Logan Vera, Hughes David, Turner Adam, Carter Neil, Jordan Sue
Department of Nursing, Faculty of Health and Social Studies, University of South Bohemia, Ceske Budejovice, Czechia.
Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences, Swansea University, Swansea, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2025 Feb 4;20(2):e0317660. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0317660. eCollection 2025.
Identification of real-time adverse drug reactions [ADRs] (as opposed to the risk of ADRs) in older poly-medicated people in primary care is a challenging task, often undertaken without an explicit strategy. This systematic review aims to evaluate replicable instruments and methods for identifying and addressing ADRs.
A systematic search was conducted in Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane library, using controlled vocabulary (MeSH) and free-text terms. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) implementing strategies to identify or resolve ADRs experienced by patients in primary care were included. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion.
From 2,182 unique records, 49 studies were identified for full review. Eight papers reporting results from 6 RCTs were included. All six trials utilised a list of medicine-related unwanted symptoms to identify ADRs. Two of three studies using adverse drug reaction questionnaires reported statistically significant increased rates of ADR reporting. Two of three studies that combined symptom questionnaires with prescriber consultations reported reductions in the number of health problems. Overall, results suggest that the three studies that described multidisciplinary collaborations using lists of ADRs plus prescriber reviews enhanced patient safety. However, the RCTs were unblinded and reported suboptimal retention. When considered as a whole, findings are equivocal and the data are too heterogenous to warrant any firm conclusions, beyond the need for more research to optimise strategies to safeguard patient wellbeing.
Adaptable and scalable instruments with decision support are needed in primary care to identify and mitigate medicine-related harm in older poly-medicated people. The effectiveness of adverse drug reaction identification instruments, the value of comprehensive instruments, and the optimum method of delivery should be explored in multicentre trials.
在基层医疗中,识别老年多病患者的实时药物不良反应(与药物不良反应风险相对)是一项具有挑战性的任务,通常在没有明确策略的情况下进行。本系统评价旨在评估用于识别和处理药物不良反应的可复制工具和方法。
在Medline、CINAHL、Scopus、Web of Science和Cochrane图书馆中进行系统检索,使用控制词汇(医学主题词)和自由文本词。纳入实施策略以识别或解决基层医疗患者所经历的药物不良反应的随机对照试验(RCT)。两名评审员独立筛选研究、提取数据,并使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。通过讨论解决分歧。
从2182条独特记录中,确定了49项研究进行全面审查。纳入了8篇报告6项RCT结果的论文。所有6项试验均使用与药物相关的不良症状清单来识别药物不良反应。使用药物不良反应问卷的三项研究中有两项报告称药物不良反应报告率有统计学意义的增加。将症状问卷与开处方者咨询相结合的三项研究中有两项报告称健康问题数量减少。总体而言,结果表明,三项描述使用药物不良反应清单加开处方者审查的多学科合作的研究提高了患者安全性。然而,这些RCT未设盲,且报告的保留率不理想。总体来看,研究结果不明确,数据过于异质,无法得出任何确凿结论,只能说明需要更多研究来优化保障患者健康的策略。
基层医疗需要具有决策支持的适应性强且可扩展的工具,以识别和减轻老年多病患者与药物相关的危害。应在多中心试验中探索药物不良反应识别工具的有效性、综合工具的价值以及最佳交付方法。