Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 1 de 1
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
País/Región como asunto
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
Osteoporos Int ; 25(1): 385-92, 2014 Jan.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24221450

RESUMEN

UNLABELLED: The aim of this study was to determine whether feedback by pharmacists to prescribers of patients eligible for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis prophylaxis would stimulate the prescribing of osteoporosis prophylaxis. The intervention did not significantly increase the prescribing of bisphosphonates in the total study population, but a significant increase was seen in men and in the elderly. However, the proportion of bisphosphonate-treated patients remained low. INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to determine whether feedback by pharmacists to prescribers of patients eligible for glucocorticoid-induced osteoporosis prophylaxis (GIOP) would stimulate the implementation of the Dutch GIOP guideline. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial included 695 patients who were dispensed ≥675 mg prednisone equivalents without a concomitant bisphosphonate prescription within 6 months before baseline. Pharmacists were asked to contact the physicians of GIOP-eligible patients in the intervention group to suggest osteoporosis prophylaxis. The primary endpoint was a bisphosphonate prescription. Secondary endpoints were a prescription of calcium supplements, vitamin D or any prophylactic osteoporosis drug (bisphosphonate, calcium supplements, vitamin D). RESULTS: The group assigned to the intervention was slightly younger than the control group (68.7 ± 15.4 vs. 65.9 ± 16.9 years, p = 0.02) and used hydrocortisone more often (7.0% vs. 3.1%, p = 0.02). Within 6 months, the intervention did not significantly increase the prescribing of bisphosphonates (11.4% after intervention vs. 8.0% for controls; hazard ratio [HR] 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.91-2.39). However, subgroup analyses showed a significant increase for the primary endpoint in men (12.8% vs. 5.1%, HR 2.53, 95% CI 1.11-5.74) and patients ≥70 years (13.4% vs. 4.9%, HR 2.88, 95% CI 1.33-6.23). The prescribing of calcium and vitamin D was not significantly altered. CONCLUSION: This study showed that active identification of patients eligible for GIOP by pharmacists did not significantly increase the prescribing of bisphosphonates in the total study population, but there was an increase in men and the elderly. However, the proportion of GIOP-treated patients remained low.


Asunto(s)
Conservadores de la Densidad Ósea/uso terapéutico , Difosfonatos/uso terapéutico , Retroalimentación , Glucocorticoides/efectos adversos , Osteoporosis/prevención & control , Farmacéuticos/psicología , Anciano , Prescripciones de Medicamentos/estadística & datos numéricos , Utilización de Medicamentos/estadística & datos numéricos , Femenino , Adhesión a Directriz , Humanos , Relaciones Interprofesionales , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Países Bajos , Osteoporosis/inducido químicamente , Farmacias/organización & administración , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA