METHODS: We prospectively studied older patients (n = 301) admitted to three urban, public-funded hospitals. We scrutinized their medical records and used STOPP-START (Screening Tool to Alert Prescribers to Right Treatment) criteria to determine PIM and potential prescribing omissions (PPO) respectively- together these constitute IP. Prescriptions with PIM(s) were subjected to a pharmacist medication review, aimed at detecting cases of ADE(s). The vetted cases were further assessed by an expert consensus panel to ascertain: i) causality between the ADE and hospitalization, using, the World Health Organization Uppsala Monitoring Centre criteria, and, ii) whether the ADEs were avoidable (using Hallas criteria). Finally, percentages of PIM-associated ADEs that were both preventable and linked to hospitalization were calculated.
RESULTS: IP prevalence was 58.5% (n = 176). A majority (49.5%, n = 150) had moderate to severe degree of comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Index score ≥ 3). Median age was 72 years. Median number of medications was 6 and 30.9% (n = 93) had ≥8 medications. PIM prevalence was 34.9% (117 PIMs, n = 105) and PPO 37.9% (191 PPOs, n = 114). Most PIMs and PPOs involved overuse of aspirin and underuse of both antiplatelets and statins respectively. With every increase in the number of medications prescribed, the likelihood of PIM occurrence increased by 20%, i.e.1.2 fold (OR 1.20, 95% CI: 1.1-1.3). Among the 105 patients with PIMs, 33 ADEs (n = 33); 31 ADEs (n = 31) considered "causal" or "contributory" to hospitalization; 27 ADEs (n = 27) deemed "avoidable" or "potentially avoidable"; and 25 PIM-associated ADEs, preventable, and that induced hospitalization (n = 25), were identified: these equated to prevalence of 31.4%, 29.5%, 25.7%, and 23.8% respectively. The most common ADEs were masked hypoglycemia and gastrointestinal bleed. With every additional PIM prescribed, the odds for ADE occurrence increased by 12 folds (OR 11.8, 95% CI 5.20-25.3).
CONCLUSION: The majority of the older patients who were admitted to secondary care for acute illnesses were potentially exposed to IP. Approximately a quarter of the patients were prescribed with PIMs, which were plausibly linked with preventable ADEs that directly caused or contributed to hospitalization.
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the extent of treatment interruption caused by efavirenz-associated ADEs.
METHODS: A case-control study of efavirenz recipients who did, versus did not (control) develop adverse drug events (ADE), and who were matched for baseline CD4 + at a ratio of 1:1.3 was conducted. Antiretroviral -naïve patients who were started on efavirenz were followed up retrospectively, and their records scrutinized every month for 2 years. Demographic and clinical predictors of treatment interruption were computed using Cox proportional hazard models. Kaplan- Meier curves were plotted to assess time to treatment interruption for the two groups. Clinical endpoints were: i) efficacy -improved CD4 + counts and/or viral load (VL) suppression, ii) safety -absence of treatment-limiting toxicities, and iii) durability - no interruption until follow-up ended.
RESULTS: Both groups had comparable CD4 + counts at baseline (p = 0.15). At t = 24-months, VL in both groups were suppressed to undetectable levels (<20 copies/mL) while median CD4 + was 353 cells/µL (IQR: 249-460). The mean time on treatment was 23 months (95% CI, 22.3 -23.4) in the control group without ADE and 20 months (95% CI, 18.9 - 21.6) in the ADE group (p = 0.001). Kaplan-Meier plots demonstrated that 59.5% of patients who experienced ≥ 1 ADE versus 81% of those who did not experience any ADE were estimated to continue treatment for up to 24 months with no interruption (p = 0.001). Most interruptions to EFV treatment occurred in the presence of opportunistic infections and these were detected within the first 5 months of treatment initiation. Independent predictors which negatively impacted the dependent variable i.e., treatment durability, were intravenous drug use (adjusted hazard ratio, aHR 2.17, 95% CI, 1.03-4.61, p = 0.043), presence of ≥ 1 opportunistic infection(s) (aHR 2.2, 95% CI, 1.13-4.21, p = 0.021), and presence of ≥ 1 serious ADE(s) (aHR 4.18, 95% CI, 1.98-8.85, p = 0.00).
CONCLUSION: Efavirenz' role as the preferred first-line regimen for South-East Asia's resource-limited regions will need to be carefully tailored to suit the regional population. Findings have implications to policy-makers and clinicians, particularly for the treatment of patients who develop ADEs and opportunistic infections, and for intravenous drug user subgroups.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of pharmacist interventions on public vaccination rate.
METHODS: SCOPUS, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched from inception to April 2023 to retrieve non- and randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs). Studies were excluded if no comparator group to pharmacist involvement was reported. Data extraction, risk of bias assessments, and meta-analyses using random-effect models, were performed.
RESULTS: Four RCTs and 15 non-RCTs, encompassing influenza, pneumococcal, herpes zoster, and tetanus-diphtheria and pertussis vaccine types, and administered in diverse settings including community pharmacies, were included. Pooled effect sizes revealed that, as compared to usual care, pharmacists, regardless of their intervention, improved the overall immunisation uptake by up to 51% [RR 1.51 (1.28, 1.77)] while immunisation frequency doubled when pharmacists acted specifically as advocators [RR 2.09 (1.42, 3.07)].
CONCLUSION: While the evidence for pharmacist immunisers was mixed, their contribution to immunisation programmes boosted public vaccination rate. Pharmacists demonstrated leadership and acquired indispensable advocator roles in the community and hospital settings. Future research could explore the depth of engagement and hence the extent of influence on immunisation uptake.