RESUMO
Objective: The prevalence of diabetes is higher in Black than in White individuals, and Blacks seek emergency department (ED) care for diabetes more often than Whites. This randomized controlled trial compared the efficacy of a novel intervention called the Diabetes Interprofessional Team to Enhance Adherence to Medical Care (DM I-TEAM) to usual medical care (UMC) to prevent return diabetes-related ED visits and hospitalizations over 12 months in 200 Black individuals with diabetes after an ED visit. The trial also identified baseline variables associated with return ED visits and hospitalizations. Methods: The DM I-TEAM provided diabetes education and behavioral activation services delivered by race-concordant research assistants, telehealth visits with a diabetes care and education specialist and primary care physicians, and clinical pharmacist recommendations. Results: Participants had a mean age of 64.9 years, and 73.0% were women. There was no treatment group difference in return diabetes-related ED visits or hospitalizations over 12 months (DM I-TEAM n = 39 [45.3%] vs. UMC n = 37 [38.5%], χ2 = 0.864, P = 0.353). Baseline variables that were associated with return diabetes-related ED visits or hospitalizations were longer duration of diabetes, higher number of chronic health conditions, higher number of previous ED visits or hospitalizations, greater anticholinergic medication burden, lower satisfaction with primary care physicians, and lower trust in physicians (all P ≤0.05). Conclusion: Among Black individuals with diabetes, the DM I-TEAM interprofessional intervention was no better than UMC at preventing return diabetes-related ED visits or hospitalizations. High medical morbidity, greater anticholinergic medication burden, low satisfaction with primary care physicians, and physician mistrust were associated with diabetes-related ED visits or hospitalizations independent of treatment. Before clinical interventions such as the DM I-TEAM can be effective, reducing system-level barriers to health, improving physician-patient relationships and medication prescribing, and building community health care capacity will be necessary.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: The use of multiple and/or inappropriate medications in seniors is a significant public health problem, and cancer treatment escalates its prevalence and complexity. Existing studies are limited by patient self-report and medical record extraction compared with a pharmacist-led comprehensive medication assessment. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We retrospectively examined medication use in ambulatory senior adults with cancer to determine the prevalence of polypharmacy (PP) and potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use and associated factors. PP was defined as concurrent use of five or more and less than 10 medications, and excessive polypharmacy (EPP) was defined as 10 or more medications. PIMs were categorized by 2012 Beers Criteria, Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions (STOPP), and the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS). RESULTS: A total of 248 patients received a geriatric oncology assessment between January 2011 and June 2013 (mean age was 79.9 years, 64% were women, 74% were white, and 87% had solid tumors). Only 234 patients (evaluated by pharmacists) were included in the final analysis. Mean number of medications used was 9.23. The prevalence of PP, EPP, and PIM use was 41% (n = 96), 43% (n = 101), and 51% (n = 119), respectively. 2012 Beers, STOPP, and HEDIS criteria classified 173 occurrences of PIMs, which were present in 40%, 38%, and 21% of patients, respectively. Associations with PIM use were PP (P < .001) and increased comorbidities (P = .005). CONCLUSION: A pharmacist-led comprehensive medication assessment demonstrated a high prevalence of PP, EPP, and PIM use. Medication assessments that integrate both 2012 Beers and STOPP criteria and consider cancer diagnosis, prognosis, and cancer-related therapy are needed to optimize medication use in this population.