A retrospective analysis of prescription medications as it correlates to falls for older adults

Objectives: To determine the correlation between falls and two medication factors: the class of medications and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) prescribed to community-dwelling older adults aged 55 and older. Methods: Retrospective, cross-sectional study. Home health patients residing in a Texas/Mexico border community and reporting at least one fall within the past month. Medication use, medication classification, and potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) recorded by level of falls; non-fallers and recurrent fallers. Results: Of 99 participants, 13.1% reported falling once and 86.9% reported two or more falls. Participant’s average number of medications used was 10.51 (SD 5.75) with 93.9% having four or more prescribed medications. Average number of PIMs prescribed per participant was 1.42 (SD 1.51) with at least one PIM prescribed to 65.6% of participants. Twenty three out of 83 identified classes of prescribed medications met criteria for the study’s analyses but resulted in no significant association to falls when comparing NF to RF. Agents acting on the renin-angiotensin system and lipid modifying agents were the most frequently prescribed medication classes (N=55, 55.6%). Ibuprofen was the PIM most frequently prescribed (n=13, 13.1%). The correlation between use of a prescribed PIM and number of falls was not statistically significant (p=0.128). Conclusions: There was no correlation between classes of medication and level of falls. Recurrent fallers were more likely to have been prescribed a PIM than non-fallers (not significant). Although the analyses conducted for this study did not result in statistical significance, the high prevalence of polypharmacy and prescribed PIMs observed in these participants warrants a thorough review of medications to reduce fall risks among older adults

Ceftazidime/avibactam: a novel cephalosporin/nonbeta-lactam beta-lactamase inhibitor for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections and complicated intra-abdominal infections

Jose A Hidalgo,1,2 Celeste M Vinluan,1–3 Nishaal Antony3 1UTEP/UT Austin Cooperative Pharmacy Program, College of Health Sciences, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, 2Department of Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, 3Department of Internal Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center, El Paso, TX, USA Abstract: There has been greater interest in developing additional antimicrobial agents due to the increasing health care costs and resistance resulting from bacterial pathogens to currently available treatment options. Gram-negative organisms including Enterobacteriaceae and Pseudomonas aeruginosa are some of the most concerning threats due to their resistance mechanisms: extended-spectrum beta-lactamase production and Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase enzymes. Ceftazidime is a third-generation broad-spectrum cephalosporin with activity against P. aeruginosa and avibactam is a novel nonbeta-lactam beta-lactamase inhibitor. Avycaz®, the trade name for this new combination antibiotic, restores the activity of ceftazidime against some of the previously resistant pathogens. Avycaz was approved in 2015 for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections, including pyelonephritis, and complicated intra-abdominal infections with the addition of metronidazole in patients with little to no other treatment options. This review article assesses the clinical trials and data that led to the approval of this antibiotic, in addition to its spectrum of activity and limitations. Keywords: ceftazidime/avibactam, Avycaz, complicated urinary tract infections, complicated intra-abdominal infection

Screening premorbid metabolic syndrome in community pharmacies: a cross-sectional descriptive study

Background: Premorbid metabolic syndrome (pre-MetS) is a cluster of cardiometabolic risk factors characterised by central obesity, elevated fasting glucose, atherogenic dyslipidaemia and hypertension without established cardiovascular disease or diabetes. Community pharmacies are in an excellent position to develop screening programmes because of their direct contact with the population. The main aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of pre-MetS in people who visited community pharmacies for measurement of any of its five risk factors to detect the presence of other risk factors. The secondary aims were to study the presence of other cardiovascular risk factors and determine patients" cardiovascular risk. Methods: Cross-sectional, descriptive, multicentre study. Patients meeting selection criteria aged between 18 and 65 years who visited participating community pharmacies to check any of five pre-MetS diagnostic factors were included. The study involved 23 community pharmacies in Catalonia (Spain). Detection criteria for pre-MetS were based on the WHO proposal following IDF and AHA/NHBI consensus. Cardiovascular risk (CVR) was calculated by Regicor and Score methods. Other variables studied were smoking habit, physical activity, body mass index (BMI), and pharmacological treatment of dyslipidemia and hypertension. The data were collected and analysed with the SPSS programme. Comparisons of variables were carried out using the Student"s T-test, Chi-Squared test or ANOVA test. Level of significance was 5% (0.05). Results: The overall prevalence of pre-MetS was 21.9% [95% CI 18.7-25.2]. It was more prevalent in men, 25.5% [95% CI 22.1-28.9], than in women, 18.6% [95% CI 15.5-21.7], and distribution increased with age. The most common risk factors were high blood pressure and abdominal obesity. About 70% of people with pre-MetS were sedentary and over 85% had a BMI ≥25 Kg/m2 . Some 22.4% had two metabolic criteria and 27.2% of patients with pre-MetS had no previous diagnosis. Conclusions: The prevalence of pre-MetS in our study (21.9%) was similar to that found in other studies carried out in Primary Care in Spain. The results of this study confirm emergent cardiometabolic risk factors such as hypertension, obesity and physical inactivity. Our study highlights the strategic role of the community pharmacy in the detection of pre-MetS in the apparently healthy population

Accuracy of a screening tool for medication adherence: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale-8

This systematic review examined the reliability and validity of the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale-8 (MMAS-8), which has been widely used to assess patient medication adherence in clinical research and medical practice.Of 418 studies identified through searching 4 electronic databases, we finally analyzed 28 studies meeting the selection criteria of this study regarding the reliability and validity of MMAS-8 including sensitivity and specificity. Meta-analysis for Cronbach's α, intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), sensitivity and specificity to detect a patient with nonadherence to medication were performed. The pooled estimates for Cronbach's α and ICC were calculated using the random-effects weighted T transformation. A bivariate random-effects model was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity.The pooled Cronbach's α estimate for type 2 diabetes group in 7 studies and osteoporosis group in 3 studies were 0.67 (95% Confidence Interval(CI), 0.65 to 0.69) and 0.77 (95% CI, 0.72 to 0.83), respectively. With regard to test-retest, the pooled ICC for type 2 diabetes group in 3 studies and osteoporosis group in 2 studies were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.75 to 0.85) and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74 to 0.85). For a cut-off value of 6, the pooled sensitivity and specificity in 12 studies were 0.43 (95% CI, 0.33 to 0.53) and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.78), respectively.The MMAS-8 had acceptable internal consistency and reproducibility in a few diseases like type 2 diabetes. Using the cut-off value of 6, criterion validity was not enough good to validly screen a patient with nonadherence to medication. However, this study did not calculated a pooled estimate for criterion validity using the higher values than 6 as a cut-off value since most of included individual studies did not report criterion validity based on those values