evaluation of a pharmacist-led medication assessment to ... · high prevalence of pp, ep and pim...
TRANSCRIPT
Ginah Nightingale, Pharm.D., BCOP
Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmacy Practice
Jefferson School of Pharmacy, Thomas Jefferson University
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
October 24, 2014
Evaluation of a Pharmacist-led Medication
Assessment to Identify the
Prevalence of Polypharmacy and
Potentially Inappropriate Medication (PIM)
Use Among Ambulatory Seniors with Cancer
Jefferson In the News!
Study Investigators� Ginah Nightingale, Pharm.D., BCOP1, Principal Investigator
Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmacy Practice
� Emily Hajjar, Pharm.D., BCPS, BCACP, CGP1
Associate Professor, Department of Pharmacy Practice
� Kristine Swartz, MD2
Assistant Professor, Division of Community and Family Medicine,
Department of Geriatrics and Palliative Care
� Jocelyn Andrel-Sendecki, MSPH3
Biostatistician, Division of Biostatistics, Department of Pharmacology and
Experimental Therapeutics
� Andrew Chapman, DO2
Clinical Associate Professor, Department of Medical Oncology, Co-Director
of the Jefferson Senior Adult Oncology Center 1Jefferson School of Pharmacy, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
2Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA 3Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA
Faculty Disclosures
� This study was supported by the American Association of Colleges of
Pharmacy (AACP) 2013 New Investigator Award Grant Program
� Study investigators and key personnel do not have any disclosures
Background
� The American Cancer Society estimates that by 2030 70% of all
cancers in the U.S. will be diagnosed in senior adults1
� The elders are coming!
� Excessive medication consumption and potentially inappropriate
medication (PIM) use in the elderly is recognized as a significant
public health problem linked to billions in health expenditures2
� Cancer-related treatment and supportive care therapies escalate its
prevalence and complexity and can increase the risk for adverse
drug events, drug-drug interactions, non-adherence3-7
1Smith BD, et al. J Clin Oncol 2009; 27:2758–652Fu FZ, et al. Med Care 2007; 45:472-476
3Riechelmann T, et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2007; 99: 592-6004Riechelmann T, et al. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2008; 35:535-43
5Riechelmann T, et al. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2005; 56: 286-906Puts M, et al. Drugs Aging 2009; 26: 519-36
7Scripture C, et al. Nat Rev Cancer 2006; 6: 546-558
Background� Literature and guidelines for senior adult oncology (SAO)
management recommend medication evaluations as a standard
component of the geriatric oncology assessment8-9
� A comprehensive medication assessment includes:– Prescription medications
– Non-prescription medications
– Complementary and alternative medications
� Conventional studies that previously examined prevalence of
polypharmacy (PP) and PIM use in the SAO population10-12 were
limited by:– Inherent pitfalls of patient self-report/chart extraction
– Use of antiquated definitions and screening criteria
– Lack of evaluation of excessive polypharmacy8Extermann M, et al. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:1824–31
9The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology Senior Adult Oncology (version 2.2014) 10Lichtman SM, et al. J Clin Oncol 2009 ;27:Abstract 9507
11Maggiore RJ, et al. J Clin Oncol 2011; 29:Abstract 1950112Prithviraj GK, et al. J Geriatr Oncol 2012; 3:228–37
Objectives and Design
Primary:• To identify the prevalence of PP, excessive polypharmacy (EPP),
and PIM use among SAO patients
Secondary:• To identify characteristics associated with PP and PIM use
Study Design:• Prospective patient-pharmacist session (comprehensive medication assessment)
• Retrospective data collection (Physicians/Pharmacists’ e-notes)
– Patients brought in all medications from home for review
Methods� Inclusion criteria:
– Geriatric-oncology multidisciplinary assessment (1/2011 - 6/2013)
– Cancer diagnosis (new diagnosis, recurrence, progression)
� Data collection included the following:– Age, gender, race, tumor type, stage
– Medications (prescription, non-prescription, complementary/herbals)
– Medical comorbidities (number and type)
– Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) status13
– Functional status14 based on geriatrician assessment• Fit (Minimal co-morbidity and no functional dependence)
• Vulnerable (Some dependence IADLs, controlled co-morbidities, geriatric syndrome)
• Frail (3+ co-morbidities, dependence in 1+ ADLs, significant geriatric syndrome)
13Oken MM, et al. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982; 5:649-65514Balducci L, et al. The Oncologist. 2000; 5:224-237
Study terms and definitions
Polypharmacy (PP) and excessive polypharmacy (EPP)15-17
� PP - concurrent use of ≥ 5 and < 10 medications
� EPP - concurrent use of ≥10 medications
Potentially inappropriate medication use (3 indices)18-20
� 2012 Beers criteria
� Screening tool of older persons’ potentially inappropriate
prescriptions (STOPP)
� Healthcare and data information set (HEDIS)15Montamat SC, et al. Clin Geriatr Med. 1992;8:143-58
16Hajjar ER, et al. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2007;5:345-5117Hovstadium B, et al. Clin Geriatr Med. 2012;28(2):159-172
18American Geriatrics Society Updated Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 201219O’Mahony D, et al. European Geriatric Medicine 2010;1: 45–51
20National Committee on Quality Assurance. Drugs to be avoided in the elderly. March 2014
Baseline demographics and characteristics, n=248
Age, mean (SD) 79.9 (6.84) years
Female gender, n (%) 159 (64%)
Race, n (%)• Caucasian
• African American
184 (74%)
48 (19%)
Solid malignancies, n (%)• Colorectal
• Breast
• Lung
• Urinary tract (bladder, renal, urethral, urothelial)
• Upper Gastrointestinal (pancreatic, bile duct, gall bladder)
• Esophageal
• Neuroendocrine
• Gastric
• Prostate
216 (87%)
46 (19%)
45 (18%)
39 (16%)
18 (7.3%)
15 (6%)
9 (3.6%)
8 (3.2%)
7 (2.8%)
7 (2.8%)
Hematologic malignancies, n (%)• Lymphoma
32 (13%)
13 (5%)
Results
ResultsBaseline demographics and characteristics, n=248
Cancer stage, n (%)• Stage I
• Stage II
• Stage III
• Stage IV
• Recurrence (local and metastatic)
• Staging not applicable
31 (13%)
59 (24%)
46 (19%)
65 (26%)
34 (14%)
8 (3.2%)
*ECOG performance status, n (%)• 0
• 1
• 2
• 3
71 (29%)
108 (44%)
58 (23%)
9 (4%)
**Functional status, n (%)• Fit
• Vulnerable
• Frail
57 (23%)
120 (49%)
68 (28%)
Number of comorbidities (excluding cancer diagnosis), mean (SD) 7.69 (3.47)
*ECOG performance status (N=247); ECOG 4 = 1 (0.4%)
**Functional status (N=245)
Results
230 (93%)
117 (47%)
88 (36%)
108 (44%)
43 (17%)
89 (36%) 91 (37%)
68 (27%)
162 (65%)
68 (27%)
82 (33%)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Comorbidity prevalence*, n (%)
*Sample size (N=248)
Results
Medication Use, n=234
Total medications
• Total medications, mean (SD), [range] 2163, 9.23 (4.79), [1–30]
Prescription medications
• Total medications, mean (SD), [range] 1430, 6.1 (3.58), [0–20]
Non-prescription medications
• Total medications, mean (SD), [range] 647, 2.76 (2.11), [0–10]
Complementary medications
• Total medications, mean (SD), [range] 86, 0.38 (0.88), [0-10]
*Sample size based on number of patients evaluated by a pharmacist
37 (16%)
96 (41%)
96 (95%)
5 (5%)
101 (43%)
No Polypharmacy Polypharmacy Excessive Polypharmacy Extreme Polypharmacy
*Sample size (N=234)
Results
Prescription Medication Use, n=234
Prescription category N %
Cardiovascular (Alpha-adrenergic agonists/antagonists, antiarrhythmics, beta-adrenergic
antagonist, calcium channel antagonists, renin-angiotensin aldosterone antagonists, vasodilators)180 76.9
Dislipidemics (Statins, ezetimibe, niacin, fenofibrate) 124 53
Gastrointestinal (Antiemetics, constipation/diarrhea, histamine-2 antagonist, PPIs) 96 41
Diuretic 94 40.2
Endocrine (Antidiabetic orals/injectable, thyroid replacement, antithyroid agents) 87 37.2
Analgesic (Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids/non-opioids, neuropathic pain drugs) 69 29.5
Antiplatelet/anticoagulant 53 22.7
Neuropsychiatric (Antidepressants, antiparkinson agents, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants) 51 21.8
Vitamin/minerals 45 19.2
Pulmonary/respiratory (Inhalers, oral tablets) 44 18.8
Potentially inappropriate medication use
prevalence**, n (%)
2012 Beers, STOPP criteria and HEDIS collectively identified 173 PIM occurrences
which was present in 40% (n=94), 38% (n=88), 21% (n=49) of patients, respectively.
Potentially Inappropriate Medication
Use, n=234
Medication category N %
Benzodiazepine 38 16.2
Gastrointestinal (Antiemetics, anticholinergic/antispasmodics, constipation/diarrhea, PPIs) 22 9.4
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs 20 8.6
Antiplatelet 19 8.1
Antihistamine (First generation) 14 6
Beta-adrenergic antagonist 13 5.6
Sedative hypnotic 7 3
Neuropsychiatric (Antipsychotics) 6 2.6
Cardiovascular (Antiarrhythmics, calcium channel antagonists) 6 2.6
Endocrine (Sulfonylureas, sliding scale insulin, dessicated thyroid) 6 2.6
Results
Patient characteristics associated with polypharmacy
No PP (n=37)< 5 medications
Any PP (n=197)≥ 5 medications
P-value
Age, mean (SD) 79.03 (7.4) 79.93 (6.65) 0.491
Female gender, n (%) 27 (72.97) 123 (62.44) 0.265
Race, n (%)
• Caucasian
• African American 25 (67.57)
9 (24.32)
148 (75.13)
36 (18.27)
0.861
Number of comorbidities, mean
(SD) 4.59 (2.19) 8.6 (3.4) <0.001
PIM use, n (%) 7 (18.92) 112 (56.85) <0.001
ResultsPatient characteristics associated with PIM use
No PIM
(n=115)
PIM
(n=119)P-value
Age, mean (SD) 80.3 (7.2%) 79.3 (6.3%) 0.260
Female gender, n (%) 76 (66%) 74 (62%) 0.534
Race, n (%)
• Caucasian
• African American
80 (70%)
24 (21%)
93 (78%)
21 (18%)
0.437
Number of comorbidities, mean (SD) 7.3 (3.4) 8.7 (3.6) 0.005
Polypharmacy, n (%)
• No polypharmacy
• Polypharmacy (≥5 and < 10 meds)
• Excessive Polypharmacy (>10 meds)
30 (26.1%)
54 (47%)
31 (27%)
7 (5.9%)
42 (35.3%)
70 (58.8%)
<0.001
Summary
� A pharmacist-led comprehensive medication assessment demonstrated a
high prevalence of PP, EP and PIM use among ambulatory SAO patients
� High pill burden (increased use of medication) was associated with:
‾ Increased comorbidity count
‾ Increased PIM use
� STOPP and 2012 Beers criteria were most inclusive for identifying
PIMs
‾ 2012 Beers and the STOPP criteria mutually identified 66 (38%) PIM
occurrences supporting the fact both tools may be complementary
Limitations� Single-center study
� Small cohort
� Pharmacist recommendations were made but not
tracked to assess primary provider’s acceptance
‾ Our SAO functions as a consultative center
�Captured medication use at a single (initial) visit
‾ Most patients were not on anti-cancer treatment at initial visit
‾ Medication use in this population changes continuously
�Heterogeneous cancer types / cancer stages
What’s Next…Future Directions�Another funded research study!
‾ 2014 American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) New Investigator Award
‾ A Pharmacist-led Intervention to Identify and Reduce Medication Related Problems (MRP) during SAO Transitions of Care
� Development of an easy to apply modified PIM screening tool (integrates 2012 Beers and STOPP criteria) and considers:
‾ Cancer diagnosis and prognosis
‾ Cancer treatment
‾ Supportive care therapies
Acknowledgements
I would like to acknowledge and thank the following individuals
who assisted with this research investigation:
� Laura Pizzi, Pharm.D., MPH
� Joshua Schoppe, MPH, CCRP
� Vittorio Maio, Pharm.D., MS, MSPH
� Krystal Guo, Pharm.D.
� Stephanie Komura, Pharm.D.
� Eric Urnoski, Pharm.D. Candidate 2015
Ginah Nightingale, Pharm.D., BCOP
Assistant Professor, Department of Pharmacy Practice
Jefferson School of Pharmacy, Thomas Jefferson University
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
October 24, 2014
Evaluation of a Pharmacist-led Medication
Assessment to Identify the
Prevalence of Polypharmacy and
Potentially Inappropriate Medication (PIM)
Use Among Ambulatory Seniors with Cancer