Search

In some countries, pharmacists have obtained prescribing rights to improve quality and accessibility of care and reduce physician workload. This case study explored pharmacists' current roles in and potential for prescribing in primary care in the Netherlands, where prescribing rights for pharmacists do not exist. Participatory observations of pharmacists working in either general practice or community pharmacy were conducted, as were semi-structured interviews about current and potential practice. The latter were extended to patients and other healthcare professionals, mainly general practitioners, resulting in 34 interviews in total. Thematic analyses revealed that pharmacists, in all cases, wrote prescriptions that were then authorized by a physician before dispensing. General practice-based pharmacists often prescribed medications during patient consultations. Community pharmacists mainly influenced prescribing through (a) medication reviews where the physician and/or practice nurse often were consulted to make treatment decisions, and (b) collaborative agreements with physicians to start or substitute medications in specific situations. These findings imply that the pharmacists' current roles in prescribing in the Netherlands resemble collaborative prescribing practices in other countries. We also identified several issues that should be addressed before formally introducing pharmacist prescribing, such as definitions of tasks and responsibilities and prescribing-specific training for pharmacists.

Aims: To gain insight in the uptake and practice variation in the prescription of 2 new medicine groups for common conditions in primary care (direct-acting oral anticoagulants [DOACs] and incretin-based therapies) from introduction, around 2007, to 2019 and the correlation between the adoption of those medicines in primary care. Methods: Prescription data from general practices in the Dutch Nivel Primary Care Database from 2007 to 2019 were used. The percentage of patients with prescriptions for DOACs of all patients with prescriptions for DOACs and vitamin K antagonists was calculated per practice per year, as was the percentage of patients prescribed incretin-based therapies as a proportion of all patients with diabetes medication. Multilevel models were used to estimate practice variation for DOACs and incretin-based therapies, expressed as intraclass correlation coefficients. Linear regression analysis was used to study the association between the prescription of DOACs and incretin-based therapies. Results: Per year, 46–424 general practices and 179 933–1 654 376 patients were included. In 2019, the mean percentage of patients per practice using DOACs or incretin-based therapies was 54.9 and 9.7%, respectively. The intraclass correlation coefficient decreased from 0.75 to 0.024 for DOACs and from 0.33 to 0.074 for incretin-based medicines during the study period. No clear correlation was found between the prescription of DOACs and incretin-based therapies. Conclusion: DOACs and incretin-based therapies have different adoption profiles and practice variation is large, especially in the years before these medicines were introduced in guidelines. Early adopters of both medicine classes differ.

Patiënten begrijpen en onthouden informatie die is afgestemd op de individuele behoeften beter. Apothekers kunnen patiënten voorzien van schriftelijke informatie waarin persoonlijke kenmerken zijn verwerkt. Het is belangrijk dat de patiënt herkent dat informatie op maat gemaakt is. De apotheker kan dit benoemen in het uitgiftegesprek.

Objective: To assess the impact of personalized feedback on therapy adherence testing results on quality of life and beliefs about medication in patients with resistant hypertension, as well as to identify patient-oriented predictors of therapy adherence. Methods: This study was a prespecified post hoc analysis of the multicenter randomized controlled trial Resistant Hypertension: Measure to Reach Targets (RHYME-RCT). Patients were randomized to a personalized feedback conversation on measured antihypertensive drug levels additional to standard-of-care, or standard-of-care only. The primary outcomes consisted of EuroQol EQ-5D-5L and Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire (BMQ) scores at 12 months. Results: A total of 56 patients with median age 61.5 [25th-75th percentile: 55.8-69.3] years (21.4% women) were included. Mean blood pressure ±SD was 149.8/84.1 ± 14.9/13.8 mmHg while being on a median of 5.6 [4.8-7.3] defined daily dosages (DDD) of antihypertensive drugs. At 12 months, no differences were observed in EQ-5D-5L index (0.81 [0.69-0.89] vs. 0.89 [0.73-1.00]; P = 0.18) and visual analogue scale score on general patient-perceived health (70 [60-80] vs. 70 [60-82]; P = 0.53) between the intervention-arm and the standard-of-care only-arm. Likewise, individual EQ-5D-5L domain scores and BMQ scores did not differ between both arms. Irrespective of the intervention, independent positive predictors of the percentage adherence were patient age, EQ-5D-5L index score, BMQ-specific necessity score and concern score, whereas the total number of drugs prescribed was a negative predictor. Conclusion: Within this prespecified subanalysis of the randomized RHYME-RCT trial, implementation of a personalized feedback conversation targeting therapy adherence did not improve health-related quality-of-life and beliefs about medication in patients with resistant hypertension.

Drug labels instructions are physically attached to each package dispensed to patients and consist of dosage instructions (e.g., ‘Take two capsules twice daily’), auxiliary warnings (e.g., ‘Do not drink alcoholic beverages’) and advices (e.g., ‘Take with food or milk’). They are often misinterpreted which may lead to incorrect drug use. The wordings of instructions are a cause of such misinterpretation, especially for people with limited health literacy. In a qualitative study, we explored pharmacy visitors’ interpretations of drug label instructions and their opinions on potential improvements. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 39 pharmacy visitors with limited and adequate health literacy. They received seven drug label instructions and explained them in their own words and demonstrated how much and how often they would take the drugs on a timetable. Although pharmacy visitors were able to explain dosage instructions, they often made mistakes in demonstrating them, especially those with limited health literacy. Medical jargon (e.g., ‘drowsiness’) and difficult words (e.g., ‘maximum’) lead to misinterpretations, especially among pharmacy visitors with limited health literacy. When optimizing drug label instructions, a trade-off must be made between the comprehensibility and the nuance of instructions.

Introduction Marketing materials from pharmaceutical companies attempt to create a positive image of marketed, often new, medicines. To gain more insight in strategies pharmaceutical companies use to influence primary care practitioners’ attitudes towards marketed medicines, we investigated the use of persuasion strategies in direct marketing mailings and advertisements from pharmaceutical companies sent to general practitioners. Methods General practitioners in the Netherlands were recruited to collect all direct marketing mailings, meaning all leaflets, letters and other information sent by pharmaceutical industries to the practice during one month (June 2022). Direct marketing mailings and advertisements in collected medical journals concerning medicines or diseases (together called marketing materials) were analysed according to presence of one of the seven common persuasion strategies, i.e. reciprocity, consistency/commitment, social proof, liking, authority, scarcity and unity; as well as marketed medicine and year of introduction. Results Twenty general practices collected 68 unique marketing materials concerning 37 different medicines. Direct factor Xa inhibitors (n = 12), glucagon-like peptide-1 analogues (n = 5) and sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors (n = 4) were the most frequently marketed medicines. The median year of introduction of all marketed medicines was 2012. All seven persuasion strategies were identified, with liking (64.7% of all materials) and authority (29.4%) as most prominent strategies, followed by social proof (17.6%), unity (14.7%), scarcity (13.2%), reciprocity (11.8%) and consistency/commitment (2.9%). In addition to those strategies, we identified emotional pressure (30.9%) as one commonly used new strategy. Conclusion Marketing materials sent to general practices use a wide range of persuasion strategies in an attempt to influence prescription behaviour. Primary care practitioners should be aware of these mechanisms throu

BACKGROUND: The immediacy of the onset of opioids may be associated with the risk of dependency and accidental overdose. Nasal and oromucosal fentanyl dosage forms are so called immediate release fentanyl (IRF). These IRFs have been approved to treat breakthrough pain in patients with cancer who are on chronic opioid treatment only. There are signals of increased off-label prescribing of IRFs in general practices.OBJECTIVES: This study aims to provide insight into the frequency of IRF prescription in Dutch general practices and the extent to which IRF is prescribed off-label.METHODS: Routinely collected electronic health records of general practices (GPs) participating in Nivel Primary Care Database were used. Adult patients with IRF prescriptions in 2019 were selected from whom dispensing data on 2018 and 2019 was available. Diagnoses were recorded by GPs using International Classification of Primary Care. Descriptive analyses were performed.RESULTS: This study included 342 GPs with a patient population of 1,297,942 patients, 1,368 patients received at least one IRF prescription in 2019, which is equal to 1.1 patients per 1,000 registered patients. Most patients (74.9%) with an IRF prescription received an off-label prescription. A slight majority had a cancer diagnosis but nearly 65.2% did not have a maintenance therapy and 14% were opioid-naive before receiving their first IRF prescription.CONCLUSION: IRFs are not prescribed frequently in Dutch general practices. However, when prescribed, a relatively large portion of patients received an off-label prescription.