Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Forensic and Neurodevelopmental Sciences, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
JAMA Netw Open. 2018 Oct 5;1(6):e183750. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.3750.
Medication review has been proposed to achieve improved use of psychotropic drugs, but benefits have not been confirmed.
To synthesize evidence for focused psychotropic medication review in medication optimization.
Medline, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus were searched from inception to February 2018 using the index terms "drug utilization review" and "psychotropic drugs" and synonyms. Additional articles were retrieved using citation tracking and reference checking.
Full-length, peer-reviewed articles that reported focused psychotropic medication review were included. Inclusion was determined against prespecified criteria and assessed independently.
Study quality was assessed using National Institutes for Health appraisal tools and informed a structured synthesis of results. Meta-analysis using a random effects model was conducted.
Change in the number or dosage of psychotropic medications, change in clinical parameters, change in patient-reported outcomes, and economic data were collected.
A total of 26 studies met the inclusion criteria. Four studies were randomized clinical trials (n = 712 participants), while the remainder were before-after studies (n = 7844 participants). Most studies were conducted in elderly individuals, people with dementia, and adults with intellectual disability. Focused psychotropic medication review is a complex intervention; the professional(s) involved, target drug, degree of integration with usual care, and participant involvement varied greatly among the studies. Meta-analysis included 3 studies (n = 652 participants). Psychotropic medication review was associated with a reduction in prescribing of psychotropic drugs compared with control (pooled odds ratio, 0.24; 95% CI, 0.14-0.39) in elderly participants with cognitive impairment living in nursing homes. Before-after studies consistently reported a change in psychotropic drug prescribing after medication review, regardless of the population. Studies that reported the effects of psychotropic medication review on clinical outcomes failed to demonstrate benefit. Economic implications of focused psychotropic medication review were not adequately assessed. The quality of evidence is poor and studies are at risk of bias.
Focused psychotropic medication review was associated with a reduction in prescribing of psychotropic drugs, but has not been shown to improve clinical outcomes or to provide economic benefit. More robust evidence is needed before programs of focused psychotropic medication review can be recommended as part of routine care for any patient group.
药物审查已被提议用于改善精神药物的使用,但益处尚未得到证实。
综合证据以支持药物优化中的重点精神药物审查。
从建库至 2018 年 2 月,使用“药物使用审查”和“精神药物”索引词以及同义词,在 Medline、PsycINFO、EMBASE 和 CINAHL Plus 中进行了检索。使用引文跟踪和参考文献检查检索了其他文章。
纳入了全文同行评审文章,报告了重点精神药物审查。根据预设标准确定纳入,并进行独立评估。
使用美国国立卫生研究院评估工具评估研究质量,并对结果进行结构化综合。使用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。
精神药物数量或剂量的变化、临床参数的变化、患者报告结果的变化和经济数据被收集。
共有 26 项研究符合纳入标准。其中 4 项为随机临床试验(n = 712 名参与者),其余为前后对照研究(n = 7844 名参与者)。大多数研究在老年人、痴呆症患者和成年智障人士中进行。重点精神药物审查是一项复杂的干预措施;研究之间涉及的专业人员、目标药物、与常规护理的整合程度以及参与者的参与度差异很大。荟萃分析纳入了 3 项研究(n = 652 名参与者)。与对照组相比,重点精神药物审查与认知障碍的老年疗养院居民的精神药物处方减少有关(汇总优势比,0.24;95%CI,0.14-0.39)。前后对照研究均报告药物审查后精神药物处方发生变化,无论人群如何。报告精神药物审查对临床结果影响的研究未能证明获益。重点精神药物审查的经济影响未得到充分评估。证据质量差,研究存在偏倚风险。
重点精神药物审查与精神药物处方减少相关,但并未显示能改善临床结果或提供经济效益。在将重点精神药物审查方案推荐为任何患者群体常规护理的一部分之前,需要更有力的证据。