Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2017 May;40(5):419-430.
doi: 10.1007/s40264-017-0504-7.

Evaluation of Potentially Drug-Related Patient-Reported Common Symptoms Assessed During Clinical Medication Reviews: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study

Affiliations
Observational Study

Evaluation of Potentially Drug-Related Patient-Reported Common Symptoms Assessed During Clinical Medication Reviews: A Cross-Sectional Observational Study

Tim W A Schoenmakers et al. Drug Saf. 2017 May.

Abstract

Introduction: Healthcare professionals tend to consider common non-alarming drug-related symptoms to be of little clinical relevance. However, such symptoms can have a substantial impact on the individual patient. Insight into patient-reported symptoms could aid pharmacists to identify improvements in medication treatment, for instance in the patient interview at the start of a clinical medication review (CMR).

Objective: The objectives of this study were to describe the numbers and types of patient-reported symptoms assessed during a CMR and to elucidate their potential association with the drugs in use.

Methods: This observational study was performed using data from a clinical trial on patient-reported outcomes of CMRs. Patients taking at least five drugs and who were eligible for a CMR were selected by 15 community pharmacies. Patients were asked to fill in a structured instrument, the Patient Reported Outcome Measure, Inquiry into Side Effects (PROMISE). Among other domains, this instrument offers a list of 22 symptom categories to report symptoms and their relationship with the drugs in use. The results of the PROMISE instrument together with information on patients' actual drug use were available for analysis. Besides descriptive analysis, associations with side effects as listed in the summary of product characteristics (SPC) of the drugs in use were assessed with logistic regression analysis.

Results: Of the 180 patients included, 168 patients (93.3%) reported at least one symptom via the PROMISE instrument, which could be discussed with the pharmacist during the patient interview. In total, the patients reported 1102 symptoms in 22 symptom categories. Of these patients, 101 (56.1%) assumed that at one or more of the symptoms experienced were related to the drugs in use and 107 (59.4%) reported at least one symptom that corresponded to a 'very common' side effect listed in the SPC of a drug in use. Each additional drug in use with a specific symptom listed as a 'very common' side effect in its SPC statistically significantly increased the probability of a patient reporting the symptoms of 'dry mouth/thirst, mouth complaints', 'constipation', 'diarrhoea' and 'sweating'.

Conclusion: Many patient-reported symptoms and symptoms potentially related to drugs in use were identified by administering the PROMISE instrument to users of at least five drugs being taking long-term. This information can be used in CMRs to improve patients' drug therapy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Funding

This study received an unrestricted research fund by the Royal Dutch Pharmacists Association (KNMP).

Conflict of interest

Tim W.A. Schoenmakers, Martina Teichert, Michel Wensing, and Peter A.G.M. de Smet declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

    1. Lamberts H, Wood M. International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC) Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1987.
    1. Golomb BA, McGraw JJ, Evans MA, Dimsdale JE. Physician response to patient reports of adverse drug effects: Implications for patient-targeted adverse effect surveillance. Drug Saf. 2007;30:669–675. doi: 10.2165/00002018-200730080-00003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Van Hunsel F, Passier A, Van Grootheest K. Comparing patients’ and healthcare professionals’ ADR reports after media attention: the broadcast of a Dutch television programme about the benefits and risks of statins as an example. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;67:558–564. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2009.03400.x. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Basch E, Jia X, Heller G, Barz A, Sit L, Fruscione M, et al. Adverse symptom event reporting by patients vs clinicians: relationships with clinical outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(23):1624–1632. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djp386. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Leendertse AJ, Egberts ACG, Stoker LJ, Van Den Bemt PMLA. Frequency of and risk factors for preventable medication-related hospital admissions in the Netherlands. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:1890–1896. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources