Continuation of non-essential medications in actively dying hospitalised patients

Validated medication deprescribing instruments for patients with palliative care needs palliative care: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Patients with life-limiting illnesses are prone to unnecessary polypharmacy. Deprescribing tools may contribute to minimizing negative outcomes. Thus, the aims of the study were to identify validated instruments for deprescribing inappropriate medications for patients with palliative care needs and to assess the impact on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases (until May 2021). A manual search was performed in the references of enrolled articles. The screening, eligibility, extraction, and bias risk assessment were carried out by two independent researchers. Experimental and observational studies were eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

Out of the 5,791 studies retrieved, after excluding duplicates (n = 1,050), conducting title/abstract screening (n = 4,741), and full reading (n = 41), only one study met the inclusion criteria. In this included study, a randomized controlled trial was conducted, which showed a high level of bias risk overall. Adults 75 years or older (n = 130) with limited life expectancy and polypharmacy were allocated to two groups [intervention arm (deprescribing); and control arm (usual care)]. Deprescribing was performed with the aid of the STOPPFrail tool. The mean number of inappropriate medications and monthly medication costs were significantly lower in the intervention arm. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of unscheduled hospital presentations, falls, fractures, mortality, and quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the availability of several instruments to support deprescribing in patients with palliative care needs, only one of them has undergone validation and robust assessment for effectiveness in clinical practice. The STOPPFrail tool appears to reduce the number of inappropriate medications for older people with limited life expectancy (and probably palliative care needs) and decrease the monthly costs of pharmacotherapy. Nevertheless, the impact on patient safety and humanistic outcomes remain unclear.

Validated medication deprescribing instruments for patients with palliative care needs: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Patients with life-limiting illnesses are prone to unnecessary polypharmacy. Deprescribing tools may contribute to minimizing negative outcomes. Thus, the aims of the study were to identify validated instruments for deprescribing inappropriate medications for patients with palliative care needs and to assess the impact on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases (until May 2021). A manual search was performed in the references of enrolled articles. The screening, eligibility, extraction, and bias risk assessment were carried out by 2 independent researchers. Experimental and observational studies were eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

Out of the 5791 studies retrieved, after excluding duplicates (n = 1050), conducting title/abstract screening (n = 4741), and full reading (n = 41), only 1 study met the inclusion criteria. In this included study, a randomized controlled trial was conducted, which showed a high level of bias risk overall. Adults 75 years or older (n = 130) with limited life expectancy and polypharmacy were allocated to 2 groups [intervention arm (deprescribing); and control arm (usual care)]. Deprescribing was performed with the aid of the STOPPFrail tool. The mean number of inappropriate medications and monthly medication costs were significantly lower in the intervention arm. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of unscheduled hospital presentations, falls, fractures, mortality, and quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the availability of several instruments to support deprescribing in patients with palliative care needs, only 1 of them has undergone validation and robust assessment for effectiveness in clinical practice. The STOPPFrail tool appears to reduce the number of inappropriate medications for older people with limited life expectancy (and probably palliative care needs) and decrease the monthly costs of pharmacotherapy. Nevertheless, the impact on patient safety and humanistic outcomes remain unclear.

Prescribing and deprescribing in older people with life-limiting illnesses receiving hospice care at the end of life: A longitudinal, retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Although prescribing and deprescribing practices in older people have been the subject of much research generally, there are limited data in older people at the end of life. This highlights the need for research to determine prescribing and deprescribing patterns, as a first step to facilitate guideline development for medicines optimisation in this vulnerable population.

AIMS

To examine prescribing and deprescribing patterns in older people at the end of life and to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication use.

DESIGN

A longitudinal, retrospective cohort study where medical records of eligible participants were reviewed, and data extracted. Medication appropriateness was assessed using two sets of consensus-based criteria; the STOPPFrail criteria and criteria developed by Morin et al.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Decedents aged 65 years and older admitted continuously for at least 14 days before death to three inpatient hospice units across Northern Ireland, who died between 1st January and 31st December 2018, and who had a known diagnosis, known cause of death and prescription data. Unexpected/sudden deaths were excluded.

RESULTS

Polypharmacy was reported to be continued until death in 96.2% of 106 decedents (mean age of 75.6 years). Most patients received at least one potentially inappropriate medication at the end of life according to the STOPPFrail and the criteria developed by Morin et al. (57.5 and 69.8% respectively). Limited prevalence of proactive deprescribing interventions was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

In the absence of systematic rationalisation of drug treatments, a substantial proportion of older patients continued to receive potentially inappropriate medication until death.

Clinical effects of hydration, supplementary vitamins, and trace elements during end-of-life care for cancer patients

INTRODUCTION

current data regarding the decision on rehydration of patients with terminal-stage cancer remain controversial.

OBJECTIVE

the present study was to evaluate the effect of intravenous hydration and supplementary vitamins and trace elements on clinical symptoms and biochemical parameters in palliative cancer patients.

METHODS

a randomized clinical trial including 72 palliative cancer patients aged 18 years and older was performed at the National Cancer Institute in Mexico. Patients were divided into two groups: intervention and control, both receiving intravenous saline solution weekly for 4 weeks, but the former was also supplemented with vitamins and trace elements. Symptoms were assessed at baseline and 4 weeks after with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. Same measurements applied to biochemical parameters.

RESULTS

the mean age of the patients was 58.75 years. The most frequent cancer diagnoses were gastrointestinal (32 %). In the between-groups analysis significant improvements were found for the intervention group in anorexia (p = 0.024), pain (p = 0.030), chloride (p = 0.043), phosphorus (p = 0.001), potassium (p = 0.006), and total proteins (< 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

we highlight the improvement in the control of most symptoms and some biochemical parameters in the intervention group receiving vitamins and oligoelements along with intravenous hydration. Further studies are needed.

Associations Between Polypharmacy, Symptom Burden, and Quality of Life in Patients with Advanced, Life-Limiting Illness

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy may be particularly burdensome near the end of life, as patients "accumulate" medications to treat and prevent multiple diseases.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate associations between polypharmacy, symptom burden, and quality of life (QOL) in patients with advanced, life-limiting illness (clinician-estimated, 1 month-1 year).

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of baseline data from a trial of statin discontinuation.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with advanced, life-limiting illness.

MAIN MEASURES

Polypharmacy was assessed by summing the number of non-statin medications taken regularly or as needed. Symptom burden was assessed using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (range 0-90; higher scores indicating greater symptom burden) and QOL was assessed using the McGill QOL Questionnaire (range 0-10; higher scores indicating better QOL). Linear regression models assessed associations between polypharmacy, symptom burden, and QOL.

KEY RESULTS

Among 372 participants, 47% were age 75 or older and 35% were enrolled in hospice. The mean symptom score was 27.0 (standard deviation (SD) 16.1) and the mean QOL score was 7.0 (SD 1.3). The average number of non-statin medications was 11.6 (SD 5.0); one-third of participants took ≥ 14 medications. In adjusted models, higher polypharmacy was associated with higher symptom burden (coefficient 0.81; p < .001) and lower QOL (coefficient - .06; p = .001). Adjusting for symptom burden weakened the association between polypharmacy and QOL (coefficient - .03; p = .045) without a significant interaction, suggesting that worse quality of life associated with polypharmacy may be related to medication-associated symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Among adults with advanced illness, taking more medications is associated with higher symptom burden and lower QOL. Attention to medication-related symptoms and shared decision-making regarding deprescribing are warranted in this setting.

NIH TRIAL REGISTRY NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier for Parent Study - NCT01415934.