Background: Polypharmacy and inappropriate drug use is associated with negative health outcomes among older people. Various interventions for improving drug treatment have been evaluated, but the majority of studies are limited by the use of surrogate outcomes or suboptimal design. Thus, the potential for clinically significant improvements from different interventions is still unclear. The main objective of this study is therefore to evaluate the effect upon patient-relevant endpoints of a cooperation between geriatricians and general practitioners on complex drug regimens in home-dwelling elderly people. Methods: This is a cluster randomised, single-blind, controlled trial where general practitioners are invited to participate with patients from their lists. The patients must be 70 years or older, use at least seven different medications and have their medications administered by the home nursing service. We plan to recruit 200 patients, with randomisation at physician level. The intervention consists of three main parts: ( 1) clinical geriatric assessment of the patient, combined with a thorough review of their medications; ( 2) a meeting between the geriatrician and general practitioner, where the two physicians combine their competence and knowledge and discuss the drug list systematically; ( 3) clinical follow-up, depending on the medication changes that have been done. The study period is 24 weeks, and the patients are assessed at baseline, 16 and 24 weeks. The primary outcome measure is health-related quality of life according to the 15D instrument. Secondary outcome measures include physical and cognitive functioning, medication appropriateness, falls, carer burden, use of health services ( hospital or nursing home admissions, use of home nursing services) and mortality. Discussion: Our choice of patient-relevant outcome measures will hopefully provide new knowledge on the potential for clinical improvements after performing comprehensive medication reviews in home-dwelling elderly people receiving polypharmacy.

Y The aim of this study was to assess costs and health service use associated with tendon injuries after the use of fluoroquinolone antimicrobialsin Finland during 2002-2012. This retrospective observational study included data from the Finnish Pharmaceutical Insurance Pool's pharmaceutical injury claims. In total, 145 compensated claimants aged >= 18 years presenting tendon injuries after the use of fluoroquinolones (FQs) were included in the study. Outcomes of interest were the number of outpatient visits to primary, secondary, tertiary, and private healthcare services, hospital days, rehabilitation and their costs. Regression models were used to analyze the impact of patient characteristics on hospital days, as well as the relationship between patient characteristics and tendon ruptures. Direct costs of a tendon injury averaged 14,800euro and indirect costs were estimated to be 9,077euro for employed claimants. Fifty-one percent of the claimants were hospitalized, with an average duration of 21 days. Hospitalization was the costliest form of health service use with an average of 9,915euro per hospital episode. Hospital days and direct costs increased with the severity of the injury. Tendon ruptures, in particular bilateral ruptures, required substantially more hospital days and their direct costs were significantly higher than those of uncomplicated tendinitis. Concurrent use of oral corticosteroids and increasing age were associated with a higher likelihood of tendon ruptures. Although rare, FQ-related tendon injuries can result in considerable costs and health service use. Medical staff should remain vigilant when prescribing FQs, especially in groups at increased risk for tendon injuries.

Background: Challenges in post-marketing adverse event reporting are generally recognized. To enhance reporting, the concept of additional monitoring was introduced in 2012. Additional monitoring aims to enhance reporting of adverse events (AE) for medicines for which the clinical evidence base is less well developed. Purpose: The purpose was to get a deeper understanding of the underlying reasons why additional monitoring has not increased AE reporting as much as initially hoped. We examined how healthcare professionals (HCPs) in Finland perceive additional monitoring, why they do or do not report AEs more readily for these medicines and how they interact with patients treated with additionally monitored medicines. Methods: An anonymous, open questionnaire was developed and made available online at the e-form portal of University of Helsinki. Physicians, nurses, and pharmacists were invited to complete the questionnaire via their respective trade or area unions. Content analysis of answers to open-ended questions was performed by two independent coders. Results: Pharmacists have the best understanding about additional monitoring but at the same time do not recognize their role in enhancing monitoring. Only 40% of HCPs working with patients knows always or often if a specific medicine is additionally monitored. Half (53%) of HCPs do not tell or tell only rarely patients about additional monitoring. 18% of HCPs reported having received additional monitoring training whereas 29% had received general AE reporting training. AE reporting was more common among HCPs who had received training. Conclusions: Additional monitoring awareness among HCPs and patients should be increased by organizing regular educational events and making additional monitoring more visible. Educational events should emphasize the significance additional monitoring has on patient safety and promote a reporting culture among HCPs.