Review of structured guides for deprescribing

[Deprescribing in DGPPN S3 guidelines-a systematic analysis]

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing of medication or psychotherapy represents a critical phase in treatment. The aim of the work is to systematically analyze recommendations for deprescribing medication and discontinuation of psychotherapy in the evidence- and consensus-based S3 guidelines of the German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (DGPPN) to identify potential research gaps.

METHODS

A systematic analysis of the DGPPN S3 guidelines to investigate and compare information and recommendations on deprescribing.

RESULTS

Regarding deprescribing of medication, our analysis showed that eight of the 20 included S3 guidelines contain information both in the form of recommendations and background information. Regarding psychotherapy, only two guidelines provided information on deprescribing.

CONCLUSION

Our results highlight the need to expand guidelines to include evidence-based recommendations for deprescribing medication or discontinuation of psychotherapy. Future research should focus on the development of specific, generic, and evidence-based guidelines that support both medical staff and patients during these critical phases of therapy.

Current Landscape and Future Directions of Deprescribing and Polypharmacy Practices in Jordan

This review explores the current landscape and future directions of deprescribing and polypharmacy practices in Jordan. The prevalence of polypharmacy, defined as the concurrent use of multiple medications by an individual, has been increasing in recent years due to various factors, such as population aging and the greater availability of medications. However, polypharmacy can lead to adverse drug events, suboptimal medication adherence, increased healthcare costs, and reduced quality of life. Deprescribing, on the other hand, involves the discontinuation or reduction of unnecessary or potentially harmful medications to improve patient outcomes. The findings presented in this review highlight the current state of deprescribing and polypharmacy practices in Jordan, including factors influencing their prevalence. Additionally, it discusses the challenges healthcare professionals face in implementing deprescribing strategies and identifies potential solutions for enhancing these practices in Jordanian healthcare settings. Moreover, this paper provides insights into future directions for deprescribing and polypharmacy practices in Jordan. Overall, this review offers valuable insights into the current landscape of deprescribing and polypharmacy practices in Jordan while also providing recommendations for future directions to optimize medication management strategies that can ultimately benefit patient outcomes within a sound healthcare system framework.

Awareness, perspectives and practices of antibiotics deprescribing among physicians in Jordan: a cross-sectional study

Background

Antibiotics have significantly reduced mortality and improved outcomes across various medical fields; however, the rise of antibiotic resistance poses a major challenge, causing millions of deaths annually. Deprescribing, a process that involves discontinuing unnecessary antibiotics, is crucial for combating this threat. This study was designed to assess the knowledge, perceptions, and practices of physicians regarding antibiotic deprescribing in Jordan.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was conducted between January-February 2024 to assess the knowledge, perceptions, and practices of physicians regarding antibiotic deprescribing in Jordan. An electronic questionnaire served as the data collection tool. Descriptive analysis was performed using SPSS software version 26. Additionally, logistic regression analysis was carried out to identify independent factors associated with physicians' willingness to deprescribe antibiotics.

Results

The study involved 252 physicians, primarily male (n = 168, 67.7%), with a median age of 33 years. Regarding antibiotics deprescribing, 21.8% (n = 55) expressed willingness to deprescribe inappropriate antibiotics.High awareness of deprescribing was evident, with 92.9% (n = 234) familiar with the concept, 94% (n = 237) knowledgeable about appropriate situations, and 96.8% (n = 244) recognising its potential benefits. Furthermore, 81.8% (n = 205) reported having received formal training in antibiotics deprescribing, and 85.3% (n = 215) were informed about the availability of deprescribing tools.Physicians highlighted challenges including insufficient time (44.4%, n = 112) and resistance from patients (41.3%, n = 104) and colleagues (42.1%, n = 106). Despite challenges, a significant proportion regularly assessed antibiotic necessity (46.9%, n = 117) and educated patients about antibiotic-related harms (40.5%, n = 102). Logistic regression analysis revealed no significant demographic factors influencing physicians' willingness to deprescribe antibiotics (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

Physicians in Jordan exhibit high awareness of antibiotics deprescribing and recognise its benefits. Challenges such as time constraints and communication barriers need to be addressed to facilitate effective deprescribing practices. Comprehensive guidelines and interdisciplinary collaboration are essential for promoting judicious antibiotic use and combating antimicrobial resistance.

Defining, identifying and addressing problematic polypharmacy within multimorbidity in primary care: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Polypharmacy and multimorbidity pose escalating challenges. Despite numerous attempts, interventions have yet to show consistent improvements in health outcomes. A key factor may be varied approaches to targeting patients for intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To explore how patients are targeted for intervention by examining the literature with respect to: understanding how polypharmacy is defined; identifying problematic polypharmacy in practice; and addressing problematic polypharmacy through interventions.

DESIGN

We performed a scoping review as defined by the Joanna Briggs Institute.

SETTING

The focus was on primary care settings.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Cochrane along with ClinicalTrials.gov, Science.gov and WorldCat.org were searched from January 2004 to February 2024.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included all articles that had a focus on problematic polypharmacy in multimorbidity and primary care, incorporating multiple types of evidence, such as reviews, quantitative trials, qualitative studies and policy documents. Articles focussing on a single index disease or not written in English were excluded.

EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a narrative synthesis, comparing themes and findings across the collective evidence to draw contextualised insights and conclusions.

RESULTS

In total, 157 articles were included. Case-finding methods often rely on basic medication counts (often five or more) without considering medical history or whether individual medications are clinically appropriate. Other approaches highlight specific drug indicators and interactions as potentially inappropriate prescribing, failing to capture a proportion of patients not fitting criteria. Different potentially inappropriate prescribing criteria also show significant inconsistencies in determining the appropriateness of medications, often neglecting to consider multimorbidity and underprescribing. This may hinder the identification of the precise population requiring intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved strategies are needed to target patients with polypharmacy, which should consider patient perspectives, individual factors and clinical appropriateness. The development of a cross-cutting measure of problematic polypharmacy that consistently incorporates adjustment for multimorbidity may be a valuable next step to address frequent confounding.

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.

Attitude towards deprescribing and its association with frailty and complexity of medication regimen: A survey of older inpatients in a district health board in New Zealand

BACKGROUND

Older inpatients, particularly those with frailty, have increased exposure to complex medication regimens. It is not known whether frailty and complexity of medication regimens influence attitudes toward deprescribing. This study aimed to investigate (1) older inpatients' attitudes toward deprescribing; (2) if frailty and complexity of medication regimen influence attitudes and willingness to deprescribe - a relationship that has not been investigated in previous studies.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, older adults (≥ 65 years) recruited from general medicine and geriatric services in a New Zealand hospital completed the revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire. Hospital frailty risk score (HFRS) was calculated using diagnostic codes and other relevant information present at the time of index hospital admission; higher scores indicate higher frailty risk. Medication regimen complexity was quantified using the medication regimen complexity index (MRCI); higher scores indicate greater complexity. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of attitudes and willingness to deprescribe.

RESULTS

A total of 222 patients were included in the study, the median age was 83 years and 63% were female. One in two patients reported feeling they were taking too many medications, and 1 in 5 considered their medications burdensome. Almost 3 in 4 (73%) wanted to be involved in decision-making about their medications, and 4 in 5 (84%) were willing to stop one or more of their medications if their prescriber said it was possible. Patients with higher MRCI had increased self-reported medication burden (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 2.6, 95% CI 1.29, 5.29) and were more interested in being involved in decision-making about their medications (AOR 1.8, CI 0.99, 3.42) than those with lower MRCI. Patients with moderate HFRS had lower odds of willingness to deprescribe (AOR 0.45, CI 0.22,0.92) compared to the low-risk group. Female patients had a lower desire to be involved in decision-making. The oldest old age group( > 80 years) had lower self-reported medication burden and were less likely to want to try stopping their medications.

CONCLUSION

Most older inpatients wanted to be involved in decision-making about their medications and were willing to stop one or more medications if proposed by their prescriber. Medication complexity and frailty status influence patients' attitudes toward deprescribing and thus should be taken into consideration when making deprescribing decisions. Further research is needed to investigate the relationship between frailty and the complexity of medication regimens.

Prevalence of Polypharmacy in Patients With Vestibular and Balance Complaints

OBJECTIVES

To determine the prevalence of polypharmacy in patients presenting with dizziness to a tertiary neurotology clinic and analyze the association between polypharmacy and clinical characteristics.

DESIGN

Retrospective, cross-sectional review. Demographics, symptoms, diagnoses, medications, audiometry, dizziness handicap index (DHI) scores, and cognitive failure questionnaire (CFQ) scores were extracted from charts of patients seen as new patients from September 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, with a primary complaint of dizziness.

RESULTS

A total of 382 patients were included. More than two-thirds of the patients (n = 265, 69.4%) met criteria for polypharmacy (≥5 medications), of which most (n = 249, 94.0%) were prescribed a potentially ototoxic drug. Approximately 10% of patients were taking five or more ototoxic medications (oto-polypharmacy). Polypharmacy was correlated to age and was more common for patients with diabetes, hypertension, other cardiovascular comorbidities, and depression (odds ratio [OR], 3.73-6.67; p < 0.05). Polypharmacy was twice as likely in patients with mild to moderate hearing loss (OR 2.02 [1.24-3.29] and OR 2.13 [1.06-4.27], respectively; p < 0.05) and ~1.5× more likely in patients who had moderate to severe DHI scores (OR 1.65 [1.05-2.59] and OR 1.63 [1.00-2.65], respectively; p < 0.05). Patients with polypharmacy also had higher CFQ scores compared to those without polypharmacy (CFQ 32.5 [19.0-48.0] versus CFQ 25.0 [13.0-40.0]; p = 0.002. Oto-polypharmacy was more common for patients with lightheadedness as a dizziness descriptor (OR 3.16 [1.56-6.41]; p < 0.01). However, oto-polypharmacy was only more common for patients with mild to moderate hearing loss (OR 2.69 [1.33-5.45] and OR 2.86 [1.31-6.20], respectively; p < 0.01) and severe DHI scores (2.31 [1.12-4.77], p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of polypharmacy in patients with vestibular disorders is high. Some of the medications that patients are on are also potentially ototoxic at variable degrees. Polypharmacy is more common when lightheadedness is one of the dizziness descriptors and seems to be associated with worse scores on patient-reported outcome measures (DHI, CFQ). Medication reconciliation and multidisciplinary involvement could help to better address polypharmacy in this patient population. However, further investigation is needed to elucidate polypharmacy's role in symptom presentation, vestibular testing results, and therapeutic strategies.

Renal Function, Cardiovascular Diseases, Appropriateness of Drug Prescription and Outcomes in Hospitalized Older Patients

INTRODUCTION

Reduced estimated creatinine clearance (eCrCl) is prevalent in older patients and impacts on drug prescription. In this study, the burden of eCrCl reduction and its associated factors and impact on outcomes were analyzed. Moreover, the rate of inappropriate drug prescription according to eCrCl and its impact on outcomes were described.

METHODS

Data were obtained from "REgistro POliterapie SIMI" (REPOSI), a prospective observational register enrolling hospitalized patients aged ≥ 65 years. Patients enrolled from 2010-2016 with available data to calculate eCrCl according to the Cockcroft-Gault formula were included in this analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 5046 patients were available for analysis. Among these, we found an eCrCl of 45-59 mL/min in 1163 patients (23.0%), an eCrCl of 30-44 mL/min in 1128 (22.4%), an eCrCl of 15-29 mL/min in 702 (13.9%), and an eCrCl < 15 mL/min in 152 (3.0%), with several clinical factors associated with decreasing eCrCl. During follow-up, a progressively higher risk for all-cause death, cardiovascular (CV) death, any death/re-hospitalization, and CV death/re-hospitalization was found across the renal function classes. Among patients with hypertension, diabetes mellitus, atrial fibrillation, coronary artery disease, and heart failure, 476 (10.9%) were inappropriately prescribed medications according to eCrCl. During follow-up, inappropriate prescription was associated with increased risk of all-cause death (odds ratio [OR] 1.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.97) and any death/re-hospitalization (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.03-1.63).

CONCLUSIONS

In older hospitalized patients, impaired eCrCl is prevalent and associated with several factors, polypharmacy in particular. Patients with reduced eCrCl have a higher risk of major clinical outcomes, and > 10% of them are prescribed an inappropriate drug, with a higher risk for major clinical outcomes.

Less is More: Deprescribing Medications in Older Adults with Kidney Disease: A Review

Due to age and impaired kidney function, older adults with kidney disease are at increased risk of medication-related problems and related hospitalizations. One proa ctive approach to minimize this risk is deprescribing. Deprescribing refers to the systematic process of reducing or stopping a medication. Aside from preventing harm, deprescribing can potentially optimize patients' quality of life by aligning medications with their goals of care. For some patients, deprescribing could involve less aggressive management of their diabetes and/or hypertension. In other instances, deprescribing targets may include potentially inappropriate medications that carry greater risk of harm than benefit in older adults, medications that have questionable efficacy, including medications that have varying efficacy by degree of kidney function, and that increase medication regimen complexity. We include a guide for clinicians to utilize in deprescribing, the List, Evaluate, Shared Decision-Making, Support (LESS) framework. The LESS framework provides key considerations at each step of the deprescribing process that can be tailored for the medications and context of individu al patients. Patient characteristics or clinical events that warrant consideration of deprescribing include limited life expectancy, cognitive impairment, and health status changes, such as dialysis initiation or recent hospitalization. We acknowledge patient-, clinician-, and system-level challenges to the depre scribing process. These include patient hesitancy and challenges to discussing goals of care, clinician time constraints and a lack of evidence-based guidelines, and system-level challenges of interoperable electronic health records and limited incentives for deprescribing. However, novel evidence-based tools designed to facilitate deprescribing and future evidence on effectiveness of deprescribing could help mitigate these barriers. This review provides foundational knowledge on deprescribing as an emerging component of clinical practice and research within nephrology.

Attitudes to Drug Use in Residential Aged Care Facilities: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Nurses and Care Staff

BACKGROUND

Residential aged care facility (RACF) staff are well placed to identify opportunities for more appropriate prescribing. However, little is known about their views of polypharmacy, deprescribing and specific medications.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to establish the beliefs and attitudes of RACF staff towards polypharmacy and medication use in residents.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey was conducted on RACF staff in metropolitan New South Wales, Australia using a self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire was drafted based on the available literature and research team expertise and then piloted by a mixed group of 13 RACF staff. The final version of the questionnaire consisted of 28 questions. A total of 38 RACFs were contacted about the study. The questionnaire was distributed to eligible RACF staff between October 2017 and October 2019. The RACF staff were eligible if they provided direct patient care to residents or worked as a facility manager. Participants were excluded if they had insufficient English language skills. The results were presented in two groups, the nursing and care staff, using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 176 individuals from nine RACFs completed the questionnaire of whom 160 were eligible for study inclusion. Most considered polypharmacy to be five or more different tablets and capsules per day (95% nursing and 82% care staff respectively). A wide range of beliefs about medication use and deprescribing that centred on what constitutes appropriate polypharmacy was identified. Most thought that preventive medications were essential for residents. Most nurses agreed that sleeping tablets and pharmacological management of verbal aggression and wandering behaviours should be used less frequently whilst most care staff agreed that medications should be used more frequently to manage physical aggression.

CONCLUSIONS

To successfully and sustainably optimise medication use in RACF residents, it is important to consider the variation in views of nurses and care staff.

Community-based pharmacists' role in deprescribing: A systematic review

AIMS

Community-based pharmacists are an important stakeholder in providing continuing care for chronic multi-morbid patients, and their role is steadily expanding. The aim of this study is to examine the literature exploring community-based pharmacist-initiated and/or -led deprescribing and to evaluate the impact on the success of deprescribing and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Library and clinical trials databases were searched from inception to March 2020. Studies were included if they explored deprescribing in adults, by community-based pharmacists and were available in English. Two reviewers extracted data independently using a pre-agreed data extraction template. Meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity of study designs, types of intervention and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies were included in the review. Results were grouped based on intervention method into four categories: educational interventions; interventions involving medication review, consultation or therapy management; pre-defined pharmacist-led deprescribing interventions; and pharmacist-led collaborative interventions. All types of interventions resulted in greater discontinuation of medications in comparison to usual care. Educational interventions reported financial benefits as well. Medication review by community-based pharmacist can lead to successful deprescribing of high-risk medication, but do not affect the risk or rate of falls, rate of hospitalisations, mortality or quality of life. Pharmacist-led medication review, in patients with mental illness, resulting in deprescribing improves anticholinergic side effects, memory and quality of life. Pre-defined pharmacist-led deprescribing did not reduce healthcare resource consumptions but can contribute to financial savings. Short follow-up periods prevent evaluation of long-term sustainability of deprescribing interventions.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review suggests community-based pharmacists can lead deprescribing interventions and that they are valuable partners in deprescribing collaborations, providing necessary monitoring throughout tapering and post-follow-up to ensure the success of an intervention.

Typology of drug discontinuation trials - Methodological recommendations

OBJECTIVE

Due to the increasing concerns about polypharmacy, there is a growing need for clinical recommendations for drug discontinuation. This requires studies investigating the process on several levels. This paper addresses the methodological problems of drug discontinuation trials (DDTs). To that end, we offer a new typology of research aims and corresponding methodological recommendations for trials evaluating drug discontinuation.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Multi-stage development process, including literature search and expert panels.

RESULTS

Clinical trials are only required in cases of scientific uncertainty. We identified three situations of uncertainty associated with drug discontinuation from which we derived three study types: 1) Uncertainty regarding the effectiveness and/or safety of a drug; 2) Uncertainty regarding the procedure of discontinuing a previously taken drug; 3) Uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of complex strategies used to discontinue one or more drugs. We developed specific methodological recommendations for each study type.

CONCLUSION

We offer a comprehensive definition of research aims, study designs, and methodological recommendations regarding DDTs. The typology we propose can help investigators clarify their research aims and study design. The type-specific methodological recommendation should improve the quality of future drug discontinuation trials.

Therapeutic Futility in Terminal Cancer Patients: A Retrospective and Observational Study

Introduction Advanced cancer patients often need therapy for symptomatic control, in addition to cancer and other disease treatments. As the cancer disease progresses and life expectancy decreases, there should be a change in the goal of care. If this change is not accompanied by therapeutic adjustments, there is a risk of maintaining useless and ineffective treatments, as well as potential harmful drug interactions. This study analyzed the prevalence of therapeutic futility in patients with advanced cancer disease. Materials and methods This was a retrospective and observational single-center study, that included advanced cancer patients who died during the hospital stay, at a University Hospital in Lisbon, Portugal. Demographic and clinical data were collected. A Palliative Prognostic Score (PaP) was used to stratify patients according to their prognosis group. An analysis of the prescribed therapy was performed to quantify the "potentially inappropriate medications" (PIMs) and "inappropriate medications" (IMs), at admission and 24 hours prior to the patient's death. Results Over 140 patients were included. On the first day of hospitalization, 119 patients (85%) were exposed to at least one IM or PIM and 100 patients (71%) were still exposed to at least one IM or PIM in the last 24 hours of life. Regarding chemotherapy, 66 patients (47%) had treatment in the last two months of life, 38 (27%) in the last month, and 17 (12%) in the last two weeks prior to death. Therapeutic simplification (suspension of IMs and reduction of at least 50% of PIMs during hospitalization) was performed in 43% of the overall population and was higher in PaP score group C, but not statistically significant (p=0.09). The patient's inclusion in PaP score group C and inpatient consultation by the palliative care team were independent predictors of therapeutic simplification. Discussion There is an effort to achieve greater therapeutic suitability in palliative patients. However, many patients maintain futile and disproportionate therapy at the end of life (EoL). In many cases, systemic cancer treatment is performed until quite late in the course of the disease. The prescription of PIMs was significantly higher than that of IMs, which could be expected given their definition. A shorter life expectancy at admission led to a greater therapeutic simplification, as well as an intervention by the Palliative Care Team, which can be explained by the more focused approach towards quality-of-life improvement and symptomatic control. Different than expected the prescription of supportive therapies at hospital admission was not a predictor of therapeutic simplification. Although there was a reduction in IMs and PIMs in the studied population, and therapeutic simplification occurred in one fraction of the patients, the fact is that more than half of the patients evaluated did not undergo therapeutic simplification as defined in this work. Conclusion It appears that there is an effort to achieve greater therapeutic suitability in palliative patients, however, many patients maintain futile therapy at the EoL. It is of paramount importance to change the standard of care in this setting, to privilege a more patient-focused approach and tailored therapy, and to prioritize symptomatic control and quality-of-life improvement.

The Double Burden of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Polypharmacy on Geriatric Population - Public Health Implications

COVID-19 pandemic is inducing acute respiratory distress syndrome, multi-organ failure, and eventual death. Respiratory failure is the leading cause of mortality in the elderly population with pre-existing medical conditions. This group is particularly vulnerable to infections due to a declined immune system, comorbidities, geriatric syndrome, and potentially inappropriate polypharmacy. These conditions make the elderly population more susceptible to the harmful effects of medications and the deleterious consequences of infections, including MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV, and SARS-CoV-2. Chronic diseases among elderlies, including respiratory diseases, hypertension, diabetes, and coronary heart diseases, present a significant challenge for healthcare professionals. To comply with the clinical guidelines, the practitioner may prescribe a complex medication regimen that adds up to the burden of pre-existing treatment, potentially inducing adverse drug reactions and leading to harmful side-effects. Consequently, the geriatric population is at increased risk of falls, frailty, and dependence that enhances their susceptibility to morbidity and mortality due to SARS-CoV-2 respiratory syndrome, particularly interstitial pneumonia. The major challenge resides in the detection of infection that may present as atypical manifestations in this age group. Healthy aging can be possible with adequate preventive measures and appropriate medication regimen and follow-up. Adherence to the guidelines and recommendations of WHO, CDC, and other national/regional/international agencies can reduce the risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Better training programs are needed to enhance the skill of health care professionals and patient’s caregivers. This review explains the public health implications associated with polypharmacy on the geriatric population with pre-existing co-morbidities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Generic instruments for drug discontinuation in primary care: A systematic review

Aims

The aim of this systematic review was to identify generic instruments for drug discontinuation in patients with polypharmacy in the primary care setting.

Methods

We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE, 8 guideline databases (AWMF, NICE, NGC, SIGN, NHMRC, CPG, KCE), the Cochrane Library and grey literature (Google) in 2016 and 2017. Two independent researchers screened and analysed data. The drug discontinuation instruments of the included publications were described and classified.

Results

We identified 16 relevant publications. Here we found complex algorithms as well as instruments composed of distinct sequential steps. Two guidelines are constructed as electronic web‐applications. Instruments revealed diverging emphases on the stages of deprescribing, i.e. preparation, drug evaluation, decision‐making and implementation. Accordingly, 3 types of instruments emerged: general frameworks, detailed drug assessment tools and comprehensive discontinuation guidelines.

Conclusion

Diverse generic instruments exist for different areas of applications in regard to drug discontinuation. However, there is still a need for practical and user‐friendly tools that support physicians in communicational aspects, visualise trade‐offs and also enhance patient involvement.

Deprescribing in Older People Approaching End of Life: A Randomized Controlled Trial Using STOPPFrail Criteria

OBJECTIVES

Older people approaching end of life are commonly prescribed multiple medications, many of which may be inappropriate or futile. Our objective was to examine the effect of applying the STOPPFrail, a recently developed deprescribing tool, to the medication regimens of older patients with advanced frailty.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Two acute hospitals in Ireland.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults 75 years or older (n = 130) with advanced frailty and polypharmacy (five or more drugs), transferring to long-term nursing home care.

INTERVENTION

A STOPPFrail-guided deprescribing plan was presented to attending physicians who judged whether or not to implement recommended medication changes.

MEASUREMENTS

The primary outcome was the change in the number of regular medications at 3 months. Secondary outcomes included unscheduled hospital presentations, falls, quality of life, monthly medication costs, and mortality.

RESULTS

Intervention (n = 65) and control group (n = 65) participants were prescribed a mean (plus or minus standard deviation [SD]) of 11.5 (±3.0) and 10.9 (±3.5) medications, respectively, at baseline. The mean (SD) change in the number of medications at 3 months was -2.6 (±2.73) in the intervention group and -.36 (±2.60) in the control group (mean difference = 2.25 ± .54; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18-3.32; P < .001). The mean change in monthly medication cost was -$74.97 (±$148.32) in the intervention group and -$13.22 (±$110.40) in the control group (mean difference $61.74 ± $26.60; 95% CI = 8.95-114.53; P = .02). No significant differences were found between groups for any of the other secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

STOPPFrail-guided deprescribing significantly reduced polypharmacy and medication costs in frail older people. No significant differences between groups were observed with regard to falls, hospital presentations, quality of life, and mortality, although the trial was likely underpowered to detect differences in these outcomes. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:762-769, 2020.

New horizons in deprescribing for older people

Deprescribing has gained interest recently, driven by an ageing population seeing an increasing number living with multiple long-term conditions. This, coupled with disease-specific guidelines derived from clinical trials in younger people, has led to an increase in exposure to polypharmacy and the associated therapeutic burden. Older people, especially those living with frailty, tend to experience lower efficacy of these medications along with a higher risk of drug adverse effects. Explanations for these differences include the physiological effects of frailty, drug-drug interactions, drug-disease interactions and reduced medication adherence. Adverse drug reactions often go unnoticed and can trigger further prescribing. Certain medications have been recognised as potentially inappropriate for people with frailty, yet their use remains common. Evidence suggests that many older people are open to the concept of reducing medications. Deprescribing should be based around a shared decision-making approach. Trials to date have suggested that it can often be achieved without harm. To date, there are few data to support improvements in hospitalisation or mortality rates. However, there is some evidence that it may reduce polypharmacy, improve medication adherence, reduce financial costs and improve quality of life. In the future, it will be necessary to grow the evidence base and improve public and clinician awareness of the potential benefits of deprescribing. It will require excellent team working and communication between all of those involved in the prescribing and administration of medications, also supported by improved healthcare informatics. Non-pharmacological approaches will need to be promoted. Fewer drugs is not less care.

Advancing the Science of Deprescribing: A Novel Comprehensive Conceptual Framework

Polypharmacy is common in older adults and associated with inappropriate medication use, adverse drug events, medication nonadherence, higher costs, and increased mortality compared with those without polypharmacy. Deprescribing, the clinically supervised process of stopping or reducing the dose of medications when they cause harm or no longer provide benefit, may improve outcomes. Although potentially beneficial, clinicians struggle to overcome structural, organizational, technological, and cognitive barriers to deprescribing, limiting its use in clinical practice. Deprescribing science would benefit from a unifying conceptual framework to prioritize research. Current deprescribing conceptual frameworks have made important contributions to the field but often with a focus on specific medication classes or aspects of deprescribing. To further this relatively nascent field, we developed a broader deprescribing conceptual framework that builds on prior frameworks and includes patient, prescriber, and system influences; the process of deprescribing; outcomes; and dissemination. Patient factors include patients' biology, experience, values, and preferences. Prescriber factors include rational (eg, based on explicit knowledge) and nonrational (eg, behavioral tendencies, biases, and heuristics) decision making. System factors include resources, incentives, goals, and culture that contribute to deprescribing. The framework separates the deprescribing decision from the deprescribing process. The framework captures the results of deprescribing by examining changes in clinical structures, performance processes, patient experience, health outcomes, and cost. Through testing and refinement, this novel, more comprehensive conceptual framework has the potential to advance deprescribing research by organizing the existing evidence, identifying evidence gaps, and categorizing deprescribing interventions and the settings in which they are applied. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2018-2022, 2019.

Applicability of EU(7)-PIM criteria in cross-national studies in European countries

BACKGROUND

The European Union (EU)(7)-PIM (potentially inappropriate medication) list presents the most comprehensive and up-to-date tool for evaluation of PIM prescribing in Europe; however, several country-specific studies have documented lower specificity of this list on pharmaceutical markets of some countries. The aim of our study was to describe approval rates and marketing of PIMs stated by EU(7)-PIM criteria in six EU countries [in comparison with the American Geriatric Society (AGS) Beers 2015 criteria].

METHODS

Research teams of six EU countries (Czech Republic, Spain, Portugal, Serbia, Hungary and Turkey) participated in this study conducted by WG1b EU COST Action IS1402 group in the period October 2015-November 2018. Data on approval rates of PIMs and their availability on pharmaceutical markets have been obtained from databases of national drug-regulatory institutes and up-to-date drug compendia. The EU(7)-PIM list and AGS Beers 2015 Criteria (Section 1) were applied.

RESULTS

PIMs from EU(7)-PIM list were approved for clinical use more often than those from the AGS Beers 2015 criteria (Section 1). Approval rates for EU(7)-PIMs ranged from 42.8% in Serbia to 71.4% in Spain (for AGS criteria only from 36.4% to 65.1%, respectively). Higher percentages of approved PIMs were documented in Spain (71.4%), Portugal (67.1%) and Turkey (67.5%), lower in Hungary (55.5%), Czech Republic (50.2%) and Serbia (42.8%). The majority of approved PIMs were also currently marketed in all countries except in Turkey (19.8-21.7% not marketed PIMs) and less than 20% of PIMs were available as over-the-counter medications (except in Turkey, 46.4-48.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

The EU(7)-PIM list was created for utilization in European studies; however, applicability of this list is still limited in some countries, particularly in Eastern and Central Europe. The EU project EUROAGEISM H2020 (2017-2021) that focuses on PIM prescribing and regulatory measures in Central and Eastern European countries must consider these limits.

Medication use in older patients and age-blind approach: narrative literature review (insufficient evidence on the efficacy and safety of drugs in older age, frequent use of PIMs and polypharmacy, and underuse of highly beneficial nonpharmacological strategies)

INTRODUCTION

The importance of rational drug therapy is increasing with the aging of the population. Since one of the main reasons for inappropriate drug prescribing is also the "age-blind" approach, which results in ageist practices, this narrative literature review focuses on the description of the main barriers related to insufficient individualization of drug regimens associated with such age-blind approaches.

METHODOLOGY

A narrative literature review using the PubMed, WoS, Embase, and Scopus databases was conducted by the EU COST Action IS1402. Experts in different scientific fields from six countries (the Czech Republic, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Serbia, and Turkey) worked in four specific areas: (1) underrepresentation of older adults in clinical trials and clinical and ethical consequences; (2) insufficient consideration of age-related changes and geriatric frailty in the evaluation of the therapeutic value of drugs; (3) frequent prescribing of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs); and (4) frequent underuse of highly beneficial nonpharmacological strategies (e.g., exercise).

RESULTS

Older patients are underrepresented in clinical trials. Therefore, rigorous observational geriatric research is needed in order to obtain evidence on the real efficacy and safety of frequently used drugs, and e.g. developed geriatric scales and frailty indexes for claims databases should help to stimulate such research. The use of PIMs, unfortunately, is still highly prevalent in Europe: 22.6% in community-dwelling older patients and 49.0% in institutionalized older adults. Specific tests to detect the majority of age-related pharmacological changes are usually not available in everyday clinical practice, which limits the estimation of drug risks and possibilities to individualize drug therapy in geriatric patients before drug prescription. Moreover, the role of some nonpharmacological  strategies is highly underestimated in older adults in contrast to frequent use of polypharmacy. Among nonpharmacological strategies, particularly physical exercise was highly effective in reducing functional decline, frailty, and the risk of falls in the majority of clinical studies.

CONCLUSION

Several regulatory and clinical barriers contribute to insufficient knowledge on the therapeutic value of drugs in older patients, age-blind approach, and inappropriate prescribing. New clinical and observational research is needed, including data on comprehensive geriatric assessment and frailty, to document the real efficacy and safety of frequently used medications.

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

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

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

RESULTS

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

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Using EMR-enabled computerized decision support systems to reduce prescribing of potentially inappropriate medications: a narrative review

Prescribing of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) that pose more risk than benefit in older patients is a common occurrence across all healthcare settings. Reducing such prescribing has been challenging despite multiple interventions, including educational campaigns, audits and feedback, geriatrician assessment and formulary restrictions. With the increasing uptake of electronic medical records (EMRs) across hospitals, clinics and residential aged care facilities (RACFs), integrated with computerized physician order entry (CPOE) and e-prescribing, opportunities exist for incorporating clinical decision support systems (CDSS) into EMR at the point of care. This narrative review assessed the process and outcomes of using EMR-enabled CDSS to reduce the prescribing of PIMs. We searched PubMed for relevant articles published up to January 2018 and focused on those that described EMR-enabled CDSS that assisted prescribers to make changes at the time of ordering PIMs in adults. Computerized systems offering only medication reconciliation, dose checks, monitoring for medication errors, or basic formulary information were not included. In addition to outcome measures of medication-related processes and adverse drug events, qualitative data relating to factors that influence effectiveness of EMR-enabled CDSS were also gathered from selected studies. We analysed 20 studies comprising 10 randomized trials and 10 observational studies performed in hospitals (n = 8), ambulatory care clinics (n = 9) and RACFs (n = 3). Studies varied in patient populations (although most involved older patients), type of CDSS, method of linkage with EMR, study designs and outcome measures. However, assuming little publication bias, the totality of evidence favoured EMR-enabled CDSS as being effective in reducing the prescribing of PIMs in hospitals, although results were more mixed for ambulatory care settings and RACFs. While absolute effects in most positive studies were modest, they suggest EMR-enabled CDSS are feasible and acceptable to clinicians, and if certain design features are adhered to, there is potential for even greater impact.

Negotiating "Unmeasurable Harm and Benefit": Perspectives of General Practitioners and Consultant Pharmacists on Deprescribing in the Primary Care Setting

The use of multiple medicines, known as polypharmacy, poses a risk of harm that is greatest in older adults with multimorbidity. Deprescribing aims to improve health outcomes through ceasing medicines that are no longer necessary or appropriate due to changing clinical circumstances and patient priorities. General practitioners (GPs) and consultant pharmacists (CPs) are well positioned to facilitate deprescribing in primary care in partnership with older adults who present with inappropriate polypharmacy. In this article, we explore GPs' and CPs' views about inappropriate polypharmacy, the reasoning they apply to deprescribing in primary care, and identify factors that support or inhibit this process. Using focus group methodology and the Framework Method for thematic analysis, two major themes were discerned from the data-working through uncertainty and risk perception as a frame of reference. The findings provide important insights when devising methods for advancing and supporting deprescribing in primary care.