The full benefit of many effective medications will be achieved only if patients adhere to prescribed treatment regimens. Unfortunately, applying terms such as “noncompliant” and “nonadherent” to patients who do not consume every pill at the desired time can stigmatize them in their future relationships with health care providers. This article on medication adherence (or compliance) reviews strategies to assess and enhance this important aspect of patient care.

/pdf/adherence-to-medication-1h7gc1z12g.pdf

Adherence to Medication

Aims The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which adherence to individual vascular medications, assessed by different methods, influences the absolute and relative risks (RRs) of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality.

Methods and results We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective epidemiological studies (cohort, nested case–control, or clinical trial) identified through electronic searches using MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, involving adult populations (≥18 years old) and reporting risk estimates of cardiovascular medication adherence with any CVD (defined as any fatal or non-fatal coronary heart disease, stroke or sudden cardiac death) and/or all-cause mortality (defined as mortality from any cause) outcomes. Relative risks were combined using random-effects models.

Forty-four unique prospective studies comprising 1 978 919 non-overlapping participants, with 135 627 CVD events and 94 126 cases of all-cause mortality. Overall, 60% (95% CI: 52–68%) of included participants had good adherence (adherence ≥80%) to cardiovascular medications. The RRs (95% CI) of development of CVD in those with good vs. poor (<80%) adherence were 0.85 (0.81–0.89) and 0.81 (0.76–0.86) for statins and antihypertensive medications, respectively. Corresponding RRs of all-cause mortality were 0.55 (0.46–0.67) and 0.71 (0.64–0.78) for good adherence to statins and antihypertensive agents. These associations remained consistent across subgroups representing different study characteristics. Estimated absolute risk differences for any CVD associated with poor medication adherence were 13 cases for any vascular medication, 9 cases for statins and 13 cases for antihypertensive agents, per 100 000 individuals per year.

Conclusion A substantial proportion of people do not adhere adequately to cardiovascular medications, and the prevalence of suboptimal adherence is similar across all individual CVD medications. Absolute and relative risk assessments demonstrate that a considerable proportion of all CVD events (∼9% in Europe) could be attributed to poor adherence to vascular medications alone, and that the level of optimal adherence confers a significant inverse association with subsequent adverse outcomes. Measures to enhance adherence to help maximize the potentials of effective cardiac therapies in the clinical setting are urgently required.

Adherence to cardiovascular therapy: a meta-analysis of prevalence and clinical consequences

Problems associated with pharmacotherapy (in particular, medication errors and adverse drug events) are frequent and are associated with increased costs for treatment. Analysis of original publications published between 1990 and 2005 on the topics of medication errors and/or adverse drug events in hospitalised patients, focusing on the frequency of, risk factors for and avoidance of such problems associated with pharmacotherapy, indicated that medication errors occurred in a mean of 5.7% of all episodes of drug administration, but with a high variability among the 35 studies retrieved. This variability was explained by the methods by which medication errors were detected (systematic screening of patients versus chart review or spontaneous reporting) and by the way drugs were administered (intravenously administered drugs are associated with the highest error frequencies). Errors occurred throughout the whole medication process, with administration errors accounting for more than half of all errors. Important risk factors included insufficient pharmacological knowledge of health professionals, errors in the patient charts or documentation by nurses and inadequate pharmacy services. Adverse events or reactions, on the other hand, affected 6.1 patients per 100 hospitalised and also showed a high variability among the 46 studies retrieved. This variability could also be explained by the different methods of assessment of the frequency of adverse drug events or reactions, as well as by the different wards on which the studies were performed. Important risk factors for adverse drug events or reactions included polypharmacy, female sex, drugs with a narrow therapeutic range, renal elimination of drugs, age >65 years and use of anticoagulants or diuretics. Since medication errors are strong risk factors for preventable adverse drug events or reactions, strategies have to be put in place for their reduction. Such strategies include ensuring that all persons involved in the medication process (nurses, pharmacists and physicians) have good pharmacological knowledge, computerisation of the entire medication process, and the engagement of a sufficient number of clinical pharmacists on the wards.

Drug-related problems in hospitals: a review of the recent literature.

Background: Previous studies found that medication errors result from lack of sufficient information during the prescribing step. Therefore, it is proposed that having a pharmacist available when patients are evaluated during the rounding process may reduce the likelihood of preventable adverse drug events (ADEs). The objectives of this study were to evaluate the impact of having a pharmacist participate with a physician rounding team on preventable ADEs in general medicine units and to document pharmacist interventions made during the rounding process. Methods:Asingle-blind,standardcare–controlledstudy design was used to compare patients receiving care from a rounding team including a pharmacist with patients receiving standard care (no pharmacist on rounding team). Patients admitted to and discharged from the same general medicine unit were included in the study. The main outcome measure of this study was preventable ADEs. Patientrecordswererandomlyselectedandevaluatedby a blinded process involving independent senior pharmacist specialists and a senior staff physician. Interventions made by the pharmacists in the treatment group were documented. Results: The rate of preventable ADEs was reduced by 78%, from 26.5 per 1000 hospital days to 5.7 per 1000 hospital days. There were 150 documented interventions recommended during the rounding process, 147 of which were accepted by the team. The most common interventions were (1) dosing-related changes and (2) recommendations to add a drug to therapy. Conclusion: Pharmacist participation with the medical rounding team on a general medicine unit contributes to a significant reduction in preventable ADEs. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:2014-2018

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/articlepdf/216032/ioi20438.pdf

Pharmacists on rounding teams reduce preventable adverse drug events in hospital general medicine units.

Detecting adverse events using information technology.

The frequency, preventability, severity, root causes, and projected costs of adverse drug events (ADEs) occurring after or causing admission to a four-hospital integrated academic health network were studied. The sample included all admissions during a 53-day study period. Events were identified through daily record review of a random patient sample, computerized flags, and self-reporting. A case review committee validated the occurrence, classification, and root causes of the events. Additional length of stay and costs associated with ADEs were analyzed by using a case-control, multiple linear regression model. The estimated ADE rate during hospitalization was 4.2 events per 100 admissions, with a cost of $2162 per ADE. In addition, 3.2% of admissions were caused by ADEs, with an associated cost of $6685 per event. Fifteen percent of hospital ADEs and 76% of ADEs causing admission were judged preventable. The annual cost to the organization for events occurring during hospitalization was $1.7 million, and the cost of preventable ADEs was $260,000, while the projected costs of preventable ADEs causing admission were $3.8 million. The rate of admissions to the mental health center caused by ADEs was higher than for other settings at 13.6%, with a cost of preventable ADEs of $1.3 million. Patient noncompliance was judged to be the cause of the 69% of the ADEs causing admission. Seventy-one percent of the serious medication errors occurred at the prescribing stage of the medication-use process. ADEs were frequent, costly, and often preventable and resulted in many admissions to a mental health center.

Laurey A. Cosentino

Papers

Practical approach to determining costs and frequency of adverse drug events in a health care network.