Enhancing Medication Safety through Implementing the Qatar Tool for Reducing Inappropriate Medication (QTRIM) in Ambulatory Older Adults.

INTRODUCTION: To promote optimal healthcare delivery, safeguarding older adults from the risks associated with inappropriate medication use is paramount. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of implementing the Qatar Tool for Reducing Inappropriate Medication (QTRIM) in ambulatory older adults to enhance medication safety. METHOD: The QTRIM was developed by an expert consensus panel using the Beers Criteria and contained a list of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) based on the local formulary. Using quality improvement methodology, it was piloted and implemented in two outpatient pharmacy settings serving geriatric medicine and dermatology clinics at Rumailah Hospital, Qatar. Key performance indicators (KPIs) using implementation documentation as a process measure and the percentage reduction in PIM prescriptions as an outcome measure were assessed before and after QTRIM implementation. This study was conducted between July 2022 and September 2023. RESULTS: In the outpatient department (OPD) geriatric pharmacy, the prescription rate of PIMs was reduced from an average of 1.2 ± 0.7 PIMs per 1000 orders in 2022 to an average of 0.8 ± 0.2 PIMs per 1000 orders in 2023. In the OPD geriatric pharmacy, the results showed a 66.6% reduction in tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) (from 30 to 10), a reduction in first-generation antihistamines by 51.7% (29 to 14), and muscle relaxants by 33.3% (36 to 24). While in dermatology, the older adult prescription rate of PIMs was reduced from an average of 8 ± 3 PIMs per 1000 orders in 2022 to a rate of 5 ± 3 PIMs per 1000 orders in 2023; the most PIM reductions were (49.4%) in antihistamines (from 89 to 45), while muscle relaxants and TCAs showed a minimal reduction. CONCLUSIONS: Implementing QTRIM with pharmacy documentation monitoring markedly reduced the PIMs dispensed from two specialized outpatient pharmacies serving older adults. It may be a promising effective strategy to enhance medication safety in outpatient pharmacy settings.

Management of iron deficiency in women of childbearing age with oral iron intolerance: a prospective, randomised, controlled trial of three doses of an iron-whey-protein formulation : Prospective RandomisEd study of women of Childbearing age with gastroInteStinal Intolerance to Oral iroN (PRECISION).

BACKGROUND: Nutritional deficit and oral iron gastrointestinal intolerance may be a common cause of iron deficiency, which can be managed by pharmacists. AIM: To understand the prevalence of iron deficiency in women of childbearing age with a self-reported history of intolerance to oral iron and the tolerability of three doses of an iron-whey-protein formulation in the care of these women. METHOD: Ferritin and haemoglobin levels were documented in women of childbearing age with oral iron gastrointestinal intolerance. In those with iron deficiency (ferritin < 30 µg/L), adherence, gastrointestinal tolerability, ferritin, transferrin saturation and haemoglobin levels were compared between their prior oral iron product and iron-whey-protein microspheres randomised to three doses (14 mg daily, 25 mg daily and 50 mg daily) for 12 weeks. RESULTS: Most screened women had low iron stores (128 (62.7%); ferritin < 30 µg/L), 65 (31.9%) had moderate to severe iron deficiency (ferritin < 12 µg/L) and 33 (16.2%) had iron deficiency anaemia (ferritin < 30 µg/L, haemoglobin < 12 g/dL). Amongst the 59 women who participated in the prospective clinical study of iron-whey-protein microspheres over 12 weeks, 48 (81.4%) were classified as adherent/persistent and fewer instances of gastrointestinal intolerance were reported (0.59 ± 0.91) when compared to 12 (20.3%) and (4.0 ± 2.2) respectively while taking the prior oral iron (Fisher's Exact and T-test respectively, both p < 0.001). There was no difference in adherence or tolerability of different iron-whey-protein formulation doses. Ferritin, haemoglobin and energy levels increased significantly over 12 weeks. CONCLUSION: Undiagnosed iron deficiency is common in women of childbearing age with a history of intolerance to oral iron and iron-whey-protein microspheres can improve adherence, GI tolerability, iron stores, haemoglobin and energy levels in these women. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov identifier (registration includes full trial protocol): NCT04778072.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, so that many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients. This is the third update of this Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions, alone or in combination, in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 13 January 2021, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies. We ran updated searches in February 2023 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Characteristics of studies awaiting classification'. SELECTION CRITERIA: For this update, we included randomised trials only. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy (four or more medicines) in people aged 65 years and older, which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, and two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 38 studies, which includes an additional 10 in this update. The included studies consisted of 24 randomised trials and 14 cluster-randomised trials. Thirty-six studies examined complex, multi-faceted interventions of pharmaceutical care (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patients' outcomes), in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists, nurses and geriatricians, and most were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane risk of bias tool found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low. It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool) (mean difference (MD) -5.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.26 to -2.06; I2 = 97%; 8 studies, 947 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.05; I2 = 67%; 9 studies, 2404 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIM (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98; I2 = 84%; 13 studies, 4534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.05 to 0.09; I2 = 92%; 3 studies, 691 participants; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only three studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk of bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPO (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.91; I2 = 95%; 7 studies, 2765 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to hospital admissions (data not pooled; 14 studies, 4797 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to quality of life (data not pooled; 16 studies, 7458 participants; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in 10 studies (6740 participants) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies. This also applied to studies examining adherence to medication (nine studies, 3848 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy resulted in clinically significant improvement. Since the last update of this review in 2018, there appears to have been an increase in the number of studies seeking to address potential prescribing omissions and more interventions being delivered by multidisciplinary teams.

Public perceptions of pharmacogenomic services in Ireland - Are people with chronic disease more likely to want service availability than those without? A questionnaire study.

Background: As pharmacogenomic services begin to emerge in primary care, the insight of the public is crucial for its integration into clinical practice. Objectives: To establish perceptions of pharmacogenomics (awareness, understanding, openness to availability, perceived benefits and concerns, willingness to pay, and service setting) and investigate if they differ between those with and without chronic disease(s). Methods: An anonymous, online questionnaire generated using Qualtrics® and circulated via social media and posters placed in eight participating community pharmacies was conducted with Irish adults. The questions were designed to consider existing literature on patient perceptions of pharmacogenomics. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize questionnaire responses. Chi-square test was used to compare categorical variables, while independent sample t-test and one-way ANOVA were used to compare the mean values of two (with and without chronic disease) and three groups (multimorbidity (two or more chronic conditions) and polypharmacy (prescribed four or more regular medicines) (MMPP), a single chronic disease, and those without existing medical conditions) respectively Logistic regression was used to evaluate age and gender adjusted associations of chronic disease(s) with responses. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: A total of 421 responses were received, 30% (n = 120) of whom reported having a chronic disease. Overall, respondents reported low awareness (44%, n = 166) and poor knowledge (55%, n = 212) of pharmacogenomics. After explaining pharmacogenomics to respondents, patients with chronic disease(s) were 2.17 times more likely (p < 0.001) to want pharmacogenomic services availability than those without existing conditions, adjusted for age and gender (driven by preferences of those with MMPP than those with single chronic disease). Respondents demonstrated a high level of interest and noted both the potential benefits and downsides of pharmacogenomic testing. Willingness-to-pay was not associated with having a chronic disease and respondents were more positive about primary care (community pharmacy or general practice) rather than hospital-based pharmacogenomics implementation. Conclusion: The Irish public in general and those with chronic disease in particular are strongly supportive of pharmacogenomic testing, highlighting an unmet need for its incorporation in medicines optimization. These data underline the need for more research on the implementation of community-based pharmacogenomics services for MMPP patients and ubiquitous pharmacogenomics education programs.

An external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care (PolyPrime).

BACKGROUND: For older populations with multimorbidity, polypharmacy (use of multiple medications) is a standard practice. PolyPrime is a theory-based intervention developed to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care. This pilot study aims to assess the feasibility of the PolyPrime intervention in primary care in Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). METHODS: This external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aimed to recruit 12 general practitioner (GP) practices (six in NI; six in the ROI counties that border NI) and ten older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥ 4 medications) per GP practice (n = 120). Practices allocated to the intervention arm watched an online video and scheduled medication reviews with patients on two occasions. We assessed the feasibility of collecting GP record (medication appropriateness, health service use) and patient self-reported data [health-related quality of life (HRQoL), health service use)] at baseline, 6 and 9 months. HRQoL was measured using the EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and medication-related burden quality-of-life (MRB-QoL) tool. An embedded process evaluation and health economics analysis were also undertaken. Pre-specified progression criteria were used to determine whether to proceed to a definitive cRCT. RESULTS: Twelve GP practices were recruited and randomised. Three GP practices withdrew from the study due to COVID-related factors. Sixty-eight patients were recruited, with 47 (69.1%) being retained until the end of the study. GP record data were available for 47 patients for medication appropriateness analysis at 9 months. EQ-5D-5L and MRB-QoL data were available for 46 and 41 patients, respectively, at 9 months. GP record and patient self-reported health service use data were available for 47 patients at 9 months. Health service use was comparable in terms of overall cost estimated from GP record versus patient self-reported data. The intervention was successfully delivered as intended; it was acceptable to GPs, practice staff, and patients; and potential mechanisms of action have been identified. All five progression criteria were met (two 'Go', three 'Amend'). CONCLUSION: Despite challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study has demonstrated that it may be feasible to conduct an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care across two healthcare jurisdictions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN41009897 . Registered 19 November 2019. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, NCT04181879 . Registered 02 December 2019.

Theoretically derived interventions aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in primary care: A systematic review.

Background: Polypharmacy (the use of multiple medications) is common in older patients and achieving a balance between appropriate and inappropriate polypharmacy is a challenge routinely faced by prescribers. It is recommended to incorporate the use of theory when developing complex interventions, but it is not known if theoretically derived interventions aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy are effective. Objective: This systematic review aimed to establish the overall effectiveness of theoretically derived interventions on improving appropriate polypharmacy and to investigate the degree to which theory informed intervention design. Methods: Seven electronic databases were searched from inception to August 2021 including hand-searching of reference lists. Interventions developed using a theory, involving the use of a validated tool to assess prescribing, delivered in primary care to participants with a mean age of ≥65 years and prescribed ≥four medications, were included. Data was extracted independently by two reviewers. The Theory Coding Scheme (TCS) was applied to evaluate the use of theory; Risk of Bias (RoB) was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool. Results: Two studies, one feasibility study and one randomised controlled trial (RCT) were included, and therefore overall effectiveness of the theoretically derived intervention could not be assessed. Theory used in development included the Theoretical Domains Framework and Reason's system-based risk management theory. The RCT was rated to have a high RoB. Based on the TCS, neither study used theory completely. Conclusion: The effectiveness of theoretically derived interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy in primary care could not be determined due to the small number of studies and their heterogeneity. Further incorporation of theory into intervention development is required to understand the effectiveness of this approach.Prospero registration: CRD42020157175.

Pharmacogenetic interventions to improve outcomes in patients with multimorbidity or prescribed polypharmacy: a systematic review.

Conventional medicines optimisation interventions in people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy are complex and yet limited; a more holistic and integrated approach to healthcare delivery is required. Pharmacogenetics has potential as a component of medicines optimisation. Studies involving multi-medicine pharmacogenetics in adults with multimorbidity or polypharmacy, reporting on outcomes derived from relevant core outcome sets, were included in this systematic review. Narrative synthesis was undertaken to summarise the data; meta-analysis was inappropriate due to study heterogeneity. Fifteen studies of diverse design and variable quality were included. A small, randomised study involving pharmacist-led medicines optimisation, including pharmacogenetics, suggests this approach could have significant benefits for patients and health systems. However, due to study design heterogeneity and the quality of the included studies, it is difficult to draw generalisable conclusions. Further pragmatic, robust pharmacogenetics studies in diverse, real-world patient populations, are required to establish the benefit of multi-medicine pharmacogenetic screening on patient outcomes.

Protocol for a process evaluation of an external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care: the PolyPrime study.

BACKGROUND: The PolyPrime intervention is a theory-based intervention aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in older people (aged ≥65 years) in primary care. The intervention consists of an online video which demonstrates how general practitioners (GPs) can prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a consultation with an older patient and a patient recall process, whereby patients are invited to scheduled medication review consultations with GPs. The aim of the process evaluation is to further examine the implementation of the PolyPrime intervention in primary care. This will involve investigating whether the PolyPrime intervention can be delivered as intended across two healthcare systems, how acceptable the intervention is to GPs, practice staff and patients, and to identify the intervention's likely mechanisms of action. METHODS: The PolyPrime study is an external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) which aims to recruit 12 GP practices across Northern Ireland [NI] (n=6) and the six counties in the Republic of Ireland (ROI) that border NI (n=6). Practices have been randomised to intervention or usual care. An embedded process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity (i.e. was the intervention delivered as intended), acceptability of the intervention to GPs, practice staff and patients and potential mechanisms of action (i.e. what components of the intervention were perceived to be effective). Quantitative data will be collected from data collection forms completed by GPs and practice staff and a feedback questionnaire completed by patients from intervention arm practices, which will be analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data will be collected through semi-structured interviews with GPs and practice staff and audio-recordings of medication review appointments from the intervention arm practices which will be transcribed and analysed using the framework method. Quantitative and qualitative data will be triangulated to provide an overall assessment of intervention fidelity, intervention acceptability, and mechanisms of action. DISCUSSION: This process evaluation will add to feasibility data from the pilot cRCT by providing evidence on the fidelity of implementing the intervention package across two healthcare systems, the acceptability of the intervention and potential mechanisms of action. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ISRCTN41009897 . Registered on 19 November 2019. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04181879 . Registered 02 December 2019.

An external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care (PolyPrime): study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The use of multiple medications (polypharmacy) is a concern in older people (≥65 years) and is associated with negative health outcomes. For older populations with multimorbidity, polypharmacy is the reality and the key challenge is ensuring appropriate polypharmacy (as opposed to inappropriate polypharmacy). This external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aims to further test a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care in two jurisdictions, Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). METHODS: Twelve GP practices across NI (n=6) and the six counties in the ROI that border NI will be randomised to either the intervention or usual care group. Members of the research team have developed an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change. The intervention consists of two components: (1) an online video which demonstrates how a GP may prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a consultation with an older patient and (2) a patient recall process, whereby patients are invited to scheduled medication review consultations with GPs. Ten older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥4 medications) will be recruited per GP practice (n=120). GP practices allocated to the intervention arm will be asked to watch the online video and schedule medication reviews with patients on two occasions; an initial and a 6-month follow-up appointment. GP practices allocated to the control arm will continue to provide usual care to patients. The study will assess the feasibility of recruitment, retention and study procedures including collecting data on medication appropriateness (from GP records), quality of life and health service use (i.e. hospitalisations). An embedded process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity (i.e. was the intervention delivered as intended), acceptability of the intervention and potential mechanisms of action. DISCUSSION: This pilot cRCT will provide evidence of the feasibility of a range of study parameters such as recruitment and retention, data collection procedures and the acceptability of the intervention. Pre-specified progression criteria will also be used to determine whether or not to proceed to a definitive cRCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN41009897 . Registered 19 November 2019. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04181879 . Registered 02 December 2019.

Enhancing community pharmacists' provision of medication adherence support to older adults: A mixed methods study using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacists have an important role to play in providing medication adherence support (MAS) to older patients. However, research has shown that pharmacists rarely ask patients about adherence and offer limited solutions. The Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) can guide the selection of behaviour change techniques (BCTs), to enhance behaviours such as MAS provision. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to: (1) explore barriers/facilitators influencing community pharmacists' provision of MAS to older patients prescribed multiple medications; (2) Identify theoretical domains to target for behaviour change; (3) Select BCTs to deliver to pharmacists to enhance MAS provision. METHOD: As part of a two-phase study, semi-structured interviews and a cross-sectional survey were conducted. In Phase 1, community pharmacists in Northern Ireland (NI) were recruited using purposive/snowball sampling. TDF-based interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed by two independent researchers using the framework method/content analysis. In Phase 2, a TDF-based postal survey was mailed to all community pharmacies in NI (n = 521) and analysed using descriptive statistics. Triangulated findings informed selection of target TDF domains and BCTs to deliver to enhance MAS provision. RESULTS: Fifteen pharmacists were interviewed for Phase 1. Barriers and facilitators included inadequate remuneration, time and knowledge of solutions and professional confidence. In Phase 2, 143 (27.4%) survey responses were received. Potential barriers included inadequate training in motivational techniques and difficulties with decision-making. Based on triangulated findings, seven domains (e.g. skills, motivation/goals) were identified as targets and mapped across to 18 BCTs (e.g. behavioural practice/rehearsal, prompts/cues). CONCLUSIONS: This mixed methods study provides unique perspectives on the wide range of barriers/facilitators that are perceived to influence the provision of MAS by community pharmacists. The 18 BCTs identified to target each of the seven key target domains identified in this study will be tested in a future pilot study of a patient-targeted intervention.

A systematic review of pharmacist input to metabolic syndrome screening, management and prevention.

Background Metabolic syndrome is a cluster of factors that increase the risk of cardiovascular disease and include: diabetes and prediabetes, abdominal obesity, elevated triglycerides, low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and high blood-pressure. However, the role of the pharmacist in the metabolic syndrome has not yet been fully explored. Aim of the review This systematic review aimed to critically appraise, synthesise, and present the available evidence on pharmacists' input to the screening, prevention and management of metabolic syndrome. Method The final protocol was based on the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P)". Studies published in English from January 2008 to March 2020 reporting any pharmacist activities in the screening, prevention or management of metabolic syndrome were included. Databases searched were Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Cochrane and Google Scholar. Studies were assessed for quality by two researchers, data extracted and findings synthesised using a narrative approach. Results Of the 39,430 titles reviewed, ten studies were included (four were randomised controlled trials). Most studies focused on pharmacist input to metabolic syndrome screening and management. Screening largely involved communicating metabolic parameters to physicians. Management of metabolic syndrome described pharmacists collaborating with members of the multidisciplinary team. A positive impact was reported in all studies, including achieving metabolic syndrome parameter goals, reverting to a non-metabolic syndrome status and, improved medication adherence. The populations studied were paediatrics with risk factors, adults with comorbidities and psychiatric patients. Integration of the pharmacist within the multidisciplinary team, an easy referral process and accessibility of service were potential facilitators. Inadequate funding was the key barrier. Conclusion The studies describing pharmacist input in metabolic syndrome provide limited evidence of positive outcomes from screening and management as part of collaborative practice. Further work is required to provide more robust evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness while considering key barriers.

Views and experiences of decision-makers on organisational safety culture and medication errors.

BACKGROUND: In 2017, the World Health Organization published "Medication Without Harm, WHO Global Patient Safety Challenge," to reduce patient harm caused by unsafe medication use practices. While the five objectives emphasise the need to create a framework for action, engaging key stakeholders and others, most published research has focused on the perspectives of health professionals. The aim was to explore the views and experiences of decision-makers in Qatar on organisational safety culture, medication errors and error reporting. METHOD: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare decision-makers (policy-makers, professional leaders and managers, lead educators and trainers) in Qatar. Participants were recruited via purposive and snowball sampling, continued to the point of data saturation. The interview schedule focused on: error causation and error prevention; engendering a safety culture; and initiatives to encourage error reporting. Interviews were digitally recorded, transcribed and independently analysed by two researchers using the Framework Approach. RESULTS: From the 21 interviews conducted, key themes were the need to: promote trust within the organisation through articulating a fair blame culture; eliminate management, professional and cultural hierarchies; focus on team building, open communication and feedback; promote professional development; and scale-up successful initiatives. There was recognition that the current medication error reporting processes and systems were suboptimal, with suggested enhancements in themes of promoting a fair blame culture and open communication. CONCLUSION: These positive and negative aspects of organisational culture can inform the development of theory-based interventions to promote patient safety. Central to these will be the further development and sustainment of a "fair" blame culture in Qatar and beyond.

Development of a core outcome set for trials investigating the long-term management of bronchiectasis.

Heterogeneity in outcomes measured in trials limits accurate comparison of bronchiectasis studies. A core outcome set (COS) is an agreed, standardized set of outcomes that should be measured in trials for specific clinical areas. A COS for bronchiectasis could encourage consistency in future studies. An overview of systematic reviews and qualitative study on outcome selection in bronchiectasis informed an initial list of outcomes. A Delphi panel ( n = 86) rated the importance of each outcome from 1 to 9 in 3 sequential questionnaires, as a means to achieve consensus: 1-3 = 'of limited importance'; 4-6 = 'important, but not critical'; and 7-9 = 'critical'. Outcomes rated 'critical' by ≥70% of the panel were added to the COS. Eighty-two participants responded to the first questionnaire. Attrition between each questionnaire was 5%. After 3 rounds of questioning, 18 outcomes exceeded the threshold for consensus and were included in the COS. This study has achieved consensus on 18 outcomes that should be measured in trials of interventions for bronchiectasis. Selection of the highest ranked outcomes may represent a pragmatic means for comparison. Further research is required to condense the number of outcomes selected and to determine its relevance to interventions.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review. OBJECTIVES: To determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 7 February 2018, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people aged 65 years and older, prescribed polypharmacy (four or more medicines), which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 32 studies, 20 from this update. Included studies consisted of 18 randomised trials, 10 cluster randomised trials (one of which was a stepped-wedge design), two non-randomised trials and two controlled before-after studies. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support (CDS); and 31 were complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical-care based approaches (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patient's outcomes), one of which incorporated a CDS component as part of their multi-faceted intervention. Interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists and geriatricians, and all were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low.It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool), mean difference (MD) -4.76, 95% CI -9.20 to -0.33; 5 studies, N = 517; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.05; 7 studies; N = 1832; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs, (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.02; 11 studies; N = 3079; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.81, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.64; 2 studies; N = 569; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPOs (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 5 studies; N = 1310; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in hospital admissions (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 4052; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in quality of life (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 3211; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in eight studies (N = 10,087) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as reviews of patients' prescriptions, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they may be slightly beneficial in terms of reducing potential prescribing omissions (PPOs); but this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias.

The association between polypharmacy and medication regimen complexity and antibiotic use in bronchiectasis.

Background Polypharmacy is associated with an increased risk of adverse drug events, inappropriate prescribing and medication errors. People with bronchiectasis have frequent pulmonary exacerbations that require antibiotic therapy. Objective This study aimed to measure polypharmacy and medication regimen complexity in bronchiectasis patients and to explore associations between these factors and oral and intravenous (IV) antibiotic use for suspected pulmonary exacerbations. Setting Patients were sampled from the Regional Bronchiectasis Clinic at the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust, Northern Ireland. Method Data on medicines were collected from patients' records and used to measure polypharmacy using three thresholds (≥ 4, ≥ 10, and ≥ 15 medicines'). Medication regimen complexity was calculated using the medication regimen complexity index (MRCI). Data analysis investigated differences in outcomes across polypharmacy thresholds and correlations with MRCI. Main outcome measure Primary outcomes were prescriptions for oral antibiotics and IV antibiotics, in the past 6 months and 2 years, respectively. Results Over three-quarters of the sample (N = 95) were prescribed ≥ 4 medicines (n = 74; 77.9%), 31 patients were prescribed ≥ 10 medicines (33.0%), and 12 patients (12.8%) were prescribed ≥ 15 medicines. The median MRCI was 26. Patients prescribed ≥ 10 medicines were over three times more likely to have had an IV antibiotic in the past 2 years (adjusted odd ratio 3.44, 95% confidence intervals 1.15-10.31). Conclusion There were significant differences in all outcomes across the '≥ 10 medicines' threshold. MRCI was positively correlated with oral and IV antibiotic usage. These findings also suggest a possible link between polypharmacy and medicines regimen complexity, and poorer outcomes.

Patterns of multi-morbidity and prediction of hospitalisation and all-cause mortality in advanced age.

Background: multi-morbidity is associated with poor outcomes and increased healthcare utilisation. We aim to identify multi-morbidity patterns and associations with potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP), subsequent hospitalisation and mortality in octogenarians. Methods: life and Living in Advanced Age; a Cohort Study in New Zealand (LiLACS NZ) examined health outcomes of 421 Maori (indigenous to New Zealand), aged 80-90 and 516 non-Maori, aged 85 years in 2010. Presence of 14 chronic conditions was ascertained from self-report, general practice and hospitalisation records and physical assessments. Agglomerative hierarchical cluster analysis identified clusters of participants with co-existing conditions. Multivariate regression models examined the associations between clusters and PIP, 48-month hospitalisations and mortality. Results: six clusters were identified for Maori and non-Maori, respectively. The associations between clusters and outcomes differed between Maori and non-Maori. In Maori, those in the complex multi-morbidity cluster had the highest prevalence of inappropriately prescribed medications and in cluster 'diabetes' (20% of sample) had higher risk of hospitalisation and mortality at 48-month follow-up. In non-Maori, those in the 'depression-arthritis' (17% of the sample) cluster had both highest prevalence of inappropriate medications and risk of hospitalisation and mortality. Conclusions: in octogenarians, hospitalisation and mortality are better predicted by profiles of clusters of conditions rather than the presence or absence of a specific condition. Further research is required to determine if the cluster approach can be used to target patients to optimise resource allocation and improve outcomes.

A feasibility study of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy for older people in primary care.

BACKGROUND: A general practitioner (GP)-targeted intervention aimed at improving the prescribing of appropriate polypharmacy for older people was previously developed using a systematic, theory-based approach based on the UK Medical Research Council's complex intervention framework. The primary intervention component comprised a video demonstration of a GP prescribing appropriate polypharmacy during a consultation with an older patient. The video was delivered to GPs online and included feedback emphasising the positive outcomes of performing the behaviour. As a complementary intervention component, patients were invited to scheduled medication review consultations with GPs. This study aimed to test the feasibility of the intervention and study procedures (recruitment, data collection). METHODS: GPs from two general practices were given access to the video, and reception staff scheduled consultations with older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥4 medicines). Primary feasibility study outcomes were the usability and acceptability of the intervention to GPs. Feedback was collected from GP and patient participants using structured questionnaires. Clinical data were also extracted from recruited patients' medical records (baseline and 1 month post-consultation). The feasibility of applying validated assessment of prescribing appropriateness (STOPP/START criteria, Medication Appropriateness Index) and medication regimen complexity (Medication Regimen Complexity Index) to these data was investigated. Data analysis was descriptive, providing an overview of participants' feedback and clinical assessment findings. RESULTS: Four GPs and ten patients were recruited across two practices. The intervention was considered usable and acceptable by GPs. Some reservations were expressed by GPs as to whether the video truly reflected resource and time pressures encountered in the general practice working environment. Patient feedback on the scheduled consultations was positive. Patients welcomed the opportunity to have their medications reviewed. Due to the short time to follow-up and a lack of detailed clinical information in patient records, it was not feasible to detect any prescribing changes or to apply the assessment tools to patients' clinical data. CONCLUSION: The findings will help to further refine the intervention and study procedures (including time to follow-up) which will be tested in a randomised pilot study that will inform the design of a definitive trial to evaluate the intervention's effectiveness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN18176245.

Improving adherence to multiple medications in older people in primary care: Selecting intervention components to address patient-reported barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: Medication adherence is vital to ensuring optimal patient outcomes, particularly amongst multimorbid older people prescribed multiple medications. Interventions targeting adherence often lack a theoretical underpinning and this may impact on effectiveness. The theoretical domains framework (TDF) of behaviour can aid intervention development by systematically identifying key determinants of medication adherence. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to (i) identify determinants (barriers, facilitators) of adherence to multiple medications from older people's perspectives; (ii) identify key domains to target for behaviour change; and (iii) map key domains to intervention components [behaviour change techniques (BCTs)] that could be delivered in an intervention by community pharmacists. METHOD: Focus groups were conducted with older people (>65 years) receiving ≥4 medications. Questions explored the 12 domains of the TDF (eg "Knowledge," "Emotion"). Data were analysed using the framework method and content analysis. Identification of key domains and mapping to intervention components (BCTs) followed established methods. RESULTS: Seven focus groups were convened (50 participants). A wide range of determinants were identified as barriers (eg forgetfulness, prioritization of medications) and facilitators (eg social support, personalized routines) of adherence to multiple medications. Eight domains were identified as key targets for behaviour change (eg "Social influences," "Memory, attention and decision processes," "Motivation and goals") and mapped to 11 intervention components (BCTs) to include in an intervention [eg "Social support or encouragement (general)," "Self-monitoring of the behaviour," "Goal-setting (behaviour)"]. CONCLUSION: This study used a theoretical underpinning to identify potential intervention components (BCTs). Future work will incorporate the selected BCTs into an intervention that will undergo feasibility testing in community pharmacies.

Consensus validation of the POSAMINO (POtentially Serious Alcohol-Medication INteractions in Older adults) criteria.

OBJECTIVES: Older adults are particularly vulnerable to adverse effects from concurrent alcohol and medication use. However, there is limited evidence regarding the prevalence of these adverse outcomes among older adults, and there is a lack of consensus regarding what constitutes an alcohol-interactive medicine. The objective of this study was to develop an explicit list of potentially serious alcohol-medication interactions for use in older adults. DESIGN: Following a systematic review, review of drug compendia and clinical guidance documents, a two-round Delphi consensus method was conducted. SETTING: Ireland and the United Kingdom (UK), primary care and hospital setting. PARTICIPANTS: The Project Steering Group developed a list of potentially serious alcohol-medication interactions. The Delphi panel consisted of 19 healthcare professionals (general practitioners, geriatricians, hospital and community pharmacists, clinical pharmacologists and pharmacists, and physicians specialising in substance misuse). RESULTS: An inventory of 52 potentially serious alcohol-medication interactions was developed by the Project Steering Group. British National Formulary black dot warnings (n=8) were included in the final criteria as they represent 'potentially serious' interactions. The remaining 44 criteria underwent a two-round Delphi process. In the first round, 13 criteria were accepted into the POtentially Serious Alcohol-Medication INteractions in Older adults (POSAMINO) criteria. Consensus was not reached on the remaining 31 criteria; 9 were removed and 8 additional criteria were included following a review of panellist comments. The remaining 30 criteria went to round 2, with 17 criteria reaching consensus, providing a final list of 38 potentially serious alcohol-medication interactions: central nervous system (n=15), cardiovascular system (n=9), endocrine system (n=5), musculoskeletal system (n=3), infections (n=3), malignant disease and immunosuppression (n=2), and respiratory system (n=1). CONCLUSIONS: POSAMINO is the first set of explicit potentially serious alcohol-medication interactions for use in older adults. Following future validation studies, these criteria may allow for the risk stratification of older adults at the point of prescribing.