Recommendations for outcome measurement for deprescribing intervention studies

Reducing potentially inappropriate polypharmacy at a national and international level: the impact of deprescribing networks

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade, polypharmacy has increased dramatically. Measurable harms include falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, and death. The associated costs are massive and contribute substantially to low-value health care. Deprescribing is a promising solution, but there are barriers. Establishing a network to address polypharmacy can help overcome barriers by connecting individuals with an interest and expertise in deprescribing and can act as an important source of motivation and resources.

AREAS COVERED

Over the past decade, several deprescribing networks were launched to help tackle polypharmacy, with evidence of individual and collective impact. A network approach has several advantages; it can spark interest, ideas and enthusiasm through information sharing, meetings and conversations with the public, providers, and other key stakeholders. In this special report, the details of how four deprescribing networks were established across the globe are detailed.

EXPERT OPINION

Networks create links between people who lead existing and/or budding deprescribing practices and policy initiatives, can influence people with a shared passion for deprescribing, and facilitate sharing of intellectual capital and tools to take initiatives further and strengthen impact.This report should inspire others to establish their own deprescribing networks, a critical step in accelerating a global deprescribing movement.

Systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of multidisciplinary interventions to address polypharmacy in community-dwelling older adults

Interventions to address polypharmacy in community-dwelling older adults often focus on medication-related outcomes. The aim was to explore the impact of multidisciplinary interventions to manage polypharmacy on clinical outcomes for community-dwelling older adults. This systematic review and meta-analysis included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on interventions by at least a pharmacist and a physician, indexed in MEDLINE, EMBASE or CENTRAL up to January 2023. Evidence certainty was assessed using the GRADE approach. Seventeen RCTs were included. Fifteen were rated as 'high' risk of bias. No relevant benefits were found in functional and cognitive status (primary outcomes), falls, mortality, quality of life, patient satisfaction, hospital admissions, emergency department or primary care visits. Interventions reduced medication costs, improved medication appropriateness (odds ratio [OR] 0.39), reduced number of medications (mean difference [MD] -0.57), resolved medication-related problems (MD -0.45), and improved medication adherence (relative risk [RR] 1.14). There was a low or very low certainty of the evidence for most outcomes. Multidisciplinary interventions to address polypharmacy appear effective in improving multiple dimensions of medication use. However, evidence for corresponding improvements in functional or cognitive status is scarce. New efficient models of multidisciplinary interventions to address polypharmacy impacting clinical outcomes should be explored.

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.

Pharmacist-led telehealth deprescribing for people living with dementia and polypharmacy in primary care: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

People living with dementia (PLWD) have complex medication regimens, exposing them to increased risk of harm. Pragmatic deprescribing strategies that align with patient-care partner goals are needed.

METHODS

A pilot study of a pharmacist-led intervention to optimize medications with patient-care partner priorities, ran May 2021-2022 at two health systems. PLWD with ≥7 medications in primary care and a care partner were enrolled. After an introductory mailing, dyads were randomized to a pharmacist telehealth intervention immediately (intervention) or delayed by 3 months (control). Feasibility outcomes were enrollment, intervention completion, pharmacist time, and primary care provider (PCP) acceptance of recommendations. To refine pragmatic data collection protocols, we assessed the Medication Regimen Complexity Index (MRCI; primary efficacy outcome) and the Family Caregiver Medication Administration Hassles Scale (FCMAHS).

RESULTS

69 dyads enrolled; 27 of 34 (79%) randomized to intervention and 28 of 35 (80%) randomized to control completed the intervention. Most visits (93%) took more than 20 min and required multiple follow-up interactions (62%). PCPs responded to 82% of the pharmacists' first messages and agreed with 98% of recommendations. At 3 months, 22 (81%) patients in the intervention and 14 (50%) in the control had ≥1 medication discontinued; 21 (78%) and 12 (43%), respectively, had ≥1 new medication added. The mean number of medications decreased by 0.6 (3.4) in the intervention and 0.2 (1.7) in the control, reflecting a non-clinically meaningful 1.0 (±12.4) point reduction in the MRCI among intervention patients and a 1.2 (±12.9) point increase among control. FCMAHS scores decreased by 3.3 (±18.8) points in the intervention and 2.5 (±14.4) points in the control.

CONCLUSION

Though complex, pharmacist-led telehealth deprescribing is feasible and may reduce medication burden in PLWD. To align with patient-care partner goals, pharmacists recommended deprescribing and prescribing. If scalable, such interventions may optimize goal-concordant care for PLWD.

Deprescribing potential of commonly used medications among community-dwelling older adults: insights from a pharmacist's geriatric assessment

Pharmacist's geriatric assessment can provide valuable insights into potential deprescribing targets, while including important information on various health-related domains. Data collected from a geriatric assessment questionnaire, for 388 patients, from the Croatian cohort of the EuroAgeism H2020 ESR 7 international project, along with guideline-based deprescribing criteria, were used to analyse potentially inappropriate prescribing of four medication groups (benzodiazepines (BZN), proton pump inhibitors (PPI), opioids, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID)), and to assess the deprescribing potential. Binary logistic regression was used to explore the effects of age, gender, number of medicines and diagnoses, self-reported health, frailty score, and healthcare utilization on the likelihood of needing deprescribing. More than half of participants (n = 216, 55.2%) are candidates for deprescribing, with 31.1% of PPI, 74.8% of NSAID, 75% of opioid, and 96.1% of BZN users meeting at least one criterion. Most common criteria for deprescribing were inappropriately long use and safety concerns. Women (aOR = 2.58; p < 0.001), those reporting poor self-reported health (aOR = 5.14; p < 0.001), and those exposed to polypharmacy (aOR = 1.29; p < 0.001) had higher odds of needing to have medicines deprescribed. The high rate of deprescribing potential warrants prompt action to increase patient safety and decrease polypharmacy. Pharmacist's geriatric assessment and deprescribing-focused medication review could be used to lead a personalised approach.

Medication Review: What's in a Name and What Is It about?

BACKGROUND

Medication review is a multifaceted service aimed at optimizing the use of medicines and enhancing the health outcomes of patients. Due to its complexity, it is crucial to clearly describe the service, its variants, and its components to avoid confusion and ensure a better understanding of medication review among healthcare providers.

AIM

This study aims to bring clarity to the origins, definitions, abbreviations, and types of medication reviews, together with the primary criteria that delineate key features of this service.

METHOD

A narrative review approach was employed to clarify the diverse terminology associated with "medication review" services. Relevant references were initially identified through searches on PubMed and Google Scholar, complementing the existing literature known to the authors.

RESULTS

The study uncovers a complicated and sometimes convoluted history of "medication review" in different regions around the world. The initial optimization of medicine use had an economic purpose before evolving subsequently into a more patient-oriented approach. A selection of abbreviations, definitions, and types were outlined to enhance the understanding of the service.

CONCLUSIONS

The study underscores the urgent need for comprehensive information and standardization regarding the content and quality of the services, collectively referred to as "medication review".

Evaluating the Safety of an Educational Deprescribing Intervention: Lessons from the Optimize Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients, family members, and clinicians express concerns about potential adverse drug withdrawal events (ADWEs) following medication discontinuation or fears of upsetting a stable medical equilibrium as key barriers to deprescribing. Currently, there are limited methods to pragmatically assess the safety of deprescribing and ascertain ADWEs. We report the methods and results of safety monitoring for the OPTIMIZE trial of deprescribing education for patients, family members, and clinicians.

METHODS

This was a pragmatic cluster randomized trial with multivariable Poisson regression comparing outcome rates between study arms. We conducted clinical record review and adjudication of sampled records to assess potential causal relationships between medication discontinuation and outcomes. This study included adults aged 65+ with dementia or mild cognitive impairment, one or more additional chronic conditions, and prescribed 5+ chronic medications. The intervention included an educational brochure on deprescribing that was mailed to patients prior to primary care visits, a clinician notification about individual brochure mailings, and an educational tip sheets was provided monthly to primary care clinicians. The outcomes of the safety monitoring were rates of hospitalizations and mortality during the 4 months following brochure mailings and results of record review and adjudication. The adjudication process was conducted throughout the trial and included classifications: likely, possibly, and unlikely.

RESULTS

There was a total of 3012 (1433 intervention and 1579 control) participants. There were 420 total hospitalizations involving 269 (18.8%) people in the intervention versus 517 total hospitalizations involving 317 (20.1%) people in the control groups. Adjusted risk ratios comparing intervention to control groups were 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72, 1.16] for hospitalization and 1.19 (95% CI 0.67, 2.11) for mortality. Both groups had zero deaths "likely" attributed to a medication change prior to the event. A total of 3 out of 30 (10%) intervention group hospitalizations and 7 out of 35 (20%) control group hospitalizations were considered "likely" due to a medication change.

CONCLUSIONS

Population-based deprescribing education is safe in the older adult population with cognitive impairment in our study. Pragmatic methods for safety monitoring are needed to further inform deprescribing interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03984396. Registered on 13 June 2019.

The Effect of Pharmacist-Initiated Deprescribing Interventions in Older People: A Narrative Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background Polypharmacy is common among older people and may be associated with adverse drug events (ADEs) and poor health outcomes. Pharmacists are well-positioned to reduce polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications. Objective The objective of this narrative review was to summarize the results from randomized-controlled trials that evaluated pharmacist-led interventions with the goal or effect to deprescribe medications in older individuals. Data Sources We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL Complete, APA PsycInfo, Web of Science Core Collection, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Data Synthesis Of the 25 studies included, the interventions were conducted in nursing facilities (n = 8), outpatient/community dwellings (n = 8), or community pharmacies (n = 9). Interventions were categorized as comprehensive medication reviews (n = 10), comprehensive medication reviews with pharmacist follow-up (n = 11), and educational interventions provided to patients and/or providers (n = 4). Pharmacist-led interventions had a beneficial effect on 22 out of 32 total medication-related outcomes (eg, number of medications, potentially inappropriate medications, or discontinuation). Most (n = 18) studies reported no evidence of an effect for other outcomes such as health care use, mortality, patient-centered outcomes (falls, cognition, function, quality of life), and ADEs. Discussion Interventions led to improvement in 69% of the medication-related outcomes examined across study settings. Five studies measured ADEs with none accounting for adverse drug-withdrawal events. Large well-designed studies that are powered to find an effect on patient-centered outcomes are needed. Conclusion Pharmacist-led interventions had a significant beneficial effect on medication-related outcomes. There was little evidence of benefit on other outcomes.

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

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

Outcomes in deprescribing implementation trials and compliance with expert recommendations: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing, defined as discontinuing or reducing the dose of medications that are no longer needed or for which the risks outweigh the benefits is a way to reduce polypharmacy. In 2022, the US Deprescribing Research Network (USDeN) published recommendations concerning the measurement of outcomes for deprescribing intervention studies. The objectives of this systematic review were to identify the outcome categories used in deprescribing intervention trials and to relate them to the previously published recommendations.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, and the Cochrane library from January 2012 through January 2022. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials evaluating a deprescribing intervention. After data extraction, outcomes were categorized by type: medication outcomes, clinical outcomes, system outcomes, implementation outcomes, and other outcomes based on the previously published recommendations.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies were included. The majority of studies focused on older adults in nursing homes and targeted inappropriate medications or polypharmacy. In 20 studies, the intervention was a medication review; in seven studies, the intervention was educational or informative; and three studies based their intervention on motivational interviewing or patient empowerment. Thirty-one studies presented a medication outcome (primary outcome in 26 studies), 25 a clinical outcome, 18 a system outcome, and seven an implementation outcome. Only three studies presented all four types of outcomes, and 10 studies presented three types of outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides an update on the implementation of gold standard deprescribing studies in clinical practice. Implementation outcomes need to be developed and specified to facilitate the implementation of these practices on a larger scale and clinical outcome need to be prioritized. Finally, this review provides new elements for future real-life deprescribing studies.

The association between beta-blockers and outcomes in patients with heart failure and concurrent Alzheimer's disease and related dementias

BACKGROUND

Contemporary patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) are older and have a higher prevalence of cognitive impairment than those studied in trials. The risk/benefit trade-off of routine beta-blocker (BB) use in patients with HFrEF and Alzheimer's disease and related dementias (ADRD) has not been explored. This study aimed to determine the association between BB use and outcomes among patients with HFrEF and ADRD.

METHODS

Using a random 40% sample of Medicare Parts A, B, and D data we identified patients with ≥1 hospitalization for HFrEF between 2008 and 2018. Each patient was classified based on BB use prior to admission and after discharge. Outcomes include 90-day and 1-year mortality and readmission.

RESULTS

Between 2008 and 2018, we identified 357,030 patients hospitalized with HFrEF; 12.7% had ADRD. Patients with HFrEF and ADRD had higher 90-day and 1-year mortality compared to patients with HFrEF-only. Among patients admitted on a BB, 60.5% of patients with HFrEF-only were continued on therapy after discharge, compared to 56.8% of patients with HFrEF and ADRD. Discontinuing BB was associated with a 2.2-fold higher risk of 90-day mortality (p < 0.001) among patients with HF-only and a 2.- fold higher risk of 90-day mortality (p < 0.001) among patients with HFrEF + ADRD. Not starting a BB was associated with a 1.8-fold higher risk of 90-day mortality (p < 0.001) among patients with HFrEF-only and a 1.7-fold higher risk of 90-day mortality (p < 0.001) among patients with HFrEF + ADRD. Similar risks were seen at 1 year.

CONCLUSIONS

BB therapy is associated with significantly lower short and long-term mortality rates among all patients with HFrEF; the magnitude of these associated benefits appear at least as large in patients with HFrEF and ADRD compared to patients with HFrEF-only.