Recommendations for the safe use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients with cirrhosis based on a systematic review of pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety data

PURPOSE

The popularity of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) is increasing among patients with cirrhosis. Cirrhosis has a major impact on the pharmacokinetics of drugs, potentially increasing adverse events. Safe use of drugs in cirrhosis requires a diligent risk-benefit analysis. The aim of this study is to develop practice recommendations for safe use of DOACs in cirrhosis based on a systematic review of pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety data.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic literature search to identify studies on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety of DOACs in cirrhosis. Data were collected and presented in summary tables by severity of cirrhosis using the Child-Turcotte-Pugh (CTP) classification. A multidisciplinary expert panel evaluated the results and classified the DOACs according to safety.

RESULTS

Fifty four studies were included. All DOACs were classified as 'no additional risks known' for CTP A. For CTP B, apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban were classified as 'no additional risks known'. Apixaban and edoxaban showed fewer adverse events in patients with cirrhosis, while dabigatran may be less impacted by severity of cirrhosis based on its pharmacokinetic profile. Rivaroxaban was classified as 'unsafe' in CTP B and C based on significant pharmacokinetic alterations. Due to lack of data, apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban were classified as 'unknown' for CTP C.

CONCLUSION

DOACs can be used in patients with CTP A cirrhosis, and apixaban, dabigatran and edoxaban can also be used in CTP B. It is recommended to avoid rivaroxaban in CTP B and C. There is insufficient evidence to support safe use of other DOACs in CTP C cirrhosis.

Evaluation of medication-related problems in liver transplant recipients with and without an outpatient medication consultation by a clinical pharmacist: a cohort study

Background

Transplant recipients undergo significant changes in their medication regimen during follow-up and are at an increased risk for medication-related problems (MRPs).

Aim

This study aimed to compare the prevalence and types of MRPs and interventions in liver transplant recipients with and without an outpatient medication consultation by a clinical pharmacist as well as the satisfaction with information about medicines and medication adherence.

Method

We performed a single-center, observational cohort study. A retro- and prospective cohort were used and subdivided in a group that did and did not receive a medication consultation. The prevalence and types of MRPs and interventions were identified and categorized. The satisfaction parameters were evaluated using validated questionnaires.

Results

Included were 291 patients. In total, 368 MRPs were identified in 197 patients in the non-medication consultation cohort (median 1; range 1–3 per patient) and 248 MRPs in 94 patients in the medication consultation cohort (median 2; range 1–4 per patient). In the medication consultation cohort, significantly fewer MRPs as unnecessary drugs (17.3% versus 58.7%, p < 0.001), suboptimal therapy (2.4% versus 9.5%, p < 0.001), untreated indication (2.8% versus 6.8%, p = 0.040) and underdosed drugs (0.4% versus 6.3%, p < 0.001) were identified. In the non-medication consultation cohort significantly more patients used unnecessary drugs (72.1% versus 39.4%, p < 0.001) compared to the medication consultation cohort. Patients in both cohorts are satisfied with the information about medicines and reported a high medication adherence.

Conclusion

Patients in the medication consultation cohort had significantly fewer MRPs and used significantly less unnecessary drugs. Including a clinical pharmacist to the post-transplant care has an added value.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11096-022-01423-6.

Management of drug-disease interactions: a best practice from the Netherlands

Background Drug-disease interactions are situations where pharmacotherapy may have a negative effect on patients' comorbidities. In these cases, it can be necessary to avoid that drug, adjust its dose or monitor therapy. In the Netherlands, pharmacists have developed a best practice how to systematically evaluate drug-disease interactions based on pharmacological considerations and implement recommendations for specific drug-disease interactions. Aim To describe the development of recommendations for drug-disease interactions and the implementation in prescribing and dispensing practice in the Netherlands. Setting Pharmacies and physicians' practices in primary care and hospitals in the Netherlands. Development A multi-disciplinary expert panel assessed if diseases had clinically relevant drug-disease interactions and evaluated drug-disease interactions by literature review and expert opinion, and subsequently developed practice recommendations. Implementation The recommendations were implemented in all clinical decision support systems in primary care and hospitals throughout the Netherlands. Evaluation Recommendations were developed for 57 diseases and conditions. Cardiovascular diseases have the most drug-disease interactions (n = 12, e.g. long QT-syndrome, heart failure), followed by conditions related to the reproductive system (n = 7, e.g. pregnancy). The number of drugs with recommendations differed between 6 for endometriosis and tympanostomy tubes, and up to 1171 in the case of porphyria or even all drugs for pregnancy. Conclusion Practice recommendations for drug-disease interactions were developed, and implemented in prescribing and dispensing practice. These recommendations support both pharmacists and physicians by signalling clinically relevant drug-disease interactions at point of care, thereby improving medication safety. This practice may be adopted and contribute to safer medication use in other countries as well.

Medication-Related Problems in Liver Transplant Recipients in the Outpatient Setting: A Dutch Cohort Study

Background: After liver transplantation (LTx), adherence to immunosuppressive medication and avoidance of contra-indicated drugs is essential for long-term survival. This study aimed to investigate the prevalence, types and severity of medication-related problems (MRPs) and interventions initiated by a clinical pharmacist (CP) in a cohort of LTx recipients in the outpatient setting.

Method: This study was a retrospective, observational study in LTx recipients that visited the outpatient clinic for an annual check-up. A 20-minutes consultation with a CP consisted of medication reconciliation and consultation about medication, adherence, and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Discrepancies between actual and intended drug use, and MRPs were identified and the severity of MRPs was assessed. Potential interventions were discussed with the patient and the treating physician and evaluated after one year.

Results: The CP counseled 64 LTx recipients and found 96 discrepancies in 37 patients. Most discrepancies (60.4%, n = 58) concerned missing medications.

In total, 98 MRPs were identified in 53 patients (median 2; range 1-5 per patient), with a total of 113 interventions. Most frequent MRPs were: ADRs (22.4%, n = 22), nonadherence (19.3%, n = 19), unnecessary drugs (16.3%, n = 16) and undertreatment (12.2%, n = 12). Interventions most frequently proposed included optimization of dosage regimen (21.2%, n = 24), individualized recommendation regarding compliance (16.8%, n = 19) and drug discontinuation (12.4%, n = 14). After one year, 15 of the 19 patients (79%) experienced no longer compliance issues and 27 of the 29 patients (93%) used no drugs with indication issues anymore.

Conclusion: The CP in an outpatient monitoring program for LTx recipients can signal relevant discrepancies and MRPs. This leads to interventions that are accepted by both the patients and the physicians, with a positive effect after one year.

No association between use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers prior to hospital admission and clinical course of COVID-19 in the COvid MEdicaTion (COMET) study

Since the outbreak of SARS‐CoV‐2, also known as COVID‐19, conflicting theories have circulated on the influence of angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEi) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARB) on incidence and clinical course of COVID‐19, but data are scarce. The COvid MEdicaTion (COMET) study is an observational, multinational study that focused on the clinical course of COVID‐19 (i.e. hospital mortality and intensive care unit [ICU] admission), and included COVID‐19 patients who were registered at the emergency department or admitted to clinical wards of 63 participating hospitals. Pharmacists, clinical pharmacologists or treating physicians collected data on medication prescribed prior to admission. The association between the medication and composite clinical endpoint, including mortality and ICU admission, was analysed by multivariable logistic regression models to adjust for potential confounders. A total of 4870 patients were enrolled. ACEi were used by 847 (17.4%) patients and ARB by 761 (15.6%) patients. No significant association was seen with ACEi and the composite endpoint (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.12), mortality (OR 1.03; 95%CI 0.84 to 1.27) or ICU admission (OR 0.96; 95%CI 0.78 to 1.19) after adjustment for covariates. Similarly, no association was observed between ARB and the composite endpoint (OR 1.09; 95%CI 0.90 to 1.30), mortality (OR 1.12; OR 0.90 to 1.39) or ICU admission (OR 1.21; 95%CI 0.98 to 1.49). In conclusion, we found no evidence of a harmful or beneficial effect of ACEi or ARB use prior to hospital admission on ICU admission or hospital mortality.

[Allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines]

In 2021 many people in the Netherlands will be vaccinated against COVID-19. The mass vaccination and the new types of vaccines trigger questions about the safety of these vaccines. In this paper we discuss: (1) what reactions are expected from COVID-19 vaccines, (2) what precautions are needed when vaccinating people, and (3) how to act when allergic reactions occur. The COVID-19 vaccines include the first vaccines produced with the mRNA platform. The most frequent adverse reactions are comparable with other vaccines. Allergic reactions to COVID-19 vaccines are rare but can occur. These reactions may be related to excipients in the vaccines, like polyethylene glycol. In case of a possible allergic reaction, a doctor, in consultation with an allergist, can investigate whether vaccination is safe in the future and whether precautions are necessary. Allergic reactions to vaccine components must be recorded completely and unambiguously in the patient file.

[Safe prescribing in patients with liver cirrhosis; 5 pitfalls]

The liver has a major role in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of medicines and hepatic impairment could therefore lead to increased plasma levels and adverse drug reactions. Due to the large overcapacity of the liver, medication adjustments are only needed when a chronic liver disease has progressed to cirrhosis. Important pharmacokinetic alterations that could occur in cirrhosis are: (a) a decreased first-pass effect, (b) impaired metabolism by liver enzymes, and (c) in an advanced stage also impairment of renal elimination. Patients with cirrhosis could also be more sensitive to certain adverse drug reactions at normal drug levels, such as renal impairment due to NSAIDs or the sedative effect of morphinomimetics and psychotropic drugs. Prescribing in patients with cirrhosis is complex, which we illustrate by 5 common pitfalls. In practice, healthcare professionals could use a website with guidance for prescribing almost 300 medicines (www.geneesmiddelenbijlevercirrose.nl).

Development of Comprehensible Prescription Label Instructions: A Study Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Approach

Introduction

Patients receive information about their medication from different sources, including prescription labels. These labels are physically attached to each package dispensed to patients and contain the most important instructions on how to use the medication correctly. However, many patients experience difficulties in understanding and applying the instructions on these labels correctly, especially patients with limited health literacy. The aim of this study is to investigate the comprehensibility of prescription label instructions among patients with adequate and limited health literacy skills, and to implement improvements in primary health care.

Methods

We used a mixed-methods approach, which consisted of four phases. Phase 1 (desk research) was divided into a systematic literature review on the comprehensibility of prescription label instructions (1a) and a content analysis of the textual elements in Dutch prescription label instructions (1b). In phase 2 (patient studies), semi-structured interviews were conducted to investigate the comprehensibility of seven prescription labels among patients with different health literacy skills (2a), and a quantitative study in which the comprehensibility of six optimized prescription labels was compared among patients with different health literacy skills (2b). Patient studies were conducted in eight Dutch pharmacies. In phase 3 optimized prescription label instructions were implemented in national medication databases which has been supported by a guideline (3a), and education of pharmacy workers (3b). Phase 4 consists of evaluating the optimized prescription label instructions by experiences from patients and pharmacists.

Anticipated Results

This mixed-methods approach will result in scientific publications of the individual studies, and a guideline on how to compose comprehensible prescription label instructions to be put on medication packages. Optimized prescription label instructions will be implemented in national medication databases.

Discussion

This protocol describes a mixed-method research to compose and implement comprehensible prescription label instructions and will lead to knowledge about the comprehensibility of textual elements in these labels, with specific attention for patients with limited health literacy. Implementation of optimized prescription label instructions will lead to a better understanding of them, which may contribute to improved medication adherence. A limitation is that non-textual aspects of prescription labels are not investigated.

Improving antibacterial prescribing safety in the management of COPD exacerbations: systematic review of observational and clinical studies on potential drug interactions associated with frequently prescribed antibacterials among COPD patients

Background

Guidelines advise the use of antibacterials (ABs) in the management of COPD exacerbations. COPD patients often have multiple comorbidities, such as diabetes mellitus and cardiac diseases, leading to polypharmacy. Consequently, drug–drug interactions (DDIs) may frequently occur, and may cause serious adverse events and treatment failure.

Objectives

(i) To review DDIs related to frequently prescribed ABs among COPD patients from observational and clinical studies. (ii) To improve AB prescribing safety in clinical practice by structuring DDIs according to comorbidities of COPD.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review by searching PubMed and Embase up to 8 February 2018 for clinical trials, cohort and case–control studies reporting DDIs of ABs used for COPD. Study design, subjects, sample size, pharmacological mechanism of DDI and effect of interaction were extracted. We evaluated levels of DDIs and quality of evidence according to established criteria and structured the data by possible comorbidities.

Results

In all, 318 articles were eligible for review, describing a wide range of drugs used for comorbidities and their potential DDIs with ABs. DDIs between ABs and co-administered drugs could be subdivided into: (i) co-administered drugs altering the pharmacokinetics of ABs; and (ii) ABs interfering with the pharmacokinetics of co-administered drugs. The DDIs could lead to therapeutic failures or toxicities.

Conclusions

DDIs related to ABs with clinical significance may involve a wide range of indicated drugs to treat comorbidities in COPD. The evidence presented can support (computer-supported) decision-making by health practitioners when prescribing ABs during COPD exacerbations in the case of co-medication.

COvid MEdicaTion (COMET) study: protocol for a cohort study

Various theories about drugs such as ACE inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) in relation to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 are circulating in both mainstream media and medical literature. These are based on the fact that ACE2 facilitates SARS-CoV-2 cell invasion via binding of a viral spike protein to ACE2. However, the effect of ACE inhibitors, ARBs and other drugs on ACE2 is unclear and all theories are based on conflicting evidence mainly from animal studies. Therefore, clinical evidence is urgently needed. The aim of this study is to investigate the relationship between use of these drugs on clinical outcome of patients with COVID-19. Patients will be included from several hospitals in Europe. Data will be collected in a user-friendly database (Digitalis) on an external server. Analyses will be adjusted for sex, age and presence of cardiovascular disease, hypertension and diabetes. These results will enable more rational choices for randomised controlled trials for preventive and therapeutic strategies in COVID-19.

The Development of Practice Recommendations for Drug-Disease Interactions by Literature Review and Expert Opinion

Background

Drug-disease interactions negatively affect the benefit/risk ratio of drugs for specific populations. In these conditions drugs should be avoided, adjusted, or accompanied by extra monitoring. The motivation for many drug-disease interactions in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) is sometimes insufficiently supported by (accessible) evidence. As a consequence the translation of SmPC to clinical practice may lead to non-specific recommendations. For the translation of this information to the real world, it is necessary to evaluate the available knowledge about drug-disease interactions, and to formulate specific recommendations for prescribers and pharmacists. The aim of this paper is to describe a standardized method how to develop practice recommendations for drug-disease interactions by literature review and expert opinion.

Methods

The development of recommendations for drug-disease interactions will follow a six-step plan involving a multidisciplinary expert panel (1). The scope of the drug-disease interaction will be specified by defining the disease and by describing relevant effects of this drug-disease interaction. Drugs possibly involved in this drug-disease interaction are selected by checking the official product information, literature, and expert opinion (2). Evidence will be collected from the official product information, guidelines, handbooks, and primary literature (3). Study characteristics and outcomes will be evaluated and presented in standardized reports, including preliminary conclusions on the clinical relevance and practice recommendations (4). The multidisciplinary expert panel will discuss the reports and will either adopt or adjust the conclusions (5). Practice recommendations will be integrated in clinical decision support systems and published (6). The results of the evaluated drug-disease interactions will remain up-to-date by screening new risk information, periodic literature review, and (re)assessments initiated by health care providers.

Actionable Recommendations

The practice recommendations will result in advices for specific DDSI. The content and considerations of these DDSIs will be published and implemented in all Clinical Decision Support Systems in the Netherlands.

Discussion

The recommendations result in professional guidance in the context of individual patient care. The professional will be supported in the decision making in concerning pharmacotherapy for the treatment of a medical problem, and the clinical risks of the proposed medication in combination with specific diseases.

Prevalence and Accuracy of Information on CYP2D6, CYP2C19, and CYP2C9 Related Substrate and Inhibitor Co-Prescriptions in the General Population: A Cross-Sectional Descriptive Study as Part of the PharmLines Initiative

BACKGROUND

Drug-drug interaction (DDI) is one of the main contributors to adverse drug reactions and therefore, it is important to study its frequency in the population. We aimed to investigate frequency and concordance on CYP2D6, CYP2C19, and CYP2C9 (CYP2D6/2C19/2C9)-mediated potential DDIs at the Lifelines cohort and linked data from the pharmacy database IADB.nl.

METHODS

As part of the University of Groningen PharmLines Initiative, data were collected on CYP2D6/2C19/2C9-related substrate/inhibitors from entry questionnaires of Lifelines participants and linked information from the pharmacy database IADB.nl. CYP2D6/2C19/2C9 related co-prescriptions were divided based on the type of drugs i.e. chronically used medication (CM) or occasionally used medication (OM). This resulted in the combination of two chronically used drugs (CM-CM), chronically and occasionally used medication (CM-OM), and two occasionally used drugs (OM-OM). To measure the agreement level, cohen's kappa statistics and test characteristics were used. Results were stratified by time window, gender, and age.

RESULTS

Among 80,837 medicine users in the Lifelines, about 1-2 per hundred participants were exposed to a CYP2D6/2C19/2C9-mediated potential DDI. Overall, the overlapping time window of three months produced the highest mean kappa values between the databases i.e. 0.545 (95% CI:0.544-0.545), 0.512 (95% CI:0.511-0.512), and 0.374 (95% CI:0.373-0.375), respectively. CM-CM had a better level of agreement (good) than CM-OM (fair to moderate) and OM-OM combination (poor to moderate). The influence of gender on concordance values was different for different CYPs. Among older persons, agreement levels were higher than for the younger population.

CONCLUSIONS

CYP2D6/2C19/2C9-mediated potential DDIs were frequent and concordance of data varied by time window, type of combination, sex and age. Subsequent studies should rather use a combination of self-reported and pharmacy database information.

Medication safety in patients with hepatic impairment: A survey of community pharmacists' knowledge level and their practice in caring for these patients

Aims

To study community pharmacists' level of knowledge on medication safety in patients with hepatic impairment and their practice in caring for these patients.

Methods

Pharmacists from Dutch community pharmacies (n = 1545) were invited to participate in an online survey. The survey consisted of 27 questions covering 2 main topics: knowledge and current practice. The level of knowledge was measured by a 6‐item knowledge test. Multiple linear regression was used to identify predictors of correctly answered responses.

Results

In total, 338 pharmacists (22%) completed the questionnaire. The mean knowledge score was 2.8 (standard deviation 1.6). Only 30.3% of respondents were able to appropriately advise on use of analgesics in severe cirrhosis. Postgraduate education on hepatic impairment, knowledge of recently developed practical guidance, and fewer years of practice were associated with a higher level of knowledge. In total, 70.4% indicated to evaluate medication safety in a patient with hepatic impairment at least once weekly. In the past 6 months, 83.3% of respondents consulted a prescriber about a patient with hepatic impairment. Frequently encountered barriers in practice were insufficient knowledge on the topic and a lack of essential patient information (i.e. diagnosis and severity of the impairment).

Conclusion

Community pharmacists regularly evaluate the safety of medication in patients with hepatic impairment, yet their level of knowledge was insufficient and additional education is needed. Pharmacists experienced several difficulties in providing pharmaceutical care. If these issues are resolved, pharmacists can play a more active role in ensuring medication safety in their patients with hepatic impairment.

Prevalence of Drug Prescriptions and Potential Safety in Patients with Cirrhosis: A Retrospective Real-World Study

Introduction

Patients with cirrhosis are at risk for adverse drug reactions (ADRs) due to altered pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. We aimed to determine the prevalence of drug prescriptions and the potential safety of these prescriptions in a real-world cohort of patients with cirrhosis.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study based on linked real-world data from the Out-patient Pharmacy Database and the Hospitalisation Database of the PHARMO Database Network. Patients with a diagnosis of cirrhosis between January 1998 and December 2015 were included. Follow-up ended when the patient underwent a liver transplant, died, transferred out of the database, or on 31 December 2015. Prescription data were derived from a community pharmacy database and were compared with our previously developed safety recommendations for 209 drugs.

Results

In total, 5618 patients were included and followed for a median of 3 years (interquartile range [IQR] 1–7). In the first year after the diagnosis, patients used a median of nine drugs (IQR 5–14), with proton pump inhibitors (prevalence 53.9%), aldosterone antagonists (43.6%), and sulfonamide diuretics (41.3%) being the most commonly used drug groups. Almost half (48.3%) of 102,927 prescriptions consisted of drugs with a safety recommendation. The prevalence of potentially unsafe drug use was 60.0% during the total follow-up. Three nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) were among the five most commonly used potentially unsafe drugs.

Conclusions

Patients with cirrhosis use a large number of drugs. Almost two-thirds of patients in our cohort used potentially unsafe drugs. To prevent ADRs in these frail patients, personalised pharmacotherapy is necessary.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40264-018-0744-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Evaluation of Information in Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs) on the Use of a Medicine in Patients With Hepatic Impairment

Background: In 2005, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) released guidance on pharmacokinetic studies in patients with hepatic impairment. This guidance describes the design of these studies and what information should be presented in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC). We aim to evaluate the availability and clinical applicability of information on medicine use in patients with hepatic impairment in SmPCs and registrational dossiers of recently approved medicines. Methods: We reviewed SmPC information on use in patients with hepatic impairment of 51 new medicines authorized between 2015 and 2017. Per medicine, we assessed the availability of nine information items derived from the EMA guidance, i.e. type of hepatic disease studied; stratification by severity of hepatic impairment; influence of hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics; safety advice in mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairments; and dosing recommendation in mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairments. If unavailable, the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) and study report were consulted consecutively. Of available items, clinical applicability was assessed by labeling information as "clear" or "ambiguous". Results: Of 51 medicines, 15 had no pharmacokinetic study in patients with hepatic impairment described in their SmPC. The other 36 SmPCs contained on average seven of the nine information items (range 4-9). One SmPC contained all 9 items, and after consulting, the study reports, 11 SmPCs were complete. The item "type of hepatic disease studied" was available in one SmPC, though it could be retrieved in 21 study reports. Regarding clinical applicability, there was no medicine with all information items available and clearly formulated in the SmPC. A total of 12 medicines (33%) contained only clearly formulated information, while 24 (67%) contained at least one ambiguously formulated information item (range 0-4). Items often ambiguously formulated were: "definition of mild, moderate, and severe hepatic impairment" (15 ambiguous SmPCs) and "safety advice in severe hepatic impairment" (17 ambiguous SmPCs). Conclusion: While SmPCs contain a large part of information requested by the EMA, clinical applicability seems low, as it is often unclear to which specific type of hepatic disease patient the advice applies. This can negatively influence the practical use by healthcare professionals.

[Hypersensitivity reactions to excipients in patches]

The most common side effects of transdermal patches are mechanical reactions caused by applying or removing the transdermal patch, or by excessive perspiration under the patch. Allergic contact dermatitis (type IV allergic reaction) is the most commonly occurring hypersensitivity reaction and can be caused by the active substance or by excipients. Type I allergic reactions such as urticaria, bronchospasm and angioedema are rare and usually caused by the active substance in the patch. Allergy testing to determine the allergen is indicated following a type I allergic reaction, or after a type IV allergic reaction that requires an alternative for the patch. It is important to document hypersensitivity reactions in the electronic patient records in order to prevent a hypersensitivity reaction in the future.

Nature and frequency of dosing instructions on prescription labels in primary care

PURPOSE

To investigate the nature and frequency of dosing instructions and auxiliary labels on prescription labels in primary care.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of data on prescription labels of dispensed drugs extracted from the pharmacy information system of community pharmacies in the Netherlands. Dosing instructions were categorized into four types.

RESULTS

Data were extracted from 123 community pharmacies. All drugs dispensed for a random sample of 10% of patients were selected. In the sample of 938 479 prescriptions, 96% had a predefined dosing instruction and 2995 different coded instructions were used. Ninety-five percent of all instructions were covered by 354 coded instructions. Most prescriptions were coded with an instruction indicating once daily use (48.4%) or twice or more times daily use (23.8%) without specification of the time (eg, "1 tablet 1 time a day"). A general instruction ("use as directed") was given for 7.0% of all prescriptions, and for 6.0%, the instruction was to use "as needed." For most prescriptions (80.6%), one or more auxiliary labels were generated with the warning "may cause drowsiness" (17.9%) being the most frequent one.

CONCLUSIONS

A limited set of instructions covered the majority of the prescriptions. About a quarter of the prescription labels contained nonspecific dosing instructions for use multiple times a day, and 13.0% were general or "use as needed" instructions. These instructions can potentially be made more comprehensible by rewording and specification of the time of day.

[A body packer with cannabis]

BACKGROUND

In recent years, numerous reports have been published on body packers, i.e. people who use their own body to transport drugs. Most body packers swallow small packages of cocaine or heroin.

CASE DESCRIPTION

We describe the case of a patient who, two days after ingestion of packages containing cannabis, was admitted for dizziness and drowsiness. Urinalysis was positive for cannabis and negative for other drugs. The deterioration in clinical status possibly indicated a burst package. The packages were surgically removed and the patient made a full recovery.

CONCLUSION

Some body packers transport other drugs than cocaine or heroin, such as cannabis. In body packers who ingest cannabis, depressed consciousness is a main symptom of intoxication. They should be admitted and monitored for symptoms of intoxication or paralytic ileus. Laboratory tests provide qualitative support when interpreting clinical symptoms. Surgical intervention is indicated in cases of bowel obstruction or when intoxication due to package leakage is suspected.

Evidence-Based Recommendations to Improve the Safe Use of Drugs in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis

Introduction

The presence of liver cirrhosis can have a major impact on pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, but guidance for prescribing is lacking.

Objective

The aim of this study is to provide an overview of evidence-based recommendations developed for the safe use of drugs in liver cirrhosis.

Methods

Recommendations were based on a systematic literature search combined with expert opinion from a panel of 10 experts. The safety of each drug was classified as safe, no additional risks known, additional risks known, unsafe, unknown or the safety class was dependent on the severity of liver cirrhosis (Child–Pugh classification). If applicable, drug-specific dosing advice was provided. All recommendations were implemented in clinical decision support systems and on a website.

Results

We formulated 218 recommendations for a total of 209 drugs. For nine drugs, two recommendations were formulated for different administration routes or indications. Drugs were classified as ‘safe’ in 29 recommendations (13.3%), ‘no additional risks known’ in 60 (27.5%), ‘additional risks known’ in 3 (1.4%), and ‘unsafe’ in 30 (13.8%). In 57 (26.1%) of the recommendations, safety depended on the severity of liver cirrhosis and was ‘unknown’ in 39 (17.9%) recommendations. Large alterations in pharmacodynamics were the main reason for classifying a drug as ‘unsafe’. For 67 drugs (31%), a dose adjustment was needed.

Conclusions

Over 200 recommendations were developed for the safe use of drugs in patients with liver cirrhosis. Implementing these recommendations into clinical practice can possibly enhance medication safety in this vulnerable patient group.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40264-017-0635-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The impact of CYP2D6 mediated drug-drug interaction: a systematic review on a combination of metoprolol and paroxetine/fluoxetine

AIM

Metoprolol (a CYP2D6 substrate) is often co-prescribed with paroxetine/fluoxetine (a CYP2D6 inhibitor) because the clinical relevance of this drug-drug interaction (DDI) is still unclear. This review aimed to systematically evaluate the available evidence and quantify the clinical impact of the DDI.

METHOD

Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase were searched for studies reporting on the effect of the DDI among adults published until April 2018. Data on pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and clinical outcomes from experimental, observational and case report studies were retrieved. The protocol of this study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018093087).

RESULTS

We found nine eligible articles that consisted of four experimental and two observational studies as well as three case reports. Experimental studies reported that paroxetine increased the AUC of metoprolol three to five times, and significantly decreased systolic blood pressure and heart rate of patients. Case reports concerned bradycardia and atrioventricular block due to the DDI. Results from observational studies were conflicting. A cohort study indicated that the DDI was significantly associated with the incidence of early discontinuation of metoprolol as an indicator of the emergence of metoprolol-related side effects. In a case-control study, the DDI was not significantly associated with bradycardia.

CONCLUSION

Despite the contradictory conclusions from the current literature, the majority of studies suggest that the DDI can lead to adverse clinical consequences. Since alternative antidepressants and beta-blockers with comparable efficacy are available, such DDIs can be avoided. Nonetheless, if prescribing the combination is unavoidable, a dose adjustment or close monitoring of the metoprolol-related side effects is necessary.

Safe use of proton pump inhibitors in patients with cirrhosis

Aims

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) belong to the most frequently used drugs, also in patients with cirrhosis. PPIs are extensively metabolized by the liver, but practice guidance on prescribing in cirrhosis is lacking. We aim to develop practical guidance on the safe use of PPIs in patients with cirrhosis.

Methods

A systematic literature search identified studies on the safety (i.e. adverse events) and pharmacokinetics of PPIs in cirrhotic patients. This evidence and data from the product information was reviewed by an expert panel who classified drugs as safe; no additional risks known; additional risks known; unsafe; or unknown. Guidance was aimed at the oral use of PPIs and categorized by the severity of cirrhosis, using the Child–Turcotte–Pugh (CTP) classification.

Results

A total of 69 studies were included. Esomeprazole, omeprazole and rabeprazole were classified as having ‘no additional risks known’. A reduction in maximum dose of omeprazole and rabeprazole is recommended for CTP A and B patients. For patients with CTP C cirrhosis, the only PPI advised is esomeprazole at a maximum dosage of 20 mg per day. Pantoprazole and lansoprazole were classified as unsafe because of 4‐ to 8‐fold increased exposure. The use of PPIs in cirrhotic patients has been associated with the development of infections and hepatic encephalopathy and should be carefully considered.

Conclusions

We suggest using esomeprazole, omeprazole or rabeprazole in patients with CTP A or B cirrhosis and only esomeprazole in patients with CTP C. Pharmacokinetic changes are also important to consider when prescribing PPIs to vulnerable, cirrhotic patients.

Preventing dispensing errors by alerting for drug confusions in the pharmacy information system-A survey of users

Introduction

Drug confusion is thought to be the most common type of dispensing error. Several strategies can be implemented to reduce the risk of medication errors. One of these are alerts in the pharmacy information system.

Objective

To evaluate the experiences of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians with alerts for drug name and strength confusion.

Methods

In May 2017, a cross-sectional survey of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians was performed in community pharmacies in the Netherlands using an online questionnaire.

Results

Of the 269 respondents, 86% (n = 230) had noticed the alert for drug name confusion, and 26% (n = 67) for drug strength confusion. Of those 230, 9% (n = 20) had experienced that the alert had prevented dispensing the wrong drug. For drug strength confusion, this proportion was 12% (n = 8). Respondents preferred to have an alert for drug name and strength confusion in the pharmacy information system. ‘Alert fatigue’ was an important issue, so alerts should only be introduced for frequent confusions or confusions with serious consequences.

Conclusion

Pharmacists and pharmacy technicians were positive about having alerts for drug confusions in their pharmacy information system and experienced that alerts contributed to the prevention of dispensing errors. To prevent alert fatigue, it was considered important not to include all possible confusions as a new alert: the potential contribution to the prevention of drug confusion should be weighed against the risk of alert fatigue.

Cost-effectiveness of a transitional pharmaceutical care program for patients discharged from the hospital

Background

To improve continuity of care at hospital admission and discharge and to decrease medication errors pharmaceutical care programs are developed. This study aims to determine the cost-effectiveness of the COACH program in comparison with usual care from a societal perspective.

Methods

A controlled clinical trial was performed at the Internal Medicine department of a general teaching hospital. All admitted patients using at least one prescription drug were included. The COACH program consisted of medication reconciliation, patient counselling at discharge, and communication to healthcare providers in primary care. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with an unplanned rehospitalisation within three months after discharge. Also, the number of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) was assessed. Cost data were collected using cost diaries. Uncertainty surrounding cost differences and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios between the groups was estimated by bootstrapping.

Results

In the COACH program, 168 patients were included and in usual care 151 patients. There was no significant difference in the proportion of patients with unplanned rehospitalisations (mean difference 0.17%, 95% CI -8.85;8.51), and in QALYs (mean difference -0.0085, 95% CI -0.0170;0.0001). Total costs for the COACH program were non-significantly lower than usual care (-€1160, 95% CI -3168;847). Cost-effectiveness planes showed that the program was not cost-effective compared with usual care for unplanned rehospitalisations and QALYs gained.

Conclusion

The COACH program was not cost-effective in comparison with usual care. Future studies should focus on high risk patients and include other outcomes (e.g. adverse drug events) as this may increase the chances of a cost-effective intervention.

Dutch trial register NTR1519

The burden and management of cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6)-mediated drug-drug interaction (DDI): co-medication of metoprolol and paroxetine or fluoxetine in the elderly

PURPOSE

Metoprolol and paroxetine/fluoxetine are inevitably co-prescribed because cardiovascular disorders and depression often coexist in the elderly. This leads to CYP2D6-mediated drug-drug interactions (DDI). Because systematic evaluations are lacking, we assessed the burden of metoprolol-paroxetine/fluoxetine interaction in the elderly and how these interactions are managed in Dutch community pharmacies.

METHOD

Dispensing data were collected from the University of Groningen pharmacy database (IADB.nl, 1999-2014) for elderly patients (≥60 years) starting beta-blockers and/or antidepressants. Based on the two main DDI alert systems (G-Standard and Pharmabase), incidences were divided between signalled (metoprolol-fluoxetine/paroxetine) and not-signalled (metoprolol-alternative antidepressants and alternative beta-blockers-paroxetine/fluoxetine) combinations. Incident users were defined as patients starting at least one signalled or a non-signalled combination. G-Standard signalled throughout the study period, whereas Pharmabase stopped after 2005.

RESULTS

A total of 1763 patients had 2039 metoprolol-paroxetine/fluoxetine co-prescriptions, despite DDI alert systems, and about 57.3% were signalled. The number of metoprolol-alternative antidepressant combinations (incidences = 3150) was higher than alternative beta-blocker-paroxetine/fluoxetine combinations (incidences = 1872). Metoprolol users are more likely to be co-medicated with an alternative antidepressant (incidences = 2320) than paroxetine/fluoxetine users (incidences = 1232) are. The number of paroxetine/fluoxetine users co-prescribed with alternative beta-blockers was comparable to those co-medicated with metoprolol (about 50%). Less than 5% of patients received a substitute therapy after using metoprolol-paroxetine/fluoxetine. Most of the metoprolol users (90%) received a low dose (mean DDD = 0.47) regardless whether they were prescribed paroxetine/fluoxetine.

CONCLUSION

Despite the signalling software, metoprolol-paroxetine/fluoxetine combinations are still observed in the elderly population. The clinical impact of these interactions needs further investigation. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

[Hypersensitivity reactions and vaccines]

- A lot of questions are being asked in the Netherlands about the safety of vaccination. More knowledge among care providers helps with regard to good medical practice and information.- Severe hypersensitivity reactions to vaccines are rare. Chicken-egg protein, gelatine and thiomersal are the most important vaccine components that may provoke severe reactions.- Acute treatment of patients with severe hypersensitivity reactions consists of intramuscular adrenaline.- In case of a severe reaction to a vaccine or a vaccine component, the subsequent course of action is determined by the physician referred to: the allergist or paediatric allergist. For most patients, vaccination or revaccination is possible in a setting where acute treatment is possible.- Slight side effects and delayed hypersensitivity reactions are not good reasons for additional measures with respect to vaccination.- It is important to record hypersensitivity reactions completely and unambiguously in the patient file.

Evaluating the safety and dosing of drugs in patients with liver cirrhosis by literature review and expert opinion

INTRODUCTION

Liver cirrhosis can have a major impact on drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Patients with cirrhosis often suffer from potentially preventable adverse drug reactions. Guidelines on safe prescribing for these patients are lacking. The aim of this study is to develop a systematic method for evaluating the safety and optimal dosage of drugs in patients with liver cirrhosis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

For each drug, a six-step evaluation process will be followed. (1) Available evidence on the pharmacokinetics and safety of a drug in patients with liver cirrhosis will be collected from the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and a systematic literature review will be performed. (2) Data regarding two outcomes, namely pharmacokinetics and safety, will be extracted and presented in a standardised assessment report. (3) A safety classification and dosage suggestion will be proposed for each drug. (4) An expert panel will discuss the validity and clinical relevance of this suggested advice. (5) Advices will be implemented in all relevant Clinical Decision Support Systems in the Netherlands and published on a website for patients and healthcare professionals. (6) The continuity of the advices will be guaranteed by a yearly check of new literature and comments on the advices. This protocol will be applied in the evaluation of a selection of drugs: (A) drugs used to treat (complications of) liver cirrhosis, and (B) drugs frequently prescribed to the general population.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Since this study does not directly involve human participants, it does not require ethical clearance. Besides implementation on a website and in clinical decision support systems, we aim to publish the generated advices of one or two drug classes in a peer-reviewed journal and at conference meetings.

Effect of Medication Reconciliation on Medication Costs After Hospital Discharge in Relation to Hospital Pharmacy Labor Costs

Background:

Medication reconciliation aims to correct discrepancies in medication use between health care settings and to check the quality of pharmacotherapy to improve effectiveness and safety. In addition, medication reconciliation might also reduce costs.

Objective:

To evaluate the effect of medication reconciliation on medication costs after hospital discharge in relation to hospital pharmacy labor costs.

Methods:

A prospective observational study was performed. Patients discharged from the pulmonology department were included. A pharmacy team assessed medication errors prevented by medication reconciliation. Interventions were classified into 3 categories: correcting hospital formulary-induced medication changes (eg, reinstating less costly generic drugs used before admission), optimizing pharmacotherapy (eg. discontinuing unnecessary laxative), and eliminating discrepancies (eg, restarting omitted preadmission medication). Because eliminating discrepancies does not represent real costs to society (before hospitalization, the patient was also using the medication), these medication costs were not included in the cost calculation. Medication costs at 1 month and 6 months after hospital discharge and the associated tabor costs were assessed using descriptive statistics and scenario analyses. For the 6-month extrapolation, only medication intended for chronic use was included.

Results:

Two hundred sixty-two patients were included. Correcting hospital formulary changes saved €1 63/patient (exchange rate: EUR 1 = USD 1.3443) in medication costs at 1 month after discharge and €9.79 at 6 months. Optimizing pharmacotherapy saved €20.13/patient in medication costs at 1 month and €86.86 at 6 months. The associated labor costs for performing medication reconciliation were €41.04/patient. Medication cost savings from correcting hospital formulary-induced changes and optimizing of pharmacotherapy (€96.65/patient) outweighed the labor costs at 6 months extrapolation by €55.62/patient (sensitivity analysis €37.25–71.10).

Conclusions:

Preventing medication errors through medication reconciliation results in higher benefits than the costs related to the net time investment.

Factors related to high and low levels of drug adherence according to patients with type 2 diabetes

Objective Adherence to medication in patients with type 2 diabetes varies widely, yet the factors that influence adherence according to patients are not fully known. The aim of this study is to explore both factors related to high and lower levels of adherence that patients with type 2 diabetes experienced in their medication use. Setting Primary care in the Netherlands. Method Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were performed in 20 patients with type 2 diabetes. Interviews were audio-taped and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were coded and analysed using content analysis and constant comparison. Main outcome measure experiences and opinions of patients concerning factors related to high and lower levels of adherence. Results Comparable aspects influenced drug adherence in more and less adherent patients. Four aspects that influenced adherence to medication emerged from the interviews: (1) information about the prescribed medication, (2) experience with medication and complications with use, (3) social support for medication behaviour and (4) routines in medication behaviour. Experience with medication and social support for medication behaviour were related to high levels of adherence in some patients, and to lower levels of adherence in others. Complicated medication regimens were mainly related to lower adherence, while social support and routines in medication behaviour were related to higher adherence. Conclusions Routines in medication behaviour were related to higher drug adherence. Patient education should not only address information about the disease and medication, but also more practical issues concerning drug intake. Hence, to improve drug adherence in patients with type 2 diabetes, pharmaceutical care might be aimed at the counselling of patients to organise drug use in their daily schedule.

Information needs about medication according to patients discharged from a general hospital

OBJECTIVE

Medication regimens change during hospital admission, and these discrepancies can lead to an increased risk of patient harm after hospital discharge. Information about medication according to the patient's needs may contribute to patient safety by improvement of knowledge and adherence. The goal of this study is to explore the patient's needs on information about medication at hospital discharge.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were performed with 31 patients from the pulmonology, internal medicine and cardiology departments who were discharged with at least one prescribed drug from the hospital to primary care in the Netherlands. Interviews were analysed with content analysis.

RESULTS

Patients had variable needs concerning information about discharge medication. Most patients wanted to receive basic information about their medication, alternatives for the prescribed medication and side effects. Some patients did not need basic information or explicitly mentioned that information about side effects would negatively influence their attitude towards medication. Patients preferred a combination of oral instructions and written information.

CONCLUSIONS

Information at discharge should be tailored to the individual needs of the patient.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

In the process of providing patient information at hospital discharge, the preference of some patients for non-disclosure of information should be recognised.

The use of opioids at the end of life: the knowledge level of Dutch physicians as a potential barrier to effective pain management

BACKGROUND

Pain is still one of the most frequently occurring symptoms at the end of life, although it can be treated satisfactorily in most cases if the physician has adequate knowledge. In the Netherlands, almost 60% of the patients with non-acute illnesses die at home where end of life care is coordinated by the general practitioner (GP); about 30% die in hospitals (cared for by clinical specialists), and about 10% in nursing homes (cared for by elderly care physicians).The research question of this study is: what is the level of knowledge of Dutch physicians concerning pain management and the use of opioids at the end of life?

METHODS

A written questionnaire was sent to a random sample of physicians of specialties most often involved in end of life care in the Netherlands. The questionnaire was completed by 406 physicians, response rate 41%.

RESULTS

Almost all physicians were aware of the most basal knowledge about opioids, e.g. that it is important for treatment purposes to distinguish nociceptive from neuropathic pain (97%). Approximately half of the physicians (46%) did not know that decreased renal function raises plasma concentration of morphine(-metabolites) and 34% of the clinical specialists erroneously thought opioids are the favoured drug for palliative sedation.Although 91% knew that opioids titrated against pain do not shorten life, 10% sometimes or often gave higher dosages than needed with the explicit aim to hasten death. About half felt sometimes or often pressured by relatives to hasten death by increasing opioiddosage.The large majority (83%) of physicians was interested in additional education about subjects related to the end of life, the most popular subject was opioid rotation (46%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although the basic knowledge of physicians was adequate, there seemed to be a lack of knowledge in several areas, which can be a barrier for good pain management at the end of life. From this study four areas emerge, in which it seems likely that an improvement can improve the quality of pain management at the end of life for many patients in the Netherlands: 1)palliative sedation; 2)expected effect of opioids on survival; and 3) opioid rotation.

The effect of the COACH program (Continuity Of Appropriate pharmacotherapy, patient Counselling and information transfer in Healthcare) on readmission rates in a multicultural population of internal medicine patients

Background

Medication errors occur frequently at points of transition in care. The key problems causing these medication errors are: incomplete and inappropriate medication reconciliation at hospital discharge (partly arising from inadequate medication reconciliation at admission), insufficient patient information (especially within a multicultural patient population) and insufficient communication to the next health care provider. Whether interventions aimed at the combination of these aspects indeed result in less discontinuity and associated harm is uncertain. Therefore the main objective of this study is to determine the effect of the COACH program (Continuity Of Appropriate pharmacotherapy, patient Counselling and information transfer in Healthcare) on readmission rates in patients discharged from the internal medicine department.

Methods/Design

An experimental study is performed at the internal medicine ward of a general teaching hospital in Amsterdam, which serves a multicultural population. In this study the effects of the COACH program is compared with usual care using a pre-post study design. All patients being admitted with at least one prescribed drug intended for chronic use are included in the study unless they meet one of the following exclusion criteria: no informed consent, no medication intended for chronic use prescribed at discharge, death, transfer to another ward or hospital, discharge within 24 hours or out of office hours, discharge to a nursing home and no possibility to counsel the patient.

The intervention consists of medication reconciliation, patient counselling and communication between the hospital and primary care healthcare providers.

The following outcomes are measured: the primary outcome readmissions within six months after discharge and the secondary outcomes number of interventions, adherence, patient's attitude towards medicines, patient's satisfaction with medication information, costs, quality of life and finally satisfaction of general practitioners and community pharmacists.

Interrupted time series analysis is used for data-analysis of the primary outcome. Descriptive statistics is performed for the secondary outcomes. An economic evaluation is performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.

Discussion

This study will be able to evaluate the clinical and cost impact of a comprehensive program on continuity of care and associated patient safety.

Trial registration

Dutch trial register: NTR1519

Informational needs of general practitioners regarding discharge medication: content, timing and pharmacotherapeutic advice

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the needs of Dutch general practitioners on discharge medication, both regarding content, timing and the appreciation of pharmacotherapeutic advice from clinical pharmacists.

SETTING

A general teaching hospital in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

METHOD

A prospective observational study was performed. A questionnaire with regard to the content, optimal timing (including way of information transfer) and appreciation of pharmacotherapeutic advice was posted to 464 general practitioners. One reminder was sent.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Description of the needs of general practitioners was assessed. For each question and categories of comments frequency tables were made. The Fisher-exact test was used to study associations between the answers to the questions.

RESULTS

In total, 149 general practitioners (32%) responded. Most general practitioners (75%) experienced a delay in receiving discharge medication information and preferred to receive this on the day of discharge. GPs wished to receive this information mainly through e-mail (44%). There was a significant correlation (P = 0.002) between general practitioners who wanted to know whether and why medication had been stopped (87%) and changed (88%) during hospital admission. The general practitioners (88%) appreciated pharmacotherapeutic advice from clinical pharmacists.

CONCLUSION

This study indicates how information transfer on discharge medication to GPs can be optimised in the Netherlands. The information arrives late and GPs want to be informed on the day of discharge mainly by e-mail. GPs wish to know why medication is changed or discontinued and appreciate pharmacotherapeutic advice from clinical pharmacists.

Effect of medication reconciliation with and without patient counseling on the number of pharmaceutical interventions among patients discharged from the hospital

BACKGROUND

Hospital admissions are a risk factor for the occurrence of unintended medication discrepancies between drugs used before admission and after discharge. To diminish such discrepancies and improve quality of care, medication reconciliation has been developed. The exact contribution of patient counseling to the medication reconciliation process is unknown, especially not when compared with community pharmacy medication records, which are considered reliable in the Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of medication reconciliation with and without patient counseling among patients at the time of hospital discharge on the number and type of interventions aimed at preventing drug-related problems.

METHODS

A prospective observational study in a general teaching hospital was performed. Patients discharged from the pulmonology department were included. A pharmacy team assessed the interventions with and without patient counseling on discharge medications for each patient.

RESULTS

Two hundred sixty-two patients were included. Medication reconciliation without patient counseling was responsible for at least one intervention in 87% of patients (mean 2.7 interventions/patient). After patient counseling, at least one intervention (mean 5.3 interventions/patient) was performed in 97% of patients. After patient counseling, discharge prescriptions were frequently adjusted due to discrepancies in use or need of drug therapy. Most interventions led to the start of medication due to omission and dose changes due to incorrect dosages being prescribed. Patients also addressed their problems/concerns with use of the drug, which were discussed before discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Significantly more interventions were identified after patient counseling. Therefore, patient information is essential in medication reconciliation.

Trends in the use of opioids at the end of life and the expected effects on hastening death

The aim of our study was to describe trends in opioid use and perceptions of having hastened the end of life of a patient. In 2005, a questionnaire was sent to 6860 physicians in The Netherlands who had attended a death. The response rate was 78%. In 1995 and 2001 similar studies were done. Physicians less often administered opioids with the intention to hasten death in 2005 (3.1% of the non-sudden deaths) than in 2001 and in 1995 (7% and 10%, respectively). Physicians gave similar dosages of opioids in 2005, 2001, and 1995, but physicians in 2005 less often thought that life was actually shortened than in 2001 and 1995 (37% in 2005, 50% in 2001, and 53% in 1995). Of the physicians in 2005 who did think that the life of the patient was shortened by opioids, 94% did not give higher dosages than were, in their own opinion, required for pain and symptom management. Physicians in 2005 more often took hastening death into account when they gave higher dosages of opioids when the patient experienced more severe symptoms and with female patients. In older patients (>or=80 years), physicians took the hastening of death into account more often, but the actual dosages of opioids were lower. These data indicate that physicians in The Netherlands less often thought that death was hastened by opioids and less often gave opioids, with the intention to hasten death in 2005 than in 2001 and 1995.

Interdisciplinary cooperation of GPs in palliative care at home: a nationwide survey in The Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the occurrence and predictors of interdisciplinary cooperation of GPs with other caregivers in palliative care at home.

DESIGN

In a prospective study among 96 general practices, the GPs involved identified all dying patients during the study period of 12 months. The GPs received an additional post-mortem questionnaire for each patient who died during the study period, and registered the healthcare providers with whom they cooperated. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify the predictors of GP cooperation with other caregivers.

SETTING

Second Dutch National Survey in General Practice.

SUBJECTS

A total of 743 patients who received palliative care according to their GP.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Interdisciplinary cooperation between GP and other healthcare providers.

RESULTS

During the study period, 2194 patients died. GPs returned 1771 (73%) of the questionnaires. According to the GPs, 743 (46%) of their patients received palliative care. In 98% of these palliative care patients, the GP cooperated with at least one other caregiver, with a mean number of four. Cooperation with informal caregivers (83%) was most prevalent, followed by cooperation with other GPs (71%) and district nurses (63%). The best predictors of cooperation between GPs and other caregivers were the patient's age, the underlying disease, and the importance of psychosocial care.

CONCLUSION

In palliative care patients, GP interdisciplinary cooperation with other caregivers is highly prevalent, especially with informal caregivers and other primary care collaborators. Cooperation is most prevalent in younger patients, patients with cancer as underlying disease, and if psychosocial care is important.

Symptoms in patients receiving palliative care: a study on patient-physician encounters in general practice

Most people with an incurable disease prefer to stay and die at home, cared for by their general practitioner (GP). This paper aims at describing the prevalence of symptoms in patients receiving palliative care at home. Within the framework of a nation wide survey of general practice in the Netherlands, GPs received a questionnaire for all patients who died within the 1-year survey period to determine whether patients received palliative care (n = 2,194). The response rate was 73% (n = 1,608), and 38% of these patients received palliative care until death. Information regarding encounters during the last 3 months of life was derived from the records kept by the GPs. Digestive symptoms (59%) and pain (56%) were the most prevalent. The total number of symptoms per patient was higher in cancer patients (11.99) than in non-cancer patients (7.62). Not reported in previous studies were musculoskeletal symptoms (20%) and chronic ulcer (18%). Concluding, this showed that Dutch GPs encounter a diversity and wide range of symptoms in palliative care. To face these complex challenges in patients receiving palliative care at home, GPs have to be trained as well as supported by specialized palliative care consultants.

Communication about euthanasia in general practice: opinions and experiences of patients and their general practitioners

OBJECTIVE

Public opinion and professional organisations dominate the euthanasia debate, and there is a need to understand the opinions of people confronted with euthanasia. The aim of this study was to investigate whether patients and their GPs talk about euthanasia, and if so, how they communicate about this.

METHODS

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were held with 20 GPs and 30 of their patients in primary care in the Netherlands, where euthanasia is legalised. The patients had a life expectancy of less than 6 months, and cancer, heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as underlying disease.

RESULTS

Many patients did not communicate about euthanasia with their GP. Neither the patient nor the GP were clear in formulating their expectations concerning future decision making.

CONCLUSION

The initial patient-GP communication consisted of an exchange of opinions about situations in which euthanasia would be desirable. GPs had different opinions about who should initiate communication, and found it difficult to judge the right moment to talk.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

It is essential to pay attention to education in communication about dying and euthanasia and to train the GPs to gain insight in the patient's end-of-life preferences, and to direct care at the best possible quality of life.

Defining the patient population: one of the problems for palliative care research

There is a lack of clear definition and clear inclusion criteria in palliative care research. The aim of this study was to describe consequences of three inclusion criteria in the build up of different study populations, studied in terms of size, number of doctor-patient contacts and demographic characteristics. General practitioners received a questionnaire for all patients who died during the second Dutch National Survey of General Practice (n=2194), to determine whether (1) patients received non-curative treatment; (2) patients received palliative care; and (3) death was expected (total response rate =73%). The criterion 'death was expected' included most patients (62%) followed by 'palliative care' (46%) and 'noncurative treatment' (39%). Similarity between the definition-based populations was fair to moderate. More 'palliative care' and 'death was expected' in patients who had cancer than 'non-curative treatment' patients. The conclusions show substantial differences in populations according to the different inclusion criteria used to select them. Future research in palliative care should acknowledge the limitations of using certain inclusion criteria and explore potential bias.

Good end-of-life care according to patients and their GPs

BACKGROUND

Most patients prefer to die at home, where a GP provides end-of-life care. A few previous studies have been directed at the GPs' values on good end-of-life care, yet no study combined values of patients and their own GP.

AIM

To explore the aspects valued by both patients and GPs in end-of-life care at home, and to reflect upon the results in the context of future developments in primary care.

DESIGN OF STUDY

Interviews with patients and their own GP.

SETTING

Primary care in the Netherlands.

METHOD

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 20 GPs and 30 of their patients with a life expectancy of less than 6 months, and cancer, heart failure or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease as underlying disease.

RESULTS

Patients and GPs had comparable perceptions of good end-of-life care. Patients and GPs identified four core items that they valued in end-of-life care: availability of the GP for home visits and after office-hours, medical competence and cooperation with other professionals, attention and continuity of care.

CONCLUSIONS

Future developments in the organisation of primary care such as the restriction of time for home visits, more part-time jobs and GP cooperatives responsible for care after office hours, may threaten valued aspects in end-of-life care.