GP-delivered medication review of polypharmacy, deprescribing, and patient priorities in older people with multimorbidity in Irish primary care (SPPiRE Study): A cluster randomised controlled trial

Deprescribing in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Importance

Deprescribing has the potential to improve patient safety and quality of care by reducing polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), which in turn may reduce adverse drug events. Questions remain about the effectiveness of deprescribing interventions in outpatient settings.

Objective

To determine the association of deprescribing interventions with reducing medication count and PIMs in community-dwelling older adults.

Data Sources

Included studies were English-language human studies in PubMed and the Cochrane Library published from January 2019 to July 26, 2024, and results were supplemented with reference-mining and expert consultation.

Study Selection

Studies were eligible if they were solely or primarily about deprescribing, focused on community-dwelling adults, were multisite, used a randomized trial design, and reported on the primary or secondary outcome.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

Two authors extracted study design, intervention characteristics, population characteristics, and follow-up. Outcomes were extracted by the statistician and checked by a second author. Meta-analyses were conducted using random effects with the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method. The study was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) criteria.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the number of PIMs or total medications, and the secondary outcome was proportion of persons prescribed at least 1 PIM.

Results

Two authors independently screened 1586 titles from PubMed and Cochrane and 33 from other sources; 321 abstracts and 133 full-text studies were further reviewed, and disagreements were reconciled through discussion, resulting in 17 studies in 18 publications. A total of 8 studies of interventions targeting multiple medications were identified for primary outcome analysis; the random-effects pooled analysis found a mean difference of -0.14 (95% CI, -0.27 to -0.01) medications prescribed. A total of 6 studies of interventions targeting multiple medications were identified for secondary outcome analysis; the random effects pooled analysis found no significant reduction in the proportion of persons prescribed at least 1 PIM (odds ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.74 to 1.14]).

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review and meta-analysis found moderate-certainty evidence that deprescribing interventions were associated with reduced PIM and medication counts in community-dwelling older adults. While the individual-level association was very small, on an aggregated population level, the outcomes may be large, given the high prevalence of polypharmacy and PIMs in community-dwelling older adults.

General practitioner-based interventions to reduce hospital admissions in patients with multimorbidity living at home - A rapid review

BACKGROUND

Multimorbidity is a common health problem among patients treated in GP practices and often associated with an increased risk of hospitalization. The aim of this review was to identify GP-based interventions to reduce hospitalization in patients with multimorbidity who were evaluated in randomized controlled trials.

METHODS

For the rapid review, the databases Medline and CENTRAL were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating an effect of GP-based interventions on the duration or frequency of hospitalization in adult patients with multimorbidity living at home. The interventions and their effects were described narratively.

RESULTS

From 2,260 hits in the database searches, 15 studies could be included. The interventions identified included, amongst others, interdisciplinary cooperation, training of GPs and other practice staff, and increased patient centeredness. Hospital admissions were reported in 13 studies, and the number of days spent in hospital was reported in six studies. Two studies found a significant reduction in hospitalization.

CONCLUSIONS

While most interventions were not effective, there were also two GP-based interventions for patients with multimorbidity which focused on the patients' individual situation and contributed to avoiding hospitalization. However, more studies are needed to make reliable statements on the effectiveness of various measures.

Prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in community-dwelling older adults: an application of STOPP/START version 3 to The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA)

PURPOSE

Potentially inappropriate prescribing includes prescribing potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs), where risk of medication-related harm may outweigh the clinical benefit(s), and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs), whereby clinically indicated medications are unprescribed without good reason. This study aimed to assess prevalence of PIMs and PPOs (subset of STOPP/START version 3) in older community-dwelling adults and any association with healthcare utilisation and functional decline over time.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of a nationally representative longitudinal study of ageing in Ireland (n = 3619) (2016-2018). Logistic regressions examined association of patient characteristics with PIMs/PPOs and between prevalent PIMs/PPOs and functional decline. Negative binomial regressions examined association between PIM/PPO with healthcare utilisation over time.

RESULTS

Participants' mean age was 74.2 years (SD 6.99), 53.9% were female and were prescribed a mean of 4.02 (SD 3.16) medications. A total of 1123 (31.0%) participants experienced STOPP PIMs and 1309 (36.2%) START PPOs. STOPP PIMs were associated with increased hospital admissions (adjusted incident rate ratio (aIRR) 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08, 1.75), and functional decline (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.46, 95% CI 1.11, 1.91) at follow-up. Age ≥ 75 years (aOR 1.32, 95% CI 1.10, 1.57) and three or more chronic conditions (aOR 5.19, 95% CI 3.69, 7.31) were significantly associated with START PPOs.

CONCLUSION

Approximately one-third of study participants experienced STOPP PIMs, associated with an increased risk of hospital admissions and functional decline. START PPOs also occurred in over one-third, associated with increasing age and degree of multimorbidity. Balancing the risk: benefit of medications for older people with multimorbidity remains challenging.

Cost effectiveness of a GP delivered medication review to reduce polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients with multimorbidity in Irish primary care: the SPPiRE cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the cost effectiveness of deprescribing in multimorbidity is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cost effectiveness of a general practitioner (GP) delivered, individualised medication review to reduce polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients with multimorbidity in Irish primary care.

METHODS

Within trial economic evaluation, from a healthcare perspective and based on a cluster randomised controlled trial with a 6 month follow up and 403 patients (208 Intervention and 195 Control) recruited between April 2017 and December 2019. Intervention GPs used the SPPiRE website which contained educational materials and a template to support a web-based individualised medication review. Control GPs delivered usual care. Incremental costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) generated using the EQ-5D-5L instrument, and expected cost effectiveness were estimated using multilevel modelling and multiple imputation techniques. Uncertainty was explored using parametric, deterministic and probabilistic methods.

RESULTS

On average, the SPPiRE intervention was dominant over usual care, with non-statistically significant mean cost savings of €410 (95% confidence interval (CI): - 2211, 1409) and mean health gains of 0.014 QALYs (95% CI - 0.011, 0.039). At cost effectiveness threshold values of €20,000 and €45,000 per QALY, the probability of SPPiRE being cost effective was 0.993 and 0.988. Results were sensitive to missing data and data collection period.

CONCLUSIONS

The study observed a pattern towards dominance for the SPPiRE intervention, with high expected cost effectiveness. Notably, observed differences in costs and outcomes were consistent with chance, and missing data and related uncertainty was non trivial. The cost effectiveness evidence may be considered promising but equivocal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN: 12752680, 20th October 2016.

Prevalence of Polypharmacy in Chinese Community-Dwelling Older Adults and Forecast by 2035: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

We aimed to derive a pooled polypharmacy prevalence estimate and forecast the total polypharmacy cases by 2035 in Chinese community-dwelling older adults.

METHODS

We searched for studies in three databases (CNKI, Scopus and PubMed). We selected studies according to pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We assessed study quality using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Polypharmacy in our study was defined as the concurrent use of at least five different medications. Pooled prevalence was estimated overall and by regions, time periods, and other important factors. We fitted Bayesian random-effects logit models to synthesize single studies and reported a 95% uncertainty interval (95UI).

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies were finally included. The pooled polypharmacy prevalence was estimated to be 31.04% (95UI: 18.16 ~ 47.66). The pooled prevalence was highest in the east region (37.98%, 95UI: 21.92 ~ 57.69), followed by the middle region (33.53%, 95UI: 4.89 ~ 84.46) and the west region (25.85%, 95UI: 8.78 ~ 50.74). The pooled prevalence was 31.10% (95UI: 15.54 ~ 52.72) in the latest 5 years (2017-2021) and 30.88% (95UI: 11.53 ~ 60.56) in the beyond latest 5 years (2005-2016). The per cent change annualized in the forecasted total polypharmacy cases from 2022 to 2035 was estimated to be 3.69%, with the highest total cases forecasted to be 131.7 million (95UI: 77.1 ~ 202.2) in 2035.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study suggests that polypharmacy is notably prevalent in Chinese community-dwelling older adults, highlighting the need for the development and delivery of community-based interventions targeted at this population.

Assessing causality in deprescribing studies: A focus on adverse drug events and adverse drug withdrawal events

Generating real-world evidence about the effect of medication discontinuation or dose reduction on outcomes, such as reduction of adverse drug effects (ADE; intended benefit) and occurrence of adverse drug withdrawal events (ADWE; unintended harm), is crucial to informing deprescribing decisions. Determining the causal effects of deprescribing is difficult for many reasons, including lack of randomization in real-world study designs and other design and measurement issues that pose threats to internal validity. The inherent challenge is how to identify the effects, both intended benefits and unintended harms, of a new medication stoppage or reduction when implemented in patients with many potential clinical and social risks that may influence the likelihood of deprescribing as well as outcomes. We discuss methodological issues of estimating the effect of medication discontinuation or reduction on risk of ADEs and ADWEs considering: (1) sampling study populations of sufficient size with the potential to demonstrate clinically meaningful and quantifiable outcomes, (2) accurate and appropriately timed measurement of covariates, outcomes, and discontinuation, and (3) statistical approaches to managing confounding and other biases inherent in long-term medication use by individuals with multiple morbidities. Designing rigorous deprescribing studies that address internal validity threats will support evidence generation by improving the ability to assess benefits and harms when the exposure of interest is the absence of a medication. Iterative learnings about data quality, variable definition, variable measurement, and exposure-outcome associations will inform strategies to improve the causal inferences possible in real-world deprescribing studies.

Analysis of omission of antimicrobial doses in Intensive Care Units

OBJECTIVES

to analyze the rate of antimicrobial dose omission in intensive care units.

METHODS

cross-sectional study carried out between March 1 and September 30, 2023, in intensive care units of a University Hospital in Rio de Janeiro.

RESULTS

the sample consisted of 452 prescriptions and 1467 antimicrobial doses. The dose omission rate was 4.29%. Each antimicrobial prescribed increased the chance of omission by 51%. The strategy of double-checking prescriptions helped prevent 30% of antimicrobial dose omissions (p=0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

monitoring the omission of antimicrobial doses can guide nursing actions to improve quality and patient safety, contributing to the prevention of medication errors, antimicrobial stewardship and the fight against antimicrobial resistance.

Study protocol: The effect of a Medication Coordinator on the quality of patients' medication treatment (MEDCOOR)-Randomized controlled trial

Patients' safety can be compromised in the transition of care between healthcare sectors. Optimal information flow across healthcare sectors and individualized medication treatment tailored to each patient is vital to prevent adverse events like drug-related problems. When medication changes are made during hospitalization, it is essential to ensure that the relevant general practitioner (GP) is included in the communication chain. This randomized controlled trial examines the effect of a Medication Coordinator who facilitates medication reviews in close collaboration with patients using My Medication Plan. Patients in the intervention group receive the medication review in combination with including suggested medication amendments documented in their electronic discharge letter send, which is sent to their GP. The patients randomized to the control group receive standard care by the ward staff. Seventy patients from the Endocrinology and Nephrology Unit at the Hospital Sønderjylland will be included in the intervention and control groups, respectively. The primary outcome is the proportion of potentially inappropriate medications. Secondary outcomes include patient-reported outcomes, i.e., quality of life and medication burden. Additional outcomes include the patient's medication risk score, whether the patient is readmitted, and whether the patient has contacted the staff at the hospital unit after the hospital discharge. The framework for complex intervention is applied, because it allows flexibility and adaption in meeting patients' needs by implementing tailored, possibly complex interventions in different healthcare settings. This project will examine a particular piece in the puzzle of the complexity of conducting a medication review and communication of suggested medication amendments to the patients, healthcare at the hospital, and the GP. Hopefully, this can contribute to a reduction in the risk of potentially inappropriate post-hospital medication usage. Trial registration: The study has been registered at ClinicalTrial.gov with the registration number: NCT06383364. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06383364.

The effect of deprescribing interventions on mortality and health outcomes in older people: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Previous systematic reviews suggest that deprescribing may improve survival, particularly in frail older people. Evidence is rapidly accumulating, suggesting a need for an updated review of the literature.

METHODS

We updated a 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis to include studies published from inception to 26 April 2024 from specified databases. Studies in which older people had at least one medication deprescribed were included and grouped by study designs and targeted medications. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa tool. Odds ratios (OR) or mean differences were calculated as the effect measures using either the Mantel-Haenszel or generic inverse-variance method with fixed- or random-effects meta-analyses. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes were adverse drug withdrawal events, physical health, cognitive function, quality of life and effect on medication regimen. Subgroup analyses were performed based on age and intervention types.

RESULTS

A total of 259 studies (reported in 286 papers) were included in this updated review. Deprescribing polypharmacy did not result in a significant reduction in mortality in both randomized (OR 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.09) and non-randomized studies (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.36-1.38). Further subgroup analyses of randomized studies on deprescribing polypharmacy demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality in the young old (aged 65-79) (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-0.99) and when patient-specific interventions were applied (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Deprescribing can be achieved with potentially important benefits in terms of improved survival, particularly when patient-specific interventions are applied and initiated early in the young old.

Treatment burden in multimorbidity: an integrative review

BACKGROUND

People living with multimorbidity experience increased treatment burden, which can result in poor health outcomes. Despite previous efforts to grasp the concept of treatment burden, the treatment burden of people living with multimorbidity has not been thoroughly explored, which may limit our understanding of treatment burden in this population. This study aimed to identify the components, contributing factors, and health outcomes of treatment burden in people with multiple diseases to develop an integrated map of treatment burden experienced by people living with multimorbidity. The second aim of this study is to identify the treatment burden instruments used to evaluate people living with multimorbidity and assess the comprehensiveness of the instruments.

METHODS

This integrative review was conducted using the electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and reference lists of articles through May 2023. All empirical studies published in English were included if they explored treatment burden among adult people living with multimorbidity. Data extraction using a predetermined template was performed.

RESULTS

Thirty studies were included in this review. Treatment burden consisted of four healthcare tasks and the social, emotional, and financial impacts that these tasks imposed on people living with multimorbidity. The context of multimorbidity, individual's circumstances, and how available internal and external resources affected treatment burden. We explored that an increase in treatment burden resulted in non-adherence to treatment, disease progression, poor health status and quality of life, and caregiver burden. Three instruments were used to measure treatment burden in living with multimorbidity. The levels of comprehensiveness of the instruments regarding healthcare tasks and impacts varied. However, none of the items addressed the healthcare task of ongoing prioritization of the tasks.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed an integrated map illustrating the relationships between treatment burden, the context of multimorbidity, people's resources, and the health outcomes. None of the existing measures included an item asking about the ongoing process of setting priorities among the various healthcare tasks, which highlights the need for improved measures. Our findings provide a deeper understanding of treatment burden in multimorbidity, but more research for refinement is needed. Future studies are also needed to develop strategies to comprehensively capture both the healthcare tasks and impacts for people living with multimorbidity and to decrease treatment burden using a holistic approach to improve relevant outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/UF46V.

'Troubling' medication reviews in the context of polypharmacy and ageing: A linguistic ethnography

Healthy ageing is a global priority. Polypharmacy (the use of 5+ medicines) amongst older people is increasing, with over one-third of adults in England, aged 80-89, prescribed at least eight medications. Although sometimes necessary, polypharmacy can be harmful; the risk of harm increases with age and number of medicines prescribed. Medication reviews are recommended as one way of reducing the potential harms of polypharmacy although evidence of clinically significant benefit of medication reviews as currently delivered is limited. What happens in medication reviews in practice is poorly understood. We used a linguistic ethnography approach to explore how medication reviews proceed and what is accomplished during these consultations. We studied 18 video-recorded medication review consultations from three general practices in England. The consultations involved patients aged 65 or older, prescribed 10+ medications ('higher risk' polypharmacy), and primary care clinicians (general practitioner or clinical pharmacist). Video-recordings were gathered as part of a wider ethnographic study investigating practices of polypharmacy in primary care between 2017 and 2021. We conducted microanalysis of consultation data, drawing on our ethnographic knowledge of the organisational, institutional and domestic contexts of polypharmacy to inform our interpretation of these interactions. Consultations were time-consuming and involved lengthy stretches of interactional trouble: non-understandings; misunderstandings; misalignments. These stretches revealed profound uncertainties as to the effectiveness of medicines in the context of multimorbidity and polypharmacy. These uncertainties seeped further into 'troubles talk' concerning patients' existential concerns relating to enduring illness, ageing and mortality. Although these existential concerns were partially articulated, clinicians and patients left such troubles talk unelaborated, unresolved and unfinished. Participants succeeded in smoothing over interactional difficulties and maintaining respectful relationships but often fell short of addressing problematic polypharmacy more directly.

Deprescribing interventions in older adults: An overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

The growing deprescribing field is challenged by a lack of consensus around evidence and knowledge gaps. The objective of this overview of systematic reviews was to summarize the review evidence for deprescribing interventions in older adults.

METHODS

11 databases were searched from 1st January 2005 to 16th March 2023 to identify systematic reviews. We summarized and synthesized the results in two steps. Step 1 summarized results reported by the included reviews (including meta-analyses). Step 2 involved a narrative synthesis of review results by outcome. Outcomes included medication-related outcomes (e.g., medication reduction, medication appropriateness) or twelve other outcomes (e.g., mortality, adverse events). We summarized outcomes according to subgroups (patient characteristics, intervention type and setting) when direct comparisons were available within the reviews. The quality of included reviews was assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2).

RESULTS

We retrieved 3,228 unique citations and assessed 135 full-text articles for eligibility. Forty-eight reviews (encompassing 17 meta-analyses) were included. Thirty-one of the 48 reviews had a general deprescribing focus, 16 focused on specific medication classes or therapeutic categories and one included both. Twelve of 17 reviews meta-analyzed medication-related outcomes (33 outcomes: 25 favored the intervention, 7 found no difference, 1 favored the comparison). The narrative synthesis indicated that most interventions resulted in some evidence of medication reduction while for other outcomes we found primarily no evidence of an effect. Results were mixed for adverse events and few reviews reported adverse drug withdrawal events. Limited information was available for people with dementia, frailty and multimorbidity. All but one review scored low or critically low on quality assessment.

CONCLUSION

Deprescribing interventions likely resulted in medication reduction but evidence on other outcomes, in particular relating to adverse events, or in vulnerable subgroups or settings was limited. Future research should focus on designing studies powered to examine harms, patient-reported outcomes, and effects on vulnerable subgroups.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020178860.

Effects of a multicomponent communication training to involve older people in decisions to DEPRESCRIBE cardiometabolic medication in primary care (CO-DEPRESCRIBE): protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing of medication for cardiovascular risk factors and diabetes has been incorporated in clinical guidelines but proves to be difficult to implement in primary care. Training of healthcare providers is needed to enhance deprescribing in eligible patients. This study will examine the effects of a blended training program aimed at initiating and conducting constructive deprescribing consultations with patients.

METHODS

A cluster-randomized trial will be conducted in which local pharmacy-general practice teams in the Netherlands will be randomized to conducting clinical medication reviews with patients as usual (control) or after receiving the CO-DEPRESCRIBE training program (intervention). People of 75 years and older using specific cardiometabolic medication (diabetes drugs, antihypertensives, statins) and eligible for a medication review will be included. The CO-DEPRESCRIBE intervention is based on previous work and applies models for patient-centered communication and shared decision making. It consists of 5 training modules with supportive tools. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients with at least 1 cardiometabolic medication deintensified. Secondary outcomes include patient involvement in decision making, healthcare provider communication skills, health/medication-related outcomes, attitudes towards deprescribing, medication regimen complexity and health-related quality of life. Additional safety and cost parameters will be collected. It is estimated that 167 patients per study arm are needed in the final intention-to-treat analysis using a mixed effects model. Taking loss to follow-up into account, 40 teams are asked to recruit 10 patients each. A baseline and 6-months follow-up assessment, a process evaluation, and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted.

DISCUSSION

The hypothesis is that the training program will lead to more proactive and patient-centered deprescribing of cardiometabolic medication. By a comprehensive evaluation, an increase in knowledge needed for sustainable implementation of deprescribing in primary care is expected.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT05507177).

Optimizing drug therapy for older adults: shifting away from problematic polypharmacy

INTRODUCTION

The accelerated discovery and production of pharmaceutical products has resulted in many positive outcomes. However, this progress has also contributed to problematic polypharmacy, one of the rapidly growing threats to public health in this century. Problematic polypharmacy results in adverse patient outcomes and imposes increased strain and financial burden on healthcare systems.

AREAS COVERED

A review was conducted on the current body of evidence concerning factors contributing to and consequences of problematic polypharmacy. Recent trials investigating interventions that target polypharmacy and emerging solutions, including incorporation of artificial intelligence, are also examined in this article.

EXPERT OPINION

To shift away from problematic polypharmacy, a multifaceted interdisciplinary approach is necessary. Any potentially successful strategy must be adapted to suit various healthcare settings and must utilize all available resources, including artificial intelligence.

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.

Deprescribing in older adults with polypharmacy

Polypharmacy is common in older adults and is associated with adverse drug events, cognitive and functional impairment, increased healthcare costs, and increased risk of frailty, falls, hospitalizations, and mortality. Many barriers exist to deprescribing, but increased efforts have been made to develop and implement deprescribing interventions that overcome them. This narrative review describes intervention components and summarizes findings from published randomized controlled trials that have tested deprescribing interventions in older adults with polypharmacy, as well as reports on ongoing trials, guidelines, and resources that can be used to facilitate deprescribing. Most interventions were medication reviews in primary care settings, and many contained components such as shared decision making and/or a focus on patient care priorities, training for healthcare professionals, patient facing education materials, and involvement of family members, representing great heterogeneity in interventions addressing polypharmacy in older adults. Just over half of study interventions were found to perform better than usual care in at least one of their primary outcomes, and most study interventions were assessed over 12 months or less.

Measuring Quality of Life in Deprescribing Trials: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Quality of life (QoL) is an important outcome to capture in clinical trials evaluating deprescribing interventions.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to conduct a scoping review to examine how QoL has been measured in deprescribing trials among older people and identify potentially relevant QoL scales, to better inform QoL measurement in future deprescribing trials.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Epistemonikos, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of eligible studies (from inception to October 2023). We included randomized and non-randomized comparative studies with a control group that evaluated deprescribing and polypharmacy reduction interventions in people ≥ 65 years of age and measured QoL as an outcome. We also included studies describing the development and validation of QoL scales related to deprescribing, polypharmacy, or medication burden in adults ≥ 18 years of age. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, then full texts. Two independent reviewers extracted data from 25% of eligible studies in order to verify agreement, then a single reviewer extracted data from the remaining studies, which a second reviewer cross-checked. We critically appraised scales based on the COSMIN checklist.

RESULTS

We retrieved 7290 articles, of which 52 were eligible for inclusion, including 44 deprescribing trials and eight scale development studies. From these studies, we found 21 scales that have been used in the context of deprescribing/polypharmacy (12 generic scales used in clinical trials and nine medication-specific scales). Variations of the generic EQ-5D were the most used scales. The measurement properties of scales for capturing changes in QoL from deprescribing were uncertain. Medication-specific QoL scales have not been employed in deprescribing clinical trials and thus, their performance in this context is also not clear.

CONCLUSIONS

Several existing QoL scales have been applied to the context of deprescribing/polypharmacy clinical trials, and new scales specific to the problem have been proposed. If deprescribing does impact QoL, our findings suggest it is uncertain whether existing QoL scales can practically and reliably capture such a change or whether any scale is best. However, this review compares various aspects of the scales that researchers and clinicians can consider in decisions about measuring QoL in deprescribing trials, and in planning future research.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework: osf.io/aez6w.

Comorbidity of patients with noncommunicable diseases in general practice. Eurasian guidelines

Создание руководства поддержано Советом по терапевтическим наукам отделения клинической медицины Российской академии наук.

Does missing data matter in the revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing questionnaire? A systematic review and two case analyses

BACKGROUND

The revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire was developed to capture beliefs and perceptions of patients about deprescribing. In general, handling of missing data is underreported in survey studies. Underlying mechanisms related to missing data may impact the findings from survey studies.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the missing data in studies using the rPATD questionnaire through a systematic review and datasets from two studies.

METHODS

First, this review updated a systematic review on the rPATD (and other versions). We searched Medline via OVID, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science until 31st January 2023. Missing data reporting and methods to handle them were collected. Second, data from two deprescribing studies were analyzed using three methods of missing data handling: complete case analysis, personal mean substitution, and multiple imputation. We compared the scores from each domain and the associations of the domains with two questions from the rPATD to highlight how using different methods can influence the interpretation of study findings.

RESULTS

We identified 49 studies: 31 (63 %) from this study and 18 (37 %) from the original systematic review. The question or domain with the most missing data could be identified in 9 studies (18.4 %). Missing data management was reported in 19 studies (38.8 %). In one case analysis, the "Burden" domain was significantly associated with the question "I would like to try stopping one of my medicines to see how I feel without it" using complete case analysis (p = 0.044) or multiple imputation (p = 0.038), but not when using personal mean substitution (p = 0.057).

CONCLUSIONS

Missing data and methods used to handle missing data were underreported in studies using the rPATD questionnaire. The methods should be chosen carefully as our analyses from two distinct studies suggest that they may impact the interpretation of the findings from the questionnaire.

Attitudes towards deprescribing in geriatric psychiatry: A survey among older psychiatric outpatients

Understanding the patient perspective is a significant part of the deprescribing process. This study aimed to explore the attitudes of older patients with psychiatric disorders towards deprescribing. A total of 72 of psychiatric outpatients (68% women; median age 76 years) completed the validated Danish version of the revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire. Patients used a median of eight medications (interquartile range 6-12), with 88%, 49% and 24% using antidepressants, antipsychotics and anxiolytics, respectively. Fifty-one percent of patients reported an intrinsic desire to stop one of their medications, while 92% would be willing to stop one on their physician's advice. Seventy-five percent of patients would be worried about missing out on future benefits following deprescribing and 37% had previous bad deprescribing experiences. Use of ≥8 regular medications was associated with more concerns about stopping medication and greater perceived burden of using medication, while use of antipsychotics was not associated with any differences in rPATD factor scores. It is crucial for health care professionals to be aware of patients' specific concerns and past experiences to promote a patient-centred deprescribing approach that takes into account the needs and preferences of older patients with psychiatric disorders.

Deprescribing in primary care without deterioration of health-related outcomes: A real-life, quality improvement project

Medication reviews focusing on deprescribing can reduce potentially inappropriate medication; however, evidence regarding effects on health-related outcomes is sparse. In a real-life quality improvement project using a newly developed chronic care model, we investigated how a general practitioner-led medication review intervention focusing on deprescribing affected health-related outcomes. We performed a before-after intervention study including care home residents and community-dwelling patients affiliated with a large Danish general practice. The primary outcomes were changes in self-reported health status, general condition and functional level from baseline to 3-4 months follow-up. Of the 105 included patients, 87 completed the follow-up. From baseline to follow-up, 255 medication changes were made, of which 83% were deprescribing. Mean self-reported health status increased (0.55 [95% CI: 0.22 to 0.87]); the proportion with general condition rated as 'average or above' was stable (0.06 [95% CI: -0.02 to 0.14]); and the proportion with functional level 'without any disability' was stable (-0.05 [95% CI: -0.09 to 0.001]). In conclusion, this general practitioner-led medication review intervention was associated with deprescribing and increased self-reported health status without the deterioration of general condition or functional level in real-life primary care patients. The results should be interpreted carefully given the small sample size and lack of control group.

Recruiting general practitioners and older patients with multimorbidity to randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Older patients with multimorbidity are under-represented in experimental research.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the barriers and facilitators to general practitioner (GP) and older patient recruitment and retention in a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT).

METHOD

This descriptive study uses qualitative and quantitative data from a cluster RCT, designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a medicines optimization intervention. The SPPiRE cluster RCT enrolled 51 general practices and 404 patients aged ≥65 years and prescribed ≥15 medicines. Quantitative data were collected from all recruited practices and 32 additional practices who were enrolled, but unable to recruit sufficient participants. Qualitative data were collected from purposive samples of intervention GPs (18/26), patients (27/208), and researcher logs and analysed thematically using inductive coding.

RESULTS

Enrolment rates for practices and patients were 37% and 25%, respectively. Barriers to GP recruitment were lack of resources and to patient recruitment were difficulty understanding trial material and concern about medicines being taken away. GPs' primary motivation was perceived importance of the research question, whereas patients' primary motivation was trust in their GP. All general practices were retained. Thirty-five patients (8.6%) were lost to follow-up for primary outcomes, mainly because they had died and 45% did not return patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

CONCLUSION

Patient retention for the primary outcome was high, as it was collected directly from patient records. Patient completion of PROM data was poor, reflecting difficulty in understanding trial material. Recruiting older patients with multimorbidity to clinical trials is possible but requires significant resource and planning.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN12752680.

Association between patient attitudes towards deprescribing and subsequent prescription changes

Deprescribing is an essential component of safe prescribing, especially for people with higher levels of polypharmacy. Identifying individuals prepared to consider medicine changes may facilitate deprescribing-orientated reviews. We aimed to explore the relationship between revised patients' attitudes towards deprescribing (rPATD) scores and medication changes in older people prescribed ≥15 medicines. A secondary analysis of rPATD scores and prescription data from a cluster randomised controlled trial of a GP-delivered, deprescribing-orientated medication review was conducted. The association between number of medicines stopped, started and changed and baseline rPATD scores was assessed using Poisson regression, adjusting for patient age, gender, study group allocation, baseline number of medicines and effects of clustering. Participants (n = 404) had a mean age of 76.4 years and were prescribed a mean of 17.1 medicines at baseline. Willingness to stop a medicine was associated with higher rates of both deprescribing (IRR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.06-1.84) and initiating medicines (IRR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.09-1.88). Satisfaction with current medicines was associated with a lower rate of deprescribing (IRR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.57-0.85). The rPATD questionnaire could be used as part of a deprescribing intervention to identify participants who may be prepared to engage in deprescribing, enabling more efficient use of clinician time during complex consultations.

COPD and multimorbidity: recognising and addressing a syndemic occurrence

Most patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) have at least one additional, clinically relevant chronic disease. Those with the most severe airflow obstruction will die from respiratory failure, but most patients with COPD die from non-respiratory disorders, particularly cardiovascular diseases and cancer. As many chronic diseases have shared risk factors (eg, ageing, smoking, pollution, inactivity, and poverty), we argue that a shift from the current paradigm in which COPD is considered as a single disease with comorbidities, to one in which COPD is considered as part of a multimorbid state-with co-occurring diseases potentially sharing pathobiological mechanisms-is needed to advance disease prevention, diagnosis, and management. The term syndemics is used to describe the co-occurrence of diseases with shared mechanisms and risk factors, a novel concept that we propose helps to explain the clustering of certain morbidities in patients diagnosed with COPD. A syndemics approach to understanding COPD could have important clinical implications, in which the complex disease presentations in these patients are addressed through proactive diagnosis, assessment of severity, and integrated management of the COPD multimorbid state, with a patient-centred rather than a single-disease approach.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, so that many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients. This is the third update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions, alone or in combination, in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 13 January 2021, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies. We ran updated searches in February 2023 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Characteristics of studies awaiting classification'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

For this update, we included randomised trials only. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy (four or more medicines) in people aged 65 years and older, which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, and two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 38 studies, which includes an additional 10 in this update. The included studies consisted of 24 randomised trials and 14 cluster-randomised trials. Thirty-six studies examined complex, multi-faceted interventions of pharmaceutical care (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patients' outcomes), in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists, nurses and geriatricians, and most were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane risk of bias tool found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low. It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool) (mean difference (MD) -5.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.26 to -2.06; I2 = 97%; 8 studies, 947 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.05; I2 = 67%; 9 studies, 2404 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIM (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98; I2 = 84%; 13 studies, 4534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.05 to 0.09; I2 = 92%; 3 studies, 691 participants; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only three studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk of bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPO (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.91; I2 = 95%; 7 studies, 2765 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to hospital admissions (data not pooled; 14 studies, 4797 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to quality of life (data not pooled; 16 studies, 7458 participants; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in 10 studies (6740 participants) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies. This also applied to studies examining adherence to medication (nine studies, 3848 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy resulted in clinically significant improvement. Since the last update of this review in 2018, there appears to have been an increase in the number of studies seeking to address potential prescribing omissions and more interventions being delivered by multidisciplinary teams.

Implementation of interprofessional quality circles on deprescribing in Swiss nursing homes: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are still frequent among older adults in nursing homes. Deprescribing is an intervention that has been shown to be effective in reducing their use. However, the implementation of deprescribing in clinical practice has not yet been widely evaluated. The Quality Circle Deprescribing Module (QC-DeMo) intervention has been trialled through an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 2 design. The intervention consists of a quality circle workshop session between healthcare professionals HCPs (physicians, nurses, and pharmacists) within a nursing home, in which they define a consensus to deprescribe specific PIMs classes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of the QC-DeMo intervention in nursing homes.

METHODS

This observational study focuses on the implementation part of the QC-DeMo trial. Implementation was based on the Framework for Implementation of Pharmacy Services (FISpH). Questionnaires at baseline and follow-up were used to evaluate reach, adoption, implementation effectiveness, fidelity, implementation, maintenance and the implementation strategies. Other data were collected from the QC-DeMo trial and routine data collected as part of the integrated pharmacy service where the QC-Demo trial was embedded. Implementation strategies included training of pharmacists, integration of the intervention into an existing quality circle dynamic and definition of tailored strategies to operationalise the consensus by each nursing home.

RESULTS

The QC-DeMo intervention was successfully implemented in 26 nursing homes in terms of reach, fidelity, adoption, implementation and implementation effectiveness. However, the intervention was found to be implemented with low maintenance as none of the nursing homes repeated the intervention after the trial. Implementation strategies were well received by HCPs: training was adequate according to pharmacists. Pre-existing quality circle dynamic facilitated interprofessional collaboration as involvement and support of each HCP was rated as high. HCPs recognized a specific and important role for each HCP in the deprescribing process. The most relevant tailored strategies to implement the consensus defined by each nursing home were identification of the patients by the pharmacist and a systematic review of medication's patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a Quality Circle on Deprescribing is feasible but its maintenance in practice remains challenging. This study explores multiple implementation outcomes to better inform future implementation efforts of these types of interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03688542 ), registered on 26.09.2018.

Frequency and impact of medication reviews for people aged 65 years or above in UK primary care: an observational study using electronic health records

BACKGROUND

Medication reviews in primary care provide an opportunity to review and discuss the safety and appropriateness of a person's medicines. However, there is limited evidence about access to and the impact of routine medication reviews for older adults in the general population, particularly in the UK. We aimed to quantify the proportion of people aged 65 years and over with a medication review recorded in 2019 and describe changes in the numbers and types of medicines prescribed following a review.

METHODS

We used anonymised primary care electronic health records from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD) to define a population of people aged 65 years or over in 2019. We counted people with a medication review record in 2019 and used Cox regression to estimate associations between demographic characteristics, diagnoses, and prescribed medicines and having a medication review. We used linear regression to compare the number of medicines prescribed as repeat prescriptions in the three months before and after a medication review. Specifically, we compared the 'prescription count' - the maximum number of different medicines with overlapping prescriptions people had in each period.

RESULTS

Of 591,726 people prescribed one or more medicines at baseline, 305,526 (51.6%) had a recorded medication review in 2019. Living in a care home (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.40-1.62), medication review in the previous year (1.83, 1.69-1.98), and baseline prescription count (e.g. 5-9 vs 1 medicine 1.41, 1.37-1.46) were strongly associated with having a medication review in 2019. Overall, the prescription count tended to increase after a review (mean change 0.13 medicines, 95% CI 0.12-0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Although medication reviews were commonly recorded for people aged 65 years or over, there was little change overall in the numbers and types of medicines prescribed following a review. This study did not examine whether the prescriptions were appropriate or other metrics, such as dose or medicine changes within the same class. However, by examining the impact of medication reviews before the introduction of structured medication review requirements in England in 2020, it provides a useful benchmark which these new reviews can be compared with.

STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate medications/potential prescribing omissions in older people: uptake and clinical impact

INTRODUCTION

STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs, STOPP) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs, START) have gained considerable interest and traction since they were first published in 2008. This review focuses on their uptake and impact in various clinical settings.

AREAS COVERED

STOPP/START criteria, now in their third iteration, are explicit criteria designed to facilitate detection of common and clinically important PIMs and PPOs during routine medication review in any clinical setting. We examine the influence of the criteria, particularly in clinical trials that focused on their impact on clinically relevant endpoints.

EXPERT OPINION

STOPP/START criteria are widely used in several countries within Europe and beyond for medication review and audit. As a discreet intervention, the criteria have been tested in several single-center and two large-scale multi-center clinical trials. The single-center trials indicate that STOPP/START criteria reduce polypharmacy, inappropriate prescribing, ADRs (adverse drug reactions), medication cost and falls. In contrast, the SENATOR and OPERAM multicentre trials did not demonstrate significant reduction in ADRs, all-cause mortality, drug-related hospital readmissions, nor any improvement in quality-of-life. Further clinical trials are required to examine whether STOPP/START criteria as an intervention can deliver significant clinical benefit in a reproducible manner in various clinical settings.

Multidisciplinary DEprescribing review for Frail oldER adults in long-term care (DEFERAL): Implementation strategy design using behaviour science tools and stakeholder engagement

INTRODUCTION

Deprescribing is a strategy for reducing the use of potentially inappropriate medications for older adults. Limited evidence exists on the development of strategies to support healthcare professionals (HCPs) deprescribing for frail older adults in long-term care (LTC).

OBJECTIVE

To design an implementation strategy, informed by theory, behavioural science and consensus from HCPs, which facilitates deprescribing in LTC.

METHODS

This study was consisted of 3 phases. First, factors influencing deprescribing in LTC were mapped to behaviour change techniques (BCTs) using the Behaviour Change Wheel and two published BCT taxonomies. Second, a Delphi survey of purposively sampled HCPs (general practitioners, pharmacists, nurses, geriatricians and psychiatrists) was conducted to select feasible BCTs to support deprescribing. The Delphi consisted of two rounds. Using Delphi results and literature on BCTs used in effective deprescribing interventions, BCTs which could form an implementation strategy were shortlisted by the research team based on acceptability, practicability and effectiveness. Finally, a roundtable discussion was held with a purposeful, convenience sample of LTC general practitioners, pharmacists and nurses to prioritise factors influencing deprescribing and tailor the proposed strategies for LTC.

RESULTS

Factors influencing deprescribing in LTC were mapped to 34 BCTs. The Delphi survey was completed by 16 participants. Participants reached consensus that 26 BCTs were feasible. Following the research team assessment, 21 BCTs were included in the roundtable. The roundtable discussion identified lack of resources as the primary barrier to address. The agreed implementation strategy incorporated 11 BCTs and consisted of an education-enhanced 3-monthly multidisciplinary team deprescribing review, led by a nurse, conducted at the LTC site.

CONCLUSION

The deprescribing strategy incorporates HCPs' experiential understanding of the nuances of LTC and thus addresses systemic barriers to deprescribing in this context. The strategy designed addresses five determinants of behaviour to best support HCPs engaging with deprescribing.

Prevalence and global trends of polypharmacy in patients with chronic liver disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite its central role in drug metabolism, the exact prevalence estimates and factors affecting global trends of polypharmacy in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD) have remained unexamined. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to estimate the prevalence of polypharmacy in patients with CLD and to comprehensively synthesize the socio-demographic factors that drive this.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search of relevant databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Science citation index, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness) for studies published from inception to May 30, 2022 that reported on prevalence estimates of polypharmacy in patients with CLD. The risk of bias was conducted utilizing Loney criteria. The primary outcome was the pooled prevalence of polypharmacy in patients with CLD. We subsequently performed a systematic review and weighted meta-analysis to ascertain the exact pooled prevalence of polypharmacy among patients with CLD.

RESULTS

We identified approximately 50 studies from the initial literature search, of which 7 (enrolling N = 521,435 patients) with CLD met the inclusion criteria; of these, 58.7% were male, with a mean age of 53.9 (SD ± 12.2) years. The overall pooled prevalence of polypharmacy among patients with CLD was 31% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 4%-66%, I2 = 100%, τ2 ≤ 0.001, P ≤ .0001). We found higher pooled prevalence estimates among patients aged 50 years and older compared to their younger cohorts (42%, [CI 10-77]; I2 = 100%, P = <.001 vs 21%, [CI 0-70]; I2 = 100%, P = <.001).

CONCLUSION

In an examination of multiple community- and hospital-based databases of patients with CLD, we found a pooled prevalence estimate of polypharmacy of approximately 31%. This represents a case burden within the range reported in the general population and will likely respond to mitigation strategies employed thus far for patients in that population.

A systematic review of randomised-controlled trials on deprescribing outcomes in older adults with polypharmacy

BACKGROUND

Mixed findings about deprescribing impact have emerged from varied study designs, interventions, outcome measures and targeting sub-categories of medications or morbidities. This systematic review controls for study design by reviewing randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) of deprescribing interventions using comprehensive medication profiles. The goal is to provide a synthesis of interventions and patient outcomes to inform healthcare providers and policy makers about deprescribing effectiveness.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to (1) review RCT deprescribing studies focusing on complete medication reviews of older adults with polypharmacy across all health settings, (2) map patients' clinical and economic outcomes against intervention and implementation strategies and (3) inform research agendas based on observed benefits and best practices.

METHODS

The PRISMA framework for systematic reviews was followed. Databases used were EBSCO Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus and Web of Science. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomised trials.

RESULTS

Fourteen articles were included. Interventions varied in setting, preparation, use of interdisciplinary teams, validated guidelines and tools, patient-centredness and implementation strategy. Thirteen studies (92.9%) found deprescribing interventions reduced the number of drugs and/or doses taken. No studies found threats to patient safety in terms of primary outcomes including morbidity, hospitalisations, emergency room use and falls. Four of five studies identifying health quality of life as a primary outcome found significant effects associated with deprescribing. Both studies with cost as their primary outcome found significant effects as did two with cost as a secondary outcome. Studies did not systematically study how intervention components influenced deprescribing impact. To explore this gap, this review mapped studies' primary outcomes to deprescribing intervention components using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Five studies had significant, positive primary outcomes related to health-related quality of life (HRQOL), cost and/or hospitalisation, with four reporting patient-centred elements in their intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

RCT primary outcomes found deprescribing is safe and reduces drug number or dose. Five RCTs found a significant deprescribing impact on HRQOL, cost or hospitalisation. Important future research agendas include analysing (1) understudied outcomes like cost, and (2) intervention and implementation components that enhance effectiveness, such as patient-centred elements.

Polypharmacy stewardship: a novel approach to tackle a major public health crisis

With growing global concern regarding medication-related harm, WHO launched a global patient safety challenge, Medication Without Harm, in March, 2017. Multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and fragmented health care (ie, patients attending appointments with multiple physicians in various health-care settings) are key drivers of medication-related harm, which can result in negative functional outcomes, high rates of hospitalisation, and excess morbidity and mortality, particularly in patients with frailty older than 75 years. Some studies have examined the effect of medication stewardship interventions in older patient cohorts, but focused on a narrow spectrum of potentially adverse medication practices, with mixed results. In response to the WHO challenge, we propose the novel concept of broad-spectrum polypharmacy stewardship, a coordinated intervention designed to improve the management of multimorbidities, taking into account potentially inappropriate medications, potential prescribing omissions, drug-drug and drug-disease interactions, and prescribing cascades, aligning treatment regimens with the condition, prognosis, and preferences of the individual patient. Although the safety and efficacy of polypharmacy stewardship need to be tested with well designed clinical trials, we propose that this approach could minimise medication-related harm in older people with multimorbidities exposed to polypharmacy.

Medication changes and potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients with significant polypharmacy

BACKGROUND

Number of medicines and medicines appropriateness are often used as outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of deprescribing interventions.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in prescribing, potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP) and prescribing of low-value medicines in older people with multimorbidity and significant polypharmacy.

METHOD

This study was a retrospective secondary analysis of prescription data from a cluster randomised controlled trial involving 404 participants aged ≥ 65 years and prescribed ≥ 15 repeat medicines from 51 different general practices. For this study, repeat medications at baseline and follow-up (~ 1 year later) were assigned Anatomical Therapeutic Classification (ATC) codes. Outcomes were the most commonly prescribed and potentially inappropriately prescribed drug groups, the most frequently discontinued or initiated drug groups and the number of changes per person between baseline and follow-up.

RESULTS

There were 7051 medicines prescribed to 404 participants at baseline. There was a median of 17 medicines (IQR 15-19) at baseline and 16 (IQR 14-19) at follow-up. PIP represented 17.1% of prescriptions at baseline and 15.7% (n = 6777) at follow-up. There were reductions in the prescription of most drug groups with the largest reduction in antiplatelet prescriptions. Considering medication discontinuations, initiations and switches, there was a median of five medication changes per person (range 0-30, IQR 3-9) by follow-up. There were 95 low-value prescriptions at baseline reducing to 78 at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The number of medication changes per person was not reflected by summarising medication count at two time points, highlighting the complexity of prescribing for patients with polypharmacy. Frequent medication changes has potentially important implications for patients in terms of adherence and medication safety.

TRIAL REGISTRY

The SPPiRE trial was registered prospectively on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12752680).

A pharmacist-led medication review service with a deprescribing focus guided by implementation science

Background: Little research addressed deprescribing-focused medication optimization interventions while utilizing implementation science. This study aimed to develop a pharmacist-led medication review service with a deprescribing focus in a care facility serving patients of low income receiving medications for free in Lebanon followed by an assessment of the recommendations' acceptance by prescribing physicians. As a secondary aim, the study evaluates the impact of this intervention on satisfaction compared to satisfaction associated with receiving routine care. Methods: The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to address implementation barriers and facilitators by mapping its constructs to the intervention implementation determinants at the study site. After filling medications and receiving routine pharmacy service at the facility, patients 65 years or older and taking 5 or more medications, were assigned into two groups. Both groups of patients received the intervention. Patient satisfaction was assessed right after receiving the intervention (intervention group) or just before the intervention (control group). The intervention consisted of an assessment of patient medication profiles before addressing recommendations with attending physicians at the facility. Patient satisfaction with the service was assessed using a validated translated version of the Medication Management Patient Satisfaction Survey (MMPSS). Descriptive statistics provided data on drug-related problems, the nature and the number of recommendations as well as physicians' responses to recommendations. Independent sample t-tests were used to assess the intervention's impact on patient satisfaction. Results: Of 157 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 143 patients were enrolled: 72 in the control group and 71 in the experimental group. Of 143 patients, 83% presented drug-related problems (DRPs). Further, 66% of the screened DRPs met the STOPP/START criteria (77%, and 23% respectively). The intervention pharmacist provided 221 recommendations to physicians, of which 52% were to discontinue one or more medications. Patients in the intervention group showed significantly higher satisfaction compared to the ones in the control group (p < 0.001, effect size = 1.75). Of those recommendations, 30% were accepted by the physicians. Conclusion: Patients showed significantly higher satisfaction with the intervention they received compared to routine care. Future work should assess how specific CFIR constructs contribute to the outcomes of deprescribing-focused interventions.

Patient and general practitioner experiences of implementing a medication review intervention in older people with multimorbidity: Process evaluation of the SPPiRE trial

INTRODUCTION

The SPPiRE cluster randomized controlled trial found that a general practitioner (GP)-delivered medication review that incorporated screening for potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP), a brown bag review and a patient priority assessment, resulted in a significant but small reduction in the number of medicines and no significant reduction in PIP. This process evaluation aims to explore the experiences of GPs and patients and the potential for system-wide implementation.

METHODS

The trial included 51 general practices and 404 participants with multimorbidity aged ≥65 years, prescribed ≥15 medicines. The process evaluation used mixed methods and ran parallel to the trial. Quantitative data was collected from the SPPiRE intervention website and analysed descriptively. Qualitative data on medication changes were collected from intervention GPs (18/26) and a purposive sample of intervention patients (27/208) via semi-structured telephone interviews. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic analysis. Qualitative and quantitative data were integrated using a triangulation protocol.

RESULTS

The analysis generated two themes, intervention implementation and mechanisms of action, and both were underpinned by the theme of context. Intervention delivery varied among practices and 45 patients (28%) had no review, primarily due to insufficient GP time. 80% of reviewed patients had ≥1 PIP identified, 59% had ≥1 problem identified during the brown bag review and 79% had ≥1 priority recorded. The brown bag review resulted in the most deprescription of medications. GPs and patients responded positively to the intervention but most GPs did not engage with the patient priority-setting process. GPs identified a lack of integration into practice software and resources as barriers to future implementation.

CONCLUSION

The SPPiRE intervention had a small effect in reducing the number of medicines and this was primarily mediated through the brown bag review. The context of resource shortages and deep-seated views around medical decision-making influenced intervention implementation.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Qualitative data on the implementation of the medication review and their wider views on their medicines was collected from older people with multimorbidity through semi-structured telephone interviews.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The SPPiRE trial was registered prospectively on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12752680).

Prescription Trends in Hospice Care: A Longitudinal Retrospective and Descriptive Medication Analysis

BACKGROUND

In hospice and palliative care, drug therapy is essential for symptom control. However, drug regimens are complex and prone to drug-related problems. Drug regimens must be simplified to improve quality of life and reduce risks associated with drug-related problems, particularly at end-of-life. To support clinical guidance towards a safe and effective drug therapy in hospice care, it is important to understand prescription trends.

OBJECTIVES

To explore prescription trends and describe changes to drug regimens in inpatient hospice care.

DESIGN

We performed a retrospective longitudinal and descriptive analysis of prescriptions for regular and as-needed (PRN) medication at three timepoints in deceased patients of one Swiss hospice.

SETTING/SUBJECTS

Prescription records of all patients (≥ 18 years) with an inpatient stay of three days and longer (admission and time of death in 2020) were considered eligible for inclusion.

RESULTS

Prescription records of 58 inpatients (average age 71.7 ± 12.8 [37-95] years) were analyzed. The medication analysis showed that polypharmacy prevalence decreased from 74.1% at admission to 13.8% on the day of death. For regular medication, overall numbers of prescriptions decreased over the patient stay while PRN medication decreased after the first consultation by the attending physician and increased slightly towards death.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescription records at admission revealed high initial rates of polypharmacy that were reduced steadily until time of death. These findings emphasize the importance of deprescribing at end-of-life and suggest pursuing further research on the contribution of clinical guidance towards optimizing drug therapy and deprescribing in inpatient hospice care.

Multimorbidity

Multimorbidity (two or more coexisting conditions in an individual) is a growing global challenge with substantial effects on individuals, carers and society. Multimorbidity occurs a decade earlier in socioeconomically deprived communities and is associated with premature death, poorer function and quality of life and increased health-care utilization. Mechanisms underlying the development of multimorbidity are complex, interrelated and multilevel, but are related to ageing and underlying biological mechanisms and broader determinants of health such as socioeconomic deprivation. Little is known about prevention of multimorbidity, but focusing on psychosocial and behavioural factors, particularly population level interventions and structural changes, is likely to be beneficial. Most clinical practice guidelines and health-care training and delivery focus on single diseases, leading to care that is sometimes inadequate and potentially harmful. Multimorbidity requires person-centred care, prioritizing what matters most to the individual and the individual's carers, ensuring care that is effectively coordinated and minimally disruptive, and aligns with the patient's values. Interventions are likely to be complex and multifaceted. Although an increasing number of studies have examined multimorbidity interventions, there is still limited evidence to support any approach. Greater investment in multimorbidity research and training along with reconfiguration of health care supporting the management of multimorbidity is urgently needed.

Deprescribing Education vs Usual Care for Patients With Cognitive Impairment and Primary Care Clinicians: The OPTIMIZE Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial

Background

Individuals with dementia or mild cognitive impairment frequently have multiple chronic conditions (defined as ≥2 chronic medical conditions) and take multiple medications, increasing their risk for adverse outcomes. Deprescribing (reducing or stopping medications for which potential harms outweigh potential benefits) may decrease their risk of adverse outcomes.

Objective

To examine the effectiveness of increasing patient and clinician awareness about the potential to deprescribe unnecessary or risky medications among patients with dementia or mild cognitive impairment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pragmatic, patient-centered, 12-month cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, at 18 primary care clinics in a not-for-profit integrated health care delivery system. The study included 3012 adults aged 65 years or older with dementia or mild cognitive impairment who had 1 or more additional chronic medical conditions and were taking 5 or more long-term medications.

Interventions

An educational brochure and a questionnaire on attitudes toward deprescribing were mailed to patients prior to a primary care visit, clinicians were notified about the mailing, and deprescribing tip sheets were distributed to clinicians at monthly clinic meetings.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The number of prescribed long-term medications and the percentage of individuals prescribed 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.

Results

This study comprised 1433 individuals (806 women [56.2%]; mean [SD] age, 80.1 [7.2] years) in 9 intervention clinics and 1579 individuals (874 women [55.4%]; mean [SD] age, 79.9 [7.5] years) in 9 control clinics who met the eligibility criteria. At baseline, both groups were prescribed a similar mean (SD) number of long-term medications (7.0 [2.1] in the intervention group and 7.0 [2.2] in the control group), and a similar proportion of individuals in both groups were taking 1 or more PIMs (437 of 1433 individuals [30.5%] in the intervention group and 467 of 1579 individuals [29.6%] in the control group). At 6 months, the adjusted mean number of long-term medications was similar in the intervention and control groups (6.4 [95% CI, 6.3-6.5] vs 6.5 [95% CI, 6.4-6.6]; P = .14). The estimated percentages of patients in the intervention and control groups taking 1 or more PIMs were similar (17.8% [95% CI, 15.4%-20.5%] vs 20.9% [95% CI, 18.4%-23.6%]; P = .08). In preplanned subgroup analyses, adjusted differences between the intervention and control groups were -0.16 (95% CI, -0.34 to 0.01) for individuals prescribed 7 or more long-term medications at baseline (n = 1434) and -0.03 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.13) for those prescribed 5 to 6 medications (n = 1578) (P = .28 for interaction; P = .19 for subgroup interaction for PIMs).

Conclusions and Relevance

This large-scale educational deprescribing intervention for older adults with cognitive impairment taking 5 or more long-term medications and their primary care clinicians demonstrated small effect sizes and did not significantly reduce the number of long-term medications and PIMs. Such interventions should target older adults taking relatively more medications.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03984396.

Development of an Electronic Tool to Assess Patient Preferences in Geriatric Polypharmacy (PolyPref)

PURPOSE

Medical decision-making in older adults with multiple chronic conditions and polypharmacy should include the individual patient's treatment preferences. We developed and pilot-tested an electronic instrument (PolyPref) to elicit patient preferences in geriatric polypharmacy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

PolyPref follows a two-stage direct approach to preference assessment. Stage 1 generates an individual preselection of relevant health outcomes and medication regimen characteristics, followed by stage 2, in which their importance is assessed using the Q-sort methodology. The feasibility of the instrument was tested in adults aged ≥70 years with ≥2 chronic conditions and regular intake of ≥5 medicines. After the assessment with PolyPref, the patients rated the tool with regard to its comprehensibility and usability and assessed the accuracy of the personal result. Evaluators rated the patients' understanding of the task.

RESULTS

Eighteen short-term health outcomes, 3 long-term health outcomes, and 8 medication regimen characteristics were included in the instrument. The final population for the pilot study comprised 15 inpatients at a clinic for geriatric rehabilitation with a mean age of 80.6 (± 6.0) years, a median score of 28 (range 25-30) points on the Mini-Mental State Examination, and a mean of 11.6 (± 3.6) regularly taken medicines. Feedback by the patients and the evaluators revealed ratings in favor of understanding and comprehensibility of 86.7% to 100%. The majority of the patients stated that their final result summarized the most important aspects of their pharmacotherapy (93.3%) and that its ranking order reflected their personal opinion (100%). Preference assessment took an average of 35 (± 8.5) min, with the instrument being handled by the evaluator in 14 of the 15 participants.

CONCLUSION

Preference assessment with PolyPref was feasible in older adults with multiple chronic conditions and polypharmacy, offering a new strategy for the standardized evaluation of patient priorities in geriatric pharmacotherapy.