Pharmacogenetic Testing in Depressed Patients and Interdisciplinary Exchange between a Pharmacist and Psychiatrists Results in Reduced Hospitalization Times.

INTRODUCTION: Pharmacogenetics (PGx) is a well-researched tool to improve pharmacotherapy. So far, it has not been implemented into daily practice in Germany. In psychopharmacology, substantial benefit can be expected by using PGx due to the excessive CYP metabolism of the psychotropic drugs as well as already discovered target polymorphisms (e. g., serotonin receptor). METHODS: An evaluation of a naturalistic pharmacist-led pilot implementation of PGx testing in a psychiatric hospital in patients undergoing inpatient treatment for major depressive disorder was conducted. Length of stay, number of antidepressant switches, and rehospitalization rates were analyzed. A PGx-tested intervention cohort of n=49 was retrospectively compared to a control cohort of n=94 patients. RESULTS: The intervention cohort showed significantly shorter stays than the control, after correction of the length of hospital stay and the time to genotyping results (mean intervention: 36.3 d (SD: ±19.3 d); control: 46.6 d (±19.1 d); p=0.003). Antidepressant- naïve patients had the largest benefit from the PGx testing (intervention: 24.7 d (±13.5 d); control: 50.2 d (±22.5 d); p < 0.001. The number of antidepressant switches during the entire stay did not differ between the groups: 0.41 (0.64) vs. 0.21 (0.46); p=0.063 [95% CI -0.01-0.40]). DISCUSSION: Depressed patients, especially treatment-naïve, seem to benefit from PGx testing prior to treatment. Although the results of this retrospective evaluation are promising, more systematic prospective studies are needed to assess the effect of PGx testing on the treatment of major depressive disorder.

Contribution of Patient Interviews as Part of a Comprehensive Approach to the Identification of Drug-Related Problems on Geriatric Wards.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate prescribing is linked to increased risks for adverse drug reactions and hospitalisation. Combining explicit and implicit criteria of inappropriate prescribing with the information obtained in patient interviews seems beneficial with regard to the identification of drug-related problems (DRPs) in hospitalised patients. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the inclusion of pharmacist interviews as part of medication reviews (including the use of explicit and implicit criteria of inappropriate prescribing) to identify DRPs in older inpatients. METHODS: Clinical medication reviews were performed on geriatric and associated physical and neurological rehabilitation wards in a regional secondary care hospital. Data from electronic medical records, laboratory data, and current treatment regimens were complemented with a novel structured patient interview performed by a clinical pharmacist. The structured interview questioned patients on administration issues, prescribed medication, self-medication, and allergies. The reviews included the use of current treatment guidelines, the Medication Appropriateness Index, the Screening Tool of Older People's Prescriptions (STOPP, v2), and the Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment (START, v2). The potential relevance of the DRPs was estimated using the German version of the CLEO tool. RESULTS: In 110 patients, 595 DRPs were identified, averaging 5.4 per patient (range 0-17). The structured interviews identified 249 DRPs (41.8%), of which 227 were not identified by any other source of information. The majority of DRPs (213/249, i.e. 85.5%) identified by patient interview were estimated to be of minor clinical relevance (i.e. limited adherence, knowledge, quality of life, or satisfaction). CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that structured patient interviews identified additional DRPs that other sources did not identify. Embedded within a comprehensive approach, the structured patient interviews were needed as data resource for over one-third of all DRPs.

Assessing the ability of the Drug-Associated Risk Tool (DART) questionnaire to stratify hospitalised older patients according to their risk of drug-related problems: a cross-sectional validation study.

OBJECTIVES: The Drug-Associated Risk Tool (DART) has been developed as a self-administered questionnaire for patients with the aim of stratifying patients according to their risk of drug-related problems (DRPs). We aimed to validate the ability of the questionnaire to distinguish between hospitalised patients showing lower and higher numbers of DRPs. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study assessing the questionnaire's concurrent criterion validity. SETTING: Five geriatric and the associated physical and neurological rehabilitation wards of a Swiss regional secondary care hospital with 617 beds. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited 110 patients from a total of 437 admissions. Exclusion criteria were insufficient knowledge in spoken or written German, medical conditions preventing meaningful conversations and already receiving pharmacy services. INTERVENTIONS: Comprehensive pharmacist-led clinical medication reviews were performed, including patient interviews, to identify potential and manifest DRPs. A cluster analysis was conducted to assess the discriminatory potential of the DART to group patients according to number (low and high) of identified DRPs. A subsequent discriminatory function analysis was performed to reduce the number of items. We determined which DART items may be used to trigger what type of medication review. RESULTS: Recruited patients had a median age of 79 years and were prescribed a median of 11 drugs. Patients with a median DART score of 10 and a median of 3 DRPs represented one cluster, whereas patients with a median DART score of 15 and a median of 8 DRPs represented another cluster. Discriminatory function analysis reduced the questionnaire to five items with a moderate to strong correlation with the number of DRPs per patient (Spearman's rank correlation ρ=0.44). Additional items were associated with patients benefiting from interviews. CONCLUSIONS: As a self-administered questionnaire for patients, the DART may be used to stratify hospitalised non-acute older patients in groups of having low and high likelihood of DRPs. The analyses showed that a short form of the DART can be used instead of the full tool to identify older inpatients at risk for DRPs. Additional eight items from the DART may be used to initiate additional clinical pharmacy services. The linkage between certain DART questions and type of medication review enables pharmacist resource allocation.