Search

Many guidelines offer recommendations to support the continuation of breastfeeding and the choice of medication when a mother undergoes a surgical procedure. The aim of this study is to investigate health care providers’ (HCPs) current practices and knowledge about peri-surgical medication and practices in breastfeeding women. We performed a cross-sectional study in Flanders (Belgium) assessing demographics, beliefs about breastfeeding and its health benefits, current practices concerning breastfeeding women undergoing (surgical) procedures and specific knowledge about the use of medication during breastfeeding. Two hundred and ninety-one (291) participants completed the online questionnaire. Many participants considered their knowledge about breastfeeding to be good, and almost all participants acknowledged the superiority of breastfeeding and the importance of its continuation. Very few participants were, however, familiar with the available protocols concerning surgical procedures in breastfeeding women. Less than half of the participants routinely advised the recommended practices to protect breastfeeding. For most of the peri-surgical medication, participants needed to look-up information about the compatibility with breastfeeding. We conclude that there is a knowledge gap and recommend the development of a comprehensive guideline as well as implementation of this information in basic and post-academic training.

Objectives Alcohol and medication use are increasingly prevalent in the older population. Concurrent use of alcohol and alcohol-interactive (AI) medication can lead to significant adverse consequences. Methods Three reference works were used to create an explicit list of drug substances for which information about the interaction with alcohol was available in at least one of them. Additional information was extracted from the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC). The first aim was to generate a list of 256 substances with standardized advice regarding the concurrent use of each drug with alcohol. The second aim was to observe the prevalence of potential drug–alcohol-interactions. The list was applied to a database containing information about alcohol and medication use of 1,016 community-dwelling older patients (≥70 years) with polypharmacy. Results About half of the sample population reported to consume alcohol at least once a week. Around 22% were classified as frequent drinkers (5–7 days/week) and 11% as heavier drinkers (>7 units/week). Ninety-three percent alcohol consumers in our sample took at least one chronic drug that potentially interacts with alcohol and 42% used at least one chronic drug for which alcohol use is considered contraindicated. Conclusions We developed an explicit list of potentially drug–alcohol-interactions in older adults, with standardized handling advice. We observed that prevalence of potential drug–alcohol-interactions is substantial in community-dwelling older patients with polypharmacy.

The utilization of serious games and simulations in health professional education has increased. The Pharmacy Game is one such concept that intersects gamification and simulation, in which pharmacy student teams competitively manage simulated pharmacies, a concept included in the pharmacy curricula of seven international universities. This study aimed to compare the implementation and conduct of the Pharmacy Game of participant universities and their students’ performance in the same educational task. Data were collected via a questionnaire completed by academic staff in April 2020, and the collation of results of the same patient case was conducted at each university (April 2020 to March 2021). The main results reflected differences in the game frequencies and the curricular approach (standalone or integrated course) and in the learning outcomes for the Pharmacy Game. Other differences were identified in the extent to which students of other professions were part of the game such as medical students or pharmacy assistants. Student case outcomes revealed similar strengths across the universities in patient communication and focus on safety, with variations identified as areas for improvement. Collation of the international utilization of the Pharmacy Game identified a broad spectrum of similar learning outcomes, inspiring a model of international core and aspirational learning outcomes. While the Pharmacy Game has been implemented with flexibility regarding the numbers of teams (4–10) and the duration of activity (12–36 days), all universities reported positive experiences and student outcomes, suggesting that the intervention represents a potential tool to deliver capstone learning experiences, promote interprofessional education, reinforce patient safety, and prepare pharmacy graduates for future practice.

Objective Explicit screening tools and implicit evaluation methods have been developed to assist healthcare professionals in the management of pharmacotherapy in older adults. As prescribing habits and locally available medications vary considerably between countries, guides tailored to the needs of specific regions may be required. We aimed to report the results of the international Delphi validation study for the Turkish Inappropriate Medication use in the Elderly (TIME) criteria set, which aims to detect inappropriate prescribing in older adults in Eastern Europe. Methods The study was conducted between June 2019 and March 2020. Delphi rounds were conducted by the TIME international working group, which included 11 internationally recognized experts in geriatric pharmacotherapy as Delphi panelists. They were asked to indicate to what extent they agreed or disagreed with each TIME criterion, taking into account both the available evidence and their own experience. We used a five-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree) and an online software program (SurveyMonkey®) to grade the level of agreement. Criteria with a median value of 1 or 2 and a 75th centile value of 1 or 2 were accepted, and criteria with a median value > 2 were rejected. Those with a median value of 1 or 2 but a 75th centile value > 2 were retained, to be assessed in the following round. The initial list of Delphi criteria comprised 153 TIME items. Results After three Delphi rounds, 134 criteria were accepted and seven criteria were rejected, while 12 criteria did not achieve consensus, and so were not included in the final validated set of TIME criteria. Conclusion We developed the internationally validated TIME criteria set based on a Delphi process involving international experts. The validation study suggests that the TIME criteria set can be applied in both central and Eastern European settings. Further studies are needed to assess the utility and benefit of the TIME criteria in reducing inappropriate drug use and improving clinical outcomes. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40266-021-00855-5.

Background: Reflux occurs in 50% of healthy infants at some point. This is most often a physiological condition and does not require drug treatment. Various studies have shown that the use of drugs affecting gastric acidity (DAGAs) in infants is increasing. This entails disadvantages such as unnecessary exposure of infants to medication and their side effects and a higher cost to society. Objective: To get an image of the current practice in Flanders regarding diagnosis and treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) in infants and the associated use of DAGAs. To this end, we determined both parents&rsquo, and health care providers&rsquo, experiences and perceptions about these treatments. Method: An observational cross-sectional study was conducted in April and May 2019. We developed a questionnaire for parents and three different questionnaires for health care providers (HCPs), including midwives, general practitioners, paediatricians and community pharmacists (CPs). The questionnaire for parents was only available through an online platform. HCPs were questioned face-to-face and through an online platform. Results: This study made clear that the counselling of children with GORD is multidisciplinary as the median number of counselling HCPs is 3 (interquartile range (IQR) = 2&ndash, 4). 63% of the included 251 parents also seek support through online forums and groups. 60% of parents report that no physical tests were performed before DAGAs were prescribed and 39% of parents additionally state they perceived no effect of the prescribed DAGAs. Although parents reported to understand HCPs well (average score 7.4/10), satisfaction with care and information provision was scored lower (between 4.8 and 6.1/10). On the other hand, 234 HCPs answered the questionnaire, of which 89 midwives, 78 community pharmacists and 67 physicians. Only 45 HCPs indicate that guidelines to diagnose or treat GORD are clear. Physicians confirm they perform very little physical testing before starting DAGAs. Provided nonmedical measures to patients are largely in line with the European guidelines, however perceived effectiveness is moderate. Conclusion: Parents are in need for more information about tests, nutrition and (non)medical measures. HCPs on the other hand are in need for clear guidelines on diagnosing and treating GORD.

As children are unable to make health-related decisions themselves, parents play a central role in consultations with healthcare providers. Parents' perspectives are therefore the focus of this study. Our first aim was to determine parents' expectations of a healthcare visit with a general practitioner and a community pharmacist. The second aim was to determine the general practitioners' and community pharmacists' perspectives about consultations with children. An observational cross-sectional study was conducted in April and May 2018. We developed three questionnaires: one for parents, one for general practitioners, and one for community pharmacists. The questionnaire for parents was only available through an online platform. The healthcare providers were questioned face-to-face and through an online platform. The study included 380 respondents. Parents considered prescribing or proposing medication the least important action by a general practitioner or community pharmacist, respectively. As well, parents expect information in most cases from both healthcare providers. The questionnaire for general practitioners and community pharmacists revealed that prescribing or proposing medication was regarded the least important action.Conclusion: Considering parents' expectations for a consultation with a general practitioner or community pharmacist, there is a substantial resemblance with the healthcare providers' perspective.What is Known:• The previous studies focusing on parents' perspectives were carried out in a hospital setting or focused on a specific disorder.• Parents consider reassurance and advice from their general practitioner to be very important; the treatment is considered less important.What is New:• Parents considered for both general practitioners' and community pharmacists' verbal information, answers to their questions, and reassurance as more important than receiving pharmacological treatment, while general practitioners and community pharmacists consider prescribing/proposing medication and providing written information as less important.• The expectations of the different groups (parents in relation to not only the healthcare providers but also the general practitioners and community pharmacists compared to each other) know a great resemblance.

BACKGROUND: Renal function progressively worsens with age. Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) of renally excreted active drugs (READs) is common in older adults, leading to an increased rate of iatrogenic illness. The Ghent Older People's Prescription community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP3S-) tool is an effective, explicit instrument that was developed for community pharmacists (CPs) to detect PIP. So far, this tool does not assess PIP of the frequently used READs in older patients with renal impairment. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to expand the GheOP3S-tool with the first addendum to screen for PIP of frequently used READs, and to perform a cross-sectional analysis using the addendum and the medication history of a group of older adults with polypharmacy. METHODS: The addendum was developed in three steps: (1) collection of individual and combined READs, (2) collection of dose-adjustment recommendations, and (3) expert panel evaluation. Consequently, the addendum was applied retrospectively on the medication list of 60 older adults with polypharmacy and with four renal function-estimating equations. RESULTS: The addendum includes 61 READs recommendations for dose/drug-adjustment alternatives, laboratory test follow-ups, and patients' referral to specialists' care. In the cross-sectional analysis, 35-78% of patients were diagnosed with renal impairment, depending on the equations used for renal function estimation. Among patients with renal impairment, 21-46% of the prescribed READs were deemed potentially inappropriate by the GheOP3S-tool addendum. CONCLUSION: The GheOP3S-tool was expanded with an addendum on PIP of READs in renal impairment for older patients. The cross-sectional analysis using the addendum suggests that PIP of READs is common in older patients with polypharmacy and renal impairment. Using this addendum, CPs might contribute to diminishing PIP of READs.

Zowel in Belgie als in Europa wordt het aantal personen ouder dan 65 jaar alsmaar groter. Recente cijfers geven aan dat ongeveer 20% van de totale populatie ouder is dan 65 jaar, wat in Belgie neerkomt op ruim twee miljoen oudere personen.1

Objectives: The Ghent Older People’s Prescriptions community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP3S-) tool was recently developed as an explicit screening method to detect Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing (PIP) in the community pharmacy. We aimed to validate the GheOP3S-tool as an effective screening method for PIP.Methods: All patients admitted to the acute geriatric ward of the Sint-Vincentius hospital (Belgium) were consecutively screened for inclusion (≥70 years,≥5 drugs chronically). PIP prevalence was evaluated by applying the GheOP3S-tool on the complete medication history. For each PIP-item, clinical relevance of the detected item, relevance of proposed alternative and subsequent acceptance by the treating geriatrician and a general practitioner were evaluated. Additionally, contribution to the current admission and preventability was assessed by the geriatrician. The completeness of a PIP-screening with the GheOP3S-tool was evaluated through comparison with the adapted Medication Appropriateness Index (aMAI).Results: We detected 250 GheOP3S-items in 57 of 60 included patients (95%) (median: four PIP-items per patient; IQR: 3–5). Both the geriatrician and the general practitioners scored the clinical relevance of the detected items ‘serious’ or ‘significant’ in over 70% of cases. Proposed alternative treatment plans were accepted for 79% of the PIP-items (n = 198). The aMAI detected 536 items, of which 145 were also detected by the GheOP3S-tool. A total of 119 PIP-items were additionally detected by the GheOP3S-tool.Conclusion: The clinical relevance of the PIP-items detected with the GheOP3S-tool is high, likewise the acceptance rate of proposed alternatives.

Background: The Ghent Older People’s Prescriptions community Pharmacy Screening (GheOP3S-)tool was recently developed to screen for potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP). Objective: We aimed (1) to determine PIP prevalence in older nursing home (NH) residents with polypharmacy using the GheOP3S-tool and (2) to identify those PIPs that are most frequently detected. Method: A cross-sectional study was carried out between February and June 2014 in 10 NHs in Belgium, supplied by a community pharmacy chain. For each NH, 40 residents (>70 years, using >5 chronic drugs) were included. PIP prevalence was determined using the GheOP3S-tool. Results: 400 NH residents were included [mean age (±SD) 86.2 (±6.3) years; median number of drugs (±IQR) 10 (7–12)]. A total of 1728 PIPs were detected in 387 (97 %) participants (Median 4; IQR 2–6). The most prevalent items can be assigned to three categories: long-term use of central nervous system drugs (i.e. benzodiazepines, antidepressants and antipsychotics), use of anticholinergic drugs (mutual combinations and with underlying constipation/dementia) and underuse of osteoporosis prophylaxis. Conclusion: Screening for PIP by means of the GheOP3S-tool revealed a high prevalence of PIP among older NH residents with polypharmacy. This finding urges for initiatives on the patient-level, but also on a broader, institutional level.

Commentary on: Wouters H, Scheper J, Koning H, et al . Discontinuing inappropriate medication use in nursing home residents: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2017;167:609–617. Polypharmacy and associated inappropriate medication (IM) use is a well-known problem in nursing home patients.1 The evidence that the discontinuation of specific medications (deprescribing) in older patients does not worsen outcomes and decreases adverse drug events and medication costs is growing. Research considering deprescribing of antihypertensives, antipsychotics and antidepressants has been performed.2 3 However, results …

Renal function progressively worsens with age. Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) of renally excreted active drugs (READs) is common in older adults, leading to an increased rate of iatrogenic illness. The Ghent Older People's Prescription community Pharmacy Screening (GheOPThis study aimed to expand the GheOPThe addendum was developed in three steps: (1) collection of individual and combined READs, (2) collection of dose-adjustment recommendations, and (3) expert panel evaluation. Consequently, the addendum was applied retrospectively on the medication list of 60 older adults with polypharmacy and with four renal function-estimating equations.The addendum includes 61 READs recommendations for dose/drug-adjustment alternatives, laboratory test follow-ups, and patients' referral to specialists' care. In the cross-sectional analysis, 35-78% of patients were diagnosed with renal impairment, depending on the equations used for renal function estimation. Among patients with renal impairment, 21-46% of the prescribed READs were deemed potentially inappropriate by the GheOPThe GheOP

BACKGROUND: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is one of the main risk factors for adverse drug events (ADEs) in older people. PURPOSE: This systematic literature review aims to determine prevalence and type of PIP in community-dwelling older people across Europe, as well as identifying risk factors for PIP. METHODS: The PubMed and Web of Science database were searched systematically for relevant manuscripts (January 1, 2000-December 31, 2014). Manuscripts were included if the study design was observational, the study participants were community-dwelling older patients in Europe, and if a published screening method for PIP was used. Studies that focused on specific pathologies or that focused on merely one inappropriate prescribing issue were excluded. Data analysis was performed using R statistics. RESULTS: Fifty-two manuscripts were included, describing 82 different sample screenings with an estimated overall PIP prevalence of 22.6 % (CI 19.2-26.7 %; range 0.0-98.0 %). Ten of the sample screenings were based on the Beers 1997 criteria, 19 on the Beers 2003 criteria, 14 on STOPP criteria (2008 version), 8 on START-criteria (2008 version), and 7 on the PRISCUS list. The 24 remaining sample screenings were carried out using compilations of screening methods or used country-specific lists such as the Laroche criteria. It appears that only PIP prevalence calculated from insurance data significantly differs from the other data collection method categories. Furthermore, risk factors most often positively associated with PIP prevalence were polypharmacy, poor functional status, and depression. Drug groups most often involved in PIP were anxiolytics (ATC-code: N05B), antidepressants (N06A), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory and anti-rheumatic products (M01A). CONCLUSION: PIP prevalence in European community-dwelling older adults is high and depends partially on the data collection method used. Polypharmacy, poor functional status, and depression were identified as the most common risk factors for PIP.

textabstractBackground Ageing of the population often leads to polypharmacy. Consequently, potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) becomes more frequent. Systematic screening for PIP in older patients in primary care could yield a large improvement in health outcomes, possibly an important task for community pharmacists. In this article, we develop an explicit screening tool to detect relevant PIP that can be used in the typical community pharmacy practice, adapted to the European market. Methods Eleven panellists participated in a two-round RAND/UCLA (Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles) process, including a round zero meeting, a literature review, a first written evaluation round, a second face-to-face evaluation round and, finally, a selection of those items that are applicable in the contemporary community pharmacy. Results Eighteen published lists of PIP for older patients were retrieved from the literature, mentioning 398 different items. After the two-round RAND/UCLA process, 99 clinically relevant items were considered suitable to screen for in a community pharmacy practice. A panel of seven community pharmacists selected 83 items, feasible in the contemporary community pharmacy practice, defining the final GheOP3S tool. Conclusion A novel explicit screening tool (GheOP3S) was developed to be used for PIP screening in the typical community pharmacy practice.

BACKGROUND: A protocol-based pharmaceutical care program (the PHARMACOP-protocol) focusing on patient counselling during prescription filling has shown to be effective in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, implementation of this protocol in daily practice has not yet been studied. OBJECTIVE: To describe current implementation level of the items included in the PHARMACOP-protocol in Belgian community pharmacies and to evaluate pharmacists' perspectives on the implementation of this protocol in daily practice. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted from April to June 2012, in randomly selected community pharmacies in Flanders. Pharmacists were questionned using structured interviews. RESULTS: 125 pharmacies were contacted and 80 managing pharmacists (64 %) participated. In >70 % of pharmacies, 4/7 protocol items for first prescriptions and 3/5 protocol items for follow-up prescriptions were already routinely implemented. For first and follow-up prescriptions, respectively 39 (49 %) and 34 pharmacists (43 %) stated they would need to spend at least 5 min extra to offer optimal patient counselling. Most mentioned barriers preventing protocol implementation included lack of time (80 %), no integration in pharmacy software (61 %) and too much administrative burden (58 %). CONCLUSION: Approximately 50 % of the PHARMACOP-protocol items are currently routinely provided in Belgian community pharmacies. Nearly all interviewed pharmacists are willing to implement the protocol fully or partially in daily practice.

AIM: Few well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCT) regarding the impact of community pharmacist interventions on pharmacotherapeutic monitoring of patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) have been conducted. We assessed the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical care program for patients with COPD. METHODS: The PHARMACOP-trial is a single-blind 3-month RCT, conducted in 170 community pharmacies in Belgium, enrolling patients prescribed daily COPD medication, aged ≥50 years, and with a smoking history ≥10 pack-years. A computer-generated randomization sequence allocated patients to intervention (n=371), receiving protocol-defined pharmacist care, or control group (n=363), receiving usual pharmacist care (1:1 ratio, stratified by center). Interventions, focusing on inhalation technique and adherence to maintenance therapy, were carried out at start of the trial and at one month follow-up. Primary outcomes were inhalation technique and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes were exacerbation rate, dyspnea, COPD specific and generic health status and smoking behavior. RESULTS: From December 2010 to April 2011, 734 patients were enrolled. 42 patients (5.7%) were lost to follow-up. At the end of the trial, inhalation score (Mean estimated difference [Δ],13.5%; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 10.8-16.1; P

Background: In this study, we aimed to (i) determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in community-dwelling older polypharmacy patients using the Ghent Older People's Prescriptions community-Pharmacy Screening (GheOP³S) tool, (ii) identify the items that account for the highest proportion of PIP and (iii) identify the patient variables that may influence the occurrence of PIP. Additionally, pharmacist-physician contacts emerging from PIP screening with the GheOP³S tool and feasibility of the GheOP³S tool in daily practice were evaluated. Methods: A prospective observational study was carried out between December 2013 and July 2014 in 204 community pharmacies in Belgium. Patients were eligible if they were (i) ≥70 years, (ii) community-dwelling, (iii) using ≥5 chronic drugs, (iv) a regular visitor of the pharmacy and (v) understanding Dutch or French. Community pharmacists used a structured interview to obtain demographic data and medication use and subsequently screened for PIP using the GheOP³S tool. A Poisson regression was used to investigate the association between different covariates and the number of PIP. Results: In 987 (97%) of 1016 included patients, 3721 PIP items were detected (median of 3 per patient; inter quartile range: 2-5). Most frequently involved with PIP are drugs for the central nervous system such as hypnosedatives, antipsychotics and antidepressants. Risk factors for a higher PIP prevalence appeared to be a higher number of drugs (30% extra PIPs per 5 extra drugs), female gender (20% extra PIPs), higher body mass index (BMI, 20% extra PIPs per 10-unit increase in BMI) and poorer functional status (30% extra PIPs with 6-point increase). The feasibility of the GheOP³S tool was acceptable although digitalization of the tool would improve implementation. Despite detecting at least one PIP in 987 patients, only 39 physicians were contacted by the community pharmacists to discuss the items. Conclusion: A high prevalence of PIP in community-dwelling older polypharmacy patients in Belgium was detected which urges for interventions to reduce PIP.

For the majority of Belgian hospitals, a pharmacist-led full medication review process is not standard care and, therefore, challenging to introduce. With this study, we aimed to evaluate the successes and barriers of the implementation of a pharmacist-led full medication review process in the geriatric ward at a local Belgian hospital. To this end, we carried out an interventional study, performing a full medication review on older patients (>= 70 years) with polypharmacy (>= 5 drugs) who had an unplanned admission to the geriatric ward. The process consisted of 3 steps: (1) medication reconciliation upon admission; (2) medication review using an explicit reviewing tool (STOPP/START criteria or GheOP(3)S tool), followed by a discussion between the pharmacist and the geriatrician; and (3) medication reconciliation upon discharge. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethical Commission of the Ghent University Hospital. Outcomes included objective data on the interventions (e.g., number of drug discrepancies; number of potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP)); as well as subjective experiences (e.g., satisfaction with service; opinion on inter-professional communication). There was a special focus on communication aspects within the introduction of this process. In total, 52 patients were included in the study, taking a median of 10 drugs (IQR 8-12). Upon admission, 122 drug discrepancies were detected. During medication review, 254 PIPs were detected and discussed, leading to an improvement in the appropriateness of medication use. The satisfaction of community pharmacists concerning additional communication and the satisfaction of the patients after counselling at discharge were positive. However, several barriers were encountered, such as the time-consuming process to gather necessary information from different sources, the non-continuity of the service due to the lack of trained personnel or the lack of safe, electronic platforms to share information. The communicative and non-communicative successes and hurdles encountered during this project need to be addressed in order to improve the full medication review process and to strengthen the role of the clinical pharmacist.

Background: The PHARMACOP-intervention significantly improved medication adherence and inhalation technique for patients with COPD compared with usual care. This study aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness.Methods: An economic analysis was performed from the Belgian healthcare payer's perspective. A Markov model was constructed in which a representative group of patients with COPD (mean age of 70 years, 66% male, 43% current smokers and mean Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second of % predicted of 50), was followed for either receiving the 3-month PHARMACOP-intervention or usual care. Three types of costs were calculated: intervention costs, medication costs and exacerbation costs. Outcome measures included the number of hospital-treated exacerbations, cost per prevented hospital-treated exacerbation and cost per Quality Adjusted Life-Year. Follow-up was 1 year in the basecase analysis. Sensitivity and scenario analyses (including long-term follow-up) were performed to assess uncertainty.Results: In the basecase analysis, the average overall costs per patient for the PHARMACOP-intervention and usual care were epsilon 2,221 and epsilon 2,448, respectively within the 1-year time horizon. This reflects cost savings of epsilon 227 for the PHARMACOP-intervention. The PHARMACOP-intervention resulted in the prevention of 0.07 hospital-treated exacerbations per patient (0.177 for PHARMACOP versus 0.244 for usual care). Results showed robust cost-savings in various sensitivity analyses.Conclusions: Optimization of current pharmacotherapy (e. g. close monitoring of inhalation technique and medication adherence) has been shown to be cost-saving and should be considered before adding new therapies.

Background: Self-report is considered most suitable to measure medication adherence in routine clinical practice. However, accuracy of self-report as a quantitative measure of adherence is not well documented. Objective: To assess the accuracy of a self-report measure of adherence (Medication Adherence Report Scale [MARS-5]) for identifying nonadherent users of inhalation medication among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), compared with medication refill adherence (MRA) as reference. Methods: We used baseline data from the Pharmaceutical Care for Patients with COPD (PHARMACOP)-trial (n = 734). Patients with incomplete MARS-5 and/or incomplete pharmacy refill records were excluded (n = 121). Internal consistency of MARS-5 (Crohnbach α) and Spearman rank correlation (ρ) with MRA were calculated. Different thresholds for nonadherence were used to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV), compared with dichotomized MRA (MRA ≥80% = adherent). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted to determine the goodness of test. Results: 613 patients were included in the analysis. The mean adherence score by MARS-5 (range = 5-25) was 23.5 (SD = 2.6); mean adherence by MRA was 83.4% (SD = 23.8%). Internal consistency of MARS-5 was high (α = 0.77). Continuous MARS-5 scores correlated poorly with continuous MRA scores (ρ = 0.10; P = 0.011). When lowering the nonadherence threshold stepwise from 25 to 20, MARS-5 did not reach sufficient sensitivity (53% to 13%), specificity (57% to 94%), and PPV (42% to 57%) to detect nonadherers compared with dichotomized MRA. ROC curve plotting resulted in an area under the curve value of 0.56 (95% CI = 0.521-0.616; P = 0.005). Conclusion: Self-reported adherence measured by MARS-5 is inaccurate in identifying nonadherence to inhalation medication in patients with COPD.

Few well-designed randomized controlled trials have been conducted regarding the impact of community pharmacist interventions on pharmacotherapeutic monitoring of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We assessed the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical care programme for patients with COPD.The pharmaceutical care for patients with COPD (PHARMACOP) trial is a single-blind 3 month randomized controlled trial, conducted in 170 community pharmacies in Belgium, enrolling patients prescribed daily COPD medication, aged ≥ 50 years and with a smoking history of ≥ 10 pack-years. A computer-generated randomization sequence allocated patients to an intervention group (n = 371), receiving protocol-defined pharmacist care, or a control group (n = 363), receiving usual pharmacist care (1:1 ratio, stratified by centre). Interventions focusing on inhalation technique and adherence to maintenance therapy were carried out at start of the trial and at 1 month follow-up. Primary outcomes were inhalation technique and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes were exacerbation rate, dyspnoea, COPD-specific and generic health status and smoking behaviour.From December 2010 to April 2011, 734 patients were enrolled. Forty-two patients (5.7%) were lost to follow-up. At the end of the trial, inhalation score [mean estimated difference (Δ),13.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 10.8-16.1; P0.0001] and medication adherence (Δ, 8.51%; 95% CI, 4.63-12.4; P0.0001) were significantly higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. In the intervention group, a significantly lower hospitalization rate was observed (9 vs. 35; rate ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.64; P = 0.003). No other significant between-group differences were observed.Pragmatic pharmacist care programmes improve the pharmacotherapeutic regimen in patients with COPD and could reduce hospitalization rates.

Objectives: The Belgian community pharmacist-led PHARMACOP intervention provided educational inhalation training sessions and motivational interviewing regarding medication use in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The program significantly improved medication adherence and inhalation techniques compared with usual care. This study aimed to evaluate its costeffectiveness. Methods: An economic analysis was performed from the Belgian health care payer's perspective. A Markov model was constructed in which a cohort of 1,000 patients with COPD receiving the 3-month PHARMACOP-intervention or usual care, was followed. This cohort had a mean age of 70 years, 66% were male, 43% current smokers and patients had a mean Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second of % predicted of 50. Three types of costs were calculated: intervention costs, medication costs and exacerbation costs. Outcome measures included the number of hospital-treated exacerbations, cost per prevented hospital-treated exacerbation and cost per Quality Adjusted Life-Year (QALY) gained. Follow-up was 1 year in the basecase analysis. Univariate-, probabilistic sensitivity- and scenario analyses (including long-term follow-up) were performed to assess uncertainty. Results: In the basecase analysis, the average overall costs per patient for the PHARMACOPintervention and usual care were € 2,221 and € 2,448, respectively within the 1-year time horizon. This reflects cost savings of € 227 for the PHARMACOP-intervention. The PHARMACOP-intervention resulted in the prevention of 71 hospital-treated exacerbations (167 for PHARMACOP versus 238 for usual care), i.e. 0.07 (95%CI: 0.04-0.10) incremental hospital-treated exacerbations per patient. In addition, a small (