Medicine shortages: impact behind numbers.

INTRODUCTION: Current research to assess the impact that medicine shortages have on patients is limited to general aspects, such as the prevalence of shortages and product characteristics. The aim of this study is to assess the overall impact that medicine shortages have on economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes. METHODS: A cohort of all known products in shortage in the Netherlands between 2012 and 2015 were characterized by their route of administration, anatomical therapeutic chemical class, and whether they were originator or generic products. A representative sample of 324 shortages (18% of all shortages) was rated as having low, medium, or high impact on the five elements that determine the impact of shortages on patients: availability of an alternative product, underlying disease, susceptibility of the patient, costs (for patients and society at large), and number of patients affected. Ratings were converted into numerical scores per element and multiplied to obtain an overall impact score. RESULTS: Two elements were most frequently rated as having a high impact: disease (29%) and costs (20%). Nearly half of the shortages (47%) rated high on at least one element, while nearly 10% rated high on multiple elements. Thirty percent of the shortages rated high on direct impact, which is represented by these elements: alternative product and disease. An additional 17% of the shortages rated high on indirect impact, which is represented by these elements: costs, susceptibility, and number of patients. High impact scores could not significantly be attributed to characteristics of the products in shortage. CONCLUSIONS: An assessment of the medicine shortages' impact using a framework based on economic, clinical, and economic outcomes showed that all three outcomes affect the overall impact that medicine shortages have on patients.

Impact of medicine shortages on patients - a framework and application in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Medicine shortages are often described in plain numbers, suggesting all shortages have a uniform impact. However, some shortages have a direct and serious effect on patients and need a prompt reaction from stakeholders. This study aims to create a broad framework to assess the impact of a shortage. METHOD: We identified high impact shortages and selected exemplary shortages which we considered our learning cases. From five learning cases, we identified elements that had a potentially profound impact on one or more of these cases. We tested data saturation on the elements with another five test cases. Based on these elements, we created a framework to assess impact of shortages on patients and presented practical examples how to rate these different elements. Subsequently, we visualised the impact of these five learning cases on patients in radar charts. RESULTS: The five elements which we identified as potentially having a large impact were 1) alternative product, 2) disease, 3) susceptibility, 4) costs and 5) number of patients affected. The five learning cases rated high on different elements, leading to diverse and sometimes even opposite patterns of impact. CONCLUSION: We created a framework for assessing the impact of a medicine shortage on patients by means of five key elements. By rating these elements, an indication of the impact can be obtained.

Learning from patients: Identifying design features of medicines that cause medication use problems.

Usability is a key factor in ensuring safe and efficacious use of medicines. However, several studies showed that people experience a variety of problems using their medicines. The purpose of this study was to identify design features of oral medicines that cause use problems among older patients in daily practice. A qualitative study with semi-structured interviews on the experiences of older people with the use of their medicines was performed (n=59). Information on practical problems, strategies to overcome these problems and the medicines' design features that caused these problems were collected. The practical problems and management strategies were categorised into 'use difficulties' and 'use errors'. A total of 158 use problems were identified, of which 45 were categorized as use difficulties and 113 as use error. Design features that contributed the most to the occurrence of use difficulties were the dimensions and surface texture of the dosage form (29.6% and 18.5%, respectively). Design features that contributed the most to the occurrence of use errors were the push-through force of blisters (22.1%) and tamper evident packaging (12.1%). These findings will help developers of medicinal products to proactively address potential usability issues with their medicines.

Relationship between Age and the Ability to Break Scored Tablets.

BACKGROUND: Practical problems with the use of medicines, such as difficulties with breaking tablets, are an often overlooked cause for non-adherence. Tablets frequently break in uneven parts and loss of product can occur due to crumbling and powdering. Health characteristics, such as the presence of peripheral neuropathy, decreased grip strength and manual dexterity, can affect a patient's ability to break tablets. As these impairments are associated with aging and age-related diseases, such as Parkinson's disease and arthritis, difficulties with breaking tablets could be more prevalent among older adults. The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between age and the ability to break scored tablets. METHODS: A comparative study design was chosen. Thirty-six older adults and 36 young adults were systematically observed with breaking scored tablets. Twelve different tablets were included. All participants were asked to break each tablet by three techniques: in between the fingers with the use of nails, in between the fingers without the use of nails and pushing the tablet downward with one finger on a solid surface. It was established whether a tablet was broken or not, and if broken, whether the tablet was broken accurately or not. RESULTS: The older adults experienced more difficulties to break tablets compared to the young adults. On average, the older persons broke 38.1% of the tablets, of which 71.0% was broken accurately. The young adults broke 78.2% of the tablets, of which 77.4% was broken accurately. Further analysis by mixed effects logistic regression revealed that age was associated with the ability to break tablets, but not with the accuracy of breaking. CONCLUSIONS: Breaking scored tablets by hand is less successful in an elderly population compared to a group of young adults. Health care providers should be aware that tablet breaking is not appropriate for all patients and for all drugs. In case tablet breaking is unavoidable, a patient's ability to break tablets should be assessed by health care providers and instructions on the appropriate method of breaking should be provided.

Risk indicator taxonomy for supervision of clinical trials on medicinal products.

AIM: To facilitate a risk-based approach for the supervision of clinical trials on medicinal products, we identified and categorized indicators that may present an elevated safety and/or ethical risk for participants, and/or for data integrity. The indicators are relevant for all stakeholders including participants, regulatory bodies, health care inspectorates, sponsors and trial sites. METHODS: The sources of indicators included Medline (using the search terms risk-based/-triggered/-driven oversight/monitoring/inspection), relevant documents from websites of regulatory authorities in Europe, North America and Australia, and results of a brainstorm session organized for experts working in the field. Indicators were classified according to risk area (safety and ethical, data integrity, or both). RESULTS: In total, we identified 69 risk indicators that were categorized into six branch-levels of the taxonomy. We visualized the taxonomy in a tree structure to clearly distinguish individual indicators. In addition to readily detectable risk indicators, more context-related aspects determine the final impact of the trial and constitute further components in risk assessment. Context-related aspects include potential high media attention, consequences for the reputation of medical research, and the socioeconomic situation in the geographic region and have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a wide array of risk indicators for clinical trials on medicinal products and we used a tree structure to incorporate the indicators identified to clearly distinguish individual indicators and to enable efficient use of the indicators. The overview of indicators may facilitate multiple stakeholders in developing structured risk assessment (identification and analysis) for supervising clinical trials on medicinal products. Stakeholders can interpret and prioritize the indicators from their own perspective.

Authors' response to the letter from Kalleian Eserian et al.

This letter is a response to the comments of Kalleian Eserian et al. on our study relating to the accuracy, precision and sustainability of six tablet splitters and a kitchen knife as an alternative to breaking paracetamol 500mg tablets by hand. We would like to inform the readers of International Journal of Pharmaceutics that our study focused on splitting tablets with a mechanical tool rather than breaking tablets by hand. Although publications on hand breaking tablets were not cited for this reason, we are familiar with the conclusions of these publications. This is especially true for the publications that were written by direct colleagues from the department of the corresponding author e.g., Van Santen et al. and Van der Steen et al.

Practical problems with medication use that older people experience: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To identify the practical problems that older people experience with the daily use of their medicines and their management strategies to address these problems and to determine the potential clinical relevance thereof. DESIGN: Qualitative study with semistructured face-to-face interviews. SETTING: A community pharmacy and a geriatric outpatient ward. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling people aged 70 and older (N = 59). MEASUREMENTS: Participants were interviewed at home. Two researchers coded the reported problems and management strategies independently according to a coding scheme. An expert panel classified the potential clinical relevance of every identified practical problem and associated management strategy using a 3-point scale. RESULTS: Two hundred eleven practical problems and 184 management strategies were identified. Ninety-five percent of the participants experienced one or more practical problems with the use of their medicines: problems reading and understanding the instructions for use, handling the outer packaging, handling the immediate packaging, completing preparation before use, and taking the medicine. For 10 participants, at least one of their problems, in combination with the applied management strategy, had potential clinical consequences and 11 cases (5% of the problems) had the potential to cause moderate or severe clinical deterioration. CONCLUSION: Older people experience a number of practical problems using their medicines, and their strategies to manage these problems are sometimes suboptimal. These problems can lead to incorrect medication use with clinically relevant consequences. The findings pose a challenge for healthcare professionals, drug developers, and regulators to diminish these problems.

The accuracy, precision and sustainability of different techniques for tablet subdivision: breaking by hand and the use of tablet splitters or a kitchen knife.

INTRODUCTION: Tablets are frequently subdivided to lower the dose, to facilitate swallowing by e.g. children or older people or to save costs. Splitting devices are commonly used when hand breaking is difficult or painful. METHODS: Three techniques for tablet subdivision were investigated: hand breaking, tablet splitter, kitchen knife. A best case drug (paracetamol), tablet (round, flat, uncoated, 500 mg) and operator (24-year student) were applied. Hundred tablets were subdivided by hand and by three devices of each of the following types: Fit & Healthy, Health Care Logistics, Lifetime, PillAid, PillTool, Pilomat tablet splitter; Blokker kitchen knife. The intra and inter device accuracy, precision and sustainability were investigated. The compliance to (adapted) regulatory requirements was investigated also. RESULTS: The accuracy and precision of hand broken tablets was 104/97% resp. 2.8/3.2% (one part per tablet considered; parts right/left side operator). The right/left accuracies of the splitting devices varied between 60 and 133%; the precisions 4.0 and 29.6%. The devices did not deteriorate over 100-fold use. Only hand broken tablets complied with all regulatory requirements. CONCLUSION: Health care professionals should realize that tablet splitting may result in inaccurate dosing. Authorities should undertake appropriate measures to assure good function of tablet splitters and, where feasible, to reduce the need for their use.

Problems experienced by older people when opening medicine packaging.

OBJECTIVE: Medicine packages can cause problems in daily practice, especially among older people. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence of problems experienced by older people when opening medicine packaging and to investigate how patients manage these problems. METHODS: A convenience sample of 30 community pharmacies participated in this study. They selected a systematic sample of 30 patients over 65 years old with a recent omeprazole prescription, and a questionnaire was administered by telephone for at least 10 patients per pharmacy. KEY FINDINGS: A total of 317 patients completed the questionnaire. They received their omeprazole in a bottle (n = 179, 56.5%), push-through blister pack (n = 102, 32.2%) or peel-off blister pack (n = 36, 11.4%). Some 28.4% of all patients experienced one or more problems with opening their omeprazole packaging; most problems occurred with peel-off blisters (n = 24, 66.7% of all respondents using peel-off blisters), followed by push-through blisters (n = 34, 33.3%) and finally bottles (n = 32, 17.9%). The risk of experiencing problems with peel-off blisters and push-through blisters was higher [relative risk 3.7 (95% confidence interval 2.5-5.5) and 1.9 (1.2-2.8), respectively] than the risk of experiencing problems with opening bottles. Two-thirds of respondents reported management strategies for their problems. Most were found for problems opening bottles (n = 24, 75%), followed by push-through blisters (n = 24, 70.6%) and peel-off blisters (n = 14, 58.3%). CONCLUSIONS: One in four patients over 65 experienced difficulties opening their omeprazole packaging and not all of them reported a management strategy for their problems. Manufacturers are advised to pay more attention to the user-friendliness of product packaging. In addition, it is important that pharmacy staff clearly instruct patients on how to open their medicine packaging, or assist them in choosing the most appropriate packaging.

Pharmacy Technicians' Attention to Problems With Opening Medicine Packaging.

Background: Pharmacy technicians seem to be well equipped to engage in conversations with patients about their experiences and problems with medication, but it is unclear whether or not they systematically explain or demonstrate to patients how to use medication packaging. Objective: To explore to what extent pharmacy technicians identify problems with opening medicine packaging and how they assist patients in solving these problems. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study that comprised semistructured interviews, with 31 pharmacy technicians in 31 pharmacies, to assess the occurrence and type of difficulties with packagings and to suggest solutions. Results: All pharmacy technicians recognize the occurrence of packaging problems, though patients rarely report them at the pharmacy counter. Not all pharmacy technicians are familiar with opening all packaging forms, but they all describe ways to find out how to open them, which usually only happens after patients bring up problems. Solutions suggested by the pharmacy technicians include informing and counseling, changing or manipulating the packaging, and providing assisting tools. Conclusions: This study shows that although pharmacy technicians are aware that medication packaging can cause problems and are able to name or find out solutions to all these problems, there is no systematic attention for packaging at drug dispensation in most pharmacies. Discussing the handling of medication packaging should become a fixed part of drug dispensation counseling. Pharmacists should draw up working procedures to support pharmacy technicians in their counseling activities.