Background: Self-report is considered most suitable to measure medication adherence in routine clinical practice. However, accuracy of self-report as a quantitative measure of adherence is not well documented. Objective: To assess the accuracy of a self-report measure of adherence (Medication Adherence Report Scale [MARS-5]) for identifying nonadherent users of inhalation medication among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), compared with medication refill adherence (MRA) as reference. Methods: We used baseline data from the Pharmaceutical Care for Patients with COPD (PHARMACOP)-trial (n = 734). Patients with incomplete MARS-5 and/or incomplete pharmacy refill records were excluded (n = 121). Internal consistency of MARS-5 (Crohnbach α) and Spearman rank correlation (ρ) with MRA were calculated. Different thresholds for nonadherence were used to calculate sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value (PPV), compared with dichotomized MRA (MRA ≥80% = adherent). A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was plotted to determine the goodness of test. Results: 613 patients were included in the analysis. The mean adherence score by MARS-5 (range = 5-25) was 23.5 (SD = 2.6); mean adherence by MRA was 83.4% (SD = 23.8%). Internal consistency of MARS-5 was high (α = 0.77). Continuous MARS-5 scores correlated poorly with continuous MRA scores (ρ = 0.10; P = 0.011). When lowering the nonadherence threshold stepwise from 25 to 20, MARS-5 did not reach sufficient sensitivity (53% to 13%), specificity (57% to 94%), and PPV (42% to 57%) to detect nonadherers compared with dichotomized MRA. ROC curve plotting resulted in an area under the curve value of 0.56 (95% CI = 0.521-0.616; P = 0.005). Conclusion: Self-reported adherence measured by MARS-5 is inaccurate in identifying nonadherence to inhalation medication in patients with COPD.

The PHARMACOP-intervention significantly improved medication adherence and inhalation technique for patients with COPD compared with usual care. This study aimed to evaluate its cost-effectiveness.

Background Ageing of the population often leads to polypharmacy. Consequently, potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) becomes more frequent. Systematic screening for PIP in older patients in primary care could yield a large improvement in health outcomes, possibly an important task for community pharmacists. In this article, we develop an explicit screening tool to detect relevant PIP that can be used in the typical community pharmacy practice, adapted to the European market. Methods Eleven panellists participated in a two-round RAND/UCLA (Research and Development/University of California, Los Angeles) process, including a round zero meeting, a literature review, a first written evaluation round, a second face-to-face evaluation round and, finally, a selection of those items that are applicable in the contemporary community pharmacy. Results Eighteen published lists of PIP for older patients were retrieved from the literature, mentioning 398 different items. After the two-round RAND/UCLA process, 99 clinically relevant items were considered suitable to screen for in a community pharmacy practice. A panel of seven community pharmacists selected 83 items, feasible in the contemporary community pharmacy practice, defining the final GheOP³S tool. Conclusion A novel explicit screening tool (GheOP³S) was developed to be used for PIP screening in the typical community pharmacy practice.

Objectives: The availability of new vaccines against COVID-19 urges for guidance about vaccination during lactation. We aimed to review the literature to get an insight into the effects of COVID-19 vaccination on lactating women.Design: Systematic review.Data Sources: We searched Ovid Embase Classic+Embase, PubMed and BioMed Central for articles published between December 1^st 2020 and December 31^st 2021.Review Methods: The search strategy contained terms and combinations related to COVID-19 vaccination during lactation, including the MeSH terms “COVID-19”, “COVID-19 Vaccines”, “SARS-CoV-2”, “Lactation”, “Breast Feeding”, “Pregnancy” and “Postpartum period”. The database search was completed with a manual search of the reference lists of included articles. Data concerning country, study period, number of participants, type of applied vaccine, time points of sampling and outcome measures were collected from the selected manuscripts. The data are summarized and synthesized in a descriptive way.Results: 30 manuscripts were included in this review. Data on safety of COVID-19 vaccination during lactation indicate no severe vaccine-related local and systemic reactions, both after first and second dose, neither in the mother nor the nursing child. No significant amount of vaccine components seems to appear in breast milk. Milk supply data after vaccination are inconclusive as there are no quantitative data available. Some women however observe a temporary increase or reduction in milk supply, without long-term effects. All prospective cohort studies demonstrated the presence of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies in breast milk of nursing mothers vaccinated against SARS-CoV-2. Nearly all studies were conducted with mRNA vaccines.Conclusion: There is evidence that the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine is safe and poses no additional risk to the breastfeeding woman or the breastfed baby. After vaccination of the mother during the lactation period, antibodies appear in the milk, which could protect the infant against COVID-19. Professional associations and government health authorities should therefore recommend offering COVID-19 vaccines to breastfeeding women, as the potential benefits of maternal vaccination while breastfeeding outweigh the risks.