The PPQC work process has yielded sustainable results, such as significant cost savings, higher penetration of generics and reflection on patient safety, and the place of "new" drugs in therapy. The PPQCs may also constitute a solid basis for implementing more comprehensive collaborative programs, such as medication reviews, adherence-enhancing interventions, or disease management approaches.

No abstract

This cross-sectional study shows that the control of cardiovascular risk factors, quality of life and healthcare costs are statistically related to the presence of DRPs detected by a community pharmacist-based MR program.

Background Deprescribing polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) has been shown to be beneficial to nursing home (NH) residents' health. Medication reviews are the most widely studied deprescribing intervention; in a previous trial, we showed that another intervention, a deprescribing-focused interprofessional quality circle, can reduce the use of inappropriate medications at the NH level. However, this intervention cannot account for the variety of the residents’ clinical situations. Therefore, we trialled a subsequent intervention in NH that enacted the quality circle intervention in the previous year. Methods In 7 NHs, the most heavily medicated residents were recruited and randomised to receive usual care or the intervention. The intervention was a pharmacist-led, deprescribing-focused medication review, followed by the creation of an individualised treatment modification plan in collaboration with nurses and physicians. Intervention’s effects were assessed after four months on the number and dose of PIMs used, quality of life, and safety outcomes (mortality, hospitalisations, falls, and use of physical restraints). Data were analysed using Poisson multivariate regression models. Results Sixty-two NH residents participated, falling short of the expected 100 participants; 4 died before initial data collection. Participants used a very high number of drugs (median 15, inter-quartile range [12-19]) and PIMs (median 5, IQR [3-7]) at baseline. The intervention did not reduce the number of PIMs prescribed to the participants; however, it significantly decreased their dose (incidence rate ratio 0.763, CI95 [0.594; 0.979]), in particular for chronic drugs (IRR 0.716, CI95 [0.546; 0.938]). No adverse effects were seen on mortality, hospitalisations, falls, and restraints use, but, in the intervention group, three participants experienced adverse events that required the reintroduction of withdrawn treatments, and a decrease in quality of life is possible. Conclusions As it did not reach its recruitment target, this trial should be seen as exploratory. Results indicate that, following a NH-level deprescribing intervention, a resident-level intervention can further reduce some aspects of PIMs use. Great attention must be paid to residents’ well-being when further developing such deprescribing interventions, as a possible reduction in quality of life was found in the intervention group, and some participants suffered adverse events following deprescribing. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03688542, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03688542), registered on 31.08.2018.