Pharmacy Service, University Hospital Virgen del Rocio, Seville, Spain.
Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Seville, Seville, Spain.
Eur J Public Health. 2020 Oct 1;30(5):886-899. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/ckz224.
Nowadays, it is difficult to establish a specific method of intervention by the pharmacist and its clinical repercussions. Our aim was to identify interventions by pharmacists integrated within an interdisciplinary team for chronic complex patients (CCPs) and determine which of them produce the best results.
A systematic review (SR) was performed based on PICO(d) question (2008-18): (Population): CCPs; (Intervention): carried out by health system pharmacists in collaboration with an interdisciplinary team; (Comparator): any; (Outcome): clinical and health resources usage outcomes; (Design): meta-analysis, SR and randomized clinical trials.
Nine articles were included: one SR and eight randomized clinical trials. The interventions consisted mainly in putting in order the pharmacotherapy and the review of the medication adequacy, medication reconciliation in transition of care and educational intervention for health professionals. Only one showed significant improvements in mortality (27.9% vs. 38.5%; HR = 1.49; P = 0.026), two in health-related quality of life [according to EQ-5D (European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions) and EQ-VAS (European Quality of Life-Visual Analog Scale) tests] and four in other health-related results (subjective self-assessment scales, falls or episodes of delirium and negative health outcomes associated with medication). Significant differences between groups were found in hospital stay and frequency of visits to the emergency department. No better results were observed in hospitalization rate. Otherwise, one study measured cost utility and found a cost of €45 987 per quality-adjusted life year gained due to the intervention.
It was not possible to determine with certainty which interventions produce the best results in CCPs. The clinical heterogeneity of the studies and the short follow-up of most studies probably contributed to this uncertainty.
如今,药师的干预方法及其临床影响难以确定。我们的目的是确定药师在跨学科团队中为慢性复杂患者(CCP)提供的干预措施,并确定哪些措施效果最好。
基于 PICO(d)问题(2008-18 年)进行系统评价(SR):(人群):CCP;(干预):由卫生系统药师与跨学科团队合作实施;(比较):任何;(结果):临床和卫生资源使用结果;(设计):荟萃分析、SR 和随机临床试验。
纳入 9 篇文章:1 篇 SR 和 8 篇随机临床试验。干预措施主要包括药物治疗的整理、药物适宜性的评估、医疗过渡期的药物重整以及卫生专业人员的教育干预。只有一项研究显示死亡率有显著改善(27.9%比 38.5%;HR=1.49;P=0.026),两项研究显示健康相关生活质量改善[根据 EQ-5D(欧洲五维健康量表)和 EQ-VAS(欧洲五维健康量表视觉模拟量表)测试],四项研究在其他健康相关结果方面有改善(主观自我评估量表、跌倒或谵妄发作以及与药物相关的不良健康结局)。组间在住院时间和急诊就诊频率方面存在显著差异。住院率无显著改善。此外,一项研究测量了成本效用,发现由于干预措施,每获得一个质量调整生命年的成本为 45987 欧元。
无法确定哪些干预措施对 CCP 最有效。研究的临床异质性以及大多数研究的随访时间短可能是导致这种不确定性的原因。