Addressing the Issue of Chronic, Inappropriate Benzodiazepine Use: How Can Pharmacists Play a Role?

Impact of a Collaborative Pharmacist-Cardiovascular Surgeon Protocol for High Risk of Postoperative Delirium on Benzodiazepine Prescription Trends in Hospitalized Patients

Benzodiazepine (BZD) therapy has been associated with several side effects in hospitalized patients. We developed a protocol-based pharmacotherapy management (PBPM) to recommend BZD discontinuation for patients at high risk for postoperative delirium (PD) following cardiovascular surgery. This study investigated whether implementing PBPM affects BZD prescription trends among cardiovascular surgeons for PD non-high-risk patients. This single-center retrospective cohort study collected all prescription orders of BZD from June 1, 2018, to May 31, 2023, and these orders were divided into 2 periods: 2 years and 6 months before and after PBPM. Changes in BZD prescription trends for patients with non-high-risk of PD were analyzed using interrupted time series (ITS). Furthermore, all patients in the department of cardiovascular surgery were also investigated as supplementary analysis. ITS analysis revealed that there was a significant level change in BZD prescriptions (-20%, 95% confidence interval: -37 to -2.8, p = 0.023), and the slope exhibited a downward trend (-0.90%, 95% confidence interval: -1.9 to 0.07, p = 0.068) in PD non-high-risk patients. In all patients, the level change was -21% (95% confidence interval: -0.36 to -0.9, p = 0.004) and the slope change was -0.85% (95% confidence interval: -1.7 to -0.02, p = 0.045). These results suggest that PBPM implementation significantly reduced the BZD prescription rate among cardiovascular surgeons for patients with a non-high-risk of PD. The alteration in prescription trends might be attributed to pharmacist interventions targeting patients with a high risk of PD, which influenced the prescribing behavior of cardiovascular surgeons.

Prescribing benzodiazepines in young adults with anxiety: a qualitative study of GP perspectives

BACKGROUND

Incident benzodiazepine prescriptions in primary care for anxiety decreased between 2003 and 2018. However, from 2008, incident prescribing of benzodiazepines for anxiety increased among those aged 18-34 years. There are increasing concerns around prescribing of benzodiazepines. Further, although guidelines state benzodiazepines should only be prescribed short term, in 2017, 44% of incident prescriptions were prescribed for longer than the recommended duration of 2-4 weeks.

AIM

To understand when and why GPs prescribe benzodiazepines for anxiety in young adults.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A qualitative study was undertaken using in-depth interviews with 17 GPs from 10 general practices in South West England.

METHOD

Interviews were conducted by telephone or videocall. A topic guide was used to ensure consistency across interviews. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and data analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

GPs described caution in prescribing benzodiazepines for anxiety in young adults, but thought they had an important role in acute situations. GPs described caution in prescribing duration, but some thought longer-term prescriptions could be appropriate. In light of these views, some GPs questioned whether primary care needs to revisit how clinicians are using benzodiazepines. GPs perceived that some young adults requested benzodiazepines and suggested this might be because they wanted quick symptom relief. GPs noted that refusing to prescribe felt uncomfortable and that the number of young adults presenting to general practice, already dependent on benzodiazepines, had increased.

CONCLUSION

Patient-driven factors for prescribing benzodiazepines suggest there are current unmet treatment needs among young adults with anxiety. Given increases in prescribing in this age group, it may be timely to revisit the role of benzodiazepines in the management of people with anxiety in primary care.

Antipsychotic agents in anxiety disorders: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Although not approved for the treatment of anxiety disorders (except trifluoperazine) there is ongoing off-label, unapproved use of first-generation antipsychotics (FGAs) and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for anxiety disorders. There have been systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the use of antipsychotics in anxiety disorders, most of which focused on SGAs.

OBJECTIVE

The specific aims of this umbrella review are to: (1) Evaluate the evidence of efficacy of FGAs and SGAs in anxiety disorders as an adjunctive treatment to traditional antidepressant treatments and other nonantipsychotic medications; (2) Compare monotherapy with antipsychotics to first-line treatments for anxiety disorders in terms of effectiveness, risks, and side effects. The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021237436).

METHODS

An initial search was undertaken to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses from inception until 2020, with an updated search completed August 2021 and January 2023. The searches were conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), APA PsycInfo (Ovid), CINAHL Complete (EBSCOhost), and the Cochrane Library through hand searches of references of included articles. Review quality was measured using the AMSTAR-2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) scale.

RESULTS

The original and updated searches yielded 1796 and 3744 articles respectively, of which 45 were eligible. After final review, 25 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included in the analysis. Most of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses were deemed low-quality through AMSTAR-2 with only one review being deemed high-quality. In evaluating the monotherapies with antipsychotics compared with first-line treatments for anxiety disorder there was insufficient evidence due to flawed study designs (such as problems with randomization) and small sample sizes within studies. There was limited evidence suggesting efficacy of antipsychotic agents in anxiety disorders other than quetiapine in generalized anxiety disorder (GAD).

CONCLUSIONS

This umbrella review indicates a lack of high-quality studies of antipsychotics in anxiety disorders outside of the use of quetiapine in GAD. Although potentially effective for anxiety disorders, FGAs and SGAs may have risks and side effects that outweigh their efficacy, although there were limited data. Further long-term and larger-scale studies of antipsychotics in anxiety disorders are needed.

Validation of the Donabedian Model of Health Service Quality in Selected States in Nigeria

BACKGROUND

Every citizen of a nation has the basic constitutional right to quality health care. However, there is a dearth of literature on the validity and reliability of the Donabedian conceptual model of health service quality in Nigeria.

AIM

The current paper focused on validating the Donabedian model of quality health service in selected states in Nigeria.

METHODS

This is a prospective study of 479 health workforce consisting of 204 physicians, 180 nurses, and 95 health information management officers in three geopolitical zones in Nigeria. A multistage sampling technique was used to select respondents. Data were collected through a semi-structured questionnaire with a response rate of 87%. The overall reliability test of the variables yielded α =0.938. Data gathered was analyzed descriptively for the socio-demographic characteristics and Relative Importance Index (RII) to rank the criteria according to their relative importance.

RESULTS

Findings from the study reveal that the (RII) of all the items in the study instrument exceeded the universally acceptable threshold of 0.5, indicating a high level of care in Federal Tertiary Hospitals in Nigeria with regards to structure, process, and outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The study underscored the need for the adoption of the Donabedian model in the three other geopolitical zones in Nigeria for a generalized conclusion on the validity and reliability of the Donabedian conceptual model of health service quality. We recommended that research studies on health service quality should be anchored on Donabedian conceptual model as a way to increase awareness of the relevance of the model in improving clinical care in Nigeria.

A Need for Benzodiazepine Deprescribing in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cohort Study

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on patients’ mental health. The aim of this study was to explore whether the pandemic influenced the use and prescription of benzodiazepines and increased the need for community pharmacist involvement in counselling on deprescribing. Electronic prescription-related data from one pharmacy in Croatia were retrospectively collected for the COVID-19 period (April 2020 to March 2021) and compared with pre-COVID-19 (April 2019 to March 2020) data. Data were collected for patients diagnosed with anxiety disorders who filled out more than one prescription for benzodiazepines, and included age, sex, number of medicines, benzodiazepines, and comorbidities. A total of 1290 benzodiazepine users were identified; of these, 32.87% started using benzodiazepines during the COVID-19 period, while 35.2% continued with benzodiazepine use. More than half of all benzodiazepine users were identified as potential deprescribing candidates (dispensed more than three prescriptions). Women, older patients, multimorbid individuals, and patients with polypharmacy were more likely to use benzodiazepines for a prolonged period. The results show a negative trend of benzodiazepine usage among community-dwelling patients during the pandemic. Community pharmacists can identify potential candidates for deprescribing and initiate a process that ensures more rational use of benzodiazepines and increases the safety of treatment.

Long-term use of benzodiazepines and Z drugs: a qualitative study of patients' and healthcare professionals' perceptions and possible levers for change

BACKGROUND

Although long-term use of benzodiazepines (BZDs) and Z drugs is associated with various side effects, they remain popular among the older population. Possible reasons for this phenomenon could be ineffective ways of transmitting information on the health risks associated with long-term use, and communication gaps between patients and healthcare professionals.

AIM

The aim was to investigate the views of patients, physicians, nurses, and pharmacists regarding long-term BZD and Z drug use.

DESIGN & SETTING

The qualitative study design used focus group interviews with physicians, pharmacists, and nurses in Hamburg. Patient interviews were conducted in Lippstadt, Germany.

METHOD

The interviews were audiotaped with each participant's permission, transcribed, and thematically analysed using a software program for qualitative research (MAXQDA).

RESULTS

The data from the four focus groups consisting of 28 participants were analysed. Patients indicated lack of knowledge about risks and side effects, difficult access to alternatives, and fears of ceasing drug use without professional support. Although the physicians were reported to be cautious about prescribing BZDs and Z drugs, the psychosocial problems of older patients are often considered to be complex and treatment knowledge, experience, and resources are frequently unsatisfactory. Nurses described that when BZDs were prescribed, they did not feel it was their responsibility to evaluate their effects. Pharmacists were reported to be strongly ambivalent in informing patients about the risks, which may contradict the prescription advice provided by the physician.

CONCLUSION

Patients, physicians, nurses, and pharmacists reported differences in the perception of long-term BZD and Z drug use. Nevertheless, all of the participants described lack of information and expressed the need for greater communication exchange.

Deprescribing Benzodiazepines in Older Patients: Impact of Interventions Targeting Physicians, Pharmacists, and Patients

Benzodiazepines (BZDs; including the related Z-drugs) are frequently targets for deprescribing; long-term use in older people is harmful and often not beneficial. BZDs can result in significant harms, including falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, car crashes and a significant financial and legal burden to society. Deprescribing BZDs is problematic due to a complex interaction of drug, patient, physician and systematic barriers, including concern about a potentially distressing but rarely fatal withdrawal syndrome. Multiple studies have trialled interventions to deprescribe BZDs in older people and are discussed in this narrative review. Reported success rates of deprescribing BZD interventions range between 27 and 80%, and this variability can be attributed to heterogeneity of methodological approaches and limited generalisability to cognitively impaired patients. Interventions targeting the patient and/or carer include raising awareness (direct-to-consumer education, minimal interventions, and 'one-off' geriatrician counselling) and resourcing the patient (gradual dose reduction [GDR] with or without cognitive behavioural therapy, teaching relaxation techniques, and sleep hygiene). These are effective if the patient is motivated to cease and is not significantly cognitively impaired. Interventions targeted to physicians include prescribing interventions by audit, algorithm or medication review, and providing supervised GDR in combination with medication substitution. Pharmacists have less frequently been the targets for studies, but have key roles in several multifaceted interventions. Interventions are evaluated according to the Behaviour Change Wheel. Research supports trialling a stepwise approach in the cognitively intact older person, but having a low threshold to use less-consultative methods in patients with dementia. Several resources are available to support deprescribing of BZDs in clinical practice, including online protocols.

Association between Exposure to Benzodiazepines and Related Drugs and Survivorship of Total Hip Replacement in Arthritis: A Population-Based Cohort Study of 246,940 Patients

Background

Total hip replacement (THR) is successful in treating hip arthritis. Prosthetic survivorship may depend on the medications taken by the patient; particularly, the role of benzodiazepines and related drugs (Z-drugs) with THR revision has been poorly investigated. Our objective was to compare THR short-term survivorship according to level of exposure to benzodiazepine and Z-drugs.

Design, Setting and Participants

All French patients aged 40 years or older, having undergone primary THR from January 1, 2009, through December 31, 2012, for arthritis according to French national health insurance databases were included in the cohort. Outcome of interest was THR revision, including any surgical procedure in which the implant or any component was changed or removed. Follow-up started the day the primary THR was performed. Observations were right-censored on December 31, 2014, if neither revision nor death had yet occurred. Exposure of interest was the cumulative defined daily doses per day (cDDD/day) of benzodiazepines and Z-drugs dispensed within 6 months before or after inclusion. We defined four exposure groups; cDDD/d = 0: unexposed; <0.08: low exposure;] 0.08–0.38]: medium exposure; >0.38: high exposure. THR survivorship was assessed according to level of exposure to benzodiazepines and Z-drugs in univariate and multivariate Cox models adjusted for patient, THR and implanting center characteristics.

Results

The study cohort comprised 246,940 individuals: mean age at baseline, 69.9 years; women, 57.9%; unexposed: 51.7%; low exposure: 16.7%; medium exposure: 15.9%; and high exposure: 15.7%. During the median 45-month follow-up, 9043 individuals underwent prosthetic revision. Adjusted hazard ratios in low, medium and high exposed groups were 1.18 (95%CI, 1.12–1.26; P<0.001), 1.32 (95%CI, 1.24–1.40; P<0.001) and 1.37 (95%CI, 1.29–1.45; P<0.001), respectively, compared to unexposed.

Conclusion and Relevance

Exposure to benzodiazepines and Z-drugs is associated with an increased risk of THR revision, with a dose-response relationship. Cautious prescribing might be needed as well as careful history examination and assessment of risk for patients with a hip prosthesis.