Patient empowerment brochures to increase gabapentinoid deprescribing: protocol for the prospective, controlled before-and-after GABA-WHY trial

Medication Deprescribing in Patients Receiving Hemodialysis: A Prospective Controlled Quality Improvement Study

Rationale & Objective

Patients treated with dialysis are commonly prescribed multiple medications (polypharmacy), including some potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). PIMs are associated with an increased risk of medication harm (eg, falls, fractures, hospitalization). Deprescribing is a solution that proposes to stop, reduce, or switch medications to a safer alternative. Although deprescribing pairs well with routine medication reviews, it can be complex and time-consuming. Whether clinical decision support improves the process and increases deprescribing for patients treated with dialysis is unknown. This study aimed to test the efficacy of the clinical decision support software MedSafer at increasing deprescribing for patients treated with dialysis.

Study Design

Prospective controlled quality improvement study with a contemporaneous control.

Setting & Participants

Patients prescribed ≥5 medications in 2 outpatient dialysis units in Montréal, Canada.

Exposures

Patient health data from the electronic medical record were input into the MedSafer web-based portal to generate reports listing candidate PIMs for deprescribing. At the time of a planned biannual medication review (usual care), treating nephrologists in the intervention unit additionally received deprescribing reports, and patients received EMPOWER brochures containing safety information on PIMs they were prescribed. In the control unit, patients received usual care alone.

Analytical Approach

The proportion of patients with ≥1 PIMs deprescribed was compared between the intervention and control units following a planned medication review to determine the effect of using MedSafer. The absolute risk difference with 95% CI and number needed to treat were calculated.

Outcomes

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed. Secondary outcomes include the reduction in the mean number of prescribed drugs and PIMs from baseline.

Results

In total, 195 patients were included (127, control unit; 68, intervention unit); the mean age was 64.8 ± 15.9 (SD), and 36.9% were women. The proportion of patients with ≥1 PIMs deprescribed in the control unit was 3.1% (4/127) vs 39.7% (27/68) in the intervention unit (absolute risk difference, 36.6%; 95% CI, 24.5%-48.6%; P < 0.0001; number needed to treat = 3).

Limitations

This was a single-center nonrandomized study with a type 1 error risk. Deprescribing durability was not assessed, and the study was not powered to reduce adverse drug events.

Conclusions

Deprescribing clinical decision support and patient EMPOWER brochures provided during medication reviews could be an effective and scalable intervention to address PIMs in the dialysis population. A confirmatory randomized controlled trial is needed.

Exploration of the barriers and enablers of benzodiazepines deprescribing in prisons: A qualitative study among health and social care professionals

BACKGROUND

The prison environment is a place of high consumption of benzodiazepines (BZDs) due to the anxiety and sleep disturbances, mental disorders, detoxification and trafficking.

OBJECTIVE

The study aims to explore experiences of health and social care professionals on the use of BZDs in prisons, as well as the barriers and enablers to their deprescribing.

METHOD

Semistructured individual interviews with professionals working in a prison setting were performed between March and April 2022, based on an interview guide. They were recorded and transcribed using the NVivo software. A qualitative analysis using an inductive approach based on a thematic analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Sixteen health professionals were interviewed, including psychiatrists, general practitioners, nurses, pharmacists, psychologists, musicologists and pharmacy technicians. The identified barriers to deprescribing BZDs were problems of coordination between prescribers, lack of time and alternatives. Concerning the enablers, therapeutic education groups, staff's awareness of the irrelevance of some medication and multi-professional advice were identified.

DISCUSSION

This study highlights the similarities in deprescribing difficulties between prison and other settings. Some of the levers identified in our study have shown their effectiveness in different settings.

CONCLUSION

Deprescribing is done most of the time in good conditions but requires an additional delay compared to the outside environment.

Electronic Decision Support for Deprescribing in Patients on Hemodialysis: Clinical Research Protocol for a Prospective, Controlled, Quality Improvement Study

Background

Patients on dialysis are commonly prescribed multiple medications (polypharmacy), many of which are potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Potentially inappropriate medications are associated with an increased risk of falls, fractures, and hospitalization. MedSafer is an electronic tool that generates individualized, prioritized reports with deprescribing opportunities by cross-referencing patient health data and medications with guidelines for deprescribing.

Objectives

Our primary aim was to increase deprescribing, as compared with usual care (medication reconciliation or MedRec), for outpatients receiving maintenance hemodialysis, through the provision of MedSafer deprescribing opportunity reports to the treating team and patient empowerment deprescribing brochures provided directly to the patients themselves.

Design

This controlled, prospective, quality improvement study with a contemporary control builds on existing policy at the outpatient hemodialysis centers where biannual MedRecs are performed by the treating nephrologist and nursing team.

Setting

The study takes place on 2 of the 3 outpatient hemodialysis units of the McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. The intervention unit is the Lachine Hospital, and the control unit is the Montreal General Hospital.

Patients

A closed cohort of outpatient hemodialysis patients visit one of the hemodialysis centers multiple times per week for their hemodialysis treatment. The initial cohort of the intervention unit includes 85 patients, whereas the control unit has 153 patients. Patients who are transplanted, hospitalized during their scheduled MedRec, or die before or during the MedRec will be excluded from the study.

Measurements

We will compare rates of deprescribing between the control and intervention units following a single MedRec. On the intervention unit, MedRecs will be paired with MedSafer reports (the intervention), and on the control unit, MedRecs will take place without MedSafer reports (usual care). On the intervention unit, patients will also receive deprescribing patient empowerment brochures for select medication classes (gabapentinoids, proton-pump inhibitors, sedative hypnotics and opioids for chronic non-cancer pain). Physicians on the intervention unit will be interviewed post-MedRec to determine implementation barriers and facilitators.

Methods

The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients with 1 or more PIMs deprescribed on the intervention unit, as compared with the control unit, following a biannual MedRec. This study will build on existing policies aimed at optimizing medication therapy in patients undergoing maintenance hemodialysis. The electronic deprescribing decision support tool, MedSafer, will be tested in a dialysis setting, where nephrologists are regularly in contact with patients. MedRecs are an interdisciplinary clinical activity performed biannually on the hemodialysis units (in the Spring and Fall), and within 1 week following discharge from any hospitalization. This study will take place in the Fall of 2022. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted among physicians on the intervention unit to determine barriers and facilitators to implementation of the MedSafer-supplemented MedRec process and analyzed according to grounded theory in qualitative research.

Limitations

Deprescribing can be limited due to nephrologists' time constraints, cognitive impairment of the hemodialyzed patient stemming from their illness and complex medication regimens, and lack of sufficient patient resources to learn about the medications they are taking and their potential harms.

Conclusions

Electronic decision support can facilitate deprescribing for the clinical team by providing a nudge reminder, decreasing the time it takes to review and effectuate guideline recommendations, and by lowering the barrier of when and how to taper. Guidelines for deprescribing in the dialysis population have recently been published and incorporated into the MedSafer software. To our knowledge, this will be the first study to examine the efficacy of pairing these guidelines with MedRecs by leveraging electronic decision support in the outpatient dialysis population.

Trial registration

This study was registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05585268) on October 2, 2022, prior to the enrolment of the first participant on October 3, 2022. The registration number is pending at the time of protocol submission.