Objective: To determine the economic impact of medication non-adherence across multiple disease groups. Design: Systematic review. Evidence review: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed and Scopus in September 2017. Studies quantifying the cost of medication non-adherence in relation to economic impact were included. Relevant information was extracted and quality assessed using the Drummond checklist. Results: Seventy-nine individual studies assessing the cost of medication non-adherence across 14 disease groups were included. Wide-scoping cost variations were reported, with lower levels of adherence generally associated with higher total costs. The annual adjusted disease-specific economic cost of non-adherence per person ranged from $949 to $44 190 (in 2015 US$). Costs attributed to ‘all causes’ non-adherence ranged from $5271 to $52 341. Medication possession ratio was the metric most used to calculate patient adherence, with varying cut-off points defining non-adherence. The main indicators used to measure the cost of non-adherence were total cost or total healthcare cost (83% of studies), pharmacy costs (70%), inpatient costs (46%), outpatient costs (50%), emergency department visit costs (27%), medical costs (29%) and hospitalisation costs (18%). Drummond quality assessment yielded 10 studies of high quality with all studies performing partial economic evaluations to varying extents. Conclusion: Medication non-adherence places a significant cost burden on healthcare systems. Current research assessing the economic impact of medication non-adherence is limited and of varying quality, failing to provide adaptable data to influence health policy. The correlation between increased non-adherence and higher disease prevalence should be used to inform policymakers to help circumvent avoidable costs to the healthcare system. Differences in methods make the comparison among studies challenging and an accurate estimation of true magnitude of the cost impossible. Standardisation of the metric measures used to estimate medication non-adherence and development of a streamlined approach to quantify costs is required. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42015027338.

Implementation science and knowledge translation have developed across multiple disciplines with the common aim of bringing innovations to practice. Numerous implementation frameworks, models, and theories have been developed to target a diverse array of innovations. As such, it is plausible that not all frameworks include the full range of concepts now thought to be involved in implementation. Users face the decision of selecting a single or combining multiple implementation frameworks. To aid this decision, the aim of this review was to assess the comprehensiveness of existing frameworks. A systematic search was undertaken in PubMed to identify implementation frameworks of innovations in healthcare published from 2004 to May 2013. Additionally, titles and abstracts from Implementation Science journal and references from identified papers were reviewed. The orientation, type, and presence of stages and domains, along with the degree of inclusion and depth of analysis of factors, strategies, and evaluations of implementation of included frameworks were analysed. Frameworks were assessed individually and grouped according to their targeted innovation. Frameworks for particular innovations had similar settings, end-users, and ‘type’ (descriptive, prescriptive, explanatory, or predictive). On the whole, frameworks were descriptive and explanatory more often than prescriptive and predictive. A small number of the reviewed frameworks covered an implementation concept(s) in detail, however, overall, there was limited degree and depth of analysis of implementation concepts. The core implementation concepts across the frameworks were collated to form a Generic Implementation Framework, which includes the process of implementation (often portrayed as a series of stages and/or steps), the innovation to be implemented, the context in which the implementation is to occur (divided into a range of domains), and influencing factors, strategies, and evaluations. The selection of implementation framework(s) should be based not solely on the healthcare innovation to be implemented, but include other aspects of the framework’s orientation, e.g., the setting and end-user, as well as the degree of inclusion and depth of analysis of the implementation concepts. The resulting generic structure provides researchers, policy-makers, health administrators, and practitioners a base that can be used as guidance for their implementation efforts.

Inappropriate use of multiple medicines (inappropriate polypharmacy) is a major challenge in older people with consequences of increased prevalence and severity of adverse drug reactions and interactions, and reduced medicines adherence. The aim of this study was to determine the levels of consensus amongst key stakeholders in the European Union (EU) in relation to aspects of the management of polypharmacy in older people. Forty-six statements were developed on aspects of healthcare structures, processes and desired outcomes, with consensus defined at ≥ 80% agreement. Panel members were strategists (e.g. directors, leading clinicians and commissioners) from each of the 28 EU member states, with a target recruitment of five per member state. Three Delphi rounds were conducted via email, with panel members being provided with summative results and collated, anonymised comments at the commencement of Rounds 2 and 3. Ninety panel members were recruited (64.3% of target), with high participation levels throughout the three Delphi rounds (91.1%, 83.3%, 72.2%). During Round 1, consensus was obtained for 27/46 statements (58.7%), with an additional two statements in Round 2 and none in Round 3. Consensus was obtained for statements relating to: potential gain arising from polypharmacy management (3/4 statements); strategic development (7/7); change management (5/7) indicator measures (4/6); legislation (0/3); awareness raising (5/5); polypharmacy reviews (5/7); and EU vision (0/7). Analysis of free text comments indicated that the vision statements were too ambitious and not achievable by the specified timeframe of 2025. Consensus was obtained amongst key EU strategists around many aspects of polypharmacy management in older people. Notably, no consensus was achieved in relation to statements relating to the need to alter legislation in areas of healthcare delivery, remuneration and practitioner scope of practice. While the vision for the EU by 2025 was considered rather ambitious, there is great potential and clear opportunity to advance polypharmacy management throughout the EU and beyond.

Background. Patients with chronic kidney disease have multiple comorbidities and require complicated therapeutic regimens. The role of pharmacists caring for these patients has been documented, but no review of the impact of these interventions has occurred to date. The aim of this work is to assess the impact of pharmacists’ interventions in patients with chronic kidney disease. Methods. Medline, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Pharmacy Abstracts and the Cochrane Library were searched for quantitative studies addressing the contribution of pharmacists’ interventions in patients with chronic kidney disease. Quality of controlled studies was assessed using the Downs and Black scale. Results. The search identified 37 studies (38 articles), involving 4743 participants, eligible for inclusion in the review. An uncontrolled design corresponded with 80% of the studies. Twenty-one articles (55.3%) reported outcome measures and process indicators, 4 (10.5%) reported only outcome measures and 13 (34.2%) reported only process indicators. Pharmacists identified 2683 drug-related problems in 1209 patients. The results from eight controlled studies (average quality score 0.57, SD = 0.10) demonstrated that pharmacists’ interventions reduced all-cause hospitalisations [mean (SD) 1.8 (2.4) versus 3.1 (3.0), P = 0.02] and cumulative time hospitalised [mean (SD) 9.7 (14.7) versus 15.5 (16.3) days, P = 0.06], reduced the incidence of end-stage renal disease or death in patients with diabetic nephropathy (14.8 versus 28.2 per 100 patient-years, adjusted relative risk 60%, P < 0.001), improved management of anemia (mean 69.8 versus 43.9%, P = 0.0001 and 64.8 versus 40.4%, P = 0.043 patients on goal hemoglobin and transferrin saturation, respectively), blood pressure [systolic mean (SD) 145.3 (16.8) versus 175.8 (33.9) mmHg, P = 0.029; diastolic mean (SD) 77.0 (10.2) versus 91.8 (12.0) mmHg, P = 0.020], calcium and phosphate parameters [serum phosphate levels mean (SD) 1.81 (0.54) versus 2.07 (0.25) mmol/L, P = 0.03; calcium-phosphate product mean (SD) 4.43 (1.20) versus 4.80 (0.51) mmol²/L², P = 0.04] and lipid management [total cholesterol mean (SD) 4.4 (1.1) versus 5.0 (1.4) mmol/L, P = 0.06; low density lipoprotein cholesterol mean (SD) 2.3 (0.9) versus 2.8 (1.0) mmol/L, P = 0.013]. Results from uncontrolled studies revealed positive impact of pharmacists’ interventions on reduced number of transplant rejections [mean (SD) 0.22 (0.42) versus 0.50 (0.51) episodes, P = 0.008] and adverse events (49 in 16.0% patients versus 73 in 21.3% patients, P < 0.05). Conclusions. The evidence of pharmacists’ interventions in patients with chronic kidney disease is sparse, of variable quality and with heterogeneous outcomes. On the basis of best available evidence, pharmacists’ interventions may have a positive impact on outcomes of patients with chronic kidney disease.