In 2010 the ‘Polymedication Check’ (PMC), a pharmacist-led medication review, was newly introduced to be delivered independently from the prescriber and reimbursed by the Swiss health insurances. This study aimed at evaluating the impact of this new cognitive service focusing on medicines use and patients’ adherence in everyday life. This randomised controlled trial was conducted in 54 Swiss community pharmacies. Eligible patients used ≥4 prescribed medicines over >3 months. The intervention group received a PMC at study start (T-0) and after 28 weeks (T-28) while the control group received only a PMC at T-28. Primary outcome measure was change in patients’ objective adherence, calculated as Medication Possession Ratio (MPR) and Daily Polypharmacy Possession Ratio (DPPR), using refill data from the pharmacies and patient information of dosing. Subjective adherence was assessed as secondary outcome by self-report questionnaires (at T-0 and T-28) and telephone interviews (at T-2 and T-16), where participants estimated their overall adherence on a scale from 0–100 %. A total of 450 patients were randomly allocated to intervention (N = 218, 48.4 %) and control group (N = 232, 51.6 %). Dropout rate was fairly low and comparable for both groups (N Int = 37 (17.0 %), NCont = 41 (17.7 %), p = 0.845). Main addressed drug-related problem (DRP) during PMC at T-0 was insufficient adherence to at least one medicine (N = 69, 26.7 %). At T-28, 1020 chronic therapies fulfilled inclusion criteria for MPR calculation, representing 293 of 372 patients (78.8 %). Mean MPR and adherence to polypharmacy (DPPR) for both groups were equally high (MPRInt = 88.3, SD = 19.03; MPRCont = 87.5, SD = 20.75 (p = 0.811) and DPPRInt = 88.0, SD = 13.31; DPPRCont = 87.5, SD = 20.75 (p = 0.906), respectively). Mean absolute change of subjective adherence between T-0 and T-2 was +1.03 % in the intervention and −0.41 % in the control group (p = 0.058). The number of patients reporting a change of their adherence of more than ±5 points on a scale 0–100 % between T-0 and T-2 was significantly higher in the intervention group (NImprovement = 30; NWorsening = 14) than in the control group (NImprovement = 20; NWorsening = 24; p = 0.028). Through the PMC pharmacist were able to identify a significant number of DRPs. Participants showed high baseline objective adherence of 87.5 %, providing little potential for improvement. Hence, no significant increase of objective adherence was observed. However, regarding changes in subjective adherence of more than ±5 % the PMC showed a positive effect. Clinical trial registry database, NCT01739816 ; first entry on November 27, 2012.

Background: Medication adherence is the process by which patients take their medication as prescribed and is an umbrella term that encompasses all aspects of medication use patterns. Ambiguous terminology has emerged to describe a deviation from prescribed regimen, forcing the European ABC Project to define 3 phases of medication use: initiation, implementation, and discontinuation. However, different measures of medication adherence using medication records are currently available that do not always distinguish between these phases. The literature is lacking standardization and operationalization of the assessment methods. Objective: To propose a harmonization of standards as well as definitions of distinct measures and their operationalization to quantify adherence to medication from medication records. Methods: Group discussions and consensus process among all coauthors. The propositions were generated using the authors’ experiences and views in the field of adherence, informed by theory. Results: The concepts of adherence measures within the new taxonomy were harmonized, and the standards necessary for the operationalization of adherence measures from medication records are proposed. Besides percentages and time-to values, the addition of a dichotomous value for the reinitiation of treatment is proposed. Methodological issues are listed that should be disclosed in studies on adherence. Conclusions: The possible impact of the measures in adherence research is discussed. By doing this, the results of future adherence research should gain in accuracy. Finally, studies will become more transparent, enabling comparison between studies.

Background Several measures for calculating adherence to one medication from dispensing data records have been proposed, but the nomenclature is inconsistent and computations vary. The same measures, like the medication possession ratio (MPR), have been used for multiple medication regimens, and have tended to over- or under-estimate adherence rates. Objective To demonstrate the impact of varying elements in MPR to a single medication regimen; to define standards for the estimation of adherence to polypharmacy; to propose a new method for calculating adherence to polypharmacy; to face validate it. Setting Face validity of the proposed method. Method Variations in the MPR formula were simulated. Standards for the estimation of adherence to polypharmacy were defined. A new method to calculate adherence to polypharmacy was established. Its face validity with three illustrative cases obtained from a pharmacy refill database was assessed. Main outcome measure Adherence rate to polypharmacy from refill data records. Results MPR to a single medication is operationalized in the numerator and denominator and is influenced by the parameters like observation period, medication gaps, overlap. For polypharmacy, an average MPR is commonly used, which is not accounting for the specificity of multiple medications, and hence overestimating adherence rate. We propose the daily polypharmacy possession ratio (DPPR) as an index of adherence to polypharmacy. It estimates the proportion of time a patient had medication available for use by considering the presence or absence of multiple medications on each day in the observation period. We calculated possession rates from refill histories over 31 months (January 1, 2011–July 31, 2013) for three illustrative patients. The average MPR estimates were 80 % for a patient with 6 medications/20 refill dates, 90 % for a patient with 4 medications/11 refill dates, and 89 % for a patient with 3 medications/17 refill dates. The corresponding DPPRs were 75, 88 and 99 %, indicating overestimations by 5 and 2 %, and underestimation by 10 %, respectively. Conclusion The DPPR accounts for the specificity of polypharmacy including number of medications, medication switching, duplication, overlapping. Research is needed to further confirm the validity of this new index.

Artificial nutrition, including enteral (EN) and parenteral (PN) nutrition, is indicated whenever adequate oral nutrition fails to sufficiently supply the necessary nutrients to the body. It is a convenient, efficacious, safe, and well-tolerated form of clinical nutrition in the hospital and home setting. EN is administered via nasogastric tube or ostomies while PN usually requires a central venous access for administration, straight into the blood stream. The infused nutrients can then be taken up directly by the different organs. PN is targeted as a single daily portion formulated as an oil-in-water emulsion providing the necessary substrates for the catabolic and anabolic metabolism including macro- and micronutrients and fluids. PN has a complex pharmaceutical composition—all-in-one admixture—and its compounding or ready-to-use preparation. The use of PN is more challenging and more expensive compare to the use of EN, commercially available as ready-to-use formulations. EN and concomitant medication is highly challenging. Upon incorrect handling and administration, PN is associated with potentially severe or even fatal complications, mostly relating to the central venous access (e.g., catheter-related sepsis) or to a metabolic intolerance (e.g., hyperglycemia, refeeding syndrome) because of inappropriate administration. A correct order of admixing, correct dosing, and administration of the artificial is crucial for safety and efficacy; clinical and biochemical monitoring of the patient and treatment regimen adaption are necessary. The high number of reactive solutes allow only limited stability of a ready-to-use PN admixture. The potential for numerous incompatibilities and interactions renders PN admixtures generally unsuitable as drug vehicle. Laboratory compatibility and stability testing and pharmaceutical expertise are a prerequisite to define the PN composition including nutrients or even drugs admixed to define the appropriate and individualized nutrition and medication regimen. The aim of this narrative review is to present the actual state-of-the-art to deliver best quality artificial nutrition with special regard on pharmaceutical aspects such as instabilities, incompatibilities, and concomitant co-medication.