Assessing the impact of multi-compartment compliance aids on clinical outcomes in the elderly: a pilot study
- 688 Downloads
Background Medication non-adherence is a major problem for elderly people. Multicompartment compliance aids (MCAs) have been advocated as a solution for this problem. Objective To assess the impact of using MCAs in self-reported adherence and clinical biomarkers of elderly patients followed in a community pharmacy. Setting One community pharmacy at Sabugal (Portugal). Methods A four-month prospective, non-randomised, controlled study was performed. Autonomous patients aged 65 or more using 3 or more medicines and under follow-up in the pharmacy were invited to participate. All patients were offered to receive their medication in MCAs prepared in the pharmacy. Patients refusing the MCA were used as control. The intervention consisted of providing 4 weekly MCAs during the monthly visit. All patients received regular pharmacy counselling. Blood pressure (BP), lipid profile and glycaemia were assessed at baseline and monthly for all the patients. Morisky self-reported scale was applied at baseline and at the end of the study. Bivariate analysis and generalized estimation equations (GEE) were used. Main Outcome Measure: Self-reported medication adherence, clinical biomarkers: BP, lipid profile, glycaemia. Results 54 patients between 65 and 90 years were under follow-up. 44 patients accepted the MCA, constituting the intervention group. No difference in the baseline biomarkers between both groups was found. The bivariate pre-post analysis yielded significant improvements in the intervention groups, but not in the control, for glycaemia (p < 0.001), HDL-c (p = 0.018), and systolic (p < 0.001) and diastolic (p = 0.012) BP. However, when introducing the ‘time in follow-up’ in the GEE model, all the differences became non-significant, except systolic BP, but the time remained significant for all the biomarkers. Conclusion MCAs apparently improve several clinical biomarkers in a cohort of patients under pharmacist’s follow-up. When including the time in pharmacist’s followup in a GEE, the effect of the MCA disappeared, remaining only the time as a significant variable. Not considering the time in follow-up may be overestimating the effect of MCAs.
KeywordsAged Community pharmacy Elderly Medication adherence Pharmaceutical services Portugal
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare not having any conflict of interest regarding this study.
- 1.World Health Organization. Active ageing: a policy framework. Geneva: WHO; 2002. Available: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/hq/2002/who_nmh_nph_02.8.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2013.
- 3.Nobili A, Licata G, Salerno F, Pasina L, Tettamanti M, Franchi C, De Vittorio L, Marengoni A, Corrao S, Iorio A, Marcucci M, Mannucci PM. Polypharmacy, length of hospital stay, and in-hospital mortality among elderly patients in internal medicine wards. The REPOSI study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;67(5):507–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.World Health Organization. Adherence to longterm therapies. Evidence for action. Geneva: WHO; 2003. Available: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2003/9241545992.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2013.
- 13.Nunney JM, Raynor DK. How are multi-compartment compliance aids used in primary care? Pharm J. 2001;48(5):784–9.Google Scholar
- 14.Mahtani KR, Heneghan CJ, Glasziou PP, Perera R. Reminder packaging for improving adherence to self-administered long-term medications. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;7(9):CD005025.Google Scholar
- 17.National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Medicines adherence: Involving patients in decisions about prescribed medicines and supporting adherence. Manchester: NICE; 2009. Available: http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/pdf/CG76FullGuideline.pdf. Accessed 30 July 2013.
- 18.Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR, Cushman WC, Green LA, Izzo JL Jr, Jones DW, Materson BJ, Oparil S, Wright JT Jr, Roccella EJ. The seventh report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA. 2003;289(19):2560–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Expert Panel on Detection E, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. Executive Summary of the Third Report of The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, And Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol In Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA. 2001;285(19):2486–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.Portuguese General Health Directorate. Guidelines on diabetes mellitus diagnose and classification (002/2011). Lisbon; 2011. Available: http://www.dgs.pt/ms/7/paginaRegisto.aspx?back=1&id=19925. Accessed 30 July 2013.
- 23.Fitzmaurice G, Laird N, Ware J. Applied longitudinal analysis. Hoboken: Wiley; 2004. ISBN 0-471-21487-6.Google Scholar
- 36.Ellis SL, Billups SJ, Malone DC, Carter BL, Covey D, Mason B, Jue S, Carmichael J, Guthrie K, Sintek CD, Dombrowski R, Geraets DR, Amato M. Types of interventions made by clinical pharmacists in the IMPROVE study. Impact of managed pharmaceutical care on resource utilization and outcomes in veterans affairs medical centers. Pharmacotherapy. 2000;20(4):429–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar