Peter Noyce

Hospital admissions associated with adverse drug reactions: A systematic review of prospective observational studies

Objective: To determine the prevalence of hospital admissions associated with ADRs and examine differences in prevalence rates between population groups and methods of ADR detection. Data Sources: Studies were identified through electronic searches of Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Hearth Literature. EMBASE, and MEDLINE to August 2007. There were no language restrictions. Study Selection and Data Extraction: A systematic review was conducted of prospective observational studies that used the World Health Organization ADR definition. Subgroup analysis examined the influence of patient age groups and methods of ADR detection on reported ADR admission rates. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA v 9.0. Data Synthesis: Twenty-five studies were identified including 106, 586 patients who were hospitalized; 2143 of these patients had experienced ADRs. The prevalence rates of ADRs ranged from 0.16% to 15.7%, with an overall median of 5.3% (interquartile range [IQR] 2.7–9.0%). Median ADR prevalence rates varied between age groups: for children, the ADR admission rate was 4.1% (IQR 0.16–5.3%), while the corresponding rates for adults and elderly patients were 6.3% (IQR 3.9–9.0%) and 10.7% (IQR 9.6–13.3%), respectively. ADR rates also varied depending on the methods of ADR detection employed in the different studies. Studies that employed multiple ADR detection methods, such as medical record review and patient interview, reported higher ADR admission rates compared with studies that used medical record review alone. Antiinfective drugs were most often associated with ADR admissions in children; cardiovascular drugs were most often associated with ADR admissions in adults and elderly patients. Conclusions: Approximately 5.3% of hospital admissions were associated with ADRs. Higher rates were found in elderly patients who are likely to be receiving multiple medications for long-term illnesses. The methods used to detect ADRs are also likely to explain much of the variation in the reported ADR prevalence rates between different studies.

Persistence with anti-tumour necrosis factor therapies in patients with psoriatic arthritis: Observational study from the British Society of Rheumatology Biologics Register

IntroductionAnti-TNF therapies represent a breakthrough in the treatment of severe psoriatic arthritis. However, little is known about long-term drug persistence with these treatments in patients with psoriatic arthritis in routine clinical practice. The aim of this study was to assess persistence with first-course and second-course treatment with anti-TNF agents in a prospective cohort of psoriatic arthritis patients and to identify factors associated with and reasons for drug discontinuation.MethodsA total of 566 patients with psoriatic arthritis were registered with the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (first anti-TNF agent: etanercept, n = 316; infliximab, n = 162; and adalimumab, n = 88). Treating physicians completed 6-monthly follow-up questionnaires detailing changes to anti-TNF therapies. Persistence with treatment was examined using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis. Reasons for withdrawal were classified as due to inefficacy, adverse events or other reasons. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard models were developed to examine potential predictors of withdrawals due to inefficacy or adverse events, using a range of demographic, baseline disease-specific and therapeutic variables.ResultsAt baseline, the mean (standard deviation) age of patients was 45.7 (11.1) years, 53% were female and the mean disease duration was 12.4 (8.7) years. Persistence data were available for a mean (standard deviation) follow-up of 2.3 (0.9) person-years. In total, 422 patients had completed at least 12 months of follow-up, 75.5% of whom remained on their first anti-TNF drug while 9.5% discontinued due to inefficacy, 10.0% due to adverse events and 5.0% due to other reasons. During the period of follow-up, 178 patients received a second anti-TNF therapy. The survivor function on second anti-TNF for switchers was 74% at 12 months.ConclusionsPsoriatic arthritis patients show high persistence rates with both initial and second anti-TNF therapies.

Efficacy and safety of anti-TNF therapies in psoriatic arthritis: an observational study from the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register

Objectives. To evaluate the risk–benefit profile of anti-TNF therapies in PsA and to study the predictors of treatment response and disease remission [disease activity score (DAS)-28 < 2.6]. Methods. The study included PsA patients (n = 596) registered with the British Society for Rheumatology Biologics Register (BSRBR). Response was assessed using the European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) improvement criteria. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression models were developed to examine factors associated with EULAR response and disease remission using a range of covariates. Poisson regression was used to calculate incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for serious adverse events (SAEs) vs seronegative RA controls receiving DMARDs, adjusting for age, sex and baseline co-morbidity. Results. At baseline, the mean (s.d.) DAS-28 was 6.4 (5.6). Of the patients, 70.3% were EULAR responders at 12 months. At 6 months, older patients [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.97 per year; 95% CI 0.95, 0.99], females (adjusted OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.34, 0.78) and patients on corticosteroids (adjusted OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.28, 0.72) were less likely to achieve a EULAR response. Over 1776.2 person-years of follow-up (median 3.07 per person), the IRR of SAEs compared with controls was not increased (0.9; 95% CI 0.8, 1.3). Conclusions. Anti-TNF therapies have a good response rate in PsA, and have an adverse event profile similar to that seen in a control cohort of patients with seronegative arthritis receiving DMARD therapy.

From "retailers" to health care providers : Transforming the role of community pharmacists in chronic disease management

Community pharmacists are the third largest healthcare professional group in the world after physicians and nurses. Despite their considerable training, community pharmacists are the only health professionals who are not primarily rewarded for delivering health care and hence are under-utilized as public health professionals. An emerging consensus among academics, professional organizations, and policymakers is that community pharmacists, who work outside of hospital settings, should adopt an expanded role in order to contribute to the safe, effective, and efficient use of drugs-particularly when caring for people with multiple chronic conditions. Community pharmacists could help to improve health by reducing drug-related adverse events and promoting better medication adherence, which in turn may help in reducing unnecessary provider visits, hospitalizations, and readmissions while strengthening integrated primary care delivery across the health system. This paper reviews recent strategies to expand the role of community pharmacists in Australia, Canada, England, the Netherlands, Scotland, and the United States. The developments achieved or under way in these countries carry lessons for policymakers world-wide, where progress thus far in expanding the role of community pharmacists has been more limited. Future policies should focus on effectively integrating community pharmacists into primary care; developing a shared vision for different levels of pharmacist services; and devising new incentive mechanisms for improving quality and outcomes.

The challenge of integrating community pharmacists into the primary health care team: A case study of local pharmaceutical services (LPS) pilots and interprofessional collaboration

The aim of this paper is to investigate interprofessional collaboration between general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists involved in the delivery of enhanced pharmacy services under the local pharmaceutical services (LPS) contract in England. Previous research suggests that a number of interprofessional barriers exist between community pharmacists and GPs which hinders the integration of community pharmacists into the primary health care team (PHCT). One of the aims of the LPS contract, introduced in England in 2002 as an alternative to national contractual arrangements, was to enable pharmacists to work more closely with other health care professionals. A two-stage survey was distributed to all pharmacists involved in the first wave of LPS and in-depth interviews undertaken with pharmacists and GPs at six of the LPS sites. Overall the level to which the LPS pharmacists felt integrated into the PHCT did not substantially increase with the introduction of LPS, although co-location was reported to have facilitated integration. New relationships were formed with GPs and existing ones strengthened. A good existing working relationship with GPs was found to be an important factor in the successful operation of the pilots as many were dependent on GPs for patient referrals. The findings suggest that establishing interprofessional collaboration between GPs and pharmacists is a piecemeal process, with a reliance on goodwill and trust-based relationships.

Providing Patient Care Through Community Pharmacies in the UK: Policy, Practice, and Research

Objective: To describe the provision of patient services through community pharmacies in the UK, with particular reference to England, and to explore the research evidence and policy developments for enhancing the contribution of community pharmacy to primary care and public health. Findings: In the UK, National Health Service (NHS) pharmaceutical services are delivered under contract by privately owned community pharmacies. In England, a new 3 tier structure for pharmaceutical services was introduced in 2005 comprising essential, advanced, and enhanced-level services. All NHS pharmacies must deliver 7 essential pharmaceutical services and provide evidence that they meet the requirements of a comprehensive quality assurance framework. In the first year of the contract, around 40% of pharmacies were accredited to undertake medicine use reviews, the first advanced-level service to be implemented. Meanwhile, up to 25% of pharmacies provide a variety of enhanced-level services; the most common of these is supervised administration of methadone as well as support programs for patients quitting smoking. New legislation is being introduced that will accomplish the following: allow pharmacists to acquire independent prescribing rights, require pharmacy technicians to be licensed, necessitate that both pharmacists and pharmacy technicians periodically demonstrate their continuing qualification to practice, and introduce the concept of the “responsible pharmacist” to the operation of community pharmacies. Discussion: Community pharmacy is now being recognized by the government as a mainstream contributor to primary care and public health. The current priority is to integrate services provided through community pharmacies into programs provided by other primary care professionals, through strengthening information technology and contractual arrangements. While major changes to the regulation of the pharmacy workforce are occurring, the quality management of community pharmacy services merits further attention. Conclusions: The new NHS pharmacy contract and current legislative changes provide a basis for community pharmacy to become fully integrated into NHS long-term care and public health programs.

Determinants of the uptake of medicines use reviews (MURs) by community pharmacies in England: A multi-method study

OBJECTIVES To explore and identify the key determinants influencing the uptake of medicines use reviews (MURs), a new community pharmacy service in England. METHODS Survey of all primary care organisations (PCOs) in England (n=303, response rate=74%) and case study investigations of 10 PCOs, involving interviews with a purposive sample of 43 key stakeholders, including PCO, Local Pharmaceutical Committee and community pharmacy representatives. National data on MUR activity were also analysed and multiple linear regression was used to test determinants of MUR uptake. RESULTS The ownership category of the pharmacy was shown to be the most significant determinant of MUR uptake. Rates of MUR provision by multiple pharmacies were almost twice that of independent pharmacies. Interview data corroborated this finding, suggesting that organisational pressure within multiple pharmacies was driving forward MUR activity in some PCOs. Interviewees expressed concern about this quantity driven approach. The PCO survey respondents perceived the greatest barrier to MUR implementation to be a lack of support from general practitioners (GPs). Interviewees reported a lack of communication about MURs between community pharmacists and GPs. CONCLUSIONS The findings suggest that the organisational setting of the pharmacy is an important factor influencing the uptake of MURs. There is also a need for greater communication and collaboration with GPs regarding the MUR service.

Advice-giving in community pharmacy: variations between pharmacies in different locations.

The advice and services provided by community pharmacies are viewed by policy makers as having an increasingly important contribution to make as a primary health care resource to local populations. However, little attention has been given to the variations which may exist between pharmacies operating in different localities. Findings from an ethnographic study of pharmacies illuminate differences in the nature and quality of advice and services provided by pharmacies operating in disparate localities. Analysis of qualitative data suggests that differences in the environment within which pharmacies are located and organised influence the type of service provided to local populations. The possibility of an inverse care law operating in relation to the nature of services in poor urban localities compared to those in rural areas is also discussed.

Risk factors for hospital admissions associated with adverse drug events.

To identify predictors of hospital admissions associated with adverse drug events (ADEs) and to determine the preventability of ADEs in patients admitted to two hospitals.

Affordability of Medicines and Patients' Cost-Reducing Behaviour: Empirical Evidence Based on SUR Estimates from Italy and the UK

IntroductionStudies have demonstrated that co-payments on medication reduce the consumption of both non-essential and essential drugs, and that the latter can lead to worse health outcomes. Far less is known about how patients cope with the cost of medication, particularly if affordability is an issue, and how this compares across two countries with different prescription charge policies. Therefore, the aim of this article is to explore empirically how, and to what extent, costs incurred by patients influence their decision-making behaviour in accessing medicines.MethodsBased on the findings from focus groups, a questionnaire was designed that addressed medication cost issues relevant to patients in both the UK and Italy. Using an econometric model, several hypotheses are tested regarding patients’ decision-making behaviour and how it is influenced by health status, sociodemographic characteristics and the novel concept of a self-rated affordability measure.ResultsQuite a large percentage of patients (70.3% in the UK and 66.5% in Italy) stated they have to think about the cost of medicines at least sometimes. Respondents adopted numerous cost-reducing strategies, subdivided into (i) those initiated by patients and (ii) those involving self-medication. Their use was strongly influenced by income and drug affordability problems, but the self-rated affordability measure was a stronger predictor. Commonly used strategies were not to get prescribed drugs dispensed at all, prioritising by not getting all prescribed items dispensed or delaying until the respondent got paid. Furthermore, respondents with affordability issues were also cost-conscious when self-medicating with over-the-counter (OTC) products for minor conditions such as dyspepsia. Despite patients in both countries using cost-reducing strategies, their use was more pronounced in the UK, where the prescription charge was significantly higher than in Italy.Discussion/conclusionThe results from this study provide detail on the kinds of strategies patients use to reduce the cost burden of prescription charges, and support previous research showing they may be foregoing essential medication. Because the same questionnaire was applied in two European countries, where the national health systems aim to provide healthcare services that are accessible to all citizens in need, it offers interesting insights for policy makers in other countries, where patients may have to pay a larger share of their drugs out-of-pocket, such as the US.