Health professionals' and researchers' opinions on conducting clinical deprescribing trials

Patient-targeted interventions for opioid deprescribing: An overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing (reduction or cessation) of prescribed opioids can be challenging for both patients and healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize and evaluate evidence from systematic reviews examining the effectiveness and outcomes of patient-targeted opioid deprescribing interventions for all types of pain.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted in five databases with results screened against predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Primary outcomes were (i) reduction in opioid dose, reported as change in oral Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (oMEDD) and (ii) success of opioid deprescribing, reported as the proportion of the sample for which opioid use declined. Secondary outcomes included pain severity, physical function, quality of life and adverse events. The certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

FINDINGS

Twelve reviews were eligible for inclusion. Interventions were heterogeneous in nature and included pharmacological (n = 4), physical (n = 3), procedural (n = 3), psychological or behavioural (n = 3) and mixed (n = 5) interventions. Multidisciplinary care programmes appeared to be the most effective intervention for opioid deprescribing; however, the certainty of evidence was low, with significant variability in opioid reduction across interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is too uncertain to draw firm conclusions about specific populations who may derive the greatest benefit from opioid deprescribing, warranting further investigation.

Optimizing pharmacotherapy and deprescribing strategies in older adults living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: EuGMS SIG on pharmacology position paper

Inappropriate polypharmacy is highly prevalent among older adults and presents a significant healthcare concern. Conducting medication reviews and implementing deprescribing strategies in multimorbid older adults with polypharmacy are an inherently complex and challenging task. Recognizing this, the Special Interest Group on Pharmacology of the European Geriatric Medicine Society has compiled evidence on medication review and deprescribing in older adults and has formulated recommendations to enhance appropriate prescribing practices. The current evidence supports the need for a comprehensive and widespread transformation in education, guidelines, research, advocacy, and policy to improve the management of polypharmacy in older individuals. Furthermore, incorporating deprescribing as a routine aspect of care for the ageing population is crucial. We emphasize the importance of involving geriatricians and experts in geriatric pharmacology in driving, and actively participating in this transformative process. By doing so, we can work towards achieving optimal medication use and enhancing the well-being of older adults in the generations to come.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of a joint general practitioner-pharmacist intervention on the implementation of benzodiazepine deprescribing in older adults (BESTOPH-MG trial): protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Background

Deprescribing benzodiazepines and related drugs (BZDR) is a challenge due to a lack of time on physicians' part, a lack of involvement of other health professionals, and the need for adapted tools. This study is based on primary care collaboration, by evaluating the effectiveness of a joint intervention between general practitioners and community pharmacists on the implementation of BZDR deprescribing in older adults.

Methods

This is a cluster randomized controlled trial in which each cluster will be formed by a physician-pharmacist pair. Within a cluster allocated to the intervention, the pharmacist will be trained in motivational interviewing (MI), and will offer the patient 3 interviews after inclusion by the physician. They will base their intervention on validated deprescribing guidelines. The pharmacist will receive methodological support during the first interviews. Interprofessional collaboration will be encouraged by writing reports for the physician after each interview. The following implementation outcomes will be evaluated: acceptability/adoption, appropriateness, cost, and fidelity. They will be measured by means of sociological interviews, observations, logbooks, and cost-utility analysis. Focus groups with physicians and pharmacists will be carried out to identify levers and barriers experienced in this collaboration. Observations will be conducted with pharmacists to assess their approach of the MIs. Effectiveness outcomes will be based on medication (discontinuation or reduction of BZDR) and clinical outcomes (such as quality of life, insomnia or anxiety), assessed by health insurance databases and validated questionnaires.

Discussion

This study will determine whether collaboration in primary care between physicians and pharmacists, as well as training and coaching of pharmacists in motivational interviewing, allows the implementation of BZDR deprescribing in the older adults.This study will provide an understanding of the processes used to implement deprescribing guidelines, and the contribution of collaborative practice in implementing BZDR discontinuation. The cluster methodology will allow to assess the experience of the relationship between the different primary care actors, and the related obstacles and levers.The results obtained will make it possible to produce guidelines on the involvement of community pharmacists in the management of substance abuse in older adults, or even to legislate new missions or care pathways.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier, NCT05765656.

Mapping the methodological diversity of published drug discontinuation studies-a scoping review of study topics, objectives, and designs

BACKGROUND

Trials evaluating drug discontinuation (drug discontinuation trials, DDTs) show a broad methodological spectrum. There are several specific methodological aspects in drug discontinuation trials (e.g., determination of research question; configuration of intervention; definition of outcomes). To verify this specifies, we did a scoping review about the study designs of drug discontinuation trials.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in Medline (PubMed), The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and PsycINFO was performed. In a two-step selection process, we identified DDTs, which evaluate the discontinuation of one or more long-term medication as the investigated intervention, by two independent reviewers. Besides bibliographic data, we extracted several parameters to describe the used study design of the included DDTs: motivation for DDT, initially treatment aim of the discontinued medication, study design, methods of discontinuation, follow-up times, number of study participants, and outcome parameter.

RESULTS

Out of 12,132 records, we included 581 DDTs. The most common motivation for doing a DDT were expected side effects (48.8%), the motivation of proving the efficacy of medication (21.6%), or doubts on the expected benefit of the used medication (13.8%). The majority of the discontinued medication was initially prescribed to improve the prognosis of a chronic disease (60.4%) or to relieve symptoms (31%). The study designs of the trials showed a broad methodological spectrum. The minority of the drug discontinuation trials were randomized controlled trials (34%).

CONCLUSION

The results of this scoping review illustrates the need for an evidence-based methodological standard for planning and conducting drug discontinuation trials.

Dietary Interventions to Treat Type 2 Diabetes in Adults with a Goal of Remission: An Expert Consensus Statement from the American College of Lifestyle Medicine

Objective

The objective of this Expert Consensus Statement is to assist clinicians in achieving remission of type 2 diabetes (T2D) in adults using diet as a primary intervention. Evidence-informed statements agreed upon by a multi-disciplinary panel of expert healthcare professionals were used.

Methods

Panel members with expertise in diabetes treatment, research, and remission followed an established methodology for developing consensus statements using a modified Delphi process. A search strategist systematically reviewed the literature, and the best available evidence was used to compose statements regarding dietary interventions in adults 18 years and older diagnosed with T2D. Topics with significant practice variation and those that would result in remission of T2D were prioritized. Using an iterative, online process, panel members expressed levels of agreement with the statements, resulting in classification as consensus, near-consensus, or non-consensus based on mean responses and the number of outliers.

Results

The expert panel identified 131 candidate consensus statements that focused on addressing the following high-yield topics: (1) definitions and basic concepts; (2) diet and remission of T2D; (3) dietary specifics and types of diets; (4) adjuvant and alternative interventions; (5) support, monitoring, and adherence to therapy; (6) weight loss; and (7) payment and policy. After 4 iterations of the Delphi survey and removal of duplicative statements, 69 statements met the criteria for consensus, 5 were designated as near consensus, and 60 were designated as no consensus. In addition, the consensus was reached on the following key issues: (a) Remission of T2D should be defined as HbA1c <6.5% for at least 3 months with no surgery, devices, or active pharmacologic therapy for the specific purpose of lowering blood glucose; (b) diet as a primary intervention for T2D can achieve remission in many adults with T2D and is related to the intensity of the intervention; and (c) diet as a primary intervention for T2D is most effective in achieving remission when emphasizing whole, plant-based foods with minimal consumption of meat and other animal products. Many additional statements that achieved consensus are highlighted in a tabular presentation in the manuscript and elaborated upon in the discussion section.

Conclusion

Expert consensus was achieved for 69 statements pertaining to diet and remission of T2D, dietary specifics and types of diets, adjuvant and alternative interventions, support, monitoring, adherence to therapy, weight loss, and payment and policy. Clinicians can use these statements to improve quality of care, inform policy and protocols, and identify areas of uncertainty.

Effectiveness of a multi-faceted intervention to deprescribe proton pump inhibitors in primary care: protocol for a population-based, pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial

Background

Inappropriately using proton pump inhibitors (PPI) is associated with severe adverse drug reactions and may have major consequences on healthcare costs. Deprescribing (the process by which a healthcare professional supervises the withdrawal of an inappropriate medication, to manage polypharmacy and improve outcomes) should be considered when an inappropriate PPI prescription is identified. Deprescribing interventions directed solely to prescribers have limited efficacy and are rarely targeted to patients. The aim of this trial is to assess the efficacy of a multi-faceted intervention with patients and general practitioners (GPs) to deprescribe PPI.

Methods

We will conduct a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, population-based, controlled trial in two regions of Western France. GPs with practices with over 100 patients, and their adult patient to whom over 300 defined daily doses (DDD) of PPIs have been dispensed in the year before baseline will be included. A total of 1300 GPs and 33,000 patients will be cluster-randomized by GPs practices. Three arms will be compared: i) a multi-faceted intervention associating a) a patient education brochure about PPI deprescribing sent directly to patients (the brochure was designed using a mixed-methods study), and b) a personalized letter with the Bruyere’s PPI deprescribing algorithm sent to their respective GPs, or ii) a single intervention where only the GPs received the letter and algorithm, or iii) no intervention.

The primary outcome will be PPI deprescribing, defined as the proportion of patients achieving at least a 50% decrease in the amount of PPI dispensed to them (DDD/year) at 12 months compared to baseline. Secondary outcomes will include incremental cost-utility ratio (using EQ-5D-5L scale and National Health Insurance’s database), acid rebound (using the Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease Impact Scale), and the patients’ attitudes towards deprescribing (using the French rPATD).

Discussion

Based on previous trials, we anticipate more than 10% “successful PPI deprescribing” in the multi-faceted intervention compared to the single intervention on GPs and the control arm. The study has been funded through a national grant and will be launched in autumn 2020, for early results by the end of 2022.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04255823; first registered on February 5, 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07496-3.

A narrative review of updates in deprescribing research

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Deprescribing is a strategy intended to reduce harms associated with potentially inappropriate medications. Reflective of the growing interest in deprescribing, there has been an increase in related research to better understand the landscape, opportunities for improvement, how best to develop and implement interventions, and remaining knowledge gaps that can be addressed with additional study.

DESIGN

We conducted a narrative review of recent deprescribing literature.

SETTING

As part of the US Deprescribing Network's inaugural conference in October 2020, we presented a narrative review of recent deprescribing literature to an audience with a range of clinical and research expertise.

PARTICIPANTS

We searched four databases for English-language articles published between January 1, 2019 and August 31, 2020.

MEASUREMENTS

We evaluated titles, abstracts, and full-length manuscripts for relevance, novelty, rigor and variety of methods; we also aimed for broad representation of authors, institutions, and nations.

RESULTS

The initial search returned 199 citations, from which we reviewed 18 full-length manuscripts, selecting 10 articles to present. Salient themes included missed opportunities to deprescribe in potentially eligible patients, with variable impact of medication- and patient-level factors, along with differing perspectives and behaviors between geriatricians, internists, and cardiologists. Clinical, financial, and economic drivers were also evaluated. Finally, attention was given to issues applicable to deprescribing research, including difficulty recruiting trial participants, perspectives of investigators, and integration of findings into clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

This narrative review summarizes key advances in the field while also identifying priority areas for additional research.

Methods for evaluating the benefit and harms of deprescribing in observational research using routinely collected data

Deprescribing is defined as "the planned and supervised process of dose reduction or stopping of medication that might be causing harm, or no longer be of benefit". Barriers to deprescribing include healthcare professional fear and lack of guidance. These may stem from limited available evidence on benefits and harms of deprescribing medications commonly used among older persons. Advances in pharmacoepidemiology and causal inference methods to evaluate comparative effectiveness and safety of prescribing medications have yet to be considered for deprescribing medication. This paper discusses select methods and how they can be applied to deprescribing research, using case studies of benzodiazepines and low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin). Target trial emulation involves the explicit application of design principles from randomised controlled trials to observational studies. Several design aspects, including defining eligibility criteria and time zero, require additional considerations for deprescribing studies. The active comparator new user design also presents challenges, including selection of an appropriate comparator. This paper discusses these aspects, and others, in relation to deprescribing studies. Furthermore, methods proposed to control for confounding, in particular, the prior event rate ratio and propensity scores, are discussed. Introduction of billing codes or mechanisms for accurately determining when deprescribing has occurred would enhance the ability to conduct research using routinely collected data. Although the approaches discussed in this paper may strengthen observational studies of deprescribing, their use may be best suited to certain scenarios or research questions, where randomised controlled trials may be less feasible.