Recommendations for the safe use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with cirrhosis based on a systematic review of pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety data.

PURPOSE: The popularity of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is increasing among patients with cirrhosis. Cirrhosis has a major impact on the pharmacokinetics of drugs, potentially increasing adverse events. Safe use of drugs in cirrhosis requires a diligent risk-benefit analysis. The aim of this study is to develop practice recommendations for safe use of DOACs in cirrhosis based on a systematic review of pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety data. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search to identify studies on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety of DOACs in cirrhosis. Data were collected and presented in summary tables by severity of cirrhosis using the Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) classification. A multidisciplinary expert panel evaluated the results and classified the DOACs according to safety. RESULTS: Fifty four studies were included. All DOACs were classified as 'no additional risks known' for CTP A. For CTP B, apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban were classified as 'no additional risks known'. Apixaban and edoxaban showed fewer adverse events in patients with cirrhosis, while dabigatran may be less impacted by severity of cirrhosis based on its pharmacokinetic profile. Rivaroxaban was classified as 'unsafe' in CTP B and C based on significant pharmacokinetic alterations. Due to lack of data, apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban were classified as 'unknown' for CTP C. CONCLUSION: DOACs can be used in patients with CTP A cirrhosis, and apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban can also be used in CTP B. It is recommended to avoid rivaroxaban in CTP B and C. There is insufficient evidence to support safe use of other DOACs in CTP C cirrhosis.

No association between use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers prior to hospital admission and clinical course of COVID-19 in the COvid MEdicaTion (COMET) study.

Since the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, also known as COVID-19, conflicting theories have circulated on the influence of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) on incidence and clinical course of COVID-19, but data are scarce. The COvid MEdicaTion (COMET) study is an observational, multinational study that focused on the clinical course of COVID-19 (i.e. hospital mortality and intensive care unit [ICU] admission), and included COVID-19 patients who were registered at the emergency department or admitted to clinical wards of 63 participating hospitals. Pharmacists, clinical pharmacologists or treating physicians collected data on medication prescribed prior to admission. The association between the medication and composite clinical endpoint, including mortality and ICU admission, was analysed by multivariable logistic regression models to adjust for potential confounders. A total of 4870 patients were enrolled. ACEi were used by 847 (17.4%) patients and ARB by 761 (15.6%) patients. No significant association was seen with ACEi and the composite endpoint (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.12), mortality (OR 1.03; 95%CI 0.84 to 1.27) or ICU admission (OR 0.96; 95%CI 0.78 to 1.19) after adjustment for covariates. Similarly, no association was observed between ARB and the composite endpoint (OR 1.09; 95%CI 0.90 to 1.30), mortality (OR 1.12; OR 0.90 to 1.39) or ICU admission (OR 1.21; 95%CI 0.98 to 1.49). In conclusion, we found no evidence of a harmful or beneficial effect of ACEi or ARB use prior to hospital admission on ICU admission or hospital mortality.

Medication safety in patients with hepatic impairment: A survey of community pharmacists' knowledge level and their practice in caring for these patients.

AIMS: To study community pharmacists' level of knowledge on medication safety in patients with hepatic impairment and their practice in caring for these patients. METHODS: Pharmacists from Dutch community pharmacies (n = 1545) were invited to participate in an online survey. The survey consisted of 27 questions covering 2 main topics: knowledge and current practice. The level of knowledge was measured by a 6-item knowledge test. Multiple linear regression was used to identify predictors of correctly answered responses. RESULTS: In total, 338 pharmacists (22%) completed the questionnaire. The mean knowledge score was 2.8 (standard deviation 1.6). Only 30.3% of respondents were able to appropriately advise on use of analgesics in severe cirrhosis. Postgraduate education on hepatic impairment, knowledge of recently developed practical guidance, and fewer years of practice were associated with a higher level of knowledge. In total, 70.4% indicated to evaluate medication safety in a patient with hepatic impairment at least once weekly. In the past 6 months, 83.3% of respondents consulted a prescriber about a patient with hepatic impairment. Frequently encountered barriers in practice were insufficient knowledge on the topic and a lack of essential patient information (i.e. diagnosis and severity of the impairment). CONCLUSION: Community pharmacists regularly evaluate the safety of medication in patients with hepatic impairment, yet their level of knowledge was insufficient and additional education is needed. Pharmacists experienced several difficulties in providing pharmaceutical care. If these issues are resolved, pharmacists can play a more active role in ensuring medication safety in their patients with hepatic impairment.

Improving antibacterial prescribing safety in the management of COPD exacerbations: systematic review of observational and clinical studies on potential drug interactions associated with frequently prescribed antibacterials among COPD patients.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines advise the use of antibacterials (ABs) in the management of COPD exacerbations. COPD patients often have multiple comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus and cardiac diseases, leading to polypharmacy. Consequently, drug-drug interactions (DDIs) may frequently occur, and may cause serious adverse events and treatment failure. OBJECTIVES: (i) To review DDIs related to frequently prescribed ABs among COPD patients from observational and clinical studies. (ii) To improve AB prescribing safety in clinical practice by structuring DDIs according to comorbidities of COPD. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review by searching PubMed and Embase up to 8 February 2018 for clinical trials, cohort and case-control studies reporting DDIs of ABs used for COPD. Study design, subjects, sample size, pharmacological mechanism of DDI and effect of interaction were extracted. We evaluated levels of DDIs and quality of evidence according to established criteria and structured the data by possible comorbidities. RESULTS: In all, 318 articles were eligible for review, describing a wide range of drugs used for comorbidities and their potential DDIs with ABs. DDIs between ABs and co-administered drugs could be subdivided into: (i) co-administered drugs altering the pharmacokinetics of ABs; and (ii) ABs interfering with the pharmacokinetics of co-administered drugs. The DDIs could lead to therapeutic failures or toxicities. CONCLUSIONS: DDIs related to ABs with clinical significance may involve a wide range of indicated drugs to treat comorbidities in COPD. The evidence presented can support (computer-supported) decision-making by health practitioners when prescribing ABs during COPD exacerbations in the case of co-medication.

Nature and frequency of dosing instructions on prescription labels in primary care.

PURPOSE: To investigate the nature and frequency of dosing instructions and auxiliary labels on prescription labels in primary care. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of data on prescription labels of dispensed drugs extracted from the pharmacy information system of community pharmacies in the Netherlands. Dosing instructions were categorized into four types. RESULTS: Data were extracted from 123 community pharmacies. All drugs dispensed for a random sample of 10% of patients were selected. In the sample of 938 479 prescriptions, 96% had a predefined dosing instruction and 2995 different coded instructions were used. Ninety-five percent of all instructions were covered by 354 coded instructions. Most prescriptions were coded with an instruction indicating once daily use (48.4%) or twice or more times daily use (23.8%) without specification of the time (eg, "1 tablet 1 time a day"). A general instruction ("use as directed") was given for 7.0% of all prescriptions, and for 6.0%, the instruction was to use "as needed." For most prescriptions (80.6%), one or more auxiliary labels were generated with the warning "may cause drowsiness" (17.9%) being the most frequent one. CONCLUSIONS: A limited set of instructions covered the majority of the prescriptions. About a quarter of the prescription labels contained nonspecific dosing instructions for use multiple times a day, and 13.0% were general or "use as needed" instructions. These instructions can potentially be made more comprehensible by rewording and specification of the time of day.

The effect of a pharmaceutical transitional care program on rehospitalisations in internal medicine patients: an interrupted-time-series study.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors at transition of care can adversely affect patient safety. The objective of this study is to determine the effect of a transitional pharmaceutical care program on unplanned rehospitalisations. METHODS: An interrupted-time-series study was performed, including patients from the Internal Medicine department using at least one prescription drug. The program consisted of medication reconciliation, patient counselling at discharge, and communication to healthcare providers in primary care. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with an unplanned rehospitalisation within six months post-discharge. Secondary outcomes were drug-related hospital visits, drug-related problems (DRPs), adherence, believes about medication, and patient satisfaction. Interrupted time series analysis was used for the primary outcome and descriptive statistics were performed for the secondary outcomes. RESULTS: In total 706 patients were included. At 6 months, the change in trend for unplanned rehospitalisations between usual care and the program group was non-significant (- 0.2, 95% CI -4.9;4.6). There was no significant difference for drug-related visits although visits due to medication reconciliation problems occurred less often (4 usual care versus 1 intervention). Interventions to prevent DRPs were present for all patients in the intervention group (mean: 10 interventions/patient). No effect was seen on adherence and beliefs about medication. Patients were significantly more satisfied with discharge counselling (68.9% usual care vs 87.1% program). CONCLUSIONS: The transitional pharmaceutical care program showed no effect on unplanned rehospitalisations. This lack of effect is probably because the reason for rehospitalisations are multifactorial while the transitional care program focused on medication. There were less hospital visits due to medication reconciliation problems, but further large scale studies are needed due to the small number of drug-related visits. (Dutch trial register: NTR1519).

The impact of CYP2D6 mediated drug-drug interaction: a systematic review on a combination of metoprolol and paroxetine/fluoxetine.

AIM: Metoprolol (a CYP2D6 substrate) is often co-prescribed with paroxetine/fluoxetine (a CYP2D6 inhibitor) because the clinical relevance of this drug-drug interaction (DDI) is still unclear. This review aimed to systematically evaluate the available evidence and quantify the clinical impact of the DDI. METHOD: Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase were searched for studies reporting on the effect of the DDI among adults published until April 2018. Data on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and clinical outcomes from experimental, observational and case report studies were retrieved. The protocol of this study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018093087). RESULTS: We found nine eligible articles that consisted of four experimental and two observational studies as well as three case reports. Experimental studies reported that paroxetine increased the AUC of metoprolol three to five times, and significantly decreased systolic blood pressure and heart rate of patients. Case reports concerned bradycardia and atrioventricular block due to the DDI. Results from observational studies were conflicting. A cohort study indicated that the DDI was significantly associated with the incidence of early discontinuation of metoprolol as an indicator of the emergence of metoprolol-related side effects. In a case-control study, the DDI was not significantly associated with bradycardia. CONCLUSION: Despite the contradictory conclusions from the current literature, the majority of studies suggest that the DDI can lead to adverse clinical consequences. Since alternative antidepressants and beta-blockers with comparable efficacy are available, such DDIs can be avoided. Nonetheless, if prescribing the combination is unavoidable, a dose adjustment or close monitoring of the metoprolol-related side effects is necessary.

Safe use of proton pump inhibitors in patients with cirrhosis.

AIMS: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) belong to the most frequently used drugs, also in patients with cirrhosis. PPIs are extensively metabolized by the liver, but practice guidance on prescribing in cirrhosis is lacking. We aim to develop practical guidance on the safe use of PPIs in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: A systematic literature search identified studies on the safety (i.e. adverse events) and pharmacokinetics of PPIs in cirrhotic patients. This evidence and data from the product information was reviewed by an expert panel who classified drugs as safe; no additional risks known; additional risks known; unsafe; or unknown. Guidance was aimed at the oral use of PPIs and categorized by the severity of cirrhosis, using the Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) classification. RESULTS: A total of 69 studies were included. Esomeprazole, omeprazole and rabeprazole were classified as having 'no additional risks known'. A reduction in maximum dose of omeprazole and rabeprazole is recommended for CTP A and B patients. For patients with CTP C cirrhosis, the only PPI advised is esomeprazole at a maximum dosage of 20 mg per day. Pantoprazole and lansoprazole were classified as unsafe because of 4- to 8-fold increased exposure. The use of PPIs in cirrhotic patients has been associated with the development of infections and hepatic encephalopathy and should be carefully considered. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest using esomeprazole, omeprazole or rabeprazole in patients with CTP A or B cirrhosis and only esomeprazole in patients with CTP C. Pharmacokinetic changes are also important to consider when prescribing PPIs to vulnerable, cirrhotic patients.

The burden and management of cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6)-mediated drug-drug interaction (DDI): co-medication of metoprolol and paroxetine or fluoxetine in the elderly.

PURPOSE: Metoprolol and paroxetine/fluoxetine are inevitably co-prescribed because cardiovascular disorders and depression often coexist in the elderly. This leads to CYP2D6-mediated drug-drug interactions (DDI). Because systematic evaluations are lacking, we assessed the burden of metoprolol-paroxetine/fluoxetine interaction in the elderly and how these interactions are managed in Dutch community pharmacies. METHOD: Dispensing data were collected from the University of Groningen pharmacy database (IADB.nl, 1999-2014) for elderly patients (≥60 years) starting beta-blockers and/or antidepressants. Based on the two main DDI alert systems (G-Standard and Pharmabase), incidences were divided between signalled (metoprolol-fluoxetine/paroxetine) and not-signalled (metoprolol-alternative antidepressants and alternative beta-blockers-paroxetine/fluoxetine) combinations. Incident users were defined as patients starting at least one signalled or a non-signalled combination. G-Standard signalled throughout the study period, whereas Pharmabase stopped after 2005. RESULTS: A total of 1763 patients had 2039 metoprolol-paroxetine/fluoxetine co-prescriptions, despite DDI alert systems, and about 57.3% were signalled. The number of metoprolol-alternative antidepressant combinations (incidences = 3150) was higher than alternative beta-blocker-paroxetine/fluoxetine combinations (incidences = 1872). Metoprolol users are more likely to be co-medicated with an alternative antidepressant (incidences = 2320) than paroxetine/fluoxetine users (incidences = 1232) are. The number of paroxetine/fluoxetine users co-prescribed with alternative beta-blockers was comparable to those co-medicated with metoprolol (about 50%). Less than 5% of patients received a substitute therapy after using metoprolol-paroxetine/fluoxetine. Most of the metoprolol users (90%) received a low dose (mean DDD = 0.47) regardless whether they were prescribed paroxetine/fluoxetine. CONCLUSION: Despite the signalling software, metoprolol-paroxetine/fluoxetine combinations are still observed in the elderly population. The clinical impact of these interactions needs further investigation. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Developing practical recommendations for drug-disease interactions in patients with hypertension.

Background: Hypertension, a significant risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, demands proactive management as cardiovascular diseases remain the leading cause of death worldwide. Reducing systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels below recommended reference values of <140/90 mmHg can lead to a significant reduction of the risk of CVD and all-cause mortality. However, treatment of hypertension can be difficult and the presence of comorbidities could further complicate this treatment. Drugs used to manage these comorbidities may inadvertently have an impact on blood pressure, resulting in a phenomenon known as drug-disease interaction. This study aims to assess the safety of medication that can affect blood pressure in patients with hypertension and provide practical recommendations for healthcare professionals. Methods: For the development of recommendations for the drug-disease interaction (DDSI) hypertension, a six-step plan that combined literature selection and multidisciplinary expert opinion was used. The process involved (1) defining the scope of the DDSI and selecting relevant drugs, (2) collecting evidence, (3) data-extraction, (4) reaching of expert consensus, (5) publication and implementation of the recommendations in healthcare systems and (6) updating the information. Results: An increase of 10 mmHg in systolic blood pressure and 5 mmHg in diastolic blood pressure was defined as clinically relevant. Corticosteroids, danazol, and yohimbine caused a clinically relevant DDSI with hypertension. Several other drugs with warnings for hypertension in the official product information were assessed to have no clinically relevant DDSI due to minor influence or lack of data on blood pressure. Drugs with evidence for a relevant change in blood pressure which are prescribed under close monitoring of blood pressure according to clinical guidelines, were deemed to be not clinically relevant for signalling. Conclusion: This study provides specific recommendations that can be implemented directly in clinical practice, for example, in clinical decision support systems, potentially resulting in safer drug use in patients with hypertension and better healthcare by reducing alert fatigue. Future research should focus on evaluating the effectiveness of implementation strategies and their impact on reducing unsafe use of medication in patients with hypertension.

Effect of medication reconciliation on medication costs after hospital discharge in relation to hospital pharmacy labor costs.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation aims to correct discrepancies in medication use between health care settings and to check the quality of pharmacotherapy to improve effectiveness and safety. In addition, medication reconciliation might also reduce costs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of medication reconciliation on medication costs after hospital discharge in relation to hospital pharmacy labor costs. METHODS: A prospective observational study was performed. Patients discharged from the pulmonology department were included. A pharmacy team assessed medication errors prevented by medication reconciliation. Interventions were classified into 3 categories: correcting hospital formulary-induced medication changes (eg, reinstating less costly generic drugs used before admission), optimizing pharmacotherapy (eg, discontinuing unnecessary laxative), and eliminating discrepancies (eg, restarting omitted preadmission medication). Because eliminating discrepancies does not represent real costs to society (before hospitalization, the patient was also using the medication), these medication costs were not included in the cost calculation. Medication costs at 1 month and 6 months after hospital discharge and the associated labor costs were assessed using descriptive statistics and scenario analyses. For the 6-month extrapolation, only medication intended for chronic use was included. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-two patients were included. Correcting hospital formulary changes saved €1.63/patient (exchange rate: EUR 1 = USD 1.3443) in medication costs at 1 month after discharge and €9.79 at 6 months. Optimizing pharmacotherapy saved €20.13/patient in medication costs at 1 month and €86.86 at 6 months. The associated labor costs for performing medication reconciliation were €41.04/patient. Medication cost savings from correcting hospital formulary-induced changes and optimizing of pharmacotherapy (€96.65/patient) outweighed the labor costs at 6 months extrapolation by €55.62/patient (sensitivity analysis €37.25-71.10). CONCLUSIONS: Preventing medication errors through medication reconciliation results in higher benefits than the costs related to the net time investment.

The use of opioids at the end of life: knowledge level of pharmacists and cooperation with physicians.

PURPOSE: What is the level of knowledge of pharmacists concerning pain management and the use of opioids at the end of life, and how do they cooperate with physicians? METHODS: A written questionnaire was sent to a sample of community and hospital pharmacists in the Netherlands. The questionnaire was completed by 182 pharmacists (response rate 45%). RESULTS: Pharmacists were aware of the most basic knowledge about opioids. Among the respondents, 29% erroneously thought that life-threatening respiratory depression was a danger with pain control, and 38% erroneously believed that opioids were the preferred drug for palliative sedation. One in three responding pharmacists did not think his/her theoretical knowledge was sufficient to provide advice on pain control. Most pharmacists had working agreements with physicians on euthanasia (81%), but fewer had working agreements on palliative sedation (46%) or opioid therapy (25%). Based on the experience of most of responding pharmacists (93%), physicians were open to unsolicited advice on opioid prescriptions. The majority of community pharmacists (94%) checked opioid prescriptions most often only after dispensing, while it was not a common practice among the majority of hospital pharmacists (68%) to check prescriptions at all. CONCLUSIONS: Although the basic knowledge of most pharmacists was adequate, based on the responses to the questionnaire, there seems to be a lack of knowledge in several areas, which may hamper pharmacists in improving the quality of care when giving advice to physicians and preventing or correcting mistakes if necessary. If education is improved, a more active role of the pharmacist may improve the quality of end-of-life pharmacotherapy.

[Allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines]. / Overgevoeligheidsreacties op covid-19-vaccins.

In 2021 many people in the Netherlands will be vaccinated against COVID-19. The mass vaccination and the new types of vaccines trigger questions about the safety of these vaccines. In this paper we discuss: (1) what reactions are expected from COVID-19 vaccines, (2) what precautions are needed when vaccinating people, and (3) how to act when allergic reactions occur. The COVID-19 vaccines include the first vaccines produced with the mRNA platform. The most frequent adverse reactions are comparable with other vaccines. Allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines are rare but can occur. These reactions may be related to excipients in the vaccines, like polyethylene glycol. In case of a possible allergic reaction, a doctor, in consultation with an allergist, can investigate whether vaccination is safe in the future and whether precautions are necessary. Allergic reactions to vaccine components must be recorded completely and unambiguously in the patient file.

Medication-Related Problems in Liver Transplant Recipients in the Outpatient Setting: A Dutch Cohort Study.

Background: After liver transplantation (LTx), adherence to immunosuppressive medication and avoidance of contra-indicated drugs is essential for long-term survival. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence, types and severity of medication-related problems (MRPs) and interventions initiated by a clinical pharmacist (CP) in a cohort of LTx recipients in the outpatient setting. Method: This study was a retrospective, observational study in LTx recipients that visited the outpatient clinic for an annual check-up. A 20-minutes consultation with a CP consisted of medication reconciliation and consultation about medication, adherence, and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Discrepancies between actual and intended drug use, and MRPs were identified and the severity of MRPs was assessed. Potential interventions were discussed with the patient and the treating physician and evaluated after one year. Results: The CP counseled 64 LTx recipients and found 96 discrepancies in 37 patients. Most discrepancies (60.4%, n = 58) concerned missing medications. In total, 98 MRPs were identified in 53 patients (median 2; range 1-5 per patient), with a total of 113 interventions. Most frequent MRPs were: ADRs (22.4%, n = 22), nonadherence (19.3%, n = 19), unnecessary drugs (16.3%, n = 16) and undertreatment (12.2%, n = 12). Interventions most frequently proposed included optimization of dosage regimen (21.2%, n = 24), individualized recommendation regarding compliance (16.8%, n = 19) and drug discontinuation (12.4%, n = 14). After one year, 15 of the 19 patients (79%) experienced no longer compliance issues and 27 of the 29 patients (93%) used no drugs with indication issues anymore. Conclusion: The CP in an outpatient monitoring program for LTx recipients can signal relevant discrepancies and MRPs. This leads to interventions that are accepted by both the patients and the physicians, with a positive effect after one year.

Management of drug-disease interactions: a best practice from the Netherlands.

Background Drug-disease interactions are situations where pharmacotherapy may have a negative effect on patients' comorbidities. In these cases, it can be necessary to avoid that drug, adjust its dose or monitor therapy. In the Netherlands, pharmacists have developed a best practice how to systematically evaluate drug-disease interactions based on pharmacological considerations and implement recommendations for specific drug-disease interactions. Aim To describe the development of recommendations for drug-disease interactions and the implementation in prescribing and dispensing practice in the Netherlands. Setting Pharmacies and physicians' practices in primary care and hospitals in the Netherlands. Development A multi-disciplinary expert panel assessed if diseases had clinically relevant drug-disease interactions and evaluated drug-disease interactions by literature review and expert opinion, and subsequently developed practice recommendations. Implementation The recommendations were implemented in all clinical decision support systems in primary care and hospitals throughout the Netherlands. Evaluation Recommendations were developed for 57 diseases and conditions. Cardiovascular diseases have the most drug-disease interactions (n = 12, e.g. long QT-syndrome, heart failure), followed by conditions related to the reproductive system (n = 7, e.g. pregnancy). The number of drugs with recommendations differed between 6 for endometriosis and tympanostomy tubes, and up to 1171 in the case of porphyria or even all drugs for pregnancy. Conclusion Practice recommendations for drug-disease interactions were developed, and implemented in prescribing and dispensing practice. These recommendations support both pharmacists and physicians by signalling clinically relevant drug-disease interactions at point of care, thereby improving medication safety. This practice may be adopted and contribute to safer medication use in other countries as well.

The effect of the COACH program (Continuity Of Appropriate pharmacotherapy, patient Counselling and information transfer in Healthcare) on readmission rates in a multicultural population of internal medicine patients.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors occur frequently at points of transition in care. The key problems causing these medication errors are: incomplete and inappropriate medication reconciliation at hospital discharge (partly arising from inadequate medication reconciliation at admission), insufficient patient information (especially within a multicultural patient population) and insufficient communication to the next health care provider. Whether interventions aimed at the combination of these aspects indeed result in less discontinuity and associated harm is uncertain. Therefore the main objective of this study is to determine the effect of the COACH program (Continuity Of Appropriate pharmacotherapy, patient Counselling and information transfer in Healthcare) on readmission rates in patients discharged from the internal medicine department. METHODS/DESIGN: An experimental study is performed at the internal medicine ward of a general teaching hospital in Amsterdam, which serves a multicultural population. In this study the effects of the COACH program is compared with usual care using a pre-post study design. All patients being admitted with at least one prescribed drug intended for chronic use are included in the study unless they meet one of the following exclusion criteria: no informed consent, no medication intended for chronic use prescribed at discharge, death, transfer to another ward or hospital, discharge within 24 hours or out of office hours, discharge to a nursing home and no possibility to counsel the patient.The intervention consists of medication reconciliation, patient counselling and communication between the hospital and primary care healthcare providers.The following outcomes are measured: the primary outcome readmissions within six months after discharge and the secondary outcomes number of interventions, adherence, patient's attitude towards medicines, patient's satisfaction with medication information, costs, quality of life and finally satisfaction of general practitioners and community pharmacists.Interrupted time series analysis is used for data-analysis of the primary outcome. Descriptive statistics is performed for the secondary outcomes. An economic evaluation is performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. DISCUSSION: This study will be able to evaluate the clinical and cost impact of a comprehensive program on continuity of care and associated patient safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch trial register: NTR1519.

The use of opioids at the end of life: the knowledge level of Dutch physicians as a potential barrier to effective pain management.

BACKGROUND: Pain is still one of the most frequently occurring symptoms at the end of life, although it can be treated satisfactorily in most cases if the physician has adequate knowledge. In the Netherlands, almost 60% of the patients with non-acute illnesses die at home where end of life care is coordinated by the general practitioner (GP); about 30% die in hospitals (cared for by clinical specialists), and about 10% in nursing homes (cared for by elderly care physicians).The research question of this study is: what is the level of knowledge of Dutch physicians concerning pain management and the use of opioids at the end of life? METHODS: A written questionnaire was sent to a random sample of physicians of specialties most often involved in end of life care in the Netherlands. The questionnaire was completed by 406 physicians, response rate 41%. RESULTS: Almost all physicians were aware of the most basal knowledge about opioids, e.g. that it is important for treatment purposes to distinguish nociceptive from neuropathic pain (97%). Approximately half of the physicians (46%) did not know that decreased renal function raises plasma concentration of morphine(-metabolites) and 34% of the clinical specialists erroneously thought opioids are the favoured drug for palliative sedation.Although 91% knew that opioids titrated against pain do not shorten life, 10% sometimes or often gave higher dosages than needed with the explicit aim to hasten death. About half felt sometimes or often pressured by relatives to hasten death by increasing opioiddosage.The large majority (83%) of physicians was interested in additional education about subjects related to the end of life, the most popular subject was opioid rotation (46%). CONCLUSIONS: Although the basic knowledge of physicians was adequate, there seemed to be a lack of knowledge in several areas, which can be a barrier for good pain management at the end of life. From this study four areas emerge, in which it seems likely that an improvement can improve the quality of pain management at the end of life for many patients in the Netherlands: 1)palliative sedation; 2)expected effect of opioids on survival; and 3) opioid rotation.

Informational needs of general practitioners regarding discharge medication: content, timing and pharmacotherapeutic advice.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the needs of Dutch general practitioners on discharge medication, both regarding content, timing and the appreciation of pharmacotherapeutic advice from clinical pharmacists. SETTING: A general teaching hospital in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. METHOD: A prospective observational study was performed. A questionnaire with regard to the content, optimal timing (including way of information transfer) and appreciation of pharmacotherapeutic advice was posted to 464 general practitioners. One reminder was sent. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Description of the needs of general practitioners was assessed. For each question and categories of comments frequency tables were made. The Fisher-exact test was used to study associations between the answers to the questions. RESULTS: In total, 149 general practitioners (32%) responded. Most general practitioners (75%) experienced a delay in receiving discharge medication information and preferred to receive this on the day of discharge. GPs wished to receive this information mainly through e-mail (44%). There was a significant correlation (P = 0.002) between general practitioners who wanted to know whether and why medication had been stopped (87%) and changed (88%) during hospital admission. The general practitioners (88%) appreciated pharmacotherapeutic advice from clinical pharmacists. CONCLUSION: This study indicates how information transfer on discharge medication to GPs can be optimised in the Netherlands. The information arrives late and GPs want to be informed on the day of discharge mainly by e-mail. GPs wish to know why medication is changed or discontinued and appreciate pharmacotherapeutic advice from clinical pharmacists.