The Use of eHealth for Pharmacotherapy Management With Patients With Respiratory Disease, Cardiovascular Disease, or Diabetes: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: eHealth is increasingly considered an important tool for supporting pharmacotherapy management. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the (1) use of eHealth in pharmacotherapy management with patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, or cardiovascular disease (CVD); (2) effectiveness of these interventions on pharmacotherapy management and clinical outcomes; and (3) key factors contributing to the success of eHealth interventions for pharmacotherapy management. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping review) statement. Databases searched included Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Cochrane Library. Screening was conducted by 2 independent researchers. Eligible articles were randomized controlled trials and cohort studies assessing the effect of an eHealth intervention for pharmacotherapy management compared with usual care on pharmacotherapy management or clinical outcomes in patients with asthma or COPD, CVD, or diabetes. The interventions were categorized by the type of device, pharmacotherapy management, mode of delivery, features, and domains described in the conceptual model for eHealth by Shaw at al (Health in our Hands, Interacting for Health, Data Enabling Health). The effectiveness on pharmacotherapy management outcomes and patient- and clinician-reported clinical outcomes was analyzed per type of intervention categorized by number of domains and features to identify trends. RESULTS: Of 63 studies, 16 (25%), 31 (49%), 13 (21%), and 3 (5%) included patients with asthma or COPD, CVD, diabetes, or CVD and diabetes, respectively. Most (38/63, 60%) interventions targeted improving medication adherence, often combined for treatment plan optimization. Of the 16 asthma or COPD interventions, 6 aimed to improve inhaled medication use. The majority (48/63, 76%) of the studies provided an option for patient feedback. Most (20/63, 32%) eHealth interventions combined all 3 domains by Shaw et al, while 25% (16/63) combined Interacting for Health with Data Enabling Health. Two-thirds (42/63, 67%) of the studies showed a positive overall effect. Respectively, 48% (23/48), 57% (28/49), and 39% (12/31) reported a positive effect on pharmacotherapy management and clinician- and patient-reported clinical outcomes. Pharmacotherapy management and patient-reported clinical outcomes, but not clinician-reported clinical outcomes, were more often positive in interventions with ≥3 features. There was a trend toward more studies reporting a positive effect on all 3 outcomes with more domains by Shaw et al. Of the studies with interventions providing patient feedback, more showed a positive clinical outcome, compared with studies with interventions without feedback. This effect was not seen for pharmacotherapy management outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variety of eHealth interventions combining various domains and features to target pharmacotherapy management in asthma or COPD, CVD, and diabetes. Results suggest feedback is key for a positive effect on clinician-reported clinical outcomes. eHealth interventions become more impactful when combining domains.

A Pharmacy-Based eHealth Intervention Promoting Correct Use of Medication in Patients With Asthma and COPD: Nonrandomized Pre-Post Study.

BACKGROUND: Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affect millions of people worldwide. While medication can control and improve disease symptoms, incorrect use of medication is a common problem. The eHealth intervention SARA (Service Apothecary Respiratory Advice) aims to improve participants' correct use of inhalation medication by providing information and as-needed tailored follow-up support by a pharmacist. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effect of SARA on exacerbation rates in participants with asthma and COPD. Secondary aims were to investigate its effects in terms of adherence to maintenance medication and antimycotic treatment. METHODS: In this nonrandomized pre-post study, medication dispensing data from 382 Dutch community pharmacies were included. Exacerbation rates were assessed with dispensed short-course oral corticosteroids. Medication adherence between new and chronic users was assessed by calculating the proportion of days covered from dispensed inhalation maintenance medication. Antimycotic treatment was investigated from dispensed oral antimycotics in participants who were also dispensed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Outcomes were assessed 1 year before and 1 year after implementation of SARA and were compared between SARA participants and control participants. More specifically, for exacerbation rates and medication adherence, a difference score was calculated (ie, 1 year after SARA minus 1 year before SARA) and was subsequently compared between the study groups with independent-samples t tests. For antimycotics, the relative number of participants who were dispensed antimycotics was calculated and subsequently analyzed with a mixed-effects logistic regression. RESULTS: The study population comprised 9452 participants, of whom 2400 (25.39%) were SARA participants. The mean age of the population was 60.8 (15.0) years, and approximately two-thirds (n=5677, 60.06%) were female. The results showed an increase in mean exacerbation rates over time for both study groups (SARA: 0.05; control: 0.15). However, this increase in exacerbation rates was significantly lower for SARA participants (t9450=3.10, 95% CI 0.04-0.16; P=.002; Cohen d=0.06). Chronic users of inhalation medication in both study groups showed an increase in mean medication adherence over time (SARA: 6.73; control: 4.48); however, this increase was significantly higher for SARA participants (t5886=-2.74, 95% CI -3.86 to -0.84; P=.01; Cohen d=-0.07). Among new users of inhalation medication, results showed no significant difference in medication adherence between SARA and control participants in the year after implementation of SARA (t1434=-1.85, 95% CI -5.60 to 0.16; P=.06; Cohen d=-0.10). Among ICS users, no significant differences between the study groups were found over time in terms of the proportion of participants who were dispensed antimycotics (t5654=0.29, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.54; P=.76; Cohen d=0). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides preliminary evidence that the SARA eHealth intervention might have the potential to decrease exacerbation rates and improve medication adherence among patients with asthma and COPD.

Tolerance-based capecitabine dose escalation after DPYD genotype-guided dosing in heterozygote DPYD variant carriers: a single-center observational study.

OBJECTIVE: Certain polymorphisms of the DPYD gene encoding for the dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) enzyme are associated with fluoropyrimidine-induced toxicity. Dose reductions of the fluoropyrimidine prodrug capecitabine are recommended for patients carrying these DPYD variants to prevent toxicities. Capecitabine dose escalation after an initial genotype-guided dose reduction is advocated when treatment is well tolerated. However, practical guidelines on how to implement these dose escalations are lacking. We implemented a protocol for tolerance-guided capecitabine dosing in DPYD variant carriers and aimed to explore its effect on toxicity of treatment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients receiving capecitabine-based chemotherapy for different types of solid tumors were identified retrospectively. Capecitabine doses were reduced in case of a DPYD variant (DPYD*2A, c.2846A>T, DPYD*13, or c.1236G>A) and subsequently adjusted on the basis of tolerance. Outcome was evaluated by clinical chart review and dosing characteristics from the hospital pharmacy. Results were compared with a cohort of capecitabine-treated DPYD wild-type patients. RESULTS: Of 185 patients eligible for analysis, 11 patients were heterozygous for a DPYD variant. A median dose escalation of 8.5% was achieved using the prespecified protocol. One DPYD variant carrier experienced a grade 3 toxicity after a dose escalation. Overall, DPYD variant carriers did not experience more, or more severe toxicities than DPYD wild-type patients. The total prevalence of severe toxicities in the wild-type group was 43.1% and is comparable with the literature. CONCLUSION: Tolerance-based capecitabine dose escalation did not lead to more toxicity in DPYD variant carriers compared with wild-type patients. Our results can guide future prospective research.