Search

Background: A quasi‐experimental study investigated a pharmacist‐led intervention aimed at deprescribing and medication management among adult patients with type 2 diabetes at risk of hypoglycaemia. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the process of implementing the intervention consisting of a tailored clinical medication review (CMR) supported by a training and a toolbox. Methods: Mixed‐methods study based on the Grant framework, including the domains "recruitment," "delivery of intervention" and "response" of pharmacists and patients. Data collected were administrative logs, semi‐structured observations of patient consultations (n = 8), interviews with pharmacists (n = 16) and patient‐reported experience measure (PREM) questionnaires (n = 66). Results: Tailored CMRs were conducted largely as intended for 90 patients from 14 pharmacies. Although patient selection based on a medication‐derived hypoglycaemia risk score was considered useful, pharmacists experienced barriers to proposing deprescribing in patients with recent medication changes, without current hypoglycaemic events, or treated by medical specialists. The training and toolbox were evaluated positively by the pharmacists. Overall, patients were satisfied with the CMR. Conclusion: Pharmacists and patients valued the CMR focusing on deprescribing and medication management. To optimize implementation and effectiveness of the intervention, improvements can be made to the patient selection, pharmacist training and the collaboration between healthcare professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The implementation of new drug safety information and Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs) in hospitals is important for patient safety. Objectives: The aim of this study was to gain insight into which procedures and practices are in place to handle new drug safety information and particularly DHPCs in the Dutch hospital setting. Methods: We first conducted focus groups including medical specialists and hospital pharmacists, focusing on handling of drug safety information at the individual and organisational level. A survey was then developed and distributed among hospital pharmacists in all Dutch hospitals to quantify the existence of specific procedures and committees to handle drug safety information and DHPCs. Results: Eleven specialists and 14 pharmacists from six hospitals participated in focus groups. Drug safety information was usually considered before drugs were included in formularies or treatment protocols. Furthermore, drug safety information was consulted in response to patients experiencing adverse events. DHPCs were mostly dealt with by individual professionals. DHPCs could lead to actions but this was very uncommon. Completed surveys were received from 40 (53%) of the hospitals. In 32 (80%), the hospital pharmacy had procedures to deal with new drug safety information, whereas in 11 (28%) a hospital-wide procedure was in place. Drug safety was considered in committees concerning drug formulary decisions (69%) and antibiotic policies (63%). DHPCs were assessed by a hospital pharmacist in 50% of the hospitals. Conclusions: Drug safety information was used for evaluation of new treatments and in response to adverse events. Assessment of whether a DHPC requires action was primarily an individual task. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients have various motives to report adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to their national agency. These motives may differ between countries.Objective: The aim of this study was to assess to what extent motives of HCPs and patients to report ADRs differ between countries.Methods: HCPs and patients from Croatia (HR), The Netherlands (NL), and the UK were asked to complete a web-based survey containing questions regarding demographics and ADR reporting. HCPs and patients could select all motives for reporting that applied to them, with a total of 23 and 24 motives, respectively. Descriptive statistics are presented and Chi-square tests were used to test for differences across the countries, with effect sizes calculated using Cramer's V.Results: In total, 296 HCPs and 423 patients were included (60% and 32% from Croatia, 19% and 44% from NL, and 21% and 24% from the UK, respectively). For most of the motives to report or not to report an ADR, there were no differences between countries. Most HCPs from all countries would be motivated to report an ADR if there was a strong suspicion of causality (89%), if it concerned a severe/serious ADR (86%), and if it concerned an ADR for a new, recently marketed drug (77%). Most patients from all countries agreed that they would report an ADR if it concerned a severe ADR (96%), if the ADR influenced their daily activities (91%), and if they were worried about their own situation (90%). Differences across the countries (p < 0.05 and V ≥ 0.21) were observed for three and four of the HCP and patient motives, respectively. For HCPs, these differences were seen in motives related to legal obligation (65% HR, 24% NL, 38% UK), black triangle medicines (27% HR, 4% NL, 77% UK), and the reporting of well-known ADRs (53% HR, 85% NL, 69% UK). For patients, these differences were seen in motives related to a linkage between the ADR report and the medical notes (59% HR, 60% NL, 30% UK), complexity and time taken to report (25% HR, 13% NL, 40% UK), medicines purchased on the internet (59% HR, 39% NL, 65% UK), and the reporting of embarrassing ADRs (32% HR, 11% NL, 35% UK).Conclusions: HCPs' and patients' motives to report or not to report ADRs to the national agency were mostly similar across the three countries. Such motives can be used in general strategies to promote and increase ADR reporting. The observed differences provide guidance to further fine-tune ADR reporting at a national level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Overtreatment with cardiometabolic medication in older patients can lead to major adverse events. Timely deprescribing of these medications is therefore essential. Self-reported willingness to stop medication is usually high among older people, still overtreatment with cardiometabolic medication is common and deprescribing is rarely initiated. An important barrier for deprescribing reported by general practitioners is the patients' unwillingness to stop the medication. More insights are needed into the influence of patients' characteristics on their attitudes towards deprescribing and differences in these attitudes between cardiometabolic medication groups.Methods: A survey in older people using cardiometabolic medication using the revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire was performed. Participants completed the general rPATD and an adapted version for four medication groups. Linear and ordinal logistic regression were used to assess the influence of age, sex, therapeutic area and number of medications used on the patients' general attitudes towards deprescribing. Univariate analysis was used to compare differences in deprescribing attitudes towards sulfonylureas, insulins, antihypertensive medication and statins.Results: Overall, 314 out of 1143 invited participants completed the survey (median age 76 years, 54% female). Most participants (80%) were satisfied with their medication and willing to stop medications if their doctor said it was possible (88%). Age, sex and therapeutic area had no influence on the general attitudes towards deprescribing. Taking more than ten medicines was significantly associated with a higher perceived medication burden. Antihypertensive medication and insulin were considered more appropriate than statins, and insulin was considered more appropriate than sulfonylureas not favouring deprescribing.Conclusions: The majority of older people using cardiometabolic medication are willing to stop one of their medicines if their doctor said it was possible. Health care providers should take into account that patients perceive some of their medication as more appropriate than other medication when discussing deprescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: To develop targeted and tailored interventions for addressing medication non-adherence, it is important to identify underlying factors. Objective: To identify factors associated with non-adherence as well as subtypes of non-adherence to antihypertensive or antihyperlipidemic drugs among patients with type 2 diabetes in Indonesia. Design: An observational multicenter cross-sectional survey. Participants: Patients with type 2 diabetes using either antihypertensive or antihyperlipidemic drugs in four regions in Indonesia. Main Measures: Non-adherence and its subtypes of intentional and unintentional non-adherence were assessed using the Medication Adherence Report Scale. Necessity and concern beliefs were assessed with the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire. We applied binary and multinomial logistic regression to assess associations of medication beliefs, sociodemographic factors, and clinical-related factors to non-adherence and report odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Key Results: Of 571 participating patients (response rate 97%), 45.5% and 52.7% were non-adherent to antihypertensive and antihyperlipidemic drugs, respectively. Older age was associated with non-adherence to antihypertensive drugs (60–69 years) (OR, 5.65; 95% CI, 2.68–11.92), while higher necessity beliefs (OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.88–0.95) were associated with less non-adherence. Factors associated with non-adherence to antihyperlipidemic drugs were female gender (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.03–3.27) and higher concern beliefs (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03–1.18), while higher necessity beliefs (OR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.83–0.96) were associated with less non-adherence. Conclusions: The main factors associated with non-adherence to antihypertensive and antihyperlipidemic drugs are modifiable. In general, beliefs about the necessity of the drug are important but for antihyperlipidemic drugs concerns are important as well. Healthcare providers should pay attention to identify and address medication beliefs during patient counselling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Deprescribing has been recommended for managing polypharmacy but deprescribing preventive medication in older patients is still uncommon. We aimed to investigate older patients' barriers to and enablers of deprescribing cardiometabolic medication. Methods: Two focus groups were conducted among patients ≥70 years with polypharmacy, including cardiometabolic medication. Purposive sampling through four community pharmacies was used in two regions in the Netherlands. A topic list was developed using literature and the theoretical domains framework (TDF). The meetings were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and coded using thematic coding, attribute coding and the TDF. In addition, patients were categorized on attitudes towards medication and willingness to stop. Results: The meetings were attended by 17 patients and 1 caregiver (71 to 84 years). In total 15 barriers and 13 enablers were identified within four themes, partly related to beliefs, fears and experiences regarding using or stopping medication, and partly related to the relationship with the health care professional and the conditions to stop. Some patients attributed their wellbeing to their medication and were therefore unwilling to stop. Reducing cardiometabolic medication because of less strict treatment targets confused some patients and was a barrier to deprescribing. Having options to monitor clinical measurements and restart medication were enablers. Patients were only willing to stop cardiometabolic medication when this was proposed by a HCP they trusted. Patients with a positive attitude towards medication varied in their willingness to stop cardiometabolic medication. Patients with a negative attitude towards medication were generally willing to stop medication but still perceived several barriers and may consider some medication as being essential. Conclusion: Fears, beliefs, and experiences regarding using and stopping medication as well as trust in the HCP influence willingness to have medication deprescribed. Attitudes towards medication in general do not necessarily translate into willingness or unwillingness to stop specific medication. For deprescribing cardiometabolic medication, patient involvement when setting new treatment targets and monitoring the effects on short-term outcomes are important. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Some drug safety issues communicated through direct healthcare professional communications (DHPCs) receive substantial media coverage, while others do not.Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess the extent of coverage of drug safety issues that have been communicated through DHPCs in newspapers and social media. A secondary aim was to explore which determinants may be associated with media coverage.Methods: Newspaper articles covering drug safety issues communicated through 387 DHPCs published between 2001 and 2015 were retrieved from LexisNexis Academic™. Social media postings were retrieved from Coosto™ for drugs included in 220 DHPCs published between 2010 and 2015. Coverage of DHPCs by newspapers and social media was assessed during the 2-month and 14-day time periods following issuance of the DHPC, respectively. Multivariate logistic regression was used to assess potential DHPC- and drug-related determinants of media coverage.Results: 41 (10.6%) DHPC safety issues were covered in newspaper articles. Newspaper coverage was associated with drugs without a specialist indication [adjusted odds ratio 5.32; 95% confidence interval (2.64-10.73)]. Negative associations were seen for time since market approval [3-5 years 0.30; (0.11-0.82), 6-11 years 0.18; (0.06-0.58)] and year of the DHPC [0.88; (0.81-0.96)]. In the social media, 180 (81.8%) drugs mentioned in 220 DHPCs were covered. Social media coverage was associated with drugs without a specialist indication [6.92; (1.56-30.64)], and for DHPCs communicating clinical safety issues [5.46; (2.03-14.66)].Conclusions: Newspapers covered a small proportion of DHPC safety issues only. Most drugs mentioned in DHPCs were covered in social media. Coverage in both media were higher for drugs without a specialist indication. [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]

In the original publication of the article, the headings of columns 3 and 4 in the data table. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: National competent authorities (NCAs) use Direct Healthcare Professional Communications (DHPCs) to communicate new drug safety issues to healthcare professionals (HCPs). More knowledge is needed about the effectiveness of DHPCs and the extent to which they raise awareness of new safety issues among HCPs.Objective: The objective was to assess and compare general practitioners' (GPs'), cardiologists', and pharmacists' familiarity with DHPCs as communication tools, their awareness of specific drug safety issues, and the sources through which they had become aware of the specific issues.Methods: GPs, cardiologists, and pharmacists from nine European countries (Croatia, Denmark, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the UK) completed a web-based survey. The survey was conducted in the context of the Strengthening Collaboration for Operating Pharmacovigilance in Europe (SCOPE) Joint Action. Respondents were asked about their familiarity with DHPCs in general and their awareness of safety issues that had recently been communicated and involved the following drugs: combined hormonal contraceptives, diclofenac, valproate, and ivabradine. Those HCPs who were aware of the specific safety issues were subsequently asked to indicate the source through which they had become aware of them. Differences between professions in familiarity with DHPCs and awareness were tested using a Pearson χ2 test per country and post hoc Pearson χ2 tests in the case of statistically significant differences.Results: Of the 3288 included respondents, 54% were GPs, 40% were pharmacists, and 7% were cardiologists. The number of respondents ranged from 67 in Denmark to 916 in Spain. Most respondents (92%) were familiar with DHPCs, with one significant difference between the professions: pharmacists were more familiar than GPs in Italy (99 vs 90%, P = 0.004). GPs' awareness ranged from 96% for the diclofenac issue to 70% for the ivabradine issue. A similar pattern was shown for pharmacists (91% aware of the diclofenac issue to 66% of the ivabradine issue). Cardiologists' awareness ranged from 91% for the ivabradine issue to 34% for the valproate issue. Overall, DHPCs were a common source through which GPs (range: 45% of those aware of the contraceptives issue to 60% of those aware of the valproate issue), cardiologists (range: 33% for the contraceptives issue to 61% for the valproate issue), and pharmacists (range: 41% for the contraceptives issue to 51% for the ivabradine issue) had become aware of the specific safety issues, followed by information on websites or in newsletters.Conclusions: GPs, cardiologists, and pharmacists were to a similar extent (highly) familiar with DHPCs, but they differed in awareness levels of specific safety issues. Cardiologists were less aware of safety issues associated with non-cardiology drugs even if these had cardiovascular safety concerns. This implies that additional strategies may be needed to reach specialists when communicating safety issues regarding drugs outside their therapeutic area but with risks related to their field of specialisation. DHPCs were an important source for the different professions to become aware of specific safety issues, but other sources were also often used. NCAs should consider the use of a range of sources when communicating important safety issues to HCPs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Decision aids can be used to support shared decision making ( SDM). A patient-oriented treatment decision aid ( DA) was developed for type 2 diabetes but its use by general practice staff appeared to be limited. Objectives To explore views of practice staff towards SDM and the DA. Design A mixed-methods study within the Dutch PORTDA-diab trial. Setting and participants Included were 17 practices with staff members who were responsible for routine diabetes care and had worked with the DA, and 209 of their patients. Methods Interviews were conducted focusing on applicability, usefulness and feasibility of the DA. Interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim and subjected to content analysis for identifying and classifying views. Patient-reported data about the use of the DA were collected. Associations between specific views and use of the DA were tested using Pearson point-biserial correlation. Results The majority of practice staff expressed positive views towards SDM, which was associated with making more use of the DA. Most of the staff expressed that the DA stimulated a two-way conversation. By using the DA, several became aware of their paternalistic approach. Some staff experienced a conflict with the content of the DA, which was associated with making less use of the DA. Conclusions The DA was considered useful by practice staff to support SDM. A positive view towards SDM was a facilitator, whereas experiencing a conflict with the content of the DA was a barrier for making use of the DA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: National competent authorities (NCAs) for medicines coordinate communication relating to the safety of medicines in Europe. The effectiveness of current communication practices has been questioned, particularly with regard to reaching general practitioners (GPs).Objective: The aim of this study was to assess current European NCA safety communication practices and to investigate European GPs' awareness of and preferences for safety communications on medicines.Methods: Web-based surveys were distributed among European NCAs and healthcare professionals (HCPs). The survey among regulators was emailed to a representative of each of the 27 European countries participating in the Strengthening Collaboration for Operating Pharmacovigilance in Europe (SCOPE) Joint Action. HCPs from nine European countries (Denmark, Spain, Croatia, Ireland, Italy, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the UK) were asked about their preferences through a link to the survey on websites, in newsletters, and/or in a direct email. From this survey, data from GPs were used and descriptive analyses were conducted.Results: Current NCA practices were reported for 26 countries. In 23 countries (88%), NCAs published direct healthcare professional communications (DHPCs, i.e. urgent communication letters for serious safety issues) on their website in addition to distribution to individual HCPs. Educational materials were available on the NCA's website in 10 countries (40%), and 21 NCAs (81%) indicated they had their own bulletin/newsletter, which is often presented on the NCA's website (15 countries; 60%). More than 90% of the 1766 GPs who completed the survey were aware of DHPCs. The most preferred senders of safety information were NCAs and professional bodies, while the preferred channels for keeping up to date with safety information were medicines reference books and clinical guidelines. GPs found the repetition of safety issues useful (range of 80% in the UK to 97% in Italy). Preference for an electronic copy rather than a hardcopy varied per country (36% in Sweden to 72% in Spain).Conclusions: NCAs use similar methods for safety communications on medicines. Most GPs were aware of urgent communications and preferred similar senders of safety communications; however, their preferences towards the format differed per country. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Direct patient-reported information about adverse drug events (ADEs) is important since it adds to healthcare professional-reported information about the safety of drugs. Previously, we developed an instrument to assess patient-reported ADEs in research settings. The aim of this study is to assess the construct and concurrent validity of the questionnaire. Methods Patients on at least an oral glucose-lowering drug completed the ADE questionnaire, the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF, and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM). The ADE questionnaire assesses ADEs for any drug that the patient uses. Construct validity was assessed by testing whether patients reporting an ADE had a lower general quality of life and physical health than those not reporting an ADE, using Mann-Whitney U-tests and t-tests (significance level <0.05). For concurrent validity, we tested whether ADEs that patients associate with particular drugs in the ADE questionnaire are documented in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SPC) of those drugs, and whether patients who report an ADE with the use of metformin on the TSQM, mention metformin as a drug associated with an ADE on the ADE questionnaire. Agreement of 70% with the SPC was considered satisfactory. Sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated for the comparison with the TSQM, where 70% was used as the cutoff level for sufficient concurrent validity. Results We included 135 patients (mean age 64 years, 35% women). Patients who reported an ADE (N = 37) had a lower general quality of life and physical health than those not reporting an ADE (P < 0.05). For 78 of the 146 reported ADEs (53%), patients mentioned at least 1 particular drug associated with the ADE. After clustering related ADEs, this resulted in 56 patient-reported ADE-drug associations. Of these, 41 (73%) were in agreement with information in the SPC. Finally, the questionnaire had a sensitivity of 38% and PPV of 79% for assessing ADEs associated with metformin. Conclusions The construct validity of the patient-reported ADE questionnaire was sufficient for reporting any versus no ADE, but the concurrent validity was only partly demonstrated. Therefore, the questionnaire needs to be adapted before it can be used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: At time of approval, knowledge of the full benefit risk of any drug is limited, in particular with regards to safety. Post-approval surveillance of potential drug safety concerns is recognized as an important task of regulatory agencies. For innovative, often first-in-class drugs, safety knowledge at time of approval is often even less extensive and these may require tighter scrutiny post approval. Objective: We evaluated whether more post-approval serious safety issues were identified for drugs with a higher level of innovation. Methods: A cohort study was performed that included all new active substances approved under the European Centralized Procedure and for which serious safety issues were identified post-approval from 1 January 1999 to 1 January 2012. Serious safety issues were defined as issues requiring a Direct Healthcare Professional Communication to alert individual healthcare professionals of a new serious safety issue, or a safety-related drug withdrawal. Data were retrieved from publicly available websites of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board and the European Medicines Agency. The level of innovation was scored using a validated algorithm, grading drugs as important (A), moderate (B) or modest (C) innovations or as pharmacological or technological (pharm/tech) innovations. The data were analyzed using appropriate descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier analysis, with a Mantel-Cox log-rank test, and Cox-regression models correcting for follow-up duration, to identify a possible trend in serious safety issues with an increasing level of innovation. Results: In Europe, 279 new drugs were approved between 1999 and 2011. Fifty-nine (21 %) were graded as important, 63 (23 %) moderate, or 34 (12 %) modest innovations and 123 (44 %) as non-innovative (pharm/tech), while 15 (25 %), 13 (21 %), 8 (24 %) and 17 (14 %) had post-approval safety issues, respectively ( p = 0.06, linear-by-linear test). Five drugs were withdrawn from the market. The Kaplan-Meier-derived probability for having a first serious safety issue was statistically significant, log-rank (Mantel-Cox) p = 0.036. In the final adjusted Cox proportional hazard model there was no statistically significant difference in occurrence of a first serious safety issue for important, moderate and modest innovations versus non-innovative drugs; hazard ratios 1.76 (95 % CI 0.82-3.77), 1.61 (95 % CI 0.76-3.41)], and 1.25 (95 % CI 0.51-3.06), respectively. Conclusion: A higher level of innovation was not clearly related to an increased risk of serious safety issues identified after approval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]