The MedSafer Study: A Controlled Trial of an Electronic Decision Support Tool for Deprescribing in Acute Care

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.

Medication Deprescribing in Patients Receiving Hemodialysis: A Prospective Controlled Quality Improvement Study

Rationale & Objective

Patients treated with dialysis are commonly prescribed multiple medications (polypharmacy), including some potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). PIMs are associated with an increased risk of medication harm (eg, falls, fractures, hospitalization). Deprescribing is a solution that proposes to stop, reduce, or switch medications to a safer alternative. Although deprescribing pairs well with routine medication reviews, it can be complex and time-consuming. Whether clinical decision support improves the process and increases deprescribing for patients treated with dialysis is unknown. This study aimed to test the efficacy of the clinical decision support software MedSafer at increasing deprescribing for patients treated with dialysis.

Study Design

Prospective controlled quality improvement study with a contemporaneous control.

Setting & Participants

Patients prescribed ≥5 medications in 2 outpatient dialysis units in Montréal, Canada.

Exposures

Patient health data from the electronic medical record were input into the MedSafer web-based portal to generate reports listing candidate PIMs for deprescribing. At the time of a planned biannual medication review (usual care), treating nephrologists in the intervention unit additionally received deprescribing reports, and patients received EMPOWER brochures containing safety information on PIMs they were prescribed. In the control unit, patients received usual care alone.

Analytical Approach

The proportion of patients with ≥1 PIMs deprescribed was compared between the intervention and control units following a planned medication review to determine the effect of using MedSafer. The absolute risk difference with 95% CI and number needed to treat were calculated.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed. Secondary outcomes include the reduction in the mean number of prescribed drugs and PIMs from baseline.

Results

In total, 195 patients were included (127, control unit; 68, intervention unit); the mean age was 64.8 ± 15.9 (SD), and 36.9% were women. The proportion of patients with ≥1 PIMs deprescribed in the control unit was 3.1% (4/127) vs 39.7% (27/68) in the intervention unit (absolute risk difference, 36.6%; 95% CI, 24.5%-48.6%; P < 0.0001; number needed to treat = 3).

Limitations

This was a single-center nonrandomized study with a type 1 error risk. Deprescribing durability was not assessed, and the study was not powered to reduce adverse drug events.

Conclusions

Deprescribing clinical decision support and patient EMPOWER brochures provided during medication reviews could be an effective and scalable intervention to address PIMs in the dialysis population. A confirmatory randomized controlled trial is needed.

Implementation considerations of deprescribing interventions: A scoping review

Over half of older adults experience polypharmacy, including medications that may be inappropriate or unnecessary. Deprescribing, which is the process of discontinuing or reducing inappropriate and/or unnecessary medications, is an effective way to reduce polypharmacy. This review summarizes (1) the process of deprescribing and conceptual models and tools that have been developed to facilitate deprescribing, (2) barriers, enablers, and factors associated with deprescribing, and (3) characteristics of deprescribing interventions in completed trials, as well as (4) implementation considerations for deprescribing in routine practice. In conceptual models of deprescribing, multilevel factors of the patient, clinician, and health-care system are all related to the efficacy of deprescribing. Numerous tools have been developed for clinicians to facilitate deprescribing, yet most require substantial time and, thus, may be difficult to implement during routine health-care encounters. Multiple deprescribing interventions have been evaluated, which mostly include one or more of the following components: patient education, medication review, identification of deprescribing targets, and patient and/or provider communication about high-risk medications. Yet, there has been limited consideration of implementation factors in prior deprescribing interventions, especially with regard to the personnel and resources in existing health-care systems and the feasibility of incorporating components of deprescribing interventions into the routine care processes of clinicians. Future trials require a more balanced consideration of both effectiveness and implementation when designing deprescribing interventions.

Polypharmacy and Deprescribing in Older Adults

Older adults commonly end up on many medications. Deprescribing is an important part of individualizing care for older adults. It is an opportunity to discuss treatment options and revisit medications that may not have been reassessed in many years. A large evidence base exists in the field, suggesting that deprescribing is feasible and safe, though questions remain about the potential clinical benefits. Deprescribing research faces a myriad of challenges, such as identifying and employing the optimal outcome measures. Further, there is uncertainty about which deprescribing approaches are likely to be most effective and in what contexts. Evidence on barriers and facilitators to deprescribing has underscored how deprescribing in routine clinical practice can be complex and challenging. Thus, finding practical, sustainable ways to implement deprescribing is a priority for future research in the field.

Medication clusters at hospital discharge and risk of adverse drug events at 30 days postdischarge: A population-based cohort study of older adults

AIMS

Certain combinations of medications can be harmful and may lead to serious adverse drug events (ADEs). Identifying potentially problematic medication clusters could help guide prescribing and/or deprescribing decisions in hospital. The aim of this study is to characterize medication prescribing patterns at hospital discharge and determine which medication clusters were associated with an increased risk of ADEs in the 30-day posthospital discharge.

METHODS

All residents of the province of Ontario in Canada aged 66 years or older admitted to hospital between March 2016 and February 2017 were included. Identification of medication clusters prescribed at hospital discharge was conducted using latent class analysis. Cluster identification and categorization were based on medications dispensed up to 30-day posthospitalization. Multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the potential association between membership to a particular medication cluster and ADEs postdischarge, while also evaluating other patient characteristics.

RESULTS

In total, 188 354 patients were included in the study cohort. Median age (interquartile range) was 77 (71-84) years, and patients had a median (IQR) (interquartile range [IQR]) of 9 (6-13) medications dispensed prior to admission. Within the study population, 6 separate clusters of dispensing patterns were identified: cardiovascular (14%), respiratory (26%), complex care needs (12%), cardiovascular and metabolic (15%), infection (10%), and surgical (24%). Overall, 12 680 (7%) patients had an ADE in the 30 days following discharge. After considering other patient characteristics, those belonging to the respiratory cluster had the highest risk of ADEs (adjusted odds ratio: 1.12, 95% confidence interval: 1.08-1.17) compared with all the other clusters, while those in the complex care needs cluster had the lowest risk (adjusted odds ratio: 0.82, 95% confidence interval: 0.77-0.87).

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that ADEs post hospital discharge can be linked with identifiable medication clusters. This information may help clinicians and researchers better understand patient populations that are more or less likely to benefit from peri-hospital discharge interventions aimed at reducing ADEs.

The Integration of Clinical Decision Support Systems Into Telemedicine for Patients With Multimorbidity in Primary Care Settings: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Multimorbidity, the presence of more than one condition in a single individual, is a global health issue in primary care. Multimorbid patients tend to have a poor quality of life and suffer from a complicated care process. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and telemedicine are the common information and communication technologies that have been used to reduce the complexity of patient management. However, each element of telemedicine and CDSSs is often examined separately and with great variability. Telemedicine has been used for simple patient education as well as more complex consultations and case management. For CDSSs, there is variability in data inputs, intended users, and outputs. Thus, there are several gaps in knowledge about how to integrate CDSSs into telemedicine and to what extent these integrated technological interventions can help improve patient outcomes for those with multimorbidity.

OBJECTIVE

Our aims were to (1) broadly review system designs for CDSSs that have been integrated into each function of telemedicine for multimorbid patients in primary care, (2) summarize the effectiveness of the interventions, and (3) identify gaps in the literature.

METHODS

An online search for literature was conducted up to November 2021 on PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane. Searching from the reference lists was done to find additional potential studies. The eligibility criterion was that the study focused on the use of CDSSs in telemedicine for patients with multimorbidity in primary care. The system design for the CDSS was extracted based on its software and hardware, source of input, input, tasks, output, and users. Each component was grouped by telemedicine functions: telemonitoring, teleconsultation, tele-case management, and tele-education.

RESULTS

Seven experimental studies were included in this review: 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 4 non-RCTs. The interventions were designed to manage patients with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, polypharmacy, and gestational diabetes mellitus. CDSSs can be used for various telemedicine functions: telemonitoring (eg, feedback), teleconsultation (eg, guideline suggestions, advisory material provisions, and responses to simple queries), tele-case management (eg, sharing information across facilities and teams), and tele-education (eg, patient self-management). However, the structure of CDSSs, such as data input, tasks, output, and intended users or decision-makers, varied. With limited studies examining varying clinical outcomes, there was inconsistent evidence of the clinical effectiveness of the interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Telemedicine and CDSSs have a role in supporting patients with multimorbidity. CDSSs can likely be integrated into telehealth services to improve the quality and accessibility of care. However, issues surrounding such interventions need to be further explored. These issues include expanding the spectrum of medical conditions examined; examining tasks of CDSSs, particularly for screening and diagnosis of multiple conditions; and exploring the role of the patient as the direct user of the CDSS.

Psychotropic Medication Use and Changes During Hospitalization for Older Adults Living With Dementia

To describe the use of psychotropic medications among older hospitalized patients. This was a descriptive study using baseline data from the first 308 older patients in a function focused care intervention study. Age, gender, race, comorbidities, admitting diagnosis, and medications (antidepressants, antianxiety medications, anticonvulsants, dementia drugs, antipsychotics, sedative-hypnotics, and opioids) were obtained at baseline and discharge. To compare change over time, generalized estimating equations were used. Participants were mostly female (63%) and White (69%) and were 83.1 years old on average. Antidepressant, antianxiety, anticonvulsant, dementia medication, sedative-hypnotic, and opioid use remained essentially unchanged between admission and discharge. Antipsychotic medication use increased significantly from 16% to 21% at discharge. There was persistent use of psychotropic medication among hospitalized older adults living with dementia and little evidence of deprescribing. There was some indication of changes made during hospitalization that may be appropriate, even without a focused deprescribing initiative.

Benzodiazepine Receptor Agonists Use and Cessation Among Multimorbid Older Adults with Polypharmacy: Secondary Analysis from the OPERAM Trial

BACKGROUND

Benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRAs) are commonly prescribed in older adults despite an unfavorable risk-benefit ratio. Hospitalizations may provide a unique opportunity to initiate BZRA cessation, yet little is known about cessation during and after hospitalization. We aimed to measure the prevalence of BZRA use before hospitalization and the rate of cessation 6 months later, and to identify factors associated with these outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trial (OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in the Multimorbid elderly [OPERAM]), comparing usual care and in-hospital pharmacotherapy optimization in adults aged 70 years or over with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in four European countries. BZRA cessation was defined as taking one or more BZRA before hospitalization and not taking any BZRA at the 6-month follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with BZRA use before hospitalization and with cessation at 6 months.

RESULTS

Among 1601 participants with complete 6-month follow-up data, 378 (23.6%) were BZRA users before hospitalization. Female sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.52 [95% confidence interval 1.18-1.96]), a higher reported level of depression/anxiety (OR up to 2.45 [1.54-3.89]), a higher number of daily drugs (OR 1.08 [1.05-1.12]), use of an antidepressant (OR 1.74 [1.31-2.31]) or an antiepileptic (OR 1.46 [1.02-2.07]), and trial site were associated with BZRA use. Diabetes mellitus (OR 0.60 [0.44-0.80]) was associated with a lower probability of BZRA use. BZRA cessation occurred in 86 BZRA users (22.8%). Antidepressant use (OR 1.74 [1.06-2.86]) and a history of falling in the previous 12 months (OR 1.75 [1.10-2.78]) were associated with higher BZRA cessation, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (OR 0.45 [0.20-0.91]) with lower BZRA cessation.

CONCLUSION

BZRA prevalence was high among included multimorbid older adults, and BZRA cessation occurred in almost a quarter of them within 6 months after hospitalization. Targeted BZRA deprescribing programs could further enhance cessation. Specific attention is needed for females, central nervous system-acting co-medication, and COPD co-morbidity.

REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02986425. December 8, 2016.

Identifying barriers and facilitators to deprescribing benzodiazepines and sedative hypnotics in the hospital setting using the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour (COM-B) Model: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Geriatric guidelines strongly recommend avoiding benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepine sedative hypnotics in older adults. Hospitalisation may provide an important opportunity to begin the process of deprescribing these medications, particularly as new contraindications arise. We used implementation science models and qualitative interviews to describe barriers and facilitators to deprescribing benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepine sedative hypnotics in the hospital and develop potential interventions to address identified barriers.

DESIGN

We used two implementation science models, the Capability, Opportunity and Behaviour Model (COM-B) and the Theoretical Domains Framework, to code interviews with hospital staff, and an implementation process, the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW), to codevelop potential interventions with stakeholders from each clinician group.

SETTING

Interviews took place in a tertiary, 886-bed hospital located in Los Angeles, California.

PARTICIPANTS

Interview participants included physicians, pharmacists, pharmacist technicians, and nurses.

RESULTS

We interviewed 14 clinicians. We found barriers and facilitators across all COM-B model domains. Barriers included lack of knowledge about how to engage in complex conversations about deprescribing (capability), competing tasks in the inpatient setting (opportunity), high levels of resistance/anxiety among patients to deprescribe (motivation), concerns about lack of postdischarge follow-up (motivation). Facilitators included high levels of knowledge about the risks of these medications (capability), regular rounds and huddles to identify inappropriate medications (opportunity) and beliefs that patients may be more receptive to deprescribing if the medication is related to the reason for hospitalisation (motivation). Potential modes of delivery included a seminar aimed at addressing capability and motivation barriers in nurses, a pharmacist-led deprescribing initiative using risk stratification to identify and target patients at highest need for deprescribing, and the use of evidence-based deprescribing education materials provided to patients at discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

While we identified numerous barriers and facilitators to initiating deprescribing conversations in the hospital, nurse- and pharmacist-led interventions may be an appropriate opportunity to initiate deprescribing.

How "age-friendly" are deprescribing interventions? A scoping review of deprescribing trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess how age-friendly deprescribing trials are regarding intervention design and outcome assessment. Reduced use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) can be addressed by deprescribing-a systematic process of discontinuing and/or reducing the use of PIMs. The 4Ms-"Medication", "Mentation", "Mobility", and "What Matters Most" to the person-can be used to guide assessment of age-friendliness of deprescribing trials.

DATA SOURCE

Published literature.

STUDY DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA EXTRACTION METHODS

The literature was identified using keywords related to deprescribing and polypharmacy in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, ProQuest, CINAHL, and Cochrane and snowballing. Study characteristics were extracted and evaluated for consideration of 4Ms.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Thirty-seven of the 564 trials identified met the review eligibility criteria. Intervention design: "Medication" was considered in the intervention design of all trials; "Mentation" was considered in eight trials; "Mobility" (n = 2) and "What Matters Most" (n = 6) were less often considered in the design of intervention. Most trials targeted providers without specifying how matters important to older adults and their families were aligned with deprescribing decisions.

OUTCOME ASSESSMENT

"Medication" was the most commonly assessed outcome (n = 33), followed by "Mobility" (n = 13) and "Mentation" (n = 10) outcomes, with no study examining "What Matters Most" outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

"Mentation" and "Mobility", and "What Matters Most" have been considered to varying degrees in deprescribing trials, limiting the potential of deprescribing evidence to contribute to improved clinical practice in building an age-friendly health care system.

MediQuit – an electronic deprescribing tool: a pilot study in German primary care; GPs’ and patients’ perspectives

Background

General practitioners (GPs) are the central coordinators for patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in most health care systems. They are entrusted with the challenging task of deprescribing when inappropriate polypharmacy is present.

MediQuit (MQu) is a newly developed electronic tool that guides through a deprescribing consultation. It facilitates the identification of a medicine to be discontinued (stage 1), a shared decision-making process weighing the pros and cons (stage 2), and equips patients with take-home instructions on how to discontinue the drug and monitor its impact (stage 3). We here aim to evaluate utility and acceptance of MQu from GPs’ and patients’ perspectives.

Methods

Uncontrolled feasibility study, in which 16 GPs from two regions in Germany were invited to use MQu in consultations with their multimorbid patients. We collected quantitative data on demography, utility and acceptance of MQu and performed descriptive statistical analyses.

Results

Ten GPs performed 41 consultations using MQu. Identification (step 1) and implementation elements (Step 3) were perceived most helpful by GPs. Whereas, shared-decision making elements (step 2) revealed room for improvement. Patients appreciated the use of MQu. They were broadly satisfied with the deprescribing consultation (85%) and with their decision made regarding their medication (90%).

Conclusions

Implementation of MQu in general practice generally seems possible. Patients welcome consultations targeting medication optimization. GPs were satisfied with the support of MQu and likewise gave important hints for future development.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01852-2.

Deprescribing practices in Canada: A scoping review

Background:

Excessive and inappropriate use of medications, defined as polypharmacy, can increase the risk of adverse drug reactions while affecting patient adherence and quality of life. Therefore, optimizing pharmacotherapies through deprescribing practices plays a crucial role in managing chronic conditions, avoiding adverse effects and improving patient outcomes. The purpose of this study was to explore research initiatives surrounding deprescribing in Canada.

Methods:

A scoping review was conducted that involved a search of 6 databases. Studies that highlighted deprescribing interventions, experiences and other effects on Canadian populations were included.

Results:

Searches yielded 2327 citations, of which 31 were included in this review. Five major themes and ideas were identified: deprescribing targeted medications, financial effects of deprescribing, deprescribing in special populations, insight from health care providers and deprescribing frameworks.

Conclusion:

Deprescribing practices in Canada have shown a wide range of beneficial results across various health care settings, populations and medication classes and have the potential to reduce medication-related harm in all Canadian health care settings.

Deprescribing medicines in older people living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: the TAILOR evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Tackling problematic polypharmacy requires tailoring the use of medicines to individual needs and circumstances. This may involve stopping medicines (deprescribing) but patients and clinicians report uncertainty on how best to do this. The TAILOR medication synthesis sought to help understand how best to support deprescribing in older people living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy.

OBJECTIVES

We identified two research questions: (1) what evidence exists to support the safe, effective and acceptable stopping of medication in this patient group, and (2) how, for whom and in what contexts can safe and effective tailoring of clinical decisions related to medication use work to produce desired outcomes? We thus described three objectives: (1) to undertake a robust scoping review of the literature on stopping medicines in this group to describe what is being done, where and for what effect; (2) to undertake a realist synthesis review to construct a programme theory that describes 'best practice' and helps explain the heterogeneity of deprescribing approaches; and (3) to translate findings into resources to support tailored prescribing in clinical practice.

DATA SOURCES

Experienced information specialists conducted comprehensive searches in MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, Google (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) and Google Scholar (targeted searches).

REVIEW METHODS

The scoping review followed the five steps described by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for conducting a scoping review. The realist review followed the methodological and publication standards for realist reviews described by the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) group. Patient and public involvement partners ensured that our analysis retained a patient-centred focus.

RESULTS

Our scoping review identified 9528 abstracts: 8847 were removed at screening and 662 were removed at full-text review. This left 20 studies (published between 2009 and 2020) that examined the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of deprescribing in adults (aged ≥ 50 years) with polypharmacy (five or more prescribed medications) and multimorbidity (two or more conditions). Our analysis revealed that deprescribing under research conditions mapped well to expert guidance on the steps needed for good clinical practice. Our findings offer evidence-informed support to clinicians regarding the safety, clinician acceptability and potential effectiveness of clinical decision-making that demonstrates a structured approach to deprescribing decisions. Our realist review identified 2602 studies with 119 included in the final analysis. The analysis outlined 34 context-mechanism-outcome configurations describing the knowledge work of tailored prescribing under eight headings related to organisational, health-care professional and patient factors, and interventions to improve deprescribing. We conclude that robust tailored deprescribing requires attention to providing an enabling infrastructure, access to data, tailored explanations and trust.

LIMITATIONS

Strict application of our definition of multimorbidity during the scoping review may have had an impact on the relevance of the review to clinical practice. The realist review was limited by the data (evidence) available.

CONCLUSIONS

Our combined reviews recognise deprescribing as a complex intervention and provide support for the safety of structured approaches to deprescribing, but also highlight the need to integrate patient-centred and contextual factors into best practice models.

FUTURE WORK

The TAILOR study has informed new funded research tackling deprescribing in sleep management, and professional education. Further research is being developed to implement tailored prescribing into routine primary care practice.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107544 and PROSPERO CRD42018104176.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Deprescribing Opportunities for Hospitalized Patients With End-Stage Kidney Disease on Hemodialysis: A Secondary Analysis of the MedSafer Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

End-stage kidney disease patients on dialysis have a substantial risk of polypharmacy due their propensity for comorbidity and contact with the health care system. MedSafer is an electronic decision support tool that integrates patient comorbidity and medication lists to generate personalized deprescribing reports focused on identifying potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs).

Objective

To conduct a secondary analysis of patients on regular hemodialysis included in the MedSafer randomized controlled trial to investigate the patterns of polypharmacy and evaluate the efficacy of the MedSafer deprescribing algorithms.

Design

Secondary analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial.

Setting

Medical units in 11 acute care hospitals in Canada.

Patients

The MedSafer trial enrolled 5698 participants with an expected prognosis of >3 months, age 65 years and older, and on 5 or more daily home medications; 140 participants were receiving chronic hemodialysis.

Measurements

The primary outcome of the trial was 30-day adverse drug events (ADEs) post-hospital discharge, and a key secondary outcome was deprescribing.

Methods

Control patients received usual care (medication reconciliation), whereas clinicians caring for intervention patients received a MedSafer report that highlighted individualized opportunities for deprescribing.

Results

There were 70 patients in each of the control and intervention arms. The median number of home medications was 14 (compared with a median of 10 medications in the general trial population). The most frequent medications observed that were potentially inappropriate were proton pump inhibitors (potentially inappropriate in 55/76 users; 72.4%), diabetes medications in patients with a HBA1C <7.5% (36/65 users; 55.4%), docusate (27/27 users; 100%), gabapentinoids (27/36 users; 75%), and combination antiplatelet/anticoagulants (22/97 users; 22.7%). The proportion of PIMs deprescribed was higher during the intervention phase (28.8% vs 19.3%; absolute increase 9.4% [95% confidence interval 1.3%-17.6%]) compared with the control phase. There was no observed difference in ADEs at 30-day post-discharge between the control and the intervention groups. The most common ADE (n = 3) was gastrointestinal bleeding attributed to antiplatelet agents.

Limitations

This was a post hoc exploratory analysis, the original trial did not stratify by hemodialysis status, and the small sample size precludes drawing any definitive conclusions.

Conclusion

MedSafer facilitates deprescribing in hospitalized patients on hemodialysis. Larger-scale implementation of decision support software for deprescribing in dialysis and long-term follow-up are likely required to demonstrate an impact on ADEs.

Decision-support systems for managing polypharmacy in the elderly: A scoping review

Polypharmacy, the consuming of more than five drugs, is a public health problem. It can lead to many interactions and adverse drug reactions and is very expensive. Therapeutic guidelines for managing polypharmacy in the elderly have been issued, but are highly complex, limiting their use. Decision-support systems have therefore been developed to automate the execution of these guidelines, or to provide information about drugs adapted to the context of polypharmacy. These systems differ widely in terms of their technical design, knowledge sources and evaluation methods. We present here a scoping review of electronic systems for supporting the management, by healthcare providers, of polypharmacy in elderly patients. Most existing reviews have focused mainly on evaluation results, whereas the present review also describes the technical design of these systems and the methodologies for developing and evaluating them. A systematic bibliographic search identified 19 systems differing considerably in terms of their technical design (rule-based systems, documentary approach, mixed); outputs (textual report, alerts and/or visual approaches); and evaluations (impact on clinical practices, impact on patient outcomes, efficiency and/or user satisfaction). The evaluations performed are minimal (among all the systems identified, only one system has been evaluated according to all the criteria mentioned above) and no machine learning systems and/or conflict management systems were retrieved. This review highlights the need to develop new methodologies, combining various approaches for decision support system in polypharmacy.

Number-dependent association of potentially inappropriate medications with clinical outcomes and expenditures among community-dwelling older adults: a population-based cohort study

AIM

To investigate the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) prescribing and its number-dependent association (PIM=1, 2, ≥3) with all-cause hospitalizations, emergency department (ED) visits, and medication expenditures in Beijing, China.

METHOD

A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted to analyze PIM prescribing in community-dwelling older adults aged ≥ 65 years within the Beijing Municipal Medical Insurance Database (data from July to September 2016). The prevalence of PIMs was estimated based on the 2015 Beers Criteria. Logistic models were utilized to investigate the associations between PIM use and all-cause hospitalizations and ED visits. Generalized linear models with the logic link and gamma distribution were used to analyze associations between PIM use and medication expenditures.

RESULTS

Among the 506,214 older adults, the prevalence of PIM was 38.07%. After adjusting for covariables, prescribing 2 and ≥3 PIMs was associated with increased risks of hospitalizations (PIM=2: OR 1.34, 95%CI: 1.22-1.47; PIM≥3: OR=1.47, 95%CI: 1.32-1.63) and ED visits (PIM=2: OR = 1.29, 95%CI 1.12-1.48; PIM≥3: OR=1.23, 95%CI: 1.04-1.44). Exposures of 2 and ≥3 PIMs were associated with higher medication expenditures for inpatient visits (PIM=2: incidence rate ratio IRR = 1.08, 95%CI 1.01-1.16; PIM≥3: IRR=1.18, 95%CI: 1.08-1.28). Vasodilators were the most frequent PIM prescribing group among patients who ended with hospitalizations or ED visits.

CONCLUSIONS

PIMs were prescribed at a high rate among community-dwelling older adults in Beijing. PIMs ≥2 were associated with increased risks of hospitalizations, ED visits, and increased inpatient medication expenditures. Effective interventions are needed to target unnecessary and inappropriate medications in older adults.

Effectiveness of Interventions to Reduce Potentially Inappropriate Medication in Older Patients: A Systematic Review

Background: Age-related multiple comorbidities cause older adults to be prone to the use of potentially inappropriate medicines (PIM) resulting in an increased risk of adverse events. Several strategies have emerged to support PIM prescription, and a huge number of interventions to reduce PIM have been proposed. This work aims to analyze the effectiveness of PIM interventions directed to older adults.

Methods: A systematic review was performed searching the literature in the MEDLINE PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane scientific databases for interventional studies that assessed the PIM interventions in older adults (≥65 years).

Results: Forty-seven articles were included, involving 52 to 124,802 patients. Various types of interventions were analyzed such as medication review, educational strategies, clinical decision support system, and organizational and multifaceted approaches. In the hospital, the most successful intervention was medication review (75.0%), while in primary care, the analysis of all included studies revealed that educational strategies were the most effective. However, the analysis of interventions that have greater evidence by its design was inconclusive.

Conclusion: The results obtained in this work suggested that PIM-setting-directed interventions should be developed to promote the wellbeing of the patients through PIM reduction. Although the data obtained suggested that medication review was the most assertive strategy to decrease the number of PIM in the hospital setting, more studies are necessary.

Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021233484], identifier [PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021233484].

Spread and scale of an electronic deprescribing software to improve health outcomes of older adults living in nursing homes: study protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Medication overload or problematic polypharmacy is a major problem causing widespread harm, particularly to older adults. Taking multiple medications increases the risk of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), and residents in long-term care (LTC) are frequently prescribed 10 or more medications at once. One strategy to address this problem is for the physician and/or pharmacist to perform regular medication reviews; however, this process can be complicated and time-consuming. With a prescription review, medications may be decreased, changed, or stopped altogether. MedReviewRx is a software that runs an analysis using deprescribing rules to produce a report to guide medication reviews addressing medication overload for residents in LTC.

METHODS

This study will employ a mixed methods effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 2 study design. To measure effectiveness, a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design is planned, which allows us to approximate a randomized clinical trial. Approximately 1000 residents living in LTC will be recruited from five facilities in New Brunswick. The study will begin with 3 months of baseline data on rates of deprescribing. Thereafter, every 3 months a new cluster will enter the intervention mode. The intervention consists of medication reviews augmented with the MedReviewRx software, which will be used by staff and clinicians in the facilities. The estimated study duration is 18 months and the main outcome will be the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed (reduced/stopped or changed to a safer alternative) in the 90 days following a prescription review. The goal is to study the impact of MedReviewRx on medication overload among older adults living in LTC. In typical fashion of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial, each cluster acts as an internal control (before and after) as well as a control for the other clusters (external control). Qualitative data collected will include resident/caregiver attitudes towards deprescribing and semi-structured interviews with staff working in the long-term care homes.

DISCUSSION

This study design addresses issues with seasonality and allows all clusters to participate in the intervention, which is an advantage when the intervention is related to quality improvement. This study will provide valuable information on PIM use, cost savings, and facilitators and challenges associated with medication reviews and deprescribing. This study represents an important step towards understanding and promoting tools to guide safe and rational reduction of PIM use among older adults.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04762303 , Registered February 21, 2021.

Effect of Interventions With a Clinical Decision Support System for Hospitalized Older Patients: Systematic Review Mapping Implementation and Design Factors

Background

Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) form an implementation strategy that can facilitate and support health care professionals in the care of older hospitalized patients.

Objective

Our study aims to systematically review the effects of CDSS interventions in older hospitalized patients. As a secondary aim, we aim to summarize the implementation and design factors described in effective and ineffective interventions and identify gaps in the current literature.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review with a search strategy combining the categories older patients, geriatric topic, hospital, CDSS, and intervention in the databases MEDLINE, Embase, and SCOPUS. We included controlled studies, extracted data of all reported outcomes, and potentially beneficial design and implementation factors. We structured these factors using the Grol and Wensing Implementation of Change model, the GUIDES (Guideline Implementation with Decision Support) checklist, and the two-stream model. The risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Effective Practice and Organisation of Care risk of bias approach.

Results

Our systematic review included 18 interventions, of which 13 (72%) were effective in improving care. Among these interventions, 8 (6 effective) focused on medication review, 8 (6 effective) on delirium, 7 (4 effective) on falls, 5 (4 effective) on functional decline, 4 (3 effective) on discharge or aftercare, and 2 (0 effective) on pressure ulcers. In 77% (10/13) effective interventions, the effect was based on process-related outcomes, in 15% (2/13) interventions on both process- and patient-related outcomes, and in 8% (1/13) interventions on patient-related outcomes. The following implementation and design factors were potentially associated with effectiveness: a priori problem or performance analyses (described in 9/13, 69% effective vs 0/5, 0% ineffective interventions), multifaceted interventions (8/13, 62% vs 1/5, 20%), and consideration of the workflow (9/13, 69% vs 1/5, 20%).

Conclusions

CDSS interventions can improve the hospital care of older patients, mostly on process-related outcomes. We identified 2 implementation factors and 1 design factor that were reported more frequently in articles on effective interventions. More studies with strong designs are needed to measure the effect of CDSS on relevant patient-related outcomes, investigate personalized (data-driven) interventions, and quantify the impact of implementation and design factors on CDSS effectiveness.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): CRD42019124470; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=124470.

MediQuit, an Electronic Deprescribing Tool for Patients on Polypharmacy: Results of a Feasibility Study in German General Practice

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing is an important task for general practitioners (GPs) in the face of risky polypharmacy. The electronic tool "MediQuit" was developed to guide GPs and patients through a deprescribing consultation that entails a drug-selection phase, shared decision making, and advice on safe implementation.

OBJECTIVES

A pilot study was conducted to determine the target group of patients that is selected for consultation and to assess the impact, patient involvement, and feasibility of the tool.

METHODS

This was an uncontrolled pilot study. GPs from two German regions were invited to use MediQuit in consultations with a view to deprescribing one drug, if appropriate. They selected patients on the basis of broad inclusion criteria. Collected data entailed participants' characteristics, patients' medication lists, deprescribed drugs, and feasibility assessments. Patients were contacted shortly after the consultation and again after 4 weeks.

RESULTS

In total, 16 GPs agreed to participate, of whom ten actually performed deprescribing consultations. They selected 41 predominately older patients on excessive polypharmacy. Deprescribing was achieved in 70% of consultations in agreement with patients. Drugs deprescribed were symptom-lowering and preventive drugs (mainly anatomical therapeutic chemical classes A and C). GPs found MediQuit useful in initiating communication on this issue and enhancing deliberations for a deprescribing decision. The median consultation length was 15 min (interquartile range 10-20). At follow-up, GPs and patients infrequently disagreed on which drug(s) was discontinued, and GPs rated patient involvement higher than did patients themselves.

DISCUSSION

MediQuit assists in identifying concrete deprescribing opportunities, patient involvement, and shared decision making. The three-step deprescribing procedure is well-accepted once initial organizational efforts are overcome. After revision, further studies are needed to enhance the quality of evidence on acceptance and effectiveness.

Detection of adverse drug events in e-prescribing and administrative health data: a validation study

BACKGROUND

Administrative health data are increasingly used to detect adverse drug events (ADEs). However, the few studies evaluating diagnostic codes for ADE detection demonstrated low sensitivity, likely due to narrow code sets, physician under-recognition of ADEs, and underreporting in administrative data. The objective of this study was to determine if combining an expanded ICD code set in administrative data with e-prescribing data improves ADE detection.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective cohort study among patients newly prescribed antidepressant or antihypertensive medication in primary care and followed for 2 months. Gold standard ADEs were defined as patient-reported symptoms adjudicated as medication-related by a clinical expert. Potential ADEs in administrative data were defined as physician, ED, or hospital visits during follow-up for known adverse effects of the study medication, as identified by ICD codes. Potential ADEs in e-prescribing data were defined as study drug discontinuations or dose changes made during follow-up for safety or effectiveness reasons.

RESULTS

Of 688 study participants, 445 (64.7%) were female and mean age was 64.2 (SD 13.9). The study drug for 386 (56.1%) patients was an antihypertensive, and for 302 (43.9%) an antidepressant. Using the gold standard definition, 114 (16.6%) patients experienced an ADE, with 40 (10.4%) among antihypertensive users and 74 (24.5%) among antidepressant users. The sensitivity of the expanded ICD code set was 7.0%, of e-prescribing data 9.7%, and of the two combined 14.0%. Specificities were high (86.0-95.0%). The sensitivity of the combined approach increased to 25.8% when analysis was restricted to the 27% of patients who indicated having reported symptoms to a physician.

CONCLUSION

Combining an expanded diagnostic code set with e-prescribing data improves ADE detection. As few patients report symptoms to their physician, higher detection rates may be achieved by collecting patient-reported outcomes via emerging digital technologies such as patient portals and mHealth applications.

Deprescribing: Moving beyond barriers and facilitators

Unnecessary polypharmacy continues to be a problem among older adults. The field of deprescribing (planned, supervised process of medication discontinuation) aims to address this problem. Deprescribing is a relatively new field despite having grown substantially in recent years. Much of the early research in this area focused on identifying barriers to and facilitators of deprescribing in clinical practice, which contributed to a large body of work on this topic. However, with continuing research around barriers and facilitators, we need to be mindful to undertake research that builds on existing knowledge, addresses known gaps, and advances the field. Additionally, there is a need in deprescribing research to shift focus to developing ways to address known barriers and harness knowledge of facilitators. That is, translating existing knowledge into strategies and tools that can impact clinical practice and lead to practical and sustained deprescribing efforts.

Multicomponent behavioral intervention to reduce exposure to anticholinergics in primary care older adults

OBJECTIVE

To test the impact of a multicomponent behavioral intervention to reduce the use of high-risk anticholinergic medications in primary care older adults.

DESIGN

Cluster-randomized controlled trial.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Ten primary care clinics within Eskenazi Health in Indianapolis.

INTERVENTION

The multicomponent intervention included provider- and patient-focused components. The provider-focused component was computerized decision support alerting of the presence of a high-risk anticholinergic and offering dose- and indication-specific alternatives. The patient-focused component was a story-based video providing education and modeling an interaction with a healthcare provider resulting in a medication change. Alerts within the medical record triggered staff to play the video for a patient. Our design intended for parallel, independent priming of both providers and patients immediately before an outpatient face-to-face interaction.

MEASUREMENT

Medication orders were extracted from the electronic medical record system to evaluate the prescribing behavior and population prevalence of anticholinergic users. The intervention was introduced April 1, 2019, through March 31, 2020, and a preintervention observational period of April 1, 2018, through March 31, 2019, facilitated difference in difference comparisons.

RESULTS

A total of 552 older adults had visits at primary care sites during the study period, with mean age of 72.1 (SD 6.4) years and 45.3% African American. Of the 259 provider-focused alerts, only three (1.2%) led to a medication change. Of the 276 staff alerts, 4.7% were confirmed to activate the patient-focused intervention. The intervention resulted in no significant differences in either the number of discontinue orders for anticholinergics (intervention: two additional orders; control: five fewer orders, p = 0.7334) or proportion of the population using anticholinergics following the intervention (preintervention: 6.2% and postintervention: 5.1%, p = 0.6326).

CONCLUSION

This multicomponent intervention did not reduce the use of high-risk anticholinergics in older adults receiving primary care. Improving nudges or a policy-focused component may be necessary to reduce use of high-risk medications.

Efficacy, feasibility and acceptability of the OptiMEDs tool for multidisciplinary medication review in nursing homes

AIM(S)

Exploring efficacy, feasibility and acceptability of a complex multifaced intervention (OptiMEDs) supporting multidisciplinary medication reviews in Belgian nursing homes (NHs).

METHODS

A pilot study in 2 intervention, 1 control NH was held, involving dementia and non-dementia NH residents (>65 years). OptiMEDs provided automated assessment of possible inappropriate medications (PIMs) and patient-specific nurse observation lists of potential side-effects. Medication changes were evaluated one month after the medication review. Feasibility and acceptability was collected via surveys among the health-care professionals. Trial registration NCT04142645, 31/10/2019.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 148, n = 100 in the intervention NHs) had a mean age of 87.2 years, with 75.0% females and 49.3% non-dementia patients. Prevalence of PIM use was 84.7% and of potential medication side-effects 84.5%, (range 1-19 per resident). One month after the intervention, the medication use decreased in 35.8% and PIM use in 25.9% of surviving intervention NHresidents (n = 88). GPs changed more medications when side-effects were observed (42% when side-effects present versus 12% when no side-effects, p = 0.019). Median workload for nurses was 45 min, 20 for pharmacists, and 8 for GPs. User satisfaction for the OptiMEDs tool was high (n = 33, median score of 8, IQR 6 -8), with GPs (n = 19) showing the highest appreciation. Nurses (n = 9) reported a median score on the System Usability Scale of 70 (IQR 55 - 72), with lower scores for learnability aspects.

CONCLUSION

The OptiMEDs intervention was feasible and user-friendly, showing decreases in the medication and PIM use; without affecting patient safety. A cluster-randomized trial is needed to explore impact on patient-related outcomes.

Proton pump inhibitor use and risk for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy is a potentially modifiable risk factor for recurrent Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI). Citing an absence of clinical trials, many guidelines do not provide recommendations for addressing PPI management. Our aim was to perform an updated systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the association between PPI use and recurrent CDI addressing prior methodological limitations.

METHODS

Data sources were MEDLINE and EMBASE. Eligible studies were cohort and case-control studies; there were no restrictions on study setting or duration of follow-up. Participants were adults with prior CDI who did or did not receive PPI therapy and were assessed for recurrent CDI. Summary (unadjusted) odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random effects model. Prespecified subgroup analyses were performed to explore heterogeneity including study design, study quality, duration of follow-up, adjustment for confounders, and outcome definition.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included in the meta-analysis, comprising 57 477 patients with CDI, of whom 6870 (12%) received PPIs. The rate of recurrent CDI was 24% in patients treated with PPIs versus 18% in those who were not. A meta-analysis that pooled unadjusted odds ratios demonstrated higher odds of recurrent CDI in patients who received PPIs (OR 1.69, 95%CI 1.46-1.96) versus those who did not. There was moderate heterogeneity between studies (I2 56%); however, a sensitivity analysis restricted to studies with 56 days of follow-up substantially reduced the heterogeneity (OR 1.59, 95%CI 1.36-1.85; I2 12%). An analysis restricted to multivariate studies that combined adjusted ORs also demonstrated higher odds of recurrent CDI in patients who received PPIs (OR 1.49, 95%CI 1.12-2.00). No publication bias was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

We found significantly higher odds of recurrent CDI among users of PPIs that persisted across multiple sensitivity analyses. These results support stronger recommendations for PPI stewardship at CDI diagnosis.

Risk of hospitalization from drug-drug interactions in the Elderly: real-world evidence in a large administrative database

The aim of this study was to assess the risk of hospitalization associated with the concomitant prescription of 10 highly prevalent drug-drug interactions (DDIs) among all individuals aged ≥65 residing in Bologna's area, Italy. We used incidence density sampling, and the effect of current (last month) and past (≥30 days before) exposure to DDI was investigated through conditional multivariable logistic regression analysis. Two DDIs were associated with increased hospitalization due to DDI related conditions: ACE-inhibitors/ diuretics plus glucocorticoids (current DDI: OR 2.36, 95% CI 1.94-2.87; past DDI: OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.12-1.65) and antidiabetic therapy plus current use of fluoroquinolones (OR 4.43, 95% CI 1.61-11.2). Non-Steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs (NSAIDs) increased the risk of re-bleeding in patients taking Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (OR 5.56, 95% CI 1.24-24.9), while no significant effect was found in those without a history of bleeding episodes. Concomitant prescription of NSAIDs and ACE-inhibitors/diuretics in patients with a history of high-risk conditions was infrequent. Within the pattern of drug prescriptions in the older population of Bologna's area, we distinguished DDIs with actual clinical consequences from others that might be considered generally safe. Observed prescribing habits of clinicians reflect awareness of potential interactions in patients at risk.

COVID-SAFER: Deprescribing Guidance for Hydroxychloroquine Drug Interactions in Older Adults

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection causes high morbidity and mortality in older adults with chronic illnesses. Several trials are currently underway evaluating the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine as a potential treatment for acute infection. However, polypharmacy predisposes patients to increased risk of drug‐drug interactions with hydroxychloroquine and may render many in this population ineligible to participate in trials. We aimed to quantify the degree of polypharmacy and burden of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) that older hospitalized adults are taking that would interact with hydroxychloroquine.

METHODS

We reanalyzed data from the cohort of patients 65 years and older enrolled in the MedSafer pilot study. We first identified patients taking medications with potentially harmful drug‐drug interactions with hydroxychloroquine that might exclude them from participation in a typical 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) therapeutic trial. Next, we identified medications that were flagged by MedSafer as potentially inappropriate and crafted guidance around medication management if contemplating the use of hydroxychloroquine.

RESULTS

The cohort contained a total of 1,001 unique patients with complete data on their home medications at admission. Of these 1,001 patients, 590 (58.9%) were receiving one or more home medications that could potentially interact with hydroxychloroquine, and of these, 255 (43.2%) were flagged as potentially inappropriate by the MedSafer tool. Common classes of PIMs observed were antipsychotics, cardiac medications, and antidiabetic agents.

CONCLUSION

The COVID‐19 pandemic highlights the importance of medication optimization and deprescribing PIMs in older adults. By acting now to reduce polypharmacy and use of PIMs, we can better prepare this vulnerable population for inclusion in trials and, if substantiated, pharmacologic treatment or prevention of COVID‐19. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1636‐1646, 2020.

Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults in the Preoperative Period: A Retrospective Study of a Noncardiac Surgery Cohort

Background

Few studies have evaluated the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and its association with postoperative outcomes in a geriatric population in the preoperative setting.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of PIMs in an older elective surgery population and to explore associations between PIMs and postoperative length of stay (LOS) and emergency department (ED) visits in the 90 days post hospital discharge, depending on frailty status.

Methodology

We performed a retrospective cohort study of older adults awaiting major elective noncardiac surgery and undergoing an evaluation in the preoperative clinic at a tertiary academic center between 2017 and 2018. We identified PIMs using MedSafer, a software tool built to improve the safety of prescribing. Frailty status was assessed using the 7-point Clinical Frailty Scale. We estimated the association between PIMs and postoperative LOS and ED visits in the 90 days post hospital discharge.

Results

The MedSafer software generated 394 recommendations on PIMs in 1619 medications for 252 patients. In total, 197 (78%) patients had at least one PIM. The cohort included 138 (51%) robust, 87 (32.2%) vulnerable and 45 (16.7%) frail patients. The association between PIMs and LOS was not significant for the robust and frail subgroups. For the vulnerable patients, every additional PIM increased LOS by 20% (incidence rate ratio 1.20; 95% confidence interval 0.90–1.44; p = 0.089) without reaching statistical significance. No association was found between PIMs and ED visits.

Conclusion

PIMs identified by the MedSafer software were prevalent. Preoperative evaluation represents an opportunity to plan deprescribing of PIMs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40801-020-00190-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Proton Pump Inhibitors in the Elderly Hospitalized Patient: Evaluating Appropriate Use and Deprescribing

Background: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are often prescribed for elderly patients without appropriate indication, or for longer durations than recommended. Objective: To review appropriateness of PPI use prior to and in hospital, and deprescribing rates across different hospital units. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients ≥65 years admitted to 5 acute care units: intensive care unit, acute care for elderly, orthopedics, surgery, and medicine. Patients who were "non-naive" (prehospital PPI use) or "naive" (new PPI initiated in hospital) users were included. For both groups, demographics, reason for admission, length of stay, comorbidities, name and number of home medications, PPI name, dose and indication, and PPI discharge instructions were collected. For naive patients, duration of in-hospital use and prescriber specialty was recorded. Results: Among non-naive patients (n = 377), for 37 patients (10%), the indication for a PPI was not appropriate, and for 92 patients (24%), the indication was unclear. Most patients had their home PPI continued while in hospital (87%) and at discharge (90%). Among naive (n = 93) patients, for 8 patients (9%), the indication for a PPI was not appropriate, and for 25 (27%) patients, the indication was unclear. PPI was prescribed to only 16 (18%) by the gastrointestinal consult service. Most patients had their new PPI continued at discharge (74%); only 7 (9%) were discharged with a plan to reassess PPI indication. Conclusion: PPIs are infrequently deprescribed during hospital admission, despite inappropriate or unclear indications for use. Thorough medication reconciliation, documentation of PPI indication and duration, and institutional focus on deprescribing are encouraged.

Both New and Chronic Potentially Inappropriate Medications Continued at Hospital Discharge Are Associated With Increased Risk of Adverse Events

BACKGROUND

Admission to hospital provides the opportunity to review patient medications; however, the extent to which the safety of drug regimens changes after hospitalization is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) prescribed to patients at hospital discharge and their association with the risk of adverse events 30 days after discharge.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Tertiary care hospitals within the McGill University Health Centre Network in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients from internal medicine, cardiac, and thoracic surgery, aged 65 years and older, admitted between October 2014 and November 2016.

MEASURES

Abstracted chart data were linked to provincial health databases. PIMs were identified using AGS (American Geriatrics Society) Beers Criteria®, STOPP, and Choosing Wisely statements. Multivariable logistic regression and Cox models were used to assess the association between PIMs and adverse events.

RESULTS

Of 2,402 included patients, 1,381 (57%) were male; median age was 76 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 70‐82 years); and eight discharge medications were prescribed (IQR = 2‐8). A total of 1,576 (66%) patients were prescribed at least one PIM at discharge; 1,176 (49%) continued a PIM from prior to admission, and 755 (31%) were prescribed at least one new PIM. In the 30 days after discharge, 218 (9%) experienced an adverse drug event (ADE) and 862 (36%) visited the emergency department (ED), were rehospitalized, or died. After adjustment, each additional new PIM and continued community PIM were respectively associated with a 21% (odds ratio [OR] = 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.01‐1.45) and a 10% (OR = 1.10; 95% CI = 1.01‐1.21) increased odds of ADEs. They were also respectively associated with a 13% (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.13; 95% CI = 1.03‐1.26) and a 5% (HR = 1.05; 95% CI = 1.00‐1.10) increased risk of ED visits, rehospitalization, and death.

CONCLUSIONS

Two in three hospitalized patients were prescribed a PIM at discharge, and increasing numbers of PIMs were associated with an increased risk of ADEs and all‐cause adverse events. Improving hospital prescribing practices may reduce the frequency of PIMs and associated adverse events. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1184–1192, 2020.

See related editorial by Donna M. Fick in this issue.

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).

Adverse Drug Events in Older Adults: Review of Adjudication Methods in Deprescribing Studies

OBJECTIVES

Polypharmacy is common in older adults and associated with adverse drug events (ADEs). Several methods have been described in studies to help correlate ADE causation. We performed a narrative review to identify methods for ADE adjudication. We compared their strengths and limitations to assess their applicability to deprescribing studies (of which clinical trials are a subset) and to encourage the use of a standardized method in future studies.

DESIGN

We performed a review of original articles (1946-2019) using the Medline (Ovid) and Cochrane databases. We also conducted a manual reference search of review articles. Abstracts were screened for relevance.

MEASUREMENTS

Adjudication methods were compared for advantages and limitations including validity, ease of use, and applicability to clinical trials with deprescribing as the primary intervention.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1881 articles of which 175 articles were included for full-text review. Following in-depth review, 135 were excluded: 79 had no ADE outcome data, 35 were not specific to older adults, 9 were not relevant, 6 were review articles, 5 contained duplicate data, and 1 was not written in French or English. Forty articles remained for analysis, from which we identified 10 unique ADE adjudication methods. No method was developed originally for use in a deprescribing setting.

CONCLUSION

A standard method to identify ADEs is important to capture the outcome reliably in deprescribing studies. All methods we identified had limitations in terms of capturing adverse events from the withdrawal of medications. Future work should focus on refining adjudication methods for capturing ADEs related not only to medication continuation and new drug starts but also to deprescribing and drug discontinuation. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:1594-1602, 2020.

Medication-related harm in older adults following hospital discharge: development and validation of a prediction tool

OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate a tool to predict the risk of an older adult experiencing medication-related harm (MRH) requiring healthcare use following hospital discharge.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS

Multicentre, prospective cohort study recruiting older adults (≥65 years) discharged from five UK teaching hospitals between 2013 and 2015.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Participants were followed up for 8 weeks in the community by senior pharmacists to identify MRH (adverse drug reactions, harm from non-adherence, harm from medication error). Three data sources provided MRH and healthcare use information: hospital readmissions, primary care use, participant telephone interview. Candidate variables for prognostic modelling were selected using two systematic reviews, the views of patients with MRH and an expert panel of clinicians. Multivariable logistic regression with backward elimination, based on the Akaike Information Criterion, was used to develop the PRIME tool. The tool was internally validated.

RESULTS

1116 out of 1280 recruited participants completed follow-up (87%). Uncertain MRH cases ('possible' and 'probable') were excluded, leaving a tool derivation cohort of 818. 119 (15%) participants experienced 'definite' MRH requiring healthcare use and 699 participants did not. Modelling resulted in a prediction tool with eight variables measured at hospital discharge: age, gender, antiplatelet drug, sodium level, antidiabetic drug, past adverse drug reaction, number of medicines, living alone. The tool's discrimination C-statistic was 0.69 (0.66 after validation) and showed good calibration. Decision curve analysis demonstrated the potential value of the tool to guide clinical decision making compared with alternative approaches.

CONCLUSIONS

The PRIME tool could be used to identify older patients at high risk of MRH requiring healthcare use following hospital discharge. Prior to clinical use we recommend the tool's evaluation in other settings.