Development of a quality use of medicines coding system to rate clinical pharmacists' medication review recommendations

Objective: To develop a 'quality use of medicines' coding system for the assessment of pharmacists' medication reviews and to apply it to an appropriate cohort. Method: A 'quality use of medicines' coding system was developed based on findings in the literature. These codes were then applied to 216 (111 intervention, 105 control) veterans' medication profiles by an independent clinical pharmacist who was supported by a clinical pharmacologist with the aim to assess the appropriateness of pharmacy interventions. The profiles were provided for veterans participating in a randomised, controlled trial in private hospitals evaluating the effect of medication review and discharge counselling. The reliability of the coding was tested by two independent clinical pharmacists in a random sample of 23 veterans from the study population. Main outcome measure: Interrater reliability was assessed by applying Cohen's kappa score on aggregated codes. Results: The coding system based on the literature consisted of 19 codes. The results from the three clinical pharmacists suggested that the original coding system had two major problems: (a) a lack of discrimination for certain recommendations e. g. adverse drug reactions, toxicity and mortality may be seen as variations in degree of a single effect and (b) certain codes e. g. essential therapy were in low prevalence. The interrater reliability for an aggregation of all codes into positive, negative and clinically non-significant codes ranged from 0.49-0.58 (good to fair). The interrater reliability increased to 0.72-0.79 (excellent) when all negative codes were excluded. Analysis of the sample of 216 profiles showed that the most prevalent recommendations from the clinical pharmacists were a positive impact in reducing adverse responses (31.9%), an improvement in good clinical pharmacy practice (25.5%) and a positive impact in reducing drug toxicity (11.1%). Most medications were assigned the clinically non-significant code (96.6%). In fact, the interventions led to a statistically significant difference in pharmacist recommendations in the categories; adverse response, toxicity and good clinical pharmacy practice measured by the quality use of medicine coding system. Conclusion: It was possible to use the quality use of medicine coding system to rate the quality and potential health impact of pharmacists' medication reviews, and the system did pick up differences between intervention and control patients. The interrater reliability for the summarised coding system was fair, but a larger sample of medication regimens is needed to assess the non-summarised quality use of medicines coding system.

Risk of serious NSAID-related gastrointestinal events during long-term exposure: a systematic review

Objective: Exposure to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is associated wit increased risk of serious gastrointestinal (GI) events compared with non-exposure. We investigated whether that risk is sustained over time. Data sources: Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (to 2002); MEDLINE, EMBASE, Derwent Drug File and Current Contents (1999-2002); manual searching of reviews (1999-2002). Study selection: From 479 search results reviewed and 221 articles retrieved, seven studies of patients exposed to prescription non-selective NSAIDs for more than 6 months and reporting time-dependent serious GI event rates were selected for quantitative data synthesis. These were stratified into two groups by study design. Data extraction: Incidence of GI events and number of patients at specific time points were extracted. Data synthesis: Meta-regression analyses were performed. Change in risk was evaluated by testing whether the slope of the regression line declined over time. Four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provided evaluable data from five NSAID arms (aspirin, naproxen, two ibuprofen arms, and diclofenac). When the RCT data were combined, a small significant decline in annualised risk was seen: -0.005% (95% Cl, -0.008% to -0.001%) per month. Sensitivity analyses were conducted because there was disparity within the RCT data. The pooled estimate from three cohort studies showed no significant decline in annualised risk over periods up to 2 years: -0.003% (95% Cl, -0.008% to 0.003%) per month. Conclusions: Small decreases in risk over time were observed; these were of negligible clinical importance. For patients who need long-term (> 6 months) treatment, precautionary measures should be considered to reduce the net probability of serious GI events over the anticipated treatment duration. The effect of intermittent versus regular daily therapy on long-term risk needs further investigation.