Institutes
Refine
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (4)
Keywords
- Adverse drug reaction (1)
- Amitriptyline (1)
- Anticholinergic (1)
- Elderly (1)
- GIIb/IIIa-receptor (1)
- HIV protease inhibitors (1)
- Meta-analysis (1)
- Multimedication (1)
- Multimorbidity (1)
- Multiple-indication review (1)
Institute
Evidence-based clinical guidelines generally consider single conditions, and rarely multimorbidity. We developed an evidence-based guideline for a structured care program to manage polypharmacy in multimorbidity by using a realist synthesis to update the German polypharmacy guideline including the following five methods: formal prioritization in focus groups; systematic guideline review of evidence-based multimorbidity/polypharmacy guidelines; evidence search/synthesis and recommendation development; multidisciplinary consent of recommendations; feasibility test of updated guideline. We identified the need for a better description of the target group, decision support, prioritization of medication, consideration of patient preferences and anticholinergic properties, and of healthcare interfaces. We conducted a systematic guideline review of eight guidelines and extracted and synthesized recommendations using the Ariadne principles. We also included 48 systematic reviews. We formulated and agreed upon 34 recommendations for the revised guideline. During the feasibility test, guideline use enabled 57% of GPs to identify problems, leading to medication changes in 49% and self-assessed improvement in 56% of patients. Although 58% of GPs felt that it was too long, 92% recommended it. Polypharmacy should be systematically reviewed at least annually. Patients, family members, and healthcare professionals should monitor and adjust it using prospective process validation, taking into account patient preferences and agreed treatment goals.
Background: In the past, protease inhibitors (PIs) and the reverse transcriptase inhibitor abacavir were identified increasing the risk for thromboembolic complications and cardiovascular events (CVE) of HIV infected patients taking a combination antiretroviral therapy (cART). Results of the previous HIV-PLA I-study lead to the assumption that platelet activation could play a substantial role in increasing CVE risks.
Methods: The open label, monocentric HIV-PLA II-study investigated HIV-1-infected, therapy-naïve adults (n=45) starting with cART, consisting either of boosted PI (atazanavir, n= 6, darunavir, n=11), NNRTI (efavirenz, n=14) or integrase inhibitor (raltegravir, n=14), each plus tenofovir/emtricitabine co-medication. Main exclusion criteria were tobacco smoking, the intake of NSAIDs or abacavir or past CVE. Platelet adhesive molecule p-selectin (CD62P) and FITC anti-human Integrin α-IIb/Integrin β-3 (CD41/CD61) antibody (PAC-1) binding, monocyte CD11b/monocyte-associated CD41 expression and the endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) were assessed ex vivo-in vitro at baseline, weeks 4, 12 and 24. Therapy regimens were blinded to the investigators for laboratory and statistical analyses.
Results: CD11b and ETP showed no significant changes or differences between all study groups. In contrast, the mean + SD mean fluorescence units (MFI) of CD62P and PAC-1 increased significantly in patients taking PI, indicating an enhanced potential for thrombocyte activation and aggregation.
Conclusion: CD62P expression, detecting the ɑ-platelet degranulation of pro-inflammatory and pro-thrombotic factors and adhesive proteins, and PAC-1 expression, representing a marker for conformation changes of the GIIb/IIIa receptor, increased significantly in patients taking HIV protease inhibitors. The findings of this study revealed a yet unknown pathway of platelet activation, possibly contributing to the increased risk for CVE under HIV protease inhibitor containing cART.
Clinical Trial Registration No.: DRKS00000288.
Introduction: Clinically complex patients often require multiple medications. Polypharmacy is associated with inappropriate prescriptions, which may lead to negative outcomes. Few effective tools are available to help physicians optimise patient medication. This study assesses whether an electronic medication management support system (eMMa) reduces hospitalisation and mortality and improves prescription quality/safety in patients with polypharmacy. Methods and analysis: Planned design: pragmatic, parallel cluster-randomised controlled trial; general practices as randomisation unit; patients as analysis unit. As practice recruitment was poor, we included additional data to our primary endpoint analysis for practices and quarters from October 2017 to March 2021. Since randomisation was performed in waves, final study design corresponds to a stepped-wedge design with open cohort and step-length of one quarter. Scope: general practices, Westphalia-Lippe (Germany), caring for BARMER health fund-covered patients. Population: patients (≥18 years) with polypharmacy (≥5 prescriptions). Sample size: initially, 32 patients from each of 539 practices were required for each study arm (17 200 patients/arm), but only 688 practices were randomised after 2 years of recruitment. Design change ensures that 80% power is nonetheless achieved. Intervention: complex intervention eMMa. Follow-up: at least five quarters/cluster (practice). recruitment: practices recruited/randomised at different times; after follow-up, control group practices may access eMMa. Outcomes: primary endpoint is all-cause mortality and hospitalisation; secondary endpoints are number of potentially inappropriate medications, cause-specific hospitalisation preceded by high-risk prescribing and medication underuse. Statistical analysis: primary and secondary outcomes are measured quarterly at patient level. A generalised linear mixed-effect model and repeated patient measurements are used to consider patient clusters within practices. Time and intervention group are considered fixed factors; variation between practices and patients is fitted as random effects. Intention-to-treat principle is used to analyse primary and key secondary endpoints.
Background: Unwanted anticholinergic effects are both underestimated and frequently overlooked. Failure to identify adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can lead to prescribing cascades and the unnecessary use of over-thecounter products. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore and quantify the frequency and severity of ADRs associated with amitriptyline vs. placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with any indication, as well as healthy individuals. Methods: A systematic search in six electronic databases, forward/backward searches, manual searches, and searches for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval studies, will be performed. Placebo-controlled RCTs evaluating amitriptyline in any dosage, regardless of indication and without restrictions on the time and language of publication, will be included, as will healthy individuals. Studies of topical amitriptyline, combination therapies, or including <100 participants, will be excluded. Two investigators will screen the studies independently, assess methodological quality, and extract data on design, population, intervention, and outcomes ((non-)anticholinergic ADRs, e.g., symptoms, test results, and adverse drug events (ADEs) such as falls). The primary outcome will be the frequency of anticholinergic ADRs as a binary outcome (absolute number of patients with/without anticholinergic ADRs) in amitriptyline vs. placebo groups. Anticholinergic ADRs will be defined by an experienced clinical pharmacologist, based on literature and data from Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference. Secondary outcomes will be frequency and severity of (non-)anticholinergic ADRs and ADEs. The information will be synthesized in meta-analyses and narratives. We intend to assess heterogeneity using metaregression (for indication, outcome, and time points) and I2 statistics. Binary outcomes will be expressed as odds ratios, and continuous outcomes as standardized mean differences. Effect measures will be provided using 95% confidence intervals. We plan sensitivity analyses to assess methodological quality, outcome reporting etc., and subgroup analyses on age, dosage, and duration of treatment. Discussion: We will quantify the frequency of anticholinergic and other ADRs/ADEs in adults taking amitriptyline for any indication by comparing rates for amitriptyline vs. placebo, hence, preventing bias from disease symptoms and nocebo effects. As no standardized instrument exists to measure it, our overall estimate of anticholinergic ADRs may have limitations.