Implementation of pharmacogenetic testing in medication reviews in a hospital setting.

AIM: To investigate whether it is feasible to perform pharmacogenetic testing and implement the test results as part of medication reviews during hospitalization of multimorbid patients. METHODS: Patients with ≥2 chronic conditions and ≥5 regular drugs with at least one potential gene-drug interaction (GDI) were included from one geriatric and one cardiology ward for pharmacogenetic testing. After inclusion by the study pharmacist, blood samples were collected and shipped to the laboratory for analysis. For patients still hospitalized at the time when the pharmacogenetic test results were available, the information was used in medication reviews. Recommendations from the pharmacist on actionable GDIs were communicated to the hospital physicians, who subsequently decided on potential immediate changes or forwarded suggestions in referrals to general practitioners. RESULTS: The pharmacogenetic test results were available for medication review in 18 of the 46 patients (39.1%), where median length of hospital stay was 4.7 days (1.6-18.3). The pharmacist recommended medication changes for 21 of 49 detected GDIs (42.9%). The hospital physicians accepted 19 (90.5%) of the recommendations. The most commonly detected GDIs involved metoprolol (CYP2D6 genotype), clopidogrel (CYP2C19 genotype) and atorvastatin (CYP3A4/5 and SLCOB1B1 genotype). CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that implementation of pharmacogenetic testing for medication review of hospitalized patients has the potential to improve drug treatment before being transferred to primary care. However, the logistics workflow needs to be further optimized, as test results were available during hospitalization for less than half of the patients included in the study.

Interventional study to improve adherence to phosphate binder treatment in dialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to phosphate binder treatment is important to prevent high serum phosphate level in chronic dialysis patients. We therefore wanted to investigate patient knowledge, beliefs about and adherence to phosphate binders among these patients and assess whether one-to-one pharmacist-led education and counselling enhance adherence and lead to changes in serum phosphate levels. METHODS: A descriptive, interventional, single arm, pre-post study was performed at a hospital in Norway, including chronic dialysis patients aged 18 years or more using phosphate binders. The primary end-point was change in the proportion of patients with serum phosphate below 1.80 mmol/L and the secondary end-points included change in the patient's knowledge, beliefs and adherence after the intervention measured by completion of questionnaires 'Patient Knowledge', Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS- 5) and Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ). Data was collected both prior to and after one-to-one pharmacist-led education and counselling about their phosphate binders. Other medicines used by the patient was also registered. RESULTS: A total of 69 patients were enrolled in the study. After intervention, the probability of serum phosphate being below the target threshold 1.80 mmol/L (5.58 mg/dL) increased, although no significant change in mean serum phosphate levels was seen. On the other hand, the knowledge regarding phosphate binder treatment and the patients' beliefs about the necessity of the treatment increased, while the concerns decreased (BMQ). This effect did not lead to increase in self-reported adherence measured by MARS-5. However the scores were high before the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Short term one-to-one individualized pharmacist-led education and counselling about phosphate binders increased the probability of serum phosphate concentrations being below the target threshold level 1.80 mmol/L (5.58 mg/dL), although not statistically significant. However, it did not decrease the mean serum phosphate level or increase the patients' self-reported adherence. The patients increased their knowledge about the phosphate binder and their understanding of adherence, and were less concerned about the side effects of the medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN52852596 , registered 11 April 2019. The trial was registered retrospectively.

Limited effect of structured medication report as the only intervention at discharge from hospital.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether a structured medication report at discharge from the hospital could reduce the number of medication discrepancies in primary care. METHOD: The study was performed as an open, randomised controlled study including patients transferred from one hospital in Norway to nursing home or home care. Both groups received epicrisis on discharge. In addition, the intervention group received a structured medication report. After discharge, the medication list in primary care service was compared with the list at discharge and medication discrepancies identified. In addition, these medication lists were retrospectively compared with the lists prior to admission to the hospital and at admission to hospital. A questionnaire on time spent and quality of the medication information was filled in by nurses in primary care. RESULTS: Medication discrepancies were found for 72% (26) of the patients in the intervention group and 76% (42) in the control group (P=0.918). Most common was drugs omitted or committed to the medication lists in primary care service. Typically, the committed drugs in primary care were omitted drugs after admission to the hospital. Nurses used significantly less time (66%) obtaining medication information in the intervention group (P=0.041). CONCLUSIONS: Structured medication report as the only intervention did not reduce the medication discrepancies after discharge from hospital. There is a need for reconciliation at admission to ensure the quality of the medication report. Structured medication report resulted in the nurses spending less time on collecting medication information in primary care service.