Time Course of the Interaction Between Oral Short-Term Ritonavir Therapy with Three Factor Xa Inhibitors and the Activity of CYP2D6, CYP2C19, and CYP3A4 in Healthy Volunteers.

BACKGROUND: We investigated the effect of a 5-day low-dose ritonavir therapy, as it is used in the treatment of COVID-19 with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir, on the pharmacokinetics of three factor Xa inhibitors (FXaI). Concurrently, the time course of the activities of the cytochromes P450 (CYP) 3A4, 2C19, and 2D6 was assessed. METHODS: In an open-label, fixed sequence clinical trial, the effect and duration of a 5-day oral ritonavir (100 mg twice daily) treatment on the pharmacokinetics of three oral microdosed FXaI (rivaroxaban 25 µg, apixaban 25 µg, and edoxaban 50 µg) and microdosed probe drugs (midazolam 25 µg, yohimbine 50 µg, and omeprazole 100 µg) was evaluated in eight healthy volunteers. The plasma concentrations of all drugs were quantified using validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) methods and pharmacokinetics were analysed using non-compartmental analyses. RESULTS: Ritonavir increased the exposure of apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban, but to a different extent the observed area under the plasma concentration-time curve (geometric mean ratio 1.29, 1.46, and 1.87, respectively). A strong CYP3A4 inhibition (geometric mean ratio > 10), a moderate CYP2C19 induction 2 days after ritonavir (0.64), and no alteration of CYP2D6 were observed. A CYP3A4 recovery half-life of 2.3 days was determined. CONCLUSION: This trial with three microdosed FXaI suggests that at most the rivaroxaban dose should be reduced during short-term ritonavir, and only in patients receiving high maintenance doses. Thorough time series analyses demonstrated differential effects on three different drug-metabolising enzymes over time with immediate profound inhibition of CYP3A4 and only slow recovery after discontinuation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT number: 2021-006643-39

[Potential Benchmarks for Successful Interdisciplinary Collaboration Projects in Germany: A Systematic Review].

AIM OF THE STUDY:Collaboration between general practitioners and community pharmacists is essential to ensure safe and effective patient care. However, collaboration in primary care is not standardized and varies greatly. This review aims to highlight projects about professional collaboration in ambulatory care in Germany and identifies promising approaches and successful benchmarks that should be considered for future projects. METHODS:A systematic literature search was performed based on the PRISMA guidelines to identify articles focusing on professional collaboration between general practitioners and pharmacists. RESULTS:A total of 542 articles were retrieved. Six potential premises for successful cooperation projects were identified: GP and CP knowing each other (I), involvement of both health care providers in the project planning (II), sharing of experience or concerns during regular joint meetings enabling continuing evaluation and adaption (III), ensuring (technical) feasibility (IV), particularly by providing incentives (V), and by integrating these projects into existing health care structures (VI). CONCLUSION:Only few studies have been published in scientific journals. There was no standardized assessment of how the participants perceived their collaboration and how it facilitates their daily work, even when the study aimed to evaluate GP-CP collaboration. Successful cooperation between GP and CP in daily routine care was often characterized by personal contact and longtime relationships. Therefore, collaborative teaching sessions at university might establish sympathy and mutual understanding right from the beginning. There is a strong need to establish standardized tools to evaluate collaboration in future projects and to enable comparability of different studies

Task sharing in an interprofessional medication management program - a survey of general practitioners and community pharmacists.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacist-led medication review and medication management programs (MMP) are well-known strategies to improve medication safety and effectiveness. If performed interprofessionally, outcomes might even improve. However, little is known about task sharing in interprofessional MMP, in which general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists (CPs) collaboratively perform medication reviews and continuously follow-up on patients with designated medical and pharmaceutical tasks, respectively. In 2016, ARMIN (Arzneimittelinitiative Sachsen-Thüringen) an interprofessional MMP was launched in two German federal states, Saxony and Thuringia. The aim of this study was to understand how GPs and CPs share tasks in MMP when reviewing the patients' medication. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional postal survey among GPs and CPs who participated in the MMP. Participants were asked who completed which MMP tasks, e.g., checking drug-drug interactions, dosing, and side effects. In total, 15 MMP tasks were surveyed using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "I complete this task alone" to "GP/CP completes this task alone". The study was conducted between 11/2020 and 04/2021. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: In total, 114/165 (69.1%) GPs and 166/243 (68.3%) CPs returned a questionnaire. The majority of GPs and CPs reported (i) checking clinical parameters and medication overuse and underuse to be completed by GPs, (ii) checking storage conditions of drugs and initial compilation of the patient's medication including brown bag review being mostly performed by CPs, and (iii) checking side-effects, non-adherence, and continuous updating of the medication list were carried out jointly. The responses differed most for problems with self-medication and adding and removing over-the-counter medicines from the medication list. In addition, the responses revealed that some MMP tasks were not sufficiently performed by either GPs or CPs. CONCLUSIONS: Both GPs' and CPs' expertise are needed to perform MMP as comprehensively as possible. Future studies should explore how GPs and CPs can complement each other in MMP most efficiently

Effectiveness of a complex intervention on Prioritising Multimedication in Multimorbidity (PRIMUM) in primary care: results of a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.

Objectives Investigate the effectiveness of a complex intervention aimed at improving the appropriateness of medication in older patients with multimorbidity in general practice. Design Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with general practice as unit of randomisation. Setting 72 general practices in Hesse, Germany. Participants 505 randomly sampled, cognitively intact patients (≥60 years, ≥3 chronic conditions under pharmacological treatment, ≥5 long-term drug prescriptions with systemic effects); 465 patients and 71 practices completed the study. Interventions Intervention group (IG): The healthcare assistant conducted a checklist-based interview with patients on medication-related problems and reconciled their medications. Assisted by a computerised decision support system, the general practitioner optimised medication, discussed it with patients and adjusted it accordingly. The control group (CG) continued with usual care. Outcome measures The primary outcome was a modified Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI, excluding item 10 on cost-effectiveness), assessed in blinded medication reviews and calculated as the difference between baseline and after 6 months; secondary outcomes after 6 and 9 months’ follow-up: quality of life, functioning, medication adherence, and so on. Results At baseline, a high proportion of patients had appropriate to mildly inappropriate prescriptions (MAI 0–5 points: n=350 patients). Randomisation revealed balanced groups (IG: 36 practices/252 patients; CG: 36/253). Intervention had no significant effect on primary outcome: mean MAI sum scores decreased by 0.3 points in IG and 0.8 points in CG, resulting in a non-significant adjusted mean difference of 0.7 (95% CI −0.2 to 1.6) points in favour of CG. Secondary outcomes showed non-significant changes (quality of life slightly improved in IG but continued to decline in CG) or remained stable (functioning, medication adherence). Conclusions The intervention had no significant effects. Many patients already received appropriate prescriptions and enjoyed good quality of life and functional status. We can therefore conclude that in our study, there was not enough scope for improvement

AgeWell.de – study protocol of a pragmatic multi-center cluster-randomized controlled prevention trial against cognitive decline in older primary care patients

Background In the absence of treatment options, the WHO emphasizes the identification of effective prevention strategies as a key element to counteract the dementia epidemic. Regarding the complex nature of dementia, trials simultaneously targeting multiple risk factors should be particularly effective for prevention. So far, however, only few such multi-component trials have been launched, but yielding promising results. In Germany, comparable initiatives are lacking, and translation of these complex interventions into routine care was not yet done. Therefore, AgeWell.de will be conducted as the first multi-component prevention trial in Germany which is closely linked to the primary care setting. Methods AgeWell.de will be designed as a multi-centric, cluster-randomized controlled multi-component prevention trial. Participants will be older community-dwelling general practitioner (GP) patients (60–77 years; n = 1,152) with increased dementia risk according to CAIDE (Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Incidence of Dementia) Dementia Risk Score. Recruitment will take place at 5 study sites across Germany. GP practices will be randomized to either intervention A (advanced) or B (basic). GPs will be blinded to their respective group assignment, as will be the statistician conducting the randomization. The multi-component intervention (A) includes nutritional counseling, physical activity, cognitive training, optimization of medication, management of vascular risk factors, social activity, and, if necessary, further specific interventions targeting grief and depression. Intervention B includes general health advice on the intervention components and GP treatment as usual. We hypothesize that over the 2-year follow-up period the intervention group A will benefit significantly from the intervention program in terms of preserved cognitive function/delayed cognitive decline (primary outcome), and other relevant (secondary) outcomes (e.g. quality of life, social activities, depressive symptomatology, cost-effectiveness). Discussion AgeWell.de will be the first multi-component trial targeting risk of cognitive decline in older adults in Germany. Compared to previous trials, AgeWell.de covers an even broader set of interventions suggested to be beneficial for the intended outcomes. The findings will add substantial knowledge on modifiable lifestyle factors to prevent or delay cognitive decline. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register (reference number: DRKS00013555)

Association of mental demands in the workplace with cognitive function in older adults at increased risk for dementia

Objectives Growing evidence suggests a protective effect of high mental demands at work on cognitive function in later life. However, evidence on corresponding associations in older adults at increased risk for dementia is currently lacking. This study investigates the association between mental demands at work and cognitive functioning in the population of the AgeWell.de-trial. Methods Cross-sectional investigation of the association between global cognitive functioning (Montreal Cognitive Assessment) and mental demands at work in older individuals at increased risk for dementia (Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Incidence of Dementia (CAIDE)score ≥ 9; n = 941, age: 60–77 years). Occupational information was matched to Occupational Information Network (O*NET)-descriptors. Associations between cognitive function and O*NET-indices executive, verbal and novelty were investigated using generalized linear models. Results Higher values of index verbal (b = .69, p = .002) were associated with better cognitive function when adjusting for covariates. No association was observed for indices executive (b = .37, p = .062) and novelty (b = .45, p = .119). Higher education, younger age, and employment were linked to better cognitive function, while preexisting medical conditions did not change the associations. Higher levels of depressive symptomatology were associated with worse cognitive function. Conclusions Higher levels of verbal demands at work were associated with better cognitive function for older adults with increased dementia risk. This suggests an advantage for older persons in jobs with high mental demands even after retirement and despite prevalent risk factors. Longitudinal studies are warranted to confirm these results and evaluate the potential of workplaces to prevent cognitive decline through increased mental demands

Recruitment and Baseline Characteristics of Participants in the AgeWell.de Study—A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Controlled Lifestyle Trial against Cognitive Decline

Targeting dementia prevention, first trials addressing multiple modifiable risk factors showed promising results in at-risk populations. In Germany, AgeWell.de is the first large-scale initiative investigating the effectiveness of a multi-component lifestyle intervention against cognitive decline. We aimed to investigate the recruitment process and baseline characteristics of the AgeWell.de participants to gain an understanding of the at-risk population and who engages in the intervention. General practitioners across five study sites recruited participants (aged 60–77 years, Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Incidence of Dementia/CAIDE dementia risk score ≥ 9). Structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with eligible participants, including neuropsychological assessments. We analyzed group differences between (1) eligible vs. non-eligible participants, (2) participants vs. non-participants, and (3) between intervention groups. Of 1176 eligible participants, 146 (12.5%) dropped out before baseline; the study population was thus 1030 individuals. Non-participants did not differ from participants in key sociodemographic factors and dementia risk. Study participants were M = 69.0 (SD = 4.9) years old, and 52.1% were women. The average Montreal Cognitive Assessment/MoCA score was 24.5 (SD = 3.1), indicating a rather mildly cognitively impaired study population; however, 39.4% scored ≥ 26, thus being cognitively unimpaired. The bandwidth of cognitive states bears the interesting potential for differential trial outcome analyses. However, trial conduction is impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, requiring adjustments to the study protocol with yet unclear methodological consequences

A multidomain intervention against cognitive decline in an at-risk-population in Germany: Results from the cluster-randomized AgeWell.de trial.

INTRODUCTION: We investigated the effectiveness of a multidomain intervention to preserve cognitive function in older adults at risk for dementia in Germany in a cluster-randomized trial. METHODS: Individuals with a Cardiovascular Risk Factors, Aging, and Dementia (CAIDE) risk score ≥ 9 aged 60 to 77 years were recruited. After randomization of their general practitioner (GP), patients received a multidomain intervention (including optimization of nutrition and medication, and physical, social, and cognitive activity) or general health advice and GP treatment as usual over 24 months. Primary outcome was global cognitive performance (composite z score, based on domain-specific neuropsychological tests). RESULTS: Of 1030 participants at baseline, n = 819 completed the 24-month follow-up assessment. No differences regarding global cognitive performance (average marginal effect = 0.010, 95% confidence interval: -0.113, 0.133) were found between groups at follow-up. Perceived restrictions in intervention conduct by the COVID-19 pandemic did not impact intervention effectiveness. DISCUSSION: The intervention did not improve global cognitive performance. HIGHLIGHTS: Overall, no intervention effects on global cognitive performance were detected. The multidomain intervention improved health-related quality of life in the total sample. In women, the multidomain intervention reduced depressive symptoms. The intervention was completed during the COVID-19 pandemic.fals

Are Anticholinergic Symptoms a Risk Factor for Falls in Older General Practice Patients With Polypharmacy?: Study Protocol for the Development and Validation of a Prognostic Model

Background: Cumulative anticholinergic exposure, also known as anticholinergic burden, is associated with a variety of adverse outcomes. However, studies show that anticholinergic effects tend to be underestimated by prescribers, and anticholinergics are the most frequently prescribed potentially inappropriate medication in older patients. The grading systems and drugs included in existing scales to quantify anticholinergic burden differ considerably and do not adequately account for patients' susceptibility to medications. Furthermore, their ability to link anticholinergic burden with adverse outcomes such as falls is unclear. This study aims to develop a prognostic model that predicts falls in older general practice patients, to assess the performance of several anticholinergic burden scales, and to quantify the added predictive value of anticholinergic symptoms in this context. Methods: Data from two cluster-randomized controlled trials investigating medication optimization in older general practice patients in Germany will be used. One trial (RIME, n = 1,197) will be used for the model development and the other trial (PRIMUM, n = 502) will be used to externally validate the model. A priori, candidate predictors will be selected based on a literature search, predictor availability, and clinical reasoning. Candidate predictors will include socio-demographics (e.g. age, sex), morbidity (e.g. single conditions), medication (e.g. polypharmacy, anticholinergic burden as defined by scales), and well-being (e.g. quality of life, physical function). A prognostic model including sociodemographic and lifestyle-related factors, as well as variables on morbidity, medication, health status, and well-being, will be developed, whereby the prognostic value of extending the model to include additional patient-reported symptoms will be also assessed. Logistic regression will be used for the binary outcome, which will be defined as "no falls" vs. "≥1 fall" within six months of baseline, as reported in patient interviews. Discussion: As the ability of different anticholinergic burden scales to predict falls in older patients is unclear, this study may provide insights into their relative importance as well as into the overall contribution of anticholinergic symptoms and other patient characteristics. The results may support general practitioners in their clinical decision-making and in prescribing fewer medications with anticholinergic properties