Search

BackgroundMobile health (mHealth) apps have the potential to support patients’ medication use and are therefore increasingly used. Apps with broad functionality are suggested to be more effective; however, not much is known about the actual use of different functionalities and the effective engagement. ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to explore the use and the effective engagement of adolescents (aged 12 to 18 years) with the Adolescent Adherence Patient Tool (ADAPT). MethodsThe ADAPT intervention consisted of an app for patients, which was connected to a management system for their pharmacist. The aim of the ADAPT intervention was to improve medication adherence and, therefore, the app contained multiple functionalities: questionnaires to monitor symptoms and adherence, medication reminders, short movies, pharmacist chat, and peer chat. For this study, data of the ADAPT study and a cluster randomized controlled trial were used. Adolescents with asthma had 6 months’ access to the ADAPT intervention, and all app usage was securely registered in a log file. ResultsIn total, 86 adolescents (mean age 15.0, SD 2.0 years) used the ADAPT app 17 times (range 1-113) per person. Females used the app more often than males (P=.01) and for a longer period of time (P=.03). On average, 3 different functionalities were used, and 13% of the adolescents used all functionalities of the app. The questionnaires to monitor symptoms and adherence were used by most adolescents. The total app use did not affect adherence; however, activity in the pharmacist chat positively affected medication adherence (P=.03), in particular, if patients sent messages to their pharmacist (P=.01). ConclusionsmHealth apps for adolescents with asthma should contain different functionalities to serve the diverging needs and preferences of individual patients. Suggested key functionalities to promote use and effectiveness in adolescents with asthma are questionnaires to monitor symptoms and a health care provider chat.

Objectives: We determined whether adding cannabis to oxycodone for chronic non-cancer pain management could reduce treatment-related adverse effects (AEs) while maintaining effective analgesia. Methods: In this open-label study, fibromyalgia patients aged ≥18 years were randomized to receive 5 mg oxycodone tablets (max. four times/day), 150 mg of inhaled cannabis containing 6.3% Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol and 8% cannabidiol (max. times inhalation sessions/day), or a combination of both for 6 weeks. The primary endpoint was treatment-related adverse events, assessed using a 10-point composite adverse event (cAE) score; additionally, we recorded daily reported pain relief and daily tablet and cannabis consumption. Results: In total, 23 patients were treated with oxycodone, 29 with cannabis, and 29 with the oxycodone/cannabis combination. Three patients from the oxycodone group (13%) and 18 patients from the cannabis groups (31%, 9 in each group) withdrew from the trial within 2–3 weeks because of the severity of AEs. There were no differences in treatment-related cAE scores among the three groups that completed the study (p = 0.70). The analgesic responder rate showed a ≥1- point reduction in pain in 50% and a ≥2-point reduction in 20% of patients, while 50% of patients experienced no treatment benefit. The combination treatment reduced oxycodone tablet consumption by 35% (p = 0.02), but it did not affect the number of cannabis inhalation sessions. Conclusions: Cannabis combined with oxycodone offered no advantage over either treatment alone, except for a reduction in opioid tablet intake; however, the overall drug load was the highest in the combination group. Moreover, cannabis was poorly tolerated and led to treatment discontinuation in one-third of participants treated with cannabis. Clinical Trial Registration: The trial was registered at the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (trialsearch.who.int) on July 26, 2019, identifier NL7902. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The final prescription check is a mandatory but time-consuming process in Dutch community pharmacies. A safer dispensing process may have made the final prescription check obsolete. Objective: To describe the final prescription check in Dutch community pharmacies and explore pharmacists' attitudes towards changing this. Methods: A cross-sectional survey among Dutch community pharmacists. The online questionnaire was based on literature and previous qualitative research, piloted in three pharmacies, and took 10 min to complete. Results were analysed descriptively. Results: A total of 409 pharmacists participated. They saw the final prescription check as an important quality assurance of the dispensing process. Nevertheless, most pharmacists agreed that the final prescription check could be optimized as they thought that the time invested outweighed the benefits. Automation of the dispensing process, only checking selected high-risk prescriptions, and more in-process checks could reduce the need for an extensive final prescription check, rather than delegating the task to assistants. To implement changes, most pharmacists felt current dispensing guidelines needed to be adapted. Conclusion: There was a widespread consensus that optimizing the final prescription check could enhance efficiency and allow more time for person-centred care. Most pharmacists expressed a preference for updated guidelines before implementing such changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The CombiConsultation is an innovative concise clinical pharmacy service by the community pharmacist for patients with a chronic condition. We aimed to identify relevant factors influencing the implementation of the CombiConsultation in Dutch clinical practice. Methods: A mixed-methods study involving interviews and a questionnaire. Content analysis topics within TDF domains were derived from the interview data and were related to the COM-B-model (capability–opportunity–motivation–Behaviour). The relevance of the resulting topics was explored using a questionnaire with 19 statements administered to all 27 pharmacists who performed CombiConsultations. Key findings: Eighteen topics emerged from the interviews. The questionnaire was completed by 23 of the 27 pharmacists. In the domain 'capability', a small number of participants indicated that they need more expertise in pharmacotherapy (13%) and training in consultation skills (35%). In the domain 'opportunity', all participants indicated that an existing good collaboration with the general practitioner/practice nurse and access to all relevant medical data were necessary to implement the CombiConsultation. In terms of motivation, job satisfaction was most important to all participants, followed by adequate reimbursement (83%) and improving collaboration with other healthcare providers and the relationship with patients (78%). Conclusions: Capability, opportunity, and motivation were all considered relevant for the implementation of the CombiConsultation. There were crucial factors on the level of the individual pharmacist, on the level of the local collaboration and organization, and on the health system level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Digoxin is the oldest drug in cardiovascular (CV) medicine, and one trial conducted >25 years ago showed a reduction in heart failure (HF) hospitalizations but no effect on mortality. However, later studies suggested that the dose of digoxin used in that trial (and other studies) may have been too high. The DECISION (Digoxin Evaluation in Chronic heart failure: Investigational Study In Outpatients in the Netherlands) trial will examine the efficacy and safety of low‐dose digoxin in HF patients with reduced or mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) with a background of contemporary HF treatment. Methods: The DECISION trial is a randomized, double‐blind, parallel‐group, placebo‐controlled event‐driven outcome trial which will investigate the efficacy and safety of low‐dose digoxin in patients with chronic HF and LVEF <50%. Both patients with sinus rhythm and atrial fibrillation will be enrolled and will be randomized (1:1) to low‐dose digoxin or matching placebo. To maintain a target serum digoxin concentration of 0.5–0.9 ng/ml, dose adjustments are made throughout follow‐up based on serum digoxin measurements with dummy values for the placebo group. The primary endpoint is a composite of CV mortality and total HF hospitalizations or total urgent hospital visits for worsening HF, and all endpoints are adjudicated blindly by a Clinical Event Committee. The estimated sample size was 982 patients who will be followed for a median of 3 years, and in December 2023 enrolment was completed after 1002 patients. Conclusions: The DECISION trial will provide important evidence regarding the effect of (low‐dose) digoxin on CV mortality and total HF hospitalizations and urgent hospital visits when added to contemporary HF treatment of patients with reduced or mildly reduced LVEF. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03783429. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]