28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effectiveness of medication review: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Medication review is often recommended to optimize medication use. In clinical practice it is mostly operationalized as an intervention without co-interventions during a short term intervention period. However, most systematic reviews also included co-interventions and prolonged medication optimization interventions. Furthermore, most systematic reviews focused on specific patient groups (e.g. polypharmacy, elderly, hospitalized) and/or on specific outcome measures (e.g. hospital admissions and mortality). Therefore, the objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of medication review as an isolated short-term intervention, irrespective of the patient population and the outcome measures used.

          Methods

          A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science from their inception through September 2015. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with medication review as isolated short term intervention (<3 months) were included. There were no restrictions with regard to patient characteristics and outcome measures. One reviewer extracted and a second checked data. The risk of bias of studies was evaluated independently by two reviewers. A best evidence synthesis was conducted for every outcome measure used in more than one trial. In case of binary variables a meta-analysis was performed in addition to the best evidence synthesis, to quantify the effect.

          Results

          Thirty-one RCTs were included in this systematic review (55% low risk of bias). A best evidence synthesis was conducted for 22 outcome measures. No effect of medication review was found on clinical outcomes (mortality, hospital admissions/healthcare use, the number of patients falling, physical and cognitive functioning), except a decrease in the number of falls per patient. However, in a sensitivity analysis using a more stringent threshold for risk of bias, the conclusion for the effect on the number of falls changed to inconclusive. Furthermore no effect was found on quality of life and evidence was inconclusive about the effect on economical outcome measures. However, an effect was found on most drug-related problems: medication review resulted in a decrease in the number of drug-related problems, more changes in medication, more drugs with dosage decrease and a greater decrease or smaller increase of the number of drugs.

          Conclusions

          An isolated medication review during a short term intervention period has an effect on most drug-related outcomes, minimal effect on clinical outcomes and no effect on quality of life. No conclusion can be drawn about the effect on economical outcome measures. Therefore, it should be considered to stop performing cross-sectional medication reviews as standard care.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-016-0577-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references55

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Potentially inappropriate medication use among elderly home care patients in Europe.

          Criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use among elderly patients have been used in the past decade in large US epidemiological surveys to identify populations at risk and specifically target risk-management strategies. In contrast, in Europe little information is available about potentially inappropriate medication use and is based on small studies with uncertain generalizability. To estimate the prevalence and associated factors of potentially inappropriate medication use among elderly home care patients in European countries. Retrospective cross-sectional study of 2707 elderly patients receiving home care (mean [SD] age, 82.2 [ 7.2] years) representatively enrolled in metropolitan areas of the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and the United Kingdom. Patients were prospectively assessed between September 2001 and January 2002 using the Minimum Data Set in Home Care instrument. Prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication use was documented using all expert panels criteria for community-living elderly persons (Beers and McLeod). Patient-related characteristics independently associated with inappropriate medication use were identified with a multiple logistic regression model. Combining all 3 sets of criteria, we found that 19.8% of patients in the total sample used at least 1 inappropriate medication; using older 1997 criteria it was 9.8% to 10.9%. Substantial differences were documented between Eastern Europe (41.1% in the Czech Republic) and Western Europe (mean 15.8%, ranging from 5.8% in Denmark to 26.5% in Italy). Potentially inappropriate medication use was associated with patient's poor economic situation (adjusted relative risk [RR], 1.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58-2.36), polypharmacy (RR, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.62- 2.22), anxiolytic drug use (RR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.51-2.15), and depression (RR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.06-1.55). Negatively associated factors were age 85 years and older (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.65-0.92) and living alone (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.89). The odds of potentially inappropriate medication use significantly increased with the number of associated factors (P<.001). Substantial differences in potentially inappropriate medication use exist between European countries and might be a consequence of different regulatory measures, clinical practices, or inequalities in socioeconomic background. Since financial resources and selected patient-related characteristics are associated with such prescribing, specific educational strategies and regulations should reflect these factors to improve prescribing quality in elderly individuals in Europe.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Hospitalisations caused by adverse drug reactions (ADR): a meta-analysis of observational studies.

            To establish the percentage hospital admission related to adverse drug reactions (ADRs) from the data available in the literature. Literature search in the Medline database, meta-analysis. From the literature it is revealed that a considerable part of all hospital admissions are related to adverse drug reactions. However, these data are not homogenous, i.e. larger studies display a lower percentage of ADR related hospital admission, while smaller studies display a higher percentage. Subgroup analysis showed that for elderly people the odds of being hospitalised by ADR related problems is 4 times higher than for younger ones (16.6% vs. 4.1%). A considerable part of these hospitalisations can be prevented. Subgroup analysis revealed that in the elderly up to 88% of the ADR related hospitalisations are preventable; for the non-elderly this is only 24%. Comparatively more elderly people are hospitalised than younger ones. Combining these findings, twice as much elderly people are hospitalised by ADR related problems than non-elderly, while preventability of ADR related hospitalisation might yield 7 times more people in the elderly than in the non-elderly. The estimation of the costs of ADR related hospitalisations in the Health Care system in The Netherlands is discussed. Many elderly people are hospitalised by ADR related problems; an important part of these hospitalisations can be avoided.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Does pharmacist-led medication review help to reduce hospital admissions and deaths in older people? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

              We set out to determine the effects of pharmacist-led medication review in older people by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis covering 11 electronic databases. Randomized controlled trials in any setting, concerning older people (mean age > 60 years), were considered, aimed at optimizing drug regimens and improving patient outcomes. Our primary outcome was emergency hospital admission (all cause). Secondary outcomes were mortality and numbers of drugs prescribed. We also recorded data on drug knowledge, adherence and adverse drug reactions. We retrieved 32 studies which fitted the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of 17 trials revealed no significant effect on all-cause admission, relative risk (RR) of 0.99 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87, 1.14, P = 0.92], with moderate heterogeneity (I(2) = 49.5, P = 0.01). Meta-analysis of mortality data from 22 trials found no significant benefit, with a RR of mortality of 0.96 (95% CI 0.82, 1.13, P = 0.62), with no heterogeneity (I(2) = 0%). Pharmacist-led medication review may slightly decrease numbers of drugs prescribed (weighted mean difference = -0.48, 95% CI -0.89, -0.07), but significant heterogeneity was found (I(2) = 85.9%, P < 0.001). Results for additional outcomes could not be pooled, but suggested that interventions could improve knowledge and adherence. Pharmacist-led medication review interventions do not have any effect on reducing mortality or hospital admission in older people, and can not be assumed to provide substantial clinical benefit. Such interventions may improve drug knowledge and adherence, but there are insufficient data to know whether quality of life is improved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                V.huiskes@maartenskliniek.nl
                David.Burger@radboudumc.nl
                E.vandenende@maartenskliniek.nl
                B.vandenbemt@maartenskliniek.nl
                Journal
                BMC Fam Pract
                BMC Fam Pract
                BMC Family Practice
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2296
                17 January 2017
                17 January 2017
                2017
                : 18
                : 5
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Pharmacy, Sint Maartenskliniek, Hengstdal 3, 6574 NA Ubbergen, The Netherlands
                [2 ]Department of Pharmacy, Radboud University Medical Center, Geert Grooteplein-Zuid 10, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands
                [3 ]Department of Rheumatology, Sint Maartenskliniek, Hengstdal 3, 6574NA Ubbergen, The Netherlands
                [4 ]Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Toxicology, Maastricht University Medical Center +, Maastricht, Peter Debyelaan 15, 6229 HX Maastricht, The Netherlands
                Article
                577
                10.1186/s12875-016-0577-x
                5240219
                28095780
                188d0bd9-546c-4e79-86be-33f28dd2103c
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 31 March 2016
                : 26 December 2016
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Medicine
                medication review,drug utilization review[mesh],pharmaceutical services[mesh],review[publication type],meta-analysis[publication type],clinical outcomes,quality of life,drug-related outcomes,economical outcomes

                Comments

                Comment on this article