Добавил:
Sekretar
kiopkiopkiop18@yandex.ru
t.me/Prokururor I Вовсе не секретарь, но почту проверяю
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Ординатура / Хирургия / Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана / Книга_5910_Библиотеки_им_академика_М_И_Перельмана
.pdf
430
Domain Steps Process Person-specic issues to consider
Sustainability 6. Is drug therapy
cost-effective
and
environmentally
sustainable?
Personcentredness
Key concepts in this case
– Mr PC has had medicines added that have resulted from possible ADRs from other medicines
(‘prescribing cascade’)
– Drug–drug interactions have been identied that require more intensive monitoring
– Glibenclamide is a PIM and requires review: Symptomatic adverse effects require a change of therapy
– Avoiding a future stroke or heart attack is important for PC.Commencing an antiplatelet agent (aspirin)
is appropriate, while considering and minimising the risks with including this into his current regimen.
7. Is the patient
willing and able to
take medicines as
intended?
Identify unnecessarily
costly drug therapy:
– Consider more
cost-effective
alternatives
Does the patient
understand the outcomes
of the review?
– Consider ‘Teach
Back’
Ensure drug therapy
changes are tailored to
patient preferences:
– Is the medication in a
form the patient can
take?
– Is the dose schedule
convenient?
– Is the patient able to
take medicines as
intended?
Consider what assistance
the patient might need and
when this is available
Agree and communicate
plan:
– Discuss with the
patient/carer/welfare
proxy objectives and
priorities
– Decide what
medicines have an
effect of sufcient
magnitude to
consider continuation
or discontinuation
– Inform relevant carers
about changes in
treatments
Balance against effectiveness, safety,
convenience and environmental impact
– PC had no problems identied with
managing the medicines as prescribed
– Changes to medication regimen for
PC will be undertaken systematically,
to observe and monitor response,
before initiating other steps in plan.
– Ensure that the patient understands
the importance of not taking
over-the-counter NSAIDs
A. R. Mair et al.

18 Polypharmacy andDeprescribing
431
References
1. Kongkaew C, Hann M, Mandal J, Williams SD,
Metcalfe D, Noyce PR, Ashcroft DM.Risk factors
for hospital admissions associated with adverse drug
events. Pharmacotherapy. 2013;33(8):827–37. https://
doi.org/10.1002/phar.1287.
2. Auraaen A, Slawomirski L, Klazinga N. “The economics of patient safety in primary and ambulatory
care: Flying blind”, OECD Health Working Papers,
No. 106, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2018. https://doi.
org/10.1787/baf425ad-en.
3. World Health Organization. Medication safety
in polypharmacy: technical report. World Health
Organization; 2019. https://www.who.int/
publications/i/item/WHO-UHC-SDS-2019.11.
Accessed in 2022.
4. World Health Organization. World report on ageing and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015. https://www.who.int/publications/i/
item/9789241565042. Accessed 2022
5. Van Lerberghe W. The world health report 2008:
primary health care: now more than ever. World
Health Organization; 2008. https://iris.who.int/bit-
stream/handle/10665/43949/9789241563734_eng.
pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y. Accessed 2008
6. Masnoon N, Shakib S, Kalisch-Ellett L, Caughey
GE.What is polypharmacy? A systematic review of
denitions. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17(1):230. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s12877-017-0621-2.
7. Scottish Government Polypharmacy Model of Care
Group. Polypharmacy guidance, realistic prescribing.
3rd ed. Scottish Government; 2018. https://www.ther-
apeutics.scot.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/
Polypharmacy-Guidance-2018.pdf. Accessed March
2022.
8. Köberlein J, Jürges H. 21 multimorbidity, incentives
and the use of health services in Europe. Active ageing and solidarity between generations in Europe:243;
2013.
9. Mannucci PM, Nobili A, Pasina L, Collaborators
R. Polypharmacy in older people: lessons from 10
years of experience with the REPOSI register. Intern
Emerg Med. 2018;13(8):1191–200. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11739-018-1941-8.
10. Guthrie B, Payne K, Alderson P, McMurdo MET,
Mercer SW. Adapting clinical guidelines to take
account of multimorbidity. BMJ. 2012;345:e6341.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e6341.
11. Shippee ND, Shah ND, May CR, Mair FS,
Montori VM. Cumulative complexity: a functional,
patient-centered model of patient complexity can
improve research and practice. J Clin Epidemiol.
2012;10(65):1041–51.
12. Lu CY, Roughead E.Determinants of patient-reported
medication errors: a comparison among seven countries. Int J Clin Pract. 2011;65(7):733–40. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2011.02671.x.
13. Cullinan S, Raae Hansen C, Byrne S, O’Mahony
D, Kearney P, Sahm L. Challenges of deprescribing in the multimorbid patient. Eur J Hosp
Pharm. 2017;24(1):43–6. https://doi.org/10.1136/
ejhpharm-2016-000921.
14. Frank C, Weir E. Deprescribing for older patients.
CMAJ. 2014;186(18):1369–76. https://doi.
org/10.1503/cmaj.131873.
15. Latimer S, Hewitt J, Teasdale T, de Wet C, Gillespie
BM. The accuracy, completeness and timeliness of
discharge medication information and implementing medication reconciliation: a cross-sectional
survey of general practitioners. Aust J Gen Pract.
2020;49(12):854–8. https://doi.org/10.31128/
AJGP-04-20-5375.
16. Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH. The prescribing cascade
revisited. Lancet. 2017;389(10081):1778–80. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31188-1.
17. Cohen MR.Medication errors. 2nd ed. Washington,
DC: American Pharmacist Association; 2007.
18. New South Wales Government: Clinical excellence commission high-risk medicines: A-PINCH.
https://www.cec.health.nsw.gov.au/keep-patientssafe/medication-safety/high-risk-medicines/APINCH; 2022.
19. Agrawal M, Singh P, Joshi U.Antimicrobials associated adverse drug reaction proling: a four years retrospective study (Pharmacovigilance study). Alexandria
J Med. 2021;57(1):177–87. https://doi.org/10.1080/2
0905068.2021.1938425.
20. Komagamine J, Kobayashi M. Prevalence of hospitalisation caused by adverse drug reactions at an
internal medicine ward of a single Centre in Japan: a
cross-sectional study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(8):e030515.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030515.
21. Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, Green C, Scott
AK, Walley TJ, Farrar K, Park BK, Breckenridge
AM. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission
to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients.
BMJ. 2004;329(7456):15–9. https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmj.329.7456.15.
22. Mair A, Wilson M, Dreischulte T. Addressing the
challenge of polypharmacy. Annu Rev Pharmacol
Toxicol. 2020;60(1):661–81. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-pharmtox-010919-023508.
23. Qaseem A, Wilt TJ, Kansagara D, Horwitch C, Barry
MJ, Forciea MA, Clinical Guidelines Committee of
the American College of P, Fitterman N, Balzer K,
Boyd C, Humphrey LL, Iorio A, Lin J, Maroto M,
McLean R, Mustafa R, Tufte J.Hemoglobin A1c targets for glycemic control with pharmacologic therapy
for nonpregnant adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a
guidance statement update from the American College
of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2018;168(8):569–76.
https://doi.org/10.7326/M17-0939.
24. Nazareth K, Burkhard K. Hypnotics & anxiolytics practice guide. Pract guide, All Wales Med
Strateg Group, Cardiff. Vol. 20, pp. 26; 2016.
http://www.wales.nhs.uk/sites3/Documents/582/
Guide_Hypnotics

432
A. R. Mair et al.
25. Maust DT, Kim HM, Seyfried LS, Chiang C, Kavanagh
J, Schneider LS, Kales HC. Antipsychotics, other
psychotropics, and the risk of death in patients with
dementia: number needed to harm. JAMA Psychiatry.
2015;72(5):438–45. https://doi.org/10.1001/
jamapsychiatry.2014.3018.
26. Banerjee S. The use of antipsychotic medication for
people with dementia: time for action; 2009. https://
psychrights.org/research/digest/nlps/banerjeereportongeriatricneurolepticuse.pdf. Accessed in 2022.
27. Risacher SL, McDonald BC, Tallman EF, West JD,
Farlow MR, Unverzagt FW, Gao S, Boustani M,
Crane PK, Petersen RC, Jack CR Jr, Jagust WJ, Aisen
PS, Weiner MW, Saykin AJ, Alzheimer’s Disease
Neuroimaging I. Association between anticholinergic medication use and cognition, brain metabolism, and brain atrophy in cognitively normal older
adults. JAMA Neurol. 2016;73(6):721–32. https://doi.
org/10.1001/jamaneurol.2016.0580.
28. Duran CE, Azermai M, Vander Stichele
RH.Systematic review of anticholinergic risk scales in
older adults. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;69(7):1485–
96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-013-1499-3.
29. Nishtala PS, Salahudeen MS, Hilmer
SN. Anticholinergics: theoretical and clinical overview. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2016;15(6):753–68.
https://doi.org/10.1517/14740338.2016.1165664.
30. Bishara D, Harwood D, Sauer J, Taylor
DM. Anticholinergic effect on cognition (AEC)
of drugs commonly used in older people. Int J
Geriatr Psychiatry. 2017;32(6):650–6. https://doi.
org/10.1002/gps.4507.
31. Chew ML, Mulsant BH, Pollock BG, Lehman ME,
Greenspan A, Mahmoud RA, Kirshner MA, Sorisio
DA, Bies RR, Gharabawi G.Anticholinergic activity
of 107 medications commonly used by older adults. J
Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(7):1333–41.
32. Hilmer SN, Gnjidic D. The anticholinergic burden:
from research to practice. Aust Prescr. 2022;45(4):118.
33. Hilmer SN. Calculating and using the drug burden
index score in research and practice. Expert Rev Clin
Pharmacol. 2018;11(11):1053–5. https://doi.org/10.1
080/17512433.2018.1528145.
34. Rudolph JL, Salow MJ, Angelini MC, McGlinchey
RE. The anticholinergic risk scale and anticholinergic adverse effects in older persons. Arch Intern Med.
2008;168(5):508–13.
35. Lim R, Ellett LMK, Semple S, Roughead EE. The
extent of medication-related hospital admissions
in Australia: a review from 1988 to 2021. Drug
Saf. 2022;45(3):249–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40264-021-01144-1.
36. Rasool MF, Rehman AU, Imran I, Abbas S, Shah S,
Abbas G, Khan I, Shakeel S, Ahmad Hassali MA,
Hayat K. Risk factors associated with medication
errors among patients suffering from chronic disorders. Front Public Health. 2020;8:531038. https://doi.
org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.531038.
37. Al Hamid A, Ghaleb M, Aljadhey H, Aslanpour
Z. A systematic review of hospitalization resulting
from medicine-related problems in adult patients. Br
J Clin Pharmacol. 2014;78(2):202–17. https://doi.
org/10.1111/bcp.12293.
38. Mullan J, Burns P, Mohanan L, Lago L, Jordan M,
Potter J. Hospitalisation for medication misadventures among older adults with and without dementia: a 5-year retrospective study. Australas J Ageing.
2019;38(4):e135. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.12712.
39. Counter D, Millar JWT, McLay JS.Hospital readmissions, mortality and potentially inappropriate prescribing: a retrospective study of older adults discharged
from hospital. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;84(8):1757–
63. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13607.
40. Barnett S, Roderick P, Martin D, Diamond I.A multilevel analysis of the effects of rurality and social
deprivation on premature limiting long term illness.
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001;55(1):44–51.
https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.55.1.44.
41. Public Health Scotland. High risk drugs by age group
and 2020 SIMD quintile. Public Health Scotland;
2021. https://www.isdscotland.org/. Accessed 2022.
42. Awad A, Hanna O. Potentially inappropriate medication use among geriatric patients in primary care
setting: a cross-sectional study using the Beers,
STOPP, FORTA and MAI criteria. PLoS One.
2019;14(6):e0218174. https://doi.org/10.1371/jour-
nal.pone.0218174.
43. Fick DM, Semla TP, Steinman M, Beizer J, Brandt
N, Dombrowski R, DuBeau CE, Pezzullo L, Epplin
JJ. American Geriatrics Society 2019 updated
AGS Beers Criteria® for potentially inappropriate
medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc.
2019;67(4):674–94.
44. O’Mahony D, O’Sullivan D, Byrne S, O’Connor
MN, Ryan C, Gallagher P.STOPP/START criteria for
potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people:
version 2. Age Ageing. 2015;44(2):213–8. https://doi.
org/10.1093/ageing/afu145.
45. Pazan F, Weiss C, Wehling M, Forta. The EUROFORTA (Fit fOR The Aged) list: international consensus validation of a clinical tool for improved
drug treatment in older people. Drugs Aging.
2018;35(1):61–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40266-017-0514-2.
46. Hanlon JT, Schmader KE. The medication appropriateness index: a Clinimetric measure. Psychother
Psychosom. 2022;91(2):78–83. https://doi.
org/10.1159/000521699.
47. Parekh N, Ali K, Davies JG, Stevenson JM, Banya
W, Nyangoma S, Schiff R, Van Der Cammen T,
Harchowal J, Rajkumar C.Medication-related harm
in older adults following hospital discharge: development and validation of a prediction tool. BMJ Qual
Saf. 2020;29(2):142–53. https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmjqs-2019-009587.
48. O’Donnell LK, Reeve E, Hilmer SN.Development,
validation and evaluation of the goal-directed
medication review electronic decision support
system (G-MEDSS)©. Res Soc Adm Pharm.
2022;18(7):3174–83.

18 Polypharmacy andDeprescribing
433
49. O’Donnell LK, Hilmer S, Baysari M.National rollout of the Goal-directed Medication review Electronic
Decision Support System (G-MEDSS)© in practice.
Digital Health Week. 2022;1(1)
50. Curtin D, Gallagher P, O’Mahony D. Deprescribing
in older people approaching end-of-life: development
and validation of STOPPFrail version 2. Age Ageing.
2020;50(2):465–71. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/
afaa159.
51. Nyborg G, Brekke M, Straand J, Gjelstad S, Romøren
M. Potentially inappropriate medication use in
nursing homes: an observational study using the
NORGEP-NH criteria. BMC Geriatr. 2017;17(1):220.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-017-0608-z.
52. Vasilevskis EE, Shah AS, Hollingsworth EK, Shotwell
MS, Mixon AS, Bell SP, Kripalani S, Schnelle JF,
Simmons SF, Shed MT. A patient-centered deprescribing intervention for hospitalized older patients
with polypharmacy: rationale and design of the ShedMEDS randomized controlled trial. BMC Health
Serv Res. 2019;19(1):165. https://doi.org/10.1186/
s12913-019-3995-3.
53. McDonald EG, Wu PE, Rashidi B, Forster AJ, Huang
A, Pilote L, Papillon-Ferland L, Bonnici A, Tamblyn
R, Whitty R, Porter S, Battu K, Downar J, Lee
TC.The MedSafer study: a controlled trial of an electronic decision support tool for deprescribing in acute
care. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(9):1843–50. https://
doi.org/10.1111/jgs.16040.
54. Choosing Wisely Canada. Choosing wisely. https://
choosingwiselycanada.org/; 2022. Accessed May
2023.
55. Levinson W, Kallewaard M, Bhatia RS, Wolfson D,
Shortt S, Kerr EA, Choosing Wisely International
Working G. ‘Choosing Wisely’: a growing international campaign. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24(2):167–74.
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003821.
56. Whitty R, Porter S, Battu K, Bhatt P, Koo E, Kalocsai
C, Wu PE, Delicaet K, Bogoch II, Wu R, Downar J.A
pilot study of a Medication Rationalization (MERA)
intervention. CMAJ Open. 2018;6(1):E87–94. https://
doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20170134.
57. Onder G, Petrovic M, Tangiisuran B, Meinardi MC,
Markito-Notenboom WP, Somers A, Rajkumar C,
Bernabei R, van der Cammen TJ.Development and
validation of a score to assess risk of adverse drug
reactions among in-hospital patients 65 years or
older: the GerontoNet ADR risk score. Arch Intern
Med. 2010;170(13):1142–8. https://doi.org/10.1001/
archinternmed.2010.153.
58. Parameswaran Nair N, Chalmers L, Connolly M,
Bereznicki BJ, Peterson GM, Curtain C, Castelino
RL, Bereznicki LR. Prediction of hospitalization
due to adverse drug reactions in elderly communitydwelling patients (the PADR-EC score). PLoS One.
2016;11(10):e0165757. https://doi.org/10.1371/jour-
nal.pone.0165757.
59. Tangiisuran B, Scutt G, Stevenson J, Wright J, Onder
G, Petrovic M, van der Cammen TJ, Rajkumar C,
Davies G. Development and validation of a risk
model for predicting adverse drug reactions in
older people during hospital stay: Brighton Adverse
Drug Reactions Risk (BADRI) model. PLoS One.
2014;9(10):e111254. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0111254.
60. Yadesa TM, Kitutu FE, Tamukong R, Alele
PE. Development and validation of ‘Prediction
of Adverse Drug Reactions in Older Inpatients
(PADROI)’ risk assessment tool. Clin Interv Aging.
2022;17:195–210. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.
S350500.
61. Pharmaceutical Society of Australia. Guidelines
for comprehensive medication management
reviews; 2020. https://www.ppaonline.com.au/
wp-content/uploads/2020/04/PSA-Guidelines-forComprehensive-Medication-Management-Reviews.
pdf. Accessed in 2022
62. Australian Diabetes Educators Association.
ADEA clinical guidelines. Australian
Diabetes Educators Association;2022. https://
www.adea.com.au/resources/standardsposition-statements-and-other-resources/
adea-clinical-guidelines/.
63. Canadian Deprescribing Network. Patient handouts
on medications. https://www.deprescribingnetwork.
ca/patient-handouts; 2017. Accessed June 2022.
64. Effective Prescribing and Therapeutics & Digital
Health & Care Innovation Centre. Polypharmacy:
manage medicines app. Patient shared decision-making app for polypharmacy reviews 2018, Scotland;
2021.
65. Effective Prescribing and Therapeutics Branch –
Scottish Government. Benzodiazepine and z-hypnotic: Quality prescribing advice for adults. Accessed
on 28 th March 2023. Available at https://www.thera-
peutics.scot.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/
Benoz-and-Z-d_Quality-Prescribing-Adv-FINALDRAFT.pdf.
66. World Health Organization. Adherence to long-term
therapies. WHO; 2003. http://apps.who.int/iris/bit-
stream/handle/10665/42682/9241545992.pdf;jsessio
nid=B3EDA8A86FC93977FA35E8D7189C7F7D?se
quence=1. 2022.
67. Elliott R.Non-adherence to medicines: not solved but
solvable. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2009;14(1):58–61.
68. Public Health Scotland Teach back. NHS; 2022.
https://www.healthliteracyplace.org.uk/toolkit/
techniques/teach-back/.
69. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Use the
teach-back method: tool #5. AHRQ; 2020. https://
www.ahrq.gov/health-literacy/improve/precautions/
tool5.html. 2022.
70. CaDen. What is deprescribing? Bruyère Research
Institute; 2021. https://deprescribing.org/what-is-
deprescribing/. Accessed 01 May 2021.
71. Lyles LF, Hildebrandt H, Mair A.Population health
management approach: integration of communitybased pharmacists into integrated care systems:
reections from the U.S., achievements in Scotland

434
A. R. Mair et al.
and discussions in Germany. Int J Integr Care.
2020;20(2):13. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.5431.
72. Mair A, Antoniadou E, Hendry A, Gabrovec
B.Appropriate polypharmacy: a barometer for integrated care. J Integr Care. 2020;29:204.
73. McDonald EG, Wu PE, Rashidi B, Wilson MG,
Bortolussi-Courval E, Atique A, Battu K, Bonnici
A, Elsayed S, Wilson AG, Papillon-Ferland L, Pilote
L, Porter S, Murphy J, Ross SB, Shiu J, Tamblyn R,
Whitty R, Xu J, Fabreau G, Haddad T, Palepu A, Khan
N, McAlister FA, Downar J, Huang AR, MacMillan
TE, Cavalcanti RB, Lee TC.The MedSafer Studyelectronic decision support for deprescribing in hospitalized older adults: a cluster randomized clinical
trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2022;182(3):265–73. https://
doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.7429.
74. OECD, “Safe prescribing in older populations”, in
Health at a Glance 2019: OECD Indicators, 2019.
OECD Publishing, Paris. https://doi.org/10.1787/
c69da240-en.
75. Burt J, Elmore N, Campbell SM, Rodgers S, Avery AJ,
Payne RA. Developing a measure of polypharmacy
appropriateness in primary care: systematic review and
expert consensus study. BMC Med. 2018;16(1):91.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1078-7.
76. Cheng R, Yoo L, Ho C, Kadija M. Identication of
medication safety indicators in acute care settings for
public reporting in Ontario. Healthc Q. 2010;13 Spec
No:26–34. https://doi.org/10.12927/hcq.2010.21962.
PMID: 20959727.
77. Fastbom J, Johnell K.National indicators for quality of
drug therapy in older persons: the Swedish experience
from the rst 10 years. Drugs Aging. 2015;32(3):189–
99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-015-0242-4.
78. Thompson W, Reeve E. Deprescribing: moving
beyond barriers and facilitators. Res Social Adm
Pharm. 2022;18(3):2547–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
sapharm.2021.04.004.
79. Doherty AJ, Boland P, Reed J, Clegg AJ, Stephani
AM, Williams NH, Shaw B, Hedgecoe L, Hill R,
Walker L. Barriers and facilitators to deprescribing in primary care: a systematic review. BJGP
Open. 2020;4(3):bjgpopen20X1010. https://doi.
org/10.3399/bjgpopen20X101096.
80. Le Bosquet K, Barnett N, Minshull J.Deprescribing:
practical ways to support person-centred. Evid Based
Deprescribing Pharm (Basel). 2019;7(3):129. https://
doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy7030129.
81. Anderson K, Foster M, Freeman C, Luetsch K, Scott
I.Negotiating “unmeasurable harm and benet”: perspectives of general practitioners and consultant pharmacists on Deprescribing in the primary care setting.
Qual Health Res. 2017;27(13):1936–47. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1049732316687732.
82. Rochon PA, Petrovic M, Cherubini A, Onder G,
O’Mahony D, Sternberg SA, Stall NM, Gurwitz
JH. Polypharmacy, inappropriate prescribing, and
deprescribing in older people: through a sex and gender lens. Lancet Healthy Longevity. 2021;2(5):e290–
300. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2666-7568(21)00054-4.
83. Gillespie RJ, Harrison L, Mullan J. Deprescribing
medications for older adults in the primary care
context: a mixed studies review. Health Sci Rep.
2018;1(7):e45. https://doi.org/10.1002/hsr2.45.
84. Farrell B, Mangin D. Deprescribing is an essential part of good prescribing. Am Fam Physician.
2019;99(1):7–9.
85. Balsom C, Pittman N, King R, Kelly D.Impact of a
pharmacist-administered deprescribing intervention
on nursing home residents: a randomized controlled
trial. Int J Clin Pharm. 2020;42(4):1153–67. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s11096-020-01073-6.
86. Seto H, Ishimaru N, Ohnishi J, Kanzawa Y,
Nakajima T, Shimokawa T, Imanaka Y, Kinami
S.Multidisciplinary team deprescribing intervention
for polypharmacy in elderly orthopedic inpatients: a
propensity score-matched analysis of a retrospective
cohort study. Intern Med. 2022;61:2417. https://doi.
org/10.2169/internalmedicine.8929-21.
87. Dharmarajan TS, Choi H, Hossain N, Munasinghe
U, Lakhi F, Lourdusamy D, Onuoha S, Murakonda P,
Skokowska-Lebelt A, Kanagala M. Deprescribing as
a clinical improvement focus. J Am Med Dir Assoc.
2020;21(3):355–60.
88. Moore MH.Creating public value: strategic management in government. Harvard University Press; 1995.
89. Westbrook JI, Baysari MT.Nudging hospitals towards
evidence-based decision support for medication management. Med J Aust. 2019;210(Suppl 6):S22–4.
https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.50028.
90. Nagtegaal R, Tummers L, Noordegraaf M, Bekkers
V. Nudging healthcare professionals towards evidence-based medicine: a systematic scoping review.
J Behav Public Admin. 2019;2(2)
91. Mollenkamp M, Zeppernick M, Schreyogg J. The
effectiveness of nudges in improving the self-management of patients with chronic diseases: a systematic
literature review. Health Policy. 2019;123(12):1199–
209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2019.09.008.
92. Mair A, Fernandez-Llimos F, Alonso A, Harrison
C, Hurding S, Kempen T, Kinnear M, Michael N,
McIntosh J, Wilson M. The Simpathy consortium.
Polypharmacy management by 2030: A patient
safety challenge. 2nd ed. SIMPATHY Consortium;
2017. https://www.simpathy.eu/sites/default/les/
Managing_polypharmacy2030-web.pdf. Accessed
June 2022.
93. Stewart D, Gibson-Smith K, MacLure K, Mair A,
Alonso A, Codina C, Cittadini A, Fernandez-Llimos
F, Fleming G, Gennimata D, Gillespie U, Harrison
C, Junius-Walker U, Kardas P, Kempen T, Kinnear
M, Lewek P, Malva J, McIntosh J, Scullin C, Wiese
B.A modied Delphi study to determine the level of
consensus across the European Union on the structures, processes and desired outcomes of the management of polypharmacy in older people. PLoS One.
2017;12(11):e0188348. https://doi.org/10.1371/jour-
nal.pone.0188348.
94. McIntosh J, Alonso A, MacLure K, Stewart D,
Kempen T, Mair A, Castel-Branco M, Codina C,

18 Polypharmacy andDeprescribing
435
Fernandez-Llimos F, Fleming G, Gennimata D,
Gillespie U, Harrison C, Illario M, Junius-Walker U,
Kampolis CF, Kardas P, Lewek P, Malva J, Menditto
E, Scullin C, Wiese B, Consortium S.A case study of
polypharmacy management in nine European countries: implications for change management and implementation. PLoS One. 2018;13(4):e0195232. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0195232.
95. Stewart D, Mair A, Wilson M, Kardas P, Lewek P,
Alonso A, McIntosh J, MacLure K, Consortium
S. Guidance to manage inappropriate polypharmacy in older people: systematic review and future
developments. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2017;16(2):
203–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2017.126
5503.
96. Martyn-St James M, Faria R, Wong R, Scope
A.Evidence for the impact of interventions and medicines reconciliation on problematic polypharmacy
in the UK: a rapid review of systematic reviews. Br
J Clin Pharmacol. 2021;87(1):42–75. https://doi.
org/10.1111/bcp.14368.
97. Soler O, Barreto JOM. Community-level phar-
maceutical interventions to reduce the risks of
polypharmacy in the elderly: overview of systematic reviews and economic evaluations. Front
Pharmacol. 2019;10:302. https://doi.org/10.3389/
fphar.2019.00302.
98. Laberge M, Sirois C, Lunghi C, Gaudreault M,
Nakamura Y, Bolduc C, Laroche ML. Economic
evaluations of interventions to optimize medication
use in older adults with polypharmacy and multimorbidity: a systematic review. Clin Interv Aging.
2021;16:767–79. https://doi.org/10.2147/CIA.
S304074.
99. Avery AJ, Rodgers S, Cantrill JA, Armstrong S,
Cresswell K, Eden M, Elliott RA, Howard R,
Kendrick D, Morris CJ, Prescott RJ, Swanwick G,
Franklin M, Putman K, Boyd M, Sheikh A.A pharmacist-led information technology intervention for
medication errors (PINCER): a multicentre, cluster
randomised, controlled trial and cost-effectiveness
analysis. Lancet. 2012;379(9823):1310–9. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61817-5.
100. Dreischulte T, Donnan P, Grant A, Hapca A,
McCowan C, Guthrie B.Safer prescribing—a trial
of education, informatics, and nancial incentives.
N Engl J Med. 2016;374(11):1053–64. https://doi.
org/10.1056/NEJMsa1508955.
101. Etxeberria A, Iribar J, Vrotsou K, Rotaeche R, Barral
I, Grupo de Colaboracion APAHdPyPP, Grupo de
Colaboracion APAHdPPP, Barral I, Belzunegui J,
Bustinduy A, Caso J, Del Bosque C, Etxeberria A,
Frias O, Iribar J, Lekuona A, Lombera L, Lopez B,
Nunez J, Olasagasti B, Rotaeche R, Royo I, Vrotsou
K, Zapata E, Zubeldia X.Evaluation of the collaboration between primary and hospital care in order to
improve inappropriate prescription. J Healthc Qual
Res. 2021;36(2):91–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhqr.2020.09.005.
102. Mair A, Kirke C, Scott M, Michael N, Kanan Y,
Law S, Scullin C, Fleming G, Hyder Skinner N,
Kyle D. iSIMPATHY Evaluation Report, Edinburgh,
iSIMPATHY Consortium; 2023. iSIMPATHY_
Evaluation_report_ver8_online.pdf. iSIMPATHY
Evaluation Report. Available at https://www.isim-
pathy.eu/uploads/iSIMPATHY_Evaluation_report_
ver8_online.pdf. Accessed in March 2024.

Safe Prescribing and Monitoring in
Pediatrics
JeremyS.Stultz andMilapC.Nahata
19
Abstract
The pediatric population encompasses a wide
array of vastly different patient subsets. Each
subset has unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic differences that often substantially differ from other subsets and the adult
population. These differences lead to the need
for unique and highly patient-specic medication regimens, as well as age-specic medication safety considerations such as adverse
drug event warnings and potential contraindications. Normal pediatric growth and development impacts medication-related adverse
events, requiring healthcare providers to reliably assess and managethese events. The differences in the medication use process
required for optimization of pediatric medication regimens may lead to an increased potential for medication errors throughout the
medication use process. Implementation of
J. S. Stultz
Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Translational
Science, College of Pharmacy, University of
Tennessee Health Science Center,
Nashville, TN, USA
M. C. Nahata (*)
Institute of Therapeutic Innovations and Outcomes
(ITIO), Pharmacy, Pediatrics, & Internal Medicine,
Pharmacy Practice and Science, Outcomes and
Translational Sciences, College of Pharmacy, The
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA
e-mail: nahata.1@osu.edu
medication-specic health information technologies such as the computerized provider
order entry, electronic prescribing, and clinical decision support has improved the medication use process and medication safety in the
pediatric population and is a vital safety measure. Practitioners should take into account
the unique pediatric medication needs and
implement actions to maximize efcacy and
safety of medications in pediatric patients.
Keywords
Pediatrics · Children · Adverse drug events ·
Contraindications · Medication errors ·
Medication safety · Medication prescribing ·
Safety monitoring · Computerized provider
order entry · Health information technology ·
Clinical decision support · Pharmacovigilance
Learning Objectives
• Delineate pharmacokinetic and pharmacody-
namic differences among children of varying
ages and adults
• Identify key growth and development mile-
stones associated with occurrence of
medication- related adverse events in children
• Describe important growth and development
milestones impacting the assessment of
related adverse drug events in children
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2024
J. Jose et al. (eds.), Principles and Practice of Pharmacovigilance and Drug Safety,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51089-2_19
437

438
J. S. Stultz and M. C. Nahata
• Correlate differences in pharmacokinetics,
pharmacodynamics, and growth and development with medication-related adverse events
• Indicate steps of the medication use process
associated with a higher risk of medication
error occurrence specically in children
• Know potential impact of health information
technology on prevention of adverse events in
children
• Develop methods for prevention of adverse
events when using high-risk medications in
children
Key Points
• Differences in pharmacokinetics, phar-
macodynamics, and pediatric growth
and development result in a higher
potential for adverse drug event occurrence in the pediatric versus adult
population.
• Certain aspects of pharmacovigilance
are more challenging in pediatric populations compared to adults.
• Studies are not always available to
clearly delineate adverse drug reactions
in children.
• Prescribing of medications for children
is more error-prone compared to adults
due to additional required steps.
• Health information technology can
improve the ability to detect adverse
drug events in the pediatric population.
• Health information technology can
enhance the safety of prescribingmedications for children by decreasing medication errors.
1 Introduction
The pediatric population is a dynamic patient
cohort with distinctive pharmacovigilance needs.
There are unique features of the pediatric population related to normal growth and development,
drug disposition, adverse drug reaction (ADR)
detection, and risk of medication errors (MEs),
which must be accounted for to provide optimal
drug therapy outcomes in pediatric patients. The
pediatric population has been known as “therapeutic orphans” due to the lack of safety and efcacy
data for many medications, despite an essential
need to use the medication for a given indication.
This has led to the recognition of serious ADRs
after medications were used in everyday practice,
in many scenarios as intended by the prescriber.
Additionally, due to the error-prone, complex process surrounding medication use in a pediatric
patient, catastrophic outcomes have occurred for
some patients due to aME (e.g., fatal overdoses of
narrow therapeutic index medications like digoxin,
potassium, and anticoagulants). This chapter will
highlight the issues surrounding medication prescribing and safety monitoring in pediatric patients
and specic methods for ensuring safe and effective medication utilization in this population.
There are varying pharmacovigilance terminologies used in the literature and not all denitions are suitable for the pediatric population.
Throughout this chapter, select pharmacovigilance terms will be used as dened in Table19.1.
The denitions for these terms are similar to
those recommended by regulatory agencies
across the world (e.g., the World Health
Organization and the United States Food and
Drug Administration, and the Institute for Safe
Medication Practices), with pediatric
pharmacovigilance- specics added [1–3]. The
term adverse drug event (ADE) is intended to
include both ADRs and MEs. If the term ADE is
used in this chapter, then that statement is likely
relevant to both an ADR and ME.If ADR or ME
is used alone, it would be specic to that subcategory of ADE. Compared to the United States
Food and Drug Administration (US FDA)denition for an ADR, we added the verbiage for
“intended use.” Other denitions use words such
as “normal use,” but in the pediatric population,
“normal use” is difcult to dene because regulatory agencies often have not approved many
medications for use in the pediatric population,
despite frequent use in daily practice. It is also
important to note that an ADR is inherently associated with harm, but this chapter will also discuss potential ADEs or MEs which are important
aspects of pharmacovigilance in the pediatric
population although harm did not actually occur.

19 Safe Prescribing and Monitoring in Pediatrics
439
Table 19.1 Terminologya used in this chapter for
harmbevents associated with medication use
Denition for this
Terminology
Adverse drug
event (ADE)
Adverse drug
reaction
Medication
b
error
a
Terminology used is pediatric-focused, but based on de-
nitions from: [1, 2]
b
Pharmacovigilance also focuses on potential ADE or
ME, which means that an event or scenario occurred
which had a higher than normal chance for causing harm,
but no harm occurred
chapter
Harm potentially,
b
likely, or
denitively
associated with a
medication when
used as intended
or in error
Patient harm
during the use of
a medication as
intended. The use
of the medication
was potentially,
likely, or
denitively
associated with
the reaction
Any preventable
event occurring
while the
medication is in
the control of the
healthcare
professional,
patient, or
consumer that
leads to patient
harm
Select additional
comments
– Other denitions
use this term to
describe all events
during the use of a
medication
regardless of
association with the
medication, but this
chapter focuses on
to those associated
with the medication
– Other references
use the term as a
“normal” use of a
drug, which is
sometimes hard to
dene in pediatrics
– A subcategory of
an ADE
– May not always
cause harm
– It will be
asubcategory of
ADE, if harm
occurred
2 Pediatric Age Terminology
andPharmacokinetic/
Pharmacodynamic
Dierences
2.1 Age Terminology
The pediatric population encompasses numerous
subcategories of dynamic patients displaying
vastly different medication-related safety concerns. Typically, the pediatric population is
divided into groups which tend to have similar
development, physiology, and pharmacokinetic
characteristics. These groups are typically based
on age and/or body weight and can vary between
references. Groupings usually start with the newborn or neonatal period and extend up to approximately 18years of age for adolescents, although
some advocate for increasing the upper limit to
21 years of age for patients with diseases of
childhood [4, 5]. Commonly accepted groups are
presented in Table19.2, and this terminology will
be used throughout this chapter.
The perinatal period is the most complicated
age-group with numerous subcategories and variations in methods used for categorization. The
developmental and drug disposition differences
are commonly related to either gestational age
(GA)at birth or birth weight in combination with
postnatal age (PNA). Gestational age (GA) is
dened as the number of weeks from the rst day
of the last menstrual cycle of the mother, with the
viable age for survival of a newborn being
approximately 22–23weeks or higher of gestation at birth [6]. This is a more practical method
compared to determining postconceptional age,
which would be the age from the time of conception, a date often unknown. A GA of at least
37weeks is considered full-term for a newborn.
Postnatal age (PNA) refers to the age since birth.
While GAmay not be reliable in some patients or
as applicable to those with in utero development
issues, other well-accepted terminologies associated with neonatal physiology are based on the
birth weight, with low birth weight neonates
being considered a weight of <2500g with additional stratications below that weight as
described in Table19.2 [7]. It has been shown
that postmenstrual (GA at birth + PNA) or postconceptional age is most correlated with appropriate dosing for medications excreted from the
body primarily via the kidneys, such as vancomycin and gentamicin [8, 9]. Thus, many medication
dosing recommendations are based on this
descriptor, sometimes combined with the
patient’s birth weight.
The infant and child category can also vary.
The USFDA extends the infant period up until
2years of age, although many tertiary references
and other organizations utilize an upper age range
of 1year of age [5, 7]. The terms “toddler” and
“preschool age children” may also be used to

440
Table 19.2 Pediatric age and weight terminology
General pharmacokinetic differences
Terminology Inclusive ages or weights
Neonate
Common terminologies describing age or weight at birth
– Preterm GA at birth <37weeks
– Term
– Low birth weight Birth weight of <2500g
– Very low birth weight Birth weight of <1500g
– Extremely low birthweight Birth weight of <1000g
Preterm infant
Infant (or corrected infant)
Children 2yearsb–11years – Hepatic clearance is usually faster for
Adolescents 12–18years – Variability exists, but both renal and
GA Gestational age, PNA Postnatal age, PMA Postmenstrual age (gestational age at birth+postnatal age), Vd Apparent
volume of distribution
a
Some references may call preterm infants as preterm neonates. There are variations when a preterm infant is no longer
considered “preterm” from a physiological perspective, with some references extending this up to 46weeks PMA
b
The infant categorization including ages up to 2 years is recommended by the United States Food and Drug
Administration, but other references may use 1year because drug disposition in patients 1–2years may be similar to
patients>2years for certain medications
a
≤28days PNA
GA at birth ≥37weeks
Born <37weeks GA, and >28days
PNA, and PMA <41weeks
>28days if born ≥37weeks GA OR
PMA ≥41 weeksa (if born preterm);
one of the above and <2years PMA
a
compared to adults
– Higher Vd (inverse relationship with
PMA and weight)
– Slower hepatic clearance and renal
elimination versus adults
(directrelationship with PMA and
weight)
– Greater skin absorption (inverse
relationship with PMA and weight)
– Altered absorption for certain oral
medications with pH-dependent
absorption
– Higher Vd
– Hepatic clearance may be faster
b
depending on enzyme or conjugation
mechanism
– Renal elimination isusually faster than
adults
metabolic enzymes
– Renal elimination isfaster than adults
hepatic clearance/elimination are similar
or faster than adults for most medications
J. S. Stultz and M. C. Nahata
describe children between 1 and approximately
6years of age (with those 7–12years solely being
considered children). Adolescents can also be
further divided in certain subgroups. Importantly,
these additional subgroups inuence drug disposition and medication safety to a lesser extent in
comparison with the neonatal subgroups, and
thus, these are less utilized compared to the categories described in Table19.2.
It is important to understand that individual
patients may not t into these categories due to
developmental differences compared to population averages. For example, a patient with cerebral palsy may be 15years old but not have the
developmental or pharmacokinetic characteristics of other 15-year-old patients. Additionally,
obese adolescents can present specic challenges. Typically, the maximum dosages of drugs
in pediatric patients are the same as for the adult
patients, but in certain scenarios this could represent undertreatment and the required pediatric
dosages may exceed adult maximums for some
medications [10].
2.2 Pharmacokinetic Dierences
Within thePediatric
Population
Pharmacokinetic differences abound within the
pediatric population between the various age
groups. As described in Table19.2, neonates and
preterm infants generally have higher apparent
volume of distribution (Vd) due to a higher proportional amount of total body water per kilogram of body weight. Neonates and preterm
Соседние файлы в папке Библиотека им академика М.И. Перельмана
