Search

Aims: Polypharmacy is common in people with diabetes and is associated with the use of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM). This study aimed to assess trends in the prevalence of polypharmacy and PIM in older and middle‐aged people with diabetes. Methods: A repeated cross‐sectional study using the University Groningen IADB.nl prescription database was conducted. All people aged 45 years and over who were treated for diabetes registered in the period 2012–2016 were included. Polypharmacy was assessed for three age groups. PIMs were assessed using Beers criteria for people ≥65 years old, and PRescribing Optimally in Middle‐aged People's Treatments (PROMPT) criteria for 45–64 years old. Chi‐square tests and regression analysis were applied. Results: The prevalence of polypharmacy increased significantly in all age groups in the study period. In 2016, the prevalence of polypharmacy was 36.9% in patients aged 45–54 years, 50.3% in those aged 55–64 years, and 66.2% in those aged ≥65 years. The prevalence of older people with at least one PIM decreased by 3.1%, while in the middle‐aged group this prevalence increased by 0.9% from 2012 to 2016. The most common PIMs in both age groups were the use of long‐term high‐dose proton pump inhibitors, benzodiazepines and strong opioids without laxatives. Of those, only benzodiazepines showed a decreasing trend. Conclusions: Polypharmacy increased in older and middle‐aged people with diabetes. While the prevalence of PIM decreased over time in older age, this trend was not observed in middle‐aged people with diabetes. Efforts are needed to decrease the use of PIMs in populations already burdened with many drugs, notably at middle age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To assess the effects of a targeted and tailored pharmacist‐led intervention among patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) who are nonadherent to antihypertensive drugs. Methods: A cluster‐randomised controlled trial was conducted in 10 community health centres (CHCs) in Indonesia among T2DM patients aged ≥18 years who reported nonadherence to antihypertensive drugs according to the Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS‐5). Patients in CHCs randomised to the intervention group received a tailored intervention based on their adherence barriers (eg, forgetfulness, lack of knowledge, lack of motivation and/or other drug‐related problems) using a simple question‐based flowchart at baseline and 1‐month follow‐up. Patients in control CHCs received usual care. Primary outcome was the between‐group difference in change in MARS‐5 score from baseline to 3‐month follow‐up. Secondary outcomes included changes in patients' blood pressure and their medication beliefs. Differences in difference in primary and secondary outcomes between groups were assessed using general linear models. Results: In total, 201 patients were screened for eligibility, 113 met the inclusion criteria and participated, and 89 (79%) patients had complete follow‐up. Forgetfulness (42%) and lack of knowledge (18%) were the most common adherence barriers identified at baseline. The intervention improved medication adherence by 4.62 points on the MARS‐5 scale (95% CI 0.93 to 8.34, P value = 0.008). There were no significant changes in blood pressure levels and beliefs about antihypertensive drugs. Conclusion: A tailored low‐cost pharmacist‐led intervention aimed at nonadherent T2DM patients resulted in an improvement in medication adherence to antihypertensive drugs. There were no significant changes in secondary outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: We aimed to assess and characterize sex differences in adverse drug reactions (ADRs) reported to the national pharmacovigilance centre in the Netherlands while considering differences in drug use. Methods: ADRs spontaneously reported by healthcare professionals and patients to the Netherlands pharmacovigilance centre Lareb were used. Drug–ADR combinations reported at least 10 times between 2003–2016 for drugs used by ≥10,000 persons in that period were included. Data about the number of drug users was obtained from the National Health Care Institute. Sex‐specific ADRs, like gynaecological problems, were excluded. Sex differences in specific drug–ADR combinations were tested using bivariate logistic regression analyses in which the number of drug users per sex was taken into account. Results: In total, 2483 drug–ADR combinations were analysed. Possibly relevant sex differences were shown in 363 combinations (15%). Most of these drug–ADR combinations were reported more often for women (322 combinations). Drugs with the highest number of ADRs that were more often reported for women included thyroid hormones (32 combinations) and antidepressants (16 combinations for the centrally acting sympathomimetics; 14 combinations for other antidepressants). Some ADRs were predominantly reported for women across a range of drugs such as headache and dizziness whereas other ADRs such as tendon ruptures and aggression were reported more often for men. Conclusions: Identified sex differences in reported ADRs often referred to women. These differences may have various causes, including pharmacological and behavioural causes, which need to be further assessed. The results may ultimately lead to sex‐specific prescribing or monitoring recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]