Deprescribing: a primary care perspective

Deprescribing practices for anticonvulsants after benign seizures secondary to high-dose tranexamic acid in a single, large UK cardiothoracic centre

OBJECTIVE

High-dose tranexamic acid (TXA) can cause seizures in patients who have undergone pulmonary endarterectomy (PTE). Seizures secondary to TXA will resolve once the drug is excreted from the body, and the patients do not have to be on long-term anticonvulsants. The aim of the study is to find out if medication review in the hospital has led to deprescribing of anticonvulsants for TXA-associated seizures on discharge from the critical care unit (CCU) and hospital.

METHODS

This is a single-centre retrospective study conducted at a tertiary cardiothoracic hospital between 2012 and 2017. The inclusion criteria consisted of all adult patients who have undergone PTE surgery. Patients who were started on anticonvulsants preoperatively or postoperatively for seizures secondary to organic causes were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 933 patients underwent PTE from January 2012 to August 2017. 25 patients had TXA-related seizures postoperatively and were started on anticonvulsant therapy, giving an incidence of 2.7%. 15 patients were discharged from the CCU without anticonvulsants. A further three patients had their anticonvulsants deprescribed in the ward before being discharged from the hospital.

CONCLUSION

Deprescribing of anticonvulsants after benign seizures secondary to high-dose TXA is facilitated by verbal and written handover, which can be improved in our hospital. A detailed handover summary, as well as a discharge letter with clearly defined instructions for drug review, is needed to make deprescribing a more robust process.

Efficiency versus thoroughness in medication review: a qualitative interview study in UK primary care

BACKGROUND

Medication reviews may improve the safety of prescribing and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) highlights the importance of involving patients in this process.

AIM

To explore GP and pharmacist perspectives on how medication reviews were conducted in general practice in the UK.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Analysis of semi-structured interviews with GPs and pharmacists working in the South West of England, Northern England, and Scotland, sampled for heterogeneity. Interviews took place between January and October 2017.

METHOD

Interviews focused on experience of medication review. Data saturation was achieved when no new insights arose from later interviews. Interviews were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

In total, 13 GPs and 10 pharmacists were interviewed. GPs and pharmacists perceived medication review as an opportunity to improve prescribing safety. Although interviewees thought patients should be involved in decisions about their medicines, high workload pressures meant that most medication reviews were conducted with limited or no patient input. For some GPs, a medication review was done 'in the quickest way possible to say that it was done'. Pharmacists were perceived by both professions as being more thorough but less time efficient than GPs, and few pharmacists were routinely involved in medication reviews even in practices employing a pharmacist. Interviewees argued that it was easier to continue medicines than it was to stop them, particularly because stopping medicines required involving the patient and this generated extra work.

CONCLUSION

Practices tended to prioritise being efficient (getting the work done) rather than being thorough (doing it well), so that most medication reviews were carried out with little or no patient involvement, and medicines were rarely stopped or reduced. Time and resource constraints are an important barrier to implementing NICE guidance.

How general practitioners would deprescribe in frail oldest-old with polypharmacy - the LESS study

BACKGROUND

Many oldest-old (> 80-years) with multimorbidity and polypharmacy are at high risk of inappropriate use of medication, but we know little about whether and how GPs would deprescribe, especially in the frail oldest-old. We aimed to determine whether, how, and why Swiss GPs deprescribe for this population.

METHODS

GPs took an online survey that presented case-vignettes of a frail oldest-old patient with and without history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and asked if they would deprescribe any of seven medications. We calculated percentages of GPs willing to deprescribe at least one medication in the case with CVD and compared these with the case without CVD using paired t-tests. We also included open-ended questions to capture reasons for deprescribing and asked which factors could influence their decision to deprescribe by asking for their agreement on a 5-point-Likert-scale.

RESULTS

Of the 282 GPs we invited, 157 (56%) responded: 73% were men; mean age was 56. In the case-vignette without CVD, 98% of GPs deprescribed at least one medication (usually cardiovascular preventive medications) stating it had no indication nor benefit. They would lower the dose or prescribe pain medication as needed to reduce side effects. Their response was much the same when the patient had a history of CVD. GPs reported they were influenced by 'risk' and 'benefit' of medications, 'quality of life', and 'life expectancy', and prioritized the patient's wishes and priorities when deprescribing.

CONCLUSION

Swiss GPs were willing to deprescribe cardiovascular preventive medication when it lacked indication but tended to retain pain medication. Developing tools for GPs to assist them in balancing the risks and benefits of medication in the context of patient values may improve deprescribing activities in practice.