Premium
A systematic review and meta‐analysis of pharmacist‐led fee‐for‐services medication review
Author(s) -
Hatah Ernieda,
Braund Rhian,
Tordoff June,
Duffull Stephen B.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
british journal of clinical pharmacology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.216
H-Index - 146
eISSN - 1365-2125
pISSN - 0306-5251
DOI - 10.1111/bcp.12140
Subject(s) - medicine , meta analysis , pharmacist , subgroup analysis , inclusion and exclusion criteria , medline , emergency medicine , pediatrics , family medicine , pharmacy , alternative medicine , pathology , political science , law
Aim The aim was to examine the impact of fee‐for‐service pharmacist‐led medication review on patient outcomes and quantify this according to the type of review undertaken, e.g. adherence support and clinical medication review. Methods Relevant published studies were identified from M edline, E mbase and I nternational P harmaceutical A bstract databases (from inception to F ebruary 2011). Study inclusion criteria were fee‐for‐service medication review, presence of a control group and pre‐specified patient outcomes. Outcomes were grouped into primary (changes in biomarkers, hospitalization, and mortality) and secondary outcomes (medication adherence, economic implications and quality of life). Meta‐analyses for primary outcomes were conducted using random effects models and secondary outcomes were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results Of the 135 relevant articles located, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria for primary outcomes and 32 for secondary outcomes. Significant results favouring pharmacists' intervention were found for blood pressure ( OR 3.50, 95% CI 1.58, 7.75, P = 0.002) and low density lipoprotein ( OR 2.35, 95% CI 1.17, 4.72, P = 0.02). Outcomes on hospitalization ( OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.39, 1.21, P = 0.19) and mortality ( OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.46, P = 0.34) indicated no differences between the groups. On subgroup analysis, clinical medication review ( OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.26, 0.83, P = 0.01) but not adherence support review ( OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.59, 1.32, P = 0.54) reduced hospitalization. Conclusions The majority of the studies (57.9%) showed improvement in medication adherence. Fee‐for‐service pharmacist‐led medication reviews showed positive benefits on patient outcomes. Interventions that include a clinical review had a significant impact on patient outcomes by attainment of target clinical biomarkers and reduced hospitalization.