Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development.

ObjectiveTo evaluate if a pharmacist-led medication review is effective at reducing the anticholinergic/sedative load, as measured by the Drug Burden Index (DBI).DesignRandomised controlled single blind trial.Setting15 community pharmacies in the Northern Netherlands.Participants157 community-dwelling patients aged ≥65 years who used ≥5 medicines for ≥3 months, including at least one psycholeptic/psychoanaleptic medication and who had a DBI≥1.InterventionA medication review by the community pharmacist in collaboration with the patient’s general practitioner and patient.Primary and secondary outcomes measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of patients whose DBI decreased by at least 0.5. Secondary outcomes were the presence of anticholinergic/sedative side effects, falls, cognitive function, activities of daily living, quality of life, hospital admission and mortality. Data were collected at baseline and 3 months follow-up.ResultsMean participant age was 75.7 (SD, 6.9) years in the intervention arm and 76.6 (SD, 6.7) years in the control arm, the majority were female (respectively 69.3% and 72.0%). Logistic regression analysis showed no difference in the proportion of patients with a≥0.5 decrease in DBI between intervention arm (17.3%) and control arm (15.9%), (OR 1.04, CI 0.47 to 2.64, p=0.927). Intervention patients scored higher on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, measure of cognitive function (OR 2.02, CI 1.11 to 3.67, p=0.021) and reported fewer sedative side effects (OR 0.61, CI 0.40 to 0.94, p=0.024) at follow-up. No significant difference was found for other secondary outcomes.ConclusionsPharmacist-led medication review as currently performed in the Netherlands was not effective in reducing the anticholinergic/sedative load, measured with the DBI, within the time frame of 3 months. Preventive strategies, signalling a rising load and taking action before chronic use of anticholinergic/sedative medication is established may be more successful.Trial registration numberNCT02317666.

PurposeThe Drug Burden Index (DBI) is a non-invasive method to quantify patients’ anticholinergic and sedative drug burden from their prescriptions. This systematic review aimed to summarise the evidence on the associations between the DBI and clinical outcomes and methodological quality of studies.MethodsA search in PubMed and Embase (search terms: ‘drug’, ‘burden’, and ‘index’) was performed and experts were contacted. We excluded publications that did not report empirical results or clinical outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Potential omissions of relevant clinical outcomes and populations were studied.ResultsOf the 2998 identified publications, 21 were eligible. Overall, methodological quality of studies was good. In all but one study, adjustment was made for prevalent co-morbidity. The DBI was examined in diverse older individuals, i.e. both males and females from different settings and countries. However, no studies were conducted in other relevant patient groups, e.g. psychiatric patients. Exposure to anticholinergic and sedative drugs was thoroughly ascertained, though the specific calculation of the DBI differed across studies. Outcomes were assessed from medical records, record linkage or validated objective tests or questionnaires. Many studies found associations between the DBI and outcomes including hospitalisation, physical and cognitive function. Cognitive function and quality of life were understudied and the number and scope of longitudinal studies was limited.ConclusionsAn accumulating body of evidence supports the validity of the DBI. Longitudinal studies of cognitive function and quality of life and in other patient groups, e.g. psychiatric patients, are warranted.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00228-016-2162-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Take-down policy If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

Background: At the end of life goals of care change from disease prevention to symptomatic control, however, little is known about the patterns of medication prescribing at this stage.Objectives: To explore changes in prescribing of symptomatic and preventive medication in the last year of life in older nursing home residents.Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using pharmacy medication supply data of 553 residents from 16 nursing home facilities around Sydney, Australia. Residents received 24-h nursing care, were aged ≥ 65 years, died between June 2008 and June 2010 and were using at least one medication 1 year before death. Medications were classified as symptomatic, preventive, or other. A linear mixed model was used to compare changes in prescribing in the last year of life.Results: 68.1% of residents were female, mean age was 88.0 (SD: 7.5) years and residents used a mean of 9.1 (SD: 4.1) medications 1 year before death. The mean number of symptomatic medications per resident increased from 4.6 medications 1 year before death to 5.1 medications at death [95% CI 4.4–4.7 to 5.9–5.2, P = 0.000], while preventive medication decreased from 2.0 to 1.4 medications [95% CI 1.9–2.1 to 1.3–1.5, P = 0.000]. Symptomatic medications were used longer in the last year of life, compared to preventive medications (336.3 days [95% CI 331.8–340.8] versus 310.9 days [95% CI 305.2–316.7], P = 0.000).Conclusion: Use of medications for symptom relief increased throughout the last year of life, while medications for prevention of long-term complications decreased. But changes were slight and clinical relevance can be questioned.

IntroductionOlder people often use medications with anticholinergic or sedative side effects which increase the risk of falling and worsen cognitive impairment. The Drug Burden Index (DBI) is a measure of the burden of anticholinergic and sedative medications. Medication reviews are typically done by a pharmacist in collaboration with a general practitioner to optimise the medication use and reduce these adverse drug events. We will evaluate whether a Multidisciplinary Multistep Medication Review (3MR) is an effective intervention to reduce a patient's DBI.MethodsA randomised controlled trial including 160 patients from 15 community pharmacies will be conducted. Per pharmacy, 1 pharmacist will perform a structured 3MR in close collaboration with the general practitioner, including the objective to reduce the DBI.AnalysisPrimary outcome—the difference in proportion of patients having a decrease in DBI≥0.5 in the intervention and control groups at follow-up. Secondary outcomes—anticholinergic and sedative side effects, falls, cognitive function, activities of daily living, quality of life, hospital admission, and mortality.Ethics and disseminationThe burden of patients will be kept at a minimum. The 3MR can be considered as usual care by the pharmacist and general practitioner. Medical specialists will be consulted, if necessary. The intervention is specifically aimed at older community-dwelling patients in an attempt to optimise prescribing, in particular, to reduce medication with anticholinergic and sedative properties. Study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and will be distributed through information channels targeting professionals.Trial registration numberNCT02317666; Pre-results.

Purpose To identify the proportion of older adults with a high anticholinergic/sedative load and to identify patient subgroups based on type of central nervous system (CNS)‐active medication used. Methods A cross‐sectional study of a nationwide sample of patients with anticholinergic/sedative medications dispensed by 1779 community pharmacies in the Netherlands (90% of all community pharmacies) in November 2016 was conducted. Patients aged older than 65 years with a high anticholinergic/sedative load defined as having a drug burden index (DBI) greater than 1 were included. Proportion of patients with a high anticholinergic/sedative load was calculated by dividing the number of individuals in our study population by the 2.4 million older patients using medications dispensed from study pharmacies. Patient subgroups based on type of CNS‐active medications used were identified with latent class analysis. Results Overall, 8.7% (209 472 individuals) of older adults using medications had a DBI greater than 1. Latent class analysis identified four patient subgroups (classes) based on the following types of CNS‐active medications used: “combined psycholeptic/psychoanaleptic medication” (class 1, 57.9%), “analgesics” (class 2, 17.9%), “antiepileptic medication” (class 3, 17.8%), and “anti‐Parkinson medication” (class 4, 6.3%). Conclusions A large proportion of older adults in the Netherlands had a high anticholinergic/sedative load. Four distinct subgroups using specific CNS‐active medication were identified. Interventions aiming at reducing the overall anticholinergic/sedative load should be tailored to these subgroups.

Background: Anticholinergic/sedative medications are frequently used by older people, despite their negative impacts on cognitive and physical function. We explore the feasibility, acceptability and potential effectiveness of an innovative information technology (IT)-based intervention to prevent an increase in anticholinergic/sedative load in older people. Methods: This was a prospective study in 51 Dutch community pharmacies. Pharmacists used an IT-based tool to identify patients aged ⩾65 years, with existing high anticholinergic/sedative loads (drug burden index ⩾2) and a newly initiated anticholinergic/sedative medication. We determined the following. Feasibility: number of eligible patients identified. Acceptability: pharmacists’ satisfaction with the intervention, pharmacists’ time investment and patients’ willingness to reduce medication use. Potential effectiveness: number of recommendations, rate of agreement of general practitioners (GPs) with proposed recommendations and factors associated with agreement. To evaluate the latter, pharmacists conducted medication reviews and proposed recommendations to GPs for 5–10 patients selected by the IT-based tool. Results: We included 305 patients from 47 pharmacies. Feasibility: a mean of 17.0 (standard deviation, 8.8) patients were identified per pharmacy. Acceptability: 43 pharmacists (91.5%) were satisfied with the intervention. The median time investment per patient was 33 min (range 6.5–210). Of 35 patients, 30 (85.7%) were willing to reduce medication use. Potential effectiveness: pharmacists proposed 351 recommendations for 212 patients (69.5%). GPs agreed with recommendations for 108 patients (35.4%). Agreement to stop a medication was reached in 19.8% of recommendations for newly initiated medications (37 of 187) and for 15.2% of recommendations for existing medications (25 of 164). Agreement was more likely for recommendations on codeine [odds ratio (OR) 3.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.14–9.57] or medications initiated by a specialist (OR 2.85; 95% CI 1.19–6.84) and less likely for pharmacies with lower level of collaboration with GPs (OR 0.15; 95% CI 0.02–0.97). Conclusion: This innovative IT-based intervention was feasible, acceptable and potentially effective. In one-third of patients an increase in anticholinergic/sedative load was prevented within reasonable time investment.