InappMedsClinicalToolsSlideShare
-
Upload
hedavidson -
Category
Documents
-
view
44 -
download
0
Transcript of InappMedsClinicalToolsSlideShare
+
Clinical Practice Tools for
Identifying Potential
Medication-Related
Problems in the Elderly
ASCP 45th Annual Meeting and ExhibitionOrlando, FLNovember 5, 2014William Simonson, PharmD, CGP, FASCPIndependent Consultant PharmacistSenior Research Professor (Pharmacy Practice)Oregon State University
+Learning Objectives
After attending this educational presentation the participant
should be able to:
List the names of at least three tools to identify ADEs, MRPs, or PIMs
Identify the relative value of these tools in affecting patient outcomes
Describe how these tools can be incorporated into day-to-day
practice
+PIMs and ADEs
What Tools are Available?
Beers List
Medication Appropriateness Index
IPET
Zhan-AHRQ
Medication Regimen Appropriateness Index
STOPP/START
IMAP
NCQA-HEDIS
Beers Criteria
+Definitions and Terminology
MRP- Medication Related Problem: An event or situation involving drug
therapy that negatively interferes with a patient’s health
Polypharmacy – 5 or more medicines?, 6.1? 9 or more medicines?
“Administration of more medicines than are clinically indicated, representing
unnecessary use”
PIM – Potentially Inappropriate Medication
DIM – Definitely Inappropriate Medication
PIP – Potentially Inappropriate Prescription
PIPE – Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing in the Elderly
PPO – Potential Prescribing Omissions
DAE – Drug to be avoided in the elderly
DRP – Drug-Related Problem
ADWE – Adverse Drug Withdrawal Events
Suboptimal prescribing
+Potentially Inappropriate Medications
Emphasis on “Potentially”
PIM ≠ DIM
Consider the individual patient
Experts don’t always agree on “inappropriate”
Delphi technique v. evidence-based methods
Actual harm vs. predicted Harm – High “signal
to noise” ratio
No harm no foul?
PIM identification is only a starting point
+True or False?
The STOPP criteria have been proven to identify
medications that are definitely inappropriate for use by
seniors in nursing facilities.
+Consequences of MRPs and PIMs
Hospitalization
↑ length of stay
ADR
ADE
Inefficient resource use
Financial waste
Polypharmacy
Medication errors
Therapeutic failure
Poor QOL
Morbidity and mortality
↑Illness duration
NF placement
Functional decline
Social decline
+The Beers List
In 1991, Dr Mark Beers published a paper with
explicit criteria to identify potentially inappropriate
medication (PIM) use in nursing home residents.
Delphi technique (also referred to as GOBSAT)
Update published in 1997 to apply to the elderly,
wherever they reside. Updated again in 2003.
Most recent update - 2012 American Geriatrics
Society
+Medication Appropriateness Index
Developed in 1992 by expert team based on clinical experience and background literature Serves as sensitive measure of potential improvement in prescribing quality secondary to
clinical pharmacist intervention May be applicable as quality of care outcome measure in health services research or in
institutional quality assurance programs Measures prescribing appropriateness according to ten criteria for each medication prescribed
Appropriate Marginally appropriate Inappropriate
It does not address under-prescribing. Clinical expertise is required to apply some of the criteria.
Requires at minimum, medical history, problem list, and medication list Barrier: 10 minutes/drug
Hanlon JT. J Clin Epidemiol 1992:45:1045-1051.
+Medication Appropriateness Index
1. Is there an indication for the drug?
2. Is the medication effective for the condition?
3. Is the dosage correct?
4. Are the directions correct?
5. Are the directions practical?
6. Are there clinically significant drug-drug interactions?
7. Are there clinically significant drug-disease interactions?
8. Is there unnecessary duplication with other drugs?
9. Is the duration of therapy acceptable?
10. Is this drug the least expensive alternative compared to
others of equal utility?
Min = 0 = Completely appropriate
Max = 18 = Completely inappropriate
+IPET
Improved Prescribing in the Elderly Tool
1997 consensus-based mail survey of 32 member panel
from Canadian medical centers (included 8 pharmacists)
List of 38 high-risk prescribing situations in an elderly
population, primarily contraindicated drugs and drug-disease
interactions
McLeod PJ et al. Can Med Assoc J 1997;156:385-391.
+IPET Example
Practice
Long-term prescription of long t1/2 benzodiazepines to treat insomnia
Mean clinical significance
3.72
Risk to patient
May cause falls, fractures, confusion, dependence and withdrawal
Alternative therapy
Nondrug therapy or short t1/2 benzodiazepine
% of panel members who agreed with alternative
97%
McLeod PJ et al. Can Med Assoc J 1997;156:385-391.
+Zhan-AHRQ
Looked at PIMs in community-dwelling elderly in 1996 using
Medical Expenditure Panel Survey representing 33.2 million lives
Expert panel of 7 members (geriatricians,
pharmacoepidemiologist, pharmacist) classified 33 drugs from
1997 Beers drugs into three categories: Always avoid (used by 2.5% of study population)
Rarely appropriate (used by 9.1% of study population)
Some indications (used by 13.3 % of study population)
Most use considered inappropriate
Zhan C et al. JAMA 2001;286:2823-29.
+ Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elderly (ACOVE):
Quality Indicators for Appropriate Medication Use in
Vulnerable Elders
RAND Corporation, 2001, developed quality indicators to examine the quality of
medical care for the vulnerable elderly in the US
Vulnerable elderly – community-dwelling persons expected to die or become severely
disabled within next 2 years
The most comprehensive examination to date
Combination of clinical evidence and expert opinion
ACOVE Phase 3 added new indicators for: COPD, colorectal cancer, breast cancer,
sleep disorders, BPH
Knight EL. Ann Int Med 2001;135:703-710
+ Assessing Care of Vulnerable Elderly (ACOVE):
Quality Indicators for Appropriate Medication Use in
Vulnerable Elders
ACOVE Quality Indicators
Drug indication—clearly defined in record
Patient education—purpose, how to take, expected side effects, important ADEs
Medication list—up-to-date, in record
Response to therapy—documented within six months
Periodic drug regimen review—at least annually
Monitoring warfarin therapy—INR w/in 4 days and at least every 6 weeks
Monitoring of diuretic therapy—electrolytes w/in 1 week and yearly
Avoid use of chlorpropamide as hypoglycemic agent, due to long half-life, serious
hypoglycemia
Avoid drugs with strong anticholinergic properties when possible
Avoid barbiturates—potent CNS depressants, low therapeutic index, highly
addictive, multiple drug interactions, increase risk for falls/fractures
Avoid meperidine—increased risk for delirium
Monitor renal function and potassium in patients prescribed ACE inhibitors w/in 1
week
Knight EL. Ann Int Med 2001;135:703-710
+Medication Regimen
Complexity Index (MRCI)
Developed under the assumption that complexity of drug therapy involves more than number and types of
medications
Developed by researchers and expert panel
Tool consists of three sections
Dosage form
Dosing frequency
Additional directions
MRCI is a sum of the 3 sections -- higher scores, more complex regimen
Drugs include Rx, OTC, nutritional supplements, health products, dermatologicals, short-term medications
(e.g. antibiotics)
Requires 2-8 minutes per regimen, depending on complexity
Possible use
Risk assessment tool
To predict health outcomes
To identify patients who would benefit from additional services
Reporting drug regimen data
Research tool
George J. Ann Pharmacother 2004;38:1369-76.
+NCQA-HEDIS (2006)
2002, Secretary of HHS called for national action plan to ensure appropriate use of therapeutic
agents in the elderly population
NCQA convened expert consensus panel using modified delphi technique to identify rates of
inappropriate prescribing in the elderly
Panel classified the 2003 beers drugs as follows
Always avoid
Rarely appropriate
Some indications
Drugs in the always avoid and rarely appropriate composed the 2006 Health Plan Employer
Data and Information set (HEDIS) measure to assess quality of care of older Americans
Percent of persons receiving at least 1 HEDIS criteria drug
Male 19.2%
Female 23.3%
Pugh MH et al. J Manag Care Pharm. 2006;12:537-45.
+NCQA-HEDIS (2014)
National Committee for Quality Assurance, Health Care
Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS)
Continues to assess % of Medicare members ≥age 66 who receive
high-risk medications
Based on 2012 Beers Criteria
↓ use of high-risk medications is an opportunity to reduce costs and
encourage clinicians to prescribe safer alternative medications
Many other HEDIS measures are reported
+STOPP/START
Screening Tool of Older Persons Potentially Inappropriate
Prescriptions
Identifies commission errors
Comprehensive list of geriatric PIMs
Screening Tool to Alert Doctors to the Right Treatment
Identifies omission errors
Recommends beneficial medications for specific conditions
Developed in 2008 by European geriatricians using Delphi consensus
technique and clinical evidence
Inter-rater reliability: proportion of positive agreement
STOPP 87%
START 84%
Gallagher P et al. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008;46:72-83
+Selected STOPP Items
Thiazide diuretic with diagnosis of gout
Calcium channel blocker with constipation
Tricyclic antidepressants with dementia
PPI for PUD @ full dose for >8 weeks
Regular opiates >2 weeks with chronic constipation without
laxative
High risk drugs in fallers (psychoactive Rx, vasodilators,
diphenhydramine, etc.)
+Selected START Items
Warfarin in chronic atrial fibrillation
ACE inhibitor with chronic heart failure
Antidepressants in severe depression >3 months
Bisphosphonates when taking chronic corticosteriod Rx
Ca++/Vit D in osteoporosis
+IMAP
Individualized Medication Assessment and Planning tool.
Developed in 2011 for use by ambulatory care pharmacists and for
research
IMAP based on the best of existing tools
Easy to use
Applicable to ambulatory care
Intuitive (easy identification of MRP category and recommendation)
MRP clearly defined and distinctive
Reliable and valid
Crisp GD et al. Am J Geriatr Pharmacotherapy 2011;9:451-460.
+IMAP
Developed for ambulatory care pharmacists
Guide RPhs’ comprehensive assessment of a pt’s medication use to
identify MRPs
Provide RPh with mechanism for classifying:
Clinically meaningful information to describe each MRP
Their plan to address and resolve each MRP
Crisp GD et al. Am J Geriatr Pharmacotherapy 2011;9:451-460.
+The Beers “List” – What Is It?
Beers Criteria, not Beers List
Most recent update - 2012 American Geriatrics Society Updated
Beers Criteria published on-line (americangeriatrics.org) Evidence-based with recommendations, based on risk v benefit assessment
Strength of evidence: strong, weak, insufficient
Quality of evidence: high, moderate, low
Well-known and respected, but not necessarily well-understood
+The Beer’s List – What Is It Not?
A list
A tool to identify “forbidden” drugs in the elderly
A resource that everyone agrees on
A resource that always improves clinical outcomes
+Take away Points
Many different tools to identify MRPs, PIMs, etc. etc.
Consider how they were developed
Consider strengths v. weaknesses
Consider what they are designed to do
“Potential” problem vs. “actual”problem
The tool doesn’t rule - never lose sight of the individual
patient
+PIMs and ADEs: What’s the Evidence of Harm
ASCP 45th Annual Meeting and Exhibition
Orlando, FL
November 5, 2014
H. Edward Davidson, PharmD, MPH
Assistant Professor of Internal Medicine
Eastern Virginia Medical School
Partner, Insight Therapeutics, LLC
Norfolk, VA
+Are we looking in the right places?
Does the evidence build a strong case that
PIMs are contributing to increased
hospitalization or death in older individuals?
Or
Are there others areas that we should be focusing on
in order to reduce ADEs in older individuals?
+Hill’s Criteria of Causation (1965)
Strength of Association: The larger the relative effect, the more likely
the causal role of the factor.
Dose-response: If the risk increases with increasing dose of the risk
factor, the more likely the causal role of the factor.
Consistency: If similar associations are found in different studies in
different populations, the more likely the causal role of the factor.
Temporality: Risk factor exposure must precede the outcome.
Intervention: Reduction or removal of the risk factor must reduce the
risk of the outcome.
Biological Plausibility: The association agrees with currently accepted
understanding of pathological processes.
Coherence: Associations between the risk factor and the outcome must
be consistent with existing knowledge.
31
+The Evidence
Lau DT et al. Arch Intern Med 2005;165:68-74. Sample: nursing home 65 and over, MEPS NHC, PIM = Beers
2003 Design: Retrospective cohort study, N=3,372 Measures: use of PIM during 1 year period PIMs increased risk of hospitalization: OR 1.28 (1.10-1.50) PIMs increased risk of death: OR 1.21 (1.00-1.46) Most frequent PIMs: narcotics, antihistamines,
sedative/hypnotics, GI antispasmotics, antidepressants, platelet inhibitors, iron supplements
Limitations: did not find dose-response/duration effect, no causality assessment
32
+The Evidence – cont.
Hamilton H et al. Arch Intern Med 2011;171:1013-19. Sample: hospitalized 65 and over, PIM = STOPP/Beers 2003
Design: Prospective cohort study, N=600
Measures: WHO-UMC ADE causality and expert panel consensus
STOPP PIMs contributed to hospitalization; OR 1.85 (1.51-2.26)
Beers PIMS did not; OR 1.28 (0.95-1.72)
Most common PIMs: benzodiazepines, antihypertensives, opiates
Limitations: did not include OTC meds, duration of use not
determined
33
+The Evidence – cont.
Pasina L et al. Clin Pharm Ther 2014;39:511-515. Sample: hospitalized 65 and over, PIM = Beers 2003/2012
Design: Cross-sectional study, N=844
Measures: use of PIM at hospital discharge, re-hospitalization or
death within 3 months
No significant association with re-hospitalization: OR 0.77 (0.48-
1.19)
No significant association with mortality: OR 0.84 (0.44-1.52)
Most frequent PIMs (2012): ticlopidine, antiarrhythmic drugs,
alpha blockers, benzodiazepines
Limitations: conducted in Italy, did not assess adherence, no
causality assessment
34
+The Evidence – cont.
Fick DM et al. Res Nursing Health 2008.;31:42-51.
Sample: MCO 65 and older; PIM: Beers 2003
Design: Retrospective cohort study, N=17,971
Measure: health care utilization over 6 months, PIM use
PIMs increased risk for hospitalization: OR 1.99 (1.76-2.26)
Most frequent PIMs: estrogen only, propoxyphene,
benzodiazepines, digoxin, NSAIDs
Limitations: did not consider diagnosis or condition criteria
35
+The Evidence – cont.
Dedhiya et al. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother 2010.
Sample: Medicaid 65 and older; PIM: Beers 2003
Design: Retrospective cohort study, N=7,594
Measure: PIM use
PIMs increased risk for hospitalization: OR 1.27 (1.10-1.46)
PIMs increased risk of death: OR 1.46 (1.31-1.62)
Most frequent PIMs: inappropriate drug choice category
Limitations: retrospective, no causality assessment
36
+The Evidence – cont.
Reich O et al. PLos ONE 2014;9. Sample: Health Claims (Swiss) 65 and older; PIM: Beers
2012, PRISCUS (German)
Design: Retrospective cohort study, N=49,668
Measure: PIM use and hospitalization at 1 year
PIMs increased risk for hospitalization: One PIM: OR 1.13
(1.07-1.19), 3 or more PIMs: 1.63 (1.40-1.90)
Most frequent PIMs: not reported
Limitations: did not consider diagnosis/condition criteria,
retrospective, no causality assessment
37
+PIMs, Pharmacist Intervention, and Hospitalization
Cochrane Collaboration review – 2012 4 studies addressed PIM use (Beers 2003, MAI), pharmacist
intervention, and hospitalization rate
Overall, a significant reduction in MAI score post
intervention noted
One of 4 studies …
reported significant reduction in hospitalization rate in
intervention group (22% reduction)
limitations: significant differences in comorbidities
between groups and small sample size (N=69)
38
+Quick Review
PIMs and hospitalization – low to moderate
level data suggest relationship, but….
PIMs and death – as above
STOPP vs Beers – STOPP appears to be more
sensitive for harm (one study)
+True or False?
When referring to causation, temporality describes
the increase in risk of an adverse drug event with
increasing dose of medication.
+ Adverse Drug Events and the Elderly
Individuals > 65 yrs more likely than younger to suffer an ADE; RR 2.4 (95% CI 1.8-3.0)
Budnitz DS et al. JAMA 2006:296:1858-66
Budnitz et al. New Engl J Med 2011;365:2002-12.
Estimated Rates of Emergency Hospitalizations for Adverse Drug Events in Older Adults, 2007-2009
+Executive Summary
653 Medicare beneficiaries discharged from hospitals
to SNF for post-acute care (35 days or less)
Assessed for adverse events (AE) (SNF Trigger Tool)
and temporary harm and if preventable
2 stage attribution process; screener, MD panel
22% experienced an AE during SNF stay
59% were deemed preventable
11% experienced harm (60% hospitalized)
44
+Independent Risk Factors for Having a Preventable ADE in NFs
Risk Factor Odds Ratio 95% CI
Male 0.55 0.30 - 0.99
No. regularly scheduled meds
0-4
5-6
7-8
>=9
1.0
1.7
3.2
2.9
Referent
0.83 - 3.5
1.4 - 6.9
1.3 - 6.8
New resident+ 2.9 1.5 -5.7
+within 60 days of admission
Field TS, Gurwitz JH et al. Arch Intern Med 2001;161:1629-34.
+What about ….
Therapeutic failure
Adverse drug withdrawal events
Contribution of declining kidney function
Medication reconciliation