281 PREVALENCE OF STOPPFALL FALLS-RISK-INCREASING DRUGS (FRIDS) IN PATIENTS PRESENTING TO HOSPITAL WITH A FALL

Background

Falls cause presentation and admission to hospital. Falls-Risk-Increasing-Drugs (FRIDs) are a modifiable risk factor. STOPPFalls criteria was developed, using an expert Delphi panel, to achieve consensus on a comprehensive list of FRIDs. The aim of this study was to identify the prevalence of STOPPFall PRIDs in patients presenting to hospital with falls and identify whether review by a specialist Falls and Syncope Service (FASS) reduces FRIDs.

Methods

This was a retrospective observational study. Patients ≥65 years reviewed by the hospital FASS in the emergency department (over 6-months) and in house (over 2-months), were included. Medication appropriateness at admission and discharge were assessed using STOPPFall criteria. Ethical approval was received from the local research and innovation office (ref7013).

Results

Of 156 patients, 87(55.8%) were ≥65 years; 46% female, mean age 78.1(SD7.5) years. The mean number of conditions was 4(SD4.4); the mean number of regular medications was 6.9(SD4.5). Reasons for referral to FASS included falls (34.5%), dizziness/near fall (35.6%), and transient loss of consciousness (29.9%). For 21.8% there was an associated injury; 11.5% a fracture. Thirty-seven (42.5%) had experienced at least one fall in the previous 12-months.

Sixty-four (73.6%) were on ≥1 STOPPFall FRID. The most common STOPPFall FRID prescribed to older adults were diuretics (24.1%), anti-depressants (20.7%) and benzodiazepines/benzodiazepine-related drugs (13.8%). At least 1 STOPPFall FRID was stopped in 31.3%. The most commonly deprescribed STOPPFall FRIDs were diuretics (20%), alpha blockers (6%) and benzodiazepines/benzodiazepine-related drugs (4.7%). Adults <65years (n=69) were more likely to be prescribed a STOPPFall FRID at admission than older adults (≥65years); 88.4% vs 73.6%, p=0.021.

Conclusion

STOPPFall FRIDs are prevalent in fallers of all ages. Even one review by a specialist FASS leads to medication optimization. The effectiveness of STOPPFalls criteria in the prevention of falls should be evaluated further in intervention studies.

284 DO MEDICATIONS GET OPTIMISED DURING AN ACUTE ADMISSION TO HOSPITAL?

Background

Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions (PIPs) and Potential Prescribing Omissions (PPOs) are common in hospitalised older adults and associated with poor outcomes. The aim of this study was to assess whether PIPs and PPOs are reduced during an acute hospital admission.

Methods

All inpatients on 5 gerontological wards (1 acute, 1 subacute, 2 rehabilitation, 1 long-stay) on October 31st 2021 were eligible for inclusion. Medical records were retrospectively reviewed. Medication appropriateness was assessed by two assessors at admission and discharge using STOPP/START version 2. Records were consecutively reviewed according to discharge date. Ethical approval was received from the local research and innovation office (ref6275)

Results

Of 144 eligible patients, 41 were included; mean age 82.1 (SD6.8) years; 48.8% female, 95.1% under the care of geriatricians. The median length of stay was 24 (IQR10-67.5) days. Mean number of conditions was 5.6 (SD2.9) with dementia present in 22.5%. The mean number of medications increased during admission from 7.2 (SD3.2) to 9 (SD3.1); p=0.006

The number of patients prescribed at least 1 STOPP-PIP reduced by 20.6%; 82.9% (admission) vs 65.9% (discharge), p<0.001. The most common PIPs at were (i) drugs without a clear indication, 34.1% (admission) vs 14.6% (discharge), (ii) high dose proton pump inhibitors, 34.1% (admission) vs 34.1% (discharge) and (iii) Z-drugs in fallers; 17.1% (admission) vs 12.2% (discharge). Of 41 patients, 35 could have START criteria applied. START PPOs were reduced by 53%; 47.2% (admission) vs 22.2% (discharge), p=0.001. The largest improvement was seen in bone absorptive therapy (11.4% (admission) vs 2.9% (discharge) and vitamin d in those experiencing falls/osteopenia; 5.57% (admission) vs 2.9% (discharge). Of the 134 STOPP/START criteria listed, 36 (19.4%) were identified in this cohort.

Conclusion

Although the average number of medications increased, PIPs reduced significantly. Only 19.4% of STOPP/START criteria were identified, suggesting that focusing on a number of key PIPs going forward could improve prescribing practices.

Deprescribing practices, habits and attitudes of geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training across Europe: a large web-based survey

PURPOSE

To provide an overview of the current deprescribing attitudes, practices, and approaches of geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training across Europe.

METHODS

An online survey was disseminated among European geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training. The survey comprised Likert scale and multiple-choice questions on deprescribing approaches and practices, deprescribing education and knowledge, and facilitators/barriers of deprescribing. Responses to the survey questions and participant characteristics were quantified and differences evaluated between geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training and between European regions.

RESULTS

The 964 respondents (median age 42 years old; 64% female; 21% geriatricians-in-training) were generally willing to deprescribe (98%) and felt confident about deprescribing (85%). Despite differences across European regions, the most commonly reported reasons for deprescribing were functional impairment and occurrence of adverse drug reactions. The most important barriers for deprescribing were patients' unwillingness, fear of negative consequences, lack of time, and poor communication between multiple prescribers. Perceived risk of adverse drug reactions was highest for psychotropic drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, cardiovascular drugs, and opioid analgesics. Only one in four respondents (23% of geriatricians and 37% of geriatricians-in-training) think education in medical school had sufficiently prepared them for deprescribing in clinical practice. They reported that their future deprescribing activities would probably increase with improved information sharing between various prescribers, deprescribing recommendations in guidelines, and increased education and training. Approximately 90% think that a paradigm shift is required for prescribers and patients, increasing focus on the possible benefits of deprescribing (potentially) inappropriate medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the outcomes of this survey, we recommend investing in improved inter-professional communication, better education and evidence-based recommendations to improve future patient-centered deprescribing practices.

A systematic scoping review of interventions to optimise medication prescribing and adherence in older adults with cancer

BACKGROUND

Older adults with cancer often require multiple medications (polypharmacy) comprising cancer-specific treatments, supportive care medications (e.g. analgesics), and medications for pre-existing health conditions. Increasing numbers of medications may increase risks of potentially inappropriate prescribing and non-adherence.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of evaluations of interventions aimed at optimising medication prescribing and/or adherence in older adults with cancer.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review was undertaken. Four databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were searched using relevant search terms (e.g. cancer, older adults). Eligible studies evaluated interventions seeking to improve medication prescribing and/or adherence in older adults (≥65 years) with cancer using a comparative evaluation. All outcomes for studies that met inclusion criteria were included in the review. Extracted data were collated using tables and accompanying narrative descriptive summaries. The review was reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines.

RESULTS

Nine studies met inclusion criteria comprising five randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and four before-and-after study designs. Studies were primarily conducted in oncology clinics, ranging from single study sites to 109 oncology clinics. Sample sizes ranged between 33 and 4844 patients. Interventions most commonly involved patient education (n = 6) delivered by pharmacists or nurses. Three studies reported on prescribing-related outcomes and seven studies reported on adherence-related outcomes, using different terminology and assessment methods. Prescribing-related outcomes focused on medication appropriateness (using Beers criteria) and drug-related problems including drug interactions. Adherence-related outcomes included assessments of self-reported medication adherence and calculation of patients' medication possession ratio.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review highlights a lack of robust evaluations of interventions aimed at optimising medication prescribing and adherence in older adults with cancer. Future research should improve rigour during intervention development, evaluation and reporting in order to generate findings that could inform future practice.

The effect of SENATOR (Software ENgine for the Assessment and optimisation of drug and non-drug Therapy in Older peRsons) on incident adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in an older hospital cohort - Trial Protocol

Background

The aim of this trial is to evaluate the effect of SENATOR software on incident, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in older, multimorbid, hospitalized patients. The SENATOR software produces a report designed to optimize older patients’ current prescriptions by applying the published STOPP and START criteria, highlighting drug-drug and drug-disease interactions and providing non-pharmacological recommendations aimed at reducing the risk of incident delirium.

Methods

We will conduct a multinational, pragmatic, parallel arm Prospective Randomized Open-label, Blinded Endpoint (PROBE) controlled trial. Patients with acute illnesses are screened for recruitment within 48 h of arrival to hospital and enrolled if they meet the relevant entry criteria. Participants’ medical history, current prescriptions, select laboratory tests, electrocardiogram, cognitive status and functional status are collected and entered into a dedicated trial database. Patients are individually randomized with equal allocation ratio. Randomization is stratified by site and medical versus surgical admission, and uses random block sizes. Patients randomized to either arm receive standard routine pharmaceutical clinical care as it exists in each site. Additionally, in the intervention arm an individualized SENATOR-generated medication advice report based on the participant’s clinical and medication data is placed in their medical record and a senior medical staff member is requested to review it and adopt any of its recommendations that they judge appropriate. The trial’s primary outcome is the proportion of patients experiencing at least one adjudicated probable or certain, non-trivial ADR, during the index hospitalization, assessed at 14 days post-randomization or at index hospital discharge if it occurs earlier. Potential ADRs are identified retrospectively by the site researchers who complete a Potential Endpoint Form (one per type of event) that is adjudicated by a blinded, expert committee. All occurrences of 12 pre-specified events, which represent the majority of ADRs, are reported to the committee along with other suspected ADRs. Participants are followed up 12 (+/− 4) weeks post-index hospital discharge to assess medication quality and healthcare utilization.

This is the first clinical trial to examine the effectiveness of a software intervention on incident ADRs and associated healthcare costs during hospitalization in older people with multi-morbidity and polypharmacy.

Trial registration number

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02097654, 27 March 2014.

Advance care planning within survivorship care plans for older cancer survivors: A systematic review

Advances in the medical treatment of cancer have increased the number of survivors, particularly among older adults, who now represent the majority of these. Survivorship care plans (SCPs) are documents that cancer patients receive summarising their care, usually at the end of treatment but preferably from initial diagnosis. These may increase patient satisfaction and represent an opportunity to initiate preventative strategies and address future care needs. Advance care planning (ACP), incorporating advance healthcare decision-making, including formal written directives, increases satisfaction and end-of-life care. This paper systematically reviews evaluations of ACP within SCPs among older (≥65 years) cancer survivors. No studies meeting the inclusion criteria were identified by search strategies conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE and the Cochrane databases. One paper examined cancer survivors' mainly positive views of ACP. Another discussed the use of a SCP supported by a 'distress inventory' that included an advance care directive (living will) as an issue, though no formal evaluation was reported. Although ACP is important for older adults, no study was found that evaluated its role within survivorship care planning. Despite the risk of recurrence and the potential for morbidity and mortality, especially among older cancer survivors, ACP is not yet a feature of SCPs.

Methods to reduce prescribing errors in elderly patients with multimorbidity

The global population of multimorbid older people is growing steadily. Multimorbidity is the principal cause of complex polypharmacy, which in turn is the prime risk factor for inappropriate prescribing and adverse drug reactions and events. Those who prescribe for older frailer multimorbid people are particularly prone to committing prescribing errors of various kinds. The causes of prescribing errors in this patient population are multifaceted and complex, including prescribers’ lack of knowledge of aging physiology, geriatric medicine, and geriatric pharmacotherapy, overprescribing that frequently leads to major polypharmacy, inappropriate prescribing, and inappropriate drug omission. This review examines the various ways of minimizing prescribing errors in multimorbid older people. The role of education in physician prescribers and clinical pharmacists, the use of implicit and explicit prescribing criteria designed to improve medication appropriateness in older people, and the application of information and communication-technology systems to minimize errors are discussed in detail. Although evidence to support any single intervention to prevent prescribing errors in multimorbid elderly people is inconclusive or lacking, published data support focused prescriber education in geriatric pharmacotherapy, routine application of STOPP/START (screening tool of older people’s prescriptions/screening tool to alert to right treatment) criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing, electronic prescribing, and close liaison between clinical pharmacists and physicians in relation to structured medication review and reconciliation. Carrying out a structured medication review aimed at optimizing pharmacotherapy in this vulnerable patient population presents a major challenge. Another challenge is to design, build, validate, and test by clinical trials suitably versatile and efficient software engines that can reliably and swiftly perform complex medication reviews in older multimorbid people. The European Union-funded SENATOR and OPERAM clinical trials commencing in 2016 will examine the impact of customized software engines in reducing medication-related morbidity, avoidable excess cost, and rehospitalization in older multimorbid people.