Development of a Metric to Detect and Decrease Low-Value Prescribing in Older Adults

Top 10 Signs and Symptoms of Psychotropic Adverse Drug Events to Monitor in Residents of Long-Term Care Facilities

OBJECTIVES

To produce a consensus list of the top 10 signs and symptoms suggestive of adverse drug events (ADEs) for monitoring in residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs) who use antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, or antidepressants.

DESIGN

A 3-round Delphi study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Geriatricians, psychiatrists, pharmacologists, general practitioners, pharmacists, nurses, and caregivers from 13 Asia Pacific, European, and North American countries.

METHODS

Three survey rounds were completed between April and June 2023. In Round 1, participants indicated their level of agreement on a 9-point Likert scale on whether 41 signs or symptoms identified in a systematic review should be routinely monitored. Participants considered signs and symptoms that reduce quality of life or cause significant harm, are observable or measurable by nurses or care workers, and can be assessed at a single time point. Round 1 statements were included in a list for prioritization in Round 3 if ≥ 70% of participants responded ≥7 on the Likert scale. Statements were excluded if ≤ 30% of participants responded ≥7. In Round 2, participants indicated their level of agreement with statements that did not reach initial consensus, plus amended statements based on Round 1 participant feedback. Round 2 statements were included in Round 3 if ≥ 50% of the participants responded ≥7 on the Likert scale. In Round 3, participants prioritized the signs and symptoms.

RESULTS

Forty-four participants (93.6%) completed all 3 rounds. Four of 41 signs and symptoms reached consensus for inclusion after Round 1, and 9 after Round 2. The top 10 signs and symptoms prioritized in Round 3 were recent falls, daytime drowsiness or sleepiness, abnormal movements (eg, shaking or stiffness), confusion or disorientation, balance problems, dizziness, postural hypotension, reduced self-care, restlessness, and dry mouth.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The top 10 signs and symptoms provide a basis for proactive monitoring for psychotropic ADEs.

The Neurologist's Guide to Drug Pricing in the United States

ABSTRACT

As newer, innovative neurology drugs enter the US health care system, neurologists should consider the cost of these treatments in addition to their efficacy, safety, and tolerability. To do so thoughtfully requires an understanding of how prescription drugs are priced in the United States. The process of drug pricing is linked to the distribution supply chain and the many stakeholders involved. Stakeholders include pharmaceutical manufacturers; wholesalers; pharmacies; pharmacy benefit managers; payers, including health insurers; hospital systems; neurologists and other clinicians; and patients. Drug pricing has taken center stage as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 has set maximum out-of-pocket expenses for Medicare beneficiaries for the first time in the program's history and limits drug price increases for a select group of Medicare Part D drugs. This article describes the US drug distribution supply chain and its stakeholders and introduces key drug pricing terms; a brief description of how rebates are generally estimated will also be discussed. Finally, as newer neurology outpatient drugs enter the market, the "value" of drugs will be described through cost-effectiveness terminology and their utility for the clinical neurologist.

ROMPER: The RAND/USC OPTIC Method for Policy Expert Ratings

We developed an expert panel approach for identifying expert views on the effectiveness and implementability of population-level policy interventions. ROMPER-the RAND/USC OPTIC Method for Policy Expert Ratings-involves an online, three-round, modified-Delphi process:•Experts rate and comment on policies according to domains of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Evidence-to-Decision framework.•To identify consensus on policy effectiveness and implementability, expert ratings are analyzed using the Inter-Percentile Range Adjusted for Symmetry (IPRAS) technique from the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and visualized using a forest plot. To explain consensus, expert comments are analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis and reported following the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research.•To provide actionable information for decisionmakers, each policy is summarized in a "Policy Profile" adapted from GRADEPro Evidence-to-Decision tables.We validated ROMPER in two studies that successfully recruited the targeted sample size, retained experts through all three rounds, and examined consensus on which policies are (not) effective and implementable. ROMPER protocols, materials, data, and code are openly available on the Open Science Framework with Creative Commons licensing for replication and reuse. ROMPER provides a validated, replicable, open access approach for eliciting expert views on both policy effectiveness and implementability-and for summarizing (lack of) consensus specifically for policymakers.

Multicomponent processes to identify and prioritise low-value care in hospital settings: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

This scoping review mapped and synthesised original research that identified low-value care in hospital settings as part of multicomponent processes.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases (EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane CENTRAL) and grey literature were last searched 11 July and 3 June 2022, respectively, with no language or date restrictions.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included original research targeting the identification and prioritisation of low-value care as part of a multicomponent process in hospital settings.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Screening was conducted in duplicate. Data were extracted by one of six authors and checked by another author. A framework synthesis was conducted using seven areas of focus for the review and an overuse framework.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven records were included (21 original studies, 4 abstracts and 2 reviews), originating from high-income countries. Benefit or value (11 records), risk or harm (10 records) were common concepts referred to in records that explicitly defined low-value care (25 records). Evidence of contextualisation including barriers and enablers of low-value care identification processes were identified (25 records). Common components of these processes included initial consensus, consultation, ranking exercise or list development (16 records), and reviews of evidence (16 records). Two records involved engagement of patients and three evaluated the outcomes of multicomponent processes. Five records referenced a theory, model or framework.

CONCLUSIONS

Gaps identified included applying systematic efforts to contextualise the identification of low-value care, involving people with lived experience of hospital care and initiatives in resource poor contexts. Insights were obtained regarding the theories, models and frameworks used to guide initiatives and ways in which the concept 'low-value care' had been used and reported. A priority for further research is evaluating the effect of initiatives that identify low-value care using contextualisation as part of multicomponent processes.

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.

Tackling potentially inappropriate prescriptions in older adults: development of deprescribing criteria by consensus from experts in Colombia, Argentina, and Spain

BACKGROUND

Potentially inappropriate medication use is prevalent among older adults in primary care, leading to increased morbidity, adverse drug reactions, hospitalizations, and mortality. This study aimed to develop and validate a tool for identifying PIMs in older adults within the primary care setting. The tool is composed of a list of criteria and was created based on consensus among experts from three Spanish-speaking countries, including two from Latin America.

METHODS

A literature review was conducted to identify existing tools, and prescription patterns were evaluated in a cohort of 36,111 older adults. An electronic Delphi method, consisting of two rounds, was used to reach a formal expert consensus. The panel included 18 experts from Spain, Colombia, and Argentina. The content validity index, validity of each content item, and Kappa Fleiss statistical measure were used to establish reliability.

RESULTS

Round one did not yield a consensus, but a definitive consensus was reached in round two. The resulting tool consisted of a list of 5 general recommendations per disease, along with 33 criteria related to potential problems, recommendations, and alternative therapeutic options. The overall content validity of the tool was 0.87, with a Kappa value of 0.69 (95% CI 0.64-0.73; Substantial).

CONCLUSIONS

The developed criteria provide a novel list that allows for a comprehensive approach to pharmacotherapy in older adults, intending to reduce inappropriate medication use, ineffective treatments, prophylactic therapies, and treatments with an unfavorable risk-benefit ratio for the given condition. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the impact of these criteria on health outcomes.

Impact of low-value medications on quality of life, hospitalization and costs - A longitudinal analysis of patients living with dementia

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to analyze the impact of low-value medications (Lvm), that is, medications unlikely to benefit patients but to cause harm, on patient-centered outcomes over 24 months.

METHODS

This longitudinal analysis was based on baseline, 12 and 24 months follow-up data of 352 patients with dementia. The impact of Lvm on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), hospitalizations, and health care costs were assessed using multiple panel-specific regression models.

RESULTS

Over 24 months, 182 patients (52%) received Lvm at least once and 56 (16%) continuously. Lvm significantly increased the risk of hospitalization by 49% (odds ratio, confidence interval [CI] 95% 1.06-2.09; p = 0.022), increased health care costs by €6810 (CI 95% -707€-14,27€; p = 0.076), and reduced patients' HRQoL (b = -1.55; CI 95% -2.76 to -0.35; p = 0.011).

DISCUSSION

More than every second patient received Lvm, negatively impacting patient-reported HRQoL, hospitalizations, and costs. Innovative approaches are needed to encourage prescribers to avoid and replace Lvm in dementia care.

HIGHLIGHTS

Over 24 months, more than every second patient received low-value medications (Lvm). Lvm negatively impact physical, psychological, and financial outcomes. Appropriate measures are needed to change prescription behaviors.

Medication changes and potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients with significant polypharmacy

BACKGROUND

Number of medicines and medicines appropriateness are often used as outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of deprescribing interventions.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in prescribing, potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP) and prescribing of low-value medicines in older people with multimorbidity and significant polypharmacy.

METHOD

This study was a retrospective secondary analysis of prescription data from a cluster randomised controlled trial involving 404 participants aged ≥ 65 years and prescribed ≥ 15 repeat medicines from 51 different general practices. For this study, repeat medications at baseline and follow-up (~ 1 year later) were assigned Anatomical Therapeutic Classification (ATC) codes. Outcomes were the most commonly prescribed and potentially inappropriately prescribed drug groups, the most frequently discontinued or initiated drug groups and the number of changes per person between baseline and follow-up.

RESULTS

There were 7051 medicines prescribed to 404 participants at baseline. There was a median of 17 medicines (IQR 15-19) at baseline and 16 (IQR 14-19) at follow-up. PIP represented 17.1% of prescriptions at baseline and 15.7% (n = 6777) at follow-up. There were reductions in the prescription of most drug groups with the largest reduction in antiplatelet prescriptions. Considering medication discontinuations, initiations and switches, there was a median of five medication changes per person (range 0-30, IQR 3-9) by follow-up. There were 95 low-value prescriptions at baseline reducing to 78 at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The number of medication changes per person was not reflected by summarising medication count at two time points, highlighting the complexity of prescribing for patients with polypharmacy. Frequent medication changes has potentially important implications for patients in terms of adherence and medication safety.

TRIAL REGISTRY

The SPPiRE trial was registered prospectively on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12752680).

Expert Panel Consensus on State-Level Policies to Improve Engagement and Retention in Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder

Importance

In the US, recent legislation and regulations have been considered, proposed, and implemented to improve the quality of treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD). However, insufficient empirical evidence exists to identify which policies are feasible to implement and successfully improve patient and population-level outcomes.

Objective

To examine expert consensus on the effectiveness and the ability to implement state-level OUD treatment policies.

Evidence Review

This qualitative study used the ExpertLens online platform to conduct a 3-round modified Delphi process to convene 66 stakeholders (health care clinicians, social service practitioners, addiction researchers, health policy decision-makers, policy advocates, and persons with lived experience). Stakeholders participated in 1 of 2 expert panels on 14 hypothetical state-level policies targeting treatment engagement and linkage, evidence-based and integrated care, treatment flexibility, and monitoring or support services. Participants rated policies in round 1, discussed results in round 2, and provided final ratings in round 3. Participants used 4 criteria associated with either the effectiveness or implementability to rate and discuss each policy. The effectiveness panel (n = 29) considered policy effects on treatment engagement, treatment retention, OUD remission, and opioid overdose mortality. The implementation panel (n = 34) considered the acceptability, feasibility, affordability, and equitability of each policy. We measured consensus using the interpercentile range adjusted for symmetry analysis technique from the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

Findings

Both panels reached consensus on all items. Experts viewed 2 policies (facilitated access to medications for OUD and automatic Medicaid enrollment for citizens returning from correctional settings) as highly implementable and highly effective in improving patient and population-level outcomes. Participants rated hub-and-spoke-type policies and provision of financial incentives to emergency departments for treatment linkage as effective; however, they also rated these policies as facing implementation barriers associated with feasibility and affordability. Coercive policies and policies levying additional requirements on individuals with OUD receiving treatment (eg, drug toxicology testing, counseling requirements) were viewed as low-value policies (ie, decreasing treatment engagement and retention, increasing overdose mortality, and increasing health inequities).

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this study may provide urgently needed consensus on policies for states to consider either adopting or deimplementing in their efforts to address the opioid overdose crisis.

Implementation of pharmacist-led deprescribing in collaborative primary care settings

In many jurisdictions pharmacists share prescribing responsibilities with other members of the primary care team. Responsibility for deprescribing, the healthcare professional supervised withdrawal of medications that are no longer needed, has not been assumed by a specific member of the primary care team. In this commentary we describe implementation of pharmacist-led deprescribing in collaborative primary care settings using the seven components of knowledge translation. Patient and stakeholder engagement shaped the deprescribing intervention. The intervention was implemented in three collaborative primary care clinics in two Canadian provinces. The evaluation included measures of medication appropriateness, patient satisfaction, and healthcare professional satisfaction. Pharmacist-led deprescribing in primary care was acceptable to both patients and healthcare professionals and demonstrated a reduction of medications deemed to confer more risk than benefit. Our findings support successes in pharmacist-led deprescribing. Future work is needed to understand how to successfully implement and evaluate pharmacist-led deprescribing more widely.