Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (12)
- Conference Proceeding (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (15)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (15)
Keywords
- polypharmacy (3)
- Oral anticoagulation (2)
- multimorbidity (2)
- Adverse drug reaction (1)
- Amitriptyline (1)
- Anticholinergic (1)
- Best-practice model (1)
- Case management (1)
- Center-specific time in therapeutic range (cTTR) (1)
- Elderly (1)
Institute
Background: Cumulative anticholinergic exposure, also known as anticholinergic burden, is associated with a variety of adverse outcomes. However, studies show that anticholinergic effects tend to be underestimated by prescribers, and anticholinergics are the most frequently prescribed potentially inappropriate medication in older patients. The grading systems and drugs included in existing scales to quantify anticholinergic burden differ considerably and do not adequately account for patients’ susceptibility to medications. Furthermore, their ability to link anticholinergic burden with adverse outcomes such as falls is unclear. This study aims to develop a prognostic model that predicts falls in older general practice patients, to assess the performance of several anticholinergic burden scales, and to quantify the added predictive value of anticholinergic symptoms in this context.
Methods: Data from two cluster-randomized controlled trials investigating medication optimization in older general practice patients in Germany will be used. One trial (RIME, n = 1,197) will be used for the model development and the other trial (PRIMUM, n = 502) will be used to externally validate the model. A priori, candidate predictors will be selected based on a literature search, predictor availability, and clinical reasoning. Candidate predictors will include socio-demographics (e.g. age, sex), morbidity (e.g. single conditions), medication (e.g. polypharmacy, anticholinergic burden as defined by scales), and well-being (e.g. quality of life, physical function). A prognostic model including sociodemographic and lifestyle-related factors, as well as variables on morbidity, medication, health status, and well-being, will be developed, whereby the prognostic value of extending the model to include additional patient-reported symptoms will be also assessed. Logistic regression will be used for the binary outcome, which will be defined as “no falls” vs. “≥1 fall” within six months of baseline, as reported in patient interviews. Discussion: As the ability of different anticholinergic burden scales to predict falls in older patients is unclear, this study may provide insights into their relative importance as well as into the overall contribution of anticholinergic symptoms and other patient characteristics. The results may support general practitioners in their clinical decision-making and in prescribing fewer medications with anticholinergic properties.
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.
Meeting Abstract : Gesellschaft für Arzneimittelanwendungsforschung und Arzneimittelepidemiologie e.V. (GAA). 17. Jahrestagung der Gesellschaft für Arzneimittelanwendungsforschung und Arzneimittelepidemiologie. Osnabrück, 25.-26.11.2010.
ntroduction: Several drugs require dose adjustment in patients with impaired renal function, which however, often goes undetected. Serum creatinine may be normal in patients while renal function is already reduced. The estimated GFR (eGFR) allows a more precise evaluation of the renal function. This study was carried out in a group practice for family medicine, in Frankfurt/ Main, Germany. The exploration aimed at investigating if patients with renal insufficiency were recognised and if their prescriptions were appropriate in terms of dose adjustment or contra-indications.
Methods: In patients (>65yrs) with renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance <60 ml/min), their prescribed medication was retrospectively explored (Observation period 1.1.2008 to 1.4.2009). The Cockroft-Gault formula was used as estimate for the eGFR, using a creatinine value from the patient’s charts. In 90 patients, a second eGFR could be estimated from a second creatinine value obtained within 3-6 months. The recommended dose of each prescription in the SmPC (Fachinformation“) was compared to the dose that had been actually prescribed.
Results: Out of 232 consecutively patients >65 yrs, 102 had an eGFR <60 ml/min, 16 of these had an eGFR <30 ml/min. The eGFR was closely correlated (r2=0.81) with an independent second eGFR. Out of these 102 patients, 48 had a serum creatinine level within the normal range. Renal adjustment was required in 263 of a total of 613 prescriptions. 72 prescriptions in a total of 45 patients were not appropriately adjusted (32) or prescribed despite a contraindication (40). For chronic prescriptions, metformin, ramipril, enalapril, HCTZ, and spironolactone accounted for 70% of inappropriate dosing; the magnitude of misdosing was 1.5 to 4 fold (median 2). 9 temporary prescriptions (of a total of 60 prescriptions) in 8 patients were not adjusted (cefuroxim, cefpodoxim, levofloxacin). We could not prove that patients with normal serum creatinine had a higher rate of inappropriate dosing than those with already elevated creatinine.
Discussion and conclusion: In this GP practice, we have demonstrated a considerable prevalence of inappropriate dosing in patients with impaired renal function. It remains to be elucidated whether surveillance of appropriate dosing in renal impairment can be optimized e.g. with CPOE.
Background: Targeted therapies have improved therapeutic options of treating renal cell carcinoma (RCC). However, drug response is temporary due to resistance development.
Methods: Functional and molecular changes in RCC Caki-1 cells, after acquired resistance to the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR)-inhibitor everolimus (Cakires), were investigated with and without additional application of the histone deacetylase (HDAC)-inhibitor valproic acid (VPA). Cell growth was evaluated by MTT assay, cell cycle progression and apoptosis by flow cytometry. Target molecules of everolimus and VPA, apoptotic and cell cycle regulating proteins were investigated by western blotting. siRNA blockade was performed to evaluate the functional relevance of the proteins.
Results: Everolimus resistance was accompanied by significant increases in the percentage of G2/M-phase cells and in the IC50. Akt and p70S6K, targets of everolimus, were activated in Cakires compared to drug sensitive cells. The most prominent change in Cakires cells was an increase in the cell cycle activating proteins cdk2 and cyclin A. Knock-down of cdk2 and cyclin A caused significant growth inhibition in the Cakires cells. The HDAC-inhibitor, VPA, counteracted everolimus resistance in Cakires, evidenced by a significant decrease in tumor growth and cdk2/cyclin A.
Conclusion: It is concluded that non-response to everolimus is characterized by increased cdk2/cyclin A, driving RCC cells into the G2/M-phase. VPA hinders everolimus non-response by diminishing cdk2/cyclin A. Therefore, treatment with HDAC-inhibitors might be an option for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma and acquired everolimus resistance.
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.
Objectives: Investigate the effectiveness of a complex intervention aimed at improving the appropriateness of medication in older patients with multimorbidity in general practice.
Design: Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with general practice as unit of randomisation.
Setting: 72 general practices in Hesse, Germany.
Participants: 505 randomly sampled, cognitively intact patients (≥60 years, ≥3 chronic conditions under pharmacological treatment, ≥5 long-term drug prescriptions with systemic effects); 465 patients and 71 practices completed the study.
Interventions: Intervention group (IG): The healthcare assistant conducted a checklist-based interview with patients on medication-related problems and reconciled their medications. Assisted by a computerised decision support system, the general practitioner optimised medication, discussed it with patients and adjusted it accordingly. The control group (CG) continued with usual care.
Outcome measures: The primary outcome was a modified Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI, excluding item 10 on cost-effectiveness), assessed in blinded medication reviews and calculated as the difference between baseline and after 6 months; secondary outcomes after 6 and 9 months’ follow-up: quality of life, functioning, medication adherence, and so on.
Results: At baseline, a high proportion of patients had appropriate to mildly inappropriate prescriptions (MAI 0–5 points: n=350 patients). Randomisation revealed balanced groups (IG: 36 practices/252 patients; CG: 36/253). Intervention had no significant effect on primary outcome: mean MAI sum scores decreased by 0.3 points in IG and 0.8 points in CG, resulting in a non-significant adjusted mean difference of 0.7 (95% CI −0.2 to 1.6) points in favour of CG. Secondary outcomes showed non-significant changes (quality of life slightly improved in IG but continued to decline in CG) or remained stable (functioning, medication adherence).
Conclusions: The intervention had no significant effects. Many patients already received appropriate prescriptions and enjoyed good quality of life and functional status. We can therefore conclude that in our study, there was not enough scope for improvement.
Trial registration number: ISRCTN99526053. NCT01171339; Results.
Introduction: ScFv(FRP5)-ETA is a recombinant antibody toxin with binding specificity for ErbB2 (HER2). It consists of an N-terminal single-chain antibody fragment (scFv), genetically linked to truncated Pseudomonas exotoxin A (ETA). Potent antitumoral activity of scFv(FRP5)-ETA against ErbB2-overexpressing tumor cells was previously demonstrated in vitro and in animal models. Here we report the first systemic application of scFv(FRP5)-ETA in human cancer patients.
Methods: We have performed a phase I dose-finding study, with the objective to assess the maximum tolerated dose and the dose-limiting toxicity of intravenously injected scFv(FRP5)-ETA. Eighteen patients suffering from ErbB2-expressing metastatic breast cancers, prostate cancers, head and neck cancer, non small cell lung cancer, or transitional cell carcinoma were treated. Dose levels of 2, 4, 10, 12.5, and 20 μg/kg scFv(FRP5)-ETA were administered as five daily infusions each for two consecutive weeks.
Results: No hematologic, renal, and/or cardiovascular toxicities were noted in any of the patients treated. However, transient elevation of liver enzymes was observed, and considered dose limiting, in one of six patients at the maximum tolerated dose of 12.5 μg/kg, and in two of three patients at 20 μg/kg. Fifteen minutes after injection, peak concentrations of more than 100 ng/ml scFv(FRP5)-ETA were obtained at a dose of 10 μg/kg, indicating that predicted therapeutic levels of the recombinant protein can be applied without inducing toxic side effects. Induction of antibodies against scFv(FRP5)-ETA was observed 8 days after initiation of therapy in 13 patients investigated, but only in five of these patients could neutralizing activity be detected. Two patients showed stable disease and in three patients clinical signs of activity in terms of signs and symptoms were observed (all treated at doses ≥ 10 μg/kg). Disease progression occurred in 11 of the patients.
Conclusion: Our results demonstrate that systemic therapy with scFv(FRP5)-ETA can be safely administered up to a maximum tolerated dose of 12.5 μg/kg in patients with ErbB2-expressing tumors, justifying further clinical development.
Meeting Abstract : 10. Deutscher Kongress für Versorgungsforschung, 18. GAA-Jahrestagung. Deutsches Netzwerk Versorgungsforschung e. V. ; Gesellschaft für Arzneimittelanwendungsforschung und Arzneimittelepidemiologie e. V. 20.-22.10.2011, Köln
Hintergrund: Multimedikation als Folge von Multimorbidität ist ein zentrales Problem der Hausarztpraxis und erhöht das Risiko für unangemessene Arzneimittel-Verordnungen (VO). Um die Medikation bei älteren, multimorbiden Patienten zu optimieren und zu priorisieren, wurde eine computergestützte, durch Medizinische Fachangestellte (MFA) assistierte, komplexe Intervention (checklistengestütztes Vorbereitungsgespräch sowie Überprüfung eingenommener Medikamente durch MFA, Einsatz des web-basierten ArzneimittelinformationsDienstes AiD, spezifisches Arzt-Patienten-Gespräch) entwickelt und in einer 12-monatigen Pilotstudie auf Machbarkeit getestet. Ein auf 9 Items reduzierter MAI [1] wurde eingesetzt, um dessen Eignung als potentielles primäres Outcome der Hauptstudie zu prüfen.
Material und Methoden: In die Pilotstudie in 20 Hausarztpraxen mit Cluster-Randomisation auf Praxisebene in Kontrollgruppe (Regelversorgung b. empfohlenem Standard) vs. Interventionsgruppe (komplexe Intervention b. empfohlenem Standard) wurden 5 Pat./Praxis eingeschlossen (≥65 Jahre, ≥3 chron. Erkrankungen, ≥5 Dauermedikamente, MMSE ≥26, Lebenserwartung ≥6 Monate). Zur Bewertung des MAI wurden an Baseline (T0), 6 Wo. (T1) & 3 Mon. (T2) nach Intervention erhoben: VO, Diagnosen, Natrium, Kalium & Kreatinin i.S., Größe, Gewicht, Geschlecht, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale (CIRS) [2] durch die Hausarztpraxis; Symptome für unerwünschte Arzneimittelwirkungen im Patienten-Telefoninterview.
Für den MAI wurde die Angemessenheit jeder VO in den 9 Kategorien Indikation, Effektivität, Dosierung, korrekter & praktikabler Applikationsweg, Arzneimittelwechselwirkung, Drug-disease-Interaktion, Doppelverordnung, Anwendungsdauer 3-stufig bewertet (1 = korrekt - 3 = unkorrekt) und für die Auswertung auf Patientenebene summiert. Die Bewertung erfolgte ohne Kenntnis der Gruppenzugehörigkeit. Deskriptive Statistiken und Reliabilitätsanalysen, ungewichtete Auswertung und Gewichtung n. Bregnhoj [3].
Ergebnisse: Es wurden N=100 Patienten in die Studie eingeschlossen, im Mittel 76 Jahre (Standardabweichung, SD 6; Range, R: 64-93) , 52% Frauen, durchschnittlich 9 VO/Pat. (SD 2; R 4-16), mittlerer CIRS-Score 10 (SD 4; R 0-23). Basierend auf N=851 VO (100 Pat.) zu T0 betrug der Reliabilitätskoeffizient (RK, Cronbachs Alpha) der ungewichteten 9 Items 0,70. Items 1-5 wiesen akzeptable Trennschärfen auf (0,52-0,64), die der Items 6, 7 & 9 fielen mit 0,21-0,29 niedriger aus, die des Item 8 betrug 0,06. Auf der Basis der 9 gewichteten Items fiel die interne Konsistenz des MAI erwartet höher aus (0,75). Die Reliabilitätsanalysen auf VO-Ebene zeigten einen RK von 0,67 (ungewichtet) vs. 0,75 (gewichtet), die Trennschärfen waren vergleichbar. Zur Zwischenauswertung betrug der MAI (T1-T0) in der Interventionsgruppe (5 Praxen, 24 Pat.) -0,9 (SD 5,6), in der Kontrollgruppe (7 Praxen, 35 Pat.) -0,5 (SD 4,9); die Differenz zwischen beiden Gruppen Mi–Mk -0,4 [95% Konfidenzintervall: -3,4;2,6].
Schlussfolgerung: Der MAI ist als potentielles primäres Outcome in der Hauptstudie geeignet: wenige fehlende Werte, Darstellung von Unterschieden prä-post und zwischen den Gruppen, akzeptable interne Konsistenz. Der niedrige Trennschärfekoeffizient des Items 8 weist darauf hin, dass dieses Item nicht mit dem Gesamt-Skalenwert korreliert, auch die Items 6, 7 und 9 korrelieren wesentlich schwächer mit dem Gesamt-Skalenwert als die Items 1 bis 5. Eine Wichtung z.B. der Items 2, 5, 6 und 9 könnte erwogen werden, um den Fokus der Intervention in der Hauptzielgröße angemessen abzubilden.
Background and Aim: In Germany, the discharge medication is usually reported to the general practitioner (GP) by an inital short report (SR) /notification (handed over to the patient) and later by a more detailed discharge letter (DL) of the hospital.
Material and Method: We asked N=536 GPs (from Frankfurt/Main and Luebeck) after the typical report format of their patients discharge medication by the local hospitals. The questionnaire asked for 26 items covering (1) the designation of the medication (brand name, generic name) in SR and DL, (2) further specifications e.g. possibilities of generic substitution or supervision of sensible medications, (3) reasons why GPs do not follow the hospitals recommendations and (4) possibilities for an improvement in the medication-related communication between GP and hospitals.
Results: 39% GPs responded sufficiently to the questionnaire. The majority of the GPs (82%) quoted that in the SR only brand names are given (often or ever) and neither the generic name or any further information on generic substitution is available (seldom or never). 65% of the responders quoted that even in the DL only brand names are given. Only 41% of the responders quoted that further treatment relevant specifications are given (often or ever). 95% responded that new medications or change of custom medication is seldom or never explained in the DL and GP were not explicitly informed about relevant medication changes. 58% of the responders quoted economic reasons for re-adjustment of the discharge medication e.g. by generic substitution. The majority of responders (83%) are favouring (useful or very useful) a pre-discharge information (e.g. via fax) about the medication and 54% a hot-line to some relevant person in the hospital when treatment problems emerge. 67% of the responders quoted in favour of regular meetings between GPs and hospital doctors regarding actual pharmacotherapy.
Conclusion: In conclusion, our survey pointed to marked deficiencies in reporting the discharge medication to GPs.
Conflict of interest: None
