Background Medication review is important in an era, in which polypharmacy is increasing. To date, no agreed international definition of medication review exists. Objective The aim was to reach agreement on an internationally applicable definition of medication review. Setting An international group of experts in medication review. Methods A working group of the Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe (PCNE) was established to agree on a definition including a classification of medication review. First, a survey with the aim of systematically gathering viewpoints on a definition of medication review was conducted. Second, a workshop was held to achieve an agreement. Finally, during the General Assembly of PCNE, the definition was approved. To ensure a better understanding of the scope and the considerations behind the definition, a position paper was created. Main outcome measure An internationally agreed definition of medication review. Results 58 PCNE members from 20 different countries completed the online survey. Then, 22 participants from 11 different countries (not only PCNE members) elaborated the final definition during a workshop. The final PCNE version agreed was: "Medication review is a structured evaluation of a patient's medicines with the aim of optimising medicines use and improving health outcomes. This entails detecting drug-related problems and recommending interventions". Overall, the consensus process included 225 people from 35 countries and resulted also in a classification of medication review taking into account the type and source of available information. Conclusion Involvement of an international community from research and practice and the use of a systematic process led to an agreement on the term medication review and on a classification valid for all settings and professions.

Among second-generation antipsychotics, which have a better safety profile than first-generation antipsychotics, olanzapine and risperidone showed to be the most cost-effective treatment strategies for outpatient treatment of chronic schizophrenia.

ObjectivesFirstly, to assess paracetamol-related counselling. Secondly, to evaluate the patient’s approach as a determinant of counselling and to test the acceptability of the simulated patient method in Slovenian pharmacies.MethodsThe simulated patient methodology was used in 17 community pharmacies. Three scenarios related to self-medication for headaches were developed and used in all participating pharmacies. Two scenarios were direct product requests: scenario 1: a patient with an uncomplicated short-term headache; scenario 2: a patient with a severe, long-duration headache who takes paracetamol for too long and concurrently drinks alcohol. Scenario 3 was a symptom-based request: a patient asking for medicine for a headache. Pharmacy visits were audio recorded and scored according to predetermined criteria arranged in two categories: counselling content and manner of counselling. The acceptability of the methodology used was evaluated by surveying the participating pharmacists.ResultsThe symptom-based request was scored significantly better (a mean 2.17 out of a possible 4 points) than the direct product requests (means of 1.64 and 0.67 out of a possible 4 points for scenario 1 and 2, respectively). The most common information provided was dosage and adverse effects. Only the symptom-based request stimulated spontaneous counselling. No statistically significant differences in the duration of the consultation between the scenarios were found. There were also no significant differences in the quality of counselling between the Masters of Pharmacy and Pharmacy Technicians. The acceptability of the SP method was not as high as in other countries.ConclusionThe assessment of paracetamol-related counselling demonstrates room for practice improvement.

Patient access to medicines for rare diseases varies largely across Europe. Patients in Germany, Scandinavian countries, Switzerland, France, and the United Kingdom can access larger numbers of medicines in shorter time.

Genotyping in combination with a subsequent reduction of initial irinotecan dose for UGT1A1 7/7 genotype patients was cost-saving for the population of African and Caucasian origin. By contrast, UGT1A1 genotyping was not cost effective for the population of Asian ancestry. Furthermore, the prophylactic use of G-CSFs in UGT1A1 7/7 genotype patients was not cost effective in any population group. Finally, the application of a 3-weekly high-dose treatment regimen with a 20% reduced dosage compared with the low-dose weekly irinotecan regimen in patients with UGT1A1 7/7 genotype was less expensive and is more convenient for the patient.