Background The Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions (STOPP)/Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment (START) instrument is used to evaluate the appropriateness of medication in older... Show moreBackground The Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions (STOPP)/Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment (START) instrument is used to evaluate the appropriateness of medication in older people. STOPP/START criteria have been converted into software algorithms and implemented in a clinical decision support system (CDSS) to facilitate their use in clinical practice. Objective Our objective was to determine the frequency of CDSS-generated STOPP/START signals and their subsequent acceptance by a pharmacotherapy team in a hospital setting. Design and Methods Hospitalised older patients with polypharmacy and multimorbidity allocated to the intervention arm of the OPERAM (OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in the Multimorbid elderly) trial underwent a CDSS-assisted structured medication review in four European hospitals. We evaluated the frequency of CDSS-generated STOPP/START signals and the subsequent acceptance of these signals by a trained pharmacotherapy team consisting of a physician and pharmacist after evaluation of clinical applicability to the individual patient, prior to discussing pharmacotherapy optimisation recommendations with the patient and attending physicians. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to investigate potential patient-related (e.g. age, number of co-morbidities and medications) and setting-related (e.g. ward type, country of inclusion) determinants for acceptance of STOPP and START signals. Results In 819/826 (99%) of the patients, at least one STOPP/START signal was generated using a set of 110 algorithms based on STOPP/START v2 criteria. Overall, 39% of the 5080 signals were accepted by the pharmacotherapy team. There was a high variability in the frequency and the subsequent acceptance of the individual STOPP/START criteria. The acceptance ranged from 2.5 to 75.8% for the top ten most frequently generated STOPP and START signals. The signal to stop a drug without a clinical indication was most frequently generated (28%), with more than half of the signals accepted (54%). No difference in mean acceptance of STOPP versus START signals was found. In multivariate analysis, most patient-related determinants did not predict acceptance, although the acceptance of START signals increased in patients with one or more hospital admissions (+ 7.9; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.6-14.1) or one or more falls in the previous year (+ 7.1; 95% CI 0.7-13.4). A higher number of co-morbidities was associated with lower acceptance of STOPP (- 11.8%; 95% CI - 19.2 to - 4.5) and START (- 11.0%; 95% CI - 19.4 to - 2.6) signals for patients with more than nine and between seven and nine co-morbidities, respectively. For setting-related determinants, the acceptance differed significantly between the participating trial sites. Compared with Switzerland, the acceptance was higher in Ireland (STOPP: + 26.8%; 95% CI 16.8-36.7; START: + 31.1%; 95% CI 18.2-44.0) and in the Netherlands (STOPP: + 14.7%; 95% CI 7.8-21.7). Admission to a surgical ward was positively associated with acceptance of STOPP signals (+ 10.3%; 95% CI 3.8-16.8). Conclusion The involvement of an expert team in translating population-based CDSS signals to individual patients is essential, as more than half of the signals for potential overuse, underuse, and misuse were not deemed clinically appropriate in a hospital setting. Patient-related potential determinants were poor predictors of acceptance.Future research investigating factors that affect patients' and physicians' agreement with medication changes recommended by expert teams may provide further insight for implementation in clinical practice. Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02986425. Show less
Chau, S.H.; Sluiter, R.L.; Hugtenburg, J.G.; Wensing, M.; Kievit, W.; Teichert, M. 2020
Background In accordance with current guidelines, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are now generally prescribed as a protective co-medication in patients taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs ... Show moreBackground In accordance with current guidelines, proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are now generally prescribed as a protective co-medication in patients taking non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (LDASA). However, less attention is paid to the corresponding discontinuation of a PPI after cessation of NSAID or LDASA treatment. Objective The aim of this study was to assess the extent of inappropriate PPI use, as the proportion of patients who started a PPI as a protective co-medication but continued using these drugs after cessation of NSAID and LDASA treatment. We also sought to estimate the potential cost savings and effect gains of discontinuing inappropriate PPI use and the resulting decrease in adverse effects and their detrimental consequences. Methods Pharmacy dispensing data were used to map inappropriate PPI use in 2014 for community-dwelling patients. Strategies with or without PPI continuation were compared in the cost-utility analysis for a time horizon of 5 years from a healthcare perspective. Subsequently, incremental costs and effects (quality-adjusted life-years) were estimated with a Markov model. Results Related to NSAID and LDASA treatment, 11.0% and 5%, respectively, of the PPI users were found to inappropriately continue PPI co-treatment. Discontinuation in 71- to 80-year-old patients suggested cost savings of euro170.46 (95% confidence interval 75-282) at a 0.003 (95% confidence interval 0.001-0.005) quality-adjusted life-year increase. The total budget impact of stopping inappropriate PPI use related to NSAID/LDASA treatment in the Netherlands would amount to almost euro1,050,000 after 1 year. Correspondingly, successful interventions to stop a patient's inappropriate use would cost up to euro29 and probably would pay for themselves in the following years. Conclusions A substantial number of patients inappropriately continue to use a PPI after cessation of NSAID or LDASA treatment. Because adverse effects and their detrimental consequences are avoided, interventions to stop inappropriate PPI use, particularly in older patients, are likely to pay for themselves. Show less
Chau, S.H.; Sluiter, R.L.; Hugtenburg, J.G.; Wensing, M.; Kievit, W.; Teichert, M. 2019
The number of older patients with cancer is increasing as a result of the ageing of Western societies. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have improved cancer treatment and are associated with lower... Show moreThe number of older patients with cancer is increasing as a result of the ageing of Western societies. Immune checkpoint inhibitors have improved cancer treatment and are associated with lower rates of treatment-related toxicity compared with chemotherapy in the general population. Nonetheless, immune checkpoint inhibitors have potentially serious immune-related adverse events, which might have a greater impact on older and more vulnerable patients and potentially influence treatment efficacy and quality of life. Previous clinical trials have shown no major increase in immune-related adverse events; however, older patients are underrepresented and relatively healthy in these trials. Observational studies suggest that older and more vulnerable patients may be at a higher risk of immune-related adverse events and early treatment discontinuation. Geriatric assessment could help identify older patients who will benefit from immune checkpoint inhibitors. Show less
Chau, S.H.; Sluiter, R.L.; Kievit, W.; Wensing, M.; Teichert, M.; Hugtenburg, J.G. 2017
Conclusion Despite a beneficial short-term safety profile, IA corticosteroids or HA do not appear more effective than placebo in CMC OA. The suggestion that IA corticosteroids might be efficacious... Show moreConclusion Despite a beneficial short-term safety profile, IA corticosteroids or HA do not appear more effective than placebo in CMC OA. The suggestion that IA corticosteroids might be efficacious in IP OA requires confirmation. Show less
BACKGROUND Many studies have investigated the effect of medication review on a variety of outcomes, but the elements of the interventions have been quite diverse. Moreover, implementation rates of... Show moreBACKGROUND Many studies have investigated the effect of medication review on a variety of outcomes, but the elements of the interventions have been quite diverse. Moreover, implementation rates of recommendations also vary widely between studies. OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to investigate how the extent of collaboration between the general practitioner (GP) and the pharmacist impacts on the implementation of recommendations arising from medication review. METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science were searched for studies published between January 2000 and April 2012. Keywords included medication review, medication therapy management, pharmaceutical services and drug utilization review. Sixteen articles (describing 14 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]) out of 620 titles met the inclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria for the review were medication review, RCT design, involvement of both pharmacist and GP, and home-dwelling patients (mean age >70 years) who had not been recently discharged. After quality assessment of the article, the presence of the following eight key elements reflecting collaboration were scored for each intervention: pharmacist with clinical experience, own pharmacist involved, sharing of medical records, patient interview by pharmacist, invitation of patients by GP, case conference between GP and pharmacist, action plan, follow-up. The primary outcome was the implementation rate of recommendations. Meta-regression analysis was used to assess the association between the implementation rate and the number of key elements present. RESULTS Twelve RCTs were included after quality assessment. The mean number of key elements within the intervention was 5.2 (range 1-8). The mean implementation rate of recommendations was 50 % (range 17-86). The association between the number of key elements present in the intervention and the implementation rate of recommendations was significant: β = 0.085 (95 % CI 0.052-0.128; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION This systematic review shows a significant association between the number of key elements of the intervention reflecting collaborative aspects in medication review and the implementation rate of recommendations. Show less
BACKGROUND There are concerns that automated drug dispensing may increase inappropriate drug use. Automated dispensing could lead to perpetual repeating of drug therapies without the necessary re... Show moreBACKGROUND There are concerns that automated drug dispensing may increase inappropriate drug use. Automated dispensing could lead to perpetual repeating of drug therapies without the necessary re-evaluation. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to examine the effect of a pharmacist-led medication review on drug-related problems (DRPs) in older patients receiving their drugs via automated dispensing. METHODS This was a pragmatic randomized controlled study conducted in primary care. Patients were recruited from six Dutch community pharmacies. They were eligible if they lived at home, were aged ≥ 65 years, and used five or more different drugs, of which at least one had to be dispensed via an automated system. Patients were randomly allocated to receive a medication review at the start of the study (intervention group) or after 6 months (waiting-list group). Each patient was independently reviewed by two pharmacist reviewers. The results of these medication reviews were sent to the community pharmacist to be discussed with the patient's general practitioner (GP). The primary outcome measure was the number of DRPs leading to a recommendation for drug change. Secondary outcomes were the total number of drug changes and the number of drug changes related to a recommendation. In order to analyse drug changes, medication records were collected 6 months after the medication review or index date in the waiting-list group. Potential DRPs were classified using the DOCUMENT classification. RESULTS There were no baseline differences between the 63 patients in the intervention group and the 55 patients in the waiting-list group with respect to age, sex, number of drugs per patient and type of drug prescribed. The mean number of DRPs per patient at baseline in the intervention group and waiting list combined was 8.5, with no difference between the groups. At baseline, the mean number of DRPs leading to a recommendation for drug change was 4.5 per patient and did not differ between the two groups. After 6 months, the number of DRPs leading to a recommendation for drug change decreased by 29% in the intervention group versus 5% in the waiting-list group (p < 0.01). Recommendations for cessation of a drug were more frequently accepted than recommendations to add a new drug (82% vs 44%, p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS This study shows that patients using automated drug dispensing have a high number of DRPs. Medication review decreases the number of DRPs among these patients. We recommend that all patients with automatic drug dispensing should have a thorough medication review by pharmacists and prescribers. Show less
