Preoperative Deprescribing for Medical Optimization of Older Adults Undergoing Surgery: A Systematic Review

Deprescribing in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Deprescribing has the potential to improve patient safety and quality of care by reducing polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), which in turn may reduce adverse drug events. Questions remain about the effectiveness of deprescribing interventions in outpatient settings.

Objective

To determine the association of deprescribing interventions with reducing medication count and PIMs in community-dwelling older adults.

Data Sources

Included studies were English-language human studies in PubMed and the Cochrane Library published from January 2019 to July 26, 2024, and results were supplemented with reference-mining and expert consultation.

Study Selection

Studies were eligible if they were solely or primarily about deprescribing, focused on community-dwelling adults, were multisite, used a randomized trial design, and reported on the primary or secondary outcome.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two authors extracted study design, intervention characteristics, population characteristics, and follow-up. Outcomes were extracted by the statistician and checked by a second author. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method. The study was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the number of PIMs or total medications, and the secondary outcome was proportion of persons prescribed at least 1 PIM.

Results

Two authors independently screened 1586 titles from PubMed and Cochrane and 33 from other sources; 321 abstracts and 133 full-text studies were further reviewed, and disagreements were reconciled through discussion, resulting in 17 studies in 18 publications. A total of 8 studies of interventions targeting multiple medications were identified for primary outcome analysis; the random-effects pooled analysis found a mean difference of -0.14 (95% CI, -0.27 to -0.01) medications prescribed. A total of 6 studies of interventions targeting multiple medications were identified for secondary outcome analysis; the random effects pooled analysis found no significant reduction in the proportion of persons prescribed at least 1 PIM (odds ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.74 to 1.14]).

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis found moderate-certainty evidence that deprescribing interventions were associated with reduced PIM and medication counts in community-dwelling older adults. While the individual-level association was very small, on an aggregated population level, the outcomes may be large, given the high prevalence of polypharmacy and PIMs in community-dwelling older adults.

Association of polypharmacy and perioperative outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Polypharmacy is becoming more prevalent due to an ageing population. As more patients are undergoing surgical procedures, it is important to determine which group of patients are at higher risk of poorer outcomes. This review aimed to provide a summary of existing literature and to determine if polypharmacy is associated with poorer perioperative outcomes and to identify any gaps in the literature. This systematic review was conducted using electronic databases PubMed, Embase and Web of Science from their inception to December 2024. Statistical analysis was performed using generic inverse variance method. We identified 45 eligible studies from different countries and different surgical populations. Thirty-two studies (71.11%) defined polypharmacy as the use of five or more medications. Polypharmacy is significantly associated with postoperative delirium (odds ratio = 1.62, 95% confidence interval = 1.32-1.98, I2 = 0%). Although polypharmacy is found to be significantly associated with postoperative delirium, the relationship between polypharmacy and postoperative delirium remains complex.

Deprescribing interventions in older adults: An overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

The growing deprescribing field is challenged by a lack of consensus around evidence and knowledge gaps. The objective of this overview of systematic reviews was to summarize the review evidence for deprescribing interventions in older adults.

METHODS

11 databases were searched from 1st January 2005 to 16th March 2023 to identify systematic reviews. We summarized and synthesized the results in two steps. Step 1 summarized results reported by the included reviews (including meta-analyses). Step 2 involved a narrative synthesis of review results by outcome. Outcomes included medication-related outcomes (e.g., medication reduction, medication appropriateness) or twelve other outcomes (e.g., mortality, adverse events). We summarized outcomes according to subgroups (patient characteristics, intervention type and setting) when direct comparisons were available within the reviews. The quality of included reviews was assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2).

RESULTS

We retrieved 3,228 unique citations and assessed 135 full-text articles for eligibility. Forty-eight reviews (encompassing 17 meta-analyses) were included. Thirty-one of the 48 reviews had a general deprescribing focus, 16 focused on specific medication classes or therapeutic categories and one included both. Twelve of 17 reviews meta-analyzed medication-related outcomes (33 outcomes: 25 favored the intervention, 7 found no difference, 1 favored the comparison). The narrative synthesis indicated that most interventions resulted in some evidence of medication reduction while for other outcomes we found primarily no evidence of an effect. Results were mixed for adverse events and few reviews reported adverse drug withdrawal events. Limited information was available for people with dementia, frailty and multimorbidity. All but one review scored low or critically low on quality assessment.

CONCLUSION

Deprescribing interventions likely resulted in medication reduction but evidence on other outcomes, in particular relating to adverse events, or in vulnerable subgroups or settings was limited. Future research should focus on designing studies powered to examine harms, patient-reported outcomes, and effects on vulnerable subgroups.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020178860.

Deprescribing: An umbrella review

This umbrella review examined systematic reviews of deprescribing studies by characteristics of intervention, population, medicine, and setting. Clinical and humanistic outcomes, barriers and facilitators, and tools for deprescribing are presented. The Medline database was used. The search was limited to systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in English up to April 2022. Reviews reporting deprescribing were included, while those where depre-scribing was not planned and supervised by a healthcare professional were excluded. A total of 94 systematic reviews (23 meta--analyses) were included. Most explored clinical or humanistic outcomes (70/94, 74 %); less explored attitudes, facilitators, or barriers to deprescribing (17/94, 18 %); few focused on tools (8/94, 8.5 %). Reviews assessing clinical or humanistic outcomes were divided into two groups: reviews with deprescribing intervention trials (39/70, 56 %; 16 reviewing specific deprescribing interventions and 23 broad medication optimisation interventions), and reviews with medication cessation trials (31/70, 44 %). Deprescribing was feasible and resulted in a reduction of inappropriate medications in reviews with deprescribing intervention trials. Complex broad medication optimisation interventions were shown to reduce hospitalisation, falls, and mortality rates. In reviews of medication cessation trials, a higher frequency of adverse drug withdrawal events underscores the importance of prioritizing patient safety and exercising caution when stopping medicines, particularly in patients with clear and appropriate indications.

Optimising Medications in Older Vascular Surgery Patients Through Geriatric Co-management

BACKGROUND

Prescribing of potentially inappropriate medications and under-prescribing of guideline-recommended medications for cardiovascular risk modification have both been associated with negative outcomes in older adults. Hospitalisation represents an important opportunity to optimise medication use and may be achieved through geriatrician-led interventions.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate whether implementation of a novel model of care called Geriatric Comanagement of older Vascular (GeriCO-V) surgery patients is associated with improvements in medication prescribing.

METHODS

We used a prospective pre-post study design. The intervention was a geriatric co-management model, where a geriatrician delivered comprehensive geriatric assessment-based interventions including a routine medication review. We included consecutively admitted patients to the vascular surgery unit at a tertiary academic centre aged ≥ 65 years with an expected length of stay of ≥ 2 days and who were discharged from hospital. Outcomes of interest were the prevalence of at least one potentially inappropriate medication as defined by the Beers Criteria at admission and discharge, and rates of cessation of at least one potentially inappropriate medication present on admission. In the subgroup of patients with peripheral arterial disease, the prevalence of guideline-recommended medications on discharge was determined.

RESULTS

There were 137 patients in the pre-intervention group (median [interquartile range] age: 80.0 [74.0-85.0] years, 83 [60.6%] with peripheral arterial disease) and 132 patients in the post-intervention group (median [interquartile range] age: 79.0 (73.0-84.0) years, 75 [56.8%] with peripheral arterial disease). There was no change in the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication use from admission to discharge in either group (pre-intervention: 74.5% on admission vs 75.2% on discharge; post-intervention: 72.0% vs 72.7%, p = 0.65). Forty-five percent of pre-intervention group patients had at least one potentially inappropriate medication present on admission ceased, compared with 36% of post-intervention group patients (p = 0.11). A higher number of patients with peripheral arterial disease in the post-intervention group were discharged on antiplatelet agent therapy (63 [84.0%] vs 53 [63.9%], p = 0.004) and lipid-lowering therapy (58 [77.3%] vs 55 [66.3%], p = 0.12).

CONCLUSIONS

Geriatric co-management was associated with an improvement in guideline-recommended antiplatelet agent prescribing aimed at cardiovascular risk modification for older vascular surgery patients. The prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications was high in this population, and was not reduced with geriatric co-management.

Prevalence of Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions According to the New STOPP/START Criteria in Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review

The demand for long-term care is expected to increase due to the rising life expectancy and the increased prevalence of long-term illnesses. Nursing home residents are at an increased risk of suffering adverse drug events due to inadequate prescriptions. The main objective of this systematic review is to collect and analyze the prevalence of potentially inadequate prescriptions based on the new version of STOPP/START criteria in this specific population. Databases (PubMed, Web of Science and Cochrane) were searched for inappropriate prescription use in nursing homes according to the second version of STOPP/START criteria. The risk of bias was assessed with the STROBE checklist. A total of 35 articles were assessed for eligibility. One hundred and forty nursing homes and more than 6900 residents were evaluated through the analysis of 13 studies of the last eight years. The reviewed literature returned prevalence ranges between 67.8% and 87.7% according to the STOPP criteria, according to START criteria prevalence ranged from 39.5% to 99.7%. The main factors associated with the presence of inappropriate prescriptions were age, comorbidities, and polypharmacy. These data highlight that, although the STOPP/START criteria were initially developed for community-dwelling older adults, its use in nursing homes may be a starting point to help detect more efficiently inappropriate prescriptions in institutionalized patients. We hope that this review will help to draw attention to the need for medication monitoring systems in this vulnerable population.