Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

Potentially Inappropriate Medications in Hospitalized Older Patients in Tabuk, Saudi Arabia Using 2023 Beers Criteria: A Retrospective Multi-Centric Study

Purpose

Older persons are frequently prescribed several medications; therefore, inappropriate medication prescriptions are common. Prescribing potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) poses a serious risk and hence, we aimed to assess the PIMs in older patients in Tabuk, using the 2023 Beers criteria.

Patients and Methods

A retrospective cross-sectional study was carried out, including older persons ≥65 years of age admitted in two government hospitals from June 2022 to May 2023, and prescribed with five or more medications. PIMs were assessed using the 2023 Beers criteria. Descriptive analysis was performed for the categorical and continuous variables. Logistic regression was used to assess the influence of age, gender, number of medications and comorbidities on PIMs using SPSS version 27.

Results

The study included 420 patients. The mean age of the participants was 75.52 ± 8.70 years (range, 65-105 years). There was a slightly higher proportion of females (52%). The prevalence of PIMs was 81.43%, where 35.41% were prescribed one PIM, 26.48% were prescribed two PIMs, and 17.32% were prescribed three PIMs. The proportion of medications considered potentially inappropriate among older patients was 70.11%, and proton pump inhibitors were the most commonly prescribed medication (52.99%). The proportion of medications to be used with caution was 19.55%, with diuretics being the most frequently administered medication (91.43%). Gender and comorbidity did not influence PIMs, but age and number of medications significantly influenced the likelihood of PIMs.

Conclusion

PIMs are prevalent among older people and are significantly associated with age and multiple medications. Caution should be exercised while prescribing medications to older persons. Frequent audits should be performed to assess PIMs, and clinicians should be informed of the same to avoid serious outcomes associated with PIMs. Interventions designed to reduce PIM need to be initiated.

Cumulative Update of a Systematic Overview Evaluating Interventions Addressing Polypharmacy

Importance

Polypharmacy is associated with mortality, falls, hospitalizations, and functional and cognitive decline. The study of polypharmacy-related interventions has increased substantially, prompting the need for an updated, more focused systematic overview.

Objective

To systematically evaluate and summarize evidence across multiple systematic reviews (SRs) examining interventions addressing polypharmacy.

Evidence Review

A search was conducted of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects for articles published from January 2017-October 2022, as well as those identified in a previous overview (January 2004-February 2017). Systematic reviews were included regardless of study design, setting, or outcome. The evidence was summarized by 4 categories: (1) medication-related process outcomes (eg, potentially inappropriate medication [PIM] and potential prescribing omission reductions), (2) clinical and functional outcomes, (3) health care use and economic outcomes, and (4) acceptability of the intervention.

Findings

Fourteen SRs were identified (3 from the previous overview), 7 of which included meta-analyses, representing 179 unique published studies. Nine SRs examined medication-related process outcomes (low to very low evidence quality). Systematic reviews using pooled analyses found significant reductions in the number of PIMs, potential prescribing omissions, and total number of medications, and improvements in medication appropriateness. Twelve SRs examined clinical and functional outcomes (very low to moderate evidence quality). Five SRs examined mortality; all mortality meta-analyses were null, but studies with longer follow-up periods found greater reductions in mortality. Five SRs examined falls incidence; results were predominantly null save for a meta-analysis in which PIMs were discontinued. Of the 8 SRs examining quality of life, most (7) found predominantly null effects. Ten SRs examined hospitalizations and readmissions (very low to moderate evidence quality) and 4 examined emergency department visits (very low to low evidence quality). One SR found significant reductions in hospitalizations and readmissions among higher-intensity medication reviews with face-to-face patient components. Another meta-analysis found a null effect. Of the 7 SRs without meta-analyses for hospitalizations and readmissions, all had predominantly null results. Two of 4 SRs found reductions in emergency department visits. Two SRs examined acceptability (very low evidence quality), finding wide variation in the adoption of polypharmacy-related interventions.

Conclusions and Relevance

This updated systematic overview noted little evidence of an association between polypharmacy-related interventions and reduced important clinical and health care use outcomes. More evidence is needed regarding which interventions are most useful and which populations would benefit most.

Prevalence of polypharmacy among older adults in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Polypharmacy is a significant concern for older adults. Taking multiple medicines to prevent and treat comorbidities is very common in older adults, potentially leading to polypharmacy. Polypharmacy is associated with the development of geriatric syndromes, including cognitive impairment, delirium, falls, frailty, urinary incontinence, and weight loss. The prevalence of polypharmacy varies according to the literature. There is a paucity of data regarding the prevalence of polypharmacy among older adults. Therefore, this study aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of polypharmacy among older adults in Ethiopia. A comprehensive search of databases, including PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Hinari, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, International Scientific Indexing, Cochrane library and Web of Science, and Google Scholar, was conducted. STATA statistical software (version 17) was used to analyze the data. Forest plot and I2 heterogeneity test were computed to examine the existence of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were done to explore the source of heterogeneity. Publication bias was evaluated by using funnel plots and Egger's test. A random effect model was used to determine the pooled prevalence of polypharmacy. After reviewing 123 studies, 13 studies with a total of 3547 older adults fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-analysis. The result from 13 studies revealed that the pooled prevalence of polypharmacy among older adults in Ethiopia was 37.10% (95CI: 28.28-45.91). A Subgroup Meta-analysis showed that the heterogeneity level was slightly lower among studies done in Oromia region (I2 = 46.62, P-value = 0.154). Higher pooled polypharmacy prevalence was found among older adults with cardiovascular disorders (42.7%) and admitted patients (51.4%). In general, it was found that the pooled prevalence of polypharmacy among older adults in Ethiopia was high. More than one in three older adults take five or more medications at a time. Thus, intervention focusing on rational geriatric pharmacotherapy is significant to prevent unnecessary pill burden, adverse drug events, medical costs, geriatric morbidity, and mortality. Furthermore, enhancing pharmacist roles towards medication therapy management and safety monitoring in older adults is also indicated.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, so that many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients. This is the third update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions, alone or in combination, in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 13 January 2021, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies. We ran updated searches in February 2023 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Characteristics of studies awaiting classification'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

For this update, we included randomised trials only. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy (four or more medicines) in people aged 65 years and older, which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, and two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 38 studies, which includes an additional 10 in this update. The included studies consisted of 24 randomised trials and 14 cluster-randomised trials. Thirty-six studies examined complex, multi-faceted interventions of pharmaceutical care (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patients' outcomes), in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists, nurses and geriatricians, and most were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane risk of bias tool found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low. It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool) (mean difference (MD) -5.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.26 to -2.06; I2 = 97%; 8 studies, 947 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.05; I2 = 67%; 9 studies, 2404 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIM (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98; I2 = 84%; 13 studies, 4534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.05 to 0.09; I2 = 92%; 3 studies, 691 participants; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only three studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk of bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPO (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.91; I2 = 95%; 7 studies, 2765 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to hospital admissions (data not pooled; 14 studies, 4797 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to quality of life (data not pooled; 16 studies, 7458 participants; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in 10 studies (6740 participants) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies. This also applied to studies examining adherence to medication (nine studies, 3848 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy resulted in clinically significant improvement. Since the last update of this review in 2018, there appears to have been an increase in the number of studies seeking to address potential prescribing omissions and more interventions being delivered by multidisciplinary teams.

The effect of polypharmacy on healthcare services utilization in older adults with comorbidities: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Older adults are more prone to increasing comorbidities and polypharmacy. Polypharmacy is associated with inappropriate prescribing and an increased risk of adverse effects. This study examined the effect of polypharmacy in older adults on healthcare services utilization (HSU). It also explored the impact of different drug classes of polypharmacy including psychotropic, antihypertensive, and antidiabetic polypharmacy on HSU.

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study. Community-dwelling older adults aged ≥ 65 years were selected from the primary care patient cohort database of the ambulatory clinics of the Department of Family Medicine at the American University of Beirut Medical Center. Concomitant use of 5 or more prescription medications was considered polypharmacy. Demographics, Charlson Comorbidity index (CCI), and HSU outcomes, including the rate of all-cause emergency department (ED) visits, rate of all-cause hospitalization, rate of ED visits for pneumonia, rate of hospitalization for pneumonia, and mortality were collected. Binomial logistic regression models were used to predict the rates of HSU outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 496 patients were analyzed. Comorbidities were present in all patients, with 22.8% (113) of patients having mild to moderate comorbidity and 77.2% (383) of patients having severe comorbidity. Patients with polypharmacy were more likely to have severe comorbidity compared to patients with no polypharmacy (72.3% vs. 27.7%, p = 0.001). Patients with polypharmacy were more likely to visit the ED for all causes as compared to patients without polypharmacy (40.6% vs. 31.4%, p = 0.05), and had a significantly higher rate of all-cause hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio aOR 1.66, 95 CI = 1.08-2.56, p = 0.022). Patients with psychotropic polypharmacy were more likely to be hospitalized due to pneumonia (crude odds ratio cOR 2.37, 95 CI = 1.03-5.46, p = 0.043), and to visit ED for Pneumonia (cOR 2.31, 95 CI = 1.00-5.31, p = 0.049). The association lost significance after adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

The increasing prevalence of polypharmacy amongst the geriatric population with comorbidity is associated with an increase in HSU outcomes. As such, frequent medication revisions in a holistic, multi-disciplinary approach are needed.

Cost-utility analysis of a structured medication review compared to usual care in Parkinson's disease

PURPOSE

For controlling symptoms in Parkinson's disease (PD) together with treating additional comorbidities, patients often face complex medication regimens, with suboptimal adherence, drug-related problems, and diminished therapy efficacy as a common consequence. A medication review could potentially tackle these issues, among others by optimizing drug treatment. Even if no change in clinical outcomes is observed, this intervention might decrease health care costs by reducing drug-related problems and hospital admissions. This study aimed to gain more insight in the health benefits and costs of a structured medication review (SMR) in PD.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis was performed, based on a multicenter randomized controlled trial with 202 PD patients with polypharmacy. The intervention group received an SMR, whereas the control group received usual care. The intervention effect after 6 months of follow-up was presented as incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALY) using the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire. Costs were based on real-world data. Missing data was imputed using multiple imputation techniques. Bootstrapping was used to estimate the uncertainty in all health and economic outcomes.

RESULTS

The QALY gain in the intervention group compared to the control group was - 0.011 (95% CI - 0.043; 0.020). Incremental costs were €433 (95% CI - 873; 1687). When adapting a willingness-to-pay threshold of €20,000/QALY and €80,000/QALY, the probability of SMRs being cost-effective was 18% and 30%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

A community pharmacist-led SMR in PD patients in the current setting shows no apparent benefit and is not cost-effective after 6 months, compared to usual care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Netherlands Trial Register, NL4360. Registered 17 March 2014.

Development and Validation of Patient Education Tools for Deprescribing in Patients on Hemodialysis

Background

Deprescribing is a patient-centered solution to reducing polypharmacy in patients on hemodialysis (HD). In a deprescribing pilot study, patients were hesitant to participate due to limited understanding of their own medications and their unfamiliarity with the concept of deprescribing. Therefore, patient education materials designed to address these knowledge gaps can overcome barriers to shared decision-making and reduce hesitancy regarding deprescribing.

Objective

To develop and validate a medication-specific, patient education toolkit (bulletin and video) that will supplement an upcoming nationwide deprescribing program for patients on HD.

Methods

Patient education tools were developed based on the content of previously validated deprescribing algorithms and literature searches for patients' preferences in education. A preliminary round of validation was completed by 5 clinicians to provide feedback on the accuracy and clarity of the education tools. Then, 3 validation rounds were completed by patients on HD across 3 sites in Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Toronto. Content and face validity were evaluated on a 4-point and 5-point Likert scale, respectively. The content validity index (CVI) score was calculated after each round, and revisions were made based on patient feedback.

Results

A total of 105 patients participated in the validation. All 10 education tools achieved content and face validity after 3 rounds. The CVI score was 1.0 for most of the tools, with 0.95 being the lowest value. Face validity ranged from 72% to 100%, with majority scoring above 90%.

Conclusion

Ten patient education tools on deprescribing were developed and validated by patients on HD. These validated, medication-specific education tools are the first of its kind for patients on HD and will be used in a nationwide implementation study alongside the validated deprescribing algorithms developed by our research group.

Investigation of drug-related problems in patients hospitalized in chest disease wards: A randomized controlled trial

Objective: According to the World Health Organization (WHO), chest diseases are among the 10 diseases that cause the highest mortality worldwide. Drug-related problems (DRPs), readmission, and antimicrobial resistance are critical problems in chest disease wards. Active involvement of clinical pharmacists (CPs) who are focused on reducing the risks of potential problems is needed. The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of pharmaceutical care (PC) services on the pulmonology service. Method: A randomized controlled trial at a university hospital in Istanbul was conducted between June 2020 and December 2021. The participants were randomized into the control group (CG) and intervention group (IG). In the CG, CPs identified and classified the DRPs according to Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe v9.0 (PCNE) and provided solutions to DRPs for the IG. The effect of PC services was evaluated by the number and classification of DRPs, and readmissions within 30 days were compared between the two groups. Results: Out of 168 patients, 82 were assigned to the IG. The average number of medicines administered per patient in the CG and IG was 14.45 ± 7.59 and 15.5 ± 6.18, respectively. In the CG and IG, the numbers of patients with DRPs were 62 and 46, respectively. The total number of DRPs was 160 for CG and 76 for IG. A statistically significant difference was found in favor of the IG, in terms of the number of patients with DRPs, the total number of DRPs, and readmission within 30 days (p < 0.05). Conclusion: In this study, CP recommendations were highly accepted by the healthcare team. Pharmaceutical care services provided by CPs would decrease possible DRPs and led to positive therapeutic outcomes. Cognitive clinical pharmacy services have beneficial effects on health care, and these services should be expanded in all settings where patients and pharmacists are present.

Performance of 3 Sets of Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing in Older People to Identify Inadequate Drug Treatment

IMPORTANCE

Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) are used in research to reflect the quality of drug treatment in older people and have been suggested for inclusion in core outcome sets for evaluation of interventions for improved prescribing. Their validation so far, however, is primarily restricted to expert opinion-based processes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of 3 explicit PIM/PPO criteria sets as diagnostic tools to identify inadequate drug treatment in older patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This diagnostic study analyzed patients aged 65 years or older consecutively included from 2 primary health care centers from October to November 2017. Data were analyzed from February to August 2022.

EXPOSURES

The PIMs/PPOs were concordantly identified by 2 specialist physicians (2018-2019) retrospectively after a planned physician visit, using 3 European PIM/PPO criteria sets and without knowledge of this diagnostic study.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, reflecting the ability of PIM/PPO criteria sets to identify the reference standard of inadequate drug treatment, determined by 2 specialist physicians in consensus. Inadequate drug treatment implied that additional action related to the medication could be medically justified before the next regular visit.

RESULTS

A total of 302 patients were analyzed (median age, 74 [IQR, 69-81] years; 178 women [59%]; median number of drugs in the medication list, 6 [IQR, 3-9]); 98 patients (32%) had inadequate drug treatment. A total of 0 to 8 PIMs/PPOs per patient were identified using the Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions (STOPP)/Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment (START) criteria, 0 to 6 with the European EU(7)-PIM list, and 0 to 12 with the Swedish set of indicators of prescribing quality. The areas under the ROC curve for the 3 sets to identify the reference standard for inadequate drug treatment were 0.60 (95% CI, 0.53-0.66) for the STOPP/START criteria, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.63-0.75) for the EU(7)-PIM list, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67-0.80) for the Swedish set. For comparison, the area under the ROC curve was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65-0.78) using the number of drugs in the medication list.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this diagnostic study, the evaluated PIM/PPO sets had poor to fair performance as diagnostic tools to identify inadequate drug treatment, comparable with a simple count of the number of drugs in the medication list. These findings suggest that use of PIMs/PPOs as indicators of drug treatment quality in core outcome sets for the evaluation of interventions for improved prescribing may need reconsideration.

Deprescribing practices, habits and attitudes of geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training across Europe: a large web-based survey

PURPOSE

To provide an overview of the current deprescribing attitudes, practices, and approaches of geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training across Europe.

METHODS

An online survey was disseminated among European geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training. The survey comprised Likert scale and multiple-choice questions on deprescribing approaches and practices, deprescribing education and knowledge, and facilitators/barriers of deprescribing. Responses to the survey questions and participant characteristics were quantified and differences evaluated between geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training and between European regions.

RESULTS

The 964 respondents (median age 42 years old; 64% female; 21% geriatricians-in-training) were generally willing to deprescribe (98%) and felt confident about deprescribing (85%). Despite differences across European regions, the most commonly reported reasons for deprescribing were functional impairment and occurrence of adverse drug reactions. The most important barriers for deprescribing were patients' unwillingness, fear of negative consequences, lack of time, and poor communication between multiple prescribers. Perceived risk of adverse drug reactions was highest for psychotropic drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, cardiovascular drugs, and opioid analgesics. Only one in four respondents (23% of geriatricians and 37% of geriatricians-in-training) think education in medical school had sufficiently prepared them for deprescribing in clinical practice. They reported that their future deprescribing activities would probably increase with improved information sharing between various prescribers, deprescribing recommendations in guidelines, and increased education and training. Approximately 90% think that a paradigm shift is required for prescribers and patients, increasing focus on the possible benefits of deprescribing (potentially) inappropriate medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the outcomes of this survey, we recommend investing in improved inter-professional communication, better education and evidence-based recommendations to improve future patient-centered deprescribing practices.

Polypharmacy Management in the Older Adults: A Scoping Review of Available Interventions

Background: Polypharmacy paves the way for non-adherence, adverse drug reactions, negative health outcomes, increased use of healthcare services and rising costs. Since it is most prevalent in the older adults, there is an urgent need for introducing effective strategies to prevent and manage the problem in this age group.

Purpose: To perform a scoping review critically analysing the available literature referring to the issue of polypharmacy management in the older adults and provide narrative summary.

Data sources: Articles published between January 2010–March 2018 indexed in CINHAL, EMBASE and PubMed addressing polypharmacy management in the older adults.

Results: Our search identified 49 papers. Among the identified interventions, the most often recommended ones involved various types of drug reviews based on either implicit or explicit criteria. Implicit criteria-based approaches are used infrequently due to their subjectivity, and limited implementability. Most of the publications advocate the use of explicit criteria, such as e.g. STOPP/START, Beers and Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI). However, their applicability is also limited due to long lists of potentially inappropriate medications covered. To overcome this obstacle, such instruments are often embedded in computerised clinical decision support systems.

Conclusion: Multiple approaches towards polypharmacy management are advised in current literature. They vary in terms of their complexity, applicability and usability, and no “gold standard” is identifiable. For practical reasons, explicit criteria-based drug reviews seem to be advisable. Having in mind that in general, polypharmacy management in the older adults is underused, both individual stakeholders, as well as policymakers should strengthen their efforts to promote these activities more strongly.

Health Impacts and Characteristics of Deprescribing Interventions in Older Adults: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Background

Deprescribing, a relatively recent concept, has been proposed as a promising solution to the growing issues of polypharmacy and use of medications of questionable benefit among older adults. However, little is known about the health outcomes of deprescribing interventions.

Objective

This paper presents the protocol of a study that aims to contribute to the knowledge on deprescribing by addressing two specific objectives: (1) describe the impact of deprescribing in adults ≥60 years on health outcomes or quality of life; and (2) determine the characteristics of effective interventions in deprescribing.

Methods

Primary studies targeting three concepts (older adults, deprescribing, and health or quality of life outcomes) will be included in the review. The search will be performed using key international databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Ageline, PsycInfo), and a special effort will be made to identify gray literature. Two reviewers will independently screen the articles, extract the information, and evaluate the quality of the selected studies. If methodologically feasible, meta-analyses will be performed for groups of intervention studies reporting on deprescribing interventions for similar medications, used for similar or identical indications, and reporting on similar outcomes (eg, benzodiazepines used against insomnia and studies reporting on quality of sleep or quality of life). Alternatively, the results will be presented in bottom-line statements (objective 1) and a matrix outlining effective interventions (objective 2).

Results

The knowledge synthesis may be limited by the availability of high-quality clinical trials on deprescribing and their outcomes in older adults. Additionally, analyses will likely be affected by studies on the deprescribing of different types of molecules within the same indication (eg, different pharmacological classes and medications to treat hypertension) and different measures of health and quality of life outcomes for the same indication. Nevertheless, we expect the review to identify which deprescribing interventions lead to improved health outcomes among seniors and which of their characteristics contribute to these outcomes.

Conclusions

This systematic review will contribute to a better understanding of the health outcomes of deprescribing interventions among seniors.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42015020866; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42015020866

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/25200

Developing and piloting a self-assessment tool for medication review competence of practicing pharmacists based on nationally set competence criteria

BACKGROUND

New competence requirements have emerged for pharmacists as a result of changing societal needs towards more patient-centred practices. Today, medication review competence can be considered as basic pharmaceutical competence. Medication review specific competence criteria and tools for self-assessing the competence are essential in building competences and a shared understanding of medication reviews as a collaborative practice. The aim of this study was to develop and pilot a self-assessment tool for medication review competence among practicing pharmacists in Finland.

METHODS

The development of the self-assessment tool was based on the national medication review competence criteria for pharmacists established in Finland in 2017 and piloting the tool among practicing pharmacists in a national online survey in October 2018. The pharmacists self-assessed their medication review competence with a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 for "very poor/not at all" to 5 for "very good".

RESULTS

The internal consistency of the self-assessment tool was high as the range of the competence areas' Cronbach's alpha was 0.953-0.973. The competence areas consisted of prescription review competence (20 items, Cronbach's alpha 0.953), additional statements for medication review competence (11 additional items, Cronbach's alpha 0.963) and medication review as a whole, including both the statements of prescription review and medication review competence (31 items, Cronbach's alpha 0.973). Competence items closely related to routine dispensing were most commonly self-estimated to be mastered by the practicing pharmacists who responded (n = 344), while the more clinical and patient-centred competence items had the lowest self-estimates. This indicates that the self-assessment tool works logically and differentiates pharmacists according to competence. The self-assessed medication review competence was at a very good or good level among more than half (55%) of the respondents (n = 344).

CONCLUSION

A self-assessment tool for medication review competence was developed and validated. The piloted self-assessment tool can be used for regular evaluation of practicing pharmacists' medication review competence which is becoming an increasingly important basis for their contribution to patient care and society.

Expert-based medication reviews to reduce polypharmacy in older patients in primary care: a northern-Italian cluster-randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Evidence regarding clinically relevant effects of interventions aiming at reducing polypharmacy is weak, especially for the primary care setting. This study was initiated with the objective to achieve clinical benefits for older patients (aged 75+) by means of evidence-based reduction of polypharmacy (defined as ≥8 prescribed drugs) and inappropriate prescribing in general practice.

METHODS

The cluster-randomised controlled trial involved general practitioners and patients in a northern-Italian region. The intervention consisted of a review of patient's medication regimens by three experts who gave specific recommendations for drug discontinuation. Main outcome measures were non-elective hospital admissions or death within 24 months (composite primary endpoint). Secondary outcomes were drug numbers, hospital admissions, mortality, falls, fractures, quality of life, affective status, cognitive function.

RESULTS

Twenty-two GPs/307 patients participated in the intervention group, 21 GPs/272 patients in the control group. One hundred twenty-five patients (40.7%) experienced the primary outcome in the intervention group, 87 patients (32.0%) in the control group. The adjusted rates of occurrence of the primary outcome did not differ significantly between the study groups (intention-to-treat analysis: adjusted odds ratio 1.46, 95%CI 0.99-2.18, p = 0.06; per-protocol analysis: adjusted OR 1.33, 95%CI 0.87-2.04, p = 0.2). Hospitalisations as single endpoint occurred more frequently in the intervention group according to the unadjusted analysis (OR 1.61, 95%CI 1.03-2.51, p = 0.04) but not in the adjusted analysis (OR 1.39, 95%CI 0.95-2.03, p = 0.09). Falls occurred less frequently in the intervention group (adjusted OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.31-0.98; p = 0.04). No significant differences were found regarding the other outcomes. Definitive discontinuation was obtained for 67 (16.0%) of 419 drugs rated as inappropriate. About 6% of the prescribed drugs were PIMs.

CONCLUSIONS

No conclusive effects were found regarding mortality and non-elective hospitalisations as composite respectively single endpoints. Falls were significantly reduced in the intervention group, although definitive discontinuation was achieved for only one out of six inappropriate drugs. These results indicate that (1) even a modest reduction of inappropriate medications may entail positive clinical effects, and that (2) focusing on evidence-based new drug prescriptions and prevention of polypharmacy may be more effective than deprescribing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials (ID ISRCTN: 38449870), date: 11/09/2013.

Interventions to improve medicines optimisation in frail older patients in secondary and acute care settings: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies

Background: Frailty is a geriatric syndrome in which physiological systems have decreased reserve and resistance against stressors. Frailty is associated with polypharmacy, inappropriate prescribing and unfavourable clinical outcomes. Aim: To identify and evaluate randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomised studies of interventions designed to optimise the medications of frail older patients, aged 65 years and over, in secondary or acute care settings. Method: Literature searches were conducted across seven electronic databases and three trial registries from the date of inception to October 2021. All types of interventional studies were included. Study selection, data extraction, risk of bias and quality assessment were conducted by two independent reviewers. Results: Three RCTs were eligible for inclusion; two employed deprescribing as the intervention, and one used comprehensive geriatric assessment. All reported significant improvements in prescribing appropriateness. One study investigated the effect of the intervention on clinical outcomes including hospital presentations, falls, fracture, quality of life and mortality, and reported no significant differences in these outcomes, but did report a significant reduction in monthly medication cost. Two of the included studies were assessed as having ‘some concerns’ of bias, and one was judged to be at ‘high risk’ of bias. Conclusion: This systematic review demonstrates that medicines optimisation interventions may improve medication appropriateness in frail older inpatients. However, it highlights the paucity of high-quality evidence that examines the impact of medicines optimisation on quality of prescribing and clinical outcomes for frail older inpatients. High-quality studies are needed to address this gap.

STOPP/START interventions to improve medicines management for people aged 65 years and over: a realist synthesis

Background

Drug-related problems and potentially inappropriate prescribing impose a huge burden on patients and the health-care system. The most widely used tools for appropriate prescription in older adults in England and in other European countries are the Screening Tool of Older People’s Prescriptions (STOPP)/Screening Tool to Alert to the Right Treatment (START) tools. STOPP/START tools support medicines optimisation for older adults.

Objectives

To identify, test and refine the programme theories underlying how interventions based on the STOPP/START tools are intended to work, for whom, in what circumstances and why, as well as the resource use and cost requirements or impacts.

Design

A realist synthesis.

Setting

Primary care, hospital care and nursing homes.

Patients

Patients aged ≥ 65 years.

Interventions

Any intervention based on the use of the STOPP/START tools.

Review methods

Database and web-searching was carried out to retrieve relevant evidence to identify and test programme theories about how interventions based on the use of the STOPP/START tools work. A project reference group made up of health-care professionals, NHS decision-makers, older people, carers and members of the public was set up. In phase 1 we identified programme theories about STOPP/START interventions on how, for whom, in what contexts and why they are intended to work. We searched the peer-reviewed and grey literature to identify documents relevant to the research questions. We interviewed experts in the field in our reference group to gain input on our list of candidate context–mechanism–outcome configurations, to identify additional context–mechanism–outcome configurations and to identify additional literature and/or relevant concepts. In phase 2 we reviewed and synthesised relevant published and unpublished empirical evidence and tested the programme theories using evidence from a larger set of empirical studies.

Results

We developed a single logic model structured around three key mechanisms: (1) personalisation, (2) systematisation and (3) evidence implementation. Personalisation: STOPP/START-based interventions are based on shared decision-making, taking into account patient preferences, experiences and expectations (mechanisms), leading to increased patient awareness, adherence, satisfaction, empowerment and quality of life (outcomes). Systematisation: STOPP/START tools provide a standardised/systematic approach for medication reviews (mechanisms), leading to changes in professional and organisational culture and burden/costs (outcomes). Evidence implementation: delivery of STOPP/START-based interventions is based on the implementation of best evidence (mechanisms), reducing adverse outcomes through appropriate prescribing/deprescribing (outcomes). For theory testing, we identified 40 studies of the impact of STOPP/START-based interventions in hospital settings, nursing homes, primary care and community pharmacies. Most of the interventions used multiple mechanisms. We found support for the impact of the personalisation and evidence implementation mechanisms on selected outcome variables, but similar impact was achieved by interventions not relying on these mechanisms. We also observed that the impact of interventions was linked to the proximity of the selected outcomes to the intervention in the logic model, resulting in a clearer benefit for appropriateness of prescribing, adverse drug events and prescription costs.

Limitations

None of the available studies had been explicitly designed for evaluating underlying causal mechanisms, and qualitative information was sparse.

Conclusions

No particular configuration of the interventions is associated with a greater likelihood of improved outcomes in given settings.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018110795.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 23. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Process evaluation for the Care Homes Independent Pharmacist Prescriber Study (CHIPPS)

Background

Medicines management in care homes requires significant improvement. CHIPPS was a cluster randomised controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of integrating pharmacist independent prescribers into care homes to assume central responsibility for medicines management. This paper reports the parallel mixed-methods process evaluation.

Method

Intervention arm consisted of 25 triads: Care homes (staff and up to 24 residents), General Practitioner (GP) and Pharmacist Independent Prescriber (PIP). Data sources were pharmaceutical care plans (PCPs), pharmacist activity logs, online questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Results were mapped to the process evaluation objectives following the Medical Research Council framework.

Results

PCPs and activity logs were available from 22 PIPs. Questionnaires were returned by 16 PIPs, eight GPs, and two care home managers. Interviews were completed with 14 PIPs, eight GPs, nine care home managers, six care home staff, and one resident. All stakeholders reported some benefits from PIPs having responsibility for medicine management and identified no safety concerns. PIPs reported an increase in their knowledge and identified the value of having time to engage with care home staff and residents during reviews. The research paperwork was identified as least useful by many PIPs. PIPs conducted medication reviews on residents, recording 566 clinical interventions, many involving deprescribing; 93.8% of changes were sustained at 6 months. For 284 (50.2%) residents a medicine was stopped, and for a quarter of residents, changes involved a medicine linked to increased falls risk. Qualitative data indicated participants noted increased medication safety and improved resident quality of life. Contextual barriers to implementation were apparent in the few triads where PIP was not known previously to the GP and care home before the trial. In three triads, PIPs did not deliver the intervention.

Conclusions

The intervention was generally implemented as intended, and well-received by most stakeholders. Whilst there was widespread deprescribing, contextual factors effected opportunity for PIP engagement in care homes. Implementation was most effective when communication pathways between PIP and GP had been previously well-established.

Trial registration

The definitive RCT was registered with the ISRCTN registry (registration number ISRCTN 17847169).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-07062-3.

PRN Medicines Management for Older People with Long-Term Mental Health Disorders in Home Care

Older people with long-term mental health conditions who receive care in their own home are vulnerable to the inappropriate use of medications and polypharmacy given their underlying health conditions and comorbidities. Inappropriate use of pro re nata (PRN) medications in these older people can enhance their suffering and have negative consequences for their quality of life and well-being, leading to readmission to healthcare settings and the increased cost of health care. This narrative review on published international literature aims at improving our understanding of medicines management in home care and how to improve PRN medication use among older people with long-term health conditions in their own home. Accordingly, the improvement of PRN medicines management for these older people requires the development of an individualised care plan considering ‘reduction of older people’s dependence on PRN medications’, ‘empowerment of family caregivers’, and ‘support by healthcare professionals.’ PRN medication use should be reduced through deprescription and discontinuation strategies. Also, older people and their family caregivers should be encouraged to prioritize the use of non-pharmacologic methods to relieve physical and psychological problems. Besides the empowerment of family caregivers through role development, education and training about PRN medications, and involvement in decision-making, they need support by the multidisciplinary network in terms of supervision, monitoring, and home visits.

An updated review on synthetic cathinones

Cathinone, the main psychoactive compound found in the plant Catha edulis Forsk. (khat), is a β-keto analogue of amphetamine, sharing not only the phenethylamine structure, but also the amphetamine-like stimulant effects. Synthetic cathinones are derivatives of the naturally occurring cathinone that largely entered the recreational drug market at the end of 2000s. The former "legal status", impressive marketing strategies and their commercial availability, either in the so-called "smartshops" or via the Internet, prompted their large spread, contributing to their increasing popularity in the following years. As their popularity increased, the risks posed for public health became clear, with several reports of intoxications and deaths involving these substances appearing both in the social media and scientific literature. The regulatory measures introduced thereafter to halt these trending drugs of abuse have proved to be of low impact, as a continuous emergence of new non-controlled derivatives keep appearing to replace those prohibited. Users resort to synthetic cathinones due to their psychostimulant properties but are often unaware of the dangers they may incur when using these substances. Therefore, studies aimed at unveiling the pharmacological and toxicological properties of these substances are imperative, as they will provide increased expertise to the clinicians that face this problem on a daily basis. The present work provides a comprehensive review on history and legal status, chemistry, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, adverse effects and lethality in humans, as well as on the current knowledge of the neurotoxic mechanisms of synthetic cathinones.

Clinical decision support systems-based interventions to improve medication outcomes: A systematic literature review on features and effects

Background: Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) interventions were used to improve the life quality and safety in patients and also to improve practitioner performance, especially in the field of medication. Therefore, the aim of the paper was to summarize the available evidence on the impact, outcomes and significant factors on the implementation of CDSS in the field of medicine. Methods: This study is a systematic literature review. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, and ProQuest were investigated by 15 February 2017. The inclusion requirements were met by 98 papers, from which 13 had described important factors in the implementation of CDSS, and 86 were medicated-related. We categorized the system in terms of its correlation with medication in which a system was implemented, and our intended results were examined. In this study, the process outcomes (such as; prescription, drug-drug interaction, drug adherence, etc.), patient outcomes, and significant factors affecting the implementation of CDSS were reviewed. Results: We found evidence that the use of medication-related CDSS improves clinical outcomes. Also, significant results were obtained regarding the reduction of prescription errors, and the improvement in quality and safety of medication prescribed. Conclusion: The results of this study show that, although computer systems such as CDSS may cause errors, in most cases, it has helped to improve prescribing, reduce side effects and drug interactions, and improve patient safety. Although these systems have improved the performance of practitioners and processes, there has not been much research on the impact of these systems on patient outcomes.

Ethnic Variations in the Quality Use of Medicines in Older Adults: Māori and Non-Māori in Aotearoa New Zealand

In Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ), ethnic inequities in health outcomes exist. Non-Māori experience better access to healthcare than Māori, including access to the quality use of medicines. Quality medicines use requires that medicines provide maximal therapeutic benefit with minimal harm. As older adults are more at risk of harm from medicines, and, because inequities are compounded with age, Māori older adults may be at more risk of medicines-related harm than younger and non-Māori populations. This narrative review examined ethnic variation in the quality use of medicines, including medicines utilisation and associated clinical outcomes, between Māori and non-Māori older adult populations in NZ. The review was structured around prevalence of medicine utilisation by medicine class and in particular disease states; high-risk medicines; polypharmacy; prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP); and association between PIP and clinical outcomes. 22 studies were included in the review. There is ethnic variation in the access to medicines in NZ, with Māori older adults often having reduced access to particular medicine types, or in particular disease states, compared with non-Māori older adults. Māori older adults are less likely than non-Māori to be prescribed medicines inappropriately, as defined by standardised tools; however, PIP is more strongly associated with adverse outcomes for Māori than non-Māori. This review identifies that inequities in quality medicines use exist and provides a starting point to develop pro-equity solutions. The aetiology of inequities in the quality use of medicines is multifactorial and our approaches to addressing the inequitable ethnic variation also need to be.

General practitioner practice-based pharmacist input to medicines optimisation in the UK: pragmatic, multicenter, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Changing demographics across the UK has led to general practitioners (GPs) managing increasing numbers of older patients with multi-morbidity and resultant polypharmacy. Through government led initiatives within the National Health Service, an increasing number of GP practices employ pharmacist support. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of a medicines optimisation intervention, delivered by GP practice-based pharmacists, to patients at risk of medication-related problems (MRPs), on patient outcomes and healthcare costs.

METHODS

A multi-centre, randomised (normal care or pharmacist supplemented care) study in four regions of the UK, involving patients (n = 356) from eight GP practices, with a 6-month follow-up period. Participants were adult patients who were at risk of MRPs.

RESULTS

Median number of MRPs per intervention patient were reduced at the third assessment, i.e. 3 to 0.5 (p < 0.001) in patients who received the full intervention schedule. Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) scores were reduced (medications more appropriate) for the intervention group, but not for control group patients (8 [4-13] to 5 [0-11] vs 8 [3-13] to 7 [3-12], respectively; p = 0.001). Using the intention-to-treat (ITT) approach, the number of telephone consultations in intervention group patients was reduced and different from the control group (1 [0-3] to 1 [0-2] vs 1 [0-2] to 1 [0-3], p = 0.020). No significant differences between groups were, however, found in unplanned hospital admissions, length of hospital stay, number of A&E attendances or outpatient visits. The mean overall healthcare cost per intervention patient fell from £1041.7 ± 1446.7 to £859.1 ± 1235.2 (p = 0.032). Cost utility analysis showed an incremental cost per patient of - £229.0 (95% CI - 594.6, 128.2) and a mean QALY gained of 0.024 (95% CI - 0.021 to 0.065), i.e. indicative of a health status gain at a reduced cost (2016/2017).

CONCLUSION

The pharmacist service was effective in reducing MRPs, inappropriateness of medications and telephone consultations in general practice in a cost-effective manner.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT03241498. Registered 7 August 2017-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03241498.

Impact of a Pharmacist-included Mobile Geriatrics team intervention on potentially inappropriate drug prescribing: protocol for a prospective feasibility study (PharMoG study)

INTRODUCTION

Research has shown that potentially inappropriate drug prescription (PIDP) is highly prevalent in older people. The presence of PIDPs is associated with adverse health outcomes. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a PHARmacist-included MObile Geriatrics (PharMoG) team intervention on PIDPs in older patients hospitalised in the medical, surgical and emergency departments of a university hospital.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The PharMoG study is a prospective, interventional, single-centre feasibility study describing the impact of a PharMoG team on PIDPs in older hospitalised patients. Pharmacist intervention will be a treatment optimisation (clinical medication review) based on a combination of explicit and implicit criteria to detect PIDPs. The primary outcome is the acceptance rate of the mobile team's proposed treatment optimisations related to PIDPs, measured at the patient's discharge from the department. This pharmacist will work in cooperation with the physician of the mobile geriatric team. After the intervention of the mobile geriatric team, the proposals for improving therapy will be sent to the hospital medical team caring for the patient and to the patient's attending physician. The patient will be followed for 3 months after discharge from the hospital.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the South-West and Overseas Territories II Ethics Committee. Oral consent must be obtained prior to participation, either from the patient or from the patient's representative (trusted person and/or a family member). The results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04151797.

Improving medication appropriateness in nursing homes via structured interprofessional medication-review supported by health information technology: a non-randomized controlled study

Background

In nursing home residents (NHRs), polypharmacy is widespread, accompanied by elevated risks of medication related complications. Managing medication in NHRs is a priority, but prone to several challenges, including interprofessional cooperation. Against this background, we implemented and tested an interprofessional intervention aimed to improve medication appropriateness for NHRs.

Methods

A non-randomized controlled study (SiMbA; “Sicherheit der Medikamentherapie bei AltenheimbewohnerInnen”, Safety of medication therapy in NHRs) was conducted in six nursing homes in Austria (2016–2018). Educational training, introduction of tailored health information technology (HIT) and a therapy check process were combined in an intervention aimed at healthcare professionals. Medication appropriateness was assessed using the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI). Data was collected before (t0), during (t1, month 12) and after (t2, month 18) intervention via self-administered assessments and electronic health records.

Results

We included 6 NHs, 17 GPs (52.94% female) and 240 NHRs (68.75% female; mean age 85.0). Data of 159 NHRs could be included in the analysis. Mean MAI-change was − 3.35 (IG) vs. − 1.45 (CG). In the subgroup of NHRs with mean MAI ≥23, MAI-change was − 10.31 (IG) vs. −3.52 (CG). The intervention was a significant predictor of improvement in MAI when controlled for in a multivariable regression model.

Conclusions

Improvement of medication appropriateness was clearest in residents with inappropriate baseline MAI-scores. This improvement was independent of variances in certain covariates between the intervention and the control group. We conclude that our intervention is a feasible approach to improve NHRs’ medication appropriateness.

Trial registration

DRKS Data Management, ID: DRKS00012246. Registered 16.05.2017 – Retrospectively registered.

Development and Validation of Nine Deprescribing Algorithms for Patients on Hemodialysis to Decrease Polypharmacy

Background:

Polypharmacy is ubiquitous in patients on hemodialysis (HD), and increases risk of adverse events, medication interactions, nonadherence, and mortality. Appropriately applied deprescribing can potentially minimize polypharmacy risks. Existing guidelines are unsuitable for nephrology clinicians as they lack specific instructions on how to deprescribe and which safety parameters to monitor.

Objective:

To develop and validate deprescribing algorithms for nine medication classes to decrease polypharmacy in patients on HD.

Design:

Questionnaires and materials sent electronically.

Participants:

Nephrology practitioners across Canada (nephrologists, nurse practitioners, renal pharmacists).

Methods:

A literature search was performed to develop the initial algorithms via Lynn’s method for development of content-valid clinical tools. Content and face validity of the algorithms was evaluated over three interview rounds using Lynn’s method for determining content validity. Canadian nephrology clinicians each evaluated three algorithms (15 clinicians per round, 45 clinicians in total) by rating each algorithm component on a four-point Likert scale for relevance; face validity was rated on a five-point scale. After each round, content validity index of each component was calculated and revisions made based on feedback. If content validity was not achieved after three rounds, additional rounds were completed until content validity was achieved.

Results:

After three rounds of validation, six algorithms achieved content validity. After an additional round, the remaining three algorithms achieved content validity. The proportion of clinicians rating each face validity statement as “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” ranged from 84% to 95% (average of all five questions, across three rounds).

Limitations:

Algorithm development was guided by existing deprescribing protocols intended for the general population and the expert opinions of our study team, due to a lack of background literature on HD-specific deprescribing protocols. There is no universally accepted method for the validation of clinical decision-making tools.

Conclusions:

Nine medication-specific deprescribing algorithms for patients on HD were developed and validated by clinician review. Our algorithms are the first medication-specific, patient-centric deprescribing guidelines developed and validated for patients on HD.

The Double Burden of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Polypharmacy on Geriatric Population - Public Health Implications

COVID-19 pandemic is inducing acute respiratory distress syndrome, multi-organ failure, and eventual death. Respiratory failure is the leading cause of mortality in the elderly population with pre-existing medical conditions. This group is particularly vulnerable to infections due to a declined immune system, comorbidities, geriatric syndrome, and potentially inappropriate polypharmacy. These conditions make the elderly population more susceptible to the harmful effects of medications and the deleterious consequences of infections, including MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2. Chronic diseases among elderlies, including respiratory diseases, hypertension, diabetes, and coronary heart diseases, present a significant challenge for healthcare professionals. To comply with the clinical guidelines, the practitioner may prescribe a complex medication regimen that adds up to the burden of pre-existing treatment, potentially inducing adverse drug reactions and leading to harmful side-effects. Consequently, the geriatric population is at increased risk of falls, frailty, and dependence that enhances their susceptibility to morbidity and mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 respiratory syndrome, particularly interstitial pneumonia. The major challenge resides in the detection of infection that may present as atypical manifestations in this age group. Healthy aging can be possible with adequate preventive measures and appropriate medication regimen and follow-up. Adherence to the guidelines and recommendations of WHO, CDC, and other national/regional/international agencies can reduce the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Better training programs are needed to enhance the skill of health care professionals and patient’s caregivers. This review explains the public health implications associated with polypharmacy on the geriatric population with pre-existing co-morbidities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Interprofessional medication assessment among home care patients: any impact on functioning? Results from a randomised controlled trial

Background

Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are related to the use of potentially inappropriate medicines and negative clinical outcomes including drug-related adverse events and functional declines. Home care clients are a vulnerable patient group often exposed to these risks. The aim of this study was to examine whether an interprofessional medication assessment can influence the functioning of home care patients.

Methods

The FIMA study was a randomised controlled intervention study comparing a general practitioner-led interprofessional medication assessment conducted at the baseline of the study with usual care with a six-month follow-up. We used linear mixed models (LMM) with a random subject effect to detect differences between the usual care and intervention groups in the following outcome measures; Katz index of Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Lawton and Brody scale of Instrumental Activities of Daily Living, Timed up and go-test (TUG), Mini-Mental State Examination, Geriatric Depression Scale and the 3-level version of EQ-5D.

Results

Home care patients (n = 512) had major disease burdens and functional limitations. Regarding TUG times, the LMM detected a one second improvement in the FIMA group and 2.4 s worsening in the usual care group. However, the result was not statistically significant. The ADL revealed an interaction across time, treatment and sex (p = 0.026). The ADL score decreased in both groups; the decline being the steepest among women in the intervention group.

Conclusions

In general, medication assessments may have limited impact on functioning of older people. Nonetheless, the FIMA intervention may prevent worsening of mobility among older home care patients.

Trial registration

The Interprofessional Medication Assessment for Older Patients, Clinical Trials.gov. NCT02398812. First registration, 26 March 2015. Retrospectively registered.

Physician's feedback on a clinical pharmacy program on geriatric wards

OBJECTIVES

As clinical pharmacy (CP) services can improve drug use and clinical outcome in older inpatients, a dedicated CP program was installed at the geriatric wards of an academic hospital. The aim of this study was to evaluate and potentially improve the CP program, by obtaining physician's feedback.

METHODS

An anonymous e-questionnaire was sent to all physicians who were active between October 2014 and March 2018 on the acute geriatric wards (80 beds) of the University Hospitals Leuven, Belgium. Thematic content analysis was applied. Six themes were defined: satisfaction with the service, time allocation of the clinical pharmacists, content and clinical relevance of pharmaceutical interventions, communication, time savings for the treating physician and future perspectives.

RESULTS

A total of 45 physicians (59%) completed the e-questionnaire. All respondents were satisfied with the content of the provided pharmaceutical recommendations. A minority (44%) found that a 0.8 full-time equivalent clinical pharmacist presence was sufficient in terms of the expected workload. The provided CP interventions improved quality of care according to 38 (84%) physicians. Oral and written communication were considered necessary by 89% and 82% of physicians, respectively. On average, an estimated 30 minutes physician time (IQR: 15-60) per patient was saved as a result of the program. The majority (87%) preferred clinical pharmacist presence for discharge support in all geriatric patients.

CONCLUSION

Physician's satisfaction with the CP service was very high. CP services in geriatric inpatients were perceived to be clinically relevant as well as time-saving by the involved physicians.

Links Between Behavior Change Techniques and Mechanisms of Action: An Expert Consensus Study

BACKGROUND

Understanding the mechanisms through which behavior change techniques (BCTs) can modify behavior is important for the development and evaluation of effective behavioral interventions. To advance the field, we require a shared knowledge of the mechanisms of action (MoAs) through which BCTs may operate when influencing behavior.

PURPOSE

To elicit expert consensus on links between BCTs and MoAs.

METHODS

In a modified Nominal Group Technique study, 105 international behavior change experts rated, discussed, and rerated links between 61 frequently used BCTs and 26 MoAs. The criterion for consensus was that at least 80 per cent of experts reached agreement about a link. Heat maps were used to present the data relating to all possible links.

RESULTS

Of 1,586 possible links (61 BCTs × 26 MoAs), 51 of 61 (83.6 per cent) BCTs had a definite link to one or more MoAs (mean [SD] = 1.44 [0.96], range = 1-4), and 20 of 26 (76.9 per cent) MoAs had a definite link to one or more BCTs (mean [SD] = 3.27 [2.91], range = 9). Ninety (5.7 per cent) were identified as "definite" links, 464 (29.2 per cent) as "definitely not" links, and 1,032 (65.1 per cent) as "possible" or "unsure" links. No "definite" links were identified for 10 BCTs (e.g., "Action Planning" and "Behavioural Substitution") and for six MoAs (e.g., "Needs" and "Optimism").

CONCLUSIONS

The matrix of links between BCTs and MoAs provides a basis for those developing and synthesizing behavioral interventions. These links also provide a framework for specifying empirical tests in future studies.

The evolution of an evidence based intervention designed to improve prescribing and reduce polypharmacy in older people with multimorbidity and significant polypharmacy in primary care (SPPiRE)

Introduction

By the time an intervention is ready for evaluation in a definitive RCT the context of the evidence base may have evolved. To avoid research waste, it is imperative that intervention design and evaluation is an adaptive process incorporating emerging evidence and novel concepts. The aim of this study is to describe changes that were made to an evidence based intervention at the protocol stage of the definitive RCT to incorporate emerging evidence.

Methods

The original evidence based intervention, a GP delivered web guided medication review, was modified in a five step process:Identification of core components of the original intervention.Literature review.Modification of the intervention.Pilot study.Final refinements. A framework, developed in public health research, was utilised to describe the modification process.

Results

The population under investigation changed from older people with a potentially inappropriate prescription (PIP) to older people with significant polypharmacy, a proxy marker for complex multimorbidity. An assessment of treatment priorities and brown bag medication review, with a focus on deprescribing were incorporated into the original intervention. The number of repeat medicines was added as a primary outcome measure as were additional secondary patient reported outcome measures to assess treatment burden and attitudes towards deprescribing.

Conclusions

A framework was used to systematically describe how and why the original intervention was modified, allowing the new intervention to build upon an effective and robustly developed intervention but also to be relevant in the context of the current evidence base.

Antidepressant Use Among People Prescribed Opioids for Chronic Noncancer Pain

OBJECTIVE

Although depression and chronic pain often coexist, few studies have examined antidepressant use among people with pain. This study examines the prevalence and characteristics associated with antidepressant use among people prescribed opioids for chronic noncancer pain (CNCP).

DESIGN

Baseline data from a prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Australian community.

SUBJECTS

A total of 1166 people prescribed opioids for CNCP.

METHODS

Baseline data collection consisted of a self-completed seven-day medication diary and telephone interview to collect information on sociodemographic characteristics and mental/physical health using validated questionnaires. Logistic regression was used to examine characteristics associated with antidepressant use, reporting adjusted odds ratios (AORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Of the 1166 participants, 668 (57.3%) were female, and the median (interquartile range) age was 59 (49-68) years. About half the cohort (N = 637, 54.6%) used antidepressants. Of these, 329 (51.7%) reported moderate to severe depression. Amitriptyline was the most commonly used antidepressant (17.3%). Factors independently associated with antidepressant use were being female (AOR = 1.47, 95% CI = 1.13-1.92), more years lived in pain (AOR = 1.01, 95% CI = 1.00-1.02), and use of nonopioid analgesics (AOR = 1.34, 95% CI = 1.01-1.78), benzodiazepines and related drugs (AOR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.36-2.49), antiepileptics (AOR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.38-2.51), and antipsychotics (AOR = 2.15, 95% CI = 1.22-3.77).

CONCLUSIONS

Antidepressant use is common among people with CNCP prescribed opioids. Those using antidepressants were more likely to use other psychotropic medicines concurrently, highlighting that they are a high-risk population requiring comprehensive assessment to optimize outcomes and reduce potential harms from polypharmacy.

"Everyone needs to understand each other's systems": Stakeholder views on the acceptability and viability of a Pharmacist Independent Prescriber role in care homes for older people in the UK

The role of an innovative Pharmacist Independent Prescriber (PIP) for care homes to optimise medications has not been examined. We explored stakeholders' views on issues and barriers that the PIP might address to inform a service specification for the PIP intervention in older people's care homes. Focus groups (n = 72 participants) and semi-structured interviews (n = 13) undertaken in 2015 across four sites in the United Kingdom captured the views of doctors, pharmacists, care-home managers and staff, residents and relatives. Stakeholders identified their expectations of what service should be provided by PIPs, what might affect their support for the role, and barriers and enablers to providing the service. Transcripts were analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify key components, which were reviewed by stakeholders in 2016. A PIP service was envisaged offering benefits for residents, care homes and doctors but stakeholders raised challenges including agreement on areas where PIPs might prescribe, contextual barriers in chronic disease management, PIPs' knowledge of older people's medicine, and implementation barriers in integrated team-working and ensuring role clarity. Introducing a PIP was welcomed in principle but conditional on: a clearly defined PIP role communicated to stakeholders; collaboration across doctors, PIPs and care-home staff; dialogue about developing the service with residents and relatives, based on trust and effective communication. To embed a PIP service within increasingly complex care-homes provision, the overarching theme from this research was that everyone must "understand each other's systems".

[Older patients' involvement in research (INVOLVE-Clin): a study protocol]

INTRODUCTION

Patient involvement in health research is an integral part of health care in many countries. It promotes the relevance and quality of research and increases the meaningfulness of research results. Meanwhile, the value of patient involvement has also been recognised in Germany. The lack of a common understanding of patient involvement and appropriate methods make implementation difficult. In Germany, patients are still rarely involved in the planning and conduct of health research. Vulnerable patient groups such as the elderly and the very old are considered particularly challenging for researchers in active patient involvement due to their special needs, which is why they are often neglected. Especially nursing home residents suffer from a variety of health impairments which are accompanied by a high number of prescription drugs and adverse events and can therefore make patient involvement more difficult. The present project aims to test the method of patient advisory boards for the involvement of nursing home residents. Using the design of a clinical trial to optimise medication for nursing home residents as a case study, we will assess the feasibility of the method for this target group. We will also install a patient advocate as moderator of the advisory board. The study plan is described in the present study protocol.

METHODS

Two patient advisory boards with nursing home residents will be established. With a patient advocate acting as moderator, the essential elements of a clinical trial to optimise medication will be discussed and passed on to the study planning team via the patient advocate. The overall topic of the clinical trial is the optimisation of medication in cardiovascular disease. The nursing home residents are informed about the contents and ideas of the study to be planned and the interests of the researchers, respectively, and will discuss the proposals of the study planning team. Nursing home residents', the patient advocate's and the researchers' expectations and experiences will be examined in individual interviews.

DISCUSSION

The study will provide a potentially suitable method to involve nursing home residents in the research process. The jointly developed study design will be incorporated into a new project proposal. The results will be used to inform the development of a German handbook on active public and patient involvement.

Opportunities and Recommendations for Improving Medication Safety: Understanding the Medication Management System in Primary Care Through an Abstraction Hierarchy

Background

Despite making great strides in improving the treatment of diseases, the minimization of unintended harm by medication therapy continues to be a major hurdle facing the health care system. Medication error and prescription of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) represent a prevalent source of harm to patients and are associated with increased rates of adverse events, hospitalizations, and increased health care costs. Attempts to improve medication management systems in primary care have had mixed results. Implementation of new interventions is difficult because of complex contextual factors within the health care system. Abstraction hierarchy (AH), the first step in cognitive work analysis (CWA), is used by human factors practitioners to describe complex sociotechnical systems. Although initially intended for the nuclear power domain and interface design, AH has been used successfully to aid the redesign of numerous health care systems such as the design of decision support tools, mobile patient monitoring apps, and a telephone triage system.

Objective

This paper aims to refine our understanding of the primary care office in relation to a patient’s medication through the development of an AH. Emphasis was placed on the elements related to medication safety to provide guidance for the design of a safer medication management system in primary care.

Methods

The AH development was guided by the methodology used by seminal CWA literature. It was initially developed by 2 authors and later fine-tuned by an expert panel of clinicians, social scientists, and a human factors engineer. It was subsequently refined until an agreement was reached. A means-ends analysis was performed and described for the nodes of interest. The model represents the primary care office space through functional purposes, values and priorities, function-related purposes, object-related processes, and physical objects.

Results

This model depicts the medication management system at various levels of abstraction. The resulting components must be balanced and coordinated to provide medical treatment with limited health care resources. Understanding the physical and informational constraints on activities that occur in a primary care office depicted in the AH defines areas in which medication safety can be improved.

Conclusions

Numerous means-ends relationships were identified and analyzed. These can be further evaluated depending on the specific needs of the user. Recommendations for optimizing a medication management system in a primary care facility were made. Individual practices can use AH for clinical redesign to improve prescribing and deprescribing practices.

Potentially inappropriate prescriptions according to explicit and implicit criteria in patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. MULTIPAP: A cross-sectional study

Background

Multimorbidity is a global health challenge that is associated with polypharmacy, increasing the risk of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP). There are tools to improve prescription, such as implicit and explicit criteria.

Objective

To estimate the prevalence of PIP in a population aged 65 to 74 years with multimorbidity and polypharmacy, according to American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria^® (2015, 2019), the Screening Tool of Older Person’s Prescription -STOPP- criteria (2008, 2014), and the Medication Appropriateness Index -MAI- criteria in primary care.

Methods

This was an observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study. The sample included 593 community-dwelling elderly aged 65 to 74 years, with multimorbidity and polypharmacy, who participated in the MULTIPAP trial. Socio-demographic, clinical, professional, and pharmacological-treatment variables were recorded. Potentially inappropriate prescribing was detected by computerized prescription assistance system, and family doctors evaluated the MAI. The MAI-associated factors were analysed using a logistic regression model.

Results

A total of 4,386 prescriptions were evaluated. The mean number of drugs was 7.4 (2.4 SD). A total of 94.1% of the patients in the study had at least one criterion for drug inappropriateness according to the MAI. Potentially inappropriate prescribing was detected in 57.7%, 43.6%, 68.8% and 71% of 50 patients according to the explicit criteria STOPP 2014, STOPP 2008, Beers 2019 and Beers 2015 respectively. For every new drug taken by a patient, the MAI score increased by 2.41 (95% CI 1.46; 3.35) points. Diabetes, ischaemic heart disease and asthma were independently associated with lower summated MAI scores.

Conclusions

The prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing detected in the sample was high and in agreement with previous literature for populations with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. The MAI criteria detected greater inappropriateness than did the explicit criteria, but their application was more complex and difficult to automate.

Medical management of a suspected atrial myxoma in a nonagenarian

Cardiac myxomas are the most frequently encountered tumors of the heart. However, they are unusual to be newly diagnosed in the geriatric population. Myxomas are among the great mimickers, with a myriad of clinical presentations related to heart failure, embolic events, and constitutional symptoms. We describe a rare case of a giant atrial myxoma in a nonagenarian presenting with heart failure, which was medically managed.

Potentially inappropriate medication and associated factors such as depression and dementia: An analysis of middle-aged and elderly people

AIMS: To establish the frequency potentially inappropriate medications use and the associated factors, such as signs and symptoms of depression and cognitive deficit among middle-aged and elderly people.METHODS: A cross-sectional population study was performed with 2,350 people, aged between 55-103 years, registered in the primary health care. Potentially inappropriate medications were defined by updated 2019 Beers criteria. Studied variables were sociodemographic, lifestyle and health, and signs and symptoms of depression and cognitive deficit. Multinomial regression analysis was executed.RESULTS: The frequency of potentially inappropriate medications use was 65.4%. Former and current smokers, regular self-perception of health, polypharmacy, and individuals with signs and symptoms of depression and cognitive deficit were significantly associated with potentially inappropriate medications use. Antiarrhythmics, antihistamines and antiadrenergic agents were the highest potentially inappropriate medications classes used for individuals with signs and symptoms of depression and cognitive deficit.CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of use of potentially inappropriate medications is high among middle-aged people, a population that was previously under-researched, as well as among elderly people. Cognitive impairment alone or together with depression symptoms were associated factor for a potentially inappropriate medications use. Knowledge of the pharmacoepidemiology of potentially inappropriate medications is an important for the promotion of the rational use of drugs in public health.

Optimisation of medications used in residential aged care facilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Frail older adults living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) usually experience comorbidities and are frequently prescribed multiple medications. This increases the potential risk of inappropriate prescribing and its negative consequences. Thus, optimising prescribed medications in RACFs is a challenge for healthcare providers.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to systematically review interventions that increase the appropriateness of medications used in RACFs and the outcomes of these interventions.

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised control trials (RCTs) and cluster randomised control trials (cRCTs) were performed by searching specified databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, Google scholar, PsycINFO) for publications from inception to May 2019 based on defined inclusion criteria. Data were extracted, study quality was assessed and statistically analysed using RevMan v5.3. Medication appropriateness, hospital admissions, mortality, falls, quality of life (QoL), Behavioural and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia (BPSD), adverse drug events (ADEs) and cognitive function could be meta-analysed.

RESULTS

A total of 25 RCTs and cRCTs comprising 19,576 participants met the inclusion criteria. The studies tested various interventions including medication review (n = 13), staff education (n = 9), multi-disciplinary case conferencing (n = 4) and computerised clinical decision support systems (n = 2). There was an effect of interventions on medication appropriateness (RR 0.71; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.60,0.84) (10 studies), and on medication appropriateness scales (standardised mean difference = - 0.67; 95% CI: - 0.97, - 0.36) (2 studies). There were no apparent effects on hospital admission (RR 1.00; 95% CI: 0.93, 1.06), mortality (RR 0.98; 95% CI: 0.86, 1.11), falls (RR 1.06; 95% CI: 0.89,1.26), ADEs (RR 1.04; 95% CI: 0.96,1.13), QoL (standardised mean difference = 0.16; 95% CI:-0.13, 0.45), cognitive function (weighted mean difference = 0.69; 95% CI: - 1.25, 2.64) and BPSD (RR 0.68; 95% CI: 0.44,1.06) (2 studies).

CONCLUSION

Modest improvements in medication appropriateness were observed in the studies included in this systematic review. However, the effect on clinical measures was limited to drive strong conclusions.

Application of the intervention Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews within a Cochrane review: an illustrative case study

Background: The intervention Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (iCAT_SR) has been developed to facilitate detailed assessments of intervention complexity in systematic reviews. Worked examples of the tool’s application are needed to promote its use and refinement. The aim of this case study was to apply the iCAT_SR to a subset of 20 studies included in a Cochrane review of interventions aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in older people.

Methods: Interventions were assessed independently by two authors using the six core iCAT_SR dimensions: (1) ‘Target organisational levels/categories’; (2) ‘Target behaviour/actions’; (3) ‘Active intervention components’; (4) ‘Degree of tailoring’; (5) ‘Level of skill required by intervention deliverers’; (6) ‘Level of skill required by intervention recipients’. Attempts were made to apply four optional dimensions: ‘Interaction between intervention components’; ‘Context/setting’; ‘Recipient/provider factors’; ‘Nature of causal pathway’. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen’s Kappa coefficient. Disagreements were resolved by consensus discussion. The findings are presented narratively.

Results: Assessments involving the core iCAT_SR dimensions showed limited consistency in intervention complexity across included studies, even when categorised according to clinical setting. Interventions were delivered across various organisational levels and categories (i.e. healthcare professionals and patients) and typically comprised multiple components. Intermediate skill levels were required by those delivering and receiving the interventions across all studies. A lack of detail in study reports precluded application of the iCAT_SR’s optional dimensions. The inter-rater reliability was substantial (Cohen's Kappa = 0.75)

Conclusions: This study describes the application of the iCAT_SR to studies included in a Cochrane systematic review. Future intervention studies need to ensure more detailed reporting of interventions, context and the causal pathways underlying intervention effects to allow a more holistic understanding of intervention complexity and facilitate replication in other settings. The experience gained has helped to refine the original guidance document relating to the application of iCAT_SR.

An overview of prevalence, determinants and health outcomes of polypharmacy

A high rate of polypharmacy is, in part, a consequence of the increasing proportion of multimorbidity in the ageing population worldwide. Our understanding of the potential harm of taking multiple medications in an older, multi-morbid population, who are likely to be on a polypharmacy regime, is limited. This is a narrative literature review that aims to appraise and summarise recent studies published about polypharmacy. We searched MEDLINE using the search terms polypharmacy (and its variations, e.g. multiple prescriptions, inappropriate drug use, etc.) in titles. Systematic reviews and original studies in English published between 2003 and 2018 were included. In this review, we provide current definitions of polypharmacy. We identify the determinants and prevalence of polypharmacy reported in different studies. Finally, we summarise some of the findings regarding the association between polypharmacy and health outcomes in older adults, with a focus on frailty, hospitalisation and mortality. Polypharmacy was most often defined in terms of the number of medications that are being taken by an individual at any given time. Our review showed that the prevalence of polypharmacy varied between 10% to as high as around 90% in different populations. Chronic conditions, demographics, socioeconomics and self-assessed health factors were independent predictors of polypharmacy. Polypharmacy was reported to be associated with various adverse outcomes after adjusting for health conditions. Optimising care for polypharmacy with valid, reliable measures, relevant to all patients, will improve the health outcomes of older adult population.

Interventions for improving medication-taking ability and adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications

BACKGROUND

Older people taking multiple medications represent a large and growing proportion of the population. Managing multiple medications can be challenging, and this is especially the case for older people, who have higher rates of comorbidity and physical and cognitive impairment than younger adults. Good medication-taking ability and medication adherence are necessary to ensure safe and effective use of medications.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve medication-taking ability and/or medication adherence in older community-dwelling adults prescribed multiple long-term medications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from inception until June 2019. We also searched grey literature, online trial registries, and reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs. Eligible studies tested interventions aimed at improving medication-taking ability and/or medication adherence among people aged ≥ 65 years (or of mean/median age > 65 years), living in the community or being discharged from hospital back into the community, and taking four or more regular prescription medications (or with group mean/median of more than four medications). Interventions targeting carers of older people who met these criteria were also included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts and full texts of eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We conducted meta-analyses when possible and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect, risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Narrative synthesis was performed when meta-analysis was not possible. We assessed overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Primary outcomes were medication-taking ability and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life (HRQoL), emergency department (ED)/hospital admissions, and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 50 studies (14,269 participants) comprising 40 RCTs, six cluster-RCTs, and four quasi-RCTs. All included studies evaluated interventions versus usual care; six studies also reported a comparison between two interventions as part of a three-arm RCT design. Interventions were grouped on the basis of their educational and/or behavioural components: 14 involved educational components only, 7 used behavioural strategies only, and 29 provided mixed educational and behavioural interventions. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions was low to very low due to a high degree of heterogeneity of included studies and high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains in most studies. Five studies evaluated interventions for improving medication-taking ability, and 48 evaluated interventions for improving medication adherence (three studies evaluated both outcomes). No studies involved educational or behavioural interventions alone for improving medication-taking ability. Low-quality evidence from five studies, each using a different measure of medication-taking ability, meant that we were unable to determine the effects of mixed interventions on medication-taking ability. Low-quality evidence suggests that behavioural only interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.38; 4 studies) and mixed interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.37; 12 studies) may increase the proportions of people who are adherent compared with usual care. We could not include in the meta-analysis results from two studies involving mixed interventions: one had a positive effect on adherence, and the other had little or no effect. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of educational only interventions (5 studies) on the proportions of people who are adherent. Low-quality evidence suggests that educational only interventions (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.43; 5 studies) and mixed interventions (SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.08 to 1.02; 7 studies) may have little or no impact on medication adherence assessed through continuous measures of adherence. We excluded 10 studies (4 educational only and 6 mixed interventions) from the meta-analysis including four studies with unclear or no available results. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of behavioural only interventions (3 studies) on medication adherence when assessed through continuous outcomes. Low-quality evidence suggests that mixed interventions may reduce the number of ED/hospital admissions (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 11 studies) compared with usual care, although results from six further studies that we were unable to include in meta-analyses indicate that the intervention may have a smaller, or even no, effect on these outcomes. Similarly, low-quality evidence suggests that mixed interventions may lead to little or no change in HRQoL (7 studies), and very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects on mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30; 7 studies). Moderate-quality evidence shows that educational interventions alone probably have little or no effect on HRQoL (6 studies) or on ED/hospital admissions (4 studies) when compared with usual care. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of behavioural interventions on HRQoL (1 study) or on ED/hospital admissions (2 studies). We identified no studies evaluating effects of educational or behavioural interventions alone on mortality. Six studies reported a comparison between two interventions; however due to the limited number of studies assessing the same types of interventions and comparisons, we are unable to draw firm conclusions for any outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural only or mixed educational and behavioural interventions may improve the proportion of people who satisfactorily adhere to their prescribed medications, but we are uncertain of the effects of educational only interventions. No type of intervention was found to improve adherence when it was measured as a continuous variable, with educational only and mixed interventions having little or no impact and evidence of insufficient quality to determine the effects of behavioural only interventions. We were unable to determine the impact of interventions on medication-taking ability. The quality of evidence for these findings is low due to heterogeneity and methodological limitations of studies included in the review. Further well-designed RCTs are needed to investigate the effects of interventions for improving medication-taking ability and medication adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications.

Intervention protocol: OPtimising thERapy to prevent avoidable hospital Admission in the Multi-morbid elderly (OPERAM): a structured medication review with support of a computerised decision support system

BACKGROUND

Several approaches to medication optimisation by identifying drug-related problems in older people have been described. Although some interventions have shown reductions in drug-related problems (DRPs), evidence supporting the effectiveness of medication reviews on clinical and economic outcomes is lacking. Application of the STOPP/START (version 2) explicit screening tool for inappropriate prescribing has decreased inappropriate prescribing and significantly reduced adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and associated healthcare costs in older patients with multi-morbidity and polypharmacy. Therefore, application of STOPP/START criteria during a medication review is likely to be beneficial. Incorporation of explicit screening tools into clinical decision support systems (CDSS) has gained traction as a means to improve both quality and efficiency in the rather time-consuming medication review process. Although CDSS can generate more potential inappropriate medication recommendations, some of these have been shown to be less clinically relevant, resulting in alert fatigue. Moreover, explicit tools such as STOPP/START do not cover all relevant DRPs on an individual patient level. The OPERAM study aims to assess the impact of a structured drug review on the quality of pharmacotherapy in older people with multi-morbidity and polypharmacy. The aim of this paper is to describe the structured, multi-component intervention of the OPERAM trial and compare it with the approach in the comparator arm.

METHOD

This paper describes a multi-component intervention, integrating interventions that have demonstrated effectiveness in defining DRPs. The intervention involves a structured history-taking of medication (SHiM), a medication review according to the systemic tool to reduce inappropriate prescribing (STRIP) method, assisted by a clinical decision support system (STRIP Assistant, STRIPA) with integrated STOPP/START criteria (version 2), followed by shared decision-making with both patient and attending physician. The developed method integrates patient input, patient data, involvement from other healthcare professionals and CDSS-assistance into one structured intervention.

DISCUSSION

The clinical and economical effectiveness of this experimental intervention will be evaluated in a cohort of hospitalised, older patients with multi-morbidity and polypharmacy in the multicentre, randomized controlled OPERAM trial (OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in the Multi-morbid elderly), which will be completed in the last quarter of 2019.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Universal Trial Number: U1111-1181-9400 Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02986425, Registered 08 December 2016. FOPH (Swiss national portal): SNCTP000002183. Netherlands Trial Register: NTR6012 (07-10-2016).

A systematic overview of systematic reviews evaluating interventions addressing polypharmacy

PURPOSE

To systematically evaluate and summarize evidence across multiple systematic reviews (SRs) examining interventions addressing polypharmacy.

SUMMARY

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) were searched for SRs evaluating interventions addressing polypharmacy in adults published from January 2004 to February 2017. Two authors independently screened, appraised, and extracted information. SRs with Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) scores below 8 were excluded. After extraction of relevant conclusions from each SR, evidence was summarized and conclusions compared. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess evidence quality. Six SRs met the inclusion criteria, 4 of which used meta-analytic pooling. Five SRs focused on older adults. Four were not restricted to any specific disease type, whereas 1 focused on proton pump inhibitors and another focused on patients with severe dementia. Care settings and measured outcomes varied widely. SRs examining the impact on patient-centered outcomes, including morbidity, mortality, patient satisfaction, and utilization, found inconsistent evidence regarding the benefit of polypharmacy interventions, but most concluded that interventions had either null or uncertain impact. Two SRs assessing medication appropriateness found very low-quality evidence of modest improvements with polypharmacy interventions.

CONCLUSION

An overview of SRs of interventions to address polypharmacy found 6 recent and high-quality SRs, mostly focused on older adults, in which both process and outcome measures were used to evaluate interventions. Despite the low quality of evidence in the underlying primary studies, both SRs that assessed medication appropriateness found evidence that polypharmacy interventions improved it. However, there was no consistent evidence of any impact on downstream patient-centered outcomes such as healthcare utilization, morbidity, or mortality.

Multimorbidity patterns in chronic older patients, potentially inappropriate prescribing and adverse drug reactions: protocol of the multicentre prospective cohort study MoPIM

INTRODUCTION

Multimorbidity is a major challenge for current healthcare systems and professionals. From the different approaches that have been proposed to analyse this issue, the hypothesis of the existence of association patterns of different chronic conditions is gaining visibility. In addition, multimorbidity can be associated to polypharmacy, which can lead to a higher risk of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) and consequently to adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The general objective of this novel study is to identify the association between PIP, multimorbidity patterns, polypharmacy and the presence of ADRs in older patients admitted for exacerbation of chronic diseases.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The MoPIM (morbidity, potentially inappropriate medication) study is a multicentre prospective cohort study of an estimated sample of 800 older (≥65 years) patients admitted to five general hospitals in Spain due to an exacerbation of a chronic disease. Patients referred to home hospitalisation, admitted due to an acute process or with a fatal outcome expected at the time of admission are excluded. Sociodemographic data, chronic morbidities and geriatric syndromes, number of chronic prescribed medications, PIP at admission to hospital and on discharge, according to the newest screening tool of older screening tool of older person's potentially inappropriate prescriptions/screening tool to alert doctors to right treatment criteria, and ADRs during hospitalisation are being collected. Multimorbidity patterns will be identified using cluster analyses techniques, and the frequency of polypharmacy, PIP and ADRs will be calculated. Finally, the possible relationship between those indicators will be identified through bivariate and multivariate analyses.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The project has been approved by the clinical research ethics committees of each centre: Comité Ético de investigación Clínica del Parc Taulí, Comitè Ètic d'Investigació Clínica Osona per a la Recerca i Educació Sanitàries (FORES), Comité de Ètica de la Investigación con Medicamentos (CEIm)-Parc de Salut MAR, Comité Ético de Investigación Clínica de Euskadi, Comité de Ética de Investigación del Hospital Universitario de Canarias. The results will be actively and mainly disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and communications in scientific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02830425.