The deprescribing rainbow: a conceptual framework highlighting the importance of patient context when stopping medication in older people

"Starting to think that way from the start": approaching deprescribing decision-making for people accessing palliative care - a qualitative exploration of healthcare professionals views

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing has been defined as the planned process of reducing or stopping medications that may no longer be beneficial or are causing harm, with the goal of reducing medication burden while improving patient quality of life. At present, little is known about the specific challenges of decision-making to support deprescribing for patients who are accessing palliative care. By exploring the perspectives of healthcare professionals, this qualitative study aimed to address this gap, and explore the challenges of, and potential solutions to, making decisions about deprescribing in a palliative care context.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals in-person or via video call, between August 2022 - January 2023. Perspectives on approaches to deprescribing in palliative care; when and how they might deprescribe; and the role of carers and family members within this process were discussed. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Reflexive thematic analysis enabled the development of themes. QSR NVivo (Version 12) facilitated data management. Ethical approval was obtained from the NHS Health Research Authority (ref 305394).

RESULTS

Twenty healthcare professionals were interviewed, including: medical consultants, nurses, specialist pharmacists, and general practitioners (GPs). Participants described the importance of deprescribing decision-making, and that it should be a considered, proactive, and planned process. Three themes were developed from the data, which centred on: (1) professional attitudes, competency and responsibility towards deprescribing; (2) changing the culture of deprescribing; and (3) involving the patient and family/caregivers in deprescribing decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

This study sought to explore the perspectives of healthcare professionals with responsibility for making deprescribing decisions with people accessing palliative care services. A range of healthcare professionals identified the importance of supporting decision-making in deprescribing, so it becomes a proactive process within a patient's care journey, rather than a reactive consequence. Future work should explore how healthcare professionals, patients and their family can be supported in the shared decision-making processes of deprescribing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Ethical approval was obtained from the NHS Health Research Authority (ref 305394).

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.

Challenges in Deprescribing among Older Adults in Post-Acute Care Transitions to Home

OBJECTIVES

Medications with a higher risk of harm or that are unlikely to be beneficial are used by nearly all older patients in home health care (HHC). The objective of this study was to understand stakeholders' perspectives on challenges in deprescribing these medications for post-acute HHC patients.

DESIGN

Qualitative individual interviews were conducted with stakeholders involved with post-acute deprescribing.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANT

Older HHC patients, HHC nurses, pharmacists, and primary/acute care/post-acute prescribers from 9 US states participated in individual qualitative interviews.

MEASURES

Interview questions were focused on the experience, processes, roles, training, workflow, and challenges of deprescribing in hospital-to-home transitions. We used the constant comparison approach to identify and compare findings among patient, prescriber, and pharmacist and HHC nurse stakeholders.

RESULTS

We interviewed 9 older patients, 11 HHC nurses, 5 primary care physicians (PCP), 3 pharmacists, 1 hospitalist, and 1 post-acute nurse practitioner. Four challenges were described in post-acute deprescribing for HHC patients. First, PCPs' time constraints, the timing of patient encounters after hospital discharge, and the lack of prioritization of deprescribing make it difficult for PCPs to initiate post-acute deprescribing. Second, patients are often confused about their medications, despite the care team's efforts in educating the patients. Third, communication is challenging between HHC nurses, PCPs, specialists, and hospitalists. Fourth, the roles of HHC nurses and pharmacists are limited in care team collaboration and discussion about post-acute deprescribing.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Post-acute deprescribing relies on multiple parties in the care team yet it has challenges. Interventions to align the timing of deprescribing and that of post-acute care visits, prioritize deprescribing and allow clinicians more time to complete related tasks, improve medication education for patients, and ensure effective communication in the care team with synchronized electronic health record systems are needed to advance deprescribing during the transition from hospital to home.

Barriers and facilitators to reducing paracetamol use in low back pain: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Paracetamol is widely used for low back pain (LBP), but research questions its efficacy and safety. Patient education booklets have been explored for promoting deprescribing, but barriers and facilitators specific to LBP deprescribing remain unexamined.

OBJECTIVE

To identify contextual factors facilitating and obstructing successful deprescribing of paracetamol for LBP after receiving an educational booklet.

STUDY DESIGN

This study is part of an uncontrolled cohort feasibility study (CEASE NOW) in the community, recruiting from Musculoskeletal Australia and painaustralia.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Twenty-four participants with acute, sub-acute, or chronic LBP, self-reporting paracetamol consumption, were included.

METHODS

Thematic content analysis was used to analyze qualitative data on barriers and facilitators. Data were categorized by deprescribing outcomes: i) successful deprescribing, ii) attempted but failed, or iii) no attempt. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted within one week after each participant completed the one-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Successful deprescribing was facilitated by supportive healthcare professionals, willingness, high self-efficacy, fear of future illness, and diverse strategies for deprescribing plans. Barriers included unsupportive healthcare professionals and fear of flare-ups. Participants not attempting deprescribing believed it unnecessary, perceived it as effortful, unquestioningly trusted healthcare professionals, and lacked risk awareness.

CONCLUSIONS

Support from healthcare professionals, patient willingness, perceived necessity, risk awareness, effort, and varied strategies influence deprescribing outcomes for LBP patients using paracetamol. Addressing these factors is crucial when designing interventions to promote safe and effective deprescribing in LBP management.

Stakeholder Perspectives on Factors Related to Deprescribing Potentially Inappropriate Medications in Older Adults Receiving Dialysis

BACKGROUND

Potentially inappropriate medications, or medications that generally carry more risk of harm than benefit in older adults, are commonly prescribed to older adults receiving dialysis. Deprescribing, a systematic approach to reducing or stopping a medication, is a potential solution to limit potentially inappropriate medications use. Our objective was to identify clinicians and patient perspectives on factors related to deprescribing to inform design of a deprescribing program for dialysis clinics.

METHODS

We conducted rapid qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews and focus groups with clinicians (dialysis clinicians, primary care providers, and pharmacists) and patients (adults receiving hemodialysis aged 65 years or older and those aged 55-64 years who were prefrail or frail) from March 2019 to December 2020.

RESULTS

We interviewed 76 participants (53 clinicians [eight focus groups and 11 interviews] and 23 patients). Among clinicians, 24 worked in dialysis clinics, 18 worked in primary care, and 11 were pharmacists. Among patients, 13 (56%) were aged 65 years or older, 14 (61%) were Black race, and 16 (70%) reported taking at least one potentially inappropriate medication. We identified four themes (and corresponding subthemes) of contextual factors related to deprescribing potentially inappropriate medications: ( 1 ) system-level barriers to deprescribing (limited electronic medical record interoperability, time constraints and competing priorities), ( 2 ) undefined comanagement among clinicians (unclear role delineation, clinician caution about prescriber boundaries), ( 3 ) limited knowledge about potentially inappropriate medications (knowledge limitations among clinicians and patients), and ( 4 ) patients prioritize symptom control over potential harm (clinicians expect resistance to deprescribing, patient weigh risks and benefits).

CONCLUSIONS

Challenges to integration of deprescribing into dialysis clinics included siloed health systems, time constraints, comanagement behaviors, and clinician and patient knowledge and attitudes toward deprescribing.

Deprescribing research in nursing home residents using routinely collected healthcare data: a conceptual framework

BACKGROUND

Efforts are needed to strengthen evidence and guidance for appropriate deprescribing for older nursing home (NH) residents, who are disproportionately affected by polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing. Given the challenges of conducting randomized drug withdrawal studies in this population, data from observational studies of routinely collected healthcare data can be used to identify patients who are apparent candidates for deprescribing and evaluate subsequent health outcomes. To improve the design and interpretation of observational studies examining determinants, risks, and benefits of deprescribing specific medications in older NH residents, we sought to propose a conceptual framework of the determinants of deprescribing in older NH residents.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of observational studies examining patterns and potential determinants of discontinuing or de-intensifying (i.e., reducing) medications for NH residents. We searched PubMed through September 2021 and included studies meeting the following criteria: conducted among adults aged 65 + in the NH setting; (2) observational study designs; (3) discontinuation or de-intensification as the primary outcome with key determinants as independent variables. We conceptualized deprescribing as a behavior through a social-ecological lens, potentially influenced by factors at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, community, and policy levels.

RESULTS

Our search in PubMed identified 250 potentially relevant studies published through September 2021. A total of 14 studies were identified for inclusion and were subsequently synthesized to identify and group determinants of deprescribing into domains spanning the five core social-ecological levels. Our resulting framework acknowledges that deprescribing is strongly influenced by intrapersonal, patient-level clinical factors that modify the expected benefits and risks of deprescribing, including index condition attributes (e.g., disease severity), attributes of the medication being considered for deprescribing, co-prescribed medications, and prognostic factors. It also incorporates the hierarchical influences of interpersonal differences relating to healthcare providers and family caregivers, NH facility and health system organizational structures, community trends and norms, and finally healthcare policies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our proposed framework will serve as a useful tool for future studies seeking to use routinely collected healthcare data sources and observational study designs to evaluate determinants, risks, and benefits of deprescribing for older NH residents.

The Barriers to Deprescription in Older Patients: A Survey of Spanish Clinicians

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

There are barriers to deprescription that hinder its implementation in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to analyse the main barriers and limitations of the deprescription process perceived by physicians who care for multipathological patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The "deprescription questionnaire of elderly patients" was adapted to an online format and sent to physicians in geriatrics. Question 1 is a reference to establish agreement or disagreement with this practice. The influence of different aspects of deprescription was analysed via the demographic characteristics of the clinicians and perceptions of the various barriers (questions 2-9) by means of bivariate analysis. Based on the latter, a multivariate model was carried out to demonstrate the relationship between barriers and the degree of deprescription agreement among respondents.

RESULTS

Of the 72 respondents, 72.2% were in favour of deprescribing. Regarding the analyses, the demographic characteristics did not influence rankings. The deprescription of preventive drugs and consensus with patients were associated with a positive attitude towards deprescribing, while withdrawing drugs prescribed by other professionals, time constraints and patient reluctance emerged as possible barriers. The only factor independently associated with deprescribing was lack of time.

CONCLUSIONS

Time was found to be the main barrier to deprescription. Training, the creation of multidisciplinary teams and integrated health systems are key facilitators.

Feasibility of the Implementation of LESS-CHRON in Clinical Practice: A Pilot Intervention Study in Older Patients With Multimorbidity

Background and Objectives

Potentially inappropriate medication refers to the prescription of drugs whose risks outweigh the benefits. There are different pharmacotherapeutic optimization strategies to detect and avoid potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), namely deprescription. The List of Evidence-Based Deprescribing for Chronic Patients (LESS-CHRON) criteria were designed as a tool to systematize the deprescribing process. LESS-CHRON has established itself as one of the most suitable to be applied in older (≥65 years) multimorbid patients. However, it has not been applied to these patients, to measure the impact on their treatment. For this reason, a pilot study was conducted to analyze the feasibility of implementing this tool in a care pathway.

Research Design and Methods

A pre-post quasi-experimental study was conducted. Older outpatients with multimorbidity from the Internal Medicine Unit of a benchmark Hospital were included. The main variable was feasibility in clinical practice, understood as the likelihood that the deprescribing intervention recommended by the pharmacist would be applied to the patient. Success rate, therapeutic, and anticholinergic burden, and other variables related to health care utilization were analyzed.

Results

A total of 95 deprescribing reports were prepared. Forty-three were evaluated by the physician who assessed the recommendations made by pharmacists. This translates into an implementation feasibility of 45.3%. The application of LESS-CHRON identified 92 PIMs. The acceptance rate was 76.7% and after 3 months 82.7% of the stopped drugs remained deprescribed. A reduction in anticholinergic burden and enhanced adherence was achieved. However, no improvement was found in clinical or health care utilization variables.

Discussion and Implications

The implementation of the tool in a care pathway is feasible. The intervention has achieved great acceptance and deprescribing has been successful in a not insignificant percentage. Future studies with a larger sample size are necessary to obtain more robust results in clinical and health care utilization variables.

Harm and Medication-Type Impact Agreement with Hypothetical Deprescribing Recommendations: a Vignette-Based Experiment with Older Adults Across Four Countries

BACKGROUND

Little is known about what factors are important to older adults when deciding whether to agree with a recommendation to deprescribe.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the extent to which medication type and rationale for potential discontinuation influence older adults' acceptance of deprescribing.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional 2 (drug: lansoprazole - treat indigestion; simvastatin - prevent cardiovascular disease) by 3 (deprescribing rationale: lack of benefit; potential for harm; both) experimental design.

PARTICIPANTS

Online panelists aged ≥65 years from Australia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States INTERVENTIONS: Participants were presented with a hypothetical patient experiencing polypharmacy whose PCP discussed stopping a medication. We randomized participants to receive one of six vignettes.

MAIN MEASURES

We measured agreement with deprescribing (6-point Likert scale, "Strongly disagree (1)" and "Strongly agree (6)") for the hypothetical patient as the primary outcome. We also measured participants' personality traits, perceptions of risk and uncertainty, and attitudes towards polypharmacy and deprescribing.

KEY RESULTS

Among 5311 participants (93.3% completion rate), the mean (M) agreement with deprescribing for the hypothetical patient was 4.71 (95% confidence interval (CI): 4.67, 4.75). Participants reported higher agreement with stopping lansoprazole (n=2656) (M=4.90, 95% CI: 4.85, 4.95) compared to simvastatin (n=2655) (M=4.53, 95% CI: 4.47, 4.58), P<.001. Participants who received the combination rationale (n=1786) reported higher agreement with deprescribing (M=4.83, 95% CI: 4.76, 4.89) compared to those who received the rationales on lack of benefit (n=1755) (M=4.66, 95% CI: 4.60, 4.73) or potential for harm (n=1770) (M=4.65, 95% CI 4.58, 4.72). In adjusted regression analyses (n=5062), participants with a higher desire to engage in health promotion behaviors (b=0.08, 95% CI 0.02, 0.13) or need for certainty (b=0.12, 95% CI 0.04, 0.20) reported higher agreement with deprescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

Older adults across four countries were accepting of deprescribing in the setting of polypharmacy. The medication type and rationale for discontinuation were important factors in the decision-making process.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04676282, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04676282?term=vordenberg&draw=2&rank=1.

Prognostic impact of cardiovascular polypharmacy on octogenarians with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUNDS

Drug treatments of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) have a little clinical benefit, but cardiovascular polypharmacy (CP) trend is observed in elderly HFpEF. We investigated the impact of CP on octogenarian with HFpEF.

METHODS

We examined 783 consecutive octogenarians (≥80 years) enrolled in the PURSUIT-HFpEF registry. We defined medications for hypertension, dyslipidemia, heart failure (HF), coronary artery disease, stroke, peripheral artery disease, and atrial fibrillation as cardiovascular medications (CM). In this study, we defined CP as ≥5 CM. We investigated whether CP was correlated with the composite end point (CE) of all-cause mortality and HF rehospitalization.

RESULTS

The proportion with CP was 51.9% (n = 406). Background characteristics correlated with CP were frailty, history of coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation and left atrial dimension. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards analysis showed CP was significantly and independently correlated with CE (hazard ratio (HR): 1.31; 95% confidence Interval (CI): 1.01-1.70) in addition to age, clinical frailty scale, history of HF admission and N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide. Kaplan-Meier curve analysis showed that, compared with the non-CP group, the CP group had significantly higher risk of CE and HF (HR: 1.27; 95%CI: 1.04-1.56; P = 0.02 and HR: 1.46; 95%CI: 1.13-1.88; P < 0.01, respectively), but not any-cause death. In addition, diuretics were correlated with CE (HR: 1.61; 95%CI: 1.17-2.22; P < 0.01), but antithrombotic drugs and HFpEF medications were not.

CONCLUSIONS

CP at discharge is a prognostic factor driven by HF rehospitalization in octogenarians with HFpEF. In these patients, diuretics may be correlated with the prognosis.

Are there socioeconomic inequalities in polypharmacy among older people? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic status (SES) may influence prescribing, concordance and adherence to medication regimens. This review set out to investigate the association between polypharmacy and an individual's socioeconomic status.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analyses of observational studies was conducted across four databases. Older people (≥ 55 years) from any healthcare setting and residing location were included. The search was conducted across four databases: Medline (OVID), Web of Science, Embase (OVID) and CINAHL. Observational studies from 1990 that reported polypharmacy according to SES were included. A random-effects model was undertaken comparing those with polypharmacy (≥ 5 medication usage) with no polypharmacy. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and standard errors (SE) were calculated for each study.

RESULTS

Fifty-four articles from 13,412 hits screened met the inclusion criteria. The measure of SES used were education (50 studies), income (18 studies), wealth (6 studies), occupation (4 studies), employment (7 studies), social class (5 studies), SES categories (2 studies) and deprivation (1 study). Thirteen studies were excluded from the meta-analysis. Lower SES was associated with higher polypharmacy usage: individuals of lower educational backgrounds displayed 21% higher odds to be in receipt of polypharmacy when compared to those of higher education backgrounds. Similar findings were shown for occupation, income, social class, and socioeconomic categories.

CONCLUSIONS

There are socioeconomic inequalities in polypharmacy among older people, with people of lower SES significantly having higher odds of polypharmacy. Future work could examine the reasons for these inequalities and explore the interplay between polypharmacy and multimorbidity.

Self-reported reasons for reducing or stopping antidepressant medications in primary care: thematic analysis of the diamond longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

Current treatment guidelines advise that the deprescribing of antidepressants should occur around 6 months post-remission of symptoms. However, this is not routinely occurring in clinical practice, with between 30% and 50% of antidepressant users potentially continuing treatment with no clinical benefit. To support patients to deprescribe antidepressant treatment when clinically appropriate, it is important to understand what is important to patients when making the decision to reduce or cease antidepressants in a naturalistic setting.

AIM

The current study aimed to describe the self-reported reasons primary care patients have for reducing or stopping their antidepressant medication.

METHODS

Three hundred and seven participants in the diamond longitudinal study reported taking an SSRI/SNRI over the life of the study. Of the 307, 179 reported stopping or tapering their antidepressant during computer-assisted telephone interviews and provided a reason for doing so. A collective case study approach was used to collate the reasons for stopping or tapering.

FINDINGS

Reflexive thematic analysis of patient-reported factors revealed five overarching themes; 1. Depression; 2. Medication; 3. Healthcare system; 4. Psychosocial, and; 5. Financial. These findings are used to inform suggestions for the development and implementation of antidepressant deprescribing discussions in clinical practice.

Disentangling concepts of inappropriate polypharmacy in old age: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Polypharmacy is a common concern, especially in the older population. In some countries more that 50% of all individuals over 60 receive five or more drugs, most often due to multimorbidity and increased longevity. However, polypharmacy is associated with multiple adverse events, and more medication may not always be the answer. The terms "appropriate" and "inappropriate" are often used to distinguish between "much" and "too much" medications in relation to polypharmacy in research and practice, but no explicit definition exists to describe what these terms encompass. The aim of this review is to unfold the different understandings of and perspectives on (in)appropriate polypharmacy and suggest a framework for further research and practice.

METHOD

A scoping review was conducted using the framework of Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al. Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane database, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for references in English, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish using the search string "Polypharmacy" AND "Appropriate" OR "Inappropriate". Data was extracted on author information, aims and objectives, methodology, study population and setting, country of origin, main findings and implications, and all text including the words "appropriate," "inappropriate," and "polypharmacy." Qualitative meaning condensation analysis was used and data charted using descriptive and thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Of 3982 references, a total of 92 references were included in the review. Most references were from 2016-2021, from fields related to medicine or pharmacy, and occurred within primary and secondary healthcare settings. Based on the qualitative analysis, a framework were assembled consisting of Context, three domains (Standardization, Practices and Values & Concerns) and Patient Perspective.

CONCLUSION

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a concept loaded by its heterogeneity and the usefulness of a single definition is doubtful. Instead, the framework suggested in this article representing different dimensions of inappropriate polypharmacy may serve as an initial strategy for focusing research and practice on polypharmacy in old age.

Perspectives on Deprescribing in long-term care: qualitative findings from nurses, aides, residents, and proxies

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing initiatives in the long-term care (LTC) setting are often unsuccessful or not sustained. Prior research has considered how physicians and pharmacists feel about deprescribing, yet little is known about the perspectives of frontline nursing staff and residents. Our aim was to elicit perspectives from LTC nursing staff, patients, and proxies regarding their experiences and preferences for deprescribing in order to inform future deprescribing efforts in LTC.

METHODS

This study was a qualitative analysis of interviews with nurses, nurse aides, a nurse practitioner, residents, and proxies (family member and/or responsible party) from three LTC facilities. The research team used semi-structured interviews. Guides were designed to inform an injury prevention intervention. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. A qualitative framework analysis was used to summarize themes related to deprescribing. The full study team reviewed the summary to identify actionable, clinical implications.

RESULTS

Twenty-six interviews with 28 participants were completed, including 11 nurse aides, three residents, seven proxies, one nurse practitioner, and six nurses. Three themes emerged that were consistent across facilities: 1) build trust with team members, including residents and proxies; 2) identify motivating factors that lead to resident, proxy, nurse practitioner, and staff acceptance of deprescribing; 3) standardize supportive processes to encourage deprescribing. These themes suggest several actionable steps to improve deprescribing initiatives including: 1) tell stories about successful deprescribing, 2) provide deprescribing education to frontline staff, 3) align medication risk/benefit discussions with what matters most to the resident, 4) standardize deprescribing monitoring protocols, 5) standardize interprofessional team huddles and care plan meetings to include deprescribing conversations, and 6) strengthen non-pharmacologic treatment programs.

CONCLUSIONS

By interviewing LTC stakeholders, we identified three important themes regarding successful deprescribing: Trust, Motivating Factors, and Supportive Processes. These themes may translate into actionable steps for clinicians and researchers to improve and sustain person-centered deprescribing initiatives.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04242186.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults with cancer receiving specialist palliative care: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Older adults (≥ 65 years) with cancer receiving palliative care often have other health conditions requiring multiple medications.

AIM

To describe and assess the appropriateness of prescribing for older adults with cancer in the last seven days of life in an inpatient palliative care setting.

METHOD

Retrospective observational study of medical records for 180 patients (60.6% male; median age: 74 years; range 65-94 years) over a two-year period. Medication appropriateness was assessed using: STOPPFrail, OncPal deprescribing guideline and criteria for identifying Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing in older adults with Cancer receiving Palliative Care (PIP-CPC).

RESULTS

94.5% of patients had at least one other health condition (median 3, IQR 2-5). The median number of medications increased from five (IQR 3-7) seven days before death, to 11 medications on the day of death (IQR 9-15). The prevalence of PIP varied depending on the tool used: STOPPFrail (version 1: 17.2%, version 2: 19.4%), OncPal (12.8%), PIP-CPC (30%). However, the retrospective nature of the study limited the applicability of the tools. Increasing number of medications had a statistically significant effect on risk of PIP across all tools (STOPPFrail (version 1: 1.29 (1.13-1.37), version 2: 1.30 (1.16-1.48)); OncPal 1.13 (1.01-1.27); PIP-CPC 0.70 (0.61-0.82)).

CONCLUSION

This study found that the number of medications prescribed to older adults with cancer increased as time to death approached, and the prevalence of PIP varied with the application of different tools. The study also highlights the difficulties of examining PIP in this patient cohort.

Motivating deprescribing conversations for patients with Alzheimer's disease and related dementias: a descriptive study

Introduction:

Older adults with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) are at increased risk of harm due to prescribing of potentially inappropriate medications. Encouraging patients and caregivers to talk with their providers about potentially inappropriate medications could stimulate deprescribing. Our objective was to explore whether mailing educational materials to patients with ADRD might activate patients or caregivers to initiate a conversation with their provider about potentially inappropriate medications.

Methods:

We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients with ADRD, caregivers of patients with ADRD, and healthcare providers. All participants were shown educational materials referencing potentially inappropriate medications and suggestions to promote deprescribing. Interviews explored reactions to the materials, the idea of patients and caregivers initiating a conversation about deprescribing, and the deprescribing process. Interview transcripts were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.

Results:

We conducted a total of 27 interviews: 9 with caregivers only, 2 with patients only, 3 with patient–caregiver dyads, and 13 with providers. Patients and caregivers reported that if a medication might cause harm, it would motivate them to talk to their provider about the medication. Trust in the provider could facilitate or inhibit such conversations; conversations would be more likely if there were prior positive experiences asking questions of the provider. Providers were receptive to patients and caregivers initiating conversations about their medications, as they valued deprescribing as part of their clinical practice and welcome informed patients and caregivers as participants in decision-making about medication.

Conclusion:

Mailing educational materials about potentially inappropriate medications to community-dwelling patients with ADRD may promote deprescribing conversations. Ongoing pragmatic trials will determine whether such interventions stimulate deprescribing conversations and achieve reductions in prescribing of inappropriate medications.

Plain Language Summary

Encouraging patients with Alzheimer’s disease to talk with their providers about medications that may cause harm

Introduction: Older adults with Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) are sometimes prescribed medications that may cause harm, especially when taken for extended periods of time. Patients and their caregivers may not know about the risks. Doctors know of the risks but may not address them due to competing priorities or other challenges in providing care to these patients with complex needs. Encouraging the patient or their caregiver to talk to their doctor about their medications might help to reduce the use of medications that are not beneficial. This study’s goal was to explore whether sending educational materials to patients with ADRD might encourage patients or caregivers to ask their doctor about their medications.

Methods: We interviewed patients with ADRD, caregivers, and doctors. We showed them educational materials that suggested patients and their caregivers talk to their doctor about reducing or stopping medications that may be harmful. We asked for reactions to the materials and to the idea of talking to the doctor about stopping the medication.

Results: We conducted 27 interviews: 9 with caregivers only, 2 with patients only, 3 with patient–caregiver dyads, and 12 with doctors. Patients and caregivers said learning that a medication might cause harm would motivate them to talk to their doctor about the medication. Trust in their doctor was important. Some patients and caregivers were comfortable asking questions about medications, while others were reluctant to challenge the doctor. Doctors were open to patients and caregivers asking about medications and felt it was important that patients not take medications that are not needed.

Conclusion: Sending educational materials to patients with ADRD and caregivers may encourage them to talk with their doctors about stopping or reducing medications. Studies are needed to learn whether such materials lead to reductions in prescribing of potential harmful medications.

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.

Polypharmacy and medication regimen complexity in older patients with hemophilia or von willebrand disease: the M'HEMORRH-AGE study

BACKGROUND

In older patients, multiple chronic conditions lead topolypharmacy which is associated with a higher risk of adverse drug events. Nowadays, the medication exposure of older patients with bleeding disorders has been poorly explored.

AIM

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of polypharmacy and the medication regimen complexity in older community-dwelling patients with hemophilia or von Willebrand Disease (VWD).

METHOD

The M'HEMORRH-AGE study (Medication in AGEd patients with HEMORRHagic disease) is a multicenter prospective observational study. Community-dwelling patients over 65 years with hemophilia or VWD were included in the study. The rate of polypharmacy (use of 5 to 9 drugs daily) and excessive polypharmacy (use of 10 or more medications daily) was assessed. The complexity of prescribed medication regimens was assessed using the Medication Regimen Complexity Index (MRCI).

RESULTS

Overall, 142 older community-dwelling patients with hemophilia (n = 89) or VWD (n = 53) were included (mean age: 72.8 (5.8) years). Prevalence of polypharmacy and excessive polypharmacy were 40.8% and 17.6%, respectively. The mean MRCI score was 16.9 (6.1). The mean MRCI score related to bleeding disorders medications was 6.9 (1.1). There was no significant difference between older hemophilia patients and VWD patients.

CONCLUSION

The M'HEMORRH-AGE study showed that more than half of older community-dwelling patients were affected by polypharmacy. In addition, the high medication regimen complexity in this older population suggests that interventions focusing on medication review and deprescribing should be conducted to reduce polypharmacy with its negative health-related outcomes.

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric validation of a Spanish version of the revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire

OBJECTIVES

Successful deprescribing depends largely on factors related to the patient. The revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire was developed with the objective of evaluating the beliefs and attitudes of older adults and caregivers towards deprescribing. The present study was designed to validate a Spanish version of the rPATD questionnaire, both the versions for older adults and for caregivers, through a qualitative validation phase and the analysis of its psychometric properties.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional validation study.

SETTING

Primary care settings in Málaga (Spain).

PARTICIPANTS

A sample of 120 subjects (60 patients with polypharmacy and 60 caregivers of patients with polypharmacy) were enrolled in the study.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

In the qualitative validation stage, the rPATD questionnaire was translated/back-translated and subjected to a cross-cultural adaptation to evaluate its face validity and feasibility. Next, its psychometric properties were assessed. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate construct validity. Internal consistency was determined using Cronbach's alpha test. Criterion validity through pre-established hypotheses from the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) Specific-Concerns Scale, and test-retest reliability were analysed.

RESULTS

Confirmatory factor analysis verified the four-factor structure of the original rPATD questionnaire, with items loading into four factors: involvement, burden, appropriateness and concerns about stopping. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the factors ranged from 0.683 to 0.879. The burden, appropriateness and concerns about stopping factors were significantly correlated with the BMQ Specific-Concerns Score, except for the concerns about stopping factor in the older adults' version. The consistency of the items between administration times (test-retest reliability) showed weighted Cohen's kappa values ranging from moderate (>0.4) to very good (>0.8).

CONCLUSIONS

The Spanish version of the rPATD questionnaire is a feasible, valid and reliable instrument to evaluate attitudes towards deprescribing in Spanish-speaking patients and caregivers.

Polypharmacy definition and prevalence in heart failure: a systematic review

Polypharmacy and heart failure are becoming increasingly common due to an ageing population and the rise of multimorbidity. Treating heart failure necessitates prescribing of multiple medications, in-line with national and international guidelines predisposing patients to polypharmacy. This review aims to identify how polypharmacy has been defined among heart failure patients in the literature, whether a standard definition in relation to heart failure could be identified and to describe the prevalence. The Healthcare Database Advanced Search (HDAS) was used to search EMBASE, MEDLINE, PubMed, Cinahl and PsychInfo from inception until March 2021. Articles were included of any design, in patients ≥ 18 years old, with a diagnosis of heart failure; that explicitly define and measure polypharmacy. Data were thereafter extracted and described using a narrative synthesis approach. A total of 7522 articles were identified with 22 meeting the inclusion criteria. No standard definition of polypharmacy was identified. The most common definition was that of " ≥ 5 medications." Polypharmacy prevalence was high in heart failure populations, ranging from 17.2 to 99%. Missing or heterogeneous methods for defining heart failure and poor patient cohort characterisation limited the impact of most studies. Polypharmacy, most commonly defined as ≥ 5 medications, is highly prevalent in the heart failure population. There is a need for an internationally agreed definition of polypharmacy, allowing accurate review of polypharmacy issues. Whether an arbitrary numerical cut-off is a suitable definition, rather than medication appropriateness, remains unclear. Further studies are necessary to understand the relationship between polypharmacy with specific types of heart failure and related comorbidities.

Potentially inappropriate medications and anticholinergic and sedative burden in older patients with haemophilia or von Willebrand disease: The M'HEMORRH-AGE study

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

In older patients, multiple chronic conditions lead to the intake of multiple medications and a higher risk of adverse drug events. The exposure to inappropriate medications in older patients with bleeding disorders is poorly explored. The aim of this study was to describe the exposure to potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and medications with anticholinergic and sedative properties in older community-dwelling patients with haemophilia or von Willebrand Disease (VWD).

METHODS

The M'HEMORRH-AGE study (Medication in AGEd patients with HAEMORRHagic disease) is a multicentre prospective observational study. Community-dwelling patients over 65 years with haemophilia or VWD were included in the study. PIMs were identified using the EU(7)-PIM list, and the anticholinergic and sedative drug exposure was measured using the Drug Burden Index.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

142 older community-dwelling patients with haemophilia (n = 89) or VWD (n = 53) were included (mean age: 72.8 ± 5.8 years). PIMs were used by 45.8% of older patients and were mainly represented by cardiovascular (34.9%), nervous systems (26.7%) and alimentary tract and metabolism PIMs (25.6%). Regarding anticholinergic and/or sedative medications, 37.3% of older patients were exposed mainly due to nervous system medications (68.3%), for example analgesics.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The M'HEMORRH-AGE study showed the exposure to PIMs and anticholinergic/sedative medications was high in older community-dwelling patients with haemophilia or VWD. Interventions focusing on deprescription of these inappropriate medications should be conducted in this specific population.

Optimising prescribing practices in older adults with multimorbidity: a scoping review of guidelines

OBJECTIVE

Inappropriate polypharmacy occurs when multiple medications are prescribed without clear indications or where harms outweigh their benefits. The aims of this scoping review are to (1) identify prescribing guidelines that are available for older adults with multimorbidity and (2) to identify cross-cutting themes used in these guidelines.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library databases, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, grey literature sources, six key geriatrics journals, and reference lists of identified review papers. The search was conducted in November 2018 and updated in September 2019.

STUDY SELECTION

General prescribing guidelines tailored to or for adults including older adults with multimorbidity.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data for publication description, guideline characteristics, information for users and criteria were extracted. The synthesis contains summarised qualitative descriptions of the studies and guideline characteristics as well as identified cross-cutting themes.

RESULTS

Our search strategy yielded 10 427 unique citations, of which 70 fulfilled the inclusion criteria for synthesis. Among these, there were 61 unique guidelines and tools which used implicit, explicit, mixed or other approaches in the prescriber decision-making process. There are 11 cross-cutting themes identified in the guidelines. Prescriber-related themes are: conduct a comprehensive assessment before prescribing, identify patients' needs, goals and priorities, adopt shared decision-making, consider evidence-based recommendations, use clinical prescribing tools, incorporate multidisciplinary inputs and embrace technology-enabled prescribing. Wider organisation-related and system-related themes related to education, training and the work environment are also identified.

CONCLUSIONS

From guidelines and tools identified, eleven cross-cutting themes provide a usable knowledge base when seeking to optimise prescribing among older adults with multimorbidity. Incorporating these themes in an approach that uses mixed criteria and implementation information could facilitate greater uptake of published prescribing recommendations.

Patient and Physician Perspectives of Deprescribing Potentially Inappropriate Medications in Older Adults with a History of Falls: a Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

High-risk medications pose serious safety risks to older adults, including increasing the risk of falls. Deprescribing potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in older adults who have experienced a fall is a key element of fall reduction strategies. However, continued use of PIMs in older adults is common, and clinicians may face substantial deprescribing barriers.

OBJECTIVE

Explore patient and clinician experiences with and perceptions of deprescribing PIMs in patients with a history of falls.

DESIGN

We led guided patient feedback sessions to explore deprescribing scenarios with patient stakeholders and conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care physicians (PCPs) to explore knowledge and awareness of fall risk guidelines, deprescribing experiences, and barriers and facilitators to deprescribing.

PARTICIPANTS

PCPs from Kaiser Permanente Southern California (KPSC) and patient members of the KPSC Regional Patient Advisory Committee.

APPROACH

We used maximum variation sampling to identify PCPs with patients who had a fall, then categorized the resulting PIM dispense distribution for those patients into high and low frequency. We analyzed the data using a hybrid deductive-inductive approach. Coders applied initial deductively derived codes to the data, simultaneously using an open-code inductive approach to capture emergent themes.

KEY RESULTS

Physicians perceived deprescribing discussions as potentially contentious, even among patients with falls. Physicians reported varying comfort levels with deprescribing strategies: some felt that the conversations might be better suited to others (e.g., pharmacists), while others had well-planned negotiation strategies. Patients reported lack of clarity as to the reasons and goals of deprescribing and poor understanding of the seriousness of falls.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that key barriers to deprescribing include PCP trepidation about raising a contentious topic and insufficient patient awareness of the potential seriousness of falls. Findings suggest the need for multifaceted, multilevel deprescribing approaches with clinician training strategies, patient educational resources, and a focus on building trusting patient-clinician relationships.

Prescribing practices, patterns, and potential harms in patients receiving palliative care: A systematic scoping review

Background

Patients receiving palliative care often have existing comorbidities necessitating the prescribing of multiple medications. To maximize quality of life in this patient cohort, it is important to tailor prescribing of medication for preventing and treating existing illnesses and those for controlling symptoms, such as pain, according to individual specific needs.

Objectives

To provide an overview of peer-reviewed observational research on prescribing practices, patterns, and potential harms in patients receiving palliative care.

Methods

A systematic scoping review was conducted using four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science). Each database was searched from inception to May 2020. Search terms included 'palliative care,' 'end of life,' and 'prescribing.' Eligible studies had to examine prescribing for adults (≥18 years) receiving palliative care in any setting as a study aim or outcome. Studies focusing on single medication types (e.g., opioids), medication classes (e.g., chemotherapy), or clinical indications (e.g., pain) were excluded. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for scoping reviews, and the findings were described using narrative synthesis.

Results

Following deduplication, 16,565 unique citations were reviewed, and 56 studies met inclusion criteria. The average number of prescribed medications per patient ranged from 3 to 23. Typically, prescribing changes involved decreases in preventative medications and increases in symptom-specific medications closer to the time of death. Twenty-one studies assessed the appropriateness of prescribing using various tools. The prevalence of patients with ≥1 potentially inappropriate prescription ranged from 15 to 92%. Three studies reported on adverse drug events.

Conclusions

This scoping review provides a broad overview of existing research and shows that many patients receiving palliative care receive multiple medications closer to the time of death. Future research should focus in greater detail on prescribing appropriateness using tools specifically developed to guide prescribing in palliative care and the potential for harm.

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.

Managing Polypharmacy in Older Adults with Cancer Across Different Healthcare Settings

The care of older patients with cancer is becoming increasingly complex. Common challenges for this population include management of comorbidities, safe transitions of care, and appropriate medication use. In particular, polypharmacy-generally defined as the regular use of five or more medications-and inappropriate medication use can lead to adverse effects and poor outcomes in older adults with cancer, including falls, hospital readmissions, cognitive impairment, poor adherence to essential medications, chemotherapy toxicity, and increased mortality. Managing polypharmacy across different cancer care settings is often challenging. Providers face barriers to safe and successful medication management that may include lack of time, absence of reimbursement, underappreciation of the scale of polypharmacy-related harm, lack of ownership of deprescribing efforts, and poor communication across care settings. Existing literature on managing inappropriate medication use and polypharmacy in older adults with cancer has often focused on ideal state settings in which resources are plentiful and time is purposefully allocated for medication interventions. This paper presents a narrative, rather than a systematic review, of studies published in the past decade that provided detailed information on medication management and polypharmacy across cancer care settings. This review aims to also summarize different healthcare provider roles in taking action against inappropriate medication use and polypharmacy in older adults with cancer.

[Validation into Spanish of the revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire to assess patients' attitudes towards deprescribing. Research protocol]

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE

Polypharmacy has become a priority public health problem in developed countries. In response to its approach, deprescription stands out. Its success will depend largely on the attitudes and beliefs of patients towards the number of drugs they are taking and their willingness to initiate a process of deprescription. To explore these factors, researchers have developed the revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire, originally in English. The objective of this study is the validation into Spanish of rPATD questionnaire, both older adults and caregivers versions.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A first qualitative validation phase and a second phase of analysis of its psychometric characteristics will be carried out through an observational descriptive study of validation of a measurement instrument. One hundred and twenty subjects (polymedicated older adults and caregivers) from three health centers will be selected by consecutive sampling. The questionnaire will be provided and clinical and sociodemographic data will be collected. Feasibility, reliability (through internal consistency and intraobserver reliability) and validity (apparent, construct and criterion) of the questionnaire will be evaluated.

EXPECTED RESULTS

It is expected to obtain a questionnaire that will serve as a tool for the clinician to identify patients with a favorable predisposition to deprescription and that will allow to contribute the patient's perspective to this process.

CONCLUSION

The use of the rPATD questionnaire, alone or integrated into other more complex interventions, may lead to an improvement in the quality of care for the polymedicated patients.

The Effect of a Comprehensive, Interdisciplinary Medication Review on Quality of Life and Medication Use in Community Dwelling Older People with Polypharmacy

Background: We conducted a comprehensive medication review at the patients’ home, using data from electronic patient records, and with input from relevant specialists, general practitioners and pharmacists formulated and implemented recommendations to optimize medication use in patients aged 60+ years with polypharmacy. We evaluated the effect of this medication review on quality of life (QoL) and medication use. Methods: Cluster randomized controlled trial (stepped wedge), randomly assigning general practices to one of three consecutive steps. Patients received usual care until the intervention was implemented. Primary outcome was QoL (SF-36 and EQ-5D); secondary outcomes were medication changes, medication adherence and (instrumental) activities of daily living (ADL, iADL) which were measured at baseline, and around 6- and 12-months post intervention. Results: Twenty-four general practices included 360 women and 410 men with an average age of 75 years (SD 7.5). A positive effect on SF-36 mental health (estimated mean was stable in the intervention, but decreased in the control condition with −6.1, p = 0.009,) was found with a reduced number of medications at follow-up compared to the control condition. No significant effects were found on other QoL subscales, ADL, iADL or medication adherence. Conclusion: The medication review prevented decrease of mental health (SF36), with no significant effects on other outcome measures, apart from a reduction in the number of prescribed medications.

Exploring Patients' Attitudes Toward Deprescribing and Their Perception of Pharmacist Involvement in a European Country: A Cross-Sectional Study

PURPOSE

To explore how adult patients perceive deprescribing in a country with developing pharmaceutical care.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a multicenter cross-sectional study conducted in ten community pharmacies across Croatia. Community-dwelling adults 40 years and older, taking at least one prescription medication long term, were invited to participate. The revised and validated Patients' Attitude Towards Deprescribing Questionnaire was used to investigate community-dwelling adults' opinions on potential medication discontinuation. Questions regarding the patients' perception of pharmacist competences and involvement as well as patients' preferences in deprescribing were added. Collected data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics using descriptive and inferential statistical analysis. Binary logistic regression was used to explore potential predictive factors of willingness to have medication deprescribed. All tests were performed as two-tailed and a p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

A total of 315 adults aged 40 years and older completed the questionnaire. Majority of participants, 83.81% (95% CI, 79.72% to 87.90%) stated that they were satisfied with their medications, and 83.81% (95% CI, 79.72% to 87.90%) would be willing to deprescribe one or more medications. Participants expressed a positive attitude toward pharmacists' competences (68.89%, 95% CI, 63.75% to 74.03%) and involvement in deprescribing (71.11%, 95% CI, 66.08% to 76.14%). Participants who stated specific medication as deprescribing preference were more likely show dissatisfaction with current medication and show greater willingness to have medication deprescribed. Three factors were found to be associated with a positive attitude towards deprescribing: low concerns about stopping factor score (aOR 0.54, 95% CU=0.35-0.84; p=0.006), low appropriateness factor score (aOR 0.62, 95% CI=0.39-0.98; p=0.039), and a positive opinion on pharmacist involvement (aOR 2.35, 95% CI=1.18-4.70; p= 0.016).

CONCLUSION

This study showed the patient's willingness for deprescription as well as their positive attitude towards pharmacists being involved in the process. Results favour transition to a patient-centred care and shared-decision making model.

[Prevalence of prescription of anticholinergic/sedative burden drugs among older people with dementia living in nursing homes]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Dementia is one of the most frequent diseases in the elderly, being its prevalence of up to 64% in institutionalized people. In this population, in addition to antidementia drugs, it is common to prescribe drugs with anticholinergic/sedative burden that, due to their adverse effects, could worsen their functionality and cognitive status. The objective is to estimate the prevalence of the use of drugs with anticholinergic/ sedative burden in institutionalized older adults with dementia and to assess the associated factors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cross-sectional study developed in older with dementia living in nursing homes. The prevalence of prescription of anticholinergic/sedative drugs was estimated according to the Drug Burden Index (DBI). A comparative analysis of the DBI score was performed between different types of dementia as well as among various factors and according to the anticholinergic/sedative risk, establishing as a cut-off point of DBI≥1 (high anticholinergic/sedative risk).

RESULTS

178 residents were included. 83.7% had some drug with anticholinergic/sedative burden according to DBI. 50% had a DBI≥1 score. Residents with vascular dementia had a mean DBI of 1.34 (SD 0.84), a significantly higher score than residents with Alzheimer's disease (0.41, 95% CI 0.04-0.78).). Likewise, a higher DBI was associated with more polypharmacy (3.36; 95% CI 2.64-4.08), more falls, hospital admissions and emergency room visits (P<.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Polypharmacy and prescription of anticholinergic/sedative drugs is frequent among institutionalized older adults with dementia, finding an association between DBI, falls and hospital admissions or emergency department visits. Therefore, it is necessary to propose interdisciplinary pharmacotherapeutic optimization strategies.

Designing a Primary Care-Based Deprescribing Intervention for Patients with Dementia and Multiple Chronic Conditions: a Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Patients with dementia and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) frequently experience polypharmacy, increasing their risk of adverse drug events.

OBJECTIVES

To elucidate patient, family, and physician perspectives on medication discontinuation and recommended language for deprescribing discussions in order to inform an intervention to increase awareness of deprescribing among individuals with dementia and MCC, family caregivers and primary care physicians. We also explored participant views on culturally competent approaches to deprescribing.

DESIGN

Qualitative approach based on semi-structured interviews with patients, caregivers, and physicians.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients aged ≥ 65 years with claims-based diagnosis of dementia, ≥ 1 additional chronic condition, and ≥ 5 chronic medications were recruited from an integrated delivery system in Colorado and an academic medical center in Maryland. We included caregivers when present or if patients were unable to participate due to severe cognitive impairment. Physicians were recruited within the same systems and through snowball sampling, targeting areas with large African American and Hispanic populations.

APPROACH

We used constant comparison to identify and compare themes between patients, caregivers, and physicians.

KEY RESULTS

We conducted interviews with 17 patients, 16 caregivers, and 16 physicians. All groups said it was important to earn trust before deprescribing, frame deprescribing as routine and positive, align deprescribing with goals of dementia care, and respect caregivers' expertise. As in other areas of medicine, racial, ethnic, and language concordance was important to patients and caregivers from minority cultural backgrounds. Participants favored direct-to-patient educational materials, support from pharmacists and other team members, and close follow-up during deprescribing. Patients and caregivers favored language that explained deprescribing in terms of altered physiology with aging. Physicians desired communication tips addressing specific clinical situations.

CONCLUSIONS

Culturally sensitive communication within a trusted patient-physician relationship supplemented by pharmacists, and language tailored to specific clinical situations may support deprescribing in primary care for patients with dementia and MCC.

Thoughtful Prescribing and Deprescribing

Polypharmacy, the use of five or more medications, is common in older adults. It can lead to the use of potentially inappropriate medications and severe adverse outcomes. Deprescribing is an essential step of the thoughtful prescribing process and it can decrease the use of potentially inappropriate medications. Studies have demonstrated that deprescribing is feasible in the clinical setting, especially when it incorporates patient preferences, shared decision making, and an interdisciplinary team. Medication-specific algorithms can facilitate deprescribing in the clinical setting.

Medication use in the last year of life: a cross-sectional hospice study

OBJECTIVES

The issue of polypharmacy and medication use in people with life limiting illness raises important questions from a clinical and ethical viewpoint. The objectives of our study were to (1) explore medication use among people with life limiting illness receiving hospice care; (2) apply consensus criteria to assess medication appropriateness; and (3) determine the overall pill burden in this patient population.

METHODS

Six hospices in the North East of England were included. All deceased adult patients who received hospice care in 2018 were eligible for study inclusion. Descriptive statistics were used to report medication details; while medication appropriateness was assessed according to consensus criteria developed by Morin and colleagues.

RESULTS

Six hundred and ninety patients were included in the study. Patients were using a mean number of 8.8 medications per day, while polypharmacy was evident in 80% of patients. In terms of potentially questionable medication, patients were prescribed a mean number of 1.3 per day. Common potentially questionable medications included vitamin and mineral supplements, antihypertensives, antiplatelets, lipid regulating agents and anticoagulants. The pill burden in this population was also high with, on average, people using 13.7 oral doses per day.

CONCLUSIONS

Polypharmacy is common in patients accessing hospice care, as is the use of potentially questionable medication. The pill burden in this patient population is also high, which may be an additional treatment burden to patients. Holistic deprescribing approaches for this population should be developed and implemented.

A systems approach to identifying the challenges of implementing deprescribing in older adults across different health-care settings and countries: a narrative review

Introduction: There is increasing recognition of the need for deprescribing of inappropriate medications in older adults. However, efforts to encourage implementation of deprescribing in clinical practice have resulted in mixed results across settings and countries.Area covered: Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar in June 2019. Reference lists, citation checking, and personal reference libraries were also utilized. Studies capturing the main challenges of, and opportunities for, implementing deprescribing into clinical practice across selected health-care settings internationally, and international deprescribing-orientated policies were included and summarized in this narrative review.Expert opinion: Deprescribing intervention studies are inherently heterogeneous because of the complexity of interventions employed and often do not reflect the real-world. Further research investigating enhanced implementation of deprescribing into clinical practice and across health-care settings is required. Process evaluations in deprescribing intervention studies are needed to determine the contextual factors that are important to the translation of the interventions in the real-world. Deprescribing interventions may need to be individually tailored to target the unique barriers and opportunities to deprescribing in different clinical settings. Introduction of national policies to encourage deprescribing may be beneficial, but need to be evaluated to determine if there are any unintended consequences.

Deprescribing as a Clinical Improvement Focus

OBJECTIVES

Polypharmacy is a concern in the practice of geriatrics because of consequences such as adverse drug events and poorer quality of life. Deprescribing, a response to polypharmacy, refers to the systematic, programmed, and appropriate reduction in drug number and dose. Although now broadly recognized, challenges exist in practice for effective implementation. This study was conducted to determine the deprescribing success rate and relate it to drug classes and clinical settings, and to identify factors that influence the deprescribing process.

DESIGN

As a performance improvement (PI) project, fellows in geriatric medicine, under supervision of faculty geriatricians, attempted deprescribing during at least 1 encounter daily at 2 long-term care (LTC) facilities and an outpatient geriatrics clinic (C) in Bronx, New York, from August 2018 to January 2019. Deprescribing was initiated following discussion and consent from patient or caregiver. Following the data collection, involved fellows and faculty physicians participated in a survey to identify factors that influenced the process.

RESULTS

Out of 449 encounters, 383 encounters were included for analysis. Average patient age was 78.2 years (LTC: 77.9, C: 79.1). Average patient comorbidities was 6.5 (LTC: 6.7, C: 5.8). Deprescribing was successful in 90.1% of encounters (LTC: 96.9%, C: 67.4%). On average, 1.3 medications were deprescribed per encounter (LTC: 1.4, C: 1.0). Analgesics (32.2%), multivitamin-minerals supplements (29.7%), lipid-lowering agents (22.9%), antihistamines (46.7%), and acid blockers (26.2%) had highest success.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Deprescribing is possible in practice in both LTC and community settings at each encounter, until it is no longer applicable. Factors that contribute to successful deprescribing primarily include meaningful and earnest provider effort, ideally in collaboration with interdisciplinary team members (nurses, pharmacists, social worker, and others), besides interactions with consultants for the patient. Certain medication classes such as vitamins, minerals, analgesics, and proton pump inhibitors can be deprescribed with high success, as noted in our study, whereas antipsychotic agents, antidepressants, and ophthalmic preparations, prescribed by specialists, proved harder to deprescribe. An understanding of barriers to deprescribing (outlined in the article) and addressing them are crucial in enabling success. The study demonstrates that as a performance improvement project in collaborative effort with multiple disciplines, deprescribing is possible in health care. Factors promoting success and barriers to deprescribing are detailed. Appropriate deprescribing has the potential to help lower adverse drug events, costs of care, and possibly improve quality of life.

Proton Pump Inhibitors and the Kidney: Implications of Current Evidence for Clinical Practice and When and How to Deprescribe

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), long thought to be safe, are associated with a number of nonkidney adverse health outcomes and several untoward kidney outcomes, including hypomagnesemia, acute kidney injury, acute interstitial nephritis, incident chronic kidney disease, kidney disease progression, kidney failure, and increased risk for all-cause mortality and mortality due to chronic kidney disease. PPIs are abundantly prescribed, rarely deprescribed, and frequently purchased over the counter. They are frequently used without medical indication, and when medically indicated, they are often used for much longer than needed. In this In Practice review, we summarize evidence linking PPI use with adverse events in general and adverse kidney outcomes in particular. We review the literature on the association of PPI use and risk for hypomagnesemia, acute kidney injury, acute interstitial nephritis, incident chronic kidney disease, kidney disease progression, end-stage kidney disease, and death. We provide an assessment of how this evidence should inform clinical practice. We review the impact of this evidence on patients' perception of risk, synthesize PPI deprescription literature, and provide our recommendations on how to approach PPI use and deprescription.

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.

A patient-centered deprescribing intervention for hospitalized older patients with polypharmacy: rationale and design of the Shed-MEDS randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy is prevalent among hospitalized older adults, particularly those being discharged to a post-care care facility (PAC). The aim of this randomized controlled trial is to determine if a patient-centered deprescribing intervention initiated in the hospital and continued in the PAC setting reduces the total number of medications among older patients.

METHODS

The Shed-MEDS study is a 5-year, randomized controlled clinical intervention trial comparing a patient-centered describing intervention with usual care among older (≥50 years) hospitalized patients discharged to PAC, either a skilled nursing facility (SNF) or an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IPR). Patient measurements occur at hospital enrollment, hospital discharge, within 7 days of PAC discharge, and at 60 and 90 days following PAC discharge. Patients are randomized in a permuted block fashion, with block sizes of two to four. The overall effectiveness of the intervention will be evaluated using total medication count as the primary outcome measure. We estimate that 576 patients will enroll in the study. Following attrition due to death or loss to follow-up, 420 patients will contribute measurements at 90 days, which provides 90% power to detect a 30% versus 25% reduction in total medications with an alpha error of 0.05. Secondary outcomes include the number of medications associated with geriatric syndromes, drug burden index, medication adherence, the prevalence and severity of geriatric syndromes and functional health status.

DISCUSSION

The Shed-MEDS trial aims to test the hypothesis that a patient-centered deprescribing intervention initiated in the hospital and continuing through the PAC stay will reduce the total number of medications 90 days following PAC discharge and result in improvements in geriatric syndromes and functional health status. The results of this trial will quantify the health outcomes associated with reducing medications for hospitalized older adults with polypharmacy who are discharged to post-acute care facilities.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was prospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02979353 ). The trial was first registered on 12/1/2016, with an update on 09/28/17 and 10/12/2018.