Impact of physician' and pharmacy staff supporting activities in usual care on patients' statin adherence.

AIMS: Little is known about usual care by physicians and pharmacy teams to support adherence to statins and whether the extent of this care is associated with adherence to statins. Objective of the study was to examine the relationship between the extent of adherence supporting activities of healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients' adherence to statins. METHODS: Cross-sectional study in 48 pharmacies and affiliated physicians' practices, between September 3, 2014 and March 20, 2015. Patients visiting the pharmacy with a statin prescription from participating prescribers were invited to participate. Usual care to support adherence was assessed among HCPs with the Quality of Standard Care questionnaire about usual care activities to support adherence. Adherence to statins was assessed among patients with the MARS-5 questionnaire. The association between the extent of HCPs' adherence supporting activities and patients' adherence was examined by means of multilevel regression analysis. RESULTS: 1,504 patients and 692 HCPs (209 physicians, 118 pharmacists and 365 pharmacy technicians) participated. No association was found between the extent of physicians' adherence supporting activities and patients' adherence to statins. The extent of adherence supporting activities by pharmacy teams in usual care was negatively associated with patients' adherence to statins (B coefficient -0.057 (95%CI: -0.112- -0.002). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that there is no positive relationship between the extent of HCPs' adherence supporting activities in usual care and patients' adherence to statins. Other methods than questionnaires (e.g. electronic monitors (to assess adherence) and observations (to assess usual care) should be applied to confirm the results of this study.

Effectiveness of medication review on the number of drug-related problems in patients visiting the outpatient cardiology clinic: A randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: To assess the effectiveness of medication review on the number of drug-related problems (DRPs) in outpatient cardiology patients. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, a computer-assisted and pharmacist-led medication review with patient involvement (questionnaire and telephone call with pharmacist) was conducted in intervention patients prior to their visit to the cardiologist. The control group received usual care. Adult outpatient cardiology patients without support concerning the administration of medication, without a medication review in the past 6 months and who gave permission to access their electronic medication record were included. The primary outcome measure was the number of DRPs 1 month after the visit. Secondary outcome measures concerned the type of DRP and the type of medication involved in the DRPs. RESULTS: In total, 75 patients (mean [standard deviation, SD] age 66.0 [12.5] years, 41% female) were included. Intervention (n = 90) and control group (n = 85) were comparable at baseline. The mean (SD) number of drugs used per patient was 7.9 (3.9). After 1 month, the mean (SD) number of DRPs was 0.3 (0.7) and 0.8 (1.0) and the median (range) number of DRPs was 0 (0-4) and 0 (0-4) in the intervention group and control group, respectively (P < .001). In the intervention group, 74% of the DRPs identified at T0 were solved at T1 vs 14% in the control group. CONCLUSION: This randomized controlled trial suggests that a pharmacist-led medication review in patients with a scheduled visit to the outpatient cardiology clinic decreases the number of DRPs.

Effectiveness of medication review: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Medication review is often recommended to optimize medication use. In clinical practice it is mostly operationalized as an intervention without co-interventions during a short term intervention period. However, most systematic reviews also included co-interventions and prolonged medication optimization interventions. Furthermore, most systematic reviews focused on specific patient groups (e.g. polypharmacy, elderly, hospitalized) and/or on specific outcome measures (e.g. hospital admissions and mortality). Therefore, the objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of medication review as an isolated short-term intervention, irrespective of the patient population and the outcome measures used. METHODS: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science from their inception through September 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with medication review as isolated short term intervention (<3 months) were included. There were no restrictions with regard to patient characteristics and outcome measures. One reviewer extracted and a second checked data. The risk of bias of studies was evaluated independently by two reviewers. A best evidence synthesis was conducted for every outcome measure used in more than one trial. In case of binary variables a meta-analysis was performed in addition to the best evidence synthesis, to quantify the effect. RESULTS: Thirty-one RCTs were included in this systematic review (55% low risk of bias). A best evidence synthesis was conducted for 22 outcome measures. No effect of medication review was found on clinical outcomes (mortality, hospital admissions/healthcare use, the number of patients falling, physical and cognitive functioning), except a decrease in the number of falls per patient. However, in a sensitivity analysis using a more stringent threshold for risk of bias, the conclusion for the effect on the number of falls changed to inconclusive. Furthermore no effect was found on quality of life and evidence was inconclusive about the effect on economical outcome measures. However, an effect was found on most drug-related problems: medication review resulted in a decrease in the number of drug-related problems, more changes in medication, more drugs with dosage decrease and a greater decrease or smaller increase of the number of drugs. CONCLUSIONS: An isolated medication review during a short term intervention period has an effect on most drug-related outcomes, minimal effect on clinical outcomes and no effect on quality of life. No conclusion can be drawn about the effect on economical outcome measures. Therefore, it should be considered to stop performing cross-sectional medication reviews as standard care.