[Intervention in elderly patients with multiple morbidities and multiple medications: results of the prescription and the quality of life]

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 In phase 2 we reviewed and synthesised relevant published and unpublished empirical evidence and tested the programme theories using evidence from a larger set of empirical studies.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.

Medication Evaluation in Portuguese Elderly Patients According to Beers, STOPP/START Criteria and EU(7)-PIM List - An Exploratory Study

PURPOSE

The increase in drug prescription for the elderly raises the risk of the occurrence of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), thus increasing the incidence of drug-related problems. Likewise, potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) are also highly prevalent in the elderly. This study aimed at assessing the prevalence of PIMs in the elderly by using the EU(7)-PIM list, STOPP criteria version 2 and the Beers criteria version 2015, as well as the prevalence of PPOs by applying the START criteria version 2 in elderly nursing home residents and outpatients of the Eastern Central Region of Portugal.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out in a sample of 90 Portuguese elderly people. Age, gender, diagnoses and medication history were collected from the patients' clinical records. The prevalence of PIMs and PPOs was measured according to each of the criteria applied.

RESULTS

The patients' ages ranged from 65 to 103 years, with an average age of 84.15 years. In addition, the average number of medications prescribed was 7.6. The STOPP criteria identified 250 PIMs affecting 77 patients (85.5%), the EU(7)-PIM list detected 94 PIMs in 58 patients (64.4%) and the Beers criteria identified 69 PIMs in 51 patients (56.6%). Therefore, the STOPP criteria version 2 identified substantially more PIMs than the other two tools. Furthermore, by applying the START criteria 68 PPOs were detected in 52 patients (57.7%).

CONCLUSION

A high prevalence of PIMs and PPOs was observed, suggesting the need to implement actions aimed at reducing the phenomenon and thus help to improve the quality of care provided in nursing homes. The variations in prevalence with the different tools suggest the need to carefully choose the tool for medication review in the elderly.

[Evaluation of an educational intervention and a structured review of polypharmacy in elderly patients in Primary Care]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Several interventions have been shown to reduce polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescription (PIP). The objective of the study was to evaluate the number of drugs and PIP before and after an educational intervention with the Primary Care physician (PCP), with electronic identification of PIP and structured medication review, in elderly patients with excessive polypharmacy (≥10 drugs).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A before-after intervention study was conducted in the Gipuzkoa district of Osakidetza (Basque Country Health System), in a random sample of patients older than 80 years taking ≥ 10 drugs, and whose PCP attended training sessions. Primary outcomes: change in the number of drugs and PIP, registered in computerised health records.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

benefit/risk ratio assessed by the PCP, safety problems, and therapeutic decision.

RESULTS

Of the 591 eligible patients, 88 were excluded (41: PCP did not attend training sessions, 47: death/transfer/admission), including a total of 503 patients with mean age of 84.9 years, with 67.7% women. The mean number of drugs and PIP per patient decreased significantly, -0.88 (95% CI: -1.04 to -0.72) and -0.19 (95% CI: -0.29 to -0.09), respectively (p<.0001), with a 25.8% reduction in the number of patients with excessive polypharmacy.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

data collection sheets of 365 patients and 4,168 prescriptions were collected. The benefit-risk ratio was favourable for 75% of the prescriptions, with the most frequent decision being to maintain them (83%). Among the 911 prescriptions with an unfavourable/uncertain benefit/risk ratio, 47.3% were maintained.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention is associated with a reduction in excessive polypharmacy and PPI under real-world conditions.

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, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective 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 7 February 2018, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people aged 65 years and older, prescribed polypharmacy (four or more medicines), 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

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of 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 32 studies, 20 from this update. Included studies consisted of 18 randomised trials, 10 cluster randomised trials (one of which was a stepped-wedge design), two non-randomised trials and two controlled before-after studies. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support (CDS); and 31 were complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical-care based approaches (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patient's outcomes), one of which incorporated a CDS component as part of their multi-faceted intervention. Interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists and geriatricians, and all 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) -4.76, 95% CI -9.20 to -0.33; 5 studies, N = 517; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.05; 7 studies; N = 1832; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs, (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.02; 11 studies; N = 3079; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.81, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.64; 2 studies; N = 569; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPOs (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 5 studies; N = 1310; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in hospital admissions (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 4052; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in quality of life (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 3211; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in eight studies (N = 10,087) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as reviews of patients' prescriptions, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they may be slightly beneficial in terms of reducing potential prescribing omissions (PPOs); but this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias.

Pharmacist comprehensive review of treatment compared with STOPP-START criteria to detect potentially inappropriate prescription in older complex patients

OBJECTIVES

To compare potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) according to the clinical judgement of the pharmacist with PIP according to explicit STOPP-START criteria in institutionalised and hospitalised patients with multiple pathologies. To describe and compare the main pharmacological groups involved and determine the factors associated with the detection of PIP in these patients.

METHOD

A prospective multicentre observational study of institutionalised and hospitalised multipathology patients aged >65 years. A specialised pharmacist used his best clinical judgement to detect PIP based on a comprehensive review of the complete chronic treatment of patients, which is an essential activity in interdisciplinary care. STOPP-START criteria were used as an aid tool to detect PIP. The main variable was the number of PIP incidents detected.

RESULTS

Detected PIP incidents were analysed in 338 patients. Clinical judgement detected more PIP incidents (35%) than did STOPP-START criteria. More PIP incidents unrelated to these criteria were detected in institutionalised patients than in hospitalised patients. Clinical judgement mainly detected PIP incidents related to incorrect doses and drug interactions (p<0.001); however, STOPP-START criteria mainly detected PIP incidents related to drug duplication and insufficiently treated diagnosis or symptoms (p=0.001 and p<0.001). In total, 93.8% of the PIP incidents were detected in polypharmacy patients (≥5 drugs). Institutionalised and high-level polypharmacy (≥10 drugs) patients were at the highest risk of PIP.

CONCLUSIONS

A large number of PIP incidents were detected in institutionalised and hospitalised patients with multiple pathologies. The inclusion of a pharmacist in the multidisciplinary team facilitated the detection of PIP incidents, particularly in the institutionalised population and patients treated with high-level polypharmacy which were not detected by explicit STOPP-START criteria.

[Prevalence of inappropriate prescription to polymedicated patients over 65 years old in a rural health area]

OBJECTIVE

Describe the inappropriate prescription to polymedicated patients over 65 years old in rural areas.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

An observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study conducted in health care units in the Guadalhorce Valley, a rural area of Malaga, Spain. The district has a catchment population of about 144,993 inhabitants. This study is focused on the population that is older than 65 years, and who use 10 or more medications (4.344 patients). The study has as a primary variable: the rates of inappropriate prescription. These are classified using the Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria, as well as the criteria of the strategy of the approach to polymedicated of the Andalusian Health System. An application was used to create individualised forms that identified inappropriate prescribing criteria. For each patient, we used variables, such as the unit, drug group, medications, dose, and use of the STOPP and Andalusian Health System criteria were recorded for each patient.

RESULTS

More than one-third (35.5%) of all patients have inappropriate prescription, according to STOPP criteria, related to some health problem (direct problems). The large majority (94%) have potentially inappropriate prescription according to the criteria of the Andalusian Health System. If the criteria directly related to prescribing medication for people over 65 (general) is taken into account, 100% of patients have some form of inappropriate or potentially inappropriate prescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of polypharmacy and inappropriate prescription is a real problem in the population over 65 years old. An informatics tool provides us with the facilities to identify and approach inappropriate prescribing.