Muth Christiane, Uhlmann Lorenz, Haefeli Walter E, Rochon Justine, van den Akker Marjan, Perera Rafael, Güthlin Corina, Beyer Martin, Oswald Frank, Valderas Jose Maria, Knottnerus J André, Gerlach Ferdinand M, Harder Sebastian
Institute of General Practice, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University, Frankfurt, Germany.
Institute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
BMJ Open. 2018 Feb 24;8(2):e017740. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017740.
Investigate the effectiveness of a complex intervention aimed at improving the appropriateness of medication in older patients with multimorbidity in general practice.
Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with general practice as unit of randomisation.
72 general practices in Hesse, Germany.
505 randomly sampled, cognitively intact patients (≥60 years, ≥3 chronic conditions under pharmacological treatment, ≥5 long-term drug prescriptions with systemic effects); 465 patients and 71 practices completed the study.
Intervention group (IG): The healthcare assistant conducted a checklist-based interview with patients on medication-related problems and reconciled their medications. Assisted by a computerised decision support system, the general practitioner optimised medication, discussed it with patients and adjusted it accordingly. The control group (CG) continued with usual care.
The primary outcome was a modified Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI, excluding item 10 on cost-effectiveness), assessed in blinded medication reviews and calculated as the difference between baseline and after 6 months; secondary outcomes after 6 and 9 months' follow-up: quality of life, functioning, medication adherence, and so on.
At baseline, a high proportion of patients had appropriate to mildly inappropriate prescriptions (MAI 0-5 points: n=350 patients). Randomisation revealed balanced groups (IG: 36 practices/252 patients; CG: 36/253). Intervention had no significant effect on primary outcome: mean MAI sum scores decreased by 0.3 points in IG and 0.8 points in CG, resulting in a non-significant adjusted mean difference of 0.7 (95% CI -0.2 to 1.6) points in favour of CG. Secondary outcomes showed non-significant changes (quality of life slightly improved in IG but continued to decline in CG) or remained stable (functioning, medication adherence).
The intervention had no significant effects. Many patients already received appropriate prescriptions and enjoyed good quality of life and functional status. We can therefore conclude that in our study, there was not enough scope for improvement.
ISRCTN99526053. NCT01171339; Results.
调查一项旨在提高全科医疗中患有多种疾病的老年患者用药合理性的综合干预措施的有效性。
以全科医疗为随机分组单位的实用型整群随机对照试验。
德国黑森州的72家全科诊所。
505名随机抽样的认知功能完好的患者(年龄≥60岁,正在接受药物治疗的慢性病≥3种,具有全身作用的长期药物处方≥5种);465名患者和71家诊所完成了研究。
干预组(IG):医疗保健助理就与用药相关的问题对患者进行基于清单的访谈,并核对其用药情况。在计算机化决策支持系统的协助下,全科医生优化用药,与患者讨论并据此进行调整。对照组(CG)继续接受常规护理。
主要结局是改良的用药合理性指数(MAI,不包括成本效益方面的第10项),通过盲法药物审查进行评估,并计算为基线与6个月后之间的差值;6个月和9个月随访后的次要结局包括:生活质量、功能、用药依从性等。
在基线时,很大一部分患者的处方用药合理至轻度不合理(MAI为0至5分:n = 350例患者)。随机分组显示两组均衡(干预组:36家诊所/252例患者;对照组:36家诊所/253例患者)。干预对主要结局无显著影响:干预组的MAI总分平均下降0.3分,对照组下降0.8分,调整后的平均差值为0.7(95%CI -0.2至1.6)分,有利于对照组,但差异无统计学意义。次要结局显示无显著变化(干预组生活质量略有改善,但对照组继续下降)或保持稳定(功能、用药依从性)。
该干预措施无显著效果。许多患者已经接受了合理的处方,生活质量和功能状态良好。因此,我们可以得出结论,在我们的研究中没有足够的改进空间。
ISRCTN99526053。NCT01171339;结果 。