Combined intervention programme reduces inappropriate prescribing in elderly patients exposed to polypharmacy in primary care. A randomized, controlled trial of a clinical pharmacist intervention to improve inappropriate prescribing in elderly outpatients with polypharmacy. Improving primary care in rural Alabama with a pharmacy initiative. Pharmacist response to alerts generated from Medicaid pharmacy claims in a long-term care setting: results from the North Carolina polypharmacy initiative. Analysis of the North Carolina long-term care polypharmacy initiative: a multiple-cohort approach using propensity-score matching for both evaluation and targeting. Prevention of potentially inappropriate prescribing for elderly patients: a randomized controlled trial using STOPP/START criteria. Developing and implementing a pharmaceutical care model in an ambulatory care setting for patients with diabetes. Improving drug-therapy decisions through educational outreach. A randomized controlled trial of academically based "detailing". [Improving drug prescription in primary care: a controlled and randomized study of an educational method]. Outcomes of a randomized controlled trial of a clinical pharmacy intervention in 52 nursing homes.
To evaluate the effect of a combined or a single educational intervention on the prescribing behaviour of general practitioners (GPs). The primary endpoint was effect on inappropriate prescribing according to the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI).
                General practitioners were randomised to either (1) a combined intervention consisting of an interactive educational meeting plus feedback on participating patients' medication, (2) a single intervention with an interactive educational meeting or (3) a control group (no intervention). Elderly (>65 years) patients exposed to polypharmacy (>or=5 medications) were identified and approached for inclusion. Data on medications prescribed over a 3-month period were collected, and the GPs provided detailed information on their patients before and after the intervention. A pre- and post-MAI were scored for all medications.
                Of the 277 GPs invited to participate; 41 (14.8%) volunteered. Data were obtained from 166 patients before and after the intervention. Medication appropriateness improved in the combined intervention group but not in the single intervention group. The mean change in MAI and number of medications was -5 [95% confidence interval (CI) -7.3 to -2.6] and -1.03 (95% CI -1.7 to -0.30) in the combined intervention group compared with the group with the educational meeting only and the no intervention group.
                A combined intervention consisting of an interactive educational meeting plus recommendations given by clinical pharmacologists/pharmacists concerning specific patients can improve the appropriateness of prescribing among elderly patients exposed to polypharmacy. This study adds to the limited number of well-controlled, randomised studies on overall medication appropriateness among elderly patients in primary care. Important limitations to the study include variability in data provided by participating GPs and a low number of GPs volunteering for the study. To evaluate the effect of sustained clinical pharmacist interventions involving elderly outpatients with polypharmacy and their primary physicians.
                Randomized, controlled trial of 208 patients aged 65 years or older with polypharmacy (> or = 5 chronic medications) from a general medicine clinic of a Veterans Affairs Medical Center. A clinical pharmacist met with intervention group patients during all scheduled visits to evaluate their drug regimens and make recommendations to them and their physicians. Outcome measures were prescribing appropriateness, health-related quality of life, adverse drug events, medication compliance and knowledge, number of medications, patient satisfaction, and physician receptivity.
                Inappropriate prescribing scores declined significantly more in the intervention group than in the control group by 3 months (decrease 24% versus 6%, respectively; P = 0.0006) and was sustained at 12 months (decrease 28% versus 5%, respectively; P = 0.0002). There was no difference between groups at closeout in health-related quality of life (P = 0.99). Fewer intervention than control patients (30.2%) versus 40.0%; P = 0.19) experienced adverse drug events. Measures for most other outcomes remained unchanged in both groups. Physicians were receptive to the intervention and enacted changes recommended by the clinical pharmacist more frequently than they enacted changes independently for control patients (55.1% versus 19.8%; P <0.001).
                This study demonstrates that a clinical pharmacist providing pharmaceutical care for elderly primary care patients can reduce inappropriate prescribing and possibly adverse drug effects without adversely affecting health-related quality of life. The effect of pharmaceutical care on the prevention, detection, and resolution of medication-related problems in high-risk patients in a rural community was studied. Adult patients who received care at clinics in a medically underserved area of Alabama and who were identified as being at high risk of medication-related adverse events were randomly assigned to a control group or an intervention group. The control group received standard medical care, and the intervention group received pharmaceutical care, including a medical record review, a medication history review, pharmacotherapeutic evaluation, and patient medication education and monitoring over a one-year period. A total of 69 patients completed the study (33 in the intervention group and 36 in the control group). The percentage of patients responding to hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia, and anticoagulation therapy increased significantly in the intervention group and declined in the control group. Ratings for inappropriate prescribing improved in all 10 domains evaluated in the intervention group but worsened in 5 domains in the control group. There were no significant differences between the groups at 12 months in health-related quality of life or medication misadventures. Medication compliance scores improved in the intervention group but not in the control group. Medication knowledge increased in the intervention group and decreased in the control group. Pharmaceutical care in a rural, community-based setting appeared to reduce inappropriate prescribing, enhance disease management, and improve medication compliance and knowledge without adversely affecting health-related quality of life. In response to burgeoning drug costs, North Carolina (NC) Medicaid encouraged pharmacists and prescribers to develop collaborative programs to reduce drug expenditures. One of these programs, the North Carolina Polypharmacy Initiative, was a focused drug therapy management intervention aimed at reducing polypharmacy in nursing homes. This intervention targeted patients with more than 18 prescription fills in 90 days, beginning in November 2002. These patients were believed to have a high likelihood of experiencing potential drug therapy problems (PDTPs). Consultant pharmacists were asked to utilize profiles displaying alerts generated from pharmacy claims to guide interventions in addition to usual-care drug regimen reviews. The pharmacists documented their reviews, recommendations, and resulting changes in drug therapy. Our objectives were to determine (1) the persistence of PDTP alerts following interventions by consultant pharmacists and (2) the impact of these interventions on patient drug costs from a payer perspective.
                A before-after study with comparison group design was used. Medicaid prescription claims data were compared for the 90-day periods prior to the intervention (June-August 2002) and following the intervention (March-June 2003). The 90-day post-intervention period allowed for 2 to 3 follow-up prescriptions and reduced the drop-out rate. The 5 categories of potential problem alerts included potentially inappropriate medications (Beers criteria), substitution opportunity for a lower-cost drug, 16 drugs or drug classes with specific quality improvement opportunities (Clinical Initiatives list), therapeutic duplication, and length of drug therapy evaluation.
                A total of 253 nursing homes, involving 110 consultant pharmacists and 6,344 patients, were in the intervention arm, with 5,160 patients (81.3%) remaining at the end of the follow-up period. At baseline, study-group patients used an average of 9.7 prescriptions per month, costing the NC Medicaid program 517 US dollars per patient per month (PPPM). There were 6,360 recommendations offered for 3,400 patients, or an average of 1.87 recommendations per patient. Physicians concurred with 59.8% (3,801 of 6,360) of all recommendations to change drug therapy, about half involving a switch to a lower-cost drug. Two of 5 alert categories had significant (P <0.01) reductions in alert persistence: -10.8% for the study group versus -0.7% for the comparison group for the Clinical Initiatives list and -29.7% for the study group versus -14.1% in the comparison group for the drug substitution opportunity. Median drug costs per patient in the study group decreased by 12.14 US dollars (-0.92%), from 1,329.46 US dollars to 1,317.32 US dollars, and increased in the comparison group by 44.98 US dollars (3.35%), from 1,341.25 US dollars to 1,386.23 US dollars, creating a relative cost reduction of 57.12 US dollars per patient in the 3-month follow-up period, or 19.04 US dollars PPPM.
                A supplemental program of medication reviews for nursing home patients targeted by high drug utilization resulted in a reduction in the persistence of PDTP alerts and was cost beneficial based solely on drug cost savings. This intervention may be a model for future medication therapy management services provided by prescription drug plans under Medicare Part D for patients in long-term-care settings and possibly ambulatory patients. The high cost and undesirable consequences of polypharmacy are well-recognized problems among elderly long-term care (LTC) residents. Despite the implementation of the 1987 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which requires pharmacist review of drug regimens in this setting, medical and drug costs for LTC residents have continued to increase.
                This study evaluates the North Carolina Long-Term Care Polypharmacy Initiative, a large-scale medication therapy management program (MTMP) that combined drug utilization review activities with drug regimen review techniques.
                This was a prospective records-based study that used a difference-in-difference model with both historical and nonintervention group controls. To ensure equivalence among subjects, propensity scoring was used to match study subjects from participating LTC facilities with comparison subjects from nonparticipating facilities. Residents with interventions were grouped for analysis by intervention type-retrospective only, prospective only, or dual type (residents with both prospective and retrospective interventions)-and by intervention stage-review, recommendation, and drug change-plus an all-inclusive "all types" grouping that aggregated groups by intervention type, for a total of 10 total cohorts.
                In the overall population of 5255 study subjects identified, a US $21.63 per member per month drug-cost savings was observed. Although only 1 of 10 cohorts had a change in the number of drug fills, substantial reductions in 2 of 5 types of drug alerts were observed in all 10 cohorts. A reduction in the relative risk for hospitalization (0.84 [95% CI, 0.71-1.00]) was observed in the cohort of residents receiving a retrospective review.
                This Initiative suggests that an MTMP can be quickly launched in a large number of LTC facility residents to produce monetary drug-cost savings and improved health outcomes. Additionally, the evaluation of this program illustrates the utility of using propensity scoring techniques to target future intervention groups in a cost-effective manner. Inappropriate prescribing is particularly common in older patients and is associated with adverse drug events (ADEs), hospitalization, and wasteful utilization of resources. We randomized 400 hospitalized patients aged ≥ 65 years to receive either the usual pharmaceutical care (control) or screening with STOPP/START criteria followed up with recommendations to their attending physicians (intervention). The Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) and Assessment of Underutilization (AOU) index were used to assess prescribing appropriateness, both at the time of discharge and for 6 months after discharge. Unnecessary polypharmacy, the use of drugs at incorrect doses, and potential drug-drug and drug-disease interactions were significantly lower in the intervention group at discharge (absolute risk reduction 35.7%, number needed to screen to yield improvement in MAI = 2.8 (95% confidence interval 2.2-3.8)). Underutilization of clinically indicated medications was also reduced (absolute risk reduction 21.2%, number needed to screen to yield reduction in AOU = 4.7 (95% confidence interval 3.4-7.5)). Significant improvements in prescribing appropriateness were sustained for 6 months after discharge. This study evaluated pharmaceutical care as an adjunct to an existing, coordinated-care program at a Regional Diabetes Center. The progress of a control group receiving the standard pharmacist instruction was compared with two treatment groups receiving additional small group or individual supplementary education for a 2-month period. Outcome evaluation included assessment of individual diabetes management through blood glucose monitoring and responses on a pretest and posttest questionnaire. Patients in the treatment groups demonstrated significantly lower average weekly blood glucose levels and a decreased incidence of hyperglycemic episodes compared with the control group. Questionnaire data for both treatment groups demonstrated a significant increase in patient understanding of diabetes medications and medications for associated illnesses, an increase in knowledge about blood glucose monitoring, and a positive difference in perceptions/attitudes toward diabetes and communication with the pharmacist. This approach is consistent with the concept of pharmaceutical care in which the pharmacist helps patients avoid long-term complications and thus improve their quality of life. Improving precision and economy in the prescribing of drugs is a goal whose importance has increased with the proliferation of new and potent agents and with growing economic pressures to contain health-care costs. We implemented an office-based physician education program to reduce the excessive use of three drug groups: cerebral and peripheral vasodilators, an oral cephalosporin, and propoxyphene. A four-state sample of 435 prescribers of these drugs was identified through Medicaid records and randomly assigned to one of three groups. Physicians who were offered personal educational visits by clinical pharmacists along with a series of mailed "unadvertisements" reduced their prescribing of the target drugs by 14 per cent as compared with controls (P = 0.0001). A comparable reduction in the number of dollars reimbursed for these drugs was also seen between the two groups, resulting in substantial cost savings. No such change was seen in physicians who received mailed print materials only. The effect persisted for at least nine months after the start of the intervention, and no significant increase in the use of expensive substitute drugs was found. Academically based "detailing" may represent a useful and cost-effective way to improve the quality of drug-therapy decisions and reduce unnecessary expenditures. The aim of the present study was to assess whether educational intervention on the primary care physician may be an effective method to improve drug prescription.
                An experimental randomized controlled study was carried out in 244 physicians of the management area No. 5 of the Institut Català de la Salut. Intervention consisted in 3 individualized interviews with the 123 physicians of the study group (IG), during which written informative material was also presented. The issues were: cerebral and peripheral vasodilators (CPVD) and antibiotics. The changes in the prescription of CPVD, combination of anti-infective agents with expectorants, mucolytics and/or balsamics (R05C1) and cephalosporins were specially evaluated in both groups. Subsequently, a stratified analysis was carried out depending on the volume of prescription of the physicians.
                The IG showed a greater reduction in the prescription of CPVD (9.78 bottles per physicians and months versus 6.43, p less than 0.01). The relative reduction in R05C1 prescription was also higher in the IG (12.3% versus 6.7%, p less than 0.01). The expenditure showed similar results. The use of oral cephalosporins increased in the IG and was reduced in the CG (p less than 0.01).
                The results show a favorable impact of personalized information in the groups with high prescription volume, which is particularly remarkable in the highest prescribers. To evaluate whether a year long clinical pharmacy program involving development of professional relationships, nurse education on medication issues, and individualized medication reviews could change drug use, mortality and morbidity in nursing home residents.
                A cluster randomised controlled trial, where an intervention home was matched to three control homes, was used to examine the effect of the clinical pharmacy intervention on resident outcomes. The study involved 905 residents in 13 intervention nursing homes and 2325 residents in 39 control nursing homes in south-east Queensland and north-east New South Wales, Australia. The outcome measures were: continuous drug use data from government prescription subsidy claims, cross-sectional drug use data on prescribed and administered medications, deaths and morbidity indices (hospitalization rates, adverse events and disability indices).
                This intervention resulted in a reduction in drug use with no change in morbidity indices or survival. Differences in nursing home characteristics, as defined by cluster analysis with SUDAAN, negated intervention-related apparent significant improvements in survival. The use of benzodiazepines, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, laxatives, histamine H2-receptor antagonists and antacids was significantly reduced in the intervention group, whereas the use of digoxin and diuretics remained similar to controls. Overall, drug use in the intervention group was reduced by 14.8% relative to the controls, equivalent to an annual prescription saving of A64 dollars per resident (approximately 25 pound sterling).
                This intervention improved nursing home resident outcomes related to changes in drug use and drug-related expenditure. The continuing divergence in both drug use and survival at the end of the study suggests that the difference would have been more significant in a larger and longer study, and even more so using additional instruments specific for measuring outcomes related to changes in drug use.
It is unclear if interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as pharmaceutical care, resulted in a clinically significant improvement; however, they appear beneficial in terms of reducing inappropriate prescribing and medication-related problems.