Andreas D Meid1, Anette Lampert1,2, Alina Burnett1,2,3, Hanna M Seidling1,2, Walter E Haefeli1,2. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacoepidemiology, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 2. Cooperation Unit Clinical Pharmacy, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 410, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany. 3. School of Pharmacy, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis of controlled trials assessing the impact of pharmaceutical care interventions (e.g. medication reviews) on medication underuse in older patients (≥65 years). METHODS: The databases MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for controlled studies, and data on interventions, patient characteristics and exposure, and outcome assessment were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's 'risk of bias' table. Results from reported outcomes were synthesized in multivariate random effects meta-analysis, subgroup meta-analysis and meta-regression. RESULTS: From 954 identified articles, nine controlled studies, mainly comprising a medication review, were included (2542 patients). These interventions were associated with significant reductions in the mean number of omitted drugs per patient (estimate from six studies with 1469 patients: - 0.44; 95% confidence interval -0.61, -0.26) and the proportion of patients with ≥1 omitted drugs (odds ratio from eight studies with 1833 patients: 0.29; 95% confidence interval 0.13, 0.63). The only significant influential factor for improving success was the utilization of explicit screening instruments when conducting a medication review (P = 0.033). CONCLUSION: Pharmaceutical care interventions, including medication reviews, can significantly reduce medication underuse in older people. The use of explicit screening instruments alone or in combination with implicit reasoning is strongly recommendable for clinical practice.
AIMS: The aim of the present study was to conduct a meta-analysis of controlled trials assessing the impact of pharmaceutical care interventions (e.g. medication reviews) on medication underuse in older patients (≥65 years). METHODS: The databases MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for controlled studies, and data on interventions, patient characteristics and exposure, and outcome assessment were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's 'risk of bias' table. Results from reported outcomes were synthesized in multivariate random effects meta-analysis, subgroup meta-analysis and meta-regression. RESULTS: From 954 identified articles, nine controlled studies, mainly comprising a medication review, were included (2542 patients). These interventions were associated with significant reductions in the mean number of omitted drugs per patient (estimate from six studies with 1469 patients: - 0.44; 95% confidence interval -0.61, -0.26) and the proportion of patients with ≥1 omitted drugs (odds ratio from eight studies with 1833 patients: 0.29; 95% confidence interval 0.13, 0.63). The only significant influential factor for improving success was the utilization of explicit screening instruments when conducting a medication review (P = 0.033). CONCLUSION: Pharmaceutical care interventions, including medication reviews, can significantly reduce medication underuse in older people. The use of explicit screening instruments alone or in combination with implicit reasoning is strongly recommendable for clinical practice.
Authors: Terrence F Blaschke; Lars Osterberg; Bernard Vrijens; John Urquhart Journal: Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol Date: 2011-09-19 Impact factor: 13.820
Authors: Jeffrey L Greenwald; Lakshmi Halasyamani; Jan Greene; Cynthia LaCivita; Erin Stucky; Bona Benjamin; William Reid; Frances A Griffin; Allen J Vaida; Mark V Williams Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Christopher Beer; Zoë Hyde; Osvaldo P Almeida; Paul Norman; Graeme J Hankey; Bu B Yeap; Leon Flicker Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Janice B Schwartz; Kenneth E Schmader; Joseph T Hanlon; Darrell R Abernethy; Shelly Gray; Jacqueline Dunbar-Jacob; Holly M Holmes; Michael D Murray; Robert Roberts; Michael Joyner; Josh Peterson; David Lindeman; Ming Tai-Seale; Laura Downey; Michael W Rich Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2018-12-07 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Andreas D Meid; Andreas Groll; Ulrich Schieborr; Jochen Walker; Walter E Haefeli Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-12-24 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: João R Gonçalves; Isabel Ramalhinho; Betsy L Sleath; Manuel J Lopes; Afonso M Cavaco Journal: Eur Geriatr Med Date: 2021-03-20 Impact factor: 1.710
Authors: Jean-Baptiste Beuscart; Lisa G Pont; Stefanie Thevelin; Benoit Boland; Olivia Dalleur; Anne W S Rutjes; Johanna I Westbrook; Anne Spinewine Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Andreas D Meid; Renate Quinzler; Andreas Groll; Beate Wild; Kai-Uwe Saum; Ben Schöttker; Dirk Heider; Hans-Helmut König; Hermann Brenner; Walter E Haefeli Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Audrey Rankin; Cathal A Cadogan; Susan M Patterson; Ngaire Kerse; Chris R Cardwell; Marie C Bradley; Cristin Ryan; Carmel Hughes Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-09-03