Effectiveness of a complex intervention on Prioritising Multimedication in Multimorbidity (PRIMUM) in primary care: results of a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

Intervention elements to reduce inappropriate prescribing for older adults with multimorbidity receiving outpatient care: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Polypharmacy occurs in approximately 30% of older adults aged 65 years or more, particularly among those with multimorbidity. With polypharmacy, there is an associated risk of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP). The aims of this scoping review were to (1) identify the intervention elements that have been adopted to reduce PIP in the outpatient setting and (2) determine the behaviour change wheel (BCW) intervention functions performed by each of the identified intervention elements.

DESIGN

Scoping review DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases, grey literature sources, six key geriatrics journals and the reference lists of review papers.

STUDY SELECTION

All studies reporting an intervention or strategy that addressed PIP in the older adult population (age ≥65) with multimorbidity in the outpatient setting and in which the primary prescriber is the physician.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extracted from the included studies can be broadly categorised into (1) publication details, (2) intervention details and (3) results. This was followed by data synthesis and analysis based on the BCW framework.

RESULTS

Of 8195 studies yielded, 80 studies were included in the final analysis and 14 intervention elements were identified. An average of two to three elements were adopted in each intervention. The three most frequently adopted intervention elements were medication review (70%), training (26.3%) and tool/instrument(s) (22.5%). Among medication reviews, 70% involved pharmacists. The 14 intervention elements were mapped onto five intervention functions: 'education', 'persuasion', 'training', 'environmental restructuring' and 'enablement'.

CONCLUSION

PIP is a multifaceted problem that involves multiple stakeholders. As such, interventions that address PIP require multiple elements to target the behaviour of the various stakeholders. The intervention elements and their corresponding functions identified in this scoping review will serve to inform the design of complex interventions that aim to reduce PIP.

Potentially inappropriate prescriptions according to explicit and implicit criteria in patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. MULTIPAP: A cross-sectional study

Background

Multimorbidity is a global health challenge that is associated with polypharmacy, increasing the risk of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP). There are tools to improve prescription, such as implicit and explicit criteria.

Objective

To estimate the prevalence of PIP in a population aged 65 to 74 years with multimorbidity and polypharmacy, according to American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria^® (2015, 2019), the Screening Tool of Older Person’s Prescription -STOPP- criteria (2008, 2014), and the Medication Appropriateness Index -MAI- criteria in primary care.

Methods

This was an observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study. The sample included 593 community-dwelling elderly aged 65 to 74 years, with multimorbidity and polypharmacy, who participated in the MULTIPAP trial. Socio-demographic, clinical, professional, and pharmacological-treatment variables were recorded. Potentially inappropriate prescribing was detected by computerized prescription assistance system, and family doctors evaluated the MAI. The MAI-associated factors were analysed using a logistic regression model.

Results

A total of 4,386 prescriptions were evaluated. The mean number of drugs was 7.4 (2.4 SD). A total of 94.1% of the patients in the study had at least one criterion for drug inappropriateness according to the MAI. Potentially inappropriate prescribing was detected in 57.7%, 43.6%, 68.8% and 71% of 50 patients according to the explicit criteria STOPP 2014, STOPP 2008, Beers 2019 and Beers 2015 respectively. For every new drug taken by a patient, the MAI score increased by 2.41 (95% CI 1.46; 3.35) points. Diabetes, ischaemic heart disease and asthma were independently associated with lower summated MAI scores.

Conclusions

The prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing detected in the sample was high and in agreement with previous literature for populations with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. The MAI criteria detected greater inappropriateness than did the explicit criteria, but their application was more complex and difficult to automate.

Integrated care for the management of ageing-related non-communicable diseases: current gaps and future directions

Due to the increase in the older population in Europe and associated rise in the absolute number of persons with Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs), it is becoming increasingly important to find ways to promote healthy ageing, which is defined as the process of developing and maintaining the functional ability that enables well-being in older age. Older persons with NCDs can have complex care needs due to the increased risk of frailty, multimorbidity, and polypharmacy. However, current health systems in Europe often provide fragmented care for older people with NCDs; many receive disjointed care from numerous specialists or via different levels of care. In the current article, we discuss barriers and challenges in implementing integrated care models in European settings for older NCD patients. Specifically, we discuss the need for greater use of case managers in the care and treatment persons with complex care needs as well as the lack of training and education in healthcare professionals on topics related to multimorbidity, frailty, and polypharmacy. We discuss the limitations that arise from the current focus on disease-specific guidelines and care models that do not take comorbid conditions into account, and the lack of good quality evidence that evaluates the effectiveness of integrated care interventions, especially in European health settings. We highlight the importance of evaluating and monitoring mental health in conjunction with somatic symptoms in NCD patients and discuss the integral role of information and communication technology in healthcare to streamline integrated care processes and help to achieve better outcomes for patients.

Multimorbidity Patterns in the General Population: Results from the EpiChron Cohort Study

The correct management of patients with multimorbidity remains one of the main challenges for healthcare systems worldwide. In this study, we analyze the existence of multimorbidity patterns in the general population based on gender and age. We conducted a cross-sectional study of individuals of all ages from the EpiChron Cohort, Spain (1,253,292 subjects), and analyzed the presence of systematic associations among chronic disease diagnoses using exploratory factor analysis. We identified and clinically described a total of 14 different multimorbidity patterns (12 in women and 12 in men), with some relevant differences in the functions of age and gender. The number and complexity of the patterns was shown to increase with age in both genders. We identified associations of circulatory diseases with respiratory disorders, chronic musculoskeletal diseases with depression and anxiety, and a very consistent pattern of conditions whose co-occurrence is known as metabolic syndrome (hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and dyslipidaemia), among others. Our results demonstrate the potential of using real-world data to conduct large-scale epidemiological studies to assess the complex interactions among chronic conditions. This could be useful in designing clinical interventions for patients with multimorbidity, as well as recommendations for healthcare professionals on how to handle these types of patients in clinical practice.

Interventions for improving medication-taking ability and adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications

BACKGROUND

Older people taking multiple medications represent a large and growing proportion of the population. Managing multiple medications can be challenging, and this is especially the case for older people, who have higher rates of comorbidity and physical and cognitive impairment than younger adults. Good medication-taking ability and medication adherence are necessary to ensure safe and effective use of medications.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve medication-taking ability and/or medication adherence in older community-dwelling adults prescribed multiple long-term medications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from inception until June 2019. We also searched grey literature, online trial registries, and reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs. Eligible studies tested interventions aimed at improving medication-taking ability and/or medication adherence among people aged ≥ 65 years (or of mean/median age > 65 years), living in the community or being discharged from hospital back into the community, and taking four or more regular prescription medications (or with group mean/median of more than four medications). Interventions targeting carers of older people who met these criteria were also included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts and full texts of eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We conducted meta-analyses when possible and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect, risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Narrative synthesis was performed when meta-analysis was not possible. We assessed overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Primary outcomes were medication-taking ability and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life (HRQoL), emergency department (ED)/hospital admissions, and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 50 studies (14,269 participants) comprising 40 RCTs, six cluster-RCTs, and four quasi-RCTs. All included studies evaluated interventions versus usual care; six studies also reported a comparison between two interventions as part of a three-arm RCT design. Interventions were grouped on the basis of their educational and/or behavioural components: 14 involved educational components only, 7 used behavioural strategies only, and 29 provided mixed educational and behavioural interventions. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions was low to very low due to a high degree of heterogeneity of included studies and high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains in most studies. Five studies evaluated interventions for improving medication-taking ability, and 48 evaluated interventions for improving medication adherence (three studies evaluated both outcomes). No studies involved educational or behavioural interventions alone for improving medication-taking ability. Low-quality evidence from five studies, each using a different measure of medication-taking ability, meant that we were unable to determine the effects of mixed interventions on medication-taking ability. Low-quality evidence suggests that behavioural only interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.38; 4 studies) and mixed interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.37; 12 studies) may increase the proportions of people who are adherent compared with usual care. We could not include in the meta-analysis results from two studies involving mixed interventions: one had a positive effect on adherence, and the other had little or no effect. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of educational only interventions (5 studies) on the proportions of people who are adherent. Low-quality evidence suggests that educational only interventions (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.43; 5 studies) and mixed interventions (SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.08 to 1.02; 7 studies) may have little or no impact on medication adherence assessed through continuous measures of adherence. We excluded 10 studies (4 educational only and 6 mixed interventions) from the meta-analysis including four studies with unclear or no available results. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of behavioural only interventions (3 studies) on medication adherence when assessed through continuous outcomes. Low-quality evidence suggests that mixed interventions may reduce the number of ED/hospital admissions (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 11 studies) compared with usual care, although results from six further studies that we were unable to include in meta-analyses indicate that the intervention may have a smaller, or even no, effect on these outcomes. Similarly, low-quality evidence suggests that mixed interventions may lead to little or no change in HRQoL (7 studies), and very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects on mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30; 7 studies). Moderate-quality evidence shows that educational interventions alone probably have little or no effect on HRQoL (6 studies) or on ED/hospital admissions (4 studies) when compared with usual care. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of behavioural interventions on HRQoL (1 study) or on ED/hospital admissions (2 studies). We identified no studies evaluating effects of educational or behavioural interventions alone on mortality. Six studies reported a comparison between two interventions; however due to the limited number of studies assessing the same types of interventions and comparisons, we are unable to draw firm conclusions for any outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural only or mixed educational and behavioural interventions may improve the proportion of people who satisfactorily adhere to their prescribed medications, but we are uncertain of the effects of educational only interventions. No type of intervention was found to improve adherence when it was measured as a continuous variable, with educational only and mixed interventions having little or no impact and evidence of insufficient quality to determine the effects of behavioural only interventions. We were unable to determine the impact of interventions on medication-taking ability. The quality of evidence for these findings is low due to heterogeneity and methodological limitations of studies included in the review. Further well-designed RCTs are needed to investigate the effects of interventions for improving medication-taking ability and medication adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications.

Residential Aged Care Pharmacist: An Australian Pilot Trial Exploring the Impact on Quality Use of Medicines Indicators

Background: This pilot study aimed to assess whether an on-site pharmacist could influence indicators of quality use of medicines in residential aged care. Methods: A pharmacist was embedded in a residential aged care home for six months. A similar control site received usual care. Polypharmacy, drug burden index, antipsychotic and benzodiazepine use, hospital admission rates and length of stay, and emergency department presentation rates were outcomes used to indicate medication use quality. Data were extracted from participating resident health records. Results: Fifty-eight residents at the study site and 39 residents at the control site were included in the analysis. There was a reduction in the proportion of residents at the study site who had at least one hospital admission at follow-up (28% to 12%, p < 0.01), but no significant difference in other outcomes. Conclusions: This pilot study suggests that a residential care pharmacist may positively influence indicators of medication use quality in aged care; however, further research is needed to expand on these findings.

Is My Patient Overwhelmed?: Determining Thresholds for Acceptable Burden of Treatment Using Data From the ComPaRe e-Cohort

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the highest burden of treatment beyond which patients with chronic conditions consider their current investments of time and effort in health care unsustainable.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used data collected between January 1, 2017 and October 1, 2018 in the Community of Patients for Research (ComPaRe), an ongoing e-cohort of adult patients with chronic conditions in France. We matched participants' answers to the Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ) and to a Yes/No anchor question: "Think about all the things you do to care for yourself. Do you think you could continue investing the same amount of time, energy, and money in your health care lifelong?" We defined the Patient Acceptable Symptom State (PASS) for the burden of treatment as the TBQ score below which 75% of patients reported an acceptable burden state.

RESULTS

We analyzed data for 2413 patients (1781 [73.8%] women, 1248 [51.7%] multimorbid, median age: 48 (interquartile range, 36-59] years) enrolled in ComPaRe. Of these, 38% (917 of 2413) reported that they would be unable to continue the same investment of energy, time, and money in health care lifelong. The PASS for the burden of treatment was at 39% of the maximal score (ie, TBQ score = 59/150; 95% CI, 52-64) Using these results, clinicians can detect patients at risk for becoming overwhelmed by their medical care by identifying patients with TBQ scores of 59 or higher.

CONCLUSION

About 40% of patients with chronic conditions report being unable to sustain current investments of energy, time, and money in health care lifelong. The PASS for treatment burden provides a practical yardstick to help clinicians and researchers interpret scores for burden of treatment.

Perspectives on the Training of Chinese Primary Health Care Physicians to Reduce Chronic Illnesses and Their Burden

This paper is a commentary on the training of Chinese Primary Health Care Doctors to reduce chronic illness and its burden. First, we will consider the policy position of the Chinese government concerning the development of a competent and enlarged primary physician workforce to deliver the proposed primary health care system reforms. We then turn to a review of the drivers of the high burden of chronic illnesses especially in older people in China. We argue that the curriculum for the training of primary health care medical practitioners should match the demonstrated high prevalence chronic illnesses and their risk factors and that there needs to specific competencies in prevention and mitigation of the diseases and their risk factors.

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, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective 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 7 February 2018, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people aged 65 years and older, prescribed polypharmacy (four or more medicines), 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

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of 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 32 studies, 20 from this update. Included studies consisted of 18 randomised trials, 10 cluster randomised trials (one of which was a stepped-wedge design), two non-randomised trials and two controlled before-after studies. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support (CDS); and 31 were complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical-care based approaches (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patient's outcomes), one of which incorporated a CDS component as part of their multi-faceted intervention. Interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists and geriatricians, and all 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) -4.76, 95% CI -9.20 to -0.33; 5 studies, N = 517; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.05; 7 studies; N = 1832; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs, (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.02; 11 studies; N = 3079; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.81, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.64; 2 studies; N = 569; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPOs (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 5 studies; N = 1310; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in hospital admissions (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 4052; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in quality of life (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 3211; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in eight studies (N = 10,087) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as reviews of patients' prescriptions, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they may be slightly beneficial in terms of reducing potential prescribing omissions (PPOs); but this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias.

Changes in prescribed medicines in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in general practice

Background

Treatment complexity rises in line with the number of drugs, single doses, and administration methods, thereby threatening patient adherence. Patients with multimorbidity often need flexible, individualised treatment regimens, but alterations during the course of treatment may further increase complexity. The objective of our study was to explore medication changes in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in general practice.

Methods

We retrospectively analysed data from the cluster-randomised PRIMUM trial (PRIoritisation of MUltimedication in Multimorbidity) conducted in 72 general practices. We developed an algorithm for active pharmaceutical ingredients (API), strength, dosage, and administration method to assess changes in physician-reported medication data during two intervals (baseline to six-months: ∆₁; six- to nine-months: ∆₂), analysed them descriptively at prescription and patient levels, and checked for intervention effects.

Results

Of 502 patients (median age 72 years, 52% female), 464 completed the study. Changes occurred in 98.6% of patients (changes were 19% more likely in the intervention group): API changes during ∆₁ and ∆₂ occurred in 414 (82.5%) and 338 (67.3%) of patients, dosage alterations in 372 (74.1%) and 296 (59.2%), and changes in API strength in 158 (31.5%) and 138 (27.5%) respectively. Administration method changed in 79 (16%) of patients in both ∆₁ and ∆₂. Simvastatin, metformin and aspirin were most frequently subject to alterations.

Conclusion

Medication regimens in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy changed frequently. These are mostly due to discontinuations and dosage alterations, followed by additions and restarts. These findings cast doubt on the effectiveness of cross-sectional assessments of medication and support longitudinal assessments where possible.

Trial registration.

1. Prospective registration: Trial registration number: NCT01171339; Name of registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; Date of registration: July 27, 2010; Date of enrolment of the first participant to the trial: August 12, 2010.

2. Peer reviewed trial registration: Trial registration number: ISRCTN99526053; Name of registry: Controlled Trials; Date of registration: August 31, 2010; Date of enrolment of the first participant to the trial: August 12, 2010.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0825-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The effects of on-screen, point of care computer reminders on processes and outcomes of care

BACKGROUND

The opportunity to improve care by delivering decision support to clinicians at the point of care represents one of the main incentives for implementing sophisticated clinical information systems. Previous reviews of computer reminder and decision support systems have reported mixed effects, possibly because they did not distinguish point of care computer reminders from e-mail alerts, computer-generated paper reminders, and other modes of delivering 'computer reminders'.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects on processes and outcomes of care attributable to on-screen computer reminders delivered to clinicians at the point of care.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane EPOC Group Trials register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and CENTRAL to July 2008, and scanned bibliographies from key articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies of a reminder delivered via a computer system routinely used by clinicians, with a randomised or quasi-randomised design and reporting at least one outcome involving a clinical endpoint or adherence to a recommended process of care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. For each study, we calculated the median improvement in adherence to target processes of care and also identified the outcome with the largest such improvement. We then calculated the median absolute improvement in process adherence across all studies using both the median outcome from each study and the best outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies (reporting a total of thirty-two comparisons) were included. Computer reminders achieved a median improvement in process adherence of 4.2% (interquartile range (IQR): 0.8% to 18.8%) across all reported process outcomes, 3.3% (IQR: 0.5% to 10.6%) for medication ordering, 3.8% (IQR: 0.5% to 6.6%) for vaccinations, and 3.8% (IQR: 0.4% to 16.3%) for test ordering. In a sensitivity analysis using the best outcome from each study, the median improvement was 5.6% (IQR: 2.0% to 19.2%) across all process measures and 6.2% (IQR: 3.0% to 28.0%) across measures of medication ordering. In the eight comparisons that reported dichotomous clinical endpoints, intervention patients experienced a median absolute improvement of 2.5% (IQR: 1.3% to 4.2%). Blood pressure was the most commonly reported clinical endpoint, with intervention patients experiencing a median reduction in their systolic blood pressure of 1.0 mmHg (IQR: 2.3 mmHg reduction to 2.0 mmHg increase).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Point of care computer reminders generally achieve small to modest improvements in provider behaviour. A minority of interventions showed larger effects, but no specific reminder or contextual features were significantly associated with effect magnitude. Further research must identify design features and contextual factors consistently associated with larger improvements in provider behaviour if computer reminders are to succeed on more than a trial and error basis.