Search

Key summary pointsAim To investigate the performance of an adverse drug reaction (ADR) trigger tool in patients with polypharmacy acutely admitted to our geriatric ward. Findings The ADR trigger tool had a positive predictive value (PPV) of 41.8%. Usual care recognised 83.5% of ADRs considered as possible, probable or certain, increasing to 97.1% when restricted to probable and certain ADRs. Message It is unlikely that implementation of the ADR trigger tool will improve detection of unrecognised ADRs in older patients acutely admitted to our geriatric ward.Purpose Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) account for 10% of acute hospital admissions in older people, often under-recognised by physicians. The Dutch geriatric guideline recommends screening all acutely admitted older patients with polypharmacy with an ADR trigger tool comprising ten triggers and associated drugs frequently causing ADRs. This study investigated the performance of this tool and the recognition by usual care of ADRs detected with the tool. Methods A cross-sectional study was performed in patients >= 70 years with polypharmacy acutely admitted to the geriatric ward of the University Medical Centre Utrecht. Electronic health records (EHRs) were screened for trigger-drug combinations listed in the ADR trigger tool. Two independent appraisers assessed causal probability with the WHO-UMC algorithm and screened EHRs for recognition of ADRs by attending physicians. Performance of the tool was defined as the positive predictive value (PPV) for ADRs with a possible, probable or certain causal relation. Results In total, 941 trigger-drug combinations were present in 73% (n = 253/345) of the patients. The triggers fall, delirium, renal insufficiency and hyponatraemia covered 86% (n = 810/941) of all trigger-drug combinations. The overall PPV was 41.8% (n = 393/941), but the PPV for individual triggers was highly variable ranging from 0 to 100%. Usual care recognised the majority of ADRs (83.5%), increasing to 97.1% when restricted to possible and certain ADRs. Conclusion The ADR trigger tool has predictive value; however, its implementation is unlikely to improve the detection of unrecognised ADRs in older patients acutely admitted to our geriatric ward. Future research is needed to investigate the tool's clinical value when applied to older patients acutely admitted to non-geriatric wards.

Introduction: Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are risk factors for drug-related hospital admissions (DRAs) in the ageing population. DRAs caused by medication errors (MEs) are considered potentially preventable. The STOPP/START criteria were developed to detect potential MEs in older people. Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the detectability of MEs with a STOPP/START-based in-hospital medication review in older people with polypharmacy and multimorbidity prior to a potentially preventable DRA. Methods: Hospitalised older patients (n = 963) with polypharmacy and multimorbidity from the intervention arm of the OPERAM trial received a STOPP/START-based in-hospital medication review by a pharmacotherapy team. Readmissions within 1 year after the in-hospital medication review were adjudicated for drug-relatedness. A retrospective assessment was performed to determine whether MEs identified at the first DRA were detectable during the in-hospital medication review. Results: In total, 84 of 963 OPERAM intervention patients (8.7%) were readmitted with a potentially preventable DRA, of which 72 patients (n = 77 MEs) were eligible for analysis. About half (48%, n = 37/77) of the MEs were not present during the in-hospital medication review and therefore were not detectable at that time. The pharmacotherapy team recommended a change in medication regimen in 50% (n = 20/40) of present MEs, which corresponds to 26% (n = 20/77) of the total identified MEs at readmission. However, these recommendations were not implemented. Conclusion: MEs identified at readmission were not addressed by a prior single in-hospital medication review because either these MEs occurred after the medication review (~50%), or no recommendation was given during the medication review (~25%), or the recommendation was not implemented (~25%). Future research should focus on optimisation of the timing and frequency of medication review and the implementation of proposed medication recommendations. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02986425. December 8, 2016. Funding: European Union HORIZON 2020, Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI), Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF) Graphical abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.].

Drug–drug interactions (DDIs) frequently trigger adverse drug events or reduced efficacy. Most DDI alerts, however, are overridden because of irrelevance for the specific patient. Basic DDI clinical decision support (CDS) systems offer limited possibilities for decreasing the number of irrelevant DDI alerts without missing relevant ones. Computerized decision tree rules were designed to context-dependently suppress irrelevant DDI alerts. A crossover study was performed to compare the clinical utility of contextualized and basic DDI management in hospitalized patients. First, a basic DDI-CDS system was used in clinical practice while contextualized DDI alerts were collected in the background. Next, this process was reversed. All medication orders (MOs) from hospitalized patients with at least one DDI alert were included. The following outcome measures were used to assess clinical utility: positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), number of pharmacy interventions (PIs)/1,000 MOs, and the median time spent on DDI management/1,000 MOs. During the basic DDI management phase 1,919 MOs/day were included, triggering 220 DDI alerts/1,000 MOs; showing 57 basic DDI alerts/1,000 MOs to pharmacy staff; PPV was 2.8% with 1.6 PIs/1,000 MOs costing 37.2 minutes/1,000 MOs. No DDIs were missed by the contextualized CDS system (NPV 100%). During the contextualized DDI management phase 1,853 MOs/day were included, triggering 244 basic DDI alerts/1,000 MOs, showing 9.6 contextualized DDIs/1,000 MOs to pharmacy staff; PPV was 41.4% (P

Background: Patients in clinical practice are transitioned from originator etanercept (OR-ETA) to biosimilar etanercept (BS-ETA), but some subsequently retransition. Insights into the incidence of and reasons for retransitioning and the characteristics of these patients could help clinicians successfully introduce biosimilars. Objective: Our objective was to assess the incidence of and reasons for retransitioning from BS-ETA to OR-ETA in patients with a rheumatic disease (RD) and to explore the determinants thereof. Methods: This cohort study included all patients with RD who had transitioned from OR-ETA to BS-ETA in a large hospital in the Netherlands in 2016. The incidence of retransitioning to OR-ETA and the 1-year persistence with BS-ETA were assessed using the Kaplan–Meier estimator. Reasons for retransitioning were classified as related to (1) efficacy, (2) adverse events, (3) the administration device, and (4) other. Determinants for retransitioning, including baseline and treatment characteristics, were assessed in a nested case–control study using conditional logistic regression. Results: We included 342 patients (median age 57.8 years; 53.5% females). At 1 year after transitioning, 9.4% of patients had retransitioned to OR-ETA and 69.7% were persistent with BS-ETA. At the end of follow-up (median 4.4 years), 47 patients (13.7%) had retransitioned to OR-ETA. The median time until retransitioning was 0.55 years (interquartile range 0.2–1.3). Most patients (n = 34 [72.3%]) retransitioned because of a (perceived) loss of effect, followed by adverse events (23.4%). In total 3.8% of patients switched to another biological treatment or a Janus kinase inhibitor; 17.1% of patients discontinued BS-ETA without retransitioning or switching within the first year. Univariate determinants for retransitioning included initiating corticosteroids or intensifying immunomodulator treatment (odds ratio [OR] 2.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03–5.45) and the number of visits to the rheumatology department (OR 2.06; 95% CI 1.55–2.74). In the multivariate analysis, only the number of visits to the rheumatology department remained significantly associated with retransitioning (OR 2.19; 95% CI 1.60–3.01). Conclusion: When introducing a biosimilar in clinical care, clinicians should anticipate that one in seven patients will retransition to the originator. A (perceived) loss of effect was the most frequently reported reason for retransitioning. Patients who visited the rheumatology department more frequently had an increased risk of retransitioning, which is likely to be related to patients reporting a loss of effect and to adverse events resulting in more visits to the rheumatology department.

Medication waste has a high impact on the healthcare budget and detrimental effects on the environment. Therefore, preventing medication from remaining unused through the pharmaceutical chain forms an interesting approach to achieve sustainable supply and use of medication. This scoping review focusses on how stakeholders involved can prevent the waste of potentially viable medication. Manufacturers can contribute to sustainable supply and use of medication by extending medications' shelf-life, choosing the most sustainable storage conditions and adjusting package sizes. The role of distributors involves stock management optimisation and loosening shelf-life policies. In turn, prescribers can commit to rational prescribing practices, including consideration of prescription quantities and prescriptions for shorter durations. Pharmacists can contribute via appropriate stock management, enhancing medication preparation processes, optimising dispensing processes, and redispensing unused medication. Patients’ awareness of medication waste must be increased to stimulate conscious medication-ordering and to create willingness for participation in waste-minimising interventions. Finally, health authorities can contribute to sustainability by creating awareness and enforcing waste-minimising measures. Due to the multiple causes of medication waste at all levels of the pharmaceutical supply and use chain, no single intervention is sufficient to overcome the problem of medication waste, thus a joint responsibility of all stakeholders is needed.

Details of the tight glucose protocol.