RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The management of inappropriate medication use in older patients suffering from multimorbidity and polymedication is a major healthcare challenge. In a primary care setting, a medication review is an effective tool through which a pharmacist can collaborate with a practitioner to detect inappropriate drug use. AIM: This project described the implementation of a systematic process for the management of potentially inappropriate medication use among Lebanese older adults. Its aim was to involve pharmacists in geriatric care and to suggest treatment optimization through the analysis of prescriptions using explicit and implicit criteria. METHOD: This study evaluated the medications of patients over 65 years taking a minimum of five chronic medications a day in different regions of Lebanon. Descriptive statistics for all the included variables using mean and standard deviation (Mean (SD)) for continuous variables and frequency and percentage (n, (%)) for multinomial variables were then performed. RESULTS: A total of 850 patients (50.7% women, 28.6% frail, 75.7 (8.01) mean age (SD)) were included in this study. The mean number of drugs per prescription was 7.10 (2.45). Roughly 88% of patients (n = 748) had at least one potentially inappropriate drug prescription: 66.4% and 64.4% of the patients had at least 1 drug with an unfavorable benefit-to-risk ratio according to Beers and EU(7)-PIM respectively. Nearly 50.4% of patients took at least one medication with no indication. The pharmacists recommended discontinuing medication for 76.5% of the cases of drug related problems. 26.6% of the overall proposed interventions were implemented. DISCUSSION: The rate of potentially inappropriate drug prescribing (PIDP) (88%) was higher than the rates previously reported in Europe, US, and Canada. It was also higher than studies conducted in Lebanon where it varied from 22.4 to 80% depending on the explicit criteria used, the settings, and the medical conditions of the patients. We used both implicit and explicit criteria with five different lists to improve the detection of all types of inappropriate medication use since Lebanon obtains drugs from many different sources. Another potential source for variation is the lack of a standardized process for the assessment of outpatient medication use in the elderly. CONCLUSION: The prevalence PIDP detected in the sample was higher than the percentages reported in previous literature. Systematic review of prescriptions has the capacity to identify and resolve pharmaceutical care issues thus improving geriatric care.
Asunto(s)
Prescripción Inadecuada , Lista de Medicamentos Potencialmente Inapropiados , Atención Primaria de Salud , Humanos , Anciano , Femenino , Masculino , Líbano , Estudios Prospectivos , Prescripción Inadecuada/prevención & control , Prescripción Inadecuada/estadística & datos numéricos , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Polifarmacia , FarmacéuticosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: In an era of rapid evolution in healthcare delivery, major changes have occurred within the profession of pharmacist. Because the impact of pharmacist-led interventions in the hospital setting has been well-studied and showed mixed findings on drug-related readmissions, all-cause emergency department visits and mortality, this systematic review focused on services provided by pharmacists in the community or ambulatory care setting without being limited to a specific intervention or outcome. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the impact of pharmacist-led interventions, categorised into clinical medication review (CMR), adherence review (AR), and prescription review (PR) on various aspects of patient care (clinical, behavioural, economic and humanistic outcomes in ambulatory care setting) and understand which particular intervention makes the greatest contribution. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library for publications from 2000 onwards. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION: A total of 31 relevant publications corresponding to 27 controlled trials (CTs) and 4 observational studies were selected. CMR was the most studied pharmacist-led intervention (n = 19, 61.29%), followed by AR (n = 6, 19.3%). CMR demonstrated a favourable effect on different clinical outcomes mainly the management of drug-related problems and adverse events, and it also contributed the most to the reduction of healthcare costs. AR was the most effective intervention to improve patient's adherence. CMR alone or combined with AR both raised equally the patient's satisfaction. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that CMR can play a major role in the management of drug-related problems and economic issues. AR can significantly improve patient compliance. Larger, standardised and rigorously designed intervention studies are needed to help decision-makers to select appropriate interventions leading to meaningful improvements in patient care.