Eline Tommelein

Effectiveness of pharmaceutical care for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (PHARMACOP): a randomized controlled trial

AIMS Few well-designed randomized controlled trials have been conducted regarding the impact of community pharmacist interventions on pharmacotherapeutic monitoring of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We assessed the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical care programme for patients with COPD. METHODS The pharmaceutical care for patients with COPD (PHARMACOP) trial is a single-blind 3 month randomized controlled trial, conducted in 170 community pharmacies in Belgium, enrolling patients prescribed daily COPD medication, aged ≥ 50 years and with a smoking history of ≥ 10 pack-years. A computer-generated randomization sequence allocated patients to an intervention group (n = 371), receiving protocol-defined pharmacist care, or a control group (n = 363), receiving usual pharmacist care (1:1 ratio, stratified by centre). Interventions focusing on inhalation technique and adherence to maintenance therapy were carried out at start of the trial and at 1 month follow-up. Primary outcomes were inhalation technique and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes were exacerbation rate, dyspnoea, COPD-specific and generic health status and smoking behaviour. RESULTS From December 2010 to April 2011, 734 patients were enrolled. Forty-two patients (5.7%) were lost to follow-up. At the end of the trial, inhalation score [mean estimated difference (Δ),13.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 10.8-16.1; P < 0.0001] and medication adherence (Δ, 8.51%; 95% CI, 4.63-12.4; P < 0.0001) were significantly higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. In the intervention group, a significantly lower hospitalization rate was observed (9 vs. 35; rate ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.64; P = 0.003). No other significant between-group differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS Pragmatic pharmacist care programmes improve the pharmacotherapeutic regimen in patients with COPD and could reduce hospitalization rates.

Effectiveness of PHARMAceutical care for patients with COPD (PHARMACOP): a randomized controlled trial

AIMS Few well-designed randomized controlled trials have been conducted regarding the impact of community pharmacist interventions on pharmacotherapeutic monitoring of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We assessed the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical care programme for patients with COPD. METHODS The pharmaceutical care for patients with COPD (PHARMACOP) trial is a single-blind 3 month randomized controlled trial, conducted in 170 community pharmacies in Belgium, enrolling patients prescribed daily COPD medication, aged ≥ 50 years and with a smoking history of ≥ 10 pack-years. A computer-generated randomization sequence allocated patients to an intervention group (n = 371), receiving protocol-defined pharmacist care, or a control group (n = 363), receiving usual pharmacist care (1:1 ratio, stratified by centre). Interventions focusing on inhalation technique and adherence to maintenance therapy were carried out at start of the trial and at 1 month follow-up. Primary outcomes were inhalation technique and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes were exacerbation rate, dyspnoea, COPD-specific and generic health status and smoking behaviour. RESULTS From December 2010 to April 2011, 734 patients were enrolled. Forty-two patients (5.7%) were lost to follow-up. At the end of the trial, inhalation score [mean estimated difference (Δ),13.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 10.8-16.1; P < 0.0001] and medication adherence (Δ, 8.51%; 95% CI, 4.63-12.4; P < 0.0001) were significantly higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. In the intervention group, a significantly lower hospitalization rate was observed (9 vs. 35; rate ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.64; P = 0.003). No other significant between-group differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS Pragmatic pharmacist care programmes improve the pharmacotherapeutic regimen in patients with COPD and could reduce hospitalization rates.

Accuracy of the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-5) as a Quantitative Measure of Adherence to Inhalation Medication in Patients With COPD:

Background: Self-report is considered most suitable to measure medication adherence in routine clinical practice. However, accuracy of self-report as a quantitative measure of adherence is not well documented. Objective: To assess the accuracy of a self-report measure of adherence (Medication Adherence Report Scale [MARS-5]) for identifying nonadherent users of inhalation medication among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), compared with medication refill adherence (MRA) as reference. Methods: We used baseline data from the Pharmaceutical Care for Patients with COPD (PHARMACOP)-trial (n = 734). Patients with incomplete MARS-5 and/or incomplete pharmacy refill records were excluded (n = 121). Internal consistency of MARS-5 (Crohnbach α) and Spearman rank correlation (ρ) with MRA were calculated. Different thresholds for nonadherence were used to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV), compared with dichotomized MRA (MRA ≥80% = adherent). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted to determine the goodness of test. Results: 613 patients were included in the analysis. The mean adherence score by MARS-5 (range = 5-25) was 23.5 (SD = 2.6); mean adherence by MRA was 83.4% (SD = 23.8%). Internal consistency of MARS-5 was high (α = 0.77). Continuous MARS-5 scores correlated poorly with continuous MRA scores (ρ = 0.10; P = 0.011). When lowering the nonadherence threshold stepwise from 25 to 20, MARS-5 did not reach sufficient sensitivity (53% to 13%), specificity (57% to 94%), and PPV (42% to 57%) to detect nonadherers compared with dichotomized MRA. ROC curve plotting resulted in an area under the curve value of 0.56 (95% CI = 0.521-0.616; P = 0.005). Conclusion: Self-reported adherence measured by MARS-5 is inaccurate in identifying nonadherence to inhalation medication in patients with COPD.

Older patients' prescriptions screening in the community pharmacy: development of the Ghent Older People's Prescriptions community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP³S) tool

BACKGROUND Ageing of the population often leads to polypharmacy. Consequently, potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) becomes more frequent. Systematic screening for PIP in older patients in primary care could yield a large improvement in health outcomes, possibly an important task for community pharmacists. In this article, we develop an explicit screening tool to detect relevant PIP that can be used in the typical community pharmacy practice, adapted to the European market. METHODS Eleven panellists participated in a two-round RAND/UCLA (Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles) process, including a round zero meeting, a literature review, a first written evaluation round, a second face-to-face evaluation round and, finally, a selection of those items that are applicable in the contemporary community pharmacy. RESULTS Eighteen published lists of PIP for older patients were retrieved from the literature, mentioning 398 different items. After the two-round RAND/UCLA process, 99 clinically relevant items were considered suitable to screen for in a community pharmacy practice. A panel of seven community pharmacists selected 83 items, feasible in the contemporary community pharmacy practice, defining the final GheOP³S tool. CONCLUSION A novel explicit screening tool (GheOP³S) was developed to be used for PIP screening in the typical community pharmacy practice.

Community pharmacists' evaluation of potentially inappropriate prescribing in older community-dwelling patients with polypharmacy: observational research based on the GheOP³S tool

Background In this study, we aimed to (i) determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in community‐dwelling older polypharmacy patients using the Ghent Older Peoples Prescriptions community‐Pharmacy Screening (GheOP3S) tool, (ii) identify the items that account for the highest proportion of PIP and (iii) identify the patient variables that may influence the occurrence of PIP. Additionally, pharmacist‐physician contacts emerging from PIP screening with the GheOP3S tool and feasibility of the GheOP3S tool in daily practice were evaluated. Methods A prospective observational study was carried out between December 2013 and July 2014 in 204 community pharmacies in Belgium. Patients were eligible if they were (i) ≥70 years, (ii) community‐dwelling, (iii) using ≥5 chronic drugs, (iv) a regular visitor of the pharmacy and (v) understanding Dutch or French. Community pharmacists used a structured interview to obtain demographic data and medication use and subsequently screened for PIP using the GheOP3S tool. A Poisson regression was used to investigate the association between different covariates and the number of PIP. Results In 987 (97%) of 1016 included patients, 3721 PIP items were detected (median of 3 per patient; inter quartile range: 2‐5). Most frequently involved with PIP are drugs for the central nervous system such as hypnosedatives, antipsychotics and antidepressants. Risk factors for a higher PIP prevalence appeared to be a higher number of drugs (30% extra PIPs per 5 extra drugs), female gender (20% extra PIPs), higher body mass index (BMI, 20% extra PIPs per 10‐unit increase in BMI) and poorer functional status (30% extra PIPs with 6‐point increase). The feasibility of the GheOP3S tool was acceptable although digitalization of the tool would improve implementation. Despite detecting at least one PIP in 987 patients, only 39 physicians were contacted by the community pharmacists to discuss the items. Conclusion A high prevalence of PIP in community‐dwelling older polypharmacy patients in Belgium was detected which urges for interventions to reduce PIP.

The Introduction of a Full Medication Review Process in a Local Hospital: Successes and Barriers of a Pilot Project in the Geriatric Ward

For the majority of Belgian hospitals, a pharmacist-led full medication review process is not standard care and, therefore, challenging to introduce. With this study, we aimed to evaluate the successes and barriers of the implementation of a pharmacist-led full medication review process in the geriatric ward at a local Belgian hospital. To this end, we carried out an interventional study, performing a full medication review on older patients (≥70 years) with polypharmacy (≥5 drugs) who had an unplanned admission to the geriatric ward. The process consisted of 3 steps: (1) medication reconciliation upon admission; (2) medication review using an explicit reviewing tool (STOPP/START criteria or GheOP3S tool), followed by a discussion between the pharmacist and the geriatrician; and (3) medication reconciliation upon discharge. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethical Commission of the Ghent University Hospital. Outcomes included objective data on the interventions (e.g., number of drug discrepancies; number of potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP)); as well as subjective experiences (e.g., satisfaction with service; opinion on inter-professional communication). There was a special focus on communication aspects within the introduction of this process. In total, 52 patients were included in the study, taking a median of 10 drugs (IQR 8–12). Upon admission, 122 drug discrepancies were detected. During medication review, 254 PIPs were detected and discussed, leading to an improvement in the appropriateness of medication use. The satisfaction of community pharmacists concerning additional communication and the satisfaction of the patients after counselling at discharge were positive. However, several barriers were encountered, such as the time-consuming process to gather necessary information from different sources, the non-continuity of the service due to the lack of trained personnel or the lack of safe, electronic platforms to share information. The communicative and non-communicative successes and hurdles encountered during this project need to be addressed in order to improve the full medication review process and to strengthen the role of the clinical pharmacist.

Deprescribing in nursing homes is safe and should be pursued

Commentary on: Wouters H, Scheper J, Koning H, et al . Discontinuing inappropriate medication use in nursing home residents: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2017;167:609–617. Polypharmacy and associated inappropriate medication (IM) use is a well-known problem in nursing home patients.1 The evidence that the discontinuation of specific medications (deprescribing) in older patients does not worsen outcomes and decreases adverse drug events and medication costs is growing. Research considering deprescribing of antihypertensives, antipsychotics and antidepressants has been performed.2 3 However, results …

Development and Application of the GheOP 3 S-Tool Addendum on Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing (PIP) of Renally Excreted Active Drugs (READs) in Older Adults with Polypharmacy

BackgroundRenal function progressively worsens with age. Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) of renally excreted active drugs (READs) is common in older adults, leading to an increased rate of iatrogenic illness. The Ghent Older People’s Prescription community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP3S-) tool is an effective, explicit instrument that was developed for community pharmacists (CPs) to detect PIP. So far, this tool does not assess PIP of the frequently used READs in older patients with renal impairment.ObjectivesThis study aimed to expand the GheOP3S-tool with the first addendum to screen for PIP of frequently used READs, and to perform a cross-sectional analysis using the addendum and the medication history of a group of older adults with polypharmacy.MethodsThe addendum was developed in three steps: (1) collection of individual and combined READs, (2) collection of dose-adjustment recommendations, and (3) expert panel evaluation. Consequently, the addendum was applied retrospectively on the medication list of 60 older adults with polypharmacy and with four renal function-estimating equations.ResultsThe addendum includes 61 READs recommendations for dose/drug-adjustment alternatives, laboratory test follow-ups, and patients’ referral to specialists’ care. In the cross-sectional analysis, 35–78% of patients were diagnosed with renal impairment, depending on the equations used for renal function estimation. Among patients with renal impairment, 21–46% of the prescribed READs were deemed potentially inappropriate by the GheOP3S-tool addendum.ConclusionThe GheOP3S-tool was expanded with an addendum on PIP of READs in renal impairment for older patients. The cross-sectional analysis using the addendum suggests that PIP of READs is common in older patients with polypharmacy and renal impairment. Using this addendum, CPs might contribute to diminishing PIP of READs.

Medicatienazicht bij patiënten met polyfarmacie

SamenvattingZowel in België als in Europa wordt het aantal personen ouder dan 65 jaar alsmaar groter. Recente cijfers geven aan dat ongeveer 20% van de totale populatie ouder is dan 65 jaar, wat in België neerkomt op ruim twee miljoen oudere personen.1