Zhai Xiao-Bo, Gu Zhi-Chun, Liu Xiao-Yan
Department of Pharmacy, Shanghai East Hospital, Affiliated to Tongji University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Department of Pharmacy, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, People's Republic of China.
Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2016 Feb 18;12:241-50. doi: 10.2147/TCRM.S98300. eCollection 2016.
Pharmacist-led medication review services have been assessed in the meta-analyses in hospital. Of the 135 relevant articles located, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria; however, there was no statistically significant difference found between pharmacists' interventions and usual care for mortality (odds ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 0.65, 3.46, P=0.34). These analyses may not have found a statistically significant effect because they did not adequately control the wide variation in the delivery of care and patient selection parameters. Additionally, the investigators did not conduct research on the cases of death specifically and did not identify all possible drug-related problems (DRPs) that could cause or contribute to mortality and then convince physicians to correct. So there will be a condition to use a more precise approach to evaluate the effect of clinical pharmacist interventions on the mortality rates of hospitalized cardiac patients.
To evaluate the impact of the clinical pharmacist as a direct patient-care team member on the mortality of all patients admitted to the cardiology unit.
A comparative study was conducted in a cardiology unit of a university-affiliated hospital. The clinical pharmacists did not perform any intervention associated with improper use of medications during Phase I (preintervention) and consulted with the physicians to address the DRPs during Phase II (postintervention). The two phases were compared to evaluate the outcome, and propensity score (PS) matching was applied to enhance the comparability. The primary endpoint of the study was the composite of all-cause mortality during Phase I and Phase II.
Pharmacists were consulted by the physicians to correct any drug-related issues that they suspected may cause or contribute to a fatal outcome in the cardiology ward. A total of 1,541 interventions were suggested by the clinical pharmacist in the study group; 1,416 (92.0%) of them were accepted by the cardiology team, and violation of incompatibilities had the highest percentage of acceptance by the cardiology team. All-cause mortality was 1.5% during Phase I (preintervention) and was reduced to 0.9% during Phase II (postintervention), and the difference was statistically significant (P=0.0005). After PS matching, all-cause mortality changed from 1.7% during Phase I down to 1.0% during Phase II, and the difference was also statistically significant (P=0.0074).
DRPs that were suspected to cause or contribute to a possibly fatal outcome were determined by clinical pharmacist service in patients hospitalized in a cardiology ward. Correction of these DRPs by physicians after pharmacist's advice caused a significant decrease in mortality as analyzed by PS matching. The significant reduction in the mortality rate in this patient population observed in this study is "hypothesis generating" for future randomized studies.
在医院的荟萃分析中已对药剂师主导的药物审查服务进行了评估。在所检索到的135篇相关文章中,有21项研究符合纳入标准;然而,在药剂师干预与常规护理对死亡率的影响方面未发现统计学上的显著差异(优势比1.50,95%置信区间0.65,3.46,P = 0.34)。这些分析可能未发现统计学上的显著效果,因为它们没有充分控制护理提供和患者选择参数方面的广泛差异。此外,研究人员未专门针对死亡病例进行研究,也未识别出所有可能导致或促成死亡的药物相关问题(DRP),进而说服医生进行纠正。因此,需要采用更精确的方法来评估临床药剂师干预对住院心脏病患者死亡率的影响。
评估临床药剂师作为直接参与患者护理团队成员对心内科所有住院患者死亡率的影响。
在一所大学附属医院的心内科进行了一项对比研究。在第一阶段(干预前),临床药剂师未进行任何与不当用药相关的干预,在第二阶段(干预后),临床药剂师与医生协商以解决药物相关问题。对这两个阶段进行比较以评估结果,并应用倾向得分(PS)匹配来提高可比性。该研究的主要终点是第一阶段和第二阶段全因死亡率的综合情况。
医生就心内科病房中他们怀疑可能导致或促成致命结局的任何药物相关问题向药剂师咨询。研究组临床药剂师共提出1541项干预建议;其中1416项(92.0%)被心内科团队接受,其中违反配伍禁忌的建议被心内科团队接受的比例最高。第一阶段(干预前)全因死亡率为1.5%,第二阶段(干预后)降至0.9%,差异具有统计学意义(P = 0.0005)。经过PS匹配后,全因死亡率从第一阶段的1.7%降至第二阶段的1.0%,差异也具有统计学意义(P = 0.0074)。
临床药剂师服务确定了心内科住院患者中怀疑可能导致或促成潜在致命结局的药物相关问题。医生根据药剂师的建议纠正这些药物相关问题后,经PS匹配分析显示死亡率显著降低。本研究中观察到的该患者群体死亡率的显著降低为未来的随机研究“提供了假设”。