Akram Farhat1,2,3, Amal Al-Hajje4, Pierre-Olivier Lang5, Chantal Csajka6,7,8. 1. Center for Research and Innovation in Clinical Pharmaceutical Sciences, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. akram.farhat@hotmail.com. 2. Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences of Western Switzerland, University of Geneva, University of Lausanne, Geneva, Switzerland. akram.farhat@hotmail.com. 3. School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. akram.farhat@hotmail.com. 4. Clinical and Epidemiological Research Laboratory, Faculty of Pharmacy, Lebanese University, Hadat, Lebanon. 5. Genolier Clinic, Genolier, Switzerland. 6. Center for Research and Innovation in Clinical Pharmaceutical Sciences, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 7. Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences of Western Switzerland, University of Geneva, University of Lausanne, Geneva, Switzerland. 8. School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Pharmaceutical interventions can reduce negative outcomes related to potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the impact of interventions on the reduction of PIPs and on different clinical outcomes using two electronic explicit tools. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in patients hospitalized between 2018 and 2019 at the Acute Care for Elders unit at Lausanne University Hospital in Switzerland. A medication review was conducted using PIM-Check in the first arm and STOPP/START in the second arm. Proposed interventions were communicated to the physicians. Clinical outcomes evaluated were incidence of falls, delirium, activities of daily living (ADL), length of stay, number of drugs at discharge and hospital readmission. RESULTS: The 123 included patients (60 in the first arm and 63 in the second arm) were 86.3 ± 6.6 years old, had 3.5 ± 1.7 diseases and were treated by 6.2 ± 2.7 drugs at admission. There was a significant decrease in PIPs in each arm, but no significant difference between arms. The deprescription of nervous system drugs was significantly higher with STOPP/START than with PIM-Check (Chi-square p = 0.025). ADL scores between home and discharge were significantly higher in the STOPP/START arm than in the PIM-Check arm (4.42 vs 3.77; p = 0.040). The predictors of ADL score improvement were the deprescription of nervous system drugs (β = 0.423; 95% CI 0.034-0.812; p = 0.033), the use of STOPP/START (β = 0.798, 95% CI 0.305-1.290; p = 0.002) and a shorter length of hospital stay (β = -0.033, 95% CI - 0.056 to - 0.010; p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Although PIM-Check was non-inferior to STOPP/START in reducing the number of PIPs, STOPP/START had a significantly higher impact on ADL. The use of STOPP/START or the deprescription of two nervous system drugs would allow the patient to acquire almost one more basic function of living. On the other hand, a loss of one point on the ADL score was observed per month of hospitalization. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04028583.
INTRODUCTION: Pharmaceutical interventions can reduce negative outcomes related to potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs). OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the impact of interventions on the reduction of PIPs and on different clinical outcomes using two electronic explicit tools. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in patients hospitalized between 2018 and 2019 at the Acute Care for Elders unit at Lausanne University Hospital in Switzerland. A medication review was conducted using PIM-Check in the first arm and STOPP/START in the second arm. Proposed interventions were communicated to the physicians. Clinical outcomes evaluated were incidence of falls, delirium, activities of daily living (ADL), length of stay, number of drugs at discharge and hospital readmission. RESULTS: The 123 included patients (60 in the first arm and 63 in the second arm) were 86.3 ± 6.6 years old, had 3.5 ± 1.7 diseases and were treated by 6.2 ± 2.7 drugs at admission. There was a significant decrease in PIPs in each arm, but no significant difference between arms. The deprescription of nervous system drugs was significantly higher with STOPP/START than with PIM-Check (Chi-square p = 0.025). ADL scores between home and discharge were significantly higher in the STOPP/START arm than in the PIM-Check arm (4.42 vs 3.77; p = 0.040). The predictors of ADL score improvement were the deprescription of nervous system drugs (β = 0.423; 95% CI 0.034-0.812; p = 0.033), the use of STOPP/START (β = 0.798, 95% CI 0.305-1.290; p = 0.002) and a shorter length of hospital stay (β = -0.033, 95% CI - 0.056 to - 0.010; p = 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Although PIM-Check was non-inferior to STOPP/START in reducing the number of PIPs, STOPP/START had a significantly higher impact on ADL. The use of STOPP/START or the deprescription of two nervous system drugs would allow the patient to acquire almost one more basic function of living. On the other hand, a loss of one point on the ADL score was observed per month of hospitalization. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04028583.