General practitioner practice-based pharmacist input to medicines optimisation in the UK: pragmatic, multicenter, randomised, controlled trial

The Medicines Optimisation Innovation Centre: a dedicated centre driving innovation in medicines optimisation-impact and sustainability

BACKGROUND

Sub-optimal medicines use is a challenge globally, contributing to poorer health outcomes, inefficiencies and waste. The Medicines Optimisation Innovation Centre (MOIC) was established in Northern Ireland by the Department of Health (DH) in 2015 to support implementation of the Medicines Optimisation Quality Framework.

AIM

To demonstrate how MOIC informs policy and provides support to commissioners to improve population health and wellbeing.

SETTING

MOIC is a regional centre with multidisciplinary and multi-sector clinical expertise across Health and Social Care and patient representation.

DEVELOPMENT

Core funded by DH, MOIC has a robust governance structure and oversight programme board. An annual business plan is agreed with DH. Rigorous processes have been developed for project adoption and working collaboratively with industry.

IMPLEMENTATION

MOIC has established partnerships with academia, industry, healthcare and representative organisations across Europe, participating in research and development projects and testing integrated technology solutions. A hosting programme has been established and evaluation and dissemination strategies have been developed.

EVALUATION

MOIC has established numerous agreements, partnered in three large EU projects and strengthened networks globally with extensive publications and conference presentations. Informing pathway redesign, sustainability and COVID response, MOIC has also assisted in the development of clinical pharmacy services and antimicrobial stewardship in Europe and Africa. Northern Ireland has been recognised as a 4-star European Active and Healthy Ageing Reference Site and the Integrated Medicines Management model as an example of best practice in Central and Eastern Europe.

CONCLUSION

MOIC has demonstrated considerable success and sustainability and is applicable to health systems globally.

Pharmacist-led primary care interventions to promote medicines optimisation and reduce overprescribing: a systematic review of UK studies and initiatives

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review and synthesise evidence on the effectiveness and implementation barriers/facilitators of pharmacist-led interventions to promote medicines optimisation and reduce overprescribing in UK primary care.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

UK primary care.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL PsycINFO and The Cochrane Library for UK-based studies published between January 2013 and February 2023. Targeted searches for grey literature were conducted in May 2023. Quantitative and qualitative studies (including conference abstracts and grey literature) that addressed a relevant intervention and reported a primary outcome related to changes in prescribing were eligible for inclusion. Quality of included studies was assessed using the Multiple Methods Appraisal Tool. We performed a narrative synthesis, grouping studies by publication status, setting and type of data reported (effectiveness or implementation).

RESULTS

We included 14 peer-reviewed journal articles and 11 conference abstracts, together with 4 case study reports. The journal articles reported 10 different interventions, 5 delivered in general practice, 4 in care homes and 1 in community pharmacy. The quality of evidence was higher in general practice than in care home settings. It was consistently reported that the intervention improved outcomes related to prescribing, although the limited number of studies and wide range of outcomes reported made it difficult to estimate the size of any effect. Implementation was strongly influenced by relationships between pharmacists and other health and care professionals, especially general practitioners. Implementation in care homes appeared to be more complex than in general practice because of differences in systems and 'culture' between health and social care.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacist-led interventions have been reported to reduce overprescribing in primary care settings in the UK but a shortage of high-quality evidence means that more rigorous studies using high-quality designs are needed. More research is also needed in community pharmacy settings; to assess intervention effects on patient outcomes other than prescribing and to investigate how reducing overprescribing can impact health inequalities.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023396366.

Measuring Quality of Life in Deprescribing Trials: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Quality of life (QoL) is an important outcome to capture in clinical trials evaluating deprescribing interventions.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to conduct a scoping review to examine how QoL has been measured in deprescribing trials among older people and identify potentially relevant QoL scales, to better inform QoL measurement in future deprescribing trials.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Epistemonikos, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of eligible studies (from inception to October 2023). We included randomized and non-randomized comparative studies with a control group that evaluated deprescribing and polypharmacy reduction interventions in people ≥ 65 years of age and measured QoL as an outcome. We also included studies describing the development and validation of QoL scales related to deprescribing, polypharmacy, or medication burden in adults ≥ 18 years of age. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, then full texts. Two independent reviewers extracted data from 25% of eligible studies in order to verify agreement, then a single reviewer extracted data from the remaining studies, which a second reviewer cross-checked. We critically appraised scales based on the COSMIN checklist.

RESULTS

We retrieved 7290 articles, of which 52 were eligible for inclusion, including 44 deprescribing trials and eight scale development studies. From these studies, we found 21 scales that have been used in the context of deprescribing/polypharmacy (12 generic scales used in clinical trials and nine medication-specific scales). Variations of the generic EQ-5D were the most used scales. The measurement properties of scales for capturing changes in QoL from deprescribing were uncertain. Medication-specific QoL scales have not been employed in deprescribing clinical trials and thus, their performance in this context is also not clear.

CONCLUSIONS

Several existing QoL scales have been applied to the context of deprescribing/polypharmacy clinical trials, and new scales specific to the problem have been proposed. If deprescribing does impact QoL, our findings suggest it is uncertain whether existing QoL scales can practically and reliably capture such a change or whether any scale is best. However, this review compares various aspects of the scales that researchers and clinicians can consider in decisions about measuring QoL in deprescribing trials, and in planning future research.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework: osf.io/aez6w.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, so that many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients. This is the third update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions, alone or in combination, in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 13 January 2021, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies. We ran updated searches in February 2023 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Characteristics of studies awaiting classification'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

For this update, we included randomised trials only. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy (four or more medicines) in people aged 65 years and older, which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, and two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 38 studies, which includes an additional 10 in this update. The included studies consisted of 24 randomised trials and 14 cluster-randomised trials. Thirty-six studies examined complex, multi-faceted interventions of pharmaceutical care (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patients' outcomes), in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists, nurses and geriatricians, and most were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane risk of bias tool found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low. It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool) (mean difference (MD) -5.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.26 to -2.06; I2 = 97%; 8 studies, 947 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.05; I2 = 67%; 9 studies, 2404 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIM (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98; I2 = 84%; 13 studies, 4534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.05 to 0.09; I2 = 92%; 3 studies, 691 participants; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only three studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk of bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPO (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.91; I2 = 95%; 7 studies, 2765 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to hospital admissions (data not pooled; 14 studies, 4797 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to quality of life (data not pooled; 16 studies, 7458 participants; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in 10 studies (6740 participants) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies. This also applied to studies examining adherence to medication (nine studies, 3848 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy resulted in clinically significant improvement. Since the last update of this review in 2018, there appears to have been an increase in the number of studies seeking to address potential prescribing omissions and more interventions being delivered by multidisciplinary teams.

Evaluating the potential outcomes of pharmacist-led activities in the Australian general practice setting: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Pharmacists have been co-located in general practice teams to support the quality use of medicines and optimise patient health outcomes. Evidence of the impact of pharmacist-led activities in Australian general practices is sparse.

AIM

This study aimed to evaluate the potential outcomes of pharmacist-led activities in Australian general practices.

METHOD

A prospective observational study was conducted in eight general practices in the Australian Capital Territory, where each general practice employed a pharmacist on a part-time basis for 18 months. A recommended, but flexible, list of activities was provided for pharmacists. Descriptive information on general practice pharmacist-led activities, collected with an online diary, was analysed. The potential clinical, economic, and organisational impact of pharmacist-led clinical activities was evaluated using the CLinical Economic Organisational (CLEO) tool, with a modified economic dimension.

RESULTS

Nine pharmacists reported 4290 activities over 3918.5 work hours in general practice. Medication management services were the primary clinical activity of pharmacists. In medication reviews, 75% of the pharmacists' recommendations were fully accepted by general practitioners. Conducting clinical audits, updating patients' medical records, and providing information to patients and staff were other major activities of pharmacists. Of 2419 clinical activities, around 50% had the potential for a moderate or major positive clinical impact on patients. Sixty-three per cent of activities had the potential to decrease healthcare costs. Almost all the pharmacist-led clinical activities had a positive organisational impact.

CONCLUSION

Most pharmacist-led clinical activities in general practice had the potential for a positive impact on patients and reduction in healthcare costs, supporting the expansion of this model in Australia.

Interprofessional Collaboration and Team Effectiveness of Pharmacists in General Practice: A Cross-National Survey

As team-based care continues to evolve, pharmacists have been included in general practice teams in many countries, to varying extents, to improve medication use and patient safety. However, evidence on interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness of pharmacists in general practice is sparse. This study aimed to compare the extent of interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness of general practice pharmacists in Australia with international sites (Canada and the UK), and identify the factors associated with interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness. General practice pharmacists from Australia, Canada, and the UK were identified through professional organisations and networks, and invited to participate in an online survey, adapted from existing validated tools. The survey explored interprofessional collaboration through four sub-domains (professional interactions, relationship initiation, trust and role clarity, and commitment to collaboration) and team effectiveness of general practice pharmacists. Of the 101 respondents (26 from Australia, 44 from Canada and 31 from the UK), 79% were female and 78% were aged below 50 years. Interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness appeared to be high and similar between countries. Total scores for collaboration of pharmacists were 86.1 ± 7.4 in Australia, 88.5 ± 7.5 in the UK, and 89.1 ± 7.3 in Canada (mean ± SD, where higher scores represent more advanced collaboration), while the team effectiveness scores of the pharmacists were 88.6 ± 14.6 in Canada, 91.8 ± 14.6 in Australia and 97.5 ± 14.0 in the UK. Pharmacists who had worked in general practice for a longer time showed advanced interprofessional collaboration while those who worked exclusively in general practice had higher scores for team effectiveness. Overall, general practice pharmacists in the three countries were highly collaborative with general practitioners. Long-term employment and longer work hours could enhance interprofessional collaboration and team effectiveness in general practice pharmacists by improving trust and working relationships over time.

Patients' Opinions towards the Services of Pharmacists Based in General Practice

Pharmacists have been included in general practice teams to provide non-dispensing services for patients. In Australia, pharmacists' role in general practice has been slowly expanding. However, there is a paucity of research to explore patients' opinions toward pharmacist-led services in general practice. This study aimed to assess patient awareness, perceived needs, and satisfaction with these services. A cross-sectional survey was conducted with a purposeful sample of patients who visited six general practices in the Australian Capital Territory that included pharmacists in their team. The survey was informed by the literature and pre-tested. The survey was distributed to two samples: patients who had seen a pharmacist and those who had not seen a pharmacist. Of 100 responses received, 86 responses were included in the analysis: patients who had seen a pharmacist (n = 46) and patients who had not seen a pharmacist (n = 40). Almost all the patients who utilised pharmacist-led services were highly satisfied with those services. Among patients who had not seen a pharmacist, 50% were aware of the existence of general practice pharmacists. Patients who had visited the pharmacist rated higher scores for perceived needs. Patient satisfaction towards the pharmacist-led services in general practices was very high, and patients supported the expansion of these services. However, awareness of the availability of general practice pharmacist services could be improved.

Lung squamous cell carcinoma with hemoptysis after vaccination with tozinameran (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech)

A 66-year-old man with squamous cell carcinoma had been receiving chemoradiation therapy after stereotactic radiotherapy for brain metastases. Atezolizumab was initiated as second-line therapy, after which the patient became progression- and recurrence-free. Four days after his second dose of tozinameran (BNT162b2, Pfizer-BioNTech), the patient developed persistent hemoptysis. The patient had no thrombocytopenia or coagulation abnormalities. Bronchoscopy revealed active bleeding from the left lingual tracheal branch. The patient was intubated and admitted to the intensive care unit because of increased bleeding. Subsequently, left bronchial artery embolization was performed using a Serescue. Hemostasis was achieved after the procedure, and the patient was discharged 7 days after the onset of hemoptysis. Vaccination against coronavirus disease has been reported to be associated with thrombosis and cerebral hemorrhage, and the hemoptysis in this case was suspected to be induced by vaccination. In summary, the benefits of vaccination exceeded the risks of adverse events in a patient with cancer. However, in conditions such as after chemoradiation, especially in patients with radiation pneumonitis wherein the vasculature is vulnerable, patients should be carefully monitored for hemorrhagic events after vaccination.

Commentary: how person-centred is pharmaceutical care?

Health systems in many countries are currently undergoing an evolution towards more person-centred care. However, an overview of the literature shows that there is little or no guidance available on how to apply person-centred care to pharmaceutical care and clinical pharmacy practices. In this paper we apply a model for person-centred care created by a national multidisciplinary research centre in Gothenburg, Sweden, to the clinical work tasks of outpatient and inpatient pharmacists and describe how pharmaceutical care can become more person-centred.