[COPD患者药学服务的有效性:最近发表的PHARMACOP试验的翻译综述]。

Journal de pharmacie de Belgique Pub Date : 2014-09-01
E Tommelein, E Mehuys, T Van Hees, E Adriaens, L Van Bortel, T Christiaens, I Van Tongelen, J P Remon, K Boussery, G Brusselle
{"title":"[COPD患者药学服务的有效性:最近发表的PHARMACOP试验的翻译综述]。","authors":"E Tommelein,&nbsp;E Mehuys,&nbsp;T Van Hees,&nbsp;E Adriaens,&nbsp;L Van Bortel,&nbsp;T Christiaens,&nbsp;I Van Tongelen,&nbsp;J P Remon,&nbsp;K Boussery,&nbsp;G Brusselle","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>Few well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCT) regarding the impact of community pharmacist interventions on pharmacotherapeutic monitoring of patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease [COPD) have been conducted. We assessed the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical care program for patients with COPD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PHARMACOP-trial was a single-blind 3-month RCT, conducted in 170 community pharmacies in Belgium, enrolling patients prescribed daily COPD medication, aged > or = 50 years, and with a smoking history > or = 10 pack-years. A computer-generated randomization sequence allocated patients to intervention (n = 371), receiving protocol-defined pharmacist care, or control group (n = 363), receiving usual pharmacist care 11:1 ratio, stratified by center). Interventions, focusing on inhalation technique and adherence to maintenance therapy, were carried out at start of the trial and at one month follow-up. Primary outcomes were inhalation technique and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes were exacerbation rate, dyspnea, COPD specific and generic health status and smoking behavior.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From December 2010 to April 2011, 734 patients were enrolled. 42 patients (5.7%) were lost to follow-up. At the end of the trial, inhalation score (Mean estimated difference [delta], 13.5%; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 10.8-16.1; P < .0001] and medication adherence [(delta, 8.51%; 95% CI, 4.63-12.4; P < .0001) were significantly higher in the intervention group compared to the control group. In the intervention group, a significantly lower hospitalization rate was observed (9 vs 35 hospitalizations; Rate Ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.64; P = .003). No other significant between-group differences were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The PHARMACOP-trial demonstrates that pragmatic pharmacist care programs improve both inhalation technique and medication adherence in patients with COPD and could reduce hospitalization rates. The protocolled intervention used in this trial was specifically designed for and evaluated in (Belgian) community pharmacies. This may facilitate future implementation in the Belgian context.</p>","PeriodicalId":14736,"journal":{"name":"Journal de pharmacie de Belgique","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Effectiveness of pharmaceutical care for patients with COPD: translated review of the recently published PHARMACOP trial].\",\"authors\":\"E Tommelein,&nbsp;E Mehuys,&nbsp;T Van Hees,&nbsp;E Adriaens,&nbsp;L Van Bortel,&nbsp;T Christiaens,&nbsp;I Van Tongelen,&nbsp;J P Remon,&nbsp;K Boussery,&nbsp;G Brusselle\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aim: </strong>Few well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCT) regarding the impact of community pharmacist interventions on pharmacotherapeutic monitoring of patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease [COPD) have been conducted. We assessed the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical care program for patients with COPD.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The PHARMACOP-trial was a single-blind 3-month RCT, conducted in 170 community pharmacies in Belgium, enrolling patients prescribed daily COPD medication, aged > or = 50 years, and with a smoking history > or = 10 pack-years. A computer-generated randomization sequence allocated patients to intervention (n = 371), receiving protocol-defined pharmacist care, or control group (n = 363), receiving usual pharmacist care 11:1 ratio, stratified by center). Interventions, focusing on inhalation technique and adherence to maintenance therapy, were carried out at start of the trial and at one month follow-up. Primary outcomes were inhalation technique and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes were exacerbation rate, dyspnea, COPD specific and generic health status and smoking behavior.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From December 2010 to April 2011, 734 patients were enrolled. 42 patients (5.7%) were lost to follow-up. At the end of the trial, inhalation score (Mean estimated difference [delta], 13.5%; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 10.8-16.1; P < .0001] and medication adherence [(delta, 8.51%; 95% CI, 4.63-12.4; P < .0001) were significantly higher in the intervention group compared to the control group. In the intervention group, a significantly lower hospitalization rate was observed (9 vs 35 hospitalizations; Rate Ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.64; P = .003). No other significant between-group differences were observed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The PHARMACOP-trial demonstrates that pragmatic pharmacist care programs improve both inhalation technique and medication adherence in patients with COPD and could reduce hospitalization rates. The protocolled intervention used in this trial was specifically designed for and evaluated in (Belgian) community pharmacies. This may facilitate future implementation in the Belgian context.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14736,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal de pharmacie de Belgique\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal de pharmacie de Belgique\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal de pharmacie de Belgique","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

背景与目的:关于社区药师干预对慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)患者药物治疗监测影响的精心设计的随机对照试验(RCT)很少进行。我们评估了COPD患者药物治疗方案的有效性。方法:pharmacop试验是一项为期3个月的单盲随机对照试验,在比利时的170家社区药房进行,招募了每天服用COPD药物的患者,年龄>或= 50岁,吸烟史>或= 10包年。计算机生成的随机化序列将患者分配到干预组(n = 371),接受方案定义的药剂师护理,或对照组(n = 363),接受常规药剂师护理(按中心分层,比例为11:1)。干预措施,重点是吸入技术和坚持维持治疗,在试验开始和一个月的随访中进行。主要结局是吸入技术和药物依从性。次要结局是急性加重率、呼吸困难、COPD特定和一般健康状况以及吸烟行为。结果:2010年12月至2011年4月,共纳入734例患者。42例(5.7%)失访。试验结束时,吸入评分(Mean estimated difference [delta], 13.5%;95%置信区间[CI], 10.8-16.1;P < 0.0001]和药物依从性[(δ, 8.51%;95% ci, 4.63-12.4;P < 0.0001),干预组明显高于对照组。在干预组,住院率显著降低(9 vs 35;比率比,0.28;95% ci, 0.12-0.64;P = .003)。组间无其他显著差异。结论:pharmacop试验表明,实用的药剂师护理方案可改善COPD患者的吸入技术和药物依从性,并可降低住院率。本试验中使用的协议干预措施是专门为(比利时)社区药房设计和评估的。这可能有助于今后在比利时的情况下实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
[Effectiveness of pharmaceutical care for patients with COPD: translated review of the recently published PHARMACOP trial].

Background and aim: Few well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCT) regarding the impact of community pharmacist interventions on pharmacotherapeutic monitoring of patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease [COPD) have been conducted. We assessed the effectiveness of a pharmaceutical care program for patients with COPD.

Methods: The PHARMACOP-trial was a single-blind 3-month RCT, conducted in 170 community pharmacies in Belgium, enrolling patients prescribed daily COPD medication, aged > or = 50 years, and with a smoking history > or = 10 pack-years. A computer-generated randomization sequence allocated patients to intervention (n = 371), receiving protocol-defined pharmacist care, or control group (n = 363), receiving usual pharmacist care 11:1 ratio, stratified by center). Interventions, focusing on inhalation technique and adherence to maintenance therapy, were carried out at start of the trial and at one month follow-up. Primary outcomes were inhalation technique and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes were exacerbation rate, dyspnea, COPD specific and generic health status and smoking behavior.

Results: From December 2010 to April 2011, 734 patients were enrolled. 42 patients (5.7%) were lost to follow-up. At the end of the trial, inhalation score (Mean estimated difference [delta], 13.5%; 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 10.8-16.1; P < .0001] and medication adherence [(delta, 8.51%; 95% CI, 4.63-12.4; P < .0001) were significantly higher in the intervention group compared to the control group. In the intervention group, a significantly lower hospitalization rate was observed (9 vs 35 hospitalizations; Rate Ratio, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.12-0.64; P = .003). No other significant between-group differences were observed.

Conclusion: The PHARMACOP-trial demonstrates that pragmatic pharmacist care programs improve both inhalation technique and medication adherence in patients with COPD and could reduce hospitalization rates. The protocolled intervention used in this trial was specifically designed for and evaluated in (Belgian) community pharmacies. This may facilitate future implementation in the Belgian context.

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
[Hepatitis C]. [Essential oils: good advice by the pharmacist is necessary]. [Practical guidelines to ensure the quality of compounded preparations in community pharmacies]. [The social sciences at the Faculty of Pharmacy: and innovative course of community health at the University of Montreal]. [Pharmaceutical care for pediatric hemato-oncology and stem cell transplantation patients. Inventory of experiences and needs].
×
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