Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Medical Faculty Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karls-University Heidelberg, Theodor-Kutzer-Ufer 1-3, 68167, Mannheim, Germany.
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2019 May;75(5):619-625. doi: 10.1007/s00228-019-02634-z. Epub 2019 Jan 26.
Suboptimal drugs therapy is a threat to older people, and listing tools providing guidance are developed to address this problem.
A systematic review was performed to identify and analyze such tools published until February 2018. A novel categorization was developed to separate patient-in-focus listing approaches (PILA) providing disease-related positive and negative guidance from drug-oriented, mostly negative listing approaches (DOLA, DOLA+: with disease specification).
In total, 76 tools were identified; only 9 were classified as PILA, 26 as DOLA, and 38 as DOLA+. Three DOLA(+) only address dementia. Most tools were developed in Europe or the USA and address community-dwellers. Thirty-two utilized a Delphi process, and only 10 provide a scoring system. Twenty tools utilize a questionnaire but no structured guidance or answers. Importantly, only 12 interventional clinical trials were identified reporting not only medication quality measures, but also clinical endpoints (e.g. falls, adverse drug reactions, hospitalization). For PILA, 4 trials showed positive, one negative clinical effects of a controlled intervention, for DOLA(+) 1 was positive, 7 negative (Fisher's exact test p < 0.05).
An abundance of listing tools has been created. DOLAs that may be applied without intricate patient knowledge prevail over PILAs by sevenfold; unfortunately their clinical validation seems to be far less successful than that of patient-initiated approaches.
Drug therapy in older people has to be tailored to their individual, very divergent needs; tools requiring detailed medical knowledge about the patient as the starting point for medication optimization provide the best support.
药物治疗不充分对老年人构成威胁,为此开发了提供指导的工具。
系统检索直至 2018 年 2 月发表的此类工具,开发了一种新的分类方法,将以患者为中心的列单方法(PILA),即提供与疾病相关的正向和负向指导,与以药物为导向的、主要为负向列单方法(DOLA、DOLA+:附有疾病说明)相分离。
共发现 76 种工具,其中 9 种被归类为 PILA,26 种为 DOLA,38 种为 DOLA+。只有 3 种 DOLA+专门针对痴呆。大多数工具在欧洲或美国开发,针对社区居住者。32 种工具使用了 Delphi 法,仅有 10 种提供评分系统。20 种工具使用了问卷,但没有提供结构化指导或答案。重要的是,仅发现 12 项干预性临床试验,不仅报告了药物质量措施,还报告了临床终点(如跌倒、药物不良反应、住院)。针对 PILA,4 项试验显示阳性结果,1 项阴性结果,针对 DOLA+,1 项阳性结果,7 项阴性结果(Fisher 确切检验,p<0.05)。
已经创建了大量的列单工具。无需患者掌握复杂的医学知识即可应用的 DOLA 比 PILA 多 7 倍;不幸的是,它们的临床验证似乎远不如患者启动的方法成功。
老年人的药物治疗必须针对其个体的、非常不同的需求进行调整;以患者为起点优化药物治疗所需的详细医学知识的工具提供了最佳支持。