PIP prevalence in European community-dwelling older adults is high and depends partially on the data collection method used. Polypharmacy, poor functional status, and depression were identified as the most common risk factors for PIP.

AIMSFew well-designed randomized controlled trials have been conducted regarding the impact of community pharmacist interventions on pharmacotherapeutic monitoring of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We assessed the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical care programme for patients with COPD. METHODSThe pharmaceutical care for patients with COPD (PHARMACOP) trial is a single-blind 3 month randomized controlled trial, conducted in 170 community pharmacies in Belgium, enrolling patients prescribed daily COPD medication, aged ≥50 years and with a smoking history of ≥10 pack-years. A computer-generated randomization sequence allocated patients to an intervention group (n = 371), receiving protocol-defined pharmacist care, or a control group (n = 363), receiving usual pharmacist care (1:1 ratio, stratified by centre). Interventions focusing on inhalation technique and adherence to maintenance therapy were carried out at start of the trial and at 1 month follow-up. Primary outcomes were inhalation technique and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes were exacerbation rate, dyspnoea, COPD-specific and generic health status and smoking behaviour. RESULTSFrom December 2010 to April 2011, 734 patients were enrolled. Forty-two patients (5.7%) were lost to follow-up. At the end of the trial, inhalation score [mean estimated difference (Δ),13.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 10.8-16.1; P < 0.0001] and medication adherence (Δ, 8.51%; 95% CI,; P < 0.0001) were significantly higher in the intervention group compared with the control group. In the intervention group, a significantly lower hospitalization rate was observed (9 vs. 35; rate ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.64; P = 0.003). No other significant between-group differences were observed. CONCLUSIONSPragmatic pharmacist care programmes improve the pharmacotherapeutic regimen in patients with COPD and could reduce hospitalization rates.

BackgroundThe PHARMACOP-intervention significantly improved medication adherence and inhalation technique for patients with COPD compared with usual care. This study aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness.MethodsAn economic analysis was performed from the Belgian healthcare payer’s perspective. A Markov model was constructed in which a representative group of patients with COPD (mean age of 70 years, 66% male, 43% current smokers and mean Forced Expiratory Volume in 1 second of % predicted of 50), was followed for either receiving the 3-month PHARMACOP-intervention or usual care. Three types of costs were calculated: intervention costs, medication costs and exacerbation costs. Outcome measures included the number of hospital-treated exacerbations, cost per prevented hospital-treated exacerbation and cost per Quality Adjusted Life-Year. Follow-up was 1 year in the basecase analysis. Sensitivity and scenario analyses (including long-term follow-up) were performed to assess uncertainty.ResultsIn the basecase analysis, the average overall costs per patient for the PHARMACOP-intervention and usual care were €2,221 and €2,448, respectively within the 1-year time horizon. This reflects cost savings of €227 for the PHARMACOP-intervention. The PHARMACOP-intervention resulted in the prevention of 0.07 hospital-treated exacerbations per patient (0.177 for PHARMACOP versus 0.244 for usual care). Results showed robust cost-savings in various sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsOptimization of current pharmacotherapy (e.g. close monitoring of inhalation technique and medication adherence) has been shown to be cost-saving and should be considered before adding new therapies.

Self-reported adherence measured by MARS-5 is inaccurate in identifying nonadherence to inhalation medication in patients with COPD.

A novel explicit screening tool (GheOP³S) was developed to be used for PIP screening in the typical community pharmacy practice.

For the majority of Belgian hospitals, a pharmacist-led full medication review process is not standard care and, therefore, challenging to introduce. With this study, we aimed to evaluate the successes and barriers of the implementation of a pharmacist-led full medication review process in the geriatric ward at a local Belgian hospital. To this end, we carried out an interventional study, performing a full medication review on older patients (≥70 years) with polypharmacy (≥5 drugs) who had an unplanned admission to the geriatric ward. The process consisted of 3 steps: (1) medication reconciliation upon admission; (2) medication review using an explicit reviewing tool (STOPP/START criteria or GheOP3S tool), followed by a discussion between the pharmacist and the geriatrician; and (3) medication reconciliation upon discharge. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethical Commission of the Ghent University Hospital. Outcomes included objective data on the interventions (e.g., number of drug discrepancies; number of potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP)); as well as subjective experiences (e.g., satisfaction with service; opinion on inter-professional communication). There was a special focus on communication aspects within the introduction of this process. In total, 52 patients were included in the study, taking a median of 10 drugs (IQR 8–12). Upon admission, 122 drug discrepancies were detected. During medication review, 254 PIPs were detected and discussed, leading to an improvement in the appropriateness of medication use. The satisfaction of community pharmacists concerning additional communication and the satisfaction of the patients after counselling at discharge were positive. However, several barriers were encountered, such as the time-consuming process to gather necessary information from different sources, the non-continuity of the service due to the lack of trained personnel or the lack of safe, electronic platforms to share information. The communicative and non-communicative successes and hurdles encountered during this project need to be addressed in order to improve the full medication review process and to strengthen the role of the clinical pharmacist.

The utilization of serious games and simulations in health professional education has increased. The Pharmacy Game is one such concept that intersects gamification and simulation, in which pharmacy student teams competitively manage simulated pharmacies; a concept included in the pharmacy curricula of seven international universities. This study aimed to compare the implementation and conduct of the Pharmacy Game of participant universities and their students’ performance in the same educational task. Data were collected via a questionnaire completed by academic staff in April 2020, and the collation of results of the same patient case was conducted at each university (April 2020 to March 2021). The main results reflected differences in the game frequencies and the curricular approach (standalone or integrated course) and in the learning outcomes for the Pharmacy Game. Other differences were identified in the extent to which students of other professions were part of the game such as medical students or pharmacy assistants. Student case outcomes revealed similar strengths across the universities in patient communication and focus on safety, with variations identified as areas for improvement. Collation of the international utilization of the Pharmacy Game identified a broad spectrum of similar learning outcomes, inspiring a model of international core and aspirational learning outcomes. While the Pharmacy Game has been implemented with flexibility regarding the numbers of teams (4–10) and the duration of activity (12–36 days), all universities reported positive experiences and student outcomes, suggesting that the intervention represents a potential tool to deliver capstone learning experiences, promote interprofessional education, reinforce patient safety, and prepare pharmacy graduates for future practice.

ObjectivesThe availability of new vaccines against COVID-19 urges for guidance about vaccination during lactation. We aimed to review the literature to get an insight into the effects of COVID-19 vaccination on lactating women.DesignSystematic review.Data SourcesWe searched Ovid Embase Classic+Embase, PubMed and BioMed Central for articles published between December 1st 2020 and December 31st 2021.Review MethodsThe search strategy contained terms and combinations related to COVID-19 vaccination during lactation, including the MeSH terms “COVID-19”, “COVID-19 Vaccines”, “SARS-CoV-2”, “Lactation”, “Breast Feeding”, “Pregnancy” and “Postpartum period”. The database search was completed with a manual search of the reference lists of included articles. Data concerning country, study period, number of participants, type of applied vaccine, time points of sampling and outcome measures were collected from the selected manuscripts. The data are summarized and synthesized in a descriptive way.Results30 manuscripts were included in this review. Data on safety of COVID-19 vaccination during lactation indicate no severe vaccine-related local and systemic reactions, both after first and second dose, neither in the mother nor the nursing child. No significant amount of vaccine components seems to appear in breast milk. Milk supply data after vaccination are inconclusive as there are no quantitative data available. Some women however observe a temporary increase or reduction in milk supply, without long-term effects. All prospective cohort studies demonstrated the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in breast milk of nursing mothers vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Nearly all studies were conducted with mRNA vaccines.ConclusionThere is evidence that the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine is safe and poses no additional risk to the breastfeeding woman or the breastfed baby. After vaccination of the mother during the lactation period, antibodies appear in the milk, which could protect the infant against COVID-19. Professional associations and government health authorities should therefore recommend offering COVID-19 vaccines to breastfeeding women, as the potential benefits of maternal vaccination while breastfeeding outweigh the risks.