A Universal Pharmacological-Based List of Drugs with Anticholinergic Activity

Anticholinergic burden tools have relevant pharmacological gaps that may explain their limited predictive ability for clinical outcomes. The aim of this study was to provide a universal pharmacological-based list of drugs with their documented affinity for muscarinic receptors. A comprehensive literature review was performed to identify the anticholinergic burden tools. Drugs included in these instruments were searched in four pharmacological databases, and the investigation was supplemented with PubMed. The evidence regarding the potential antagonism of the five muscarinic receptors of each drug was assessed. The proportion of drugs included in the tools with an affinity for muscarinic receptors was evaluated. A universal list of drugs with anticholinergic activity was developed based on their documented affinity for the different subtypes of muscarinic receptors and their ability to cross the blood-brain barrier. A total of 23 tools were identified, including 304 different drugs. Only 48.68%, 47.70%, 48.03%, 43.75%, and 42.76% of the drugs had an affinity to the M1, M2, M3, M4, and M5 receptor, respectively, reported in any pharmacological database. The proportion of drugs with confirmed antagonism varied among the tools (36.8% to 100%). A universal pharmacological-based list of 133 drugs is presented. It should be further validated in different clinical settings. (c) 2023 by the authors

Identification of inhaler technique errors with a routine procedure in Portuguese community pharmacy

Background: A correct selection of drugs prescribed, but also the choice of the appropriate inhaler device, is crucial for the control of respiratory diseases. Objective: To evaluate the inhaler technique and identify potential errors of patients when treated with inhalers by testing a routinary procedure to be implemented in any community pharmacy. Methods: Adults with asthma/COPD and under inhalation therapy were invited to demonstrate how they use their inhalers. After direct observation it was registered whether all the sequential steps included in the summary of product characteristics (SmPC) were performed. Results: The study involved 67 patients from 4 community pharmacies (Portugal central region): 34 (50.7%) males, 65.4 (SD=18.28) years old, 42 (62.7%) with COPD, and 23 (34.3%) using more than one inhaler. The 67 patients used 95 inhalers, comprising: 57 (60.0%) multiple dose DPI (dry powder inhalers), 18 (18.9%) single dose DPI, 16 (16.8%) pMDI (pressurized metered dose inhalers), 2 (2.1%) pMDI+spacer and 2 (2.1%) SMI (soft mist inhalers). No errors were made only by 9 (13.4%) patients. In the 75 DPIs techniques, the most frequent errors were ‘no previous forced expiration’ (46=61.3%) and ‘no 10s apnea after inhalation’ (51=68.0%); in the 16 pMDIs techniques common errors were ‘lack of hand-lung coordination’ (7=43.8 %), ‘no previous forced exhalation’ (8=50.0%) and ‘no apnea after inhalation’ (10=62.5%). After inhaling from 56 devices containing corticosteroids, 34 (60.7%) of the patients did not wash their mouth. Conclusion: The study demonstrated the possibility of performing this procedure routinely in Portuguese community pharmacies and also its utility, since 58 (87%) of patients had at least one error during the inhalers use

Consequences of ignoring patient diagnoses when using the 2015 Updated Beers Criteria

© 2019, Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Background: Beers Criteria are one of the best known explicit criteria to identify inappropriate medication in elderly that can be used in medication review. The access to patients’ medical records may be different among healthcare professionals and settings and, subsequently, the identification of patients’ diagnoses may be compromised. Objective: To assess the consequences of ignoring patient diagnoses when applying 2015 Beers Criteria to identify potentially inappropriate medication (PIM). Setting: Three nursing homes in Central Portugal. Method: Medical records of nursing home residents over 65 years old were appraised to identify medication profile and medical conditions. 2015 Beers Criteria were used with and without considering patients’ diagnoses. To compare the number of PIM and PIM-qualifying criteria complied in these two judgements, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were performed. Main outcome measure: Number of PIMs and number of PIM-qualifying criteria. Results: A total of 185 patients with a mean age of 86.7 years (SD = 7.8) with a majority of female (70.3%) were studied. When assessing the patients with full access to the diagnoses, median number of PIMs was 4 (IQR 0–10) and number of PIM-qualifying criteria was 5 (IQR 0–15). When evaluating only patient current medication, median number of PIMs was 4 (IQR 0–10) and PIM-qualifying criteria was 4 (IQR 0–12). Statistical difference was found in the number of PIM-qualifying criteria identified (p < 0.001), but not in the number of PIMs per patient (p = 0.090). In 171 patients (92.4%) PIMs identified were identical when using or ignoring their medical diagnoses. However, in 80 patients (43.2%) the PIM-qualifying criteria complied were different with and without access to patient diagnoses. Conclusion: Although restricted access to patients’ diagnoses may limit the judgement of Beers PIM-qualifying criteria, this limitation had no effect on the number of PIM identified

Pharmacist-led medication reconciliation on admission to an acute psychiatric hospital unit

Background: Therapy management in patients suffering from mental health disorders is complex and the risks derived from changes or interruptions of treatment should not be ignored. Medication reconciliation in psychiatry may reduce medication errors and promote patient safety during transitions of care. Objective: To identify the influence of complementary information sources in the construction of the best possible medication history, and to ascertain the potential clinical impact of discrepancies identified in a medication reconciliation service. Methods: An observational study was conducted in an acute mental hospital unit, with a further validation in an internal medicine unit. Adult patients taking at least one medicine admitted in the unit were included. Patients/caregivers were interviewed upon admission and the information gathered was compared with hospital medical and shared electronic medical records. Once the best possible medication history was gathered, therapeutic information was reconciled against the prescription on admission to identify discrepancies. Potential clinical impact of medication errors was classified using the International Safety Classification. Results: During the study period, 148 patients were admitted, 50.7% females, mean age 54.6 years (SD=16.3). Collaboration of a caregiver was a needed in 74% of the interviews. In total, 1,147 drugs were considered to obtain patients' best possible medication history. After reconciliation, 560 clinically sound intentional discrepancies were identified and 359 discrepancies required further clarification from prescribers: 84.12% drug omission, 5.57% drug substitution, 6.96% dose change, and 3.34% dosage frequency change. Potential clinical impact of these medication discrepancies was classified as: 95 mild, 100 moderate, and 29 severe medication errors. Conclusion: About 1 in three intentional discrepancies observed in a pharmacists-led medication reconciliation service required further clarification from prescribers, being 80% of them unintentional discrepancies. Results highlight the importance of the caregiver as source of information for the psychiatric patient, the relevance of analyzing shared electronic health records until 6 months before, and the need to use hospital medical records efficiently. Additionally, 29 discrepancies were classified as errors with potentially severe clinical impact. A medication reconciliation service is concluded to be feasible and necessary in a mental health unit

Lamotrigine pharmacokinetic evaluation in epileptic patients submitted to VEEG monitoring

Objective: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic profile of lamotrigine (LTG) in epileptic patients submitted to video-electroencephalography (VEEG) monitoring and, in addition, to investigate the influence of concomitant antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) on the kinetics of LTG. Methods: The analysis assumed a one-compartment open model with first-order absorption and elimination. The kinetic estimates obtained in this population were validated by using the Prediction- Error approach. The influence of medication was also assessed by the calculation of the LTG concentration-todose ratio. Patients (n=135) were divided into four groups according to the co-medication: Group 1, patients taking LTG with enzyme-inducer agents; Group 2, patients receiving LTG with valproic acid; Group 3, patients receiving both inducers and inhibitors of LTG metabolism; Group 4, patients under AEDs not known to alter LTG metabolism. Results: The obtained estimates for clearance (CL) (L/h/kg) [0.075±0.029 (Group 1), 0.014±0.005 (Group 2), 0.025±0.008 (Group 3) and 0.044±0.011 (Group 4)] appear to be the most appropriate set to be implemented in clinical practice as prior information, as demonstrated by the accuracy and precision of the measurements. In addition, the influence of co-medication on the LTG profile was further confirmed by the basal LTG concentration-to-dose ratio. Conclusion: The results of the present investigation may contribute to achieving the goal of optimizing patients’ clinical outcomes by managing their medication regimen through measured drug concentrations. Patients submitted to VEEG monitoring may benefit from this study, as the results may be used to provide better drug management in this medical setting