A pharmacist integrated into a general practice in Australia: an evolving model of care in medicines optimization

The general practice pharmacist (GPP) role in Australia is evolving. A pilot GPP model of care developed to optimize medicines for patients at risk of medicine-related harm was evaluated. The aims of this study were 2-fold: to evaluate the GPP model of care on medicines optimization, with a focus on deprescribing, in a population at risk of harm due to their medicines, or clinical condition, and to explore the perspectives of study participants. This single practice study involved two phases. Phase 1 (September 2019-May 2020): at risk patients were referred to the GPP for medication reconciliation, recommendations for optimization, and when appropriate, deprescribing support, especially for opioids. Medication plans were developed with patients, GPs, and the GPP. Quantitative data collected from patient records included demographics, discrepancies, medicines reviewed, GPP recommendations and uptake, and medicines deprescribed. Opioid-related data included dose changes from baseline, at 6 and 9 months, standardized to oral morphine equivalents. Descriptive statistics were used for analysis. Phase 2 (7-21 September 2020): qualitative evaluation using semi-structured interviews was undertaken, to explore the perspectives of GP and patient participants of the GPP model of care. Interview data were thematically analysed. The study had ethical approval. Phase 1: 198 multimorbid patients with multiple medications [median = 13 (9-16)] had at least one GPP consultation (n = 243). Discrepancies were resolved through 88% of GPP consultations; deprescribing commenced or occurred in 54%. Acceptance of GPP recommendations was 86%. Opioids were the most common medicines deprescribed (42% ceased). The baseline median opioid dose [44.4 (30-90) mg] was significantly reduced at 6 months [13.5 (0-40) mg] and 9 months [7 (0-30) mg], P < .0001. Phase 2: Thematic analysis of 28 interviews (10 GPs, 3 practice personnel, 10 patients, 5 carers) identified four key themes: safer foundation for deprescribing, deprescribing opportunities recognition, benefits of embedded GPP, and a supported approach to shared decision-making. General practice provides opportunities for medicine optimization and deprescribing. This study has demonstrated a GPP model of care that achieved functional deprescribing to reduce potential harm in a population at risk and addressed recognized barriers.

Prescribing and deprescribing trends in schizophrenia: An overview of inpatients in Belgium and in the Canadian province of Québec

Although switching to antipsychotic monotherapy improves patient outcomes in schizophrenia, antipsychotic deprescribing is rarely performed, and its use varies between countries, as do psychotropic prescribing patterns. This study aimed to determine factors associated with antipsychotic deprescribing at discharge after a psychiatric hospitalization and to compare psychotropic prescribing patterns between Belgium and Québec, Canada. Data on adult inpatients with schizophrenia were collected retrospectively in seven hospitals. At discharge, the number of antipsychotics had decreased in 22.2% of the 63 Canadian patients and 9.9% of the 516 Belgian patients. A number of factors increased the likelihood of antipsychotic deprescribing: a hospitalization in the Canadian hospital (aOR = 4.13, 95% CI 1.48-11.5), living in a residential facility (aOR = 2.51, 95% CI 1.05-4.39), ≥2 previous antipsychotic trials (aOR = 15.38, 95% CI 3.62-65.36), having an antipsychotic side effect (aOR = 1.86, 95% CI 1.01-3.44) and being in a general hospital (aOR = 2.28, 95% CI 1.09-4.75). Patients on a long-acting injectable antipsychotic (aOR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.26-0.98), with prior clozapine use (aOR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.13-0.95), greater antipsychotic exposure (aOR = 0.35, 95% CI 0.2-0.61) and more hypno-sedatives (aOR = 0.65, 95% CI 0.43-0.98), were less likely to be deprescribed. Specific deprescribing interventions could target patients who are less likely to be deprescribed.

Patient-targeted interventions for opioid deprescribing: An overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing (reduction or cessation) of prescribed opioids can be challenging for both patients and healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize and evaluate evidence from systematic reviews examining the effectiveness and outcomes of patient-targeted opioid deprescribing interventions for all types of pain.

METHODS

Systematic searches were conducted in five databases with results screened against predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Primary outcomes were (i) reduction in opioid dose, reported as change in oral Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (oMEDD) and (ii) success of opioid deprescribing, reported as the proportion of the sample for which opioid use declined. Secondary outcomes included pain severity, physical function, quality of life and adverse events. The certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.

FINDINGS

Twelve reviews were eligible for inclusion. Interventions were heterogeneous in nature and included pharmacological (n = 4), physical (n = 3), procedural (n = 3), psychological or behavioural (n = 3) and mixed (n = 5) interventions. Multidisciplinary care programmes appeared to be the most effective intervention for opioid deprescribing; however, the certainty of evidence was low, with significant variability in opioid reduction across interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is too uncertain to draw firm conclusions about specific populations who may derive the greatest benefit from opioid deprescribing, warranting further investigation.

Deprescribing in a multimorbid older adult: A case vignette study among community pharmacists and primary care physicians

Collaborative deprescribing can include pharmacists' medication review with identification and suggestion of potential deprescribing targets to physicians. Case vignettes can be a valuable method for researching variations in clinical decision making, especially in settings unaccustomed to newer clinical approaches such as deprescribing. This study aimed to explore if pharmacists can identify deprescribing targets and if physicians would accept pharmacist's deprescribing rationales. A cross-sectional study was performed using an online case vignette based on a real-life elderly patient. Pharmacists were asked to indicate which medicines they would recommend deprescribing, alongside a rationale. Physicians were asked to state their acceptance of the proposed pharmacist's deprescribing suggestion. Pharmacists gave 1275 deprescribing rationales, and most were given for deprescribing opioids, NSAID and diuretics. Physicians would accept rationales to deprescribe a median of 10 medicines, while pharmacist would recommend deprescribing a median of six medicines. Most difference lays in deprescribing of preventative medicines. Healthcare providers share agreement on deprescribing targets, but pharmacists show hesitancies in making recommendations that could hamper potential collaboration. Action is needed to improve pharmacists' skills in recognizing deprescribing targets and confidence in making suggestions, which could lead to opening of possibilities for joint patient care.

Predictors of older patients' willingness to have medications deprescribed: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing is a complex process requiring a patient-centred approach. One frequently expressed deprescribing barrier is patients' attitudes and beliefs towards deprescribing. This study aimed to identify the predictors of patients' willingness to have medications deprescribed.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted with community-dwelling patients aged ≥65 who are taking at least one regular medication. Data collection included patients' demographic and clinical characteristics and the Portuguese revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire. Descriptive statistics were used to present the patients' characteristics. Multiple binary logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the predictors of the patients' willingness to have medications deprescribed.

RESULTS

One hundred ninety-two participants (median age 72 years; 65.6% female) were included. Most (83.33%) were willing to have medications deprescribed, and the predictors were age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.136; 95% CI 1.026, 1.258), female sex (aOR = 3.036; 95% CI 1.059, 8.708) and the rPATD concerns about stopping factor (aOR = 0.391; 95% CI 0.203, 0.754).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients were willing to have their medications deprescribed if it is recommended by their doctors. Older age and female sex increased the odds of willingness to deprescribe; higher concerns about stopping medications decreased the odds. These findings suggest that addressing patients' concerns about stopping their medicines may contribute to deprescribing success.

Changes in Polypharmacy and Potentially Inappropriate Medications in Homebound Older Adults in Japan, 2015-2019: a Nationwide Study

BACKGROUND

With rising worldwide population aging, the number of homebound individuals with multimorbidity is increasing. Improvement in the quality of home medical care (HMC), including medications, contributes to meeting older adults' preference for "aging in place" and securing healthcare resources.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the changes in drug prescriptions, particularly potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), among older adults receiving HMC in recent years, during which measures addressing inappropriate polypharmacy were implemented, including the introduction of clinical practice guidelines and medical fees for deprescribing.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

Using data from the national claims database in Japan, this study included older adults aged ≥ 75 years who received HMC in October 2015 (N = 499,850) and October 2019 (N = 657,051).

MAIN MEASURES

Number of drugs, prevalence of polypharmacy (≥ 5 regular drugs), major drug categories/classes, and PIMs according to Japanese guidelines were analyzed. Random effects logistic regression models were used to evaluate the differences in medications between 2015 and 2019, considering the correlation within individuals who contributed to the analysis in both years.

KEY RESULTS

The number of drugs remained unchanged from 2015 to 2019 (median: 6; interquartile range: 4, 9). The prevalence of polypharmacy also remained unchanged at 70.0% in both years (P = 0.93). However, the prescription of some drugs (e.g., direct oral anticoagulants, new types of hypnotics, acetaminophen, proton pump inhibitors, and β-blockers) increased, whereas others (e.g., warfarin, vasodilators, H2 blockers, acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, and benzodiazepines) decreased. Among the frequently prescribed PIMs, benzodiazepines/Z-drugs (25.6% in 2015 to 21.1% in 2019; adjusted odds ratio: 0.52) and H2 blockers (11.2 to 7.3%; 0.45) decreased, whereas diuretics (23.8 to 23.6%; 0.90) and antipsychotics (9.7 to 10.5%; 1.11) remained unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

We observed some favorable changes but identified some continuous and new challenges. This study suggests that continued attention to medication optimization is required to achieve safe and effective HMC.

Physicians' views on pharmacists' involvement in hospital deprescribing: A qualitative study on proton pump inhibitors

BACKGROUND

Clinical pharmacists have a pivotal role in the management of the patient's medication. However, it is necessary to know how pharmacist-mediated deprescribing could be implemented in a hospital setting according to hospital physicians.

OBJECTIVE

To explore physicians' views on the involvement of hospital pharmacists in the deprescribing process using the example of PPIs.

METHODS

A qualitative study using two focus groups with hospital physicians was conducted to determine their attitudes regarding deprescribing initiated by the hospital pharmacist. The interviews were recorded and transcribed using the NVivo analysis software. A thematic analysis led to a categorization of all the verbatims.

RESULTS

Hospital doctors are reluctant to deprescribe drugs initiated by a colleague and feel that it is the responsibility of the general practitioner (GP), who fails to do so due to lack of time. In this situation, the hospital pharmacist is in the best position to deprescribe because of his/her expertise in drug therapy. This should be a discussion between the hospital pharmacist, the hospital doctor, the GP and the patient. Deprescribing should always be adapted to the patient's context.

CONCLUSION

Hospital physicians are open to a pharmacist-mediated, patient-centred approach to deprescribing as long as the GP is involved.

Revisiting systematic reviews on deprescribing trials to better inform future practice and research

Deprescribing aims to address the problem of medication overuse in older adults. There has been an increasing number of systematic reviews of 'deprescribing'. We aimed to describe the categories of trials included in recent systematic reviews, and to make recommendations for future research. We categorized 122 trials included in eight recent deprescribing systematic reviews into: discontinuation, deprescribing implementation, medication optimisation (including medication initiation) and non-initiation trials. We identified heterogeneity and inconsistency in the categories of trials included in deprescribing systematic reviews. For example, 39 trials (32.0%) involved medication initiation in addition to the deprescribing component. It is now time for international researchers to develop and validate terminology used for trials involving discontinuation/deprescribing of medications, and to provide recommendations for evidence synthesis that will better inform future research, and translation into practice and policy.

Student Pharmacist Led Fish Oil Deprescribing Initiative at a Veterans Affairs Hospital and Rural Clinics

Background: Polypharmacy impacts one-third of older adults and has been shown to lead to adverse health effects. One contributor to polypharmacy includes omega-3 fatty acid (fish oil) due to the lack of evidence supporting clinical benefit. Pharmacists can identify and reduce polypharmacy, inspiring this student led deprescribing initiative to introduce a standard of care process for deprescribing fish oil. Purpose/Objectives: The overall objectives of this evaluation are to assess the need for a fish oil deprescribing process, to analyze the role of student pharmacists in deprescribing, and to evaluate the effectiveness of a fish oil deprescribing service. Methods: This project integrated three doctor of pharmacy students in their third year of pharmacy school who were enrolled in a yearlong class about improving healthcare for rural populations and the quality improvement research process. Four primary care clinic patient panels who were prescribed fish oil were assessed. Chart reviews were conducted, and patients were contacted to deprescribe their fish oil by the student and offer statin or lipid therapy modifications, if applicable. Results: A generated report identified 106 patients who had active prescriptions for fish oil. After application of exclusion criteria, 68 patients were included in the evaluation. A total of 76.2% of patients accepted at least one therapy modification offered by the pharmacy student. Conclusion: This evaluation demonstrates the positive impact of the integration of student pharmacists for deprescribing in a primary care setting. Opportunities exist to further explore student pharmacist roles within ambulatory care clinic models.

Deprescribing: A Prime Opportunity to Optimize Care of Cancer Patients

Patients with incurable cancers have an increasing number of comorbidities, which can lead to polypharmacy and its associated adverse events (drug-to-drug interaction, prescription of a potentially inappropriate medication, adverse drug event). Deprescribing is a patient-centered process aimed at optimizing patient outcomes by discontinuing medication(s) deemed no longer necessary or potentially inappropriate. Improved patient quality of life, risk reduction of side effects or worse clinical outcomes, and a decrease in healthcare costs are well-documented benefits of deprescribing. Deprescribing and advance care planning both require consideration of patients' values, preferences, and care goals. Here, we provide an overview of comorbidities and associated polypharmacy risks in cancer patients, as well as useful tools and resources for deprescribing in daily practice, and we shed light on how deprescribing can facilitate advance care planning discussions with patients who have advanced cancer or a limited life expectancy.

Deprescribing Interventions for Older Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Deprescribing reduces polypharmacy in older adults. A thorough study of the effect of deprescribing interventions on clinical outcomes in older adults is presently lacking. As a result, we evaluated the impact of deprescribing on clinical outcomes in older patients.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from the time of creation to March 2023.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized controlled trial with participants at least 60 years old.

MEASURES

Mortality, falls (number of fallers), hospitalization rates, emergency department visits, medication adherence, HRQoL (health-regulated quality of life), incidence of ADR (adverse drug reactions), PIM (potentially inappropriate medication), and PPO (potentially prescription omission) were evaluated in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 32 RCTs (18,670 patients) were included. Deprescribing interventions significantly reduced proportions of older adults with PIM, PPO, and the incidence of ADRs. The interventions group also improved medication compliance.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Compared to routine care, deprescribing interventions significantly improve clinical outcome indicators for older adults.

Medication changes implemented during medication reviews and factors related to deprescribing: Posthoc analyses of a randomized clinical trial in geriatric outpatients with polypharmacy

AIMS

To provide posthoc analyses of a clinical trial that reported beneficial effects of medication reviews on health-related quality of life. Specifically, to describe the medication changes with a focus on deprescribing and to explore patient- and medication-related factors that may identify patients most likely to benefit from medication reviews.

METHODS

Posthoc analyses of data from a pragmatic, nonblinded, randomized clinical trial investigating a medication review intervention (NCT03911934) in 408 geriatric outpatients treated with ≥9 medicines.

RESULTS

In the medication review group (n = 196), 26% of the medicines prescribed at baseline were discontinued with 82% still being discontinued after 13 months. The most common reason for discontinuation was lack of indication (72% of discontinuations). The medicines most often discontinued in the medication review group compared with usual care included: metoclopramide (11/15 = 73% discontinued vs. 1/12 = 8% in usual care), acetylsalicylic acid (20/48 = 42% vs. 2/47 = 4%), simvastatin (18/48 = 38% vs. 2/58 = 3%), zopiclone (23/59 = 39% vs. 4/54 = 7%), quinine (9/14 = 64% vs. 6/16 = 38%), citalopram (4/18 = 22% vs. 0/20 = 0%) and tramadol (18/37 = 49% vs. 8/30 = 27%). Factors associated with number of deprescribed medicines included: number of prescribed medicines, Drug Burden Index, patient motivation for medicine changes, and prescriptions of metoclopramide, iron preparations, antidepressants other than selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or drugs for urinary incontinence.

CONCLUSION

Physician-led medication reviews resulted in persistent deprescribing of medicines in older polypharmacy patients treated with ≥9 medicines. Motivation for having their medicine changed, treatment with more medicines, and a higher burden of sedative and anticholinergic medicines characterized the patients most likely to benefit from physician-led medication reviews.

Aspirin deprescribing in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a prospective risk-benefit approach

BACKGROUND

Current evidence and practice guidelines do not recommend aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Insufficient all-cause mortality benefits juxtaposed to increased gastrointestinal bleeding rates are well established. Pharmacists are well placed to assess the clinical appropriateness of aspirin in CVD and initiate deprescribing as required with medical colleagues.

AIM

The aim of this study was to identify medical inpatients taking aspirin for primary prevention of CVD and initiate deprescribing utilising a risk-benefit approach.

METHODS

A single-arm prospective feasibility study of general medicine patients admitted to a major tertiary hospital over 5 weeks (July-August 2020) was conducted. Screened patients were categorised as either taking aspirin for primary or secondary prevention. A 5-year benefit-risk analysis of bleeding and cardiovascular risk was calculated using a validated tool from the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand to guide recommendations.

RESULTS

This study screened 277 patients, of which 71 patients were identified as taking aspirin. Ten of these patients (14%) were categorised as taking aspirin for primary prevention and thus were deemed suitable for deprescribing. The analysis showed that aspirin continuance would, on average, increase major bleeding events by 39%, whilst reducing major cardiovascular events by 13.4%. Pharmacists recommended aspirin cessation in seven of the cases identified, and deprescribing was successful in five cases.

CONCLUSIONS

This study described an impactful pharmacist-led initiative utilising a validated aspirin-specific tool to conduct risk-benefit analysis to reduce potential major bleeding associated with inappropriate aspirin use.

The Prevalence of Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing in Two Family Health Units in Portugal

OBJECTIVE

Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) are growing concerns in the ageing population. They carry the risk of increasing adverse effects, medical interactions, and difficulties managing the medication. Few studies in Portugal evaluate the prevalence of polypharmacy and PIP in primary care. No previous studies in the primary care setting in Portugal have been conducted using the European Union (EU)(7)-PIM (potentially inappropriate medication) list tool. In this study, we aimed to estimate the prevalence of polypharmacy and PIP in two family health units in Portugal.  Methods: To answer this question, we enrolled a sample of 361 elderly patients from two family health units in a descriptive observational transversal study. We randomly selected patients, consulted their prescription records in the previous 12 months, and applied the EU(7)-PIM list tool, validated for the Portuguese population. The data was then analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, IBM Corp., Version 24.0, Armonk, NY).

RESULTS

Our results showed a prevalence of 79.8% of polypharmacy in the elderly population and 73.4% of PIP. These values are higher than predicted in the literature, but different screening tools have been used among papers. The mean number of prescribed drugs per patient was nine in one unit and seven in the other, and the mode was eleven per patient. The most identified PIP-associated drugs were proton pump inhibitors in 46.4% of the patients in one unit and 43.7% in the other. We also found a statistically significant higher prevalence of PIP and polypharmacy in females and patients over 75 years.

CONCLUSION

From a prevalence perspective, we found higher-than-expected prevalences of PIP and polypharmacy in our population. Contributing factors might be a higher ageing index in the Portuguese population, modern practices using combination therapy, and the use of a screening tool that does not take into account the personal clinical history of patients. Further limitations involve only including patients with follow-up in the units studied. Even so, it suggests both PIP and polypharmacy as concerns to address, and we will strive to educate both health teams on PIP, polypharmacy, and deprescribing. We also emphasize the need to widen the study to other family health units.

The prevalence and impact of polypharmacy in rheumatology

Polypharmacy is increasingly common in rheumatology due to the complex nature of managing chronic autoimmune diseases. To date there has been limited research into the impact of polypharmacy on rheumatology patients. In this article we reviewed the literature to characterize the prevalence of polypharmacy and its effect on patients. In addition, we have highlighted some key drug-drug interactions to consider involving DMARDs as well as complementary and alternative medicines. There is emerging evidence demonstrating that polypharmacy contributes to adverse outcomes and alters treatment response. This association is best described in RA and is less clear in other patient cohorts. It is also unclear whether polypharmacy is directly harmful or just a surrogate marker for other factors affecting outcomes. Rheumatologists should be aware of the risk of polypharmacy as well as specific drug-drug interactions that can occur in managing chronic autoimmune disease.

Nursing Home PRevention of Injury in DEmentia (NH PRIDE): A pilot study of a remote injury prevention service for NH residents

BACKGROUND

Medication optimization, including prescription of osteoporosis medications and deprescribing medications associated with falls, may reduce injurious falls. Our objective was to describe a remote, injury prevention service (NH PRIDE) designed to optimize medication use in nursing homes (NHs), and to describe its implementation outcomes in a pilot study.

METHODS

This was a non-randomized trial (pilot study) including NH staff and residents from five facilities. Long-stay residents at high-risk for injurious falls were identified using a validated risk calculator and staff referral. A remote team reviewed the electronic health record (EHR) and provided recommendations as Injury Prevention Plans (IPP). A research nurse served as a care coordinator focused on resident engagement and shared decision-making. Outcomes included implementation measures, as identified in the EHR, and surveys and interviews with staff.

RESULTS

Across five facilities, 274 residents were screened for eligibility, and 46 residents (16.8%) were enrolled. Most residents were female (73.9%) and had dementia (63.0%). An IPP was completed for 45 residents (97.8%). The nurse made a total of 93 deprescribing recommendations in 36 residents (80% of residents had one or more deprescribing recommendation; mean 2.2 recommendations/resident). Twenty of 45 residents (44.4%) had a recommendation for osteoporosis treatment. Among residents with recommendations, 21/36 (58.3%) had one or more deprescribing orders written and 6/20 (30.0%) had an osteoporosis medication prescribed. At 4 months, most medication changes persisted. Adverse side effects were rare. Staff members identified several areas for program refinement, including aligning recommendations with provider workflow and engaging consultant psychiatrists.

CONCLUSIONS

A remote injury prevention service is safe and feasible to enhance deprescribing and osteoporosis treatment in long-stay NH residents at risk for injury. Additional investigation is needed to determine if this model could reduce injurious falls when deployed across NH chains.

The past, present and future of anticholinergic drugs

In current medical practice, it is difficult to find any reports claiming that drugs that are primarily anticholinergic or those that have significant anticholinergic effects have any therapeutic benefits. These drugs fell into disrepute within the mental health field from the mid-1960s onwards, and their supposed problems extended to elsewhere in medicine after that. There is considerable evidence that this disrepute stemmed more from marketing copy rather than from hard clinical trial data. Many apparent reviews appear to repeat prior claims rather than present substantial or new evidence. This article offers a perspective rather than a systematic review as there is little evidence other than claims to review. The aim is to challenge the conventional narrative that anticholinergic effects are uniquely hazardous by pointing to the uncertain basis for claims about the harms of anticholinergic drugs, antimuscarinic drugs in particular, ending with pointers to recent research that, if realized, might underpin important possible future benefits.

A virtual breakthrough series collaborative to support deprescribing interventions across Veterans Affairs healthcare settings

BACKGROUND

Virtual collaborative models are a practical way to implement a supportive environment for multi-team learning. In this project, we aimed to describe the processes and outcomes of a virtual deprescribing collaborative that facilitated implementation of deprescribing interventions around the country.

METHODS

Two successive cohorts comprised of multidisciplinary teams from geographically diverse veterans affairs (VA) sites were selected via an application process to participate in a virtual deprescribing collaborative. Each site developed its own deprescribing protocol and took part in regular meetings, mentoring groups, monthly data reporting, and other learning activities over an approximate 9 month period, per cohort. Standard measures were number of veterans served and medications deprescribed. Descriptive and qualitative analyses were utilized.

RESULTS

Twenty-one total VA sites were selected to participate in the deprescribing collaborative in two cohorts (Cohort 1, n = 12 sites; Cohort 2, n = 9 sites). The majority of sites' practice areas directly served the older adult population, and the majority of site leads were pharmacists. The most utilized tool used by the collaborative sites was the VA VIONE decision support tool (n = 14) and the most common strategy was individualized medication review. Combining outcomes from both Cohorts 1 and 2, a total of n = 4770 veterans were served, with 8332 medications deprescribed. Eighty-two percent of Cohort 1 sites surveyed reported their deprescribing program was still being utilized after 1 year follow up.

CONCLUSIONS

This virtual deprescribing collaborative aided in the successful implementation of both established and novel deprescribing practices across a variety of VA practice sites that care for older adults. The shared learning experience enhanced problem solving and allowed for interdisciplinary teamwork. Overall the collaborative was successful in improving polypharmacy for several thousand older adults.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of a joint general practitioner-pharmacist intervention on the implementation of benzodiazepine deprescribing in older adults (BESTOPH-MG trial): protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Background

Deprescribing benzodiazepines and related drugs (BZDR) is a challenge due to a lack of time on physicians' part, a lack of involvement of other health professionals, and the need for adapted tools. This study is based on primary care collaboration, by evaluating the effectiveness of a joint intervention between general practitioners and community pharmacists on the implementation of BZDR deprescribing in older adults.

Methods

This is a cluster randomized controlled trial in which each cluster will be formed by a physician-pharmacist pair. Within a cluster allocated to the intervention, the pharmacist will be trained in motivational interviewing (MI), and will offer the patient 3 interviews after inclusion by the physician. They will base their intervention on validated deprescribing guidelines. The pharmacist will receive methodological support during the first interviews. Interprofessional collaboration will be encouraged by writing reports for the physician after each interview. The following implementation outcomes will be evaluated: acceptability/adoption, appropriateness, cost, and fidelity. They will be measured by means of sociological interviews, observations, logbooks, and cost-utility analysis. Focus groups with physicians and pharmacists will be carried out to identify levers and barriers experienced in this collaboration. Observations will be conducted with pharmacists to assess their approach of the MIs. Effectiveness outcomes will be based on medication (discontinuation or reduction of BZDR) and clinical outcomes (such as quality of life, insomnia or anxiety), assessed by health insurance databases and validated questionnaires.

Discussion

This study will determine whether collaboration in primary care between physicians and pharmacists, as well as training and coaching of pharmacists in motivational interviewing, allows the implementation of BZDR deprescribing in the older adults.This study will provide an understanding of the processes used to implement deprescribing guidelines, and the contribution of collaborative practice in implementing BZDR discontinuation. The cluster methodology will allow to assess the experience of the relationship between the different primary care actors, and the related obstacles and levers.The results obtained will make it possible to produce guidelines on the involvement of community pharmacists in the management of substance abuse in older adults, or even to legislate new missions or care pathways.

Clinical trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier, NCT05765656.

Preferences for deprescribing antihypertensive medications amongst clinicians, carers and people living with dementia: a discrete choice experiment

BACKGROUND

Optimal management of hypertension in people with dementia may involve deprescribing antihypertensives. Understanding differing treatment priorities is important to enable patient-centred care. This study explored preferences for antihypertensive deprescribing amongst people living with dementia, carers and clinicians.

METHODS

Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are a stated preference survey method, underpinned by economic theory. A DCE was conducted, and respondents completed 12 labelled choice-questions, each presenting a status quo (continuing antihypertensives) and antihypertensive deprescribing option. The questions included six attributes, including pill burden, and event risks for stroke, myocardial infarction, increased blood pressure, cognitive decline, falls.

RESULTS

Overall, 112 respondents (33 carers, 19 people living with dementia, and 60 clinicians) completed the survey. For people with dementia, lower pill burden increased preferences for deprescribing (odds ratio (OR) 1.95, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.08-3.52). Increased stroke risk (for each additional person out of 100 having a stroke) decreased the likelihood of deprescribing for geriatricians (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.92) and non-geriatrician clinicians (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.86), and carers (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.88). Increased myocardial infarction risk decreased preferences for deprescribing for non-geriatricians (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.95) and carers (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.98). Avoiding cognitive decline increased preferences for deprescribing for geriatricians (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03-1.33) and carers (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09-1.48). Avoiding falls increased preferences for deprescribing for clinicians (geriatricians (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.11-1.29); non-geriatricians (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07-1.25)). Other attributes did not significantly influence respondent preferences.

CONCLUSIONS

Antihypertensive deprescribing preferences differ amongst people with dementia, carers and clinicians. The study emphasises the importance of shared decision-making within the deprescribing process.