Christopher Etherton-Beer, Amy Page, Deirdre Criddle, George Somers, Lynne Parkinson, Rhonda Clifford, Dee Mangin
{"title":"澳大利亚多药评估与减少团队方法(AusTAPER)医院研究:合作用药审查对老年住院患者当前常规药物数量的影响。","authors":"Christopher Etherton-Beer, Amy Page, Deirdre Criddle, George Somers, Lynne Parkinson, Rhonda Clifford, Dee Mangin","doi":"10.1111/imj.16510","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background and Aims</h3>\n \n <p>Potentially harmful polypharmacy is a growing public health concern. This article aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured Team Approach to Polypharmacy Evaluation and Reduction (AusTAPER) framework.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>We recruited patients at metropolitan hospitals for a randomised controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up. The intervention included a comprehensive medicines history, multidisciplinary meeting and medicines review prior to discharge, with engagement with the participants' general practitioner extending after discharge. The primary outcome was the change in the number of regular medicines used at 12 months from baseline. A cost consequence was performed to estimate costs per participant during the study period.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>There were 98 participants enrolled in the study. The number of regular medicines was significantly reduced from baseline in both groups (−1.7 ± 4.3, <i>t</i> = 2.38, <i>P</i> = 0.02 in the control group vs −2.7 ± 3.6, <i>t</i> = 4.48, <i>P</i> = 0.0001 in the intervention group), although there was no statistical difference detected between the two groups (1.0 (SE 0.9), <i>t</i> = 1.03, <i>P</i> = 0.31). The intervention was estimated to cost AU$644.17 and was associated with cost savings of AU$552.53 per participant in sustained reduced medicines cost. Health outcomes and healthcare costs were similar in both groups.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Discussion</h3>\n \n <p>Medicines were significantly reduced in both groups, with a trend to a larger reduction in medicines at 12 months in the intervention group. The intervention cost was approximately offset by sustained reduced medicines cost, although these results should be regarded cautiously because of the absence of significance in the differences in outcomes between groups.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":13625,"journal":{"name":"Internal Medicine Journal","volume":"54 10","pages":"1719-1732"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/imj.16510","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Australian Team Approach to Polypharmacy Evaluation and Reduction (AusTAPER) hospital study: effect of a collaborative medication review on the number of current regular medicines for older hospital inpatients\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Etherton-Beer, Amy Page, Deirdre Criddle, George Somers, Lynne Parkinson, Rhonda Clifford, Dee Mangin\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/imj.16510\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background and Aims</h3>\\n \\n <p>Potentially harmful polypharmacy is a growing public health concern. This article aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured Team Approach to Polypharmacy Evaluation and Reduction (AusTAPER) framework.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>We recruited patients at metropolitan hospitals for a randomised controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up. The intervention included a comprehensive medicines history, multidisciplinary meeting and medicines review prior to discharge, with engagement with the participants' general practitioner extending after discharge. The primary outcome was the change in the number of regular medicines used at 12 months from baseline. A cost consequence was performed to estimate costs per participant during the study period.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>There were 98 participants enrolled in the study. The number of regular medicines was significantly reduced from baseline in both groups (−1.7 ± 4.3, <i>t</i> = 2.38, <i>P</i> = 0.02 in the control group vs −2.7 ± 3.6, <i>t</i> = 4.48, <i>P</i> = 0.0001 in the intervention group), although there was no statistical difference detected between the two groups (1.0 (SE 0.9), <i>t</i> = 1.03, <i>P</i> = 0.31). The intervention was estimated to cost AU$644.17 and was associated with cost savings of AU$552.53 per participant in sustained reduced medicines cost. Health outcomes and healthcare costs were similar in both groups.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Discussion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Medicines were significantly reduced in both groups, with a trend to a larger reduction in medicines at 12 months in the intervention group. The intervention cost was approximately offset by sustained reduced medicines cost, although these results should be regarded cautiously because of the absence of significance in the differences in outcomes between groups.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13625,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Internal Medicine Journal\",\"volume\":\"54 10\",\"pages\":\"1719-1732\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/imj.16510\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Internal Medicine Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/imj.16510\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Internal Medicine Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/imj.16510","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Australian Team Approach to Polypharmacy Evaluation and Reduction (AusTAPER) hospital study: effect of a collaborative medication review on the number of current regular medicines for older hospital inpatients
Background and Aims
Potentially harmful polypharmacy is a growing public health concern. This article aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured Team Approach to Polypharmacy Evaluation and Reduction (AusTAPER) framework.
Methods
We recruited patients at metropolitan hospitals for a randomised controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up. The intervention included a comprehensive medicines history, multidisciplinary meeting and medicines review prior to discharge, with engagement with the participants' general practitioner extending after discharge. The primary outcome was the change in the number of regular medicines used at 12 months from baseline. A cost consequence was performed to estimate costs per participant during the study period.
Results
There were 98 participants enrolled in the study. The number of regular medicines was significantly reduced from baseline in both groups (−1.7 ± 4.3, t = 2.38, P = 0.02 in the control group vs −2.7 ± 3.6, t = 4.48, P = 0.0001 in the intervention group), although there was no statistical difference detected between the two groups (1.0 (SE 0.9), t = 1.03, P = 0.31). The intervention was estimated to cost AU$644.17 and was associated with cost savings of AU$552.53 per participant in sustained reduced medicines cost. Health outcomes and healthcare costs were similar in both groups.
Discussion
Medicines were significantly reduced in both groups, with a trend to a larger reduction in medicines at 12 months in the intervention group. The intervention cost was approximately offset by sustained reduced medicines cost, although these results should be regarded cautiously because of the absence of significance in the differences in outcomes between groups.
期刊介绍:
The Internal Medicine Journal is the official journal of the Adult Medicine Division of The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP). Its purpose is to publish high-quality internationally competitive peer-reviewed original medical research, both laboratory and clinical, relating to the study and research of human disease. Papers will be considered from all areas of medical practice and science. The Journal also has a major role in continuing medical education and publishes review articles relevant to physician education.