METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CENTRAL and clinicaltrials.gov were searched up to 7 February 2017. Two independent reviewers selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of treatments to alleviate agitation in people with all-types dementia. Data were extracted using standardized forms and study quality was assessed using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for RCTs. Data were pooled using meta-analysis. The primary outcome, efficacy, was 8-week response rates defined as a 50% reduction in baseline agitation score. The secondary outcome was treatment acceptability defined as treatment continuation for 8 weeks.
RESULTS: Thirty-six RCTs comprising 5585 participants (30.9% male; mean ± standard deviation age, 81.8 ± 4.9 years) were included. Dextromethorphan/quinidine [odds ratio (OR) 3.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.63-5.66], risperidone (OR 1.96; 95% CI, 1.49-2.59) and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors as a class (OR 1.61; 95% CI, 1.02-2.53) were found to be significantly more efficacious than placebo. Haloperidol appeared less efficacious than nearly all comparators. Most treatments had noninferior treatment continuation compared to placebo, except oxcarbazepine, which was inferior. Findings were supported by subgroup and sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: Risperidone, serotonin reuptake inhibitors as a class and dextromethorphan/quinidine demonstrated evidence of efficacy for agitation in dementia, although findings for dextromethorphan/quinidine were based on a single RCT. Our findings do not support prescribing haloperidol due to lack of efficacy, or oxcarbazepine due to lack of acceptability. The decision to prescribe should be based on comprehensive consideration of the benefits and risks, including those not evaluated in this meta-analysis.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial that aims to evaluate the impact of the PRIME programme on participants' clinical outcomes and explore participants' and pharmacists' views towards its implementation. This protocol describes the development of the PRIME programme and mobile app, its feasibility and implementation in community pharmacy settings. 16 pharmacies from two states in Malaysia will be randomised to the intervention arm or standard care. The study will include overweight or obese adults with pre-diabetes. During each follow-up visit at the pharmacy, intervention participants will receive in-depth counselling from pharmacists after reviewing their self-monitoring data recorded in the PRIME app. They will also receive pre-diabetes education through the app and join a peer support chatgroup. The primary clinical outcome includes changes in body weight at 6 months, while the secondary clinical outcomes include changes in blood glucose profile, lipid profile, blood pressure and adiposity measures. The sustainability of the PRIME programme will be accessed using a follow-up questionnaire, while participants' engagement with the intervention will be evaluated using attendance rate and the app data. Focus group discussions and one-to-one interviews will be conducted for process evaluation. This study will inform the impact of community pharmacists-led digital health intervention in pre-diabetes management.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04832984) and approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project ID: 27512).
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04832984).
OBJECTIVES: To compare medication regimen simplification opportunities identified by pharmacists, general medical practitioners (GPs), and geriatricians and to determine if pharmacists identified simplification opportunities during routinely conducted comprehensive medication reviews in RACFs for these same residents.
METHODS: Three pharmacists, three GPs and three geriatricians independently applied the Medication Regimen Simplification Guide for Residential Aged CarE (MRS GRACE) to medication data for 83 residents taking medications at least twice daily. Interrater agreement was calculated using Fleiss's kappa. Pharmacist medication review reports for the same 83 residents were then examined to identify if the pharmacists conducting these reviews had recommended any of the simplification strategies.
RESULTS: Overall, 77 residents (92.8 %) taking medications at least twice daily could have their medication regimen simplified by at least one health professional. Pharmacists independently simplified 53.0-77.1 % of medication regimens (Κ = 0.60, 95%CI 0.46-0.75, indicating substantial agreement), while GPs simplified 74.7-89.2 % (Κ = 0.44, 95%CI 0.24-0.64, moderate agreement) and geriatricians simplified 41.0-66.3 % (Κ = 0.30, 95%CI 0.16-0.44, fair agreement). No simplification recommendations were included in the reports previously prepared by pharmacists as part of the comprehensive medication reviews undertaken for these residents.
CONCLUSION: Pharmacists, GPs, and geriatricians can all identify medication regimen simplification opportunities, although these opportunities differ within and between professional groups. Although opportunities to simplify medication regimens during comprehensive medication reviews exist, simplification is not currently routinely recommended by pharmacists performing these reviews in Australian RACFs.