International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy

, Volume 38, Issue 1, pp 54–60 | Cite as

Impact of medication therapy management in patients with Parkinson’s disease

  • Martina HenrichsmannEmail author
  • Georg Hempel
Research Article


Background Since the new German Apothekenbetriebsordnung was released, medication therapy management (MTM) has increased in importance. MTM is intended to improve the quality of life of patients. Objectives The aim of this study was to improve the quality of life of patients with Parkinson’s disease through an MTM by a community pharmacist. Setting The patients were recruited in cooperation with the Deutsche Parkinson Vereinigung e.V. (dPV) in Germany. Methods All patients were evaluated at baseline (t0) and after a follow-up of 4 months (t1). During the intervention period, the pharmacists implemented an MTM with standardized pharmaceutical care. Main outcome measure The effects of the interventions were measured by the Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) and the Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS). Results In this study, 90 patients with Parkinson’s disease were included. The most common intervention was to find a therapy for untreated comorbidities. The UPDRS or MDS-UPDRS improved significantly after the intervention period by a median change rate of 1 (p < 0.05) or rather 2 (p < 0.05) compared to the baseline. Conclusion The study shows that the quality of life in Parkinson’s disease patients improved significantly through MTM.


Community pharmacist Germany Medication therapy management Parkinson’s disease Pharmaceutical care 



The author would like to thank the Apothekerstiftung Westfalen-Lippe for financial support of this study.

Conflicts of interest

None of the authors has any relevant conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Deutsche Gesellschaft für Neurologie. 2Sk-Leitlinie Parkinson-Syndrome Diagnostik und Therapie [Internet]. 2012, last update 07/2015. Last accessed date 28 July 2015.
  2. 2.
    Visser M, Verbaan D, van Rooden S, Marinus J, van Hilten J, Stiggelbout A. A longitudinal evaluation of health-related quality of life of patients with Parkinson’s disease. Value Health. 2009;12:392–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schröder S, Zöllner YF, Schaefer M. Drug related problems with Antiparkinsonian agents: consumer Internet reports versus published data. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2007;16:1161–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rose O, Jaehde U, Leuner K, Ritter C, Müller K, Maschke T, et al. Statement der DPhG und der DPhG-FG Klinische Pharmazie: Implementierung des Medikationsmanagements als neue pharmazeutische Dienstleistung [Internet]. 2013. Last accessed date 28 July 2015.
  5. 5.
    World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79:373.PubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gola P, Schomerus R, Klug C. BDSG Bundesdatenschutzgesetz: Kommentar. Beck; 2010. ISBN 978-3-406-67176-0.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Richards M, Marder K, Cote L, Mayeux R. Interrater reliability of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale motor examination. Mov Disord. 1994;9:89–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goetz CG, Tilley, BC, Shaftman SR, Stebbins GT, Fahn S, Martinez-Martin P, et al. Movement disorder society UPDRS revision task force movement disorder society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): scale presentation and clinimetric testing results. Mov Disord. 2008;260:2129–2170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fricke U, Günther J, Zawinell A. Methodik der ATC-Klassifikation und der DDD-Festlegung. Wissenschaftliches Institut der AOK, Bonn. 2006. [ISBN 3-922093-40-X].Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    World Health Organization. The international classification of diseases (ICD) [Internet]. 2015. Last Accessed date 28 July 2015.
  11. 11.
    Hoehn MM, Yahr MD. Parkinsonism: onset, progression and mortality. Neurology. 1967;17:427–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schaefer M. Discussing basic principles for a coding system of drug-related problems: the case of PI-Doc. Pharm World Sci. 2002;24:120–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Holt S, Schmiedl S, Thürmann P. Potentially inappropriate medications in the elderly: the PRISCUS list. Deutsches Ärzteblatt Int. 2010;107:543.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gallegher P, Ryan C, Byrne S, Kennedy J, O’Mahony D. STOPP (screening tool of older person’s prescriptions) and START (screening tool to alert doctors to right treatment). Consensus validation. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;2:72–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Thompson K, Kulkarni J, Sergejew AA. Reliability and validity of a new Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS) for the psychoses. Schizophr Res. 2000;3:241–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Samsa GP, Hanlon JT, Schmader KE, Weinberger M, Clipp EC, Uttech KM, et al. A summated score for the medication appropriateness index: development and assessment of clinimetric properties including content validity. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;8:891–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Grosset KA, Bone I, Grosset DG. Suboptimal medication adherence in Parkinson’s disease. Mov Disord. 2005;11:1502–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schröder S, Martus P, Odin P, Schaefer M. Drug related problems in Parkinson’s disease: the role of community pharmacists in primary care. Int J Clin Pharm. 2011;33:674–82.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schröder S, Martus P, Odin P, Schaefer M. Impact of community pharmaceutical care on patient health and quality of drug treatment in Parkinson’s disease. Int J Clin Pharm. 2012;34:746–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Roughead EE, Semple SJ, Vitry AI. Pharmaceutical care services: a systematic review of published studies, 1990 to 2003, examining effectiveness in improving patient outcomes. Int J Pharm Pract. 2005;13:53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Machado M, Bajcar J, Guzzo GC, Einarson TR. Sensitivity of patient outcomes to pharmacist interventions. Part I: systematic review and meta-analysis in diabetes management. Ann Pharmacother. 2007;41:1569–78.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Machado M, Nassor N, Bajcar JM, Guzzo GC, Einarson TR. Sensitivity of patient outcomes to pharmacist interventions. Part III: systematic review and meta-analysis in hyperlipidemia management. Ann Pharmacother. 2008;42:1195–207.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Maatschappij ter bevordering der Pharmacie 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Pharmaceutical and Medical ChemistryWestfälische Wilhelms-University MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations