[Interventions for improving adherence to treatment in patients with multiple pathologies: overview of systematic reviews]. / Intervenciones para la mejora de la adherencia al tratamiento en pacientes pluripatológicos: resumen de revisiones sistemáticas.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the available scientific evidence regarding the efficacy of interventions aimed to enhance medication adherence in patients with multiple chronic conditions (PMCC). DESIGN: Overview of systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were consulted (September 2013): Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, CRD and WoS to identify interventions aimed to enhance medication adherence in PMCC, or otherwise, patients with chronic diseases common in the PMCC, or polypharmacy. STUDY SELECTION: Systematic reviews of clinical trials focused on PMCC or similar were included. They should compare the efficacy of any intervention aimed to improve compliance to prescribed and self-administered medications with clinical practice or other interventions. DATA EXTRACTION: Information about the study population, nature of intervention and efficacy in terms of improved adherence was extracted. RESULTS: 566 articles were retrieved of which 9 systematic reviews were included. None was specifically focused on PMCC but considered patients with chronic diseases common in the PMCC, patients with more than one chronic disease and polypharmacy. The overall effectiveness of interventions was modest without relevant differences between behavioural, educational and combined interventions. Some components of these interventions including patient counselling and regimen simplification appear to be effective tools in improving adherence in this population group. CONCLUSION: There is a large heterogeneity of interventions aimed to improve adherence with modest efficacy, none in PMCC.

[Pharmacological treatment conciliation methodology in patients with multiple conditions]. / Metodología de conciliación del tratamiento farmacológico en pacientes pluripatológicos.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out a bibliographic review in order to identify the different methodologies used along the reconciliation process of drug therapy applicable to polypathological patients. DESIGN: We performed a literature review. Data sources The bibliographic review (February 2012) included the following databases: Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Spanish Medical Index (IME). The different methodologies, identified on those databases, to measure the conciliation process in polypathological patients, or otherwise elderly patients or polypharmacy, were studied. Study selection Two hundred and seventy three articles were retrieved, of which 25 were selected. Data extraction Specifically: the level of care, the sources of information, the use of registration forms, the established time, the medical professional in charge and the registered variables such as errors of reconciliation. RESULTS: Most of studies selected when the patient was admitted into the hospital and after the hospital discharge of the patient. The main sources of information to be highlighted are: the interview and the medical history of the patient. An established time is not explicitly stated on most of them, nor the registration form is used. The main professional in charge is the clinical pharmacologist. Apart from the home medication, the habits of self-medication and phytotherapy are also identified. The common errors of reconciliation vary from the omission of drugs to different forms of interaction with other medicinal products (drugs interactions). CONCLUSIONS: There is a large heterogeneity of methodologies used for reconciliation. There is not any work done on the specific figure of the polypathological patient, which precisely requires a standardized methodology due to its complexity and its susceptibility to errors of reconciliation.

[Suitability of pharmacological treatment in patients with multiple chronic conditions]. / Adecuación del tratamiento farmacológico en pacientes pluripatológicos.

OBJECTIVE: To identify tools for measuring the appropriateness of drug therapy useful in patients with multiple chronic conditions. DESIGN: We performed a literature review. DATA SOURCES: The following database were consulted (December 2009): Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Spanish Medical Index (IME) to detect tools for measuring the appropriateness of treatment in patients with multiple chronic conditions, or otherwise elderly or polypharmacy. STUDY SELECTION: Studies were identified both qualitative and quantitative methodology, both theoretical and field work, both original and revised work and included work from all areas of the health system. 108 articles were retrieved, of which we selected 59. The consultation of their references include 20 jobs allowed, resulting in a total of 59 articles. DATA EXTRACTION: Of all the tools identified, the researchers performed a selection of those with possible utility for classified PP. The articles were classified into implicit and explicit methods and the characteristics of the field works were tabulated. RESULTS: We identified two implicit methods (MAI and Hamdy) and 6 explicit methods (Beers criteria, IPET, STOPP/START, ACOVE, CRIME and NORGEP). None was specific to patients with multiple chronic conditions. The questionnaire MAI, the Beers criteria and its modifications are most often used in literature. The advantages of explicit criteria means that many of them have been developed recently. CONCLUSION: There are several tools to measure the appropriateness and none of them has been designed for a population of patients with multiple chronic conditions yet, which by its nature requires a specific approach spreads.

[Methodological guideline for the efficacy and safety assessment of new pharmaceuticals: implementation of EUnetHTA's recommendations]. / Guía metodológica para la evaluación de la eficacia y la seguridad de nuevos fármacos: implementación de las recomendaciones de EUnetHTA.

The European network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) is the network of public health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and entities from across the EU. In this context, the HTA Core Model®, has been developed. The Andalusian Agency for Health Technology Assessment (AETSA) is a member of the Spanish HTA Network and EUnetHTA collaboration In addition, AETSA participates in the new EUnetHTA Joint Action 3 (JA, 2016-2019). Furthermore, AETSA works on pharmaceutical assessments. Part of this work involves drafting therapeutic positioning reports (TPRs) on drugs that have recently been granted marketing authorisation, which is overseen by the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices (AEMPS). AETSA contributes by drafting "Evidence synthesis reports: pharmaceuticals" in which a rapid comparative efficacy and safety assessment is performed for drugs for which a TPR will be created. To create this type of report, AETSA follows its own methodological guideline based on EUnetHTA guidelines and the HTA Core Model®. In this paper, the methodology that AETSA has developed to create the guideline for "Evidence synthesis reports: pharmaceuticals" is described. The structure of the report itself is also presented.

[Medication reconciliation on hospital admission in patients with multiple chronic diseases using a standardised methodology]. / Errores de conciliación al ingreso hospitalario en pacientes pluripatológicos mediante metodología estandarizada.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the incidence of medication errors when admitting patients with multiple chronic conditions to hospital, using a standard method. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A prospective, observational study was conducted on patients with multiple chronic conditions admitted to a tertiary hospital. The medication reconciliation was performed using the standard method considered the most suitable for these patients by an expert panel, following the Delphi methodology. The main information source used for this was the computerised clinical notes, both in primary care and in the hospital, recurring to a clinical interview if necessary. Discrepancies justified by the clinician, as well as reconciliation errors were recorded. The type of error and the pharmacological group involved were analysed and the seriousness of each one of them was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 114 patients were included, with reconciliation errors being found in 75.4% of cases. The patients had 1397 prescribed drugs, of which 234 had discrepancies that required clarification by the clinician responsible. The clinician modified the prescription in 184 of these discrepancies, which were considered reconciliation errors. The types of error were: medication omission (139), commission (9), dose, prescription or different routes (24) and by incomplete prescription (12). Anti-anaemic drugs, vitamins, and psychoanaleptics were among the pharmacotherapeutic groups most affected by the errors. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of patients with multiple chronic conditions with errors is elevated. The development of methods particularly directed at patients with multiple chronic conditions manages to detect and decrease a high percentage of medication errors associated with changes of care levels.

Selection of tools for reconciliation, compliance and appropriateness of treatment in patients with multiple chronic conditions.

BACKGROUND: The healthcare models developed for patients with multiple chronic diseases agree on the need for improving drug therapy in these patients. The issues of patient compliance, appropriateness of prescriptions and the reconciliation process are of vital importance for patients receiving multiple drug treatment. OBJECTIVE: To identify and select the most appropriate tools for measuring treatment compliance and appropriateness in multiple-disease patients, as well as the best reconciliation strategy. METHODS: The study used the Delphi methodology. We identified compliance and appropriateness questionnaires and scales, as well as functional organisation models for reconciliation that had been used in patients with multiple chronic conditions. Based on the strength of the evidence, their usefulness in these patients and ease of use, the panel selected the most appropriate ones. RESULTS: We selected 46 indications for the panel: 5 on compliance, 20 on appropriateness, and 31 on reconciliation. The tool considered most appropriate and with a high degree of agreement was the "Adherence to Refills and Medication Scale" questionnaire. For appropriateness, the Medication Appropriateness Index questionnaire was considered appropriate. The STOPP/START criteria were the most appropriate. The greatest degree of agreement regarding reconciliation was on the information that needed to be collected and the variables considered as discrepancies. CONCLUSIONS: The "Adherence to Refills and Medication Scale" questionnaire for compliance, the STOPP/START criteria, the Medication Appropriateness Index questionnaire for appropriateness and the development of a specific strategy for reconciliation were considered appropriate for the assessment of drug therapy in patients with multiple chronic conditions.