Rollason Victoria, Vogt Nicole
Division of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, University Hospital, Geneva, Switzerland.
Drugs Aging. 2003;20(11):817-32. doi: 10.2165/00002512-200320110-00003.
Polypharmacy in the elderly complicates therapy, increases cost, and is a challenge for healthcare agencies. In the context of the evolving role of the pharmacist, this systematic review examines the effectiveness of interventions led by pharmacists in reducing polypharmacy. A computerised search was conducted using Medline, Embase geriatrics and gerontology (2001 edition), the Cochrane Library and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA) databases. A manual search of articles on polypharmacy and the role of pharmacists in the therapy of the elderly and of the reference sections of all retrieved articles was also carried out. Search terms used were 'polypharmacy', 'elderly', 'aged', 'intervention' and 'pharmacist(s)'. Articles that fulfilled the following criteria were included: only elderly people were included in the study, or all ages were included but the study gave separate results for the elderly; the outcome was expressed as a reduction in the number of medications; a pharmacist participated in the study; and the study was a controlled or a randomised controlled study. We initially identified 106 articles, but only 14 studies met our four inclusion criteria. Reduction in the number of medications was not the major purpose of most selected studies but often a secondary outcome. Objectives differed, the general aim being to enhance the quality of prescribing in elderly patients. These controlled studies argued in favour of the effectiveness of pharmacists' interventions, even though the number of medications eliminated was small. Most studies were not designed to demonstrate the impact of reducing the number of drugs on the clinical consequences of polypharmacy (nonadherence, adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions, increased risk of hospitalisation, and medication errors). The most frequently reported outcome related to cost savings. It was therefore difficult to assess whether the interventions benefited the patient. The methodological quality of many identified studies was poor. In particular, the study objectives were often very broad and ill-defined. Polypharmacy itself has been defined in different ways and the appropriate definition may differ according to the patient population and the study setting. Further studies are needed to find the most effective way to reduce polypharmacy, especially in the frail elderly population, and to quantify the real advantages of simplifying their drug regimens in terms of improved quality of life.
老年人的多重用药使治疗变得复杂,增加了成本,对医疗机构而言是一项挑战。在药剂师角色不断演变的背景下,本系统评价考察了由药剂师主导的干预措施在减少多重用药方面的有效性。使用Medline、Embase老年医学与老年学(2001年版)、Cochrane图书馆和国际药学文摘(IPA)数据库进行了计算机检索。还对手动检索的关于多重用药以及药剂师在老年患者治疗中的作用的文章,以及所有检索到文章的参考文献部分进行了检索。使用的检索词为“多重用药”“老年人”“老年”“干预”和“药剂师”。纳入符合以下标准的文章:研究仅纳入老年人,或纳入所有年龄但研究给出了老年人的单独结果;结果以用药数量减少来表示;有药剂师参与研究;并且该研究为对照研究或随机对照研究。我们最初识别出106篇文章,但只有14项研究符合我们的四项纳入标准。减少用药数量并非大多数所选研究的主要目的,而往往是次要结果。研究目的各不相同,总体目标是提高老年患者的处方质量。这些对照研究认为药剂师的干预措施有效,尽管消除的用药数量较少。大多数研究并非旨在证明减少药物数量对多重用药临床后果(不依从、药物不良反应、药物相互作用、住院风险增加和用药错误)的影响。最常报告的结果与成本节约有关。因此,难以评估这些干预措施是否使患者受益。许多已识别研究方法学质量较差。特别是,研究目标往往非常宽泛且定义不明确。多重用药本身的定义方式各不相同,合适的定义可能因患者群体和研究背景而异。需要进一步研究以找到减少多重用药的最有效方法,尤其是在体弱老年人群体中,并从改善生活质量方面量化简化其药物治疗方案的实际益处。