What one hand giveth the other taketh away:some unpredicted effects of enantiomers in psychopharmacology

It is well known that many medicines are a mixture of two enantiomers, or mirror-image molecules. Two enantiomers occur when a molecule has a single chiral centre and the two mirror images, called S or L (left handed) and R or D (right handed), are usually found in equal amounts in the parent (racemic) mixture. While for many compounds used in clinical practice the active moiety is found in one of the two enantiomers with the other being seen as an unnecessary and redundant component of the racemic mixture, the difference between enantiomers can mean a difference between therapeutic and adverse effects, as well as in beneficial pharmacological effect and potency. © 2010 The Author(s).

Medication review of children on long term medications:a review of the literature

INTRODUCTION: Children on long term medication may be under the care of more than one medical team including the patients GP. Children on chronic medication should be supported and their medications reviewed, especially in cases of polypharmacy. Medicines Use Reviews (MURs) were introduced into the pharmacy contract in 2005. The service was designed for community pharmacists to review patients on long term medication. The service specified that MURs were done on patients who can give consent and cannot be conducted with a parent or carer. Hence the service may be inaccessible to paediatric patients. This review aims to find studies that identify medication review services in primary care that cater for children on long term medication. METHODS: A literature search was conducted on 6th June 2015 using the keywords, ("Medication" or "review" or "Medication Review" or "Medicines use review" or "Medication use review" or "New Medicine Service") AND ("community pharmacy" OR "community pharmacist" OR "primary care" OR "General practice" OR "GP" OR "community paediatrician" OR "community pediatrician" OR "community nurse"). Bibliographic databases used were AMED, British Nursing Index, CINAHL, EMBASE, HMIC, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Health Business Elite. Inclusion criteria were: paediatric specific medication review in primary care, for example by either a GP, community paediatrician, community nurse or community pharmacist. Exclusion criteria were studies of medication review in adults/unclear patient age and secondary care medication reviews. RESULTS: From the 417 articles, 6 relevant articles were found after abstract and full text review. 235 articles were excluded after title and abstract review (11 did not have full text in English); 96 were adult or non-age specified medication review/MUR/New Medicine Service studies; 63 referred to observational, evaluative studies of interventions in adults; 6 were non-paediatric specific systematic reviews and 17 were protocols, commentaries, news, and letters.The 6 relevant articles consisted of 1 literature review (published 2004), 3 research articles and 1 published protocol. The literature review[1] recommended that children's long term medication should be reviewed. The published protocol stated that the NMS minimum age for inclusion in the trial was for children aged over 13 years of age. The four studies were related to psychiatrists reviewing paediatric mental health patients in the USA, a pharmacist using Drug Related Problem to review patients in GP practices in Australia, a UK study based on an information prescription concept by providing children dispensed medications in community pharmacy with signposting them to health information and one GP practice based study observing pharmaceutical care issues in children and adults. CONCLUSION: The results show that there are currently no known studies on medication use reviews specific to children, whereas in adults, published evaluations are available. The terms of the MUR policy restrict children's access to the service and so more studies are necessary to determine whether children could benefit from such access.

Post discharge follow up of children on long term medication

Background: There have been no published studies observing what happens to children post hospital discharge and if medication discrepancies occurred between the hospital and General Practitioner (GP) interface.1 Objectives: To identify the type of discrepancies between hospital discharge prescription and the patient's medicines after their first GP prescription. Method: Over a 3 month period (March–June 2012) across two London NHS hospital sites, parents of children on long term medications aged 18 years and under, were approached and consented prior to discharge from the ward. The patients were followed up 21 days after discharge by telephone call or home visit depending on their preference. The parent was asked if they had contacted their GP for further medications during the follow up, and if not the follow up was rescheduled. The parents were interviewed to find out if there were any discrepancies that occurred post discharge by comparing the patient's hospital discharge letter and medication at follow up. All this information was captured on a data collection form. Results: Eighty-eight patients were consented and 60 patients (68%; 60/88) were followed up by telephone call 21 days post discharge. A total of 317 medications were ordered at discharge among the 60 patients. Of the 60 that were followed up, nine were lost to follow up, one died post discharge, one was excluded from the study, and 11 had not contacted the GP and were to be followed up at a later date. Of the 38 patients who were followed up, 254 medications were ordered. Of the 38 patients there were 12 (32%) patients who had discrepancies that occurred between the discharge letter and GP, 19 (50%) had no issues, and seven (18%) mentioned issues to do with post discharge that were not discrepancies. Of the 12 patients who had at least one medication discrepancy (total 34 medications, range 1–7 discrepancies per patient), six patients had GP discrepancies, four had discrepancies resulting from a hospital outpatient appointment, one related to the discharge letter order and one was a complex discrepancy. An example: a patient was discharged on amiodarone liquid 16.5 mg daily as opposed to 65 mg daily of amiodarone from the GP. Upon interview the parent used volume units to communicate dose as opposed to the actual dose itself and the strengths of liquid had changed. Conclusions: The preliminary results from the study have shown that discrepancies due to several causes occur when paediatric patients leave hospital.

Epidemiology of medication discrepancies upon hospital admission in children - a systematic review

Objectives: NICE/NPSA excluded children under 16 from their guidance concerning medicines reconciliation (MR) upon admission.1 Our aims and objectives of conducting the literature review was to identify the epidemiology of medication discrepancies upon admission, transfer and discharge in children, and if they require MR. Method: Six bibliographical databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Web of Science and Biosis Previews) and selected key words were used to find epidemiological studies on medication discrepancies in children upon hospital admission, transfer and discharge (key words included ‘medication discrepancy’; ‘medication reconciliation’; ‘hospital admission’; ‘hospital discharge’; ‘hospital transfer’); studies where the data for children could be extracted were included. Results: From the 1239 articles found (in May 2011), eight of the articles had extractable paediatric information, (five from Canada, two from USA, one from UK). Five of the studies involved discrepancies on admission, one involved discrepancies on admission and transfer, one involved discrepancies at transfer and one considered discharge. The reference point used to compare against the admission, transfer and the discharge order differed in each of the studies. Four studies used a rating scale to assess the clinical significance of the discrepancies to demonstrate the potential adverse clinical outcome of patients in the absence of clinical intervention. Two studies2 3 used a rating scale that was used in adults.4 A study of paediatric neurosurgical patients found that initial hospital prescriptions for children differed from the preadmission prescriptions in 39% of occasions and 50% of all prescribing variations had the potential to cause moderate or severe discomfort or clinical deterioration.2 A study by Coffey et al in general paediatric admissions in Canada showed 22% of patients experienced at least one discrepancy and 29% of the discrepancies had the potential to cause moderate or severe discomfort or clinical deterioration.3 By comparison an epidemiological study in discrepancies in adults on admission had 38.6% of the discrepancies identified with a potential to cause moderate or severe discomfort or clinical deterioration.4 All the studies involved small samples or specific patient groups such as medically complex patients. However all of the studies demonstrated that discrepancies occurred among paediatric populations during transitions in care settings and mentioned MR as an intervention. Conclusion: The results have shown that discrepancies of medication upon hospital admission, transfer and discharge occur regularly in children. With only one published study in the UK looking at hospital admission in children, and no published articles on the incidence and epidemiology of medication discrepancies upon hospital transfer or discharge further research is required in a wider paediatric population. Further work is also required to define the required interventions to improve practice.