Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Carlotta Lunghi
 -- 2961 2022-09-22 13:05:51 |
2 format
Jason Zhu
 -1 word(s) 2960 2022-09-23 03:49:28 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Lunghi, C.;  Trevisan, C.;  Fusaroli, M.;  Giunchi, V.;  Raschi, E.;  Sangiorgi, E.;  Domenicali, M.;  Volpato, S.;  Ponti, F.D.;  Poluzzi, E. Strategies for the Appropriateness of Medication Use. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/27482 (accessed on 17 May 2024).
Lunghi C,  Trevisan C,  Fusaroli M,  Giunchi V,  Raschi E,  Sangiorgi E, et al. Strategies for the Appropriateness of Medication Use. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/27482. Accessed May 17, 2024.
Lunghi, Carlotta, Caterina Trevisan, Michele Fusaroli, Valentina Giunchi, Emanuel Raschi, Elisa Sangiorgi, Marco Domenicali, Stefano Volpato, Fabrizio De Ponti, Elisabetta Poluzzi. "Strategies for the Appropriateness of Medication Use" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/27482 (accessed May 17, 2024).
Lunghi, C.,  Trevisan, C.,  Fusaroli, M.,  Giunchi, V.,  Raschi, E.,  Sangiorgi, E.,  Domenicali, M.,  Volpato, S.,  Ponti, F.D., & Poluzzi, E. (2022, September 22). Strategies for the Appropriateness of Medication Use. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/27482
Lunghi, Carlotta, et al. "Strategies for the Appropriateness of Medication Use." Encyclopedia. Web. 22 September, 2022.
Strategies for the Appropriateness of Medication Use
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/ph15080977

The evidence on the effectiveness of strategies and tools to promote and improve medication appropriateness and their sustainability largely derives from local and heterogeneous experiences with contrasting results. As a general framework, three main steps should be considered in implementing measures to improve the appropriateness of medications: prescription, acceptance by the patient, and continuous monitoring of adherence and the risk-benefit profile. Each step needs efforts from specific actors (physicians, patients, caregivers, healthcare professionals) and dedicated supporting tools. Moreover, how to support the appropriateness also strictly depends on the particular care setting (hospital, ambulatory or primary care, nursing home, long-term care) and available economic resources. 

older adults appropriateness medication adherence medication review medication use polypharmacy

1. Introduction

With the ageing of the population, an increasing proportion of individuals are affected by more than one chronic condition, namely multimorbidity [1]. The treatment of different comorbidities often leads to the use of several medications. Thus, it is not unusual that an increasing proportion of older individuals is exposed to multiple medications, known as polypharmacy. Despite the lack of consensus on polypharmacy definition, researchers more often use this term to indicate the use of five (or ten) medications [2]. A global prevalence of polypharmacy of 32.1% was estimated in Europe when a definition of 5 or more medications was used [3]. Nevertheless, the prevalence of polypharmacy varies not only according to its definition or the type of assessment used but also the country, the setting and patients’ age group. Current self-reported prevalence rates in older adults aged 70 years and above from seven European centres ranged from 16.4% (in Geneva) to 60.8% (in Coimbra) [4]. Another study reported prevalence estimates from 26.3% to 39.9%, depending on the country [3]. Different estimates are also reported for Italy: 49% of Italian patients older than 65 received polypharmacy (at least 5 concomitant medications) and 11.3% excessive polypharmacy (at least 10 medications) [5], with a higher prevalence in Southern Italy [6][7].
The aging population and the availability of new medications for chronic conditions can explain the rise in polypharmacy in many developed countries. On the other hand, it is not negligible the impact of the pharmaceutical industry and pharmaceutical sales representatives on the prescribing patterns of physicians. A recent systematic review found that the interaction with the pharmaceutical industry (through its sales representatives) is likely to affect physicians’ prescribing behaviours and contribute to the irrational prescribing of different medications [8]. In this context, the concept of pharmaceuticalization has been introduced to emphasize the importance of pharmaceuticals and the pharmaceutical industry in modern life [9]. Pharmaceuticalization can also explain the rising pharmaceutical choices of purchasing and using medications bypassing physicians, through over-the-counter drugs, herbal medicines, supplements or even internet-purchased medications without prescriptions (i.e., opioids or drugs for erectile dysfunction) [10].

2. Prescriber’S Tools

2.1. Lists and Indexes

An appropriate prescription refers to the proper medication treatment for the patient’s needs at the correct dose and the required duration. Many well-validated tools for evaluating the appropriateness of medications for older adults exist. A recent systematic review identified all the published tools to guide clinicians in optimizing drug treatment in older adults [11]. The most known are those based on lists of medications that should not be used (or that should be initiated) in older individuals, such as the Beers [12] or the Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment (START)/Screening Tool of Older Persons’ Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria [13]. These widely used criteria are based on expert consensus processes (i.e., Delphi) and are revised periodically based on new evidence. Many other consensus-based lists of medications have been developed. The majority are based on consensus-based lists of medications to be avoided in older adults (and, sometimes, necessary drugs) [14][15][16][17][18][19]. The medication appropriateness index (MAI) [20] is based on a list of structured questions (i.e., on the presence of an approved and/or evidence-based indication, an effective dosage, and the lack of duplication), without addressing specific drugs. It is often used during the medication review process. The Fit fOR The Aged (FORTA) list [21] has classified all the medications used to treat chronic diseases in older adults into four classes according to the evidence on the efficacy and safety, and the appropriateness for the age group.
Although many of these lists repose on similar evidence to build classes of medications to avoid in older adults, differences exist, and the prevalence of PIMs may vary widely depending on the tool used. A recent study comparing the European Union Eu(7)-PIM list and Beers and STOPP criteria showed poor concordance among these tools in identifying inpatients exposed to PIMs [22]. Moreover, the applicability in different settings and countries of these tools has been studied only for a few tools, such as Beers and START/STOPP criteria. Many other country-specific criteria have been proposed in recent years to improve applicability to the specific healthcare system, especially because of the absence of specific medications in the country-specific market. Examples in Europe are the REview of potentially inappropriate MEDIcation pr[e]scribing in Seniors (REMEDI[e]S) in France [23], the PRISCUS list in Germany [15], and the NORGEP-NH criteria in Norway [24]. The Eu(7)-PIM list has been developed through a consensus of experts from 7 different European countries (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden) with the aim of clinical applicability in Europe. Nevertheless, the applicability of these criteria to all European countries is still limited, especially for the Eastern and Central European Countries [25]. It is, therefore, necessary to define all the better strategies to improve the appropriateness of drug use in older adults according to the specific country but also to the specific care setting.

2.2. Medication Review in Team

Although physicians have the main role and responsibility in prescribing medicines, optimization of drug use in older adults needs support from other healthcare professionals, especially for chronic therapies. The medication review process can be split into different steps, and trained nurses and clinical pharmacists may be active in some of these, with well-defined roles. At the discharge from the hospital, as well as after second or primary care access, when patients have to be aware of why, when, how much and how long to use prescribed medicines, both can support physicians in verifying patient and caregiver awareness and therefore in promoting compliance. Again, both professionals can be enrolled in monitoring adherence and some endpoints of the risk-benefit profile during the therapy, even without the direct involvement of the physician, if appropriate local services are arranged.
Nevertheless, a crucial point is interprofessional collaboration. General practitioners (GPs) represent most older individuals’ principal contact with healthcare professionals, as they regularly monitor symptoms and oversee refilling prescriptions. However, specialists manage patients with chronic diseases and are often in charge of adding or stopping medicines for these conditions without consulting GPs. Many experiences of pharmacist-led service have been described in the literature, and its optimization represents a current challenge. Successful pharmacist interventions are regular consultation (for instance, at the time of prescription refill) for detecting possible drug-drug interactions and adverse drug reactions, strengthening education and the importance of adherence, as well as supporting the use of apps of reminders and, when feasible, providing the patient with personalized pillboxes (see below). Focusing on specific cohorts of patients (e.g., with diabetes or oncological diagnoses) seems to increase the impact on outcomes, especially for process endpoints, as the number of concomitant medications and adherence [26]. Nurse-led initiatives have been especially focused on specific cohorts of patients, for which specialized healthcare professionals are needed: medication self-management training programs for chronic psychiatric treatment and patient-navigator service for oral oncological therapies are currently promising topics [27][28]. The collaboration between GPs, specialists, pharmacists, and nurses enables the effective implementation of medication review in clinical practice. Nonetheless, the opportunity to work as a team for different healthcare professionals involved in the medication review process necessitates adjusting the current clinical practice for shared decision-making. Moreover, the economic sustainability and impact on clinical outcomes of each strategy are not yet strongly demonstrated [29].

2.3. Electronic Tools Supporting Appropriate Prescription

Current prescribing practice is frequently supported by electronic tools, which allow doctors to simultaneously include each prescription into the patient’s electronic health record and provide them with their receipt. This habit urges specific computerized prescription support systems to help medication review and therapeutic choice, especially for patients with comorbidity and polypharmacy. These systems belong to the larger area of digital health interventions (DHIs), which are technologies facilitating the accomplishment of the health needs of individuals and populations, and include e-Health (e.g., informative websites, educational videogames, telehealth webinars) [30][31], and m-Health (e.g., mobile microsensors, apps to study voice markers) [32].
The potential role of DHIs is broad and not yet fully explored. Many online resources are available for physicians, from authoritative websites, such as deprescribing.org, which provide recommendations, videos and list useful apps for specific therapeutic areas and users, to software with the relevant app for computer or smartphone. They may be used for single cases during the visit or integrated with the electronic chart databases and used to automatically receive a warning on potential inappropriate prescriptions or to process all single patient prescription lists periodically. Some examples of these specific websites are medstopper.com, drugs.com [folder: interaction checker], and intercheckweb.marionegri.it (in Italian). As for integrating DHIs in the electronic chart, a typical example is represented by platforms that document and track patients’ therapy and clinical conditions (e-medication history). Some of them put a red flag close to potential interactions and remember to prescribe the investigations for early detection of adverse reactions over the follow-up (e.g., lipidaemia in antipsychotics).

2.4. Web Resources on Adverse Reaction Prevention

Concerning side effects of medicines, digital tool development is strongly focused on their prevention and early detection. Drug-induced Torsades de Pointes (TdP) and Drug-Induced Liver Injury (DILI) are among the most frequent causes of drug attrition during drug development and drug withdrawal in the post-marketing setting [33][34]. These adverse drug reactions share several similarities; though erroneously considered idiosyncratic, they actually occur in a dose-dependent manner in subjects with several host- and patient-related risk factors [35][36]. For instance, atrial fibrillation and previous myocardial infarction, which are highly prevalent in older adults, represent typical risk-factor for developing TdP in case of multiple drug treatments with antiarrhythmics, antipsychotics and some specific antimicrobials. Dedicated websites (www.crediblemeds.org, accessed on 27 July 2022; for TdP) and bookshelves (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK547852/ accessed on 27 July 2022; for DILI) have been implemented to support researchers and prescribers in therapy optimization, namely risk assessment in the individual patient [37].
Notwithstanding these efforts, the understanding, prediction and prevention in clinical practice are still unsatisfactory, especially for DILI, where the mechanistic basis and the primum movens are still uncertain. In this scenario, the question arises as to whether digital tools can actually support appropriateness, especially in older adults, or, conversely, are disregarded by clinicians due to alert fatigue.
With regard to TdP, cardio-oncology is an emerging rapidly-evolving area where a proactive medication review should be targeted as a preventive strategy to counteract the so-called reduced repolarization reserve caused by multiple drugs possibly interacting through pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic mechanisms [38]. A recent systematic review analyzed the use of risk assessment tools (RATs), including risk scores, computerized physician order entry systems and clinical decision support systems, as a strategy to identify patients at risk of TdP for repetitive or continuous electrocardiogram monitoring, discontinuation of pro-arrhythmic drugs, or serum electrolyte concentration monitoring [39]. The various RATs have peculiarities, including the heterogeneous setting of use and validation (e.g., intensive care units, hospital wards with different specialties). They are still suboptimal in terms of predictive performance, thus making combined use of RATs a candidate approach to reduce unnecessary alerts. Future studies are warranted to verify the potential adaptation in the outpatient setting and assess the actual impact on these DHIs, especially on hard endpoints such as hospitalization.
Regarding DILI, there are no recognized predictive DHIs. The opportunity for a medication review and stringent monitoring of transaminases remains pivotal strategies to reduce the burden of (inappropriate) co-medications and perform a timely diagnosis on a case-by-case basis. In this context, considering DILI diagnosis requires careful exclusion of alternative (non-pharmacological) causes, Hayashi et al., recently updated, simplified and computerized the Roussel Uclaf Causality Assessment Method (RUCAM), a current standard diagnostic algorithm, and developed an electronic evidence-based version, called RECAM, which is a promising user-friendly practice-changing tool also for clinicians without consolidated experience in DILI diagnosis [40]. Although further validation and refinement of criteria are needed, RECAM is an additional step in the era of digital medicine. It can also be implemented by adding pharmacokinetic substantiation to support the underlying pharmacological basis.

3. Patient’s Tools

3.1. Digital Tools for the Patient

Medicine digitalization also represents an opportunity for the patients. Some DHIs may primarily target the patients or their caregivers, indeed. For example, they may remind the patient that a pill should be taken at a specific time or make more accessible information included in the package insert or the electronic healthcare record. Many new mobile applications focus on monitoring body parameters using microsensors (e.g., physical activity, blood pressure, vocal markers). They may facilitate communications between patients and physicians, for example, reporting suspect adverse reactions, adherence information, and vital signs parameters directly to the electronic healthcare record.
Nonetheless, the heterogeneity and diversity of the available DHIs make their choice difficult for unsupervised patients. In 2021, an extended search of the Apple and Google Play Stores for apps conceived to increase medication adherence found more than 2000 heterogeneous, mostly uncertified, mobile applications [41]. To drive the systematization of digital health, the WHO implemented the classification of digital health interventions (DHIs, version 1.0), distinguishing between different users and functions. However, this classification was targeted at app developers and not the patients, so the difficulties met when choosing a DHI remain.
A second problem concerns the accessibility to older adults: most the DHIs, especially those not specifically designed for older adults, are poorly accessible to them [42]. But digital interventions specifically thought for primary prevention in older adults have been developed, including tools to gather health data for goal planning, video consults and online webinars [31].
In the attempt to drive the development of more accessible and effective interventions, Matthew-Maich et al., performed a scoping review to collect lessons specific for designing, implementing, and evaluating mHealth support for older adults at home and their caregivers [43]. Currently, many DHIs are characterized by low scientific quality and patient appreciation, and Backes et al., concluded that none of the more than 2000 apps investigated should be recommended by health providers [41]. Following accruing lessons –focusing on motivation (goal-setting and rewards), remote help, support by other patients, feedback by healthcare providers, and accessibility (native language and printable material) [31], will plausibly result in higher adherence. In particular, when addressing older adults population, it is of the upmost importance to account for digital inequalities related to sociodemographic gaps, in informatics skills and resources, together with cognitive decline and visual impairment [44].
Another promising option concerns the possibility of developing apps that allow information sharing among different stakeholders, providing role-specific interfaces. The same app, for example, may automatically remind the patients to take their drug, alert the caregiver in case of omission, and show the adherence interpolated with biomarker data in the electronic healthcare record for the physician (e.g., showing the relationship of the blood pressure of the patients and their adherence to antihypertensive drugs). Further, future apps may be personalized based on the patient’s health conditions and the setting. For example, for non-compliant patients, it may be advisable to document to the caregiver the drug assumption by recording it on a video.
Finally, it is easier to develop effective interventions if specific populations are targeted, for example, patients with frailty (e.g., cognitive impairment, disability, chronic conditions) [32].

3.2. Dose-Dispensing Tools

As mentioned above, poor medication adherence is a common issue for older individuals. Even when the patient has accepted their treatment and the communication between healthcare professionals and the patient is good (see below), unintentional non-adherence may still occur. It occurs indeed when the patients forget to take their medications or they do not well understand the provider’s indications [45]. Sometimes, especially in older adults, unintentional non-adherence occurs because of physical, mental, or psychological barriers leading to the inability to manage their treatment [46]. A peculiar problem is the complexity of the therapeutic regimen, a common issue in patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy.
Dose-dispensing services are especially useful for older patients experiencing unintentional non-adherence [47]. The purpose of dosing aids is thus to assist patients in taking their medications and improve their adherence to medication [48]. These dose-dispensing tools (also known as dosettes or pillboxes) are storage devices for oral medications that also serve as a medication aide-mémoire to remind patients to take their medications at the right time [49][50]. The simplest ones have seven compartments for each day of the week, but they come in different sizes and shapes with subcompartments for different times of the day [48]. They can be filled by physicians, pharmacists, nurses or even by patients themselves or their caregivers [51]. In addition to making medication self-administration easier, these tools can improve unintentional adherence caused by forgetfulness and confusion [52][53][54]. These services are commonly implemented in hospitals and community pharmacies in many countries In an effort to better support patients, families, and caregivers, with new technologies, new dose-dispensing tools (smart pill dispensers) have been developed to help manage complex pharmacotherapies, such as pillboxes with visual and sound alarms that will alert the user to take the medication at the time it must be taken, or other sending email or notifications if a dose is skipped or taken at the wrong time [55]. Nevertheless, despite new technologies and tools being implemented in recent years, all dose-dispensing services should be subject to a medication review at the beginning and repeated regularly. Moreover, patient communication and coaching should accompany these tools or services with close cooperation among all actors involved in patient care (physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and caregivers) [56].

References

  1. Lenzi, J.; Avaldi, V.M.; Rucci, P.; Pieri, G.; Fantini, M.P. Burden of multimorbidity in relation to age, gender and immigrant status: A cross-sectional study based on administrative data. BMJ Open 2016, 6, e012812.
  2. Sirois, C.; Domingues, N.S.; Laroche, M.L.; Zongo, A.; Lunghi, C.; Guénette, L.; Kröger, E.; Émond, V. Polypharmacy Definitions for Multimorbid Older Adults Need Stronger Foundations to Guide Research, Clinical Practice and Public Health. Pharmacy 2019, 7, 126.
  3. Midão, L.; Giardini, A.; Menditto, E.; Kardas, P.; Costa, E. Polypharmacy prevalence among older adults based on the survey of health, ageing and retirement in Europe. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2018, 78, 213–220.
  4. Molino, C.d.G.R.C.; Chocano-Bedoya, P.O.; Sadlon, A.; Theiler, R.; Orav, J.E.; Vellas, B.; Rizzoli, R.; Kressig, R.W.; Kanis, J.A.; Guyonnet, S.; et al. Prevalence of polypharmacy in community-dwelling older adults from seven centres in five European countries: A cross-sectional study of DO-HEALTH. BMJ Open 2022, 12, e051881.
  5. Onder, G.; Bonassi, S.; Abbatecola, A.M.; Folino-Gallo, P.; Lapi, F.; Marchionni, N.; Pani, L.; Pecorelli, S.; Sancarlo, D.; Scuteri, A.; et al. High Prevalence of Poor Quality Drug Prescribing in Older Individuals: A Nationwide Report From the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA). J. Gerontol. Ser. Biomed. Sci. Med. Sci. 2014, 69, 430–437.
  6. Guerriero, F.; Orlando, V.; Tari, D.U.; Di Giorgio, A.; Cittadini, A.; Trifirò, G.; Menditto, E. How healthy is community-dwelling elderly population? Results from Southern Italy. Transl. Med. UniSa 2015, 13, 59–64.
  7. Valent, F. Polypharmacy in the general population of a Northern Italian area: Analysis of administrative data. Ann. Dellístituto Super. Sanitá 2019, 55, 233–239.
  8. Fickweiler, F.; Fickweiler, W.; Urbach, E. Interactions between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry generally and sales representatives specifically and their association with physicians’ attitudes and prescribing habits: A systematic review. BMJ Open 2017, 7, e016408.
  9. Bell, S.E.; Figert, A.E. Medicalization and pharmaceuticalization at the intersections: Looking backward, sideways and forward. Soc. Sci. Med. 2012, 75, 775–783.
  10. Abraham, J. Pharmaceuticalization of Society in Context: Theoretical, Empirical and Health Dimensions. Sociology 2010, 44, 603–622.
  11. Pazan, F.; Kather, J.; Wehling, M. A systematic review and novel classification of listing tools to improve medication in older people. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2019, 75, 619–625.
  12. American Geriatrics Society. American Geriatrics Society 2019 Updated AGS Beers Criteria® for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2019, 67, 674–694.
  13. O’Mahony, D.; O’Sullivan, D.; Byrne, S.; O’Connor, M.N.; Ryan, C.; Gallagher, P. STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: Version 2. Age Ageing 2014, 44, 213–218.
  14. Chang, C.M.; Chen, M.J.; Tsai, C.Y.; Ho, L.H.; Hsieh, H.L.; Chau, Y.L.; Liu, C.Y. Medical conditions and medications as risk factors of falls in the inpatient older people: A case–control study. Int. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2011, 26, 602–607.
  15. Holt, S.; Schmiedl, S.; Thürmann, P.A. Potentially Inappropriate Medications in the Elderly: The PRISCUS List. Dtsch. Arztebl. Int. 2010, 107, 543–551.
  16. Laroche, M.L.; Charmes, J.P.; Merle, L. Potentially inappropriate medications in the elderly: A French consensus panel list. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2007, 63, 725–731.
  17. Lavan, A.H.; Gallagher, P.; Parsons, C.; O’Mahony, D. STOPPFrail (Screening Tool of Older Persons Prescriptions in Frail adults with limited life expectancy): Consensus validation. Age Ageing 2017, 46, 600–607.
  18. Rancourt, C.; Moisan, J.; Baillargeon, L.; Verreault, R.; Laurin, D.; Grégoire, J.P. Potentially inappropriate prescriptions for older patients in long-term care. BMC Geriatr. 2004, 4, 9.
  19. Renom-Guiteras, A.; Meyer, G.; Thürmann, P.A. The EU(7)-PIM list: A list of potentially inappropriate medications for older people consented by experts from seven European countries. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2015, 71, 861–875.
  20. Maher, R.L.; Hanlon, J.; Hajjar, E.R. Clinical consequences of polypharmacy in elderly. Expert Opin. Drug Saf. 2014, 13, 57–65.
  21. Kuhn-Thiel, A.M.; Weiß, C.; Wehling, M.; FORTA Authors/Expert Panel Members. Consensus validation of the FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged) List: A clinical tool for increasing the appropriateness of pharmacotherapy in the elderly. Drugs Aging 2014, 31, 131–140.
  22. Perpétuo, C.; Plácido, A.I.; Rodrigues, D.; Aperta, J.; Piñeiro-Lamas, M.; Figueiras, A.; Herdeiro, M.T.; Roque, F. Prescription of Potentially Inappropriate Medication in Older Inpatients of an Internal Medicine Ward: Concordance and Overlap Among the EU(7)-PIM List and Beers and STOPP Criteria. Front. Pharmacol. 2021, 12, 676020.
  23. Roux, B.; Berthou-Contreras, J.; Beuscart, J.B.; Charenton-Blavignac, M.; Doucet, J.; Fournier, J.P.; de la Gastine, B.; Gautier, S.; Gonthier, R.; Gras, V.; et al. REview of potentially inappropriate MEDIcation prscribing in Seniors (REMEDIS): French implicit and explicit criteria. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2021, 77, 1713–1724.
  24. Nyborg, G.; Straand, J.; Klovning, A.; Brekke, M. The Norwegian General Practice–Nursing Home criteria (NORGEP-NH) for potentially inappropriate medication use: A web-based Delphi study. Scand. J. Prim. Health Care 2015, 33, 134–141.
  25. Fialová, D.; Brkić, J.; Laffon, B.; Reissigová, J.; Grešáková, S.; Dogan, S.; Doro, P.; Tasić, L.; Marinković, V.; Valdiglesias, V.; et al. Applicability of EU(7)-PIM criteria in cross-national studies in European countries. Ther. Adv. Drug Saf. 2019, 10, 2042098619854014.
  26. Alshehri, A.A.; Jalal, Z.; Cheema, E.; Haque, M.S.; Jenkins, D.; Yahyouche, A. Impact of the pharmacist-led intervention on the control of medical cardiovascular risk factors for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in general practice: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2020, 86, 29–38.
  27. Loots, E.; Goossens, E.; Vanwesemael, T.; Morrens, M.; Van Rompaey, B.; Dilles, T. Interventions to Improve Medication Adherence in Patients with Schizophrenia or Bipolar Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 10213.
  28. Tho, P.C.; Ang, E. The effectiveness of patient navigation programs for adult cancer patients undergoing treatment: A systematic review. JBI Evid. Synth. 2016, 14, 295–321.
  29. Laberge, M.; Sirois, C.; Lunghi, C.; Gaudreault, M.; Nakamura, Y.; Bolduc, C.; Laroche, M.L. Economic Evaluations of Interventions to Optimize Medication Use in Older Adults with Polypharmacy and Multimorbidity: A Systematic Review. Clin. Interv. Aging 2021, 16, 767–779.
  30. Eysenbach, G. What is e-health? J. Med. Internet Res. 2001, 3, e20.
  31. Kampmeijer, R.; Pavlova, M.; Tambor, M.; Golinowska, S.; Groot, W. The use of e-health and m-health tools in health promotion and primary prevention among older adults: A systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2016, 16, 290.
  32. Linn, N.; Goetzinger, C.; Regnaux, J.P.; Schmitz, S.; Dessenne, C.; Fagherazzi, G.; Aguayo, G.A. Digital Health Interventions among People Living with Frailty: A Scoping Review. J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2021, 22, 1802–1812.e21.
  33. Laverty, H.; Benson, C.; Cartwright, E.; Cross, M.; Garland, C.; Hammond, T.; Holloway, C.; McMahon, N.; Milligan, J.; Park, B.; et al. How can we improve our understanding of cardiovascular safety liabilities to develop safer medicines?: Cardiovascular toxicity of medicines. Br. J. Pharmacol. 2011, 163, 675–693.
  34. Onakpoya, I.J.; Heneghan, C.J.; Aronson, J.K. Post-marketing withdrawal of 462 medicinal products because of adverse drug reactions: A systematic review of the world literature. BMC Med. 2016, 14, 10.
  35. Andrade, R.J.; Aithal, G.P.; Björnsson, E.S.; Kaplowitz, N.; Kullak-Ublick, G.A.; Larrey, D.; Karlsen, T.H. EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Drug-induced liver injury. J. Hepatol. 2019, 70, 1222–1261.
  36. Schwartz, P.J.; Woosley, R.L. Predicting the Unpredictable. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2006, 67, 1639–1650.
  37. Poluzzi, E.; Raschi, E.; Diemberger, I.; De Ponti, F. Drug-Induced Arrhythmia: Bridging the Gap Between Pathophysiological Knowledge and Clinical Practice. Drug Saf. 2017, 40, 461–464.
  38. Gatti, M.; Raschi, E.; Poluzzi, E.; Martignani, C.; Salvagni, S.; Ardizzoni, A.; Diemberger, I. The Complex Management of Atrial Fibrillation and Cancer in the COVID-19 Era: Drug Interactions, Thromboembolic Risk, and Proarrhythmia. Curr. Heart Fail. Rep. 2020, 17, 365–383.
  39. Skullbacka, S.; Airaksinen, M.; Puustinen, J.; Toivo, T. Risk assessment tools for QT prolonging pharmacotherapy in older adults: A systematic review. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2022, 78, 765–779.
  40. Hayashi, P.H.; Lucena, M.I.; Fontana, R.J.; Bjornsson, E.S.; Aithal, G.P.; Barnhart, H.; Gonzalez-Jimenez, A.; Yang, Q.; Gu, J.; Andrade, R.J.; et al. A revised electronic version of RUCAM for the diagnosis of DILI. Hepatology 2022, 76, 18–31.
  41. Backes, C.; Moyano, C.; Rimaud, C.; Bienvenu, C.; Schneider, M.P. Digital Medication Adherence Support: Could Healthcare Providers Recommend Mobile Health Apps? Front. Med. Technol. 2021, 2, 616242.
  42. Sourbati, M.; Loos, E.F. Interfacing age: Diversity and (in)visibility in digital public service. J. Digit. Media Policy 2019, 10, 275–293.
  43. Matthew-Maich, N.; Harris, L.; Ploeg, J.; Markle-Reid, M.; Valaitis, R.; Ibrahim, S.; Gafni, A.; Isaacs, S. Designing, Implementing, and Evaluating Mobile Health Technologies for Managing Chronic Conditions in Older Adults: A Scoping Review. JMIR mHealth uHealth 2016, 4, e29.
  44. Gulliford, M.; Alageel, S. Digital health intervention at older ages. Lancet Digit. Health 2019, 1, e382–e383.
  45. Mukhtar, O.; Weinman, J.; Jackson, S.H.D. Intentional Non-Adherence to Medications by Older Adults. Drugs Aging 2014, 31, 149–157.
  46. Amorim, W.W.; Passos, L.C.; Gama, R.S.; Souza, R.M.; Oliveira, M.G. Factors associated with older patients’ misunderstandings of medication dosage regimen instructions after consultation in primary care in Brazil. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 2021, 27, 817–825.
  47. Mertens, B.J.; Kwint, H.F.; van Marum, R.J.; Bouvy, M.L. Are multidose drug dispensing systems initiated for the appropriate patients? Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2018, 74, 1159–1164.
  48. Hersberger, K.E.; Boeni, F.; Arnet, I. Dose-dispensing service as an intervention to improve adherence to polymedication. Expert Rev. Clin. Pharmacol. 2013, 6, 413–421.
  49. Levings, B.; Szep, S.; Helps, S. Towards the safer use of dosettes. J. Qual. Clin. Pract. 1999, 19, 69–72.
  50. Smith, D.L. Compliance Packaging: A Patient Education Tool. Am. Pharm. 1989, 29, 42–53.
  51. Schwartz, J.K. Pillbox use, satisfaction, and effectiveness among persons with chronic health conditions. Assist. Technol. 2017, 29, 181–187.
  52. Barton, E.; Twining, L.; Walters, L. Understanding the decision to commence a dose administration aid. Aust. Fam. Physician 2017, 46, 943–947.
  53. Straka, I.; Minar, M.; Grofik, M.; Skorvanek, M.; Bolekova, V.; Gazova, A.; Kyselovic, J.; Valkovic, P. Effect of Pillbox Organizers with Alarms on Adherence to Pharmacotherapy in Parkinson Disease Patients Taking Three and More Daily Doses of Dopaminergic Medications. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 179.
  54. Boeni, F.; Spinatsch, E.; Suter, K.; Hersberger, K.E.; Arnet, I. Effect of drug reminder packaging on medication adherence: A systematic review revealing research gaps. Syst. Rev. 2014, 3, 29.
  55. Stip, E.; Vincent, P.D.; Sablier, J.; Guevremont, C.; Zhornitsky, S.; Tranulis, C. A randomized controlled trial with a Canadian electronic pill dispenser used to measure and improve medication adherence in patients with schizophrenia. Front. Pharmacol. 2013, 4, 100.
  56. Zedler, B.K.; Kakad, P.; Colilla, S.; Murrelle, L.; Shah, N.R. Does Packaging with a Calendar Feature Improve Adherence to Self-Administered Medication for Long-Term Use? A Systematic Review. Clin. Ther. 2011, 33, 62–73.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Geriatrics & Gerontology; Pharmacology & Pharmacy; Health Care Sciences & Services
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Carlotta Lunghi
,
Caterina Trevisan
,
Michele Fusaroli
,
Valentina Giunchi
,
Emanuel Raschi
,
Elisa Sangiorgi
,
Marco Domenicali
,
Stefano Volpato
,
Fabrizio De Ponti
,
Elisabetta Poluzzi
View Times: 306
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 23 Sep 2022
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback