The MedSafer Study-Electronic Decision Support for Deprescribing in Hospitalized Older Adults: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Optimizing drug therapy for older adults: shifting away from problematic polypharmacy

INTRODUCTION

The accelerated discovery and production of pharmaceutical products has resulted in many positive outcomes. However, this progress has also contributed to problematic polypharmacy, one of the rapidly growing threats to public health in this century. Problematic polypharmacy results in adverse patient outcomes and imposes increased strain and financial burden on healthcare systems.

AREAS COVERED

A review was conducted on the current body of evidence concerning factors contributing to and consequences of problematic polypharmacy. Recent trials investigating interventions that target polypharmacy and emerging solutions, including incorporation of artificial intelligence, are also examined in this article.

EXPERT OPINION

To shift away from problematic polypharmacy, a multifaceted interdisciplinary approach is necessary. Any potentially successful strategy must be adapted to suit various healthcare settings and must utilize all available resources, including artificial intelligence.

Emergency department visits and hospital readmissions after a deprescribing intervention among hospitalized older adults

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing is the planned/supervised method of dose reduction or cessation of medications that might be harmful, or no longer be beneficial. Though benefits of deprescribing are debatable in improving clinical outcomes, it has been associated with decreased number of potentially inappropriate medications, which may potentially reduce the risk of adverse events among hospitalized older adults. With unclear evidence for deprescribing in this population, this study aimed to examine time-to-first unplanned healthcare utilization, which included 90-day emergency department (ED) visits or hospital readmission and associated predictors, during a deprescribing intervention.

METHODS

A secondary data analysis of a clinical trial (Shed-MEDS NCT02979353) was performed. Cox regression was used to compare the time-to-first 90-day ED visit/readmission/death from hospital discharge for the intervention and control groups. Additionally, we performed exploratory analysis of predictors (comorbidities, functional health status, drug burden index (DBI), hospital length of stay, health literacy, food insecurity, and financial burden) associated with the time-to-first 90-day ED visit/readmission/death.

RESULTS

The hazard of first 90-day ED visits/readmissions/death was 15% lower in the intervention versus the control group (95% CI: 0.61-1.19, p = 0.352, respectively); however, this difference was not statistically significant. For every additional number of comorbidities (Hazard ratio (HR): 1.12, 95% CI: 1.04-1.21) and each additional day of hospital length of stay (HR: 1.04, 95% CI: 1.01-1.07) were significantly associated with a higher hazard of 90-day ED visit/readmission/death in the intervention group; whereas for each unit of increase in pre-hospital DBI score (HR: 1.08 and HR 1.16, respectively) was significantly associated with a higher hazard of 90-day ED visit/readmission/death in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention and control groups had comparable time-to-first 90-day ED visit/readmission/death during a deprescribing intervention. This finding suggests that deprescribing did not result in a higher risk of ED visit/readmission/death during the 90-day period following hospital discharge.

Factors influencing central nervous system medication deprescribing and behavior change in hospitalized older adults

BACKGROUND

Central nervous system (CNS) medications are linked to higher morbidity and mortality in older adults. Hospitalization allows for deprescribing opportunities. This qualitative study investigates clinician and patient perspectives on CNS medication deprescribing during hospitalization using a behavioral change framework, aiming to inform interventions and identify recommendations to enhance hospital deprescribing processes.

METHODS

This qualitative study focused on hospitalists, primary care providers, pharmacists, and patients aged ≥60 years hospitalized on a general medicine service and prescribed ≥1 CNS medications. Using semi-structured interviews and focus groups, we aimed to evaluate patient medication knowledge, prior deprescribing experiences, and decision-making preferences, as well as provider processes and tools for medication evaluation and deprescribing. Rapid qualitative analysis applying the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior (COM-B) framework revealed themes influencing deprescribing behavior in patients and providers.

RESULTS

A total of 52 participants (20 patients and 32 providers) identified facilitators and barriers across deprescribing steps and generated recommended strategies to address them. Clinicians and patients highlighted the opportunity for CNS medication deprescribing during hospitalizations, facilitated by multidisciplinary teams enhancing clinicians' capability to make medication changes. Both groups also stressed the importance of intensive patient engagement, education, and monitoring during hospitalizations, acknowledging challenges in timing and extent of deprescribing, with some patients preferring decisions deferred to outpatient clinicians. Hospitalist and pharmacist recommendations centered on early pharmacist involvement for medication reconciliation, expanding pharmacy consultation and clinician education on deprescribing, whereas patients recommended enhancing shared decision-making through patient education on medication adverse effects, tapering plans, and alternatives. Hospitalists and PCPs also emphasized standardized discharge instructions and transitional care calls to improve medication review and feedback during care transitions.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians and patients highlighted the potential advantages of hospital interventions for CNS medication deprescribing, emphasizing the necessity of addressing communication, education, and coordination challenges between inpatient and outpatient settings.

Central nervous system medication use around hospitalization

BACKGROUND

Central nervous system (CNS) medication use is common among older adults, yet the impact of hospitalizations on use remains unclear. This study details CNS medication use, discontinuations, and user profiles during hospitalization periods.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study using electronic health records on patients ≥65 years, from three hospitals (2018-2020), and prescribed a CNS medication around hospitalization (90 days prior to 90 days after). Latent class transitions analysis (LCTA) examined profiles of CNS medication class users across four time points (90 days prior, admission, discharge, 90 days after hospitalization).

RESULTS

Among 4666 patients (mean age 74.3 ± 9.3 years; 63% female; 70% White; mean length of stay 4.6 ± 5.6 days (median 3.0 [2.0, 6.0]), the most commonly prescribed CNS medications were antidepressants (56%) and opioids (49%). Overall, 74% (n = 3446) of patients were persistent users of a CNS medication across all four time points; 7% (n = 388) had discontinuations during hospitalization, but of these, 64% (216/388) had new starts or restarts within 90 days after hospitalization. LCTA identified three profile groups: (1) low CNS medication users, 54%-60% of patients; (2) mental health medication users, 30%-36%; and (3) acute/chronic pain medication users, 9%-10%. Probability of staying in same group across the four time points was high (0.88-1.00). Transitioning to the low CNS medication use group was highest from admission to discharge (probability of 9% for pain medication users, 5% for mental health medication users). Female gender increased (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.3-4.3), while chronic kidney disease lowered (OR 0.5, 0.2-0.9) the odds of transitioning to the low CNS medication use profile between admission and discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

CNS medication use stays consistent around hospitalization, with discontinuation more likely between admission and discharge, especially among pain medication users. Further research on patient outcomes is needed to understand the benefits and harms of hospital deprescribing, particularly for medications requiring gradual tapering.

Deprescribing in older adults with polypharmacy

Polypharmacy is common in older adults and is associated with adverse drug events, cognitive and functional impairment, increased healthcare costs, and increased risk of frailty, falls, hospitalizations, and mortality. Many barriers exist to deprescribing, but increased efforts have been made to develop and implement deprescribing interventions that overcome them. This narrative review describes intervention components and summarizes findings from published randomized controlled trials that have tested deprescribing interventions in older adults with polypharmacy, as well as reports on ongoing trials, guidelines, and resources that can be used to facilitate deprescribing. Most interventions were medication reviews in primary care settings, and many contained components such as shared decision making and/or a focus on patient care priorities, training for healthcare professionals, patient facing education materials, and involvement of family members, representing great heterogeneity in interventions addressing polypharmacy in older adults. Just over half of study interventions were found to perform better than usual care in at least one of their primary outcomes, and most study interventions were assessed over 12 months or less.

Hospital-associated complications in frail older adults

As the Japanese population continues to age steadily, the number of older adults requiring healthcare has increased. Evidence demonstrates that hospitalization for acute care has a negative impact on the health outcomes of older adults. Frail older adults tend to have multifactorial conditions collectively known as "geriatric syndromes." When those with these premorbid conditions are hospitalized for acute care, they tend to develop new problems such as delirium and new functional impairments. Adverse consequences of hospitalization include the risk of loss of functional independence and chronic disability. In 2019, the new concept of "hospital-associated complications" (HACs) was proposed to describe these new problems. HACs comprise five conditions: hospital-associated falls, delirium, functional decline, incontinence, and pressure injuries. This review discusses the important issues of HACs in relation to their classification, prevalence, risk factors, prevention, and management in older adults hospitalized for acute care. Robust prevention and management are imperative to address the serious consequences and escalating medical costs associated with HACs, and a multidimensional and multidisciplinary approach is key to achieving this goal. Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is the cornerstone of geriatric medicine and offers a holistic approach involving multidisciplinary and multidimensional assessments. Considerable evidence is accumulating regarding how CGA and coordinated care can improve the prognosis of hospitalized older adults. Further research is needed to understand the occurrence of HACs in this population and to develop effective preventive measures.

Reducing potentially inappropriate polypharmacy at a national and international level: the impact of deprescribing networks

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade, polypharmacy has increased dramatically. Measurable harms include falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, and death. The associated costs are massive and contribute substantially to low-value health care. Deprescribing is a promising solution, but there are barriers. Establishing a network to address polypharmacy can help overcome barriers by connecting individuals with an interest and expertise in deprescribing and can act as an important source of motivation and resources.

AREAS COVERED

Over the past decade, several deprescribing networks were launched to help tackle polypharmacy, with evidence of individual and collective impact. A network approach has several advantages; it can spark interest, ideas and enthusiasm through information sharing, meetings and conversations with the public, providers, and other key stakeholders. In this special report, the details of how four deprescribing networks were established across the globe are detailed.

EXPERT OPINION

Networks create links between people who lead existing and/or budding deprescribing practices and policy initiatives, can influence people with a shared passion for deprescribing, and facilitate sharing of intellectual capital and tools to take initiatives further and strengthen impact.This report should inspire others to establish their own deprescribing networks, a critical step in accelerating a global deprescribing movement.

Medication use quality and safety in older adults: 2022 update

Improving the quality of medication use and medication safety are important priorities for healthcare providers who care for older adults. The objective of this article was to identify four exemplary articles with this focus in 2022. We selected high-quality studies from an OVID search and hand searching of major high impact journals that advanced the field of research forward. The chosen articles cover domains related to deprescribing, medication safety, and optimizing medication use. The MedSafer Study, a cluster randomized clinical trial in Canada, evaluated whether patient specific deprescribing reports generated by electronic decision support software resulted in reduced adverse drug events in the 30 days post hospital discharge in older adults (domain: deprescribing). The second study, a retrospective cohort study using data from Premier Healthcare Database, examined in-hospital adverse clinical events associated with perioperative gabapentin use among older adults undergoing major surgery (domain: medication safety). The third study used an open-label parallel controlled trial in 39 Australian aged-care facilities to examine the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led intervention to reduce medication-induced deterioration and adverse reactions (domain: optimizing medication use). Lastly, the fourth study engaged experts in a Delphi method process to develop a consensus list of clinically important prescribing cascades that adversely affect older persons' health to aid clinicians to identify, prevent, and manage prescribing cascades (domain: optimizing medication use). Collectively, this review succinctly highlights pertinent topics related to promoting safe use of medications and promotes awareness of optimizing older adults' medication regimens.

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

Rationale & Objective

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

Study Design

Prospective controlled quality improvement study with a contemporaneous control.

Setting & Participants

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

Exposures

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

Analytical Approach

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

Outcomes

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

Results

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

Limitations

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

Conclusions

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

Measuring Quality of Life in Deprescribing Trials: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Quality of life (QoL) is an important outcome to capture in clinical trials evaluating deprescribing interventions.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to conduct a scoping review to examine how QoL has been measured in deprescribing trials among older people and identify potentially relevant QoL scales, to better inform QoL measurement in future deprescribing trials.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Epistemonikos, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of eligible studies (from inception to October 2023). We included randomized and non-randomized comparative studies with a control group that evaluated deprescribing and polypharmacy reduction interventions in people ≥ 65 years of age and measured QoL as an outcome. We also included studies describing the development and validation of QoL scales related to deprescribing, polypharmacy, or medication burden in adults ≥ 18 years of age. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, then full texts. Two independent reviewers extracted data from 25% of eligible studies in order to verify agreement, then a single reviewer extracted data from the remaining studies, which a second reviewer cross-checked. We critically appraised scales based on the COSMIN checklist.

RESULTS

We retrieved 7290 articles, of which 52 were eligible for inclusion, including 44 deprescribing trials and eight scale development studies. From these studies, we found 21 scales that have been used in the context of deprescribing/polypharmacy (12 generic scales used in clinical trials and nine medication-specific scales). Variations of the generic EQ-5D were the most used scales. The measurement properties of scales for capturing changes in QoL from deprescribing were uncertain. Medication-specific QoL scales have not been employed in deprescribing clinical trials and thus, their performance in this context is also not clear.

CONCLUSIONS

Several existing QoL scales have been applied to the context of deprescribing/polypharmacy clinical trials, and new scales specific to the problem have been proposed. If deprescribing does impact QoL, our findings suggest it is uncertain whether existing QoL scales can practically and reliably capture such a change or whether any scale is best. However, this review compares various aspects of the scales that researchers and clinicians can consider in decisions about measuring QoL in deprescribing trials, and in planning future research.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework: osf.io/aez6w.

Improving medication prescribing-related outcomes for vulnerable elderly in transitions on high-risk medications (IMPROVE-IT HRM): a pilot randomized trial protocol

BACKGROUND

Seniors with recurrent hospitalizations who are taking multiple medications including high-risk medications are at particular risk for serious adverse medication events. We will assess whether an expert Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology (CPT) medication management intervention during hospitalization with follow-up post-discharge and communication with circle of care is feasible and can decrease drug therapy problems amongst this group.

METHODS

The design is a pragmatic pilot randomized trial with 1:1 patient-level concealed randomization with blinded outcome assessment and data analysis. Participants will be adults 65 years and older admitted to internal medicine services for more than 2 days, who have had at least one other hospitalization in the prior year, taking five or more chronic medications including at least one high-risk medication. The CPT intervention identifies medication targets; completes consult, including priorities for improving prescribing negotiated with the patient; starts the care plan; ensures a detailed discharge medication reconciliation and circle-of-care communication; and sees the patient at least twice after hospital discharge via virtual visits to consolidate the care plan in the community. Control group receives usual care. Primary outcomes are feasibility - recruitment, retention, costs, and clinical - number of drug therapy problems improved, with secondary outcomes examining coordination of transitions in care, quality of life, and healthcare utilization and costs. Follow-up is to 3-month posthospital discharge.

DISCUSSION

If results support feasibility of ramp-up and promising clinical outcomes, a follow-up definitive trial will be organized using a developing national platform and medication appropriateness network. Since the intervention allows a very scarce medical specialty expertise to be offered via virtual care, there is potential to improve the safety, outcomes, and cost of care widely.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04077281.

Implementation considerations of deprescribing interventions: A scoping review

Over half of older adults experience polypharmacy, including medications that may be inappropriate or unnecessary. Deprescribing, which is the process of discontinuing or reducing inappropriate and/or unnecessary medications, is an effective way to reduce polypharmacy. This review summarizes (1) the process of deprescribing and conceptual models and tools that have been developed to facilitate deprescribing, (2) barriers, enablers, and factors associated with deprescribing, and (3) characteristics of deprescribing interventions in completed trials, as well as (4) implementation considerations for deprescribing in routine practice. In conceptual models of deprescribing, multilevel factors of the patient, clinician, and health-care system are all related to the efficacy of deprescribing. Numerous tools have been developed for clinicians to facilitate deprescribing, yet most require substantial time and, thus, may be difficult to implement during routine health-care encounters. Multiple deprescribing interventions have been evaluated, which mostly include one or more of the following components: patient education, medication review, identification of deprescribing targets, and patient and/or provider communication about high-risk medications. Yet, there has been limited consideration of implementation factors in prior deprescribing interventions, especially with regard to the personnel and resources in existing health-care systems and the feasibility of incorporating components of deprescribing interventions into the routine care processes of clinicians. Future trials require a more balanced consideration of both effectiveness and implementation when designing deprescribing interventions.

Clinical decision support system supported interventions in hospitalized older patients: a matter of natural course and adequate timing

BACKGROUND

Drug-related problems (DRPs) and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) are associated with adverse patient and health care outcomes. In the setting of hospitalized older patients, Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) could reduce PIP and therefore improve clinical outcomes. However, prior research showed a low proportion of adherence to CDSS recommendations by clinicians with possible explanatory factors such as little clinical relevance and alert fatigue.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the use of a CDSS in a real-life setting of hospitalized older patients. We aim to (I) report the natural course and interventions based on the top 20 rule alerts (the 20 most frequently generated alerts per clinical rule) of generated red CDSS alerts (those requiring action) over time from day 1 to 7 of hospitalization; and (II) to explore whether an optimal timing can be defined (in terms of day per rule).

METHODS

All hospitalized patients aged ≥ 60 years, admitted to Zuyderland Medical Centre (the Netherlands) were included. The evaluation of the CDSS was investigated using a database used for standard care. Our CDSS was run daily and was evaluated on day 1 to 7 of hospitalization. We collected demographic and clinical data, and moreover the total number of CDSS alerts; the total number of top 20 rule alerts; those that resulted in an action by the pharmacist and the course of outcome of the alerts on days 1 to 7 of hospitalization.

RESULTS

In total 3574 unique hospitalized patients, mean age 76.7 (SD 8.3) years and 53% female, were included. From these patients, in total 8073 alerts were generated; with the top 20 of rule alerts we covered roughly 90% of the total. For most rules in the top 20 the highest percentage of resolved alerts lies somewhere between day 4 and 5 of hospitalization, after which there is equalization or a decrease. Although for some rules, there is a gradual increase in resolved alerts until day 7. The level of resolved rule alerts varied between the different clinical rules; varying from > 50-70% (potassium levels, anticoagulation, renal function) to less than 25%.

CONCLUSION

This study reports the course of the 20 most frequently generated alerts of a CDSS in a setting of hospitalized older patients. We have shown that for most rules, irrespective of an intervention by the pharmacist, the highest percentage of resolved rules is between day 4 and 5 of hospitalization. The difference in level of resolved alerts between the different rules, could point to more or less clinical relevance and advocates further research to explore ways of optimizing CDSSs by adjustment in timing and number of alerts to prevent alert fatigue.

Polypharmacy and Deprescribing in Older Adults

Older adults commonly end up on many medications. Deprescribing is an important part of individualizing care for older adults. It is an opportunity to discuss treatment options and revisit medications that may not have been reassessed in many years. A large evidence base exists in the field, suggesting that deprescribing is feasible and safe, though questions remain about the potential clinical benefits. Deprescribing research faces a myriad of challenges, such as identifying and employing the optimal outcome measures. Further, there is uncertainty about which deprescribing approaches are likely to be most effective and in what contexts. Evidence on barriers and facilitators to deprescribing has underscored how deprescribing in routine clinical practice can be complex and challenging. Thus, finding practical, sustainable ways to implement deprescribing is a priority for future research in the field.

Attitudes and barriers towards deprescribing in older patients experiencing polypharmacy: a narrative review

Polypharmacy, commonly defined as ≥5 medications, is a rising public health concern due to its many risks of harm. One commonly recommended strategy to address polypharmacy is medication reviews, with subsequent deprescription of inappropriate medications. In this review, we explore the intersection of older age, polypharmacy, and deprescribing in a contemporary context by appraising the published literature (2012-2022) to identify articles that included new primary data on deprescribing medications in patients aged ≥65 years currently taking ≥5 medications. We found 31 articles were found which describe the current perceptions of clinicians towards deprescribing, the identified barriers, key enabling factors, and future directions in approaching deprescribing. Currently, clinicians believe that deprescribing is a complex process, and despite the majority of clinicians reporting feeling comfortable in deprescribing, fewer engage with this process regularly. Common barriers cited include a lack of knowledge and training around the deprescribing process, a lack of time, a breakdown in communication, perceived 'abandonment of care', fear of adverse consequences, and resistance from patients and/or their carers. Common enabling factors of deprescribing include recognition of key opportunities to instigate this process, regular medication reviews, improving lines of communication, education of both patients and clinicians and a multidisciplinary approach towards patient care. Addressing polypharmacy requires a nuanced approach in a generally complex group of patients. Key strategies to reducing the risks of polypharmacy include education of patients and clinicians, in addition to improving communication between healthcare providers in a multidisciplinary approach.

How does deprescribing (not) reduce mortality? A review of a meta-analysis in community-dwelling older adults casts uncertainty over claimed benefits

Some meta-analyses suggest that deprescribing may reduce mortality. Our aim was to determine the underlying factors contributing to this observed reduction. We analysed data from 12 randomized controlled trials included in the latest meta-analysis on deprescribing in community-dwelling older adults. Our analysis focused on deprescribed medications and potential methodological concerns. Only a third (4/12) of the trials aimed to study mortality, and that too as a secondary outcome. Five trials reported a reduction in total medications, potentially inappropriate medications or drug-related problems. Information on specific classes of deprescribed medications was limited, although a wide array was concerned (e.g., antihypertensive, sedative, gastro-intestinal medications and vitamins). Follow-up periods were ≤1 year in 11 trials, and five trials included ≤150 participants. Small sample sizes often resulted in imbalanced groups (e.g., comorbidities, number of potentially inappropriate medications), yet no trials presented multivariable analyses. In the two trials with the most weight in the meta-analysis, several deaths occurred before the intervention, making it difficult to draw conclusions about the impact of the deprescribing intervention on mortality. These methodological issues cast significant uncertainty on the benefits of deprescribing on mortality outcomes. Large-scale, well-designed trials are needed to address this issue effectively.

Evaluating the Safety of an Educational Deprescribing Intervention: Lessons from the Optimize Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients, family members, and clinicians express concerns about potential adverse drug withdrawal events (ADWEs) following medication discontinuation or fears of upsetting a stable medical equilibrium as key barriers to deprescribing. Currently, there are limited methods to pragmatically assess the safety of deprescribing and ascertain ADWEs. We report the methods and results of safety monitoring for the OPTIMIZE trial of deprescribing education for patients, family members, and clinicians.

METHODS

This was a pragmatic cluster randomized trial with multivariable Poisson regression comparing outcome rates between study arms. We conducted clinical record review and adjudication of sampled records to assess potential causal relationships between medication discontinuation and outcomes. This study included adults aged 65+ with dementia or mild cognitive impairment, one or more additional chronic conditions, and prescribed 5+ chronic medications. The intervention included an educational brochure on deprescribing that was mailed to patients prior to primary care visits, a clinician notification about individual brochure mailings, and an educational tip sheets was provided monthly to primary care clinicians. The outcomes of the safety monitoring were rates of hospitalizations and mortality during the 4 months following brochure mailings and results of record review and adjudication. The adjudication process was conducted throughout the trial and included classifications: likely, possibly, and unlikely.

RESULTS

There was a total of 3012 (1433 intervention and 1579 control) participants. There were 420 total hospitalizations involving 269 (18.8%) people in the intervention versus 517 total hospitalizations involving 317 (20.1%) people in the control groups. Adjusted risk ratios comparing intervention to control groups were 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72, 1.16] for hospitalization and 1.19 (95% CI 0.67, 2.11) for mortality. Both groups had zero deaths "likely" attributed to a medication change prior to the event. A total of 3 out of 30 (10%) intervention group hospitalizations and 7 out of 35 (20%) control group hospitalizations were considered "likely" due to a medication change.

CONCLUSIONS

Population-based deprescribing education is safe in the older adult population with cognitive impairment in our study. Pragmatic methods for safety monitoring are needed to further inform deprescribing interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03984396. Registered on 13 June 2019.

Electronic health record intervention to increase use of NSAIDs as analgesia for hospitalised patients: a cluster randomised controlled study

BACKGROUND

Prescribing non-opioid pain medications, such as non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAIDs) medications, has been shown to reduce pain and decrease opioid use, but it is unclear how to effectively encourage multimodal pain medication prescribing for hospitalised patients. Therefore, the aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of prechecking non-opioid pain medication orders on clinician prescribing of NSAIDs among hospitalised adults.

METHODS

This was a cluster randomised controlled trial of adult (≥18 years) hospitalised patients admitted to three hospital sites under one quaternary hospital system in the USA from 2 March 2022 to 3 March 2023. A multimodal pain order panel was embedded in the admission order set, with NSAIDs prechecked in the intervention group. The intervention group could uncheck the NSAID order. The control group had access to the same NSAID order. The primary outcome was an increase in NSAID ordering. Secondary outcomes include NSAID administration, inpatient pain scores and opioid use and prescribing and relevant clinical harms including acute kidney injury, new gastrointestinal bleed and in-hospital death.

RESULTS

Overall, 1049 clinicians were randomised. The study included 6239 patients for a total of 9595 encounters. Both NSAID ordering (36 vs 43%, p<0.001) and administering (30 vs 34%, p=0.001) by the end of the first full hospital day were higher in the intervention (prechecked) group. There was no statistically significant difference in opioid outcomes during the hospitalisation and at discharge. There was a statistically but perhaps not clinically significant difference in pain scores during both the first and last full hospital day.

CONCLUSIONS

This cluster randomised controlled trial showed that prechecking an order for NSAIDs to promote multimodal pain management in the admission order set increased NSAID ordering and administration, although there were no changes to pain scores or opioid use. While prechecking orders is an important way to increase adoption, safety checks should be in place.

Optimizing pharmacotherapy and deprescribing strategies in older adults living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: EuGMS SIG on pharmacology position paper

Inappropriate polypharmacy is highly prevalent among older adults and presents a significant healthcare concern. Conducting medication reviews and implementing deprescribing strategies in multimorbid older adults with polypharmacy are an inherently complex and challenging task. Recognizing this, the Special Interest Group on Pharmacology of the European Geriatric Medicine Society has compiled evidence on medication review and deprescribing in older adults and has formulated recommendations to enhance appropriate prescribing practices. The current evidence supports the need for a comprehensive and widespread transformation in education, guidelines, research, advocacy, and policy to improve the management of polypharmacy in older individuals. Furthermore, incorporating deprescribing as a routine aspect of care for the ageing population is crucial. We emphasize the importance of involving geriatricians and experts in geriatric pharmacology in driving, and actively participating in this transformative process. By doing so, we can work towards achieving optimal medication use and enhancing the well-being of older adults in the generations to come.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Interventions to Reduce Adverse Drug Reactions in Older Adults: An Update

BACKGROUND

We previously reported that interventions to optimize medication use reduced adverse drug reactions (ADRs) by 21% and serious ADRs by 36% in older adults. With new evidence, we sought to update the systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHOD

We searched OVID, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar from 30 April 2017-30 April 2023. Included studies had to be randomized controlled trials of older adults (mean age ≥65 years) taking medications that examined the outcome of ADRs. Two authors independently reviewed all citations, extracted relevant data, and assessed studies for potential bias. The outcomes were any and serious ADRs. We performed subgroup analyses by intervention type and setting. Random-effects models were used to combine the results from multiple studies and create summary estimates.

RESULTS

Six studies are new to the update, resulting in 19 total studies (15,675 participants). Interventions were pharmacist-led (10 studies), other healthcare professional-led (5 studies), technology based (3 studies), and educational (1 study). The interventions were implemented in various clinical settings, including hospitals, outpatient clinics, long-term care facilities/rehabilitation wards, and community pharmacies. In the pooled analysis, the intervention group participants were 19% less likely to experience an ADR (odds ratio [OR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68-0.96) and 32% less likely to experience a serious ADR (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.48-0.96). We also found that pharmacist-led interventions reduced the risk of any ADR by 35%, compared with 8% for other types of interventions.

CONCLUSION

Interventions significantly and substantially reduced the risk of ADRs and serious ADRs in older adults. Future research should examine whether effectiveness of interventions vary across health care settings to identify those most likely to benefit. Implementation of successful interventions in health care systems may improve medication safety in older patients.

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, so that many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients. This is the third update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions, alone or in combination, 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 13 January 2021, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies. We ran updated searches in February 2023 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Characteristics of studies awaiting classification'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

For this update, we included randomised trials only. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy (four or more medicines) in people aged 65 years and older, 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

Four review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, and two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the 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 38 studies, which includes an additional 10 in this update. The included studies consisted of 24 randomised trials and 14 cluster-randomised trials. Thirty-six studies examined complex, multi-faceted interventions of pharmaceutical care (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patients' outcomes), in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists, nurses and geriatricians, and most 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) -5.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.26 to -2.06; I2 = 97%; 8 studies, 947 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.05; I2 = 67%; 9 studies, 2404 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIM (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98; I2 = 84%; 13 studies, 4534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.05 to 0.09; I2 = 92%; 3 studies, 691 participants; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only three studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk of bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPO (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.91; I2 = 95%; 7 studies, 2765 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to hospital admissions (data not pooled; 14 studies, 4797 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to quality of life (data not pooled; 16 studies, 7458 participants; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in 10 studies (6740 participants) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies. This also applied to studies examining adherence to medication (nine studies, 3848 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy resulted in clinically significant improvement. Since the last update of this review in 2018, there appears to have been an increase in the number of studies seeking to address potential prescribing omissions and more interventions being delivered by multidisciplinary teams.

Implementation of interprofessional quality circles on deprescribing in Swiss nursing homes: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are still frequent among older adults in nursing homes. Deprescribing is an intervention that has been shown to be effective in reducing their use. However, the implementation of deprescribing in clinical practice has not yet been widely evaluated. The Quality Circle Deprescribing Module (QC-DeMo) intervention has been trialled through an effectiveness-implementation hybrid type 2 design. The intervention consists of a quality circle workshop session between healthcare professionals HCPs (physicians, nurses, and pharmacists) within a nursing home, in which they define a consensus to deprescribe specific PIMs classes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of the QC-DeMo intervention in nursing homes.

METHODS

This observational study focuses on the implementation part of the QC-DeMo trial. Implementation was based on the Framework for Implementation of Pharmacy Services (FISpH). Questionnaires at baseline and follow-up were used to evaluate reach, adoption, implementation effectiveness, fidelity, implementation, maintenance and the implementation strategies. Other data were collected from the QC-DeMo trial and routine data collected as part of the integrated pharmacy service where the QC-Demo trial was embedded. Implementation strategies included training of pharmacists, integration of the intervention into an existing quality circle dynamic and definition of tailored strategies to operationalise the consensus by each nursing home.

RESULTS

The QC-DeMo intervention was successfully implemented in 26 nursing homes in terms of reach, fidelity, adoption, implementation and implementation effectiveness. However, the intervention was found to be implemented with low maintenance as none of the nursing homes repeated the intervention after the trial. Implementation strategies were well received by HCPs: training was adequate according to pharmacists. Pre-existing quality circle dynamic facilitated interprofessional collaboration as involvement and support of each HCP was rated as high. HCPs recognized a specific and important role for each HCP in the deprescribing process. The most relevant tailored strategies to implement the consensus defined by each nursing home were identification of the patients by the pharmacist and a systematic review of medication's patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a Quality Circle on Deprescribing is feasible but its maintenance in practice remains challenging. This study explores multiple implementation outcomes to better inform future implementation efforts of these types of interventions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03688542 ), registered on 26.09.2018.

Deprescribing interventions for gabapentinoids in adults: A scoping review

The emerging issue of rising gabapentinoid misuse is being recognized alongside the lack of current evidence supporting the safe and effective deprescribing of gabapentinoids. This scoping review aimed to assess the extent and nature of gabapentinoid deprescribing interventions in adults, either in reducing dosages, or prescribing of, gabapentinoids. Electronic databases were searched on 23 February 2022 without restrictions. Eligible studies included randomized, non-randomized and observational studies that assessed an intervention aimed at reducing/ceasing the prescription/use of a gabapentinoid in adults for any indication in a clinical setting. The research outcomes investigated the type of intervention, prescribing rates, cessations, patient outcomes and adverse events. Extracted outcome data were categorized as either short (≤3 months), intermediate (>3 but <12 months) or long (≥12 months) term. A narrative synthesis was conducted. The four included studies were conducted in primary and acute care settings. Interventions were of dose-reducing protocols, education and/or pharmacological-based approaches. In the randomized trials, gabapentinoid use could be ceased in at least one third of participants. In the two observational trials, gabapentinoid prescribing rates decreased by 9%. Serious adverse events and adverse events specifically related to gabapentinoids were reported in one trial. No study included patient-focused psychological interventions in the deprescribing process, nor provided any long-term follow-up. This review highlights the lack of existing evidence in this area. Due to limited available data, our review was unable to make any firm judgements on the most effective gabapentinoid deprescribing interventions in adults, highlighting the need for more research in this area.

A behavioral intervention to promote use of multimodal pain medication for hospitalized patients: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) can reduce pain and has become a core strategy to decrease opioid use, but there is a lack of data to describe encouraging use when admitting patients using electronic health record systems.

OBJECTIVE

Assess an electronic health record system to increase ordering of NSAIDs for hospitalized adults.

DESIGNS, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

We performed a cluster randomized controlled trial of clinicians admitting adult patients to a health system over a 9-month period. Clinicians were randomized to use a standard admission order set.

INTERVENTION

Clinicians in the intervention arm were required to actively order or decline NSAIDs; the control arm was shown the same order but without a required response.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was NSAIDs ordered and administered by the first full hospital day. Secondary outcomes included pain scores and opioid prescribing.

RESULTS

A total of 20,085 hospitalizations were included. Among these hospitalizations, patients had a mean age of 58 years, and a Charlson comorbidity score of 2.97, while 50% and 56% were female and White, respectively. Overall, 52% were admitted by a clinician randomized to the intervention arm. NSAIDs were ordered in 2267 (22%) interventions and 2093 (22%) control admissions (p = .10). Similarly, there were no statistical differences in NSAID administration, pain scores, or opioid prescribing. Average pain scores (0-5 scale) were 3.36 in the control group and 3.39 in the intervention group (p = .46). There were no differences in clinical harms.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Requiring an active decision to order an NSAID at admission had no demonstrable impact on NSAID ordering. Multicomponent interventions, perhaps with stronger decision support, may be necessary to encourage NSAID ordering.

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

Background

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

Objectives

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

Design

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

Setting

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

Patients

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

Measurements

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

Methods

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

Limitations

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

Conclusions

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

Trial registration

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

Optimising prescribing in older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care (OPTICA): cluster randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To study the effects of a primary care medication review intervention centred around an electronic clinical decision support system (eCDSS) on appropriateness of medication and the number of prescribing omissions in older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy compared with a discussion about medication in line with usual care.

DESIGN

Cluster randomised clinical trial.

SETTING

Swiss primary care, between December 2018 and February 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible patients were ≥65 years of age with three or more chronic conditions and five or more long term medications.

INTERVENTION

The intervention to optimise pharmacotherapy centred around an eCDSS was conducted by general practitioners, followed by shared decision making between general practitioners and patients, and was compared with a discussion about medication in line with usual care between patients and general practitioners.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were improvement in the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) and the Assessment of Underutilisation (AOU) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included number of medications, falls, fractures, and quality of life.

RESULTS

In 43 general practitioner clusters, 323 patients were recruited (median age 77 (interquartile range 73-83) years; 45% (n=146) women). Twenty one general practitioners with 160 patients were assigned to the intervention group and 22 general practitioners with 163 patients to the control group. On average, one recommendation to stop or start a medication was reported to be implemented per patient. At 12 months, the results of the intention-to-treat analysis of the improvement in appropriateness of medication (odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.87) and the number of prescribing omissions (0.90, 0.41 to 1.96) were inconclusive. The same was the case for the per protocol analysis. No clear evidence was found for a difference in safety outcomes at the 12 month follow-up, but fewer safety events were reported in the intervention group than in the control group at six and 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomised trial of general practitioners and older adults, the results were inconclusive as to whether the medication review intervention centred around the use of an eCDSS led to an improvement in appropriateness of medication or a reduction in prescribing omissions at 12 months compared with a discussion about medication in line with usual care. Nevertheless, the intervention could be safely delivered without causing any harm to patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03724539Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03724539.

Benzodiazepine Receptor Agonists Use and Cessation Among Multimorbid Older Adults with Polypharmacy: Secondary Analysis from the OPERAM Trial

BACKGROUND

Benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRAs) are commonly prescribed in older adults despite an unfavorable risk-benefit ratio. Hospitalizations may provide a unique opportunity to initiate BZRA cessation, yet little is known about cessation during and after hospitalization. We aimed to measure the prevalence of BZRA use before hospitalization and the rate of cessation 6 months later, and to identify factors associated with these outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized controlled trial (OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in the Multimorbid elderly [OPERAM]), comparing usual care and in-hospital pharmacotherapy optimization in adults aged 70 years or over with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in four European countries. BZRA cessation was defined as taking one or more BZRA before hospitalization and not taking any BZRA at the 6-month follow-up. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with BZRA use before hospitalization and with cessation at 6 months.

RESULTS

Among 1601 participants with complete 6-month follow-up data, 378 (23.6%) were BZRA users before hospitalization. Female sex (odds ratio [OR] 1.52 [95% confidence interval 1.18-1.96]), a higher reported level of depression/anxiety (OR up to 2.45 [1.54-3.89]), a higher number of daily drugs (OR 1.08 [1.05-1.12]), use of an antidepressant (OR 1.74 [1.31-2.31]) or an antiepileptic (OR 1.46 [1.02-2.07]), and trial site were associated with BZRA use. Diabetes mellitus (OR 0.60 [0.44-0.80]) was associated with a lower probability of BZRA use. BZRA cessation occurred in 86 BZRA users (22.8%). Antidepressant use (OR 1.74 [1.06-2.86]) and a history of falling in the previous 12 months (OR 1.75 [1.10-2.78]) were associated with higher BZRA cessation, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (OR 0.45 [0.20-0.91]) with lower BZRA cessation.

CONCLUSION

BZRA prevalence was high among included multimorbid older adults, and BZRA cessation occurred in almost a quarter of them within 6 months after hospitalization. Targeted BZRA deprescribing programs could further enhance cessation. Specific attention is needed for females, central nervous system-acting co-medication, and COPD co-morbidity.

REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02986425. December 8, 2016.

Impact of a Comprehensive Intervention Bundle Including the Drug Burden Index on Deprescribing Anticholinergic and Sedative Drugs in Older Acute Inpatients: A Non-randomised Controlled Before-and-After Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

Implementation of the Drug Burden Index (DBI) as a risk assessment tool in clinical practice may facilitate deprescribing.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to evaluate how a comprehensive intervention bundle using the DBI impacts (i) the proportion of older inpatients with at least one DBI-contributing medication stopped or dose reduced on discharge, compared with admission; and (ii) the changes in deprescribing of different DBI-contributing medication classes during hospitalisation.

METHODS

This before-and-after study was conducted in an Australian metropolitan tertiary referral hospital. Patients aged ≥ 75 years admitted to the acute aged care service for ≥ 48 h from December 2020 to October 2021 and prescribed DBI-contributing medication were included. During the control period, usual care was provided. During the intervention, access to the intervention bundle was added, including a clinician interface displaying DBI score in the electronic medical record. In a subsequent 'stewardship' period, a stewardship pharmacist used the bundle to provide clinicians with patient-specific recommendations on deprescribing of DBI-contributing medications.

RESULTS

Overall, 457 hospitalisations were included. The proportion of patients with at least one DBI-contributing medication stopped/reduced on discharge increased from 29.9% (control period) to 37.5% [intervention; adjusted risk difference (aRD) 6.5%, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -3.2 to 17.5%] and 43.1% (stewardship; aRD 12.1%, 95% CI 1.0-24.0%). The proportion of opioid prescriptions stopped/reduced rose from 17.9% during control to 45.7% during stewardship (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Integrating a comprehensive intervention bundle and accompanying stewardship program is a promising strategy to facilitate deprescribing of sedative and anticholinergic medications in older inpatients.

Polypharmacy stewardship: a novel approach to tackle a major public health crisis

With growing global concern regarding medication-related harm, WHO launched a global patient safety challenge, Medication Without Harm, in March, 2017. Multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and fragmented health care (ie, patients attending appointments with multiple physicians in various health-care settings) are key drivers of medication-related harm, which can result in negative functional outcomes, high rates of hospitalisation, and excess morbidity and mortality, particularly in patients with frailty older than 75 years. Some studies have examined the effect of medication stewardship interventions in older patient cohorts, but focused on a narrow spectrum of potentially adverse medication practices, with mixed results. In response to the WHO challenge, we propose the novel concept of broad-spectrum polypharmacy stewardship, a coordinated intervention designed to improve the management of multimorbidities, taking into account potentially inappropriate medications, potential prescribing omissions, drug-drug and drug-disease interactions, and prescribing cascades, aligning treatment regimens with the condition, prognosis, and preferences of the individual patient. Although the safety and efficacy of polypharmacy stewardship need to be tested with well designed clinical trials, we propose that this approach could minimise medication-related harm in older people with multimorbidities exposed to polypharmacy.

Polypharmacy and precision medicine

Precision medicine is an approach to maximise the effectiveness of disease treatment and prevention and minimise harm from medications by considering relevant demographic, clinical, genomic and environmental factors in making treatment decisions. Precision medicine is complex, even for decisions about single drugs for single diseases, as it requires expert consideration of multiple measurable factors that affect pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, and many patient-specific variables. Given the increasing number of patients with multiple conditions and medications, there is a need to apply lessons learned from precision medicine in monotherapy and single disease management to optimise polypharmacy. However, precision medicine for optimisation of polypharmacy is particularly challenging because of the vast number of interacting factors that influence drug use and response. In this narrative review, we aim to provide and apply the latest research findings to achieve precision medicine in the context of polypharmacy. Specifically, this review aims to (1) summarise challenges in achieving precision medicine specific to polypharmacy; (2) synthesise the current approaches to precision medicine in polypharmacy; (3) provide a summary of the literature in the field of prediction of unknown drug-drug interactions (DDI) and (4) propose a novel approach to provide precision medicine for patients with polypharmacy. For our proposed model to be implemented in routine clinical practice, a comprehensive intervention bundle needs to be integrated into the electronic medical record using bioinformatic approaches on a wide range of data to predict the effects of polypharmacy regimens on an individual. In addition, clinicians need to be trained to interpret the results of data from sources including pharmacogenomic testing, DDI prediction and physiological-pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling to inform their medication reviews. Future studies are needed to evaluate the efficacy of this model and to test generalisability so that it can be implemented at scale, aiming to improve outcomes in people with polypharmacy.

Family Conferences to Facilitate Deprescribing in Older Outpatients With Frailty and With Polypharmacy: The COFRAIL Cluster Randomized Trial

Importance

For older adults with frailty syndrome, reducing polypharmacy may have utility as a safety-promoting treatment option.

Objective

To investigate the effects of family conferences on medication and clinical outcomes in community-dwelling older adults with frailty receiving polypharmacy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 30, 2019, to June 30, 221, at 110 primary care practices in Germany. The study included community-dwelling adults aged 70 years or older with frailty syndrome, daily use of at least 5 different medications, a life expectancy of at least 6 months, and no moderate or severe dementia.

Interventions

General practitioners (GPs) in the intervention group received 3 training sessions on family conferences, a deprescribing guideline, and a toolkit with relevant nonpharmacologic interventions. Three GP-led family conferences for shared decision-making involving the participants and family caregivers and/or nursing services were subsequently held per patient at home over a period of 9 months. Patients in the control group received care as usual.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the number of hospitalizations within 12 months, as assessed by nurses during home visits or telephone interviews. Secondary outcomes included the number of medications, the number of European Union list of the number of potentially inappropriate medication (EU[7]-PIM) for older people, and geriatric assessment parameters. Both per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses were conducted.

Results

The baseline assessment included 521 individuals (356 women [68.3%]; mean [SD] age, 83.5 [6.17] years). The intention-to-treat analysis with 510 patients showed no significant difference in the adjusted mean (SD) number of hospitalizations between the intervention group (0.98 [1.72]) and the control group (0.99 [1.53]). In the per-protocol analysis including 385 individuals, the mean (SD) number of medications decreased from 8.98 (3.56) to 8.11 (3.21) at 6 months and to 8.49 (3.63) at 12 months in the intervention group and from 9.24 (3.44) to 9.32 (3.59) at 6 months and to 9.16 (3.42) at 12 months in the control group, with a statistically significant difference at 6 months in the mixed-effect Poisson regression model (P = .001). After 6 months, the mean (SD) number of EU(7)-PIMs was significantly lower in the intervention group (1.30 [1.05]) than in the control group (1.71 [1.25]; P = .04). There was no significant difference in the mean number of EU(7)-PIMs after 12 months.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cluster randomized clinical trial with older adults taking 5 or more medications, the intervention consisting of GP-led family conferences did not achieve sustainable effects in reducing the number of hospitalizations or the number of medications and EU(7)-PIMs after 12 months.

Trial Registration

German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00015055.

How "age-friendly" are deprescribing interventions? A scoping review of deprescribing trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess how age-friendly deprescribing trials are regarding intervention design and outcome assessment. Reduced use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) can be addressed by deprescribing-a systematic process of discontinuing and/or reducing the use of PIMs. The 4Ms-"Medication", "Mentation", "Mobility", and "What Matters Most" to the person-can be used to guide assessment of age-friendliness of deprescribing trials.

DATA SOURCE

Published literature.

STUDY DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA EXTRACTION METHODS

The literature was identified using keywords related to deprescribing and polypharmacy in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, ProQuest, CINAHL, and Cochrane and snowballing. Study characteristics were extracted and evaluated for consideration of 4Ms.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Thirty-seven of the 564 trials identified met the review eligibility criteria. Intervention design: "Medication" was considered in the intervention design of all trials; "Mentation" was considered in eight trials; "Mobility" (n = 2) and "What Matters Most" (n = 6) were less often considered in the design of intervention. Most trials targeted providers without specifying how matters important to older adults and their families were aligned with deprescribing decisions.

OUTCOME ASSESSMENT

"Medication" was the most commonly assessed outcome (n = 33), followed by "Mobility" (n = 13) and "Mentation" (n = 10) outcomes, with no study examining "What Matters Most" outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

"Mentation" and "Mobility", and "What Matters Most" have been considered to varying degrees in deprescribing trials, limiting the potential of deprescribing evidence to contribute to improved clinical practice in building an age-friendly health care system.

A stewardship program to facilitate anticholinergic and sedative medication deprescribing using the drug burden index in electronic medical records

AIMS

The drug burden index (DBI) measures a person's total exposure to anticholinergic and sedative medications, which are commonly associated with harm. Through incorporating the DBI in electronic medical records (eMR) and implementing a DBI stewardship program, we aimed to determine (i) uptake of the steward's recommendations to deprescribe anticholinergic and/or sedative drugs by the medical team and (ii) whether accepted recommendations were actioned in hospital or recommended for follow-up by the General Practitioner post-discharge.

METHODS

A single-arm, non-randomised feasibility study was performed at an Australian tertiary referral metropolitan hospital. The stewardship pharmacist reviewed eMRs of patients aged ≥75 years with DBI scores > 0, during admission. The steward identified and discussed potential opportunities to deprescribe anticholinergic and/or sedative medications with the medical registrars.

RESULTS

Amongst 256 patients reviewed, the steward made 170 recommendations for 117 patients. Registrars agreed with 141 recommendations (82.9%) for 95 patients (81.2%), and actioned 115 deprescribing recommendations for 80 patients, most commonly for antidepressants and opioids. The 115 actioned recommendations resulted in 125 changes, with 44 changes to the inpatient drug chart and 81 additional changes recommended post-discharge in the discharge summary.

CONCLUSION

Opportunities exist for deprescribing anticholinergic and sedative medications in older inpatients and a DBI stewardship program may help implement these. It is important to capture different outcomes of deprescribing interventions, including in-hospital medication changes, recommendations in the Discharge Summary, sustainability of deprescribing and clinical outcomes.

Analysis of the nature and contributory factors of medication safety incidents following hospital discharge using National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) data from England and Wales: a multi-method study

Introduction

Improving medication safety during transition of care is an international healthcare priority. While existing research reveals that medication-related incidents and associated harms may be common following hospital discharge, there is limited information about their nature and contributory factors at a national level which is crucial to inform improvement strategy.

Aim

To characterise the nature and contributory factors of medication-related incidents during transition of care from secondary to primary care.

Method

A retrospective analysis of medication incidents reported to the National Reporting and Learning System (NRLS) in England and Wales between 2015 and 2019. Descriptive analysis identified the frequency and nature of incidents and content analysis of free text data, coded using the Patient Safety Research Group (PISA) classification, examined the contributory factors and outcome of incidents.

Results

A total of 1121 medication-related incident reports underwent analysis. Most incidents involved patients over 65 years old (55%, n = 626/1121). More than one in 10 (12.6%, n = 142/1121) incidents were associated with patient harm. The drug monitoring (17%) and administration stages (15%) were associated with a higher proportion of harmful incidents than any other drug use stages. Common medication classes associated with incidents were the cardiovascular (n = 734) and central nervous (n = 273) systems. Among 408 incidents reporting 467 contributory factors, the most common contributory factors were organisation factors (82%, n = 383/467) (mostly related to continuity of care which is the delivery of a seamless service through integration, co-ordination, and the sharing of information between different providers), followed by staff factors (16%, n = 75/467).

Conclusion

Medication incidents after hospital discharge are associated with patient harm. Several targets were identified for future research that could support the development of remedial interventions, including commonly observed medication classes, older adults, increase patient engagement, and improve shared care agreement for medication monitoring post hospital discharge.

Plain language summary

Study using reports about unsafe or substandard care mainly written by healthcare professionals to better understand the type and causes of medication safety problems following hospital discharge Why was the study done? The safe use of medicines after hospital discharge has been highlighted by the World Health Organization as an important target for improvement in patient care. Yet, the type of medication problems which occur, and their causes are poorly understood across England and Wales, which may hamper our efforts to create ways to improve care as they may not be based on what we know causes the problem in the first place.What did the researchers do? The research team studied medication safety incident reports collected across England and Wales over a 5-year period to better understand what kind of medication safety problems occur after hospital discharge and why they happen, so we can find ways to prevent them from happening in future.What did the researchers find? The total number of incident reports studied was 1121, and the majority (n = 626) involved older people. More than one in ten of these incidents caused harm to patients. The most common medications involved in the medication safety incidents were for cardiovascular diseases such as high blood pressure, conditions such as mental illness, pain and neurological conditions (e.g., epilepsy) and other illnesses such as diabetes. The most common causes of these incidents were because of the organisation rules, such as information sharing, followed by staff issues, such as not following protocols, individual mistakes and not having the right skills for the task.What do the findings mean? This study has identified some important targets that can be a focus of future efforts to improve the safe use of medicines after hospital discharge. These include concentrating attention on medication for the cardiovascular and central nervous systems (e.g., via incorporating them in prescribing safety indicators and pharmaceutical prioritisation tools), staff skill mix (e.g., embedding clinical pharmacist roles at key parts of the care pathway where greatest risk is suspected), and implementation of electronic interventions to improve timely communication of medication and other information between healthcare providers.

Validating ICD-10 codes for adverse drug events in hospitalised older adults: protocol for a cross-sectional study

INTRODUCTION

Adverse drug events (ADEs) among hospitalised older adults are common yet often preventable. Efforts to recognise ADEs using pharmacist review and electronic health record adaptations have had mixed results. Our health system developed and implemented a geriatric prescribing context designed to offer age-friendly dose and frequency defaults for hospitalised patients 75 years and older. The impact of this context on ADEs remains unknown. To measure its impact, our team created a list of ADE-related International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes specific to 10 commonly used medications at our institution. This protocol paper presents the process of designing a screening tool for ADEs, validating the tool with manual chart reviews and measuring the impact of the context on ADEs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This retrospective cross-sectional study will assess our list of ICD-10 codes against manual chart review to determine its accuracy. An electronic health record report for patients aged 75 years and older admitted to the hospital for a minimum of two nights was generated to identify 100 test positives and 100 test negatives. Test positives need at least one code from each level of our ICD-10 code list. The first level of codes identifies any possible ADEs while the second level is more symptom based. Test negatives must not have any code from the list. Two physicians blinded to test status will complete a structured chart review to determine if a patient had an ADE during their hospitalisation. Acceptable inter-rater reliability will need to be met before proceeding with independent chart review. Positive predictive value and negative predictive value will be calculated once all the chart reviews are completed.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Oregon Health & Science University Institutional Review Board approved this study (#21385). The results of the study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.

Developing a core outcome set for hospital deprescribing trials for older people under the care of a geriatrician

BACKGROUND

Half of older people are prescribed unnecessary/inappropriate medications that are not routinely deprescribed in hospital hence there is a need for deprescribing trials. We aimed to develop a Core Outcome Set (COS) for deprescribing trials for older people under the care of a geriatrician during hospital admission.

METHODS

We developed a list of potentially relevant outcomes from the literature. Using a two-round Delphi survey of stakeholder groups representing older people and carers, hospital clinicians, hospital managers, and ageing/deprescribing researchers, each outcome was scored according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, followed by two consensus workshops to finalise the COS.

RESULTS

Two hundred people completed Round 1 and 114 completed Round 2. Representing all stakeholder groups, 10 people participated in workshop 1 and 10 in workshop 2. Six outcomes were identified as most important, feasible and acceptable to collect in a trial: number of prescribed medicines stopped; number of prescribed medicines with dosage reduced; quality of life; mortality; adverse drug events and number of hospital stays. Three other outcomes were identified as important, but currently too burdensome to collect: number of potentially inappropriate medicines prescribed; burden from medication routine; and medication-related admissions to hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

A COS represents the minimum outcomes that should be collected and reported. Whilst uncommon practice for COS development, the value of considering outcome collection feasibility is demonstrated by the removal of three potential outcomes that, if included, may have compromised COS uptake due to challenges with collecting the data.

Medication reviews and deprescribing as a single intervention in falls prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

our aim was to assess the effectiveness of medication review and deprescribing interventions as a single intervention in falls prevention.

METHODS

DESIGN

systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO until 28 March 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

randomised controlled trials of older participants comparing any medication review or deprescribing intervention with usual care and reporting falls as an outcome.

STUDY RECORDS

title/abstract and full-text screening by two reviewers.

RISK OF BIAS

Cochrane Collaboration revised tool.

DATA SYNTHESIS

results reported separately for different settings and sufficiently comparable studies meta-analysed.

RESULTS

forty-nine heterogeneous studies were included.

COMMUNITY

meta-analyses of medication reviews resulted in a risk ratio (RR) of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.29, I2 = 0%, 3 studies(s)) for number of fallers, in an RR = 0.95 (0.70-1.27, I2 = 37%, 3 s) for number of injurious fallers and in a rate ratio (RaR) of 0.89 (0.69-1.14, I2 = 0%, 2 s) for injurious falls.

HOSPITAL

meta-analyses assessing medication reviews resulted in an RR = 0.97 (0.74-1.28, I2 = 15%, 2 s) and in an RR = 0.50 (0.07-3.50, I2 = 72% %, 2 s) for number of fallers after and during admission, respectively.

LONG-TERM CARE

meta-analyses investigating medication reviews or deprescribing plans resulted in an RR = 0.86 (0.72-1.02, I2 = 0%, 5 s) for number of fallers and in an RaR = 0.93 (0.64-1.35, I2 = 92%, 7 s) for number of falls.

CONCLUSIONS

the heterogeneity of the interventions precluded us to estimate the exact effect of medication review and deprescribing as a single intervention. For future studies, more comparability is warranted. These interventions should not be implemented as a stand-alone strategy in falls prevention but included in multimodal strategies due to the multifactorial nature of falls.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020218231.

Drug Interactions With Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir in Older Adults Using Multiple Medications

This quality improvement study uses data from the MedSafer trial to evaluate drug-drug interactions between nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and maintenance medications to identify use of potentially inappropriate medications in older adults with polypharmacy.

Polypharmacy in Older Heart Failure Patients: a Multidisciplinary Approach

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We provide a review of considerations when applying principles of optimal pharmacotherapy to older adults with heart failure (HF), an analysis on the pivotal clinical trials focusing on applicability to older adults, and multi-disciplinary strategies to optimize the health of HF patients with polypharmacy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Polypharmacy is very common among patients with HF, due to medications for both HF and non-HF comorbidities. Definitions of polypharmacy were not developed specifically for older adults with HF and may need to be modified in order to meaningfully describe medication burden and promote appropriate medical therapy. This is because clinical practice guidelines for multi-drug HF regimens have unique considerations, given that they improve outcomes and symptoms of HF. Adults older than 65 years are well represented in contemporary clinical trials for HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). While these trials did not have significant heterogeneity in safety or efficacy across a broad age spectrum, some may have limited representation of adults ≥ 80 years old, the sickest older adults, or those with decreased functional status. There is also a lack of data on the safety and efficacy of deprescribing HF medications, and deprescription in otherwise stable patients may lead to clinical destabilization or disease progression. There is therefore innate tension between the well-studied benefits of optimized HF therapy for older adults that must be weighed against the risks of polypharmacy and many unknowns that still exist. Given the strong evidence that optimized HF therapies confer symptomatic and mortality benefits for older adults, it is clear that polypharmacy in this context can be appropriate. A shift in paradigm is therefore needed when evaluating polypharmacy in patients with HF. Instead of assuming all polypharmacy is "good" or "bad," we propose a concerted move, using a multidisciplinary approach, to focus on the "appropriateness" of specific medications, in order to optimize HF medical therapy. Clinicians of all specialties caring for complex older adults with HF must consider goals of care, functional status, and new evidence-based therapies, in order to optimize this polypharmacy for older adults.

Deprescribing Opportunities for Hospitalized Patients With End-Stage Kidney Disease on Hemodialysis: A Secondary Analysis of the MedSafer Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

End-stage kidney disease patients on dialysis have a substantial risk of polypharmacy due their propensity for comorbidity and contact with the health care system. MedSafer is an electronic decision support tool that integrates patient comorbidity and medication lists to generate personalized deprescribing reports focused on identifying potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs).

Objective

To conduct a secondary analysis of patients on regular hemodialysis included in the MedSafer randomized controlled trial to investigate the patterns of polypharmacy and evaluate the efficacy of the MedSafer deprescribing algorithms.

Design

Secondary analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial.

Setting

Medical units in 11 acute care hospitals in Canada.

Patients

The MedSafer trial enrolled 5698 participants with an expected prognosis of >3 months, age 65 years and older, and on 5 or more daily home medications; 140 participants were receiving chronic hemodialysis.

Measurements

The primary outcome of the trial was 30-day adverse drug events (ADEs) post-hospital discharge, and a key secondary outcome was deprescribing.

Methods

Control patients received usual care (medication reconciliation), whereas clinicians caring for intervention patients received a MedSafer report that highlighted individualized opportunities for deprescribing.

Results

There were 70 patients in each of the control and intervention arms. The median number of home medications was 14 (compared with a median of 10 medications in the general trial population). The most frequent medications observed that were potentially inappropriate were proton pump inhibitors (potentially inappropriate in 55/76 users; 72.4%), diabetes medications in patients with a HBA1C <7.5% (36/65 users; 55.4%), docusate (27/27 users; 100%), gabapentinoids (27/36 users; 75%), and combination antiplatelet/anticoagulants (22/97 users; 22.7%). The proportion of PIMs deprescribed was higher during the intervention phase (28.8% vs 19.3%; absolute increase 9.4% [95% confidence interval 1.3%-17.6%]) compared with the control phase. There was no observed difference in ADEs at 30-day post-discharge between the control and the intervention groups. The most common ADE (n = 3) was gastrointestinal bleeding attributed to antiplatelet agents.

Limitations

This was a post hoc exploratory analysis, the original trial did not stratify by hemodialysis status, and the small sample size precludes drawing any definitive conclusions.

Conclusion

MedSafer facilitates deprescribing in hospitalized patients on hemodialysis. Larger-scale implementation of decision support software for deprescribing in dialysis and long-term follow-up are likely required to demonstrate an impact on ADEs.