, there was no consensual definition of adherence even regarding the same methods, some of them tolerating a period of interruption during the treatment period. Finally, several studies addressing persistence found a progressive decrease in adherence with time.ConclusionAdherence to novel oral therapies is a major issue and further research is warranted to standardize adherence assessment in clinical studies better and to define better the most appropriate approaches to improve long term adherence in oncology practice.     

Contribution of rivaroxaban to the international normalized ratio when switching to warfarin for anticoagulation as determined by simulation studies

Aim

This study evaluated the influence of rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily on international normalized ratio (INR) during the co-administration period when switching from rivaroxaban to warfarin.

Methods

We developed a calibrated coagulation model that was qualified with phase I clinical data. Prothrombin time and INR values were simulated by use of phospholipid concentrations that matched Neoplastin Plus® and Innovin® reagents. To simulate the combined effects of rivaroxaban and warfarin on INR during switching, warfarin initiation was simulated by adjusting the magnitude of the warfarin effect to reach the desired target INRs over the course of 21 days. The warfarin effect values (obtained every 6 h) and the desired rivaroxaban plasma concentrations were used. Nomograms were generated from rivaroxaban induced increases in INR.

Results

The simulation had good prediction quality. Rivaroxaban induced increases in the total INR from the warfarin attributed INR were seen, which increased with rivaroxaban plasma concentration. When the warfarin only INR was 2.0–3.0, the INR contribution of rivaroxaban with Neoplastin Plus® was 0.5–1.2, decreasing to 0.3–0.6 with Innovin® at median trough rivaroxaban plasma concentrations (38 μg l⁻¹).

Conclusions

The data indicate that measuring warfarin induced changes in INR are best performed at trough rivaroxaban concentrations (24 h after rivaroxaban dosing) during the co-administration period when switching from rivaroxaban to warfarin. Furthermore, Innovin® is preferable to Neoplastin Plus® because of its substantially lower sensitivity to rivaroxaban, thereby reducing the influence of rivaroxaban on the measured INR.     

Impact of Statin Adherence on Cardiovascular Morbidity and All-Cause Mortality in the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease: A Population-Based Cohort Study in Finland

ObjectivesTo assess the extent to which adherence to statins is associated with the incidence of cardiovascular (CV) events and all-cause mortality in the primary prevention of CV diseases and whether different analytical approaches influence the observed associations.MethodsThis population-based cohort study used data from Finnish registers. The cohort included 97,575 new statin users aged 45 to 75 years in 2001 to 2004 with no CV diseases at baseline. Exposure was defined as adherence to statins (proportion of days covered [PDC]). The primary outcome was any CV event or death during a 3-year follow-up. Different analytical approaches, including multivariable-adjusted Cox regression, inverse probability weighting with time-varying adherence, and propensity score calibration, were used.ResultsDuring the first year of follow-up, 53% displayed good (PDC ≥80%), 26% had intermediate (PDC 40%–79%), and 21% exhibited poor (PDC <40%) adherence. After adjustment for sociodemographic and clinical covariates, a 25% relative risk reduction (hazard ratio [HR] 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71–0.79) was observed in the rate of any CV event or death among good versus poor adherers. Good adherers also had a lower incidence than poor adherers of acute coronary syndrome (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.49–0.65) and acute cerebrovascular disease events (HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.60–0.76). The different analytical approaches achieved comparable results for all the outcomes.ConclusionsThe incidence of CV events and mortality was higher in poor versus good adherers. Different analytical methods that took into account changes in adherence and confounding at baseline did not appreciably affect the results.     

Patient participation in medication safety during an acute care admission

Background

Patient participation in medication management during hospitalization is thought to reduce medication errors and, following discharge, improve adherence and therapeutic use of medications. There is, however, limited understanding of how patients participate in their medication management while hospitalized.

Objective

To explore patient participation in the context of medication management during a hospital admission for a cardiac surgical intervention of patients with cardiovascular disease.

Design

Single institution, case study design. The unit of analysis was a cardiothoracic ward of a major metropolitan, tertiary referral hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Multiple methods of data collection were used including pre‐admission and pre‐discharge patient interviews (n = 98), naturalistic observations (n = 48) and focus group interviews (n = 2).

Results

All patients had changes made to their pre‐operative cardiovascular medications as a consequence of surgery. More patients were able to list and state the purpose and side‐effects of their cardiovascular medications at pre‐admission than prior to discharge from hospital. There was very little evidence that nurses used opportunities such as medication administration times to engage patients in medication management during hospital admission.

Discussion and Conclusions

Failure to engage patients in medication management and provide opportunities for patients to learn about changes to their medications has implications for the quality and safety of care patients receive in hospital and when managing their medications once discharged. To increase the opportunity for patients to participate in medication management, a fundamental shift in the way nurses currently provide care is required.