An individual patient data meta-analysis on factors associated with adverse drug events in surgical and non-surgical inpatients

Bedside check of medication appropriateness (BED-CMA) as a risk-based tool for bedside clinical pharmacy services: A proof-of-concept study at the trauma surgery ward

Background

Bedside clinical pharmacy prevents drug-related problems, but is not feasible in many countries due to limited resources. Hence, clinical rules using structural information in the electronic health record can help identifying potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs). We aimed to develop and implement a risk-based clinical pharmacy service and evaluate its impact on prescribing at the trauma surgery ward.

Methods

The proportion of residual PIPs per day, i.e. the number of PIPs that persisted up to 24 h after pharmacist intervention divided by the number of PIPs at T0, was evaluated before and after implementation of the intervention in an interrupted time series analysis. The pre-intervention cohort received usual pharmacy services, i.e. a 0.3 FTE clinical pharmacist trainee. Fifteen clinical rules, targeting antimicrobial, anticoagulant and analgesic therapy were implemented in the post-intervention period. The pre-intervention period was compared to two post-intervention scenarios: A) clinical rule alerts reviewed by a 0.3 FTE clinical pharmacist trainee; and B) clinical rule alerts reviewed daily for approximately 1 h by a clinical pharmacist trainee.

Results

Pre-intervention, a median proportion of 67% (range 0%-100%) residual PIPs per day was observed. Scenario A showed an immediate relative reduction of 14% (p = 0.72) and scenario B a significant immediate relative reduction of 85% (p = 0.0015) in residual PIPs per day. In scenario A, recommendations were provided for 19% of clinical rule alerts, of which 67% was accepted by the surgeon within 24 h. In scenario B, recommendations were given for 56% of alerts, of which 84% was accepted.

Conclusions

Using clinical rules is an effective approach to organize bedside clinical pharmacy services and improves prescribing at the trauma surgery ward. Advanced training and daily follow-up of the clinical rules are two requirements to be considered.

Prioritizing patients for medication review by emergency department pharmacists: a multi-method study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about how pharmacists think and act in the situation when they need to prioritize patients without prioritization tools.

AIM

To understand how Emergency Department (ED) pharmacists prioritize patients for medication review.

METHOD

A multi-method study with pharmacists working in one ED in Denmark. At the start of the study, non-clinical prioritization rules had been implemented at the ED to ensure that medication histories were available quickly. Qualitative participant observations of all seven pharmacists who work at the ED were carried out. Semi-structured interviews with six of the pharmacists were held near in time to the observations. Observations for each pharmacists' patients were analysed inductively looking for patterns and themes. The interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively.

RESULTS

The interviews shed light on the kinds of considerations pharmacists processed when prioritizing patients and how they used the ground rules (as set out in the PDSA process). The observations supplemented these data by showing some notable differences between pharmacists' prioritization procedures that linked to their clinical experience. The interviews highlighted the importance of collaboration with physicians and how pharmacists could be better integrated in the ward team.

CONCLUSION

Although the ward-established rules increased efficiency, they were handled differently by the pharmacists according to experience, and were not deemed helpful in detecting the clinically meaningful ED patients. A prioritization tool and sitting near to the physicians at the ward would enable pharmacists to become further integrated into patient care and improve prioritization of patients for medication reviews.

Automatic Detection of Adverse Drug Events in Geriatric Care: Study Proposal

BACKGROUND

One-third of older inpatients experience adverse drug events (ADEs), which increase their mortality, morbidity, and health care use and costs. In particular, antithrombotic drugs are among the most at-risk medications for this population. Reporting systems have been implemented at the national, regional, and provider levels to monitor ADEs and design prevention strategies. Owing to their well-known limitations, automated detection technologies based on electronic medical records (EMRs) are being developed to routinely detect or predict ADEs.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to develop and validate an automated detection tool for monitoring antithrombotic-related ADEs using EMRs from 4 large Swiss hospitals. We aim to assess cumulative incidences of hemorrhages and thromboses in older inpatients associated with the prescription of antithrombotic drugs, identify triggering factors, and propose improvements for clinical practice.

METHODS

This project is a multicenter, cross-sectional study based on 2015 to 2016 EMR data from 4 large hospitals in Switzerland: Lausanne, Geneva, and Zürich university hospitals, and Baden Cantonal Hospital. We have included inpatients aged ≥65 years who stayed at 1 of the 4 hospitals during 2015 or 2016, received at least one antithrombotic drug during their stay, and signed or were not opposed to a general consent for participation in research. First, clinical experts selected a list of relevant antithrombotic drugs along with their side effects, risks, and confounding factors. Second, administrative, clinical, prescription, and laboratory data available in the form of free text and structured data were extracted from study participants' EMRs. Third, several automated rule-based and machine learning-based algorithms are being developed, allowing for the identification of hemorrhage and thromboembolic events and their triggering factors from the extracted information. Finally, we plan to validate the developed detection tools (one per ADE type) through manual medical record review. Performance metrics for assessing internal validity will comprise the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, F1-score, sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values.

RESULTS

After accounting for the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we will include 34,522 residents aged ≥65 years. The data will be analyzed in 2022, and the research project will run until the end of 2022 to mid-2023.

CONCLUSIONS

This project will allow for the introduction of measures to improve safety in prescribing antithrombotic drugs, which today remain among the drugs most involved in ADEs. The findings will be implemented in clinical practice using indicators of adverse events for risk management and training for health care professionals; the tools and methodologies developed will be disseminated for new research in this field. The increased performance of natural language processing as an important complement to structured data will bring existing tools to another level of efficiency in the detection of ADEs. Currently, such systems are unavailable in Switzerland.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/40456.

Improving appropriate use of anticoagulants in hospitalised patients: a pharmacist-led Check of Medication Appropriateness intervention

AIM

Inappropriate anticoagulant use increases the risk of bleeding and thrombotic events. We implemented clinical decision rules to promote judicious medication use, as part of the 'Check of Medication Appropriateness' (CMA). The CMA concerns a pharmacist-led review service, targeting potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs). In this analysis, we aimed to evaluate the impact of the CMA on anticoagulant prescribing.

METHODS

The number of anticoagulant-related PIPs was evaluated before and after implementation of the intervention in a quasi-experimental interrupted time series analysis. The pre-implementation cohort received usual care. The anticoagulant-focused CMA, comprising 13 clinical rules pertaining to anticoagulation therapies, was implemented in the post-implementation cohort. Segmented regression analysis was used to assess the impact of the intervention on the number of residual PIPs. A residual PIP was defined as a PIP which persisted up to 48h after the CMA intervention. Total number of recommendations and acceptance rate were documented for the 2-year post-implementation period.

RESULTS

Pre-implementation, we observed 501 PIPs in 466 inpatients on 36 days, with a median proportion of 78.5% (range: 46.2%-100%) residual PIPs per day. Post-implementation, 538 PIPs were detected in 485 patients over the same number of days. The CMA intervention reduced the median proportion to 18.2% (range: 0-100%) per day. The effect coincided with an immediate relative reduction of 70% (95%CI 0.19-0.46) in anticoagulant-related residual PIPs. Post-implementation, 2778 recommendations were provided and 75.1% were accepted.

CONCLUSION

Our CMA approach significantly reduced anticoagulant-related PIPs. Implementing a pharmacist-led intervention, based on clinical rules, may support safer prescribing of anticoagulants.

Impact of Pharmaceutical Interventions in Hospitalized Patients: A Comparative Study Between Clinical Pharmacists and an Explicit Criteria-Based Tool

Background

It has been well recognized that pharmaceutical interventions (PIs) can prevent patient harm related to prescribing errors. Various tools have been developed to facilitate the detection and the reduction of inappropriate prescriptions and some have shown benefit on clinical outcomes.

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical, economical, and organizational impact of interventions generated by clinical pharmacists in hospitalized patients, and to evaluate the performance of an explicit tool, the Potentially Inappropriate Medication Checklist for Patients in Internal Medicine (PIM-Check), in detecting each pharmacist's intervention.

Methods

A cohort retrospective study was conducted on hospitalized patients. The impact of PIs based on pharmacists’ standard examination was evaluated using the Clinical, Economic, and Organizational (CLEO) tool. The performance of PIM-Check in detecting each intervention was assessed by conducting a retrospective medication review based on available information collected from patients’ records. A qualitative analysis was also conducted to identify the types of PIs that PIM-Check failed to detect.

Results

The study was performed on 162 patients with a median age of 68 years (interquartile range = 46–77 years) and a median hospital stay of 5 days (interquartile range = 4–7 days). The pharmacists generated 1.9 PIs per patient (n = 304) of which 31% were detected by PIM-Check. The acceptance rate of the interventions by physicians was 84% (n = 255). Among the accepted interventions, 53% (n = 136) had a clinical impact graded CL ≥ 2C (moderate or major), whereas the majority of them were not detected by PIM-Check (63%; 86 out of 136). In addition, 46% of accepted interventions (n = 117) were associated with a cost decrease, among which 62% were not detected by PIM-Check (73 out of 117). The qualitative analysis shows that PIM-Check mostly failed to detect PIs related to dose adjustment, overprescribing, and therapy monitoring.

Conclusions

According to the CLEO tool evaluation of PIs, our results show that clinical pharmacists’ interventions are associated with improved clinical outcomes. In comparison with pharmacists’ interventions, PIM-Check failed in detecting the majority of interventions associated with a moderate or major impact.

Ability to detect potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients: comparative analysis between PIM-Check and STOPP/STARTv2

Purpose

Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is a source of preventable adverse drug events. The objective of this study was a comparative analysis (quantitative and qualitative) between two tools used to detect PIP, PIM-Check and STOPP/START.

Methods

First, a qualitative analysis (QAC) was conducted to evaluate the concordance between the criteria, which constitute PIM-Check and the gold standard STOPP/START. Second, a retrospective comparative and observational study was performed on the list of treatment at the admission of 50 older patients hospitalized in an acute geriatric ward of a university hospital in Switzerland in 2016 using both tools.

Results

The QAC has shown that 50% (57 criteria) of STOPP/START criteria are fully or partially concordant with those of PIM-Check. The retrospective study was performed on 50 patients aged 87 years, suffering from 5 co-morbidities (min–max 1–11) and treated by of 8 drugs (min–max 2–16), as medians. The prevalence of the detected PIP was 80% by PIM-Check and 90% by STOPP/START. Medication review shows that 4.2 PIP per patient were detected by PIM-Check and 3.5 PIP by STOPP/START among which 1.9 PIP was commonly detected by both tools, as means. PIM-Check detected more PIP related to cardiology, angiology, nephrology, and endocrinology in older patients but missed the PIP related to geriatric syndromes (e.g., fall, dementia, Alzheimer) detected by STOPP/START.

Conclusions

By using PIM-Check in geriatric settings, some PIP will not be detected. It is considered as a limitation for this tool in this frail population but brings a certain complementarity in other areas of therapy not covered by STOPP/START.

Prognostic prediction models and clinical tools based on consensus to support patient prioritization for clinical pharmacy services in hospitals: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Identifying patients at high risk of adverse medication-related outcomes for targeted clinical pharmacy services is essential in hospital pharmacy. Models and predictive tools to prioritize patients are available to the clinical pharmacy services for hospital use.

OBJECTIVE

To describe and assess prognostic models and predictive tools used to identify inpatients at risk of adverse medication-related outcomes.

METHODS

We searched in Medline, Lilacs, Cochrane, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science, databases of theses and dissertations, and the references of the selected studies. The screening was carried out by two independent researchers. Cross-sectional studies, prospective or retrospective cohort studies, and case-control studies were eligible for inclusion. The studies addressed the development or validation of predictive models and clinical prioritization tools based on expert opinion to identify inpatients at risk of adverse medication-related outcomes.

RESULTS

25 studies were included, 13 of which were prognostic prediction models, seven were instrument development using the consensus method, and five were validation. The outcome events were drug-related problems (9), adverse drug reactions (8), adverse drug events (6), and medication errors (2). Most studies targeted adult patients (14), eight had older adult patients, one had obstetric patients, and others had pediatric patients. External validation was performed after the development study in three studies. The predictive model with a low risk of bias was the Medicines Optimisation Assessment Tool. Limited details on the method of expert involvement and the number of experts were identified in four studies.

CONCLUSION

The development of patient prioritization tools to optimize pharmacotherapy by clinical pharmacy services is a complex process. The predictive models and tools analyzed are limited in their development and validation process, hindering their effective use in prioritizing patients by the clinical pharmacy services. The development of additional prognostic prediction models for drug-related problems is a priority.

Impact of Check of Medication Appropriateness (CMA) in optimizing analgesic prescribing: An interrupted time series analysis

BACKGROUND

Pain therapy in inpatients is regularly suboptimal and might be improved by clinical pharmacy services. In our hospital, we have implemented a software-supported 'Check of Medication Appropriateness' (CMA), which is a centralized pharmacist-led service consisting of a clinical rule-based screening for potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs), and a subsequent medication review by pharmacists. We aimed to investigate the impact of the CMA on pain-related prescribing.

METHODS

A quasi-experimental study was performed in a large teaching hospital, using an interrupted time series design. Pre-implementation, patients were exposed to standard of care. Afterwards, a pain-focused CMA comprising 12 specific clinical rules pertaining to analgesic prescribing were implemented in the post-implementation period. A regression model was used to assess the impact of the intervention on the number of pain-related residual PIPs between both periods. The total number of recommendations and acceptance rate was recorded for the post-implementation period.

RESULTS

At baseline, a median number of 13.1 (range: 9.5-15.8) residual PIPs per day was observed. After the CMA intervention, the number was reduced to 2.2 (range: 0-9.5) per day. Clinical rules showed an immediate relative reduction of 66% (p < .0001) in pain-related residual PIPs. A significant decreasing time trend was observed during the post-implementation period. Post-implementation, 1683 recommendations were given over 1 year with an acceptance rate of 74.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

We proved that the CMA approach reduced the number of pain-related residual PIPs. More pharmacist involvement and the use of clinical rules during hospital stay should be further promoted to optimize appropriate prescribing of analgesics.

SIGNIFICANCE

Prescribing of analgesics should be improved in inpatients to optimize pain control and to reduce iatrogenic harm. The Check of Medication Appropriateness (CMA) approach, comprising a clinical rule-based screening for patients at risk and a targeted medication review by pharmacists, reduced the number of pain-related potentially inappropriate prescriptions in a highly significant and sustained manner. This study presents the opportunities of a centralized clinical pharmacy service to help clinicians to further improve analgesic prescribing.

Italian Emergency Department Visits and Hospitalizations for Outpatients' Adverse Drug Events: 12-Year Active Pharmacovigilance Surveillance (The MEREAFaPS Study)

Background

Adverse drug event (ADEs) are a significant cause of emergency department (ED) visits and consequent hospitalization. Preventing ADEs and their related ED visits in outpatients remains a public health safety challenge. In this context, the aims of the present study were to describe the frequency, seriousness and preventability of outpatients' ADE-related ED visits and hospitalizations in the Italian general population, and to identify the presence of potential predictors of ADE-related hospitalization.

Methods

We performed a nationwide, multicentre, observational, retrospective study based on reports of suspected ADEs collected between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2018 in 94 EDs involved in the MEREAFaPS project. Patients' demographic characteristics, their clinical status, suspected and concomitant drugs, ADE description, and its degree of seriousness, were collected. Causality and preventability were assessed using validated algorithms, and logistic regression analyses were used to estimate the reporting odds ratios (RORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of ADE-related hospitalization, considering the following covariates: age, sex, ethnicity, number of implicated medications, parenteral administration, presence of interaction, therapeutic error, and/or complementary and alternative medicines (CAM).

Results

Within 12 years, 61,855 reports of suspected ADE were collected, of which 18,918 (30.6%) resulted in hospitalization (ADE defined as serious). Patients were mostly female (56.6%) and Caucasians (87.7%), with a mean age of 57.5 ± 25.0 years. 58% of patients were treated with more than two drugs, and 47% of ADEs leading to hospitalization were preventable. Anticoagulants, antibiotics, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were the most frequently implicated agents for ED visits and/or hospitalization, which included clinically significant ADEs, such as haemorrhage for anticoagulants, moderate to severe allergic reactions for antibiotics, and dermatologic reactions and gastrointestinal disturbances for NSAIDs. Older age (1.54 [1.48-1.60]), higher number of concomitantly taken drugs (2.22 [2.14-2.31]), the presence of drug-drug interactions (1.52 [1.28-1.81]), and therapeutic error (1.54 [1.34-1.78]), were significantly associated with an increased risk of hospitalization.

Conclusion

Our long-term active pharmacovigilance study in ED provided a valid estimation of ADE-related hospitalization in a representative sample of the Italian general population and can suggest further focus on medication safety in outpatients, in order to early recognise and prevent ADEs.

[Treatment of chronic heart failure: is deprescribing possible?]

Deprescribing is a scheduled withdrawal, dose reduction, or replacement of a medicine with a safer one. Several groups of medicinal products (MPs) are used simultaneously in the treatment of chronic heart failure. This increases the risk of adverse drug reactions, particularly in elderly and senile patients. A systematic search for literature allowed evaluating possibilities of deprescribing for the following pharmaceutic groups: 1) MPs influencing the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system; 2) beta-blockers; 3) digoxin; and 4) diuretics. Three systematic reviews and several studies were analyzed to determine the most feasible and potentially optimal regimens of deprescribing in CHF. It was established that in CHF, deprescribing has a very limited potential for use due to the documented, obvious effect of some MP groups on prediction and severity of clinical symptoms in CHF patients.

Adverse Outcomes of Polypharmacy in Older People: Systematic Review of Reviews

OBJECTIVE

Polypharmacy is widespread among older people, but the adverse outcomes associated with it are unclear. We aim to synthesize current evidence on the adverse health, social, medicines management, and health care utilization outcomes of polypharmacy in older people.

DESIGN

A systematic review, of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies, was conducted. Eleven bibliographic databases were searched from 1990 to February 2018. Quality was assessed using AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews).

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Older people in any health care setting, residential setting, or country.

RESULTS

Twenty-six reviews reporting on 230 unique studies were included. Almost all reviews operationalized polypharmacy as medication count, and few examined medication classes or disease states within this. Evidence for an association between polypharmacy and many adverse outcomes, including adverse drug events and disability, was conflicting. The most consistent evidence was found for hospitalization and inappropriate prescribing. No research had explored polypharmacy in the very old (aged ≥85 years), or examined the potential social consequences associated with medication use, such as loneliness and isolation.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The literature examining the adverse outcomes of polypharmacy in older people is complex, extensive, and conflicting. Until polypharmacy is operationalized in a more clinically relevant manner, the adverse outcomes associated with it will not be fully understood. Future studies should work toward this approach in the face of rising multimorbidity and population aging.

High-risk medicines associated with clinically relevant medication-related problems in UK hospitals: A prospective observational study

The aim of this prospective observational study was to establish associations between the use of high-risk medicine groups and the study outcome: occurrence of at least 1 moderate or severe preventable medication-related problem. Data on medication-related problems, high-risk medicines, and other potential risk factors were collected from adults on medical wards in 2 UK hospitals. Logistic regression modelling was used to determine relationships between high-risk medicines and the study outcome. Among 1503 eligible admissions, 6 high-risk medicine groups were associated with the study outcome on univariable analysis; multivariable analysis found only systemic antimicrobials and epilepsy medicines to be independently associated with the outcome (adjusted odds ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.08-1.92 and adjusted odds ratio 1.61, 95% confidence interval 1.16-2.25 respectively). Identification of high-risk medicine groups has potential to permit targeting of patients at highest risk of avoidable medication-related harm, but multivariable analysis suggests risk is likely to be multifactorial.

[Evidence database for deprescribing of antipsychotic drugs in elderly and senile patients]

The review deals with the problem of polypragmasia and associated adverse drug reactions, which is very relevant for the elderly and senile age. Based on the frequent unjustified prescription of antipsychotic drugs in clinical practice and the serious consequences associated with it, especially in elderly people with cognitive impairment, the aim of this review was to analyze the current literature and an evidence base for antipsychotic therapy optimization in elderly. One of the most effective way to decrease drug-associated harm is deprescribing, the planned process of decreasing dose, discontinuation of drug or switching to another one aimed to improve quality of life of the patient. The article describes different types of deprescribing, presents the results of the analysis of literature on deprescribing of antipsychotics in long-term use in elderly patients with dementia. Central to this is the analysis of a systematic review of Cochrane E. Van Leeuwen and co-authors (2018), the leading research in the evidence base of deprescribing. Based on the available literature, the authors make the conclusion about the safety of deprescribing of antipsychotic drugs. The effect of abrupt discontinuation of treatment with antipsychotic drugs was evaluated in available literature. Most of the evidence relates only to residents of nursing homes or to patients in long-term psychogeriatric or geriatric wards (in-patient treatment). However, the evidence base of deprescribing of antipsychotic drugs is small, many studies have methodological limitations, the initial characteristics of the patients included in the study are extremely heterogeneous, methodologies for diagnosing and determining the severity of dementia, types and dosages of antipsychotic drugs, duration of observation periods differed greatly. Attention is drawn to the short duration of observation periods. All of the above dictates the need for specially planned randomized clinical trials, the results of which will develop detailed algorithms for deprescribing antipsychotics.

Incidence, causes, and consequences of preventable adverse drug reactions occurring in inpatients: A systematic review of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Preventable adverse drug reactions (PADRs) in inpatients are associated with harm, including increased length of stay and potential loss of life, and result in elevated costs of care. We conducted an overview of reviews (i.e., a systematic review of systematic reviews) to determine the incidence of PADRs experienced by inpatients. Secondary review objectives were related to assessment of the effects of patient age, setting, and clinical specialty on PADR incidence.

METHODS

The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42016043220). We performed a search of Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, limiting languages of publication to English and French. We included published systematic reviews that reported quantitative data on the incidence of PADRs in patients receiving acute or ambulatory care in a hospital setting. The full texts of all primary studies for which PADR data were reported in the included reviews were obtained and data relevant to review objectives were extracted. Quality of the included reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Both narrative summaries of findings and meta-analyses of primary study data were undertaken.

RESULTS

Thirteen systematic reviews encompassing 37 unique primary studies were included. Across primary studies, the PADR incidence was highly varied, ranging from 0.006 to 13.3 PADRs per 100 patients, with a pooled incidence estimate of 0.59 PADRs per 100 patients. Substantial heterogeneity was present across both reviews and primary studies with respect to review/study objectives, patient age, hospital setting, medical discipline, definitions and assessment tools used, event detection methods, endpoints of interest, and units of measure. Thirteen primary studies used prospective event detection methods and had a pooled PADR incidence of 3.13 (2.87-3.38) PADRs per 100 patients; however, extreme statistical heterogeneity (I2 = 97%) indicated this finding should be considered with caution. Subgroup meta-analyses demonstrated that PADR incidence varied significantly with event detection method (prospective > retrospective > voluntary reporting methods), hospital setting (ICU > wards), and medical discipline (medical > surgical). High statistical heterogeneity (I2 > 80%) was present across all analyses, indicating results should be interpreted with caution. Effects of patient age could not be assessed due to poor reporting of age groups used in primary studies.

DISCUSSION

The method of event detection appeared to significantly influence PADR incidence, with prospective methods having the highest reported PADR rate. This finding is in agreement with the background literature. High methodological and statistical heterogeneity across primary studies evaluating adverse drug events reduces the validity of the overall PADR incidence derived from the meta-analyses of the pooled data. Data pooled from studies using only prospective methods of event detection should provide an overall estimate closest to the true PADR incidence; however, our estimate should be considered with caution due to the statistical heterogeneity found in this group of studies. Future studies should employ prospective methods of detection. This review demonstrates that the true overall incidence of PADRs is likely much greater than the overall pooled incidence estimate of 0.59 PADRs per 100 patients obtained when event detection method was not taken into consideration.

Categorization and association analysis of risk factors for adverse drug events

PURPOSE

Adverse drug events (ADE) are among the leading causes of morbidity and hospitalization. This review analyzes risk factors for ADE, particularly their categorizations and association patterns, the prevalence, severity, and preventability of ADE, and method characteristics of reviewed studies.

METHODS

Literature search was conducted via PubMed, Science Direct, CINAHL, and MEDLINE. A review was conducted of research articles that reported original data about specific risk factors for ADE since 2000. Data analyses were performed using Excel and R.

RESULTS

We summarized 211 risk factors for ADE, and grouped them into five main categories: patient-, disease-, medication-, health service-, and genetics-related. Among them, medication- and disease-related risk factors were most frequently studied. We further classified risk factors within each main category into subtypes. Among them, polypharmacy, age, gender, central nervous system agents, comorbidity, service utilization, inappropriate use/change use of drugs, cardiovascular agents, and anti-infectives were most studied subtypes. An association analysis of risk factors uncovered many interesting patterns. The median prevalence, preventability, and severity rate of reported ADE was 19.5% (0.29%~86.2%), 36.2% (2.63%~91%), and 16% (0.01%~47.4%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This review introduced new categories and subtypes of risk factors for ADE. The broad and in-depth coverage of risk factors and their association patterns elucidate the complexity of risk factor analysis. Managing risk factors for ADE is crucial for improving patient safety, particularly for the elderly, comorbid, and polypharmacy patients. Some under-explored risk factors such as genetics, mental health and wellness, education, lifestyle, and physical environment invite future research.

A multifaceted intervention to reduce guideline non-adherence among prescribing physicians in Dutch hospitals

Background Despite the potential of clinical practice guidelines to improve patient outcomes, adherence to guidelines by prescribers is inconsistent. Objective The aim of the study was to determine whether an approach of introducing an educational programme for prescribers in the hospital combined with audit and feedback by the hospital pharmacist reduces non-adherence of prescribing physicians to key pharmacotherapeutic guidelines. Setting This prospective intervention study with a before–after design evaluated patients at surgical, urological and orthopaedic wards. Method An educational program covering pain management, antithrombotics, fluid and electrolyte management, prescribing in case of renal insufficiency, application of radiographic contrast agents and surgical antibiotic prophylaxis was presented to prescribers on the participating wards. Hospital pharmacists performed medication safety consultations, combining medication review of patients who are at risk for drug related problems with visits to ward physicians. Main outcome measure The outcome measure was the proportion of the admissions of patients in which the physician did not adhere to one or more of the included guidelines. Difference was expressed in odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed. Results 1435 Admissions of 1378 patients during the usual care period and 1195 admissions of 1090 patients during the intervention period were included. Non-adherence was observed significantly less often during the intervention period [21.8% (193/886)] as compared to the usual care period [30.5% (332/1089)]. The adjusted OR was 0.61 (95% CI 0.49–0.76). Conclusion This study shows that education and support of the prescribing physician can reduce guideline non-adherence at surgical wards.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing and its association with health outcomes in middle-aged people: a prospective cohort study in Ireland

OBJECTIVES

To determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in a cohort of community-dwelling middle-aged people and assess the relationship between PIP and emergency department (ED) visits, general practitioner (GP) visits and quality of life (QoL).

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA), a nationally representative cohort study of ageing.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals aged 45-64 years recruited to TILDA who were eligible for the means-tested General Medical Services scheme and followed up after 2 years.

EXPOSURE

PIP was determined in the 12 months preceding baseline and follow-up TILDA data collection by applying the PRescribing Optimally in Middle-aged People's Treatments (PROMPT) criteria to participants' medication dispensing data.

OUTCOME MEASURES

At follow-up, the reported rates of ED and GP visits over 12 months (primary outcome) and the CASP-R12 (Control Autonomy Self-realisation Pleasure) measure of QoL (secondary outcome).

ANALYSIS

Multivariate negative binomial (rates) and linear regression (CASP-R12) models controlling for potential confounders.

RESULTS

At 2-year follow-up (n=808), PIP was detected in 42.9% by the PROMPT criteria. An ED visit was reported by 18.7% and 94.4% visited a GP (median 4 visits, IQR 2-6). Exposure to ≥2 PROMPT criteria was associated with higher rates of healthcare utilisation and lower QoL in unadjusted regression. However, in multivariate analysis, the associations between PIP and rates of ED visits (adjusted incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.58), and GP visits (IRR 1.06, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.28), and CASP-R12 score (adjusted β coefficient 0.35, 95% CI -0.93 to 1.64) were not statistically significant. Numbers of medicines and comorbidities were associated with higher healthcare utilisation.

CONCLUSIONS

Although PIP was prevalent in this study population, there was no evidence of a relationship with ED and GP visits and QoL. Further research should evaluate whether the PROMPT criteria are related to these and other adverse outcomes in the general middle-aged population.

Characterisation of Drug-Related Problems and Associated Factors at a Clinical Pharmacist Service-Naïve Hospital in Northern Sweden

Background

Polypharmacy and increased sensitivity to side effects cause adverse drug events, drug–drug interactions and medication errors in the elderly.

Objective

The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence and type of drug-related problems and associated factors among patients admitted to a clinical pharmacist service-naïve medical ward in an inland hospital in northern Sweden.

Methods

During September–November 2015 and February–April 2016, clinical pharmacists working as part of a ward team on the medical ward conducted 103 medication reviews. Drug-related problems were identified and classified. Associated factors, drug classes and specific drugs involved were also investigated.

Results

The clinical pharmacists identified 133 drug-related problems in 66% [68/103] of the study population. The most common drug-related problems in this study were inappropriate drug use and interactions. Cardiovascular drugs and psychotropic drugs were most commonly involved. Drug-related problems were more frequently observed at higher age, increasing number of drugs prescribed and in patients with reduced renal function. In the multivariate analysis, only the number of prescribed drugs was still significant.

Conclusion

Drug-related problems were commonly observed among patients admitted to the medical ward. Medication reviews conducted by clinical pharmacists as part of a ward team resulted in several interventions to improve the patients’ drug treatment.