Many definitions of the term clinical pharmacy exist, but a number of ambiguities remain. In order to clarify the European Society of Clinical Pharmacy (ESCP) position on what defines clinical pharmacy, a consultation exercise was conducted among ESCP members with the findings used as the basis for an updated definition. The updated definition clarifies that clinical pharmacy (1) represents both a professional practice and field of research, (2) aims to optimise the utilisation of medicines in order to achieve person-centered and public health goals, (3) as a practice encompasses cognitive, managerial and interpersonal activities targeting all stages of the medicines use process, and as a field of research generates knowledge that informs clinical decision-making, health care organisation or policy, (4) as a practice is restricted to pharmacists, (5) can be practiced regardless of setting, and (6) encompasses pharmaceutical care but is not restricted to it.

Adverse drug events (ADEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are leading causes of iatrogenic injury, which can result in emergency department (ED) visits or admissions to inpatient wards. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to provide up-to-date estimates of the prevalence of (preventable) drug-related ED visits and hospital admissions, as well as the type and prevalence of implicated ADRs/ADEs and drugs. A literature search of studies published between January 2012 and December 2021 was performed in PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. Retrospective and prospective observational studies investigating acute admissions to EDs or inpatient wards due to ADRs or ADEs in the general population were included. Meta-analyses of prevalence rates were conducted using generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) with the random-effect method. Seventeen studies reporting ADRs and/or ADEs were eligible for inclusion. The prevalence rates of ADR- and ADE-related admissions to EDs or inpatient wards were estimated at 8.3% ([95% CI, 6.4–10.7%]) and 13.9% ([95% CI, 8.1–22.8%]), respectively, of which almost half (ADRs: 44.7% [95% CI: 28.1; 62.4]) and more than two thirds (ADEs: 71.0% [95% CI, 65.9–75.6%]) had been classified as at least possibly preventable. The ADR categories most frequently implicated in ADR-related admissions were gastrointestinal disorders, electrolyte disturbances, bleeding events, and renal and urinary disorders. Nervous system drugs were found to be the most commonly implicated drug groups, followed by cardiovascular and antithrombotic agents. Our findings demonstrate that ADR-related admissions to EDs and inpatient wards still represent a major and often preventable health care problem. In comparison to previous systematic reviews, cardiovascular and antithrombotic drugs remain common causes of drug-related admissions, while nervous system drugs appear to have become more commonly implicated. These developments may be considered in future efforts to improve medication safety in primary care.

A prescribing cascade is the treatment of an adverse drug reaction (ADR) with another drug. In this review, we discuss (a) the different types of prescribing cascade and (b) the measures that can be taken so that they will be recognized and dealt with appropriately, both in the hospital and in the outpatient setting. This review is based on pertinent publications retrieved by a selective literature search. The literature distinguishes intentional from unintentional prescribing cascades, and appropriate from inappropriate ones. We further distinguish prophylactic from therapeutic prescribing cascades and draw a line between those that are necessary and those that are merely appropriate. The following main questions are essential for dealing with prescribing cascades appropriately: (1) Did the precipitating drug cause a clinically relevant ADR or risk of an ADR? (2) Is the precipitating drug still indicated? (3) Can an ADR be avoided by altering the treatment with the precipitating drug, or by (4) switching to another drug instead? (5) Can the drug used to treat the ADR actually affect it beneficially? (6) Do the benefits of the prescribing cascade outweigh its risks? Prescribing cascades are not problematic in themselves; on the contrary, they are sometimes a necessary part of good prescribing practice. There is still a lack of practically implementable instruments to help physicians detect prescribing cascades reliably, assess them properly, and put them to appropriate use.

Background: while many drug groups are associated with falls in older people, less is known about absolute increases in risk and how these risks vary across different groups of drugs or individuals. Method and Design: we conducted a population based nested case–control study among people aged ≥65 years in the Scottish regions of Tayside and Fife. Cases were individuals hospitalised with a fracture between 2010 and 2020, to whom we matched up to 10 controls. We examined relative and absolute risks of drug groups known as ‘Fall-Risk-Increasing Drugs’ (FRIDs), alone and in combination, and among younger and older (≥75 years) adults. Adjusting for previous hospitalisations, drug use and laboratory data, we used conditional logistic regression to quantify associations between drug exposures and outcomes. We conducted four sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of our findings. Results: the cohort comprised 246,535 people aged ≥65 years, of whom 18,456 suffered an incident fracture. Fracture risks were significantly increased for most FRIDs examined. Absolute risks were much larger among older vs younger people and both relative and absolute risks increased with the number of FRIDs combined. Overall, the highest absolute increase in risk were found in people aged ≥75 years for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (number needed to harm 53), tricyclic antidepressants (NNH 81), antipsychotics (NNH 75) and use of three or more FRIDs (NNH ≤66). Conclusion: patients aged ≥75 years prescribed antidepressants or antipsychotics or taking three or more drugs that increase risk of falls may benefit most from deprescribing interventions.

Background: Antidepressants are first-line medications for many psychiatric disorders. However, their widespread long-term use in some indications (e.g., mild depression and insomnia) is concerning. Particularly in older adults with comorbidities and polypharmacy, who are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions, the risks and benefits of treatment should be regularly reviewed. The aim of this consensus process was to identify explicit criteria of potentially inappropriate antidepressant use (indicators) in order to support primary care clinicians in identifying situations, where deprescribing of antidepressants should be considered. Methods: We used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to identify the indicators of high-risk and overprescribing of antidepressants. We combined a structured literature review with a 3-round expert panel, with results discussed in moderated meetings in between rounds. Each of the 282 candidate indicators was scored on a 9-point Likert scale representing the necessity of a critical review of antidepressant continuation (1–3 = not necessary; 4–6 = uncertain; 7–9 = clearly necessary). Experts rated the indicators for the necessity of review, since decisions to deprescribe require considerations of patient risk/benefit balance and preferences. Indicators with a median necessity rating of ≥ 7 without disagreement after 3 rating rounds were accepted. Results: The expert panel comprised 2 general practitioners, 2 clinical pharmacologists, 1 gerontopsychiatrist, 2 psychiatrists, and 3 internists/geriatricians (total N = 10). After 3 assessment rounds, there was consensus for 37 indicators of high-risk and 25 indicators of overprescribing, where critical reviews were felt to be necessary. High-risk prescribing indicators included settings posing risks of drug-drug, drug-disease, and drug-age interactions or the occurrence of adverse drug reactions. Indicators with the highest ratings included those suggesting the possibility of cardiovascular risks (QTc prolongation), delirium, gastrointestinal bleeding, and liver injury in specific patient subgroups with additional risk factors. Overprescribing indicators target patients with long treatment durations for depression, anxiety, and insomnia as well as high doses for pain and insomnia. Conclusions: Explicit indicators of antidepressant high-risk and overprescribing may be used directly by patients and health care providers, and integrated within clinical decision support tools, in order to improve the overall risk/benefit balance of this commonly prescribed class of prescription drugs.