Community pharmacist intervention in depressed primary care patients (PRODEFAR study): randomized controlled trial protocol.

Background: Treatment of depression, the most prevalent and costly mental disorder, needs to be improved. Non-concordance with clinical guidelines and non-adherence can limit the efficacy of pharmacological treatment of depression. Through pharmaceutical care, pharmacists can improve patients' compliance and wellbeing. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and costeffectiveness of a community pharmacist intervention developed to improve adherence and outcomes of primary care patients with depression. Methods/design: A randomized controlled trial, with 6-month follow-up, comparing patients receiving a pharmaceutical care support programme in primary care with patients receiving usual care. The total sample comprises 194 patients (aged between 18 and 75) diagnosed with depressive disorder in a primary care health centre in the province of Barcelona (Spain). Subjects will be asked for written informed consent in order to participate in the study. Diagnosis will be confirmed using the SCID-I. The intervention consists of an educational programme focused on improving knowledge about medication, making patients aware of the importance of compliance, reducing stigma, reassuring patients about side-effects and stressing the importance of carrying out general practitioners' advice. Measurements will take place at baseline, and after 3 and 6 months. Main outcome measure is compliance with antidepressants. Secondary outcomes include; clinical severity of depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (STAI-S), health-related quality of life (EuroQol-5D), satisfaction with the treatment received, side-effects, chronic physical conditions and sociodemographics. The use of healthcare and social care services will be assessed with an adapted version of the Client Service Receipt Inventory (CSRI). Discussion: This trial will provide valuable information for health professionals and policy makers on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmaceutical intervention programme in the context of primary care. Trial registration: NCT00794196

Community pharmacist intervention in depressed primary care patients (PRODEFAR study): randomized controlled trial protocol.

Background: Treatment of depression, the most prevalent and costly mental disorder, needs to be improved. Non-concordance with clinical guidelines and non-adherence can limit the efficacy of pharmacological treatment of depression. Through pharmaceutical care, pharmacists can improve patients' compliance and wellbeing. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and costeffectiveness of a community pharmacist intervention developed to improve adherence and outcomes of primary care patients with depression. Methods/design: A randomized controlled trial, with 6-month follow-up, comparing patients receiving a pharmaceutical care support programme in primary care with patients receiving usual care. The total sample comprises 194 patients (aged between 18 and 75) diagnosed with depressive disorder in a primary care health centre in the province of Barcelona (Spain). Subjects will be asked for written informed consent in order to participate in the study. Diagnosis will be confirmed using the SCID-I. The intervention consists of an educational programme focused on improving knowledge about medication, making patients aware of the importance of compliance, reducing stigma, reassuring patients about side-effects and stressing the importance of carrying out general practitioners' advice. Measurements will take place at baseline, and after 3 and 6 months. Main outcome measure is compliance with antidepressants. Secondary outcomes include; clinical severity of depression (PHQ-9), anxiety (STAI-S), health-related quality of life (EuroQol-5D), satisfaction with the treatment received, side-effects, chronic physical conditions and sociodemographics. The use of healthcare and social care services will be assessed with an adapted version of the Client Service Receipt Inventory (CSRI). Discussion: This trial will provide valuable information for health professionals and policy makers on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmaceutical intervention programme in the context of primary care. Trial registration: NCT00794196

Cost-effectiveness of a community pharmacist intervention in patients with depression: a randomized controlled trial (PRODEFAR study)

Background: Non-adherence to antidepressants generates higher costs for the treatment of depression. Little is known about the cost-effectiveness of pharmacist's interventions aimed at improving adherence to antidepressants. The study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a community pharmacist intervention in comparison with usual care in depressed patients initiating treatment with antidepressants in primary care. Methods: Patients were recruited by general practitioners and randomized to community pharmacist intervention (87) that received an educational intervention and usual care (92). Adherence to antidepressants, clinical symptoms, Quality-Adjusted Life-Years (QALYs), use of healthcare services and productivity losses were measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Results: There were no significant differences between groups in costs or effects. From a societal perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the community pharmacist intervention compared with usual care was 1,866 for extra adherent patient and 9,872 per extra QALY. In terms of remission of depressive symptoms, the usual care dominated the community pharmacist intervention. If willingness to pay (WTP) is 30,000 per extra adherent patient, remission of symptoms or QALYs, the probability of the community pharmacist intervention being cost-effective was 0.71, 0.46 and 0.75, respectively (societal perspective). From a healthcare perspective, the probability of the community pharmacist intervention being cost-effective in terms of adherence, QALYs and remission was of 0.71, 0.76 and 0.46, respectively, if WTP is 30,000. Conclusion: A brief community pharmacist intervention addressed to depressed patients initiating antidepressant treatment showed a probability of being cost-effective of 0.71 and 0.75 in terms of improvement of adherence and QALYs, respectively, when compared to usual care. Regular implementation of the community pharmacist intervention is not recommended.

Evaluation of a pharmacist intervention on patients initiating pharmacological treatment for depression: a randomized controlled superiority trial

Major depression is associated with high burden, disability and costs. Non-adherence limits the effectiveness of antidepressants. Community pharmacists (CP) are in a privileged position to help patients cope with antidepressant treatment. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of a CP intervention on primary care patients who had initiated antidepressant treatment. Newly diagnosed primary care patients were randomised to usual care (UC) (92) or pharmacist intervention (87). Patients were followed up at 6 months and evaluated three times (Baseline, and at 3 and 6 months). Outcome measurements included clinical severity of depression (PHQ-9), health-related quality of life (HRQOL) (Euroqol-5D) and satisfaction with pharmacy care. Adherence was continuously registered from the computerised pharmacy records. Non-adherence was defined as refilling less than 80% of doses or having a medication-free gap of more than 1 month. Patients in the intervention group were more likely to remain adherent at 3 and 6 months follow-up but the difference was not statistically significant. Patients in the intervention group showed greater statistically significant improvement in HRQOL compared with UC patients both in the main analysis and PP analyses. No statistically significant differences were observed in clinical symptoms or satisfaction with the pharmacy service. The results of our study indicate that a brief intervention in community pharmacies does not improve depressed patients' adherence or clinical symptoms. This intervention helped patients to improve their HRQOL, which is an overall measure of patient status.

Role of the clinical pharmacist in detection of drug therapy problemas in critically impatients: experience report

This is an experience report on clinical pharmacy in New York, United States of America, in a teaching hospital, describing the results of drug therapy monitoring in critically ill patients, as well as interventions to solve or prevent identified drug therapy problems. The cross-sectional study was conducted by the clinical staff at the Surgical Intensive Care Unit during August 20th to 24th, 2012. Blood counts, serum levels of certain antibiotics, microbiological cultures and their antibiotic susceptibility, possible drug interactions, dosage of each drug prescribed and the compatibility between the route of administration and pharmaceutical form were assessed daily through review of electronic medical records. Twenty seven patients were followed up and 16 drug therapy problems were identified: Unnecessary drug therapy (seven), adverse drug reaction (four), needs additional drug therapy (two), noncompliance (two) and dosage too low (one). After evaluation, the drug therapy problems and their pharmaceutical interventions were reported to clinical pharmaceutical responsible for the Surgical ICU, as well as the multidisciplinary team. Further, the clinical outcomes were monitored and interventions were classified as to its acceptance. Data demonstrate that clinical pharmacists can contribute to the security and proper use of medications, as the trigger tools for intensive monitoring helps in early detection of drug therapy problems and patient safety.

Medication reconciliation and adherence: a call for clinical pharmacist

Introduction and Objectives: With the population ageing, there is a growing number of people who have several comorbidities and make use of a variety of drugs. These factors lead to a greater predisposition to adverse drug events, as well as to medication errors. The clinical pharmacist is the most indicated health professional to target these issues. The aims of this study were to analyze the profile of medication reconciliation and assess the role of the clinical pharmacist regarding medication adherence. Material and Methods: Prospective observational cohort study conducted from Jan-Mar 2013 at the Surgical Clinic of the University Hospital of the University of Sao Paulo. 117 admitted patients - over the age of 18 years, under continuous medication use and with length of hospitalization up to 120h - were included. Discrepancies were classified as intentional/unintentional and according to their risk to cause harm, and interventions were divided into accepted/not accepted. Medication adherence was measured by Morisky questionnaire. Results and Conclusions: Only 30% of hospital prescriptions showed no discrepancies between the medications that the patient was using at home and those which were being prescribed at the hospital and more than one third of those had the potential to cause moderate discomfort or clinical deterioration. One third of total discrepancies were classified as unintentional. About 90% of the interventions were accepted by the medical staff. In addition, about 63% of patients had poor adherence to drug therapy. The study revealed the importance of the medication reconciliation at patient admission, ensuring greater safety and therapeutic efficacy of the treatment during hospitalization, and orienting the patient at discharge, assuring the therapy safety.

Clinical pathway intervention compliance and effectiveness when used in the treatment of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock at an Intensive Care Unit in Spain

The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to assess levels of compliance with the intervention bundles contained in a clinical pathway used in the treatment of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock, and to analyze the pathway’s impact on survival and duration of hospital stays. We used data on 125 patients in an Intensive Care Unit, divided into a control group (N=84) and an intervention group (N=41). Levels of compliance increased from 13.1% to 29.3% in 5 resuscitation bundle interventions and from 14.3% to 22% in 3 monitoring bundle interventions. In-hospital mortality at 28 days decreased by 11.2% and the duration of hospital stay was reduced by 5 days. Although compliance was low, the intervention enhanced adherence to the instructions given in the clinical pathway and we observed a decline in mortality at 28 days and shorter hospital stays.

Economic evaluations of clinical pharmacy services in Ireland, 2007-2015

Introduction The concept of this thesis was driven by stagnation within the Irish healthcare system. Multiple reports from pharmacy organisations had outlined possible future directions for the profession but progress was minimal, especially in comparison with other countries. The author’s directive was to evaluate the economic impact of a series of clinical pharmacy services (CPS) in hospital and community settings. Methods A systematic review of economic evaluations of clinical pharmacy services in hospital patients was undertaken to gain insight into recent research in the field. Eligible studies were evaluated using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), to establish the quality, consistency and transparency of relevant research. A retrospective analysis of an internal hospital pharmacy interventions database was conducted. A method first described by Nesbit et al. was implemented to estimate the level of cost avoidance achieved. A cost-effectiveness analysis based on data from a randomised controlled trial of a pharmacist-supervised patient self-testing (PST) of warfarin therapy is presented. Outcome measure was the incremental cost associated with six months of intervention management. A similar cost-effectiveness analysis based on previously published RCT data was used to evaluate a novel structured pharmacist review of medication in older hospitalised patients. Cost-effectiveness analysis was presented in the form of an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). An ICER is an additional cost per unit effect, in the case of this study, the cost of preventing an additional non-trivial ADR in hospital. A method described by Preaud et al. was adapted to estimate the clinical and economic benefit gained from vaccination of patients by a community pharmacist in Ireland in 2013/14. Sample demographic data was obtained from a national chain of community pharmacies and applied to overall national vaccination data. Results Systematic review identified twenty studies which were eligible for inclusion. Overall, pharmacist interventions had a positive impact on hospital budgets. Only three studies (15%) were deemed to be “good-quality” studies. No ‘novel’ clinical pharmacist intervention was identified during the course of this review. Analysis of internal hospital database identified 4,257 interventions documented on 2,147 individual patients over a 12 month period. Substantial cost avoidance of €710,000 was generated over a 1 year period from the perspective of the health care provider. Mean cost avoidance of €166 per intervention was generated. The cost of providing these interventions was €82,000. Substantial net cost-benefits of €626,279 and a cost-benefit ratio of 8.64 : 1 were generated based on this evaluation of pharmacist interventions. Results from an evaluation of a novel pharmacist-led form of warfarin management indicated indicated that on a per patient basis, PST was slightly more expensive than established anticoagulant management. On a per patient basis over a six month period, PST resulted in an incremental cost of €59.08 in comparison with routine care. Overall cost of managing a patient through pharmacist-supervised PST for a six month period is €226.45. However, for this increase in cost a clinically significant improvement in care was provided. Patients achieved a significantly higher time in therapeutic range during the PST arm in comparison with routine care, (72 ± 19.7% vs 59 ± 13.5%). Difference in overall cost was minimal and PST was the dominant strategy in some scenarios examined during sensitivity analysis. Structured pharmacist review of medication was determined to be dominant in comparison to usual pharmaceutical care. Even if the healthcare payer was unwilling to pay any money for the prevention of an ADR, the intervention strategy is still likely to be cost-effective (probability of being determined cost-effective = 0.707). Implementation of pharmacist-led influenza vaccination has resulted in substantial clinical and economic benefits to the healthcare system. The majority of patients (64.9%) who availed of this service had identifiable influenza-related risk factors. Of patients with influenza-related risk factors, age ≥65 year was the most commonly cited risk factor. Pharmacist vaccination services averted a total of 848 influenza cases across all age groups during the 2013/2014 influenza season. Due to receipt of vaccination in a pharmacy setting, 444 influenza-related GP visits were prevented. In terms of more serious influenza-associated events, 11 hospitalisations and five influenza-related deaths were averted. Costs averted were approximately €305,000. These were principally wider societal-related costs associated with lost productivity. Conclusion Overall, clinical pharmacy services are adding value to the Irish healthcare system in both hospital and community settings, but provision of additional funding for new services would enable them to offer a great deal more.

PINCER trial: a cluster randomised trial comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a pharmacist-led IT-based intervention with simple feedback in reducing rates of clinically important errors in medicines management in general practices

Background: Medication errors in general practice are an important source of potentially preventable morbidity and mortality. Building on previous descriptive, qualitative and pilot work, we sought to investigate the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and likely generalisability of a complex pharm acist-led IT-based intervention aiming to improve prescribing safety in general practice. Objectives: We sought to: • Test the hypothesis that a pharmacist-led IT-based complex intervention using educational outreach and practical support is more effective than simple feedback in reducing the proportion of patients at risk from errors in prescribing and medicines management in general practice. • Conduct an economic evaluation of the cost per error avoided, from the perspective of the National Health Service (NHS). • Analyse data recorded by pharmacists, summarising the proportions of patients judged to be at clinical risk, the actions recommended by pharmacists, and actions completed in the practices. • Explore the views and experiences of healthcare professionals and NHS managers concerning the intervention; investigate potential explanations for the observed effects, and inform decisions on the future roll-out of the pharmacist-led intervention • Examine secular trends in the outcome measures of interest allowing for informal comparison between trial practices and practices that did not participate in the trial contributing to the QRESEARCH database. Methods Two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial of 72 English general practices with embedded economic analysis and longitudinal descriptive and qualitative analysis. Informal comparison of the trial findings with a national descriptive study investigating secular trends undertaken using data from practices contributing to the QRESEARCH database. The main outcomes of interest were prescribing errors and medication monitoring errors at six- and 12-months following the intervention. Results: Participants in the pharmacist intervention arm practices were significantly less likely to have been prescribed a non-selective NSAID without a proton pump inhibitor (PPI) if they had a history of peptic ulcer (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.38, 0.89), to have been prescribed a beta-blocker if they had asthma (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58, 0.91) or (in those aged 75 years and older) to have been prescribed an ACE inhibitor or diuretic without a measurement of urea and electrolytes in the last 15 months (OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34, 0.78). The economic analysis suggests that the PINCER pharmacist intervention has 95% probability of being cost effective if the decision-maker’s ceiling willingness to pay reaches £75 (6 months) or £85 (12 months) per error avoided. The intervention addressed an issue that was important to professionals and their teams and was delivered in a way that was acceptable to practices with minimum disruption of normal work processes. Comparison of the trial findings with changes seen in QRESEARCH practices indicated that any reductions achieved in the simple feedback arm were likely, in the main, to have been related to secular trends rather than the intervention. Conclusions Compared with simple feedback, the pharmacist-led intervention resulted in reductions in proportions of patients at risk of prescribing and monitoring errors for the primary outcome measures and the composite secondary outcome measures at six-months and (with the exception of the NSAID/peptic ulcer outcome measure) 12-months post-intervention. The intervention is acceptable to pharmacists and practices, and is likely to be seen as costeffective by decision makers.

Impact Of Pharmacist Interventions On Drug-related Problems And Laboratory Markers In Outpatients With Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection.

Substantial complexity has been introduced into treatment regimens for patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Many drug-related problems (DRPs) are detected in these patients, such as low adherence, therapeutic inefficacy, and safety issues. We evaluated the impact of pharmacist interventions on CD4+ T-lymphocyte count, HIV viral load, and DRPs in patients with HIV infection. In this 18-month prospective controlled study, 90 outpatients were selected by convenience sampling from the Hospital Dia-University of Campinas Teaching Hospital (Brazil). Forty-five patients comprised the pharmacist intervention group and 45 the control group; all patients had HIV infection with or without acquired immunodeficiency syndrome. Pharmaceutical appointments were conducted based on the Pharmacotherapy Workup method, although DRPs and pharmacist intervention classifications were modified for applicability to institutional service limitations and research requirements. Pharmacist interventions were performed immediately after detection of DRPs. The main outcome measures were DRPs, CD4+ T-lymphocyte count, and HIV viral load. After pharmacist intervention, DRPs decreased from 5.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] =4.1-6.2) to 4.2 (95% CI =3.3-5.1) per patient (P=0.043). A total of 122 pharmacist interventions were proposed, with an average of 2.7 interventions per patient. All the pharmacist interventions were accepted by physicians, and among patients, the interventions were well accepted during the appointments, but compliance with the interventions was not measured. A statistically significant increase in CD4+ T-lymphocyte count in the intervention group was found (260.7 cells/mm(3) [95% CI =175.8-345.6] to 312.0 cells/mm(3) [95% CI =23.5-40.6], P=0.015), which was not observed in the control group. There was no statistical difference between the groups regarding HIV viral load. This study suggests that pharmacist interventions in patients with HIV infection can cause an increase in CD4+ T-lymphocyte counts and a decrease in DRPs, demonstrating the importance of an optimal pharmaceutical care plan.

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.

A prospective multicentre study of pharmacist initiated changes to drug therapy and patient management in acute care government funded hospitals

Aims To determine the cost savings of pharmacist initiated changes to hospitalized patients' drug therapy or management in eight major acute care government funded teaching hospitals in Australia. Methods This was a prospective study performed in eight hospitals examining resource implications of pharmacists' interventions assessed by an independent clinical panel. Pharmacists providing clinical services to inpatients recorded details of interventions, defined as any action that directly resulted in a change to patient management or therapy. An independent clinical review panel, convened at each participating centre, confirmed or rejected the clinical pharmacist's assessment of the impact on length of stay (LOS), readmission probability, medical procedures and laboratory monitoring and quantified the resultant changes, which were then costed. Results A total of 1399 interventions were documented. Eight hundred and thirty-five interventions impacted on drug costs alone. Five hundred and eleven interventions were evaluated by the independent panels with three quarters of these confirmed as having an impact on one or more of: length of stay, readmission probability, medical procedures or laboratory monitoring. There were 96 interventions deemed by the independent panels to have reduced LOS and 156 reduced the potential for readmission. The calculated savings was $263 221 for the eight hospitals during the period of the study. This included $150 307 for length of stay reduction, $111 848 for readmission reduction. Conclusions The annualized cost savings relating to length of stay, readmission, drugs, medical procedures and laboratory monitoring as a result of clinical pharmacist initiated changes to hospitalized patient management or therapy was $4 444 794 for eight major acute care government funded teaching hospitals in Australia.