对住院病人进行用药审查以降低再入院率和死亡率。对研究性试验进行系统回顾、荟萃分析和荟萃回归。

Miriam Degen, Li-Ju Chen, Ben Schöttker
{"title":"对住院病人进行用药审查以降低再入院率和死亡率。对研究性试验进行系统回顾、荟萃分析和荟萃回归。","authors":"Miriam Degen, Li-Ju Chen, Ben Schöttker","doi":"10.1016/j.arr.2025.102661","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Efforts to reduce preventable medication-related harm through medication reviews have increased, but interventions often yield null-results regarding clinical outcomes. We conducted a systematic literature search in four data bases and summarised the available evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing medication reviews and usual care in hospitalised patients regarding hospital readmissions and all-cause mortality by random-effects meta-analyses. Effect size differences by methodological study differences were of special interest. The meta-analysis of all 24 trials on hospital readmissions, including 12,539 participants, showed a statistically significant 8 % decrease in hospital readmissions (risk ratio (RR) [95 % confidence interval]: (0.92 [0.88-0.97], p = 0.002). The number of patient contacts was the most prominent effect modifier in meta-regression (p = 0.003) and the effect of medication reviews was approximately twice as strong (15 %) in 11 trials with 2 or more patient contacts (0.85 [0.78-0.92], p < 0.001). No statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality was observed in a meta-analysis of all 22 trials with data for this outcome (0.95 [0.86-1.04], p = 0.24), including 12,350 participants. The method of mortality assessment was identified as an effect modifier by meta-regression (p = 0.01). A meta-analysis of 10 trials with complete mortality ascertainment via registries or primary care data showed a significantly 19 % reduced mortality (0.81 [0.70-0.94], p < 0.01). In conclusion, medication reviews reduce the risk of hospital readmission and might also reduce all-cause mortality. Comprehensive mortality assessment was essential for successful trials. Clinical guidelines should recommend medication reviews with multiple patient contacts, involving pharmacists, either for repeated medication reviews or to improve adherence.</p>","PeriodicalId":93862,"journal":{"name":"Ageing research reviews","volume":" ","pages":"102661"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Medication reviews in hospitalised patients for reduced hospital readmission and mortality. Systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of RCTs.\",\"authors\":\"Miriam Degen, Li-Ju Chen, Ben Schöttker\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.arr.2025.102661\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Efforts to reduce preventable medication-related harm through medication reviews have increased, but interventions often yield null-results regarding clinical outcomes. We conducted a systematic literature search in four data bases and summarised the available evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing medication reviews and usual care in hospitalised patients regarding hospital readmissions and all-cause mortality by random-effects meta-analyses. Effect size differences by methodological study differences were of special interest. The meta-analysis of all 24 trials on hospital readmissions, including 12,539 participants, showed a statistically significant 8 % decrease in hospital readmissions (risk ratio (RR) [95 % confidence interval]: (0.92 [0.88-0.97], p = 0.002). The number of patient contacts was the most prominent effect modifier in meta-regression (p = 0.003) and the effect of medication reviews was approximately twice as strong (15 %) in 11 trials with 2 or more patient contacts (0.85 [0.78-0.92], p < 0.001). No statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality was observed in a meta-analysis of all 22 trials with data for this outcome (0.95 [0.86-1.04], p = 0.24), including 12,350 participants. The method of mortality assessment was identified as an effect modifier by meta-regression (p = 0.01). A meta-analysis of 10 trials with complete mortality ascertainment via registries or primary care data showed a significantly 19 % reduced mortality (0.81 [0.70-0.94], p < 0.01). In conclusion, medication reviews reduce the risk of hospital readmission and might also reduce all-cause mortality. Comprehensive mortality assessment was essential for successful trials. Clinical guidelines should recommend medication reviews with multiple patient contacts, involving pharmacists, either for repeated medication reviews or to improve adherence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93862,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ageing research reviews\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"102661\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ageing research reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2025.102661\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ageing research reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2025.102661","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

通过药物审查减少可预防的药物相关伤害的努力有所增加,但干预措施往往在临床结果方面产生无效结果。我们对四个数据库进行了系统的文献检索,并通过随机效应荟萃分析,总结了来自随机对照试验(RCTs)的现有证据,比较了住院患者在再入院和全因死亡率方面的药物评价和常规护理。方法学研究差异引起的效应大小差异特别令人感兴趣。对包括12539名受试者在内的所有24项关于医院再入院的试验进行荟萃分析,结果显示再入院率降低了8%(风险比(RR)[95%可信区间]:0.92 [0.88-0.97],p=0.002)。在meta回归中,患者接触者的数量是最显著的影响调节因子(p=0.003),在11项有2名或2名以上患者接触者的试验中,药物评价的影响约为两倍(15%)(0.85 [0.78-0.92],p
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Medication reviews in hospitalised patients for reduced hospital readmission and mortality. Systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression of RCTs.

Efforts to reduce preventable medication-related harm through medication reviews have increased, but interventions often yield null-results regarding clinical outcomes. We conducted a systematic literature search in four data bases and summarised the available evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing medication reviews and usual care in hospitalised patients regarding hospital readmissions and all-cause mortality by random-effects meta-analyses. Effect size differences by methodological study differences were of special interest. The meta-analysis of all 24 trials on hospital readmissions, including 12,539 participants, showed a statistically significant 8 % decrease in hospital readmissions (risk ratio (RR) [95 % confidence interval]: (0.92 [0.88-0.97], p = 0.002). The number of patient contacts was the most prominent effect modifier in meta-regression (p = 0.003) and the effect of medication reviews was approximately twice as strong (15 %) in 11 trials with 2 or more patient contacts (0.85 [0.78-0.92], p < 0.001). No statistically significant reduction in all-cause mortality was observed in a meta-analysis of all 22 trials with data for this outcome (0.95 [0.86-1.04], p = 0.24), including 12,350 participants. The method of mortality assessment was identified as an effect modifier by meta-regression (p = 0.01). A meta-analysis of 10 trials with complete mortality ascertainment via registries or primary care data showed a significantly 19 % reduced mortality (0.81 [0.70-0.94], p < 0.01). In conclusion, medication reviews reduce the risk of hospital readmission and might also reduce all-cause mortality. Comprehensive mortality assessment was essential for successful trials. Clinical guidelines should recommend medication reviews with multiple patient contacts, involving pharmacists, either for repeated medication reviews or to improve adherence.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Strides towards Healthy Longevity: Harnessing the Power of Sports and Elements of Kathak, an Indian Classical Dance Form through Social Participation to Combat Cognitive Frailty among Older Adults. Endothelial Colony-Forming Cells (ECFCs) in cerebrovascular aging: Focus on the pathogenesis of Vascular Cognitive Impairment and Dementia (VCID), and treatment prospects. Mild Behavioral Impairment and cognitive functions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. APOE4, Alzheimer's and Periodontal Disease: A scoping review. Design, Current States, and Challenges of Nanomaterials in Anti-Neuroinflammation: A Perspective on Alzheimer's Disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1