Development of a Malaysian potentially inappropriate prescribing screening tool in older adults (MALPIP): a Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) are common among older adults. To guide appropriate prescribing, healthcare professionals often rely on explicit criteria to identify and deprescribe inappropriate medications, or to start medications due to prescribing omission. However, most explicit PIM criteria were developed with inadequate guidance from quality metrics or integrating real-world data, which are rich and valuable data source. AIM: To develop a list of medications to facilitate appropriate prescribing among older adults. METHODS: A preliminary list of PIM and potential prescribing omission (PPO) were generated from systematic review, supplemented with local pharmacovigilance data of adverse reaction incidents among older people. Twenty-one experts from nine specialties participated in two Delphi to determine the list of PIM and PPO in February and March 2023. Items that did not reach consensus after the second Delphi round were adjudicated by six geriatricians. RESULTS: The preliminary list included 406 potential candidates, categorised into three sections: PIM independent of diseases, disease dependent PIM and omitted drugs that could be restarted. At the end of Delphi, 92 items were decided as PIM, including medication classes, such as antacids, laxatives, antithrombotics, antihypertensives, hormones, analgesics, antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antihistamines. Forty-two disease-specific PIM criteria were included, covering circulatory system, nervous system, gastrointestinal system, genitourinary system, and respiratory system. Consensus to start potentially omitted treatment was achieved in 35 statements across nine domains. CONCLUSIONS: The newly developed PIM criteria can serve as a useful tool to guide clinicians and pharmacists in identifying PIMs and PPOs during medication review and facilitating informed decision-making for appropriate prescribing.

Labisia pumila standardized extract (SKF7®) reduces percentage of waist circumference and waist-to-height ratio in individuals with obesity.

AIM: Evidence from the literature points towards a viable choice of utilizing Labisia pumila to improve the metabolic profile in animal studies. To that end, this prospective study was designed to assess the health impact of the consumption of L. pumila standardized extract (SKF7®) on key parameters of obesity in humans such as body weight (BW), body mass index (BMI), waist circumference (WC) and waist-to-height ratio (WHtR). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dose-ranging analysis using SKF7® was conducted through a randomized, double-blind, multicentre, placebo-controlled, phase 2 clinical trial involving individuals with obesity (N = 133) between January 2020 and April 2021. The potential percentage of change was assessed in relation to BW, BMI, WC and WHtR. RESULTS: Average treatment effect estimates (treatment group vs. placebo) show a statistically significant reduction in the percentage of change for BW (mean = -2.915; CI: -4.546, -1.285), BMI (-2.921; CI: -4.551, -1.291), WC (mean = -2.187; CI: -3.784, -0.589) and WHtR (mean = -2.294, CI: -3.908, -0.681) in the group with a total of 750 mg of SKF7® (p < .01). An incremental reduction in WC and WHtR was consistent with the gradual increase in the total daily concentration of SKF7® from 375 to 750 mg. WC and WHtR had higher effect size (f 2 = 0.11 and f 2 = 0.13 respectively) in comparison with BW and BMI. CONCLUSIONS: SKF7® is potentially a novel therapeutic treatment for obesity, reflected by reductions in BW, BMI, WC and WHtR. The use of SKF7® suggests a dose-dependent reduction in abdominal obesity, exemplified by a decline in WC and WHtR.

Short-acting ß2-agonist prescription patterns and clinical outcomes in Malaysia: A nationwide cohort of the SABINA III study.

Introduction: SABINA III assessed short-acting ß2-agonist (SABA) prescription patterns and their association with asthma-related outcomes globally. Herein, we examined SABA prescription and clinical outcomes in the Malaysian cohort of SABINA III. Method: In this observational, cross-sectional study, patients (≥12 years) were recruited between July and December 2019 from 15 primary and specialty care centres in Malaysia. Prescribed asthma treatments and severe exacerbation history within 12 months prior and asthma symptom control during the study visit were evaluated. Associations of SABA prescription with asthma control and severe exacerbation were analysed using multivariable regression models. Results: Seven hundred thirty-one patients (primary care, n=265 [36.3%]; specialty care, n=466 [63.7%]) were evaluated. The prevalence of SABA over-prescription (≥3 SABA prescriptions/year) was 47.4% (primary care, 47.1%; specialty care, 47.6%), 51.8% and 44.5% among all patients and patients with mild and moderate-to-severe asthma, respectively. Altogether 9.0% (n=66) purchased SABA without a prescription; among them, 43.9% (n=29) purchased ≥3 inhalers. The mean (standard deviation) number of severe asthma exacerbations was 1.38 (2.76), and 19.7% (n=144) and 25.7% (n=188) had uncontrolled and partly controlled symptoms, respectively. Prescriptions of ≥3 SABA inhalers (vs 1-2) were associated with lower odds of at least partly controlled asthma (odds ratio=0.42; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.27-0.67) and higher odds of having severe exacerbation(s) (odds ratio=2.04; 95% CI=1.44-2.89). Conclusion: The prevalence of SABA over-prescription in Malaysia is high, regardless of the prescriber type, emphasising the need for healthcare providers and policymakers to adopt latest evidence-based recommendations to address this public health concern.

The impact of a prescription review and prescriber feedback system on prescribing practices in primary care clinics: a cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the effectiveness of a structured prescription review and prescriber feedback program in reducing prescribing errors in government primary care clinics within an administrative region in Malaysia. METHODS: This was a three group, pragmatic, cluster randomised trial. In phase 1, we randomised 51 clinics to a full intervention group (prescription review and league tables plus authorised feedback letter), a partial intervention group (prescription review and league tables), and a control group (prescription review only). Prescribers in these clinics were the target of our intervention. Prescription reviews were performed by pharmacists; 20 handwritten prescriptions per prescriber were consecutively screened on a random day each month, and errors identified were recorded in a standardised data collection form. Prescribing performance feedback was conducted at the completion of each prescription review cycle. League tables benchmark prescribing errors across clinics and individual prescribers, while the authorised feedback letter detailed prescribing performance based on a rating scale. In phase 2, all clinics received the full intervention. Pharmacists were trained on data collection, and all data were audited by researchers as an implementation fidelity strategy. The primary outcome, percentage of prescriptions with at least one error, was displayed in p-charts to enable group comparison. RESULTS: A total of 32,200 prescriptions were reviewed. In the full intervention group, error reduction occurred gradually and was sustained throughout the 8-month study period. The process mean error rate of 40.7% (95% CI 27.4, 29.5%) in phase 1 reduced to 28.4% (95% CI 27.4, 29.5%) in phase 2. In the partial intervention group, error reduction was not well sustained and showed a seasonal pattern with larger process variability. The phase 1 error rate averaging 57.9% (95% CI 56.5, 59.3%) reduced to 44.8% (95% CI 43.3, 46.4%) in phase 2. There was no evidence of improvement in the control group, with phase 1 and phase 2 error rates averaging 41.1% (95% CI 39.6, 42.6%) and 39.3% (95% CI 37.8, 40.9%) respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The rate of prescribing errors in primary care settings is high, and routine prescriber feedback comprising league tables and a feedback letter can effectively reduce prescribing errors. TRIAL REGISTRATION: National Medical Research Register: NMRR-12-108-11,289 (5th March 2012).