BackgroundAnticholinergic drugs put elderly patients at a higher risk for falls, cognitive decline, and delirium as well as peripheral adverse reactions like dry mouth or constipation. Prescribers are often unaware of the drug-based anticholinergic burden (ACB) of their patients. This study aimed to develop an anticholinergic burden score for drugs licensed in Germany to be used by clinicians at prescribing level.MethodsA systematic literature search in pubmed assessed previously published ACB tools. Quantitative grading scores were extracted, reduced to drugs available in Germany, and reevaluated by expert discussion. Drugs were scored as having no, weak, moderate, or strong anticholinergic effects. Further drugs were identified in clinical routine and included as well.ResultsThe literature search identified 692 different drugs, with 548 drugs available in Germany. After exclusion of drugs due to no systemic effect or scoring of drug combinations (n = 67) and evaluation of 26 additional identified drugs in clinical routine, 504 drugs were scored. Of those, 356 drugs were categorised as having no, 104 drugs were scored as weak, 18 as moderate and 29 as having strong anticholinergic effects.ConclusionsThe newly created ACB score for drugs authorized in Germany can be used in daily clinical practice to reduce potentially inappropriate medications for elderly patients. Further clinical studies investigating its effect on reducing anticholinergic side effects are necessary for validation.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-018-0929-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectivesMultimorbidity of geriatric patients often leads to polypharmacy that increases the risk for drug interactions. Geriatric patients are also more sensitive to adverse drug reactions due to physiological changes resulting from ageing. Hence, the use of medicines should be considered thoroughly. This systematic literature review aimed at identifying and presenting available evidence on the effect of pharmaceutical interventions on geriatric patients, their medications or healthcare costs in a clinical setting in Europe.MethodsWe included all studies on research of pharmaceutical interventions on geriatric inpatients (≥65 years) in Europe since 2001. Database searches were conducted on PubMed, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and AgeInfo. In addition, the following journals were searched manually: European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, ‘Krankenhauspharmazie’, ‘Medizinische Monatsschrift für Pharmazeuten’ and ‘Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie’.ResultsDatabase screening yielded 8058 hits. After deletion of duplicates, screening of title and abstract, 143 full-text articles were analysed and 17 papers were included. Manual searching added four more papers. Included studies were conducted in Belgium, Denmark, England, Ireland, the Netherlands, Sweden and Spain. They demonstrate that pharmaceutical care on wards leads to more appropriate medication use and might reduce outcomes like drug-related readmissions. Intensified pharmaceutical care showed additional effects, even in countries with established pharmaceutical care in hospitals.ConclusionsThis systematic literature review demonstrates that ward-based pharmacists may improve the appropriateness of medications, seamless care and drug safety for geriatric inpatients while being cost effective.

Background Polypharmacy is common in people with dementia. The use of psychotropic drugs (PDs) and other, potentially inappropriate medications is high. The aims of this cross-sectional study were 1) to investigate the use of drugs in people with advanced dementia (PWAD), living at home or in long term care (LTC); 2) to focus on PD use; and 3) to identify determinants of PD use. Methods The study was performed in the context of EPYLOGE (IssuEs in Palliative care for people in advanced and terminal stages of YOD and LOD in Germany). 191 PWAD were included. All drugs that were administered at the date of the examination were recorded. Multiple logistic regression analysis identified determinants of PD use. Results 96% of PWAD received medication with a median number of four drugs. 49.7% received five or more drugs. According to the Beers Criteria 39% of PWAD ≥ 65 years received at least one potentially inappropriate medication. 79% of PWAD were treated with PDs. Older PWAD and PWAD living in LTC facilities received significantly more drugs than younger PWAD, and PWAD living at home, respectively. Dementia etiology was significantly associated with the use of antipsychotics, antidepressants and sedative substances. Place of living was associated with the use of pain medication. Behavioral disturbances were associated with the use of antipsychotics and sedative substances. Conclusions To mitigate the dangers of polypharmacy and medication related harm, critical examination is required, whether a drug is indicated or not. Also, the deprescribing of drugs should be considered on a regular basis. Trial registration Clinicaltrial.gov, NCT03364179. Registered 6 December 2017.

Background Despite several international studies demonstrating that ward-based pharmacists improve medication quality, ward pharmacists are not generally established in German hospitals. Aim We assessed the effect of a ward-based clinical pharmacist on the medication quality of geriatric inpatients in a German university hospital. Method The before-after study with a historic control group was conducted on the geriatric ward. During the control phase, patients received standard care without the involvement of a pharmacist. The intervention consisted of a clinical pharmacist providing pharmaceutical care from admission to discharge. Medication quality was measured on admission and discharge using the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI). A linear regression analysis was conducted to calculate the influence of the intervention on the MAI. Results Patients in the intervention group (n = 152, mean 83 years) were older and took more drugs at admission compared to the control group (n = 159, 81 years). For both groups, the MAI per patient improved significantly from admission to discharge. Although the intervention did not influence the summated MAI score per patient, the intervention significantly reduced the MAI criteria Dosage (p = 0.006), Correct Directions (p = 0.016) and Practical Directions (p = 0.004) as well as the proportion of overall inappropriate MAI ratings (at least 1 of 9 criteria inappropriate) (p = 0.015). Conclusion Although medication quality was already high in the control group, a ward-based clinical pharmacist could contribute meaningfully to the medication quality on an acute geriatric ward.