Take-Home Naloxone Access and Use among Older Adults Living with Pain: A Scoping Review.

Background: Opioids are a common treatment for older adults living with pain. Given high rates of polypharmacy and chronic comorbidities, older adults are at risk of opioid overdose. Evidence is now available that take-home naloxone (THN) supports reduction of opioid-related harms. It is unknown what THN initiatives are available for older adults, especially those living with chronic pain. Objective: To summarize the literature regarding THN, with a focus on older adults using opioids for pain, including facilitators of and barriers to THN access, knowledge gaps, and pharmacist-led initiatives. Data Sources: A scoping review, guided by an established framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, was performed. Methods involved searching 6 bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, and PubMed), reference harvesting, and citation tracking. Searches were conducted up to March 2023, with no date limits applied; only English publications were included. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Study eligibility was determined according to preset criteria, including age; discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consensus. Data were extracted and categorized through thematic analysis. Data Synthesis: Four studies met the eligibility criteria. All 4 studies detailed THN programs in primary care settings involving older adults taking opioids for pain management. Two of the studies highlighted patient-specific risk factors for opioid overdose, including concomitant use of benzodiazepines and/or gabapentinoids, mean morphine milligram equivalents per day of at least 50, and previous opioid overdose. Two of the studies assessed patient knowledge of opioid overdose management and attitudes toward THN. Educational programs increased patients' interest in THN. Conclusions: The literature about THN for older adults living with pain is limited, and no literature was found on pharmacist-led initiatives in this area. Future research on THN provision for older adults, including pharmacist-led initiatives, could help to optimize care for older adults living with pain.

Contexte: Les opioïdes sont un traitement courant pour les personnes âgées souffrant de douleur. Compte tenu des taux élevés de polypharmacie et de comorbidités chroniques, les personnes âgées courent un risque de surdose d'opioïdes. Il est désormais prouvé que la distribution de trousses de naloxone contribue à la réduction des méfaits liés aux opioïdes. On ne sait pas quelles initiatives de distribution de trousses de naloxone existent pour les personnes âgées, en particulier celles souffrant de douleurs chroniques. Objectif: Résumer la documentation concernant la distribution des trousses de naloxone chez les personnes âgées qui utilisent des opioïdes contre la douleur, y compris les facilitateurs et les obstacles à l'accès aux trousses, les lacunes dans les connaissances et les initiatives menées par les pharmaciens. Sources des données: Un examen de la portée, guidé par un cadre éprouvé et les lignes directrices PRISMA-ScR, a été réalisé. Les méthodes impliquaient la recherche dans 6 bases de données bibliographiques (MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection et PubMed), la récolte de références et le suivi des citations. Les recherches ont été effectuées jusqu'en mars 2023, sans limites quant à la date; seules les publications en anglais ont été incluses. Sélection des études et extraction des données: L'admissibilité à l'étude a été déterminée selon des critères prédéfinis, notamment l'âge; les divergences ont été résolues par discussion et consensus. Les données ont été extraites et catégorisées grâce à une analyse thématique. Synthèse des données: Quatre études répondaient aux critères d'admissibilité. Les 4 études ont détaillé des programmes de distribution de trousses de naloxone dans des établissements de soins primaires chez les personnes âgées prenant des opioïdes pour gérer la douleur. Deux des études ont mis en évidence des facteurs de risque spécifiques aux patients en matière de surdosage aux opioïdes, notamment l'utilisation concomitante de benzodiazépines et/ou de gabapentinoïdes, une moyenne d'équivalents en milligrammes de morphine par jour d'au moins 50 et un surdosage antérieur aux opioïdes. Deux des études ont évalué les connaissances des patients en matière de gestion des surdosages aux opioïdes et leur attitude envers la distribution de trousses de naloxone. Les programmes éducatifs ont accru l'intérêt des patients pour les trousses de naloxone. Conclusions: La documentation sur la distribution de trousses de naloxone chez les personnes âgées souffrant de douleur est limitée et aucune littérature n'a été trouvée sur les initiatives menées par les pharmaciens dans ce domaine. Les recherches futures sur la distribution de trousses de naloxone aux personnes âgées, y compris les initiatives menées par des pharmaciens, pourraient contribuer à optimiser les soins aux personnes âgées souffrant de douleur.

Collaborative Cardiovascular Risk Reduction in Primary Care II (CCARP II): Implementation of a systematic case-finding process for patients with uncontrolled risk factors.

BACKGROUND: Previous pharmacist interventions to reduce cardiovascular (CV) risk have been limited by low patient enrolment. The primary aim of this study was to implement a collaborative pharmacist intervention that used a systematic case-finding procedure to identify and manage patients with uncontrolled CV risk factors. METHODS: This was an uncontrolled, program implementation study. We implemented a collaborative pharmacist intervention in a primary care clinic. All adults presenting for an appointment with a participating physician were systematically screened and assessed for CV risk factor control by the pharmacist. Recommendations for risk factor management were communicated on a standardized form, and the level of pharmacist follow-up was determined on a case-by-case basis. We recorded the proportion of adults exhibiting a moderate to high Framingham risk score and at least 1 uncontrolled risk factor. In addition, we assessed before-after changes in CV risk factors. RESULTS: Of the 566 patients who were screened prior to visiting a participating physician, 186 (32.9%) exhibited moderate or high CV risk along with at least 1 uncontrolled risk factor. Physicians requested pharmacist follow-up for 60.8% (113/186) of these patients. Of the patients receiving the pharmacist intervention, 65.5% (74/113) were at least 50% closer to 1 or more of their risk factor targets by the end of the study period. Significant risk factor improvements from baseline were also observed. DISCUSSION: Through implementation of a systematic case-finding approach that was carried out by the pharmacist on behalf of the clinic team, a large number of patients with uncontrolled risk factors were identified, assessed and managed with a collaborative intervention. CONCLUSION: Systematic case finding appears to be an important part of a successful intervention to identify and manage individuals exhibiting uncontrolled CV risk factors in a primary care setting.

Proposing a redefinition of pharmaceutical care.

In many clinical practice settings, individual pharmaceutical care practitioners have thousands of patients who may receive their service. However, the pharmaceutical care approach provides virtually no guidance regarding how patients should be identified or prioritized by practicing pharmacists. We believe that pharmacists need to be "officially" accountable to specific patient groups at high risk for drug- or disease-induced morbidity within their practice. Consequently, the current definition of pharmaceutical care and its associated care processes need to be modified to ensure the activities of pharmacists are being focused on high-priority patients on a consistent basis.

Diabetes and cardiovascular disease interventions by community pharmacists: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and assess the quality of studies evaluating community pharmacist interventions for preventing or managing diabetes or cardiovascular disease (CVD) and/or their major risk factors. DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive literature search was performed using MEDLINE (1950-February 2011), EMBASE (1980-February 2011), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-February 2011), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1982-June 2007), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1898-February 2011). Search terms included: community pharmacy(ies), community pharmacist(s), cardiovascular, diabetes, and intervention. The grey literature was searched using the ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Theses Canada, and OAlster databases. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Articles published in English or French with all study designs were considered for the review. Studies were included if they contained interventions designed to reduce the incidence, risk, or mortality of CVD or diabetes; affect clinical indicators of CVD or diabetes mellitus (including hypertension, dyslipidemia, or hemoglobin A(1c)); and/or improve adherence to treatment strategies. Only studies involving interventions carried out primarily by pharmacists in community pharmacy settings were included. Study quality was assessed using a checklist validated for both randomized and nonrandomized studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 4142 studies were initially identified, with 40 meeting our inclusion criteria. Eleven studies were randomized controlled trials, 4 were cluster randomized trials, and 2 studies had randomized before-after designs. The remaining studies were controlled before-after (n = 2), cohort (n = 4), and uncontrolled before-after (n = 17) designs. Interventions focused on diabetes (n = 12), hypertension (n = 9), medication adherence (n = 9), lipids (n = 5), evidence-based medication initiation or optimization (n = 3), risk factor prediction scores (n = 1), and body mass index (n = 1). All studies contained interventions focused at the patient level and the majority of studies (34/40) involved interventions directed at both the physician and patient. No specific intervention emerged as superior, and study quality was generally poor, making it difficult to determine the true effect of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Poor study quality, time-intensive interventions, and unproven clinical significance warrant the need for further high-quality studies of community pharmacist interventions for preventing or managing diabetes or CVD and/or their major risk factors.

Induction effects of ritonavir: implications for drug interactions.

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on the induction effects of ritonavir on the cytochrome P450 enzyme system and glucuronyl transferase and identify resultant established and potential drug interactions. DATA SOURCES: Primary literature was identified from MEDLINE (1950-April 2008), EMBASE (1988-April 2008) and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-April 2008) using the search terms ritonavir, cytochrome P450 enzyme system, enzyme induction, glucuronyl transferase, and drug interactions. Additionally, relevant conference abstracts and references of relevant articles were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA ABSTRACTION: All English-language articles and abstracts identified were reviewed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Ritonavir is a well-known inhibitor of the metabolism of numerous medications that are substrates of the CYP3A and CYP2D6 pathways. It also exhibits a biphasic, time-dependent effect on P-glycoprotein of inhibition followed by induction. Numerous pharmacokinetic studies suggested that ritonavir induces cytochrome P450 enzymes 3A, 1A2, 2B6, 2C9, and 2C19, as well as glucuronyl transferase. Additionally, several case reports described clinically significant subtherapeutic effects of drugs metabolized by these isoenzymes when coadministered with ritonavir. Both therapeutic and boosting doses of ritonavir appear to induce these enzymes; however, most of the studies of low-dose ritonavir involved a second protease inhibitor such as lopinavir, darunavir, or tipranavir. It is, therefore, difficult to distinguish the relative effects of additional medications unless well-designed, 3-way studies are conducted. CONCLUSIONS: At both therapeutic and boosting doses, ritonavir exhibits a clinically relevant induction effect on numerous drug-metabolizing enzymes. A decrease or loss of therapeutic effect may be observed when ritonavir is coadministered with medications that are substrates for these enzymes. It is important for clinicians to be aware of drugs potentially impacted by ritonavir therapy to identify and manage these interactions.

Complexity of interactions between voriconazole and antiretroviral agents.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and summarize pertinent aspects of the literature on interactions between voriconazole and antiretroviral agents. DATA SOURCES: Primary literature was identified through MEDLINE (1950-February 2008), EMBASE (1988-February 2008), and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970-February 2008) using the search terms voriconazole, ritonavir, protease inhibitors, nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, raltegravir, maraviroc, and drug interactions. Additionally, relevant abstracts from infectious diseases and HIV conferences (2004-February 2008), reference citations from relevant publications, and product information monographs were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA ABSTRACTION: All articles identified from the data sources and published in English were reviewed. Of these, studies and reports addressing voriconazole pharmacokinetics or interactions with antiretroviral agents were evaluated. DATA SYNTHESIS: The interactions between voriconazole and antiretroviral drugs are complex. Voriconazole and ritonavir exhibit a time- and dose-dependent interaction. Ritonavir initially inhibits voriconazole metabolism, but, with chronic administration, subsequently induces voriconazole metabolism. This interaction is more pronounced with high doses of ritonavir. Coadministration of voriconazole and efavirenz at usual doses is contraindicated because of a 2-way interaction resulting in efavirenz toxicity and decreased therapeutic effect of voriconazole. Dosage adjustments of both drugs are required. Based on pharmacokinetic characteristics, interactions between voriconazole and other protease inhibitors, nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (including etravirine), and maraviroc are likely but have not been well characterized in the literature. Interactions between voriconazole and nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors or raltegravir are not anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: Interactions between voriconazole and antiretrovirals have the potential for serious consequences. However, because there is limited information available, further studies are warranted to establish these interactions and clarify their appropriate management. Until then, clinicians should be aware of the potential for interactions between voriconazole and antiretroviral agents and how to monitor for these interactions in clinical practice.