No abstract

Atrial fibrillation (AF) causes a third of all strokes, but often goes undetected before stroke. Identification of unknown AF in the community and subsequent anti-thrombotic treatment could reduce stroke burden. We investigated community screening for unknown AF using an iPhone electrocardiogram (iECG) in pharmacies, and determined the cost-effectiveness of this strategy.Pharmacists performedpulse palpation and iECG recordings, with cardiologist iECG over-reading. General practitioner review/12-lead ECG was facilitated for suspected new AF. An automated AF algorithm was retrospectively applied to collected iECGs. Cost-effectiveness analysis incorporated costs of iECG screening, and treatment/outcome data from a United Kingdom cohort of 5,555 patients with incidentally detected asymptomatic AF. A total of 1,000 pharmacy customers aged ≥65 years (mean 76 ± 7 years; 44% male) were screened. Newly identified AF was found in 1.5% (95% CI, 0.8-2.5%); mean age 79 ± 6 years; all had CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥2. AF prevalence was 6.7% (67/1,000). The automated iECG algorithm showed 98.5% (CI, 92-100%) sensitivity for AF detection and 91.4% (CI, 89-93%) specificity. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of extending iECG screening into the community, based on 55% warfarin prescription adherence, would be $AUD5,988 (€3,142; $USD4,066) per Quality Adjusted Life Year gained and $AUD30,481 (€15,993; $USD20,695) for preventing one stroke. Sensitivity analysis indicated cost-effectiveness improved with increased treatment adherence.Screening with iECG in pharmacies with an automated algorithm is both feasible and cost-effective. The high and largely preventable stroke/thromboembolism risk of those with newly identified AF highlights the likely benefits of community AF screening. Guideline recommendation of community iECG AF screening should be considered.

ObjectivesPharmacists play a role in providing medication reconciliation. However, data on effectiveness on patients’ clinical outcomes appear inconclusive. Thus, the aim of this study was to systematically investigate the effect of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes on clinical outcomes at hospital transitions.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, IPA, CINHAL and PsycINFO from inception to December 2014. Included studies were all published studies in English that compared the effectiveness of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation interventions to usual care, aimed at improving medication reconciliation programmes. Meta-analysis was carried out using a random effects model, and subgroup analysis was conducted to determine the sources of heterogeneity.Results17 studies involving 21 342 adult patients were included. Eight studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Most studies targeted multiple transitions and compared comprehensive medication reconciliation programmes including telephone follow-up/home visit, patient counselling or both, during the first 30 days of follow-up. The pooled relative risks showed a more substantial reduction of 67%, 28% and 19% in adverse drug event-related hospital revisits (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.53), emergency department (ED) visits (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.92) and hospital readmissions (RR 0.81; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.95) in the intervention group than in the usual care group, respectively. The pooled data on mortality (RR 1.05; 95% CI 0.95 to 1.16) and composite readmission and/or ED visit (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.90 to 1.00) did not differ among the groups. There was significant heterogeneity in the results related to readmissions and ED visits, however. Subgroup analyses based on study design and outcome timing did not show statistically significant results.ConclusionPharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes are effective at improving post-hospital healthcare utilisation. This review supports the implementation of pharmacist-led medication reconciliation programmes that include some component aimed at improving medication safety.

Objective To investigate the efficacy and safety of paracetamol (acetaminophen) in the management of spinal pain and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, Web of Science, LILACS, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to December 2014. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials comparing the efficacy and safety of paracetamol with placebo for spinal pain (neck or low back pain) and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Data extraction Two independent reviewers extracted data on pain, disability, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were adverse effects, patient adherence, and use of rescue medication. Pain and disability scores were converted to a scale of 0 (no pain or disability) to 100 (worst possible pain or disability). We calculated weighted mean differences or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals using a random effects model. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool was used for assessing risk of bias, and the GRADE approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence and summarise conclusions. Results 12 reports (13 randomised trials) were included. There was “high quality” evidence that paracetamol is ineffective for reducing pain intensity (weighted mean difference −0.5, 95% confidence interval −2.9 to 1.9) and disability (0.4, −1.7 to 2.5) or improving quality of life (0.4, −0.9 to 1.7) in the short term in people with low back pain. For hip or knee osteoarthritis there was “high quality” evidence that paracetamol provides a significant, although not clinically important, effect on pain (−3.7, −5.5 to −1.9) and disability (−2.9, −4.9 to −0.9) in the short term. The number of patients reporting any adverse event (risk ratio 1.0, 95% confidence interval 0.9 to 1.1), any serious adverse event (1.2, 0.7 to 2.1), or withdrawn from the study because of adverse events (1.2, 0.9 to 1.5) was similar in the paracetamol and placebo groups. Patient adherence to treatment (1.0, 0.9 to 1.1) and use of rescue medication (0.7, 0.4 to 1.3) was also similar between groups. “High quality” evidence showed that patients taking paracetamol are nearly four times more likely to have abnormal results on liver function tests (3.8, 1.9 to 7.4), but the clinical importance of this effect is uncertain. Conclusions Paracetamol is ineffective in the treatment of low back pain and provides minimal short term benefit for people with osteoarthritis. These results support the reconsideration of recommendations to use paracetamol for patients with low back pain and osteoarthritis of the hip or knee in clinical practice guidelines. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42013006367.

No abstract

No abstract

Evidence about the association between treatment with high-risk medicines and frailty in older individuals is limited. We investigated the relationship between high-risk prescribing and frailty at baseline, as well as 2-year incident frailty, in 1,662 men ≥70 years of age. High-risk prescribing was defined as polypharmacy (≥5 medicines), hyperpolypharmacy (≥10 medicines), and by the Drug Burden Index (DBI), a dose-normalized measure of anticholinergic and sedative medicines. At baseline, frail participants had adjusted odds ratios (ORs) of 2.55 (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.69-3.84) for polypharmacy, 5.80 (95% CI: 2.90-11.61) for hyperpolypharmacy, and 2.33 (95% CI: 1.58-3.45) for DBI exposure, as compared with robust participants. Of the 1,242 men who were robust at baseline, 6.2% developed frailty over two years. Adjusted ORs of incident frailty were 2.45 (95% CI: 1.42-4.23) for polypharmacy, 2.50 (95% CI: 0.76-8.26) for hyperpolypharmacy, and 2.14 (95% CI: 1.25-3.64) for DBI exposure. High-risk prescribing may contribute to frailty in community-dwelling older men.

Jansen and colleagues explore the role of shared decision making in tackling inappropriate polypharmacy in older adults Too much medicine is an increasingly recognised problem, 1 2 and one manifestation is inappropriate polypharmacy in older people. Polypharmacy is usually defined as taking more than five regular prescribed medicines.3 It can be appropriate (when potential benefits outweigh potential harms) 4 but increases the risk of older people experiencing adverse drug reactions, impaired physical and cognitive function, and hospital admission. [5][6][7] There is limited evidence to inform polypharmacy in older people, especially those with multimorbidity, cognitive impairment, or frailty.8 Systematic reviews of medication withdrawal trials (deprescribing) show that reducing specific classes of medicines may decrease adverse events and improve quality of life. [9][10][11] Two recent reviews of the literature on deprescribing stressed the importance of patient involvement and shared decision making.12 13 Patients and clinicians typically overestimate the benefits of treatments and underestimate their harms.14 When they engage in shared decision making they become better informed about potential outcomes and as a result patients tend to choose more conservative options (eg, fewer medicines), facilitating deprescribing. 15 However, shared decision making in this context is not easy, and there is little guidance on how to do it. 16 We draw together evidence from the psychology, communication, and decision making literature (see appendix on thebmj.com). For each step of the shared decision making process we describe the unique tasks required for deprescribing decisions; identify challenges for older adults, their companions, and clinicians (figure); give practical advice on how challenges may be overcome; highlight where more work is needed; and identify priorities for future research (table). 17 18 Process for deprescribing with older adultsStep 1: creating awareness that options existThe clinician and patient acknowledge that a decision can be made about continuation or discontinuation of medicines, and that this requires input from both clinician and patient. When to initiate discussions about deprescribingPrescribing new medicines is often straightforward, driven by a new diagnosis, symptom, or test result. When to consider ceasing medicines is less clear.12 Possible triggers include the number of medicines taken (perhaps ≥10); a new symptom that may be an adverse effect of a medicine; identifying high risk, ineffective, or unnecessary medicines; apparent non-adherence; or changed treatment priorities. 19 Most of these situations can be identified only by a medicines review. Reviews can be triggered by important life transitions (such as hospital admission, a new diagnosis, or seeing a new doctor) and can be initiated by the clinician or patient, but they are often Older people's attitudes towards medicineClinicians may be reluctant to initiate discussions about deprescribing with older people, believing tha...