Interactions between herbal and conventional medicines

Herb-drug interactions are subject to much interest at present, but for various reasons reports may be unreliable or unsubstantiated. Herbal medicines are variable in composition and quality, which may affect their interaction profile as well as the reliability of reports concerning them. In this review, clinical and experimental reports have been collated, evaluated and summarised, and the theoretical and clinical evidence presented. There is an explanation of the particular issues involved with herbal medicines as compared with conventional drugs, and reasons why comparisons may or may not be valid, which is intended for those without specialist experience in herbal products. It has become apparent that only a few herbal drugs have so far been cited in interaction reports, for example St John's Wort, Ginkgo biloba, Dan Shen, liquorice, Ma huang and garlic, and that the main drugs involved are those which are already susceptible to interactions with many other conventional drugs, such as warfarin, protease inhibitors and anti-cancer drugs. An attempt has been made to put the matter into perspective and recommendations have been given for health professionals to advise or develop strategies to safeguard patients, without resorting to speculation or scaremongering.

Patients' understanding of risk associated with medication use: impact of European Commission guidelines and other risk scales

Patients want and need comprehensive and accurate information about their medicines so that they can participate in decisions about their healthcare: In particular, they require information about the likely risks and benefits that are associated with the different treatment options. However, to provide this information in a form that people can readily understand and use is a considerable challenge to healthcare professionals. One recent attempt to standardise the Language of risk has been to produce sets of verbal descriptors that correspond to specific probability ranges, such as those outlined in the European Commission (EC) Pharmaceutical Committee guidelines in 1998 for describing the incidence of adverse effects. This paper provides an overview of a number of studies involving members of the general public, patients, and hospital doctors, that evaluated the utility of the EC guideline descriptors (very common, common, uncommon, rare, very rare). In all studies it was found that people significantly over-estimated the likelihood of adverse effects occurring, given specific verbal descriptors. This in turn resulted in significantly higher ratings of their perceived risks to health and significantly lower ratings of their likelihood of taking the medicine. Such problems of interpretation are not restricted to the EC guideline descriptors. Similar levels of misinterpretation have also been demonstrated with two other recently advocated risk scales (Caiman's verbal descriptor scale and Barclay, Costigan and Davies' lottery scale). In conclusion, the challenge for risk communicators and for future research will be to produce a language of risk that is sufficiently flexible to take into account different perspectives, as well as changing circumstances and contexts of illness and its treatments. In the meantime, we urge the EC and other legislative bodies to stop recommending the use of specific verbal labels or phrases until there is a stronger evidence base to support their use.

Informing people about the risks and benefits of medicines: implications for the safe and effective use of medicinal products

Providing effective information about drug risks and benefits has become a major challenge for health professionals, as many people are ill equipped to understand, retain and use the information effectively. This paper reviews the growing evidence that people’s understanding (and health behaviour) is not only affected by the content of medicines information, but also by the particular way in which it is presented. Such presentational factors include whether information is presented verbally or numerically, framed positively or negatively, whether risk reductions are described in relative or absolute terms (and baseline information included), and whether information is personalized or tailored in any way. It also looks at how understanding is affected by the order in which information is presented, and the way in which it is processed. The paper concludes by making a number of recommendations for providers of medicines information, about both the content and presentation of such information, that should enhance safe and effective medicines usage.

Management of elderly patients with breast cancer: updated recommendations of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) and European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA)

As the mean age of the global population increases, breast cancer in older individuals will be increasingly encountered in clinical practice. Management decisions should not be based on age alone. Establishing recommendations for management of older individuals with breast cancer is challenging because of very limited level 1 evidence in this heterogeneous population. In 2007, the International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) created a task force to provide evidence-based recommendations for the management of breast cancer in elderly individuals. In 2010, a multidisciplinary SIOG and European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) task force gathered to expand and update the 2007 recommendations. The recommendations were expanded to include geriatric assessment, competing causes of mortality, ductal carcinoma in situ, drug safety and compliance, patient preferences, barriers to treatment, and male breast cancer. Recommendations were updated for screening, primary endocrine therapy, surgery, radiotherapy, neoadjuvant and adjuvant systemic therapy, and metastatic breast cancer.

Preventing drug related morbidity: a process for facilitating changes in practice

Aim: To describe how quantitative data obtained from applying a series of indicators for preventable drug related morbidity (PDRM) in the electronic patient record in English general practice can be used to facilitate changes aimed at helping to improve medicines management. Design: A multidisciplinary discussion forum held at each practice facilitated by a clinical researcher. Subjects and setting: Eight English general practices. Outcome measures: Issues discussed at the multidisciplinary discussion forum and ideas generated by practices for tackling these issues. Progress made by practices after 1, 3, and 6 months. Results: A number of clinical issues were raised by the practices and ideas for moving them forward were discussed. The issues that were easiest and most straightforward to deal with (for example, reviewing specific patient groups) were quickly addressed in most instances. Practices were less likely to have taken steps towards addressing issues at a systems level. Conclusions: Data generated from applying PDRM indicators can be used to facilitate practice-wide discussion on medicines management. Different practices place different priority levels on the issues they wish to pursue. Individual practice "ownership'' of these, together with having a central committed figure at the practice, is key to the success of the process.

Causes of preventable drug-related hospital admissions: a qualitative study

Objective: To explore the causes of preventable drug-related admissions (PDRAs) to hospital. Design: Qualitative case studies using semi-structured interviews and medical record review; data analysed using a framework derived from Reason's model of organisational accidents and cascade analysis. Participants: 62 participants, including 18 patients, 8 informal carers, 17 general practitioners, 12 community pharmacists, 3 practice nurses and 4 other members of healthcare staff, involved in events leading up to the patients' hospital admissions. Setting: Nottingham, UK. Results: PDRAs are associated with problems at multiple stages in the medication use process, including prescribing, dispensing, administration, monitoring and help seeking. The main causes of these problems are communication failures ( between patients and healthcare professionals and different groups of healthcare professionals) and knowledge gaps ( about drugs and patients' medical and medication histories). The causes of PDRAs are similar irrespective of whether the hospital admission is associated with a prescribing, monitoring or patient adherence problem. Conclusions: The causes of PDRAs are multifaceted and complex. Technical solutions to PDRAs will need to take account of this complexity and are unlikely to be sufficient on their own. Interventions targeting the human causes of PDRAs are also necessary - for example, improving methods of communication.

A qualitative exploration of the underlying causes of preventable drug-related morbidity in primary care, resulting in hospitalisation

This study has explored the underlying causes of preventable drug-related admissions to hospital, from primary care through semi-structured interviews and review of patients’ medical records. Analysis of the data has revealed that communication failures between different groups of healthcare professionals and between healthcare professionals and patients contribute to preventable drug-related admissions, as do knowledge gaps about medication in both healthcare professionals and patients. In addition, working conditions for community pharmacists severely limit their ability to effectively act as a safety barrier to patients receiving inappropriate medication. Limitations include heavy workloads, lack of access to patients’ clinical information, poor relationships with general practitioners and time restrictions. The results of this study represent an important addition to our understanding of the contribution of human error as an underlying cause of preventable drug-related morbidity, and the factors which contribute to errors occurring in the primary healthcare setting.