Consideration of multiple chronic diseases in randomized controlled trials

Association of Drug-Disease Interactions with Mortality or Readmission in Hospitalised Middle-Aged and Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Multimorbidity is common in hospitalised adults who are at increased risk of inappropriate prescribing including drug-disease interactions. These interactions occur when a medicine being used to treat one condition exacerbates a concurrent medical condition and may lead to adverse health outcomes. The aim of this review was to examine the association between drug-disease interactions and the risk of mortality and readmission in hospitalised middle-aged and older adults.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted on drug-disease interactions in hospitalised middle-aged (45-64 years) and older adults (≥65 years). The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (Registration Number: CRD42022341998). Drug-disease interactions were defined as a medicine being used to treat one condition with the potential to exacerbate a concurrent medical condition or that were inappropriate based on a comorbid medical condition. Both observational and interventional studies were included. The outcomes of interest were mortality and readmissions. The databases searched included MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS and the Cochrane Library from inception to 12 July, 2022. A meta-analysis was performed to pool risk estimates using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

A total of 563 studies were identified and four met the inclusion criteria. All were observational studies in older adults, with no studies identified in middle-aged adults. Most of the studies were at risk of bias because of an inadequate adjustment for covariates and a lack of clarity around individuals lost to follow-up. There were various definitions of drug-disease interactions within these four studies. Two studies assessed drugs that were contraindicated based on renal function, one assessed an individual drug-disease combination, and one was based on the clinical judgement of a pharmacist. There were two studies that showed an association between drug-disease interactions and the outcomes of interest. One reported that the use of diltiazem in patients with heart failure was associated with an increased risk of readmissions. The second reported that the use of medicines contraindicated according to renal function were associated with increased risk of all-cause mortality and a composite of mortality and readmission. Three of the studies (total study population = 5705) were amenable to a meta-analysis, which showed no significant association between drug-disease interactions and readmissions (odds ratio = 1.0, 95% confidence interval 0.80-1.38).

CONCLUSIONS

Few studies were identified examining the risk of drug-disease interactions and mortality and readmission in hospitalised adults. Most of the identified studies were at risk of bias. There is no universal accepted definition of drug-disease interactions in the literature. Further studies are needed to develop a standardised and accepted definition of these interactions to guide further research in this area.

Substance Use Within Trials of Psychological Interventions for Psychosis: Sample Inclusion, Secondary Measures, and Intervention Effectiveness

INTRODUCTION

Current clinical guidelines recommend that patients with co-occurring psychosis and alcohol or substance use disorders (A/SUD) receive evidenced-based treatment for both disorders, including psychological intervention for psychosis. However, the efficacy of such treatments for individuals with co-occurring psychosis and A/SUD is unclear.

STUDY DESIGN

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions for psychosis were systematically reviewed, to investigate how alcohol and substance use has been accounted for across sample inclusion and secondary measures. Findings from trials including individuals with co-occurring alcohol or substance use issues were then narratively summarized using the Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis guidelines, to indicate the overall efficacy of psychological interventions for psychosis, for this comorbid population.

STUDY RESULTS

Across the 131 trials identified, 60.3% of trials excluded individuals with alcohol or substance use issues. Additionally, only 6.1% measured alcohol or substance use at baseline, while only 2.3% measured alcohol or substance use as a secondary outcome. Across trials explicitly including individuals with alcohol or substance use issues, insufficient evidence was available to conclude the efficacy of any individual psychological intervention. However, preliminary findings suggest that psychoeducation (PE) and metacognitive therapy (MCT) may be proposed for further investigation.

CONCLUSION

Overall, co-occurring alcohol and substance use issues have been largely neglected across the recent RCTs of psychological interventions for psychosis; highlighting the challenges of making treatment decisions for these individuals using the current evidence base.

The role of national population-based registries in pancreatic cancer surgery research

Research and innovation are critical for advancing the multidisciplinary management of pancreatic cancer. Registry-based studies (RBSs) are a complement to randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Compared with RCTs, RBSs offer cost-effectiveness, larger sample sizes, and representation of real-world clinical practice. National population-based registries (NPBRs) aim to cover the entire national population, and studies based on NPBRs are, compared to non-NPBRs, less prone to selection bias. The last decade has witnessed a dramatic increase in NPBRs in pancreatic cancer surgery, which has undoubtedly added invaluable knowledge to the body of evidence on pancreatic cancer management. However, several methodological shortcomings may compromise the quality of registry-based studies. These include a lack of control over data collection and a lack of reporting on the quality of the source registry or database in terms of validation of coverage and data completeness and accuracy. Furthermore, there is a significant risk of double publication from the most commonly used registries as well as the inclusion of historical data that is not relevant or representative of research questions addressing current practices.

Overtreatment and associated risk factors among multimorbid older patients with diabetes

BACKGROUND

In multimorbid older patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), the intensity of glucose-lowering medication (GLM) should be focused on attaining a suitable level of glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c ) while avoiding side effects. We aimed at identifying patients with overtreatment of T2DM as well as associated risk factors.

METHODS

In a secondary analysis of a multicenter study of multimorbid older patients, we evaluated HbA1c levels among patients with T2DM. Patients were aged ≥70 years, with multimorbidity (≥3 chronic diagnoses) and polypharmacy (≥5 chronic medications), enrolled in four university medical centers across Europe (Belgium, Ireland, Netherlands, and Switzerland). We defined overtreatment as HbA1c  < 7.5% with ≥1 GLM other than metformin, as suggested by Choosing Wisely and used prevalence ratios (PRs) to evaluate risk factors of overtreatment in age- and sex-adjusted analyses.

RESULTS

Among the 564 patients with T2DM (median age 78 years, 39% women), mean ± standard deviation HbA1c was 7.2 ± 1.2%. Metformin (prevalence 51%) was the most frequently prescribed GLM and 199 (35%) patients were overtreated. The presence of severe renal impairment (PR 1.36, 1.21-1.53) and outpatient physician (other than general practitioner [GP], i.e. specialist) or emergency department visits (PR 1.22, 1.03-1.46 for 1-2 visits, and PR 1.35, 1.19-1.54 for ≥3 visits versus no visits) were associated with overtreatment. These factors remained associated with overtreatment in multivariable analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In this multicountry study of multimorbid older patients with T2DM, more than one third were overtreated, highlighting the high prevalence of this problem. Careful balancing of benefits and risks in the choice of GLM may improve patient care, especially in the context of comorbidities such as severe renal impairment, and frequent non-GP healthcare contacts.

Black representation in critical care randomized controlled trials: a meta-epidemiological study

PURPOSE

The under-representation of Black people within critical care research limits the generalizability of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This meta-epidemiologic study investigated the proportionate representation of Black people enrolled at USA and Canadian study sites from high impact critical care RCTs.

SOURCE

We searched for critical care RCTs published in general medicine and intensive care unit (ICU) journals between 1 January 2016 and 31 December 2020. We included RCTs that enrolled critically ill adults at USA or Canadian sites and provided race-based demographic data by study site. We compared study-based racial demographics with site-level city-based demographics and pooled representation of Black people across studies, cities, and centres using a random effects model. We used meta-regression to explore the impact of the following variables on Black representation in critical care RCTs: country, drug intervention, consent model, number of centres, funding, study site city, and year of publication.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We included 21 eligible RCTs. Of these, 17 enrolled at only USA sites, two at only Canadian sites, and two at both USA and Canadian sites. Black people were under-represented in critical care RCTs by 6% compared with population-based city demographics (95% confidence interval, 1 to 11). Using meta-regression, after controlling for pertinent variables, the country of the study site was the only significant source of heterogeneity (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

Black people are under-represented in critical care RCTs compared with site-level city-based demographics. Interventions are required to ensure adequate Black representation in critical care RCTs at both USA and Canadian study sites. Further research is needed to investigate the factors contributing to Black under-representation in critical care RCTs.

Considerations for Embedding Inclusive Research Principles in the Design and Execution of Clinical Trials

There is a growing recognition that the clinical research enterprise has a diversity problem, given that many clinical trials recruit historically marginalized individuals or patients reflective of real-world data at a rate that is far below the incidence and prevalence of the disease for which the investigational therapy or device is targeting. This lack of diversity in clinical research participation can obscure the safety and efficacy of drug therapies and limits our collective ability to develop effective treatments for all patients, leading to even wider health disparities. This review article provides an in-depth analysis of the impact of this bias on public health, along with a description of some of the barriers that prevent historically marginalized populations from participating in clinical research. Some practical solutions that can be employed to increase diversity in clinical trial participation are also discussed, including the crucial role clinical trial sponsors, research organizations, patients, and caregivers need to play in supporting the industry to achieve this ambitious but necessary goal.

Lipid-Lowering Trials Are Not Representative of Patients Managed in Clinical Practice: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Exclusion Criteria

Background Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) might not be representative of the real-world population because of unreasonable exclusion criteria. We sought to determine which groups of patients are excluded from RCTs that included lipid-lowering therapy. Methods and Results We retrieved all trials from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists Collaboration and systematically searched for large (≥1000 participants) lipid-lowering therapy RCTs, defined as statins, ezetimibe, and PCSK9 inhibitors. We predefined groups: older adults (>70 or >75 years), women, non-Whites, chronic kidney failure, heart failure, immunosuppression, cancer, dementia, treated thyroid disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, mental illness, atrial fibrillation, multimorbidity (≥2 chronic diseases), and polypharmacy. We counted the number of RCTs excluding patients of the predefined groups and meta-analyzed the prevalence of included patients to obtain pooled estimates with a random-effects model. We included 42 RCTs (298 605 patients). Eighty-one percent of trials excluded patients with severe and 76% those with moderate kidney failure. Seventy-one percent of trials excluded groups of women, 64% excluded patients with moderate to severe heart failure, 64% those with immunosuppressant conditions, 48% those with cancer, 29% those with dementia, and 29% of trials excluded older adults. The pooled prevalence for patients >70 years of age was 25% (95% CI, 0%-49%), 11% (3%-18%) for >75 years of age, and 51% (38%-63%) for multimorbidity. Conclusions The majority of lipid-lowering therapy trials excluded patients with common diseases, such as moderate-to-severe kidney disease or heart failure or with immunosuppression. Underrepresenting certain populations, including women and older adults, might lead to limited transportability of study results and uncertainty on possible side-effects and efficacy in these groups. Future trials should promote diversity in the recruitment strategies and improve equity in cardiovascular research. Registration URL: ClinicalTrials.gov; Unique Identifier: CRD42021253909.

The need for increased pragmatism in cardiovascular clinical trials

The majority of cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs) test interventions in selected patient populations under explicitly protocol-defined settings. Although these ‘explanatory’ trial designs optimize conditions to test the efficacy and safety of an intervention, they limit the generalizability of trial findings in broader clinical settings. The concept of ‘pragmatism’ in RCTs addresses this concern by providing counterbalance to the more idealized situation underpinning explanatory RCTs and optimizing effectiveness over efficacy. The central tenets of pragmatism in RCTs are to test interventions in routine clinical settings, with patients who are representative of broad clinical practice, and to reduce the burden on investigators and participants by minimizing the number of trial visits and the intensity of trial-based testing. Pragmatic evaluation of interventions is particularly important in cardiovascular diseases, where the risk of death among patients has remained fairly stable over the past few decades despite the development of new therapeutic interventions. Pragmatic RCTs can help to reveal the ‘real-world’ effectiveness of therapeutic interventions and elucidate barriers to their implementation. In this Review, we discuss the attributes of pragmatism in RCT design, conduct and interpretation as well as the general need for increased pragmatism in cardiovascular RCTs. We also summarize current challenges and potential solutions to the implementation of pragmatism in RCTs and highlight selected ongoing and completed cardiovascular RCTs with pragmatic trial designs.

In this Review, Khan and colleagues discuss the benefits and challenges of including pragmatism in the design, conduct and interpretation of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for cardiovascular disease and highlight selected ongoing and completed cardiovascular RCTs that incorporate a pragmatic design.

Most cardiovascular randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted to date have been ‘explanatory’, that is, designed to study the intervention in optimized conditions with selected patient populations and frequent protocolized assessments.

Although explanatory RCT designs increase validity, they limit the generalizability of trial findings, whereas a ‘pragmatic’ approach to RCTs yields findings more relevant to real-world practice.

In pragmatic RCTs, interventions are tested in patients who are broadly representative of the condition being studied, and the study is aligned with routine clinical care to reduce costs and organizational burden.

Although pragmatic RCTs tend to attenuate estimates of treatment effects, they do provide a more realistic understanding of population-level effectiveness and costs than explanatory trials.

Pragmatic trials can highlight barriers to the implementation of therapies and are better suited than explanatory RCTs to assessing the effects of implementation strategies and health-care policies at the population level.

Widespread implementation of pragmatic trials would require the development of technological infrastructure to collect and share data as well as regulatory guidelines amenable to findings derived from routinely collected data.

Factors affecting primary care physician decision-making for patients with complex multimorbidity: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Patients with multiple chronic conditions (multimorbidity) and additional psychosocial complexity are at higher risk of adverse outcomes. Establishing treatment or care plans for these patients must account for their disease interactions, finite self-management abilities, and even conflicting treatment recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. Despite existing insight into how primary care physicians (PCPs) approach care decisions for their patients in general, less is known about how PCPs make care planning decisions for more complex populations particularly within a medical home setting. We therefore sought to describe factors affecting physician decision-making when care planning for complex patients with multimorbidity within the team-based, patient-centered medical home setting in the integrated healthcare system of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA).

METHODS

This was a qualitative study involving semi-structured telephone interviews with PCPs working > 40% time in VHA clinics. Interviews were conducted from April to July, 2020. Content was analyzed with deductive and inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

23 physicians participated in interviews; most were MDs (n = 21) and worked in hospital-affiliated clinics (n = 14) across all regions of the VHA's national clinic network. We found internal, external, and relationship-based factors, with developed subthemes describing factors affecting decision-making for complex patients with multimorbidity. Physicians described tailoring decisions to individual patients; making decisions in keeping with an underlying internal style or habit; working towards an overarching goal for care; considering impacts from patient access and resources on care plans; deciding within boundaries provided by organizational structures; collaborating on care plans with their care team; and impacts on decisions from their own emotions and relationship with patient.

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs described internal, external, and relationship-based factors that affected their care planning for high-risk and complex patients with multimorbidity in the VHA. Findings offer useful strategies employed by physicians to effectively conduct care planning for complex patients in a medical home setting, such as delegation of follow-up within multidisciplinary care teams, optimizing visit time vs frequency, and deliberate investment in patient-centered relationship building to gain buy-in to care plans.

Key Recommendations from the 2021 “Inclusion of Older Adults in Clinical Research” Workshop

Older adults are often underrepresented in clinical research, even though older adults are major consumers of novel therapies. We present major themes and recommendations from the 2021 "Inclusion of Older Adults in Clinical Research" Workshop, convened by the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Inclusion of Older Adults as a Model for Special Populations Workgroup and the Research Centers Collaborative Network (RCCN). The goal of this workshop was to develop strategies to assist the research community in increasing the inclusion of older adults in clinical research. Major identified barriers include historical lack of federal guidelines, ageist biases and stereotypes, and lack of recruitment and retention techniques or infrastructure focused on older adults. Three key recommendations emerged: 1) engaging with the policymaking process to further promote inclusion; 2) using the CTSA Workgroup Presentation Materials Library and other resources to overcome ageism, and 3) building institutional capacity to support age inclusion.

Interventions for preventing falls and fall-related fractures in community-dwelling older adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of single, multiple, and multifactorial interventions to prevent falls and fall-related fractures in community-dwelling older persons.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of fall prevention interventions in community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years, from inception until February 27, 2019. Two large RCTs (published in 2020 after the search closed) were included in post hoc analyses. Pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were conducted.

RESULTS

NMA including 192 studies revealed that the following single interventions, compared with usual care, were associated with reductions in number of fallers: exercise (risk ratio [RR] 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.89) and quality improvement strategies (e.g., patient education) (RR 0.90; 95% CI 0.83-0.98). Exercise as a single intervention was associated with a reduction in falls rate (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.73-0.86). Common components of multiple interventions significantly associated with a reduction in number of fallers and falls rate were exercise, assistive technology, environmental assessment and modifications, quality improvement strategies, and basic falls risk assessment (e.g., medication review). Multifactorial interventions were associated with a reduction in falls rate (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.80-0.95), but not with a reduction in number of fallers (RR 0.95; 95% CI 0.89-1.01). The following single interventions, compared with usual care, were associated with reductions in number of fall-related fractures: basic falls risk assessment (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.39-0.94) and exercise (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.42-0.90).

CONCLUSIONS

In keeping with Tricco et al. (2017), several single and multiple fall prevention interventions are associated with fewer falls. In addition to Tricco, we observe a benefit at the NMA-level of some single interventions on preventing fall-related fractures.

Optimizing Therapy to Prevent Avoidable Hospital Admissions in Multimorbid Older Adults (OPERAM): cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of optimising drug treatment on drug related hospital admissions in older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy admitted to hospital.

DESIGN

Cluster randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

110 clusters of inpatient wards within university based hospitals in four European countries (Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, and Republic of Ireland) defined by attending hospital doctors.

PARTICIPANTS

2008 older adults (≥70 years) with multimorbidity (≥3 chronic conditions) and polypharmacy (≥5 drugs used long term).

INTERVENTION

Clinical staff clusters were randomised to usual care or a structured pharmacotherapy optimisation intervention performed at the individual level jointly by a doctor and a pharmacist, with the support of a clinical decision software system deploying the screening tool of older person's prescriptions and screening tool to alert to the right treatment (STOPP/START) criteria to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Primary outcome was first drug related hospital admission within 12 months.

RESULTS

2008 older adults (median nine drugs) were randomised and enrolled in 54 intervention clusters (963 participants) and 56 control clusters (1045 participants) receiving usual care. In the intervention arm, 86.1% of participants (n=789) had inappropriate prescribing, with a mean of 2.75 (SD 2.24) STOPP/START recommendations for each participant. 62.2% (n=491) had ≥1 recommendation successfully implemented at two months, predominantly discontinuation of potentially inappropriate drugs. In the intervention group, 211 participants (21.9%) experienced a first drug related hospital admission compared with 234 (22.4%) in the control group. In the intention-to-treat analysis censored for death as competing event (n=375, 18.7%), the hazard ratio for first drug related hospital admission was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.77 to 1.17). In the per protocol analysis, the hazard ratio for a drug related hospital admission was 0.91 (0.69 to 1.19). The hazard ratio for first fall was 0.96 (0.79 to 1.15; 237 v 263 first falls) and for death was 0.90 (0.71 to 1.13; 172 v 203 deaths).

CONCLUSIONS

Inappropriate prescribing was common in older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy admitted to hospital and was reduced through an intervention to optimise pharmacotherapy, but without effect on drug related hospital admissions. Additional efforts are needed to identify pharmacotherapy optimisation interventions that reduce inappropriate prescribing and improve patient outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02986425.

Baseline characteristics and comparability of older multimorbid patients with polypharmacy and general practitioners participating in a randomized controlled primary care trial

Objectives

Recruiting general practitioners (GPs) and their multimorbid older patients for trials is challenging for multiple reasons (e.g., high workload, limited mobility). The comparability of study participants is important for interpreting study findings. This manuscript describes the baseline characteristics of GPs and patients participating in the ‘Optimizing PharmacoTherapy in older multimorbid adults In primary CAre’ (OPTICA) trial, a study of optimization of pharmacotherapy for multimorbid older adults. The overall aim of this study was to determine if the GPs and patients participating in the OPTICA trial are comparable to the real-world population in Swiss primary care.

Design

Analysis of baseline data from GPs and patients in the OPTICA trial and a reference cohort from the FIRE (‘Family medicine ICPC Research using Electronic medical records’) project.

Setting

Primary care, Switzerland.

Participants

Three hundred twenty-three multimorbid (≥ 3 chronic conditions) patients with polypharmacy (≥ 5 regular medications) aged ≥ 65 years and 43 GPs recruited for the OPTICA trial were compared to 22,907 older multimorbid patients with polypharmacy and 227 GPs from the FIRE database.

Methods

We compared the characteristics of GPs and patients participating in the OPTICA trial with other GPs and other older multimorbid adults with polypharmacy in the FIRE database. We described the baseline willingness to have medications deprescribed of the patients participating in the OPTICA trial using the revised Patients’ Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire.

Results

The GPs in the FIRE project and OPTICA were similar in terms of sociodemographic characteristics and their work as a GP (e.g. aged in their fifties, ≥ 10 years of experience, ≥ 60% are self-employed, ≥ 80% work in a group practice). The median age of patients in the OPTICA trial was 77 years and 45% of trial participants were women. Patients participating in the OPTICA trial and patients in the FIRE database were comparable in terms of age, certain clinical characteristics (e.g. systolic blood pressure, body mass index) and health services use (e.g. selected lab and vital data measurements). More than 80% of older multimorbid patients reported to be willing to stop ≥ 1 of their medications if their doctor said that this would be possible.

Conclusion

The characteristics of patients and GPs recruited into the OPTICA trial are relatively comparable to characteristics of a real-world Swiss population, which indicates that recruiting a generalizable patient sample is possible in the primary care setting. Multimorbid patients in the OPTICA trial reported a high willingness to have medications deprescribed.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03724539), KOFAM (Swiss national portal) (SNCTP000003060), Universal Trial Number (U1111-1226-8013)

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-021-01488-8.

Focus and features of prescribing indications spanning multiple chronic conditions in older adults: A narrative review

Background:

Inappropriate prescribing is frequent in older adults and associated with adverse outcomes. Prescribing indications aim to optimize prescribing, but little is known about the focus and features of prescribing indications for the most common chronic conditions in older adults. Understanding the conditions, medications, and issues addressed (e.g., patient perspective, drug-disease interaction, adverse drug event) in current prescribing indications may help to identify missing indications and develop standardized measures to improve prescribing quality.

Methods:

We searched Ovid/MEDLINE and EMBASE for articles published between 2015 and 2020 reporting prescribing indications for older adults. Prescribing indication included 1) prescribing “criteria,” or statements that guide prescribing action, and 2) prescribing “measures,” or prescribing actions observed in a population. We categorized their focus by conditions, medications and issues addressed, as well as level of evidence provided.

Results:

Among 16 sets of prescribing indications, we identified 748 criteria and 47 measures. The most common addressed medications were antihypertensives, analgesics/antirheumatics, and antiplatelets/anticoagulants. The most frequently addressed issues were drug-disease interaction, adverse drug event, administration, better therapeutic alternative, and (co-)prescription omission (20.8–36.1%). Age/functioning, drug-drug interaction, monitoring, and efficacy/safety ratio were found in only 9.9–16.5% of indications. Indications rarely focused on the patient perspective or issues with multiple providers.

Conclusion:

Most prescribing indications for chronic conditions in older patients are criteria rather than measures. Indications accounting for patient perspective and multiple providers are limited. The gaps identified in this review may help improve the development of prescribing measures for older adults and ultimately improve quality of care.

Multi-Morbidity and Polypharmacy in Older People: Challenges and Opportunities for Clinical Practice

Multi-morbidity and polypharmacy are common in older people and pose a challenge for health and social care systems, especially in the context of global population ageing. They are complex and interrelated concepts in the care of older people that require early detection and patient-centred shared decision making underpinned by multi-disciplinary team-led comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) across all health and social care settings. Personalised care plans need to remain responsive and adaptable to the needs and wishes of the patient, enabling the individual to maintain their independence. In this review, we aim to give an up-to-date account of the recognition and management of multi-morbidity and polypharmacy in the older person.

Patterns of multimorbidity in medical inpatients: a multinational retrospective cohort study

Multimorbidity is frequent and represents a significant burden for patients and healthcare systems. However, there are limited data on the most common combinations of comorbidities in multimorbid patients. We aimed to describe and quantify the most common combinations of comorbidities in multimorbid medical inpatients. We used a large retrospective cohort of adults discharged from the medical department of 11 hospitals across 3 countries (USA, Switzerland, and Israel) between 2010 and 2011. Diseases were classified into acute versus chronic. Chronic diseases were grouped into clinically meaningful categories of comorbidities. We identified the most prevalent combinations of comorbidities and compared the observed and expected prevalence of the combinations. We assessed the distribution of acute and chronic diseases and the median number of body systems in relationship to the total number of diseases. Eighty-six percent (n = 126,828/147,806) of the patients were multimorbid (≥ 2 chronic diseases), with a median of five chronic diseases; 13% of the patients had ≥ 10 chronic diseases. Among the most frequent combinations of comorbidities, the most prevalent comorbidity was chronic heart disease. Other high prevalent comorbidities included mood disorders, arthropathy and arthritis, and esophageal disorders. The ratio of chronic versus acute diseases was approximately 2:1. Multimorbidity affected almost 90% of patients, with a median of five chronic diseases. Over 10% had ≥ 10 chronic diseases. This identification and quantification of frequent combinations of comorbidities among multimorbid medical inpatients may increase awareness of what should be taken into account when treating such patients, a growth in the need for special care considerations.

General practitioner strategies for managing patients with multimorbidity: a systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative research

Background

General practitioners (GPs) increasingly manage patients with multimorbidity but report challenges in doing so. Patients describe poor experiences with health care systems that treat each of their health conditions separately, resulting in fragmented, uncoordinated care. For GPs to provide the patient-centred, coordinated care patients need and want, research agendas and health system structures and policies will need to adapt to address this epidemiologic transition. This systematic review seeks to understand if and how multimorbidity impacts on the work of GPs, the strategies they employ to manage challenges, and what they believe still needs addressing to ensure quality patient care.

Methods

Systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies reporting GP experiences of managing patients with multimorbidity. The search included nine major databases, grey literature sources, Google and Google Scholar, a hand search of Journal of Comorbidity, and the reference lists of included studies.

Results

Thirty-three studies from fourteen countries were included. Three major challenges were identified: practising without supportive evidence; working within a fragmented health care system whose policies and structures remain organised around single condition care and specialisation; and the clinical uncertainty associated with multimorbidity complexity and general practitioner perceptions of decisional risk. GPs revealed three approaches to mitigating these challenges: prioritising patient-centredness and relational continuity; relying on knowledge of patient preferences and unique circumstances to individualise care; and structuring the consultation to create a sense of time and minimise patient risk.

Conclusions

GPs described an ongoing tension between applying single condition guidelines to patients with multimorbidity as security against uncertainty or penalty, and potentially causing patients harm. Above all, they chose to prioritise their long-term relationships for the numerous gains this brought such as mutual trust, deeper insight into a patient’s unique circumstances, and useable knowledge of each individual’s capacity for the work of illness and goals for life. GPs described a need for better multimorbidity management guidance. Perhaps more than this, they require policies and models of practice that provide remunerated time and space for nurturing trustful therapeutic partnerships.

Multimorbidity: Implications and directions for health psychology and behavioral medicine

The increasing prevalence of multimorbidity in the United States and the rest of the world poses problems for patients and for health care providers, care systems, and policy. After clarifying the difference between comorbidity and multimorbidity, this article describes the challenges that the prevalence of multimorbidity presents for well-being, prevention, and medical treatment. We submit that health psychology and behavioral medicine have an important role to play in meeting these challenges because of the holistic vision of health afforded by the foundational biopsychosocial model. Furthermore, opportunities abound for health psychology/behavioral medicine to study how biological, social and psychological factors influence multimorbidity. This article describes three major areas in which health psychologists can contribute to understanding and treatment of multimorbidity: (a) etiology; (b) prevention and self-management; and (c) clinical care. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Multimorbidity in randomized controlled trials of behavioral interventions: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

As the population with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) increases, it is essential that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) consider MCC. Behavioral interventions have the potential to positively impact MCC patient outcomes; however, a comprehensive review of consideration of MCC in these trials has not been conducted. The purpose of this systematic review is to determine the frequency with which participants with MCC are represented in behavioral intervention RCTs targeting chronic illness published 2000-2014.

METHOD

MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched from 2000 to 2014 to identify RCTs testing behavioral interventions among adults with chronic illness. A random sampling selection process was performed to identify 600 eligible studies representative of the literature. Two reviewers independently extracted information on consideration of MCC in eligibility criteria and evaluated the reporting and consideration of MCC in trial analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool.

RESULTS

In 600 behavioral intervention RCTs, targeting MCC was rare (4.3%). Exclusion of MCC was common (68.3%) and was done through general, specific, or vague exclusion criteria. 218 (36.3%) trials reported presence of MCCs through general or condition-specific measures. Comorbidities were only considered in 4.8% of all trial analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

In this comprehensive systematic review of 600 studies published from 2000-2014, RCTs testing behavioral interventions rarely consider individuals with MCC, limiting generalizability. Given the public health relevance and limited evidence base, this work highlights the urgent need to improve the consideration of MCC in clinical trial research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Treatment of Hypertension in Complex Older Adults: How Many Medications Are Needed?

Background: Many older adults with hypertension receive multiple antihypertensives. It is unclear whether treatment with several antihypertensive classes results in greater cardiovascular benefits than fewer antihypertensive classes. Objectives: We investigated (a) the longitudinal associations between treatment with ≥ 3 versus 1-2 classes and death and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and (b) whether these associations varied by the presence of mobility disability. Methods: We included 6,011 treated hypertensive adults ≥65 from the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a nationally representative community sample. Times to MACE and death were compared between those receiving ≥3 versus 1-2 classes using multivariable proportional hazards regression. We used inverse probability of treatment weighting to account for indication and contraindication bias. Results: There were no significant differences in the risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.96, p = .769) or MACE (HR = 1.10, p = .574) between the exposure groups, and there were no significant exposure × mobility disability interactions. Discussion: We found no benefit of ≥3 versus 1-2 antihypertensive classes in reducing mortality and cardiovascular events in a representative cohort of older adults, raising concern about the added benefit of additional antihypertensives in the real world.

Selection of interventions aimed at improving medication adherence in patients with multimorbidity

Objectives

To select interventions aimed at improving medication adherence in patients with multimorbidity by means of a standardised methodology.

Methods

A modified Delphi methodology was used to reach consensus. Interventions that had demonstrated their efficacy in improving medication adherence in patients with multimorbidity or in similar populations were identified from a literature search of several databases (PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Center for Reviews and Dissemination, and Web of Science). 11 experts in medication adherence and/or chronic disease scored the selected interventions for appropriateness according to three criteria: strength of the evidence that supported each intervention, usefulness in patients with multimorbidity, and feasibility of implementation in clinical practice. The final set of interventions was selected according to appropriateness and agreement based on the Delphi methodology.

Results

566 articles were retrieved in the literature search. Nine systematic reviews were included. 33 interventions were initially selected for evaluation by the panellists. Consensus after two Delphi rounds was reached on 16 interventions. Five interventions were categorized as educational, six as behavioural and five were related to other aspects of interest.

Conclusions

The interventions selected following a comprehensive and standardized methodology, could be used to improve medication adherence in patients with multimorbidity.

Rationale and design of OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people (OPERAM): a cluster randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are important risk factors for drug-related hospital admissions (DRAs). DRAs are often linked to prescribing problems (overprescribing and underprescribing), as well as non-adherence with drug regimens for different reasons. In this trial, we aim to assess whether a structured medication review compared with standard care can reduce DRAs in multimorbid older patients with polypharmacy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people is a European multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial. Hospitalised patients ≥70 years with ≥3 chronic medical conditions and concurrent use of ≥5 chronic medications are included in the four participating study centres of Bern (Switzerland), Utrecht (The Netherlands), Brussels (Belgium) and Cork (Ireland). Patients treated by the same prescribing physician constitute a cluster, and clusters are randomised 1:1 to either standard care or Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing (STRIP) intervention with the help of a clinical decision support system, the STRIP Assistant. STRIP is a structured method performing customised medication reviews, based on Screening Tool of Older People's Prescriptions/Screening  Tool to Alert to Right Treatment criteria to detect potentially inappropriate prescribing. The primary endpoint is any DRA where the main reason or a contributory reason for the patient's admission is caused by overtreatment or undertreatment, and/or inappropriate treatment. Secondary endpoints include number of any hospitalisations, all-cause mortality, number of falls, quality of life, degree of polypharmacy, activities of daily living, patient's drug compliance, the number of significant drug-drug interactions, drug overuse and underuse and potentially inappropriate medication.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The local Ethics Committees in Switzerland, Ireland, The Netherlands and Belgium approved this trial protocol. We will publish the results of this trial in a peer-reviewed journal.

MAIN FUNDING

European Union's Horizon 2020 programme.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02986425 , SNCTP000002183 , NTR6012, U1111-1181-9400.

Patient-centred rehabilitation for non-communicable disease in a low-resource setting: study protocol for a feasibility and proof-of-concept randomised clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are the leading cause of death globally. Even though NCD disproportionally affects low-to-middle income countries, these countries including South Africa, often have limited capacity for the prevention and control of NCDs. The standard evidence-based care for the long-term management of NCDs includes rehabilitation. However, evidence for the effectiveness of rehabilitation for NCDs originates predominantly from high-income countries. Despite the disproportionate disease burden in low-resourced settings, and due to the complex context and constraints in these settings, the delivery and study of evidence-based rehabilitation treatment in a low-resource setting is poorly understood. This study aims to test the design, methodology and feasibility of a minimalistic, patient-centred, rehabilitation programme for patients with NCD specifically designed for and conducted in a low-resource setting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Stable patients with cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic respiratory disease and/or diabetes mellitus will be recruited over the course of 1 year from a provincial day hospital located in an urban, low-resourced setting (Bishop Lavis, Cape Town, South Africa). A postponed information model will be adopted to allocate patients to a 6-week, group-based, individualised, patient-centred rehabilitation programme consisting of multimodal exercise, exercise education and health education; or usual care (ie, no care). Outcomes include feasibility measures, treatment fidelity, functional capacity (eg, 6 min walking test), physical activity level, health-related quality of life and a patient-perspective economic evaluation. Outcomes are assessed by a blinded assessor at baseline, postintervention and 8-week follow-up. Mixed-method analyses will be conducted to inform future research.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Health Research and Ethics Council, Stellenbosch University (M17/09/031). Information gathered in this research will be published in peer-reviewed journals, presented at national and international conferences, as well as local stakeholders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PACTR201807847711940; Pre-results.

Extent of Exclusions for Chronic Conditions in Breast Cancer Trials

Experts have expressed concerns that patients with chronic conditions are being excessively excluded from cancer randomized clinical trials (RCTs), limiting generalizability. Accordingly, we queried clinicaltrials.gov to determine the extent to which patients with chronic conditions were excluded from phase III cancer trials, using National Cancer Institute-sponsored breast cancer RCTs as a test case. Two physicians independently coded for the presence of 19 prevalent chronic conditions within eligibility criteria. They also coded for exclusions based on performance status and vague criteria that could have broadly excluded patients with chronic conditions. The search identified 58 RCTs, initiated from 1993 to 2012. Overall, 88% of trials had at least one exclusion for a chronic condition, performance status, or vague criterion. The three most commonly excluded conditions were chronic kidney disease, heart failure, and ischemic heart disease. Our study demonstrated that patients with prevalent chronic conditions were commonly excluded from National Cancer Institute-sponsored RCTs.

Principle of rational prescribing and deprescribing in older adults with multiple chronic conditions

Although the majority of older adults in the developed world live with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs), the task of selecting optimal treatment regimens is still fraught with difficulty. Older adults with MCCs may derive less benefit from prescribed medications than healthier patients as a result of the competing risk of several possible outcomes including, but not limited to, death before a benefit can be accrued. In addition, these patients may be at increased risk of medication-related harms in the form of adverse effects and significant burdens of treatment. At present, the balance of these benefits and harms is often uncertain, given that older adults with MCCs are often excluded from clinical trials. In this review, we propose a framework to consider patients' own priorities to achieve optimal treatment regimens. To begin, the practicing clinician needs information on the patient's goals, what the patient is willing and able to do to achieve these goals, an estimate of the patient's clinical trajectory, and what the patient is actually taking. We then describe how to integrate this information to understand what matters most to the patient in the context of an array of potential tradeoffs. Finally, we propose conducting serial therapeutic trials of prescribing and deprescribing, with success measured as progress towards the patient's own health outcome goals. The process described in this manuscript is truly an iterative process, which should be repeated regularly to account for changes in the patient's priorities and clinical status. With this process, we aim to achieve optimal prescribing, that is, treatment regimens that maximize benefits that matter to the patient and minimize burdens and potential harms.

Mapping the global research landscape and knowledge gaps on multimorbidity: a bibliometric study

Background

To summarize global research trends and activities on multimorbidity; then to assess the knowledge gaps and to identify implications for knowledge exchange between high income countries (HICs) and low– and middle– income countries (LMICs).

Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted to identify research publications on multimorbidity in the Web of Science^TM, as well as diabetes, depression, hypertension, and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). The time frame for the search was from 1900 to June, 2016. Information (such as publication date, subject category, author, country of origin, title, abstract, and keywords) were extracted and the full texts were obtained for the co–citation analysis. Data were linked with the life expectancy at birth (years) and Gross National Income (GNI). Co–citation and hierarchal clustering analysis was used to map the trends and research networks with CiteSpace II (JAVA freeware, copyright Chaomei Chen, http://cluster.cis.drexel.edu/~cchen/citespace/).

Findings

We identified 2864 relevant publications as at June 2016, with the first paper on this topic indexed in 1974 from Germany, but 80% were published after 2010. Further analysis yielded two knowledge gaps: (1) compared with single conditions (diabetes, hypertension, depression, and COPD), there is a mismatch between the high prevalence of multimorbidity and its research outputs (ratio of articles on multimorbidity vs other four single conditions is 1:13–150); (2) although a total of 76 countries have contributed to this research area, only 5% of research originated from LMICs where 73% of non–communicable disease (NCD) related deaths had occurred. Additional analysis showed the median year of first publication occurred 15 years later in the LMICs compared with HICs (2010 vs 1995); and longer life expectancy was associated with exponentially higher publication outputs (Pearson correlation coefficient r = 0.95) at the global level. The life expectancy at the median year (1994) of first publication was 66.1, with the gap between LMICs and HICs 7.9 (68.4 vs 76.3).

Conclusions

This study confirms substantial knowledge gaps in the research agenda on multimorbidity, with input urgently needed to move us forward worldwide, especially for and in LMICs. There is the possibility that LMICs can learn from and collaborate with HICs in this area.

Mapping of global scientific research in comorbidity and multimorbidity: A cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

The management of comorbidity and multimorbidity poses major challenges to health services around the world. Analysis of scientific research in comorbidity and multimorbidity is limited in the biomedical literature. This study aimed to map global scientific research in comorbidity and multimorbidity to understand the maturity and growth of the area during the past decades.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

This was a cross-sectional analysis of the Web of Science. Searches were run from inception until November 8, 2016. We included research articles or reviews with no restrictions by language or publication date. Data abstraction was done by one researcher. A process of standardization was conducted by two researchers to unify different terms and grammatical variants and to remove typographical, transcription, and/or indexing errors. All potential discrepancies were resolved via discussion. Descriptive analyses were conducted (including the number of papers, citations, signatures, most prolific authors, countries, journals and keywords). Network analyses of collaborations between countries and co-words were presented. During the period 1970-2016, 85994 papers (64.0% in 2010-2016) were published in 3500 journals. There was wide diversity in the specialty of the journals, with psychiatry (16558 papers; 19.3%), surgery (9570 papers; 11.1%), clinical neurology (9275 papers; 10.8%), and general and internal medicine (7622 papers; 8.9%) the most common. PLOS One (1223 papers; 1.4%), the Journal of Affective Disorders (1154 papers; 1.3%), the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry (727 papers; 0.8%), the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (634 papers; 0.7%) and Obesity Surgery (588 papers; 0.7%) published the largest number of papers. 168 countries were involved in the production of papers. The global productivity ranking was headed by the United States (37624 papers), followed by the United Kingdom (7355 papers), Germany (6899 papers) and Canada (5706 papers). Twenty authors who published 100 or more papers were identified; the most prolific authors were affiliated with Harvard Medical School, State University of New York Upstate Medical University, National Taiwan Normal University and China Medical University. The 50 most cited papers ("citation classics" with at least 1000 citations) were published in 20 journals, led by JAMA Psychiatry (11 papers) and JAMA (10 papers). The most cited papers provided contributions focusing on methodological aspects (e.g. Charlson Comorbidity Index, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, APACHE prognostic system), but also important studies on chronic diseases (e.g. epidemiology of mental disorders and its correlates by the U.S. National Comorbidity Survey, Fried's frailty phenotype or the management of obesity).

CONCLUSIONS

Ours is the first analysis of global scientific research in comorbidity and multimorbidity. Scientific production in the field is increasing worldwide with research leadership of Western countries, most notably, the United States.

Multimorbidity: will it stand the test of time?

The concept of multimorbidity has risen in popularity over the past few years. Its use has led to, or coincided with, an increased recognition that patients often have more than one health problem which should not be treated in isolation. The motivation for more holistic, person-centred care that lies behind multimorbidity is to be welcomed. The 2016 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence multimorbidity management guideline helpfully makes recommendations in key areas that are important in the care of patients with complicated medical problems.However, we question the sustainability of the term for the following four reasons: (i) it is doctor and researcher centred rather than patient centred, focusing upon the number of diagnoses rather than the patient's lived experience, (ii) it is not a positive term for patients and is at odds with the move towards promoting active and healthy ageing, (iii) its non-specific nature means it holds little value in daily clinical practice and (iv) most definitions apply to a large segment of the population making it of limited use for health care planners. We argue that the complementary concepts of complexity and frailty would fit better with the delivery of patient centred care for people with multiple co-existing health problems and would be more useful to clinicians, commissioners and researchers.

Relationships between Medication Adherence and Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factor Control in Elderly Patients with Diabetes

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Medicare Star program provides incentives to health plans when their patients with diabetes meet adherence targets to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs) and statins. While a link between adherence and cardiovascular risk factor control is established, most studies included young patients with few comorbidities. Whether the Star adherence target is associated with reduced blood pressure or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in complex older patients is not well understood.

OBJECTIVES

Determine correlates of adherence and examine the effect of meeting Star adherence targets on blood pressure and LDL-C in the Medicare-aged diabetes population.

DESIGN AND SUBJECTS

Retrospective cohort study of 129,040 patients with diabetes aged 65 or older.

MEASURES

Adherence estimated using proportion of days covered target ≥ 0.8; blood pressure < 140/90 mg Hg; LDL-C < 100 mg/dl. Modified Poisson regression used to assess relationships.

RESULTS

Adherence differed little across elderly age groups. Compared to no comorbidity, high comorbidity (≥ 4) was associated with lower ACEI/ARB (risk ratio [RR] 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-0.89]) or statin (RR 0.91 [0.90-0.92]) adherence. ACEI/ARB adherence was not associated with blood pressure < 140/90 mm Hg in patients ≥ 85 years (RR 1.01 [0.96-1.07]) or with multiple comorbidities (e.g., 3: RR 1.04 [0.99-1.08]). Statin adherence and LDL-C < 100 mg/dl were associated in all elderly age groups (e.g., ≥ 85: RR 1.13 [1.09-1.16]) and comorbidity levels (e.g., ≥ 4: RR 1.13 [1.12-1.15]).

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to ACEI/ARB is not linked with reduced blood pressure in patients with diabetes who are at least 85 years or with multiple comorbidities.

Addressing the Evidence Gap in Stroke Rehabilitation for Complex Patients: A Preliminary Research Agenda

Evidence suggests that a stroke occurs in isolation (no comorbid conditions) in less than 6% of patients. Multimorbidity, compounded by psychosocial issues, makes treatment and recovery for stroke increasingly complex. Recent research and health policy documents called for a better understanding of the needs of this patient population, and for the development and testing of models of care that meet their needs. A research agenda specific to complexity is required. The primary objective of the think tank was to identify and prioritize research questions that meet the information needs of stakeholders, and to develop a research agenda specific to stroke rehabilitation and patient complexity. A modified Delphi and World Café approach underpinned the think tank meeting, approaches well recognized to foster interaction, dialogue, and collaboration between stakeholders. Forty-three researchers, clinicians, and policymakers attended a 2-day meeting. Initial question-generating activities resulted in 120 potential research questions. Sixteen high-priority research questions were identified, focusing on predetermined complexity characteristics-multimorbidity, social determinants, patient characteristics, social supports, and system factors. The final questions are presented as a prioritized research framework. An emergent result of this activity is the development of a complexity and stroke rehabilitation research network. The research agenda reflects topics of importance to stakeholders working with stroke patients with increasingly complex care needs. This robust process resulted in a preliminary research agenda that could provide policymakers with the evidence needed to make improvements toward better-organized services, better coordination between settings, improved patient outcomes, and lower system costs.

Systematic literature review of clinical trials evaluating pharmacotherapy for overactive bladder in elderly patients: An assessment of trial quality

AIMS

Overactive bladder (OAB) disproportionately affects older-aged adults, yet most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) underrepresent patients ≥65. This systematic literature review (SLR) identified RCTs evaluating β-3 adrenergic agonists or muscarinic antagonists in elderly patients with OAB, and compared study quality across trials.

METHODS

MEDLINE^® , Embase^® , and Cochrane Collaboration Central Register of Clinical Trials databases were searched from inception through April 28, 2015 to identify published, peer-reviewed RCT reports evaluating β-3 adrenergic agonists or muscarinic antagonists in elderly OAB patients (either ≥65 years or study-described as "elderly"). To assess study quality of RCT reports, we focused on internal/external validity, assessed via two scales: the validated Effective Public Health Practice Project [EPHPP]): Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies, and a tool commissioned by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).

RESULTS

Database searches yielded 1380 records that were then screened according to predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria. We included eight papers meeting study criteria. Despite scientific community efforts to improve RCT reporting standards, published reports still include incomplete and inconsistent reporting-of subject attrition, baseline patient characteristics, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and other important details. Only three of the eight OAB RCTs in this review received quality ratings of Strong (EPHPP) or Fair (AHRQ) and were multicenter with large samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the prevalence of OAB among older age individuals, relatively few RCTs evaluate OAB treatments explicitly among elderly subjects. The findings from this quality assessment suggest some areas for improvement in both conduct and reporting of future RCTs assessing OAB treatment in elderly.

Research Priorities to Advance the Health and Health Care of Older Adults with Multiple Chronic Conditions

OBJECTIVES

To prioritize research topics relevant to the care of the growing population of older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs).

DESIGN

Survey of experts in MCC practice, research, and policy. Topics were derived from white papers, funding announcements, or funded research projects relating to older adults with MCCs.

SETTING

Survey conducted through the Health Care Systems Research Network (HCSRN) and Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Centers (OAICs) Advancing Geriatrics Infrastructure and Network Growth Initiative, a joint endeavor of the HCSRN and OAICs.

PARTICIPANTS

Individuals affiliated with the HCSRN or OAICs and national MCC experts, including individuals affiliated with funding agencies having MCC-related grant portfolios.

MEASUREMENTS

A "top box" methodology was used, counting the number of respondents selecting the top response on a 5-point Likert scale and dividing by the total number of responses to calculate a top box percentage for each of 37 topics.

RESULTS

The highest-ranked research topics relevant to the health and healthcare of older adults with MCCs were health-related quality of life in older adults with MCCs; development of assessment tools (to assess, e.g., symptom burden, quality of life, function); interactions between medications, disease processes, and health outcomes; disability; implementation of novel (and scalable) models of care; association between clusters of chronic conditions and clinical, financial, and social outcomes; role of caregivers; symptom burden; shared decision-making to enhance care planning; and tools to improve clinical decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Study findings serve to inform the development of a comprehensive research agenda to address the challenges relating to the care of this "high-need, high-cost" population and the healthcare delivery systems responsible for serving it.

Pharmacotherapies in Geriatric Chronic Pain Management

Pharmacologic management of chronic pain in older adults is one component of the multimodal, interdisciplinary management of this complex condition. In this article, we summarize several of the key barriers to effective pharmacologic management in older adults and review the existing (albeit limited) evidence for its effectiveness and safety, especially in a medically complex population with multimorbidity. This review covers topical formulations, acetaminophen, oral nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, and adjuvant therapies. The article concludes with a suggested approach to managing chronic pain in the older patient, incorporating goals and expectations for treatment as well as careful monitoring of medication adjustments.

Polypharmacy and specific comorbidities in university primary care settings

AIMS

Polypharmacy is associated with adverse events and multimorbidity, but data are limited on its association with specific comorbidities in primary care settings. We measured the prevalence of polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing, and assessed the association of polypharmacy with specific comorbidities.

METHODS

We did a cross-sectional analysis of 1002 patients aged 50-80years followed in Swiss university primary care settings. We defined polypharmacy as ≥5 long-term prescribed drugs and multimorbidity as ≥2 comorbidities. We used logistic mixed-effects regression to assess the association of polypharmacy with the number of comorbidities, multimorbidity, specific sets of comorbidities, potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) and potential prescribing omission (PPO). We used multilevel mixed-effects Poisson regression to assess the association of the number of drugs with the same parameters.

RESULTS

Patients (mean age 63.5years, 67.5% ≥2 comorbidities, 37.0% ≥5 drugs) had a mean of 3.9 (range 0-17) drugs. Age, BMI, multimorbidity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular diseases were independently associated with polypharmacy. The association was particularly strong for hypertension (OR 8.49, 95%CI 5.25-13.73), multimorbidity (OR 6.14, 95%CI 4.16-9.08), and oldest age (75-80years: OR 4.73, 95%CI 2.46-9.10 vs.50-54years). The prevalence of PPO was 32.2% and PIP was more frequent among participants with polypharmacy (9.3% vs. 3.2%, p<0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

Polypharmacy is common in university primary care settings, is strongly associated with hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular diseases, and increases potentially inappropriate prescribing. Multimorbid patients should be included in further trials for developing adapted guidelines and avoiding inappropriate prescribing.

Exclusion of patients with concomitant chronic conditions in ongoing randomised controlled trials targeting 10 common chronic conditions and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: a systematic review of registration details

OBJECTIVES

To systematically assess registration details of ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) targeting 10 common chronic conditions and registered at ClinicalTrials.gov and to determine the prevalence of (1) trial records excluding patients with concomitant chronic condition(s) and (2) those specifically targeting patients with concomitant chronic conditions.

DESIGN

Systematic review of trial registration records.

DATA SOURCES

ClinicalTrials.gov register.

STUDY SELECTION

All ongoing RCTs registered from 1 January 2014 to 31 January 2015 that assessed an intervention targeting adults with coronary heart disease (CHD), hypertension, heart failure, stroke/transient ischaemic attack, atrial fibrillation, type 2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, painful condition, depression and dementia with a target sample size ≥100.

DATA EXTRACTION

From the trial registration records, 2 researchers independently recorded the trial characteristics and the number of exclusion criteria and determined whether patients with concomitant chronic conditions were excluded or specifically targeted.

RESULTS

Among 319 ongoing RCTs, despite the high prevalence of the concomitant chronic conditions, patients with these conditions were excluded in 251 trials (79%). For example, although 91% of patients with CHD had a concomitant chronic condition, 69% of trials targeting such patients excluded patients with concomitant chronic condition(s). When considering the co-occurrence of 2 chronic conditions, 31% of patients with chronic pain also had depression, but 58% of the trials targeting patients with chronic pain excluded patients with depression. Only 37 trials (12%) assessed interventions specifically targeting patients with concomitant chronic conditions; 31 (84%) excluded patients with concomitant chronic condition(s).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite widespread multimorbidity, more than three-quarters of ongoing trials assessing interventions for patients with chronic conditions excluded patients with concomitant chronic conditions.

The challenge of comorbidity in clinical trials for multiple sclerosis

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to provide recommendations for addressing comorbidity in clinical trial design and conduct in multiple sclerosis (MS).

METHODS

We held an international workshop, informed by a systematic review of the incidence and prevalence of comorbidity in MS and an international survey about research priorities for studying comorbidity including their relation to clinical trials in MS.

RESULTS

We recommend establishing age- and sex-specific incidence estimates for comorbidities in the MS population, including those that commonly raise concern in clinical trials of immunomodulatory agents; shifting phase III clinical trials of new therapies from explanatory to more pragmatic trials; describing comorbidity status of the enrolled population in publications reporting clinical trials; evaluating treatment response, tolerability, and safety in clinical trials according to comorbidity status; and considering comorbidity status in the design of pharmacovigilance strategies.

CONCLUSION

Our recommendations will help address knowledge gaps regarding comorbidity that interfere with the ability to interpret safety in monitored trials and will enhance the generalizability of findings from clinical trials to "real world" settings where the MS population commonly has comorbid conditions.

An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report. A Framework for Addressing Multimorbidity in Clinical Practice Guidelines for Pulmonary Disease, Critical Illness, and Sleep Disorders

Coexistence of multiple chronic conditions (i.e., multimorbidity) is the most common chronic health problem in adults. However, clinical practice guidelines have primarily focused on patients with a single disease, resulting in uncertainty about the care of patients with multimorbidity. The American Thoracic Society convened a workshop with the goal of establishing a strategy to address multimorbidity within clinical practice guidelines. In this Workshop Report, we describe a framework that addresses multimorbidity in each of the key steps of guideline development: topic selection, panel composition, identifying clinical questions, searching for and synthesizing evidence, rating the quality of that evidence, summarizing benefits and harms, formulating recommendations, and rating the strength of the recommendations. For the consideration of multimorbidity in guidelines to be successful and sustainable, the process must be both feasible and pragmatic. It is likely that this will be achieved best by the step-wise addition and refinement of the various components of the framework.

Multimorbidity in Older Adults with Heart Failure

Multimorbidity is common among older adults with heart failure and creates diagnostic and management challenges. Diagnosis of heart failure may be difficult, as many conditions commonly found in older persons produce dyspnea, exercise intolerance, fatigue, and weakness; no singular pathognomonic finding or diagnostic test differentiates them from one another. Treatment may also be complicated, as multimorbidity creates high potential for drug-disease and drug-drug interactions in settings of polypharmacy. The authors suggest that management of multimorbid older persons with heart failure be patient, rather than disease-focused, to best meet patients' unique health goals and minimize risk from excessive or poorly-coordinated treatments.

First-line treatment of newly diagnosed elderly patients with chronic myeloid leukemia: current and emerging strategies

Chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) is a disease of the hematopoietic stem cell characterized by a median age at diagnosis of 60-65 years according to most epidemiologic registries. Prior to the tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) era, older age was considered an adverse prognostic factor and was included in two of the most used scoring systems for CML, the Sokal score and the Euro score. Moreover, older age was generally considered a limitation for the use of allogeneic stem-cell transplantation, given the higher toxicity observed. After the introduction of TKIs, age lost much of its prognostic impact in patients in chronic phase (CP), and the EUTOS score, developed in patients treated with imatinib, did not identify age as a risk variable. However, most CML patients require life-long treatment; therefore, as patients age while taking a TKI, the complexity of the management of elderly patients may increase over time. To date, imatinib, the first TKI introduced, and two second-generation TKIs, nilotinib and dasatinib, have been approved in most Western countries for the first-line treatment of CML. These drugs differ in terms of efficacy, safety, and costs; therefore, knowledge of their characteristics is extremely relevant for optimal management of elderly CML patients. We reviewed the impact of age on the first-line treatment of CP CML patients in the TKI era, considering the epidemiology of the disease, the role of comorbidities, and analyzing data from population-based studies and clinical trials.

Stroke rehabilitation and patients with multimorbidity: a scoping review protocol

Stroke care presents unique challenges for clinicians, as most strokes occur in the context of other medical diagnoses. An assessment of capacity for implementing “best practice” stroke care found clinicians reporting a strong need for training specific to patient/system complexity and multimorbidity. With mounting patient complexity, there is pressure to implement new models of healthcare delivery for both quality and financial sustainability. Policy makers and administrators are turning to clinical practice guidelines to support decision-making and resource allocation. Stroke rehabilitation programs across Canada are being transformed to better align with the Canadian Stroke Strategy’s Stroke Best Practice Recommendations. The recommendations provide a framework to facilitate the adoption of evidence-based best practices in stroke across the continuum of care. However, given the increasing and emerging complexity of patients with stroke in terms of multimorbidity, the evidence supporting clinical practice guidelines may not align with the current patient population. To evaluate this, electronic databases and gray literature will be searched, including published or unpublished studies of quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods research designs. Team members will screen the literature and abstract the data. Results will present a numerical account of the amount, type, and distribution of the studies included and a thematic analysis and concept map of the results. This review represents the first attempt to map the available literature on stroke rehabilitation and multimorbidity, and identify gaps in the existing research. The results will be relevant for knowledge users concerned with stroke rehabilitation by expanding the understanding of the current evidence.