Patterson Susan M, Cadogan Cathal A, Kerse Ngaire, Cardwell Chris R, Bradley Marie C, Ryan Cristin, Hughes Carmel
No affiliation, 12-22 Linenhall Street, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK, BT2 8BS.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Oct 7(10):CD008165. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008165.pub3.
Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing.
This review sought to determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.
In November 2013, for this first update, a range of literature databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched, and handsearching of reference lists was performed. Search terms included 'polypharmacy', 'medication appropriateness' and 'inappropriate prescribing'.
A range of study designs were eligible. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people 65 years of age and older in which a validated measure of appropriateness was used (e.g. Beers criteria, Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI)).
Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Study-specific estimates were pooled, and a random-effects model was used to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the overall quality of evidence for each pooled outcome.
Two studies were added to this review to bring the total number of included studies to 12. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support; 11 complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical approaches to interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals, such as prescribers and pharmacists. Appropriateness of prescribing was measured using validated tools, including the MAI score post intervention (eight studies), Beers criteria (four studies), STOPP criteria (two studies) and START criteria (one study). Interventions included in this review resulted in a reduction in inappropriate medication usage. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall quality of evidence for all pooled outcomes ranged from very low to low. A greater reduction in MAI scores between baseline and follow-up was seen in the intervention group when compared with the control group (four studies; mean difference -6.78, 95% CI -12.34 to -1.22). Postintervention pooled data showed a lower summated MAI score (five studies; mean difference -3.88, 95% CI -5.40 to -2.35) and fewer Beers drugs per participant (two studies; mean difference -0.1, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.09) in the intervention group compared with the control group. Evidence of the effects of interventions on hospital admissions (five studies) and of medication-related problems (six studies) was conflicting.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as pharmaceutical care, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they appear beneficial in terms of reducing inappropriate prescribing.
不适当的多重用药是老年人特别关注的问题,且与不良健康后果相关。选择最佳干预措施以改善合理的多重用药是当务之急,因此,对于合理的多重用药(即使用多种药物可为患者实现更好的临床结局)的关注日益增加。
本综述旨在确定哪些干预措施单独或联合使用,在改善老年人多重用药的合理使用及减少与用药相关的问题方面有效。
2013年11月,为进行首次更新,检索了包括MEDLINE和EMBASE在内的一系列文献数据库,并对手工检索参考文献列表。检索词包括“多重用药”“用药合理性”和“不适当处方”。
一系列研究设计均符合要求。符合条件的研究描述了旨在改善65岁及以上人群合理多重用药的影响处方的干预措施,其中使用了经过验证的合理性测量方法(如Beers标准、用药合理性指数(MAI))。
两位综述作者独立审查符合条件的研究的摘要,提取数据并评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。汇总了特定研究的估计值,并使用随机效应模型得出效应的汇总估计值和95%置信区间(CI)。采用GRADE(推荐分级、评估、制定与评价)方法评估每个汇总结局的总体证据质量。
本综述新增两项研究,使纳入研究总数达到12项。一项干预措施包括计算机化决策支持;在各种环境中提供了11种复杂、多方面的药物干预方法。干预措施由医疗保健专业人员(如开处方者和药剂师)实施。使用经过验证的工具测量处方的合理性,包括干预后的MAI评分(八项研究)、Beers标准(四项研究)、STOPP标准(两项研究)和START标准(一项研究)。本综述纳入的干预措施导致不适当用药减少。根据GRADE方法,所有汇总结局的总体证据质量从极低到低不等。与对照组相比,干预组在基线和随访之间MAI评分的降低幅度更大(四项研究;平均差值-6.78,95%CI-12.34至-1.22)。干预后汇总数据显示,与对照组相比,干预组的MAI总分更低(五项研究;平均差值-3.88,95%CI-5.40至-2.35),且每位参与者使用的Beers药物更少(两项研究;平均差值-0.1,95%CI-0.28至0.09)。关于干预措施对住院率(五项研究)和与用药相关问题(六项研究)影响的证据相互矛盾。
尚不清楚改善合理多重用药的干预措施(如药学服务)是否带来了具有临床意义的改善;然而,这些措施在减少不适当处方方面似乎是有益的。