Interprofessional Medication Management in Patients With Multiple Morbidities.

BACKGROUND: Medication reviews and medication management are being used more and more around the world to improve medication safety. Both of these tools were originally conceived as pharmaceutical care activities and have recently been developed into interdisciplinary approaches. We studied the efficacy of interprofessional medication management for multimorbid patients that takes their medical conditions, but also their general living situation into account. METHODS: A comprehensive medication management was performed, which involved the collection of information on the drugs each patient took, the way they were stored, the patient's drug intake and handling, and any problems that arose with pharmacotherapy. The interventional approach was evaluated over a period of 15 months in a cluster-randomized controlled trial with a stepped wedge design. The primary endpoint was the quality of pharmacotherapy, as assessed with the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI). A mixed model was used to analyze efficacy. RESULTS: 162 patients were enrolled in the study; 142 were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (53.3% women, mean age 76.8 ± 6.3 years). The mean total MAI score decreased significantly (p ≤ 0.001) from the control phase (29.21, 95% CI [26.09; 32.33]) to the intervention phase (22.27 [19.00; 25.54]), with an effect strength (Cohen's d) of -0.24 [-0.36; -0.13]. The number of drug-related problems declined as well. CONCLUSION: In this study, interprofessional collaboration increased medication safety. Working across disciplinary boundaries allowed for a decrease in drugrelated problems and brought up aspects outside the purview of the primary care physician.

Priority Setting and Influential Factors on Acceptance of Pharmaceutical Recommendations in Collaborative Medication Reviews in an Ambulatory Care Setting - Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial (WestGem-Study).

BACKGROUND: Medication reviews are recognized services to increase quality of therapy and reduce medication risks. The selection of eligible patients with potential to receive a major benefit is based on assumptions rather than on factual data. Acceptance of interprofessional collaboration is crucial to increase the quality of medication therapy. OBJECTIVE: The research question was to identify and prioritize eligible patients for a medication review and to provide evidence-based criteria for patient selection. Acceptance of the prescribing general practitioner to implement pharmaceutical recommendations was measured and factors influencing physicians' acceptance were explored to obtain an impression on the extent of collaboration in medication review in an ambulatory care setting. METHODS: Based on data of a cluster-randomized controlled study (WestGem-study), the correlation between patient parameters and the individual performance in a medication review was calculated in a multiple logistic regression model. Physician's acceptance of the suggested intervention was assessed using feedback forms. Influential factors were analyzed. RESULTS: The number of drugs in use (p = 0.001), discrepancies between prescribed and used medicines (p = 0.014), the baseline Medication Appropriateness Index score (p<0.001) and the duration of the intervention (p = 0.006) could be identified as influential factors for a major benefit from a medication review, whereas morbidity (p>0.05) and a low kidney function (p>0.05) do not predetermine the outcome. Longitudinal patient care with repeated reviews showed higher interprofessional acceptance and superior patient benefit. A total of 54.9% of the recommendations in a medication review on drug therapy were accepted for implementation. CONCLUSIONS: The number of drugs in use and medication reconciliation could be a first rational step in patient selection for a medication review. Most elderly, multimorbid patients with polymedication experience a similar chance of receiving a benefit from a medication review. Longitudinal patient care should be preferred over confined medication reviews. The acceptance of medication reviews by physicians supports further implementation into health care systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN ISRCTN41595373.

Effect evaluation of an interprofessional medication therapy management approach for multimorbid patients in primary care: a cluster-randomized controlled trial in community care (WestGem study protocol).

BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical practice worldwide is developing towards patient care. Medication Review (MR) and Medication Therapy Management (MTM) are evolving as the most prominent services in pharmaceutical care and have a strong potential to provide a large benefit for patients and society. MTMs can only be performed in an interprofessional, collaborative setting. Several international studies have explored the effects of a MTM on the quality of therapy and costs. For Germany the data is still deficient. This study aims to provide data on the effects of an interprofessional MTM regarding quality of therapy, quality of life, costs and cost-effectiveness. METHOD/DESIGN: The study is designed as a cluster-randomized controlled trial in primary care, involving 12 outpatient clinics (clusters) and 165 patients. Primary care units are allocated to interventions using a Stepped Wedge Design. All units are initially assigned to the control group. After a 6 month observation period, general practitioners (GP) are randomly allocated to one of three groups and the interprofessional medication therapy management approach is implemented sequentially per each group with a lag of 3 months between. The primary outcome is the change in the quality of therapy measured by the MAI (Medication Appropriateness Index). Secondary outcomes include changes in the number of drug related problems, medication complexity, changes in drug-adherence, changes in health-status and function, quality of life, direct costs and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. The acceptance of the interprofessional Medication Therapy Management approach is assessed by qualitative methods. DISCUSSION: The patient interview and brown bag review are activities, typically provided by the pharmacist. In this trial the patient is blinded to the pharmacist. The strength of having the patient blinded to the pharmacists is to exclude skepticism of the patient toward unknown pharmacies, which might be a major confounder in a regional and community setting. A weakness is that some patient related data might reach the pharmacists in a way, which might differ from self-acquired data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current controlled trials ISRCTN41595373 .

The economic burden of visual impairment and blindness: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Visual impairment and blindness (VI&B) cause a considerable and increasing economic burden in all high-income countries due to population ageing. Thus, we conducted a review of the literature to better understand all relevant costs associated with VI&B and to develop a multiperspective overview. DESIGN: Systematic review: Two independent reviewers searched the relevant literature and assessed the studies for inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as quality. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR INCLUDED STUDIES: Interventional, non-interventional and cost of illness studies, conducted prior to May 2012, investigating direct and indirect costs as well as intangible effects related to visual impairment and blindness were included. METHODS: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement approach to identify the relevant studies. A meta-analysis was not performed due to the variability of the reported cost categories and varying definition of visual impairment. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies were included. Hospitalisation and use of medical services around diagnosis and treatment at the onset of VI&B were the largest contributor to direct medical costs. The mean annual expenses per patient were found to be US$ purchasing power parities (PPP) 12 175-14 029 for moderate visual impairment, US$ PPP 13 154-16 321 for severe visual impairment and US$ PPP 14 882-24 180 for blindness, almost twofold the costs for non-blind patients. Informal care was the major contributor to other direct costs, with the time spent by caregivers increasing from 5.8 h/week (or US$ PPP 263) for persons with vision >20/32 up to 94.1 h/week (or US$ PPP 55 062) for persons with vision ≤20/250. VI&B caused considerable indirect costs due to productivity losses, premature mortality and dead-weight losses. CONCLUSIONS: VI&B cause a considerable economic burden for affected persons, their caregivers and society at large, which increases with the degree of visual impairment. This review provides insight into the distribution of costs and the economic impact of VI&B.

Determinants of patient compliance in allergic rhinoconjunctivitis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Noncompliance to the prescribed therapeutic regimen is a worldwide problem, especially for diseases in which symptoms can vary with different patient factors and with seasons. The consequences are poor health outcomes, progression of disease and increased healthcare costs. Reviews conducted across countries and addressing different diseases are consistent in estimating noncompliance between 30 and 50%. To implement strategies and interventions that enhance compliance, a comprehensive analysis of its determinants is essential. RECENT FINDINGS: Lack of efficacy was reported as the number one reason for discontinuing the intake of medications prescribed for nasal allergies. Studies on glucocorticosteroids, allergen-specific immunotherapy and antihistamines highlighted the importance of patient education, demographic factors, duration of therapy, side-effects and treatment costs, as well as minor details, such as taste and odour, in improving compliance. SUMMARY: The variation in the methodologies used and the durations of treatments assessed in current compliance research in the field of allergic rhinoconjunctivitis decreases the comparability of results. Therefore, a clear definition of compliance measured in clinical trials with allergic rhinoconjunctivitis sufferers is needed. Moreover, a gold standard for measuring and reporting compliance should be determined to enable better interstudy comparability of the rates and determinants of compliance.