Deprescribing tools: a review of the types of tools available to aid deprescribing in clinical practice

Assessing the Efficacy of the ARMOR Tool-Based Deprescribing Intervention for Fall Risk Reduction in Older Patients Taking Fall Risk-Increasing Drugs (DeFRID Trial): Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Falls in older patients can lead to serious health complications and increased health care costs. Fall risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) are a group of drugs that may induce falls or increase the tendency to fall (ie, fall risk). Deprescribing is the process of withdrawal from an inappropriate medication, supervised by a health care professional, with the goal of managing polypharmacy and improving outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a deprescribing intervention based on the Assess, Review, Minimize, Optimize, and Reassess (ARMOR) tool in reducing the risk of falls in older patients and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of deprescribing FRIDs.

METHODS

This is an open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled academic trial. Individuals aged 60-80 years who are currently taking 5 or more prescribed drugs, including at least 1 FRID, will be recruited. Demographic data, medical conditions, medication lists, orthostatic hypotension, and fall history details will be collected. Fall concern will be assessed using the Fall Efficacy Scale, and fall risk will be assessed by the Timed Up and Go test and Tinetti Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment tool. In this study, all treating physicians will be randomized using a stratified randomization method based on seniority. Randomized physicians will do deprescribing with the ARMOR tool for patients on FRIDs. Participants will maintain diaries, and monthly phone follow-ups will be undertaken to monitor falls and adverse events. Physical assessments will be performed to evaluate fall risk every 3 months for a year. The rationality of prescription drugs will be evaluated using the World Health Organization's core indicators.

RESULTS

The study received a grant from the Indian Council of Medical Research-Safe and Rational Use of Medicine in October 2023. The study is scheduled to commence in April 2024 and conclude by 2026. Efficacy will be measured by fall frequency and changes in fall risk scores. Cost-effectiveness analysis will also include the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio calculation. Adverse events related to deprescription will be recorded.

CONCLUSIONS

This trial will provide essential insights into the efficacy of the ARMOR tool in reducing falls among the geriatric population who are taking FRIDs. Additionally, it will provide valuable information on the cost-effectiveness of deprescribing practices, offering significant implications for improving the well-being of older patients and optimizing health care resource allocation. The findings from this study will be pertinent for health care professionals, policy makers, and researchers focused on geriatric care and fall prevention strategies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trials Registry - India CTRI/2023/12/060516; https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pubview2.php.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/55638.

A National Survey of Physicians' Views on the Importance and Implementation of Deintensifying Diabetes Medications

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend deintensifying hypoglycemia-causing medications for older adults with diabetes whose hemoglobin A1c is below their individualized target, but this rarely occurs in practice.

OBJECTIVE

To understand physicians' decision-making around deintensifying diabetes treatment.

DESIGN

National physician survey.

PARTICIPANTS

US physicians in general medicine, geriatrics, or endocrinology providing outpatient diabetes care.

MAIN MEASURES

Physicians rated the importance of deintensifying diabetes medications for older adults with type 2 diabetes, and of switching medication classes, on 5-point Likert scales. They reported the frequency of these actions for their patients, and listed important barriers and facilitators. We evaluated the independent association between physicians' professional and practice characteristics and the importance of deintensifying and switching diabetes medications using multivariable ordered logistic regression models.

KEY RESULTS

There were 445 eligible respondents (response rate 37.5%). The majority of physicians viewed deintensifying (80%) and switching (92%) diabetes medications as important or very important to the care of older adults. Despite this, one-third of physicians reported deintensifying diabetes medications rarely or never. While most physicians recognized multiple reasons to deintensify, two-thirds of physicians reported barriers of short-term hyperglycemia and patient reluctance to change medications or allow higher glucose levels. In multivariable models, geriatricians rated deintensification as more important compared to other specialties (p=0.027), and endocrinologists rated switching as more important compared to other specialties (p<0.006). Physicians with fewer years in practice rated higher importance of deintensification (p<0.001) and switching (p=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

While most US physicians viewed deintensifying and switching diabetes medications as important for the care of older adults, they deintensified infrequently. Physicians had ambivalence about the relative benefits and harms of deintensification and viewed it as a potential source of conflict with their patients. These factors likely contribute to clinical inertia, and studies focused on improving shared decision-making around deintensifying diabetes medications are needed.

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.

Efficacy of deprescribing on health outcomes: An umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing is an important intervention across different settings in medicine, but the literature supporting such a practice is still conflicting. Therefore, we aimed to capture the breadth of outcomes reported and assess the strength of evidence of the use of deprescribing for health outcomes.

METHODS

Umbrella review of systematic reviews of the use of deprescribing searching in Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science until 01 November 2023. The grading of evidence was carried out using the GRADE for intervention studies, whilst data regarding systematic reviews were reported as narrative findings.

RESULTS

Among 456 papers, 12 systematic reviews (six with meta-analysis) for a total of 231 RCTs and 44,193 patients were included. In any setting, deprescribing was able to significantly reduce the number of total and of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in older patients (low certainty of evidence) and to reduce the proportion of participants potentially having several or PIMs (moderate certainty of evidence). In community, supported by a high certainty of evidence, deprescribing was not more effective than standard care in decreasing injurious falls, any falls or number of fallers. In nursing home, deprescribing was associated with a significantly lower PIMs than standard care (very low certainty of evidence). In end-of-life situations, deprescribing significantly reduced mortality rate of approximately 41% (high certainty of evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

Deprescribing is a promising intervention across different settings and situations, but a notable gap in the literature concerning its effects on substantial outcomes still exists.

Clinical decision-making in benzodiazepine deprescribing by healthcare providers vs. AI-assisted approach

AIMS

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical decision-making for benzodiazepine deprescribing between a healthcare provider (HCP) and an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot GPT4 (ChatGPT-4).

METHODS

We analysed real-world data from a Croatian cohort of community-dwelling benzodiazepine patients (n = 154) within the EuroAgeism H2020 ESR 7 project. HCPs evaluated the data using pre-established deprescribing criteria to assess benzodiazepine discontinuation potential. The research team devised and tested AI prompts to ensure consistency with HCP judgements. An independent researcher employed ChatGPT-4 with predetermined prompts to simulate clinical decisions for each patient case. Data derived from human-HCP and ChatGPT-4 decisions were compared for agreement rates and Cohen's kappa.

RESULTS

Both HPC and ChatGPT identified patients for benzodiazepine deprescribing (96.1% and 89.6%, respectively), showing an agreement rate of 95% (κ = .200, P = .012). Agreement on four deprescribing criteria ranged from 74.7% to 91.3% (lack of indication κ = .352, P < .001; prolonged use κ = .088, P = .280; safety concerns κ = .123, P = .006; incorrect dosage κ = .264, P = .001). Important limitations of GPT-4 responses were identified, including 22.1% ambiguous outputs, generic answers and inaccuracies, posing inappropriate decision-making risks.

CONCLUSIONS

While AI-HCP agreement is substantial, sole AI reliance poses a risk for unsuitable clinical decision-making. This study's findings reveal both strengths and areas for enhancement of ChatGPT-4 in the deprescribing recommendations within a real-world sample. Our study underscores the need for additional research on chatbot functionality in patient therapy decision-making, further fostering the advancement of AI for optimal performance.

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.

Disentangling drug contributions: anticholinergic burden in older adults linked to individual medications: a cross-sectional population-based study

BACKGROUND

Medications with potent anticholinergic properties have well-documented adverse effects. A high cumulative anticholinergic burden may arise from the concurrent use of multiple medications with weaker anticholinergic effects. We sought to identify patterns of high anticholinergic burden and associated patient characteristics.

METHODS

We identified patients aged ≥ 65 who filled ≥ 1 medication with anticholinergic adverse effects in 2019 and had a cumulative Anticholinergic Burden score (ACB) ≥ 4 (i.e., high anticholinergic burden) in a large US health insurer. We classified patients based on how they attained high burden, as follows: 1) only filling strong or moderate anticholinergic medications (i.e., ACB = 2 or 3, "moderate/strong"), 2) only filling lightly anticholinergic medications (i.e., ACB = 1, "light/possible"), and 3) filling any combination ("mix"). We used multinomial logistic regression to assess the association between measured patient characteristics and membership in the three anticholinergic burden classifications, using the moderate/strong group as the referent.

RESULTS

In total, 83,286 eligible patients with high anticholinergic burden were identified (mean age: 74.3 years (SD:7.1), 72.9% female). Of these, 4.5% filled only strong/moderate anticholinergics, 4.3% filled only light/possible anticholinergics, and the rest filled a mix (91.2%). Within patients in the mixed group, 64.3% of medication fills were for light/possible anticholinergics, while 35.7% were for moderate/strong anticholinergics. Compared with patients in the moderate/strong anticholinergics group, patients filling only light/possible anticholinergics were more likely to be older (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] per 1-unit of age: 1.06, 95%CI: 1.05-1.07), less likely to be female (aOR: 0.56, 95%CI: 0.50-0.62 vs. male), more likely to have comorbidities (e.g., heart failure aOR: 3.18, 95%CI: 2.70-3.74 or depression aOR: 1.20, 95%CI: 1.09-1.33 vs. no comorbidity), and visited fewer physicians (aOR per 1-unit of change: 0.98, 95%CI: 0.97-0.98). Patients in the mixed group were older (aOR per 1-unit of age: 1.02, 95%CI: 1.02-1.03) and less likely to be female (aOR: 0.89, 95%CI: 0.82-0.97 vs. male) compared with those filling moderate/strong anticholinergics.

CONCLUSION

Most older adults accumulated high anticholinergic burden through a combination of light/possible and moderate/strong anticholinergics rather than moderate/strong anticholinergics, with light/possible anticholinergics being the major drivers of overall anticholinergic burden. These insights may inform interventions to improve prescribing in older adults.

Inappropriate polypharmacy management versus deprescribing: A review on their relationship

Medication burden and polypharmacy are highly prevalent among patients with multimorbidity. There have been multiple initiatives to overcome polypharmacy and medication burden in patients with multimorbidity. These initiatives have evolved over time as effective in reducing the negative health consequences of polypharmacy. In recent years, the concept and practice of deprescribing has emerged and gained popularity as an efficient comprehensive approach to manage polypharmacy and ultimately improve health outcomes. Clinicians and researchers with interest in deprescribing view it as a novel and unique strategy that should be a part of effective prescribing process. However, other traditional polypharmacy management strategies such as drug review and medication therapy management still coexist. It is intriguing if deprescribing is considered as a type of these strategies or not. This narrative mini-review explored published literature in an effort to ascertain the differences and similarities between deprescribing and other prominent polypharmacy management interventions. It is clear that there is an overlap between deprescribing and inappropriate polypharmacy management. This is represented by focusing on multimorbid older adults, using similar explicit and implicit tools and having drug review as the core principle of both approaches. This overlap has probably made deprescribing considered as one of polypharmacy management approaches.

Tools and guidelines to assess the appropriateness of medication and aid deprescribing: An umbrella review

AIMS

The aim of this umbrella review was to identify tools and guidelines to aid the deprescribing process of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), evaluate development and validation methods, and describe evidence levels for medication inclusion.

METHODS

Searches were conducted on MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase.com, Cochrane CDSR, CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science Core Collection and guideline databases from the date of inception to 7 July 2022. Following the initial search, an additional search was conducted to identify an updated versions of tools on 17 July 2023. We analysed the contents of tools and guidelines.

RESULTS

From 23 systematic reviews and guidelines, we identified 95 tools (72 explicit, 12 mixed and 11 implicit) and nine guidelines. Most tools (83.2%) were developed to use for older persons, including 14 for those with limited life expectancy. Seven tools were for children <18 years (7.37%). Most explicit/mixed tools (78.57%) and all guidelines were validated. We found 484 PIMs and 202 medications with different appropriateness independent of disease for older persons with normal and limited life expectancy, respectively. Only two tools and eight guidelines reported the evidence level, and a quarter of medications had high-quality evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Tools are available for a diversity of populations. There were discrepancies, with the same medication being classified as inappropriate in some tools and appropriate in others, possibly due to low-quality evidence. In particular, tools for patients with limited life expectancy were developed based on very limited evidence, and research to generate this evidence is urgently needed. Our medication lists, along with the level of evidence, could facilitate efforts to strengthen the evidence.

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

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

Categorization of deprescribing communication tools: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing can be beneficial to a wide variety of patients but is often not done due to barriers including lack of time and challenges starting conversations.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to identify and broadly categorize existing deprescribing communication tools for clinicians and patients.

METHODS

Our scoping review protocol was based on the Arksey and O'Malley methods and incorporated the Levac and Joanna Briggs Institute recommendations. EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and grey literature were searched, with two independent reviewers assessing eligibility. A backwards search of the texts chosen for full text screen was completed. Two reviewers independently completed data extraction using a pre-specified data collection form.

FINDINGS

Databases identified 1121 results, searching of grey literature identified 49 results, and backwards searching identified 1323 results. After screening, 32 resources were included which contained 40 unique tools. Most tools were Canadian and targeted adults over 65 years old living in the community. Most tools had not been tested in the intended patient audience or evaluated for effectiveness.

DISCUSSION

Deprescribing tools have been developed to facilitate conversations by providing structure, education, and decision-making approaches. More research is needed to test the effectiveness of existing tools.

Deprescribing: A Prime Opportunity to Optimize Care of Cancer Patients

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

What makes a multidisciplinary medication review and deprescribing intervention for older people work well in primary care? A realist review and synthesis

BACKGROUND

A third of older people take five or more regular medications (polypharmacy). Conducting medication reviews in primary care is key to identify and reduce/ stop inappropriate medications (deprescribing). Recent recommendations for effective deprescribing include shared-decision making and a multidisciplinary approach. Our aim was to understand when, why, and how interventions for medication review and deprescribing in primary care involving multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) work (or do not work) for older people.

METHODS

A realist synthesis following the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards guidelines was completed. A scoping literature review informed the generation of an initial programme theory. Systematic searches of different databases were conducted, and documents screened for eligibility, with data extracted based on a Context, Mechanisms, Outcome (CMO) configuration to develop further our programme theory. Documents were appraised based on assessments of relevance and rigour. A Stakeholder consultation with 26 primary care health care professionals (HCPs), 10 patients and three informal carers was conducted to test and refine the programme theory. Data synthesis was underpinned by Normalisation Process Theory to identify key mechanisms to enhance the implementation of MDT medication review and deprescribing in primary care.

FINDINGS

A total of 2821 abstracts and 175 full-text documents were assessed for eligibility, with 28 included. Analysis of documents alongside stakeholder consultation outlined 33 CMO configurations categorised under four themes: 1) HCPs roles, responsibilities and relationships; 2) HCPs training and education; 3) the format and process of the medication review 4) involvement and education of patients and informal carers. A number of key mechanisms were identified including clearly defined roles and good communication between MDT members, integration of pharmacists in the team, simulation-based training or team building training, targeting high-risk patients, using deprescribing tools and drawing on expertise of other HCPs (e.g., nurses and frailty practitioners), involving patents and carers in the process, starting with 'quick wins', offering deprescribing as 'drug holidays', and ensuring appropriate and tailored follow-up plans that allow continuity of care and management.

CONCLUSION

We identified key mechanisms that could inform the design of future interventions and services that successfully embed deprescribing in primary care.

Weighing the necessities and concerns of deprescribing among older ambulatory patients and primary care trainees: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing can be a challenging and complex process, particularly for early career doctors such as primary care trainees. To date, there is limited data from patients' and doctors' perspectives regarding the deprescribing of medications in older persons, particularly from developing countries. This study aimed to explore the necessities and concerns of deprescribing in older persons among older ambulatory patients and primary care trainees.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted among patients and primary care trainees (known henceforth as doctors). Patients aged ≥ 60 years, having ≥ 1 chronic disease and prescribed ≥ 5 medications and could communicate in either English or Malay were recruited. Doctors and patients were purposively sampled based on their stage of training as family medicine specialists and ethnicity, respectively. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic approach was used to analyse data.

RESULTS

Twenty-four in-depth interviews (IDIs) with patients and four focus group discussions (FGDs) with 23 doctors were conducted. Four themes emerged: understanding the concept of deprescribing, the necessity to perform deprescribing, concerns regarding deprescribing and factors influencing deprescribing. Patients were receptive to the idea of deprescribing when the term was explained to them, whilst doctors had a good understanding of deprescribing. Both patients and doctors would deprescribe when the necessity outweighed their concerns. Factors that influenced deprescribing were doctor-patient rapport, health literacy among patients, external influences from carers and social media, and system challenges.

CONCLUSION

Deprescribing was deemed necessary by both patients and doctors when there was a reason to do so. However, both doctors and patients were afraid to deprescribe as they 'didn't want to rock the boat'. Early-career doctors were reluctant to deprescribe as they felt compelled to continue medications that were initiated by another specialist. Doctors requested more training on how to deprescribe medications.

Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use among Underserved Older Latino Adults

BACKGROUND

Previous studies identified alarming increases in medication use, polypharmacy, and the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) among minority older adults with multimorbidity. However, PIM use among underserved older Latino adults is still largely unknown. The main objective of this study is to examine the prevalence of PIM use among underserved, community-dwelling older Latino adults. This study examines both the complexity of polypharmacy in this community and identifies associations between PIM and multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and access to medical care among this segment of our population.

METHODS

This community-based, cross-sectional study included 126 community-dwelling Latinos aged 65 years and older. The updated 2019 AGS Beers Criteria was used to identify participants using PIMs. We used multinomial logistic regression to examine the independent association of PIM with several independent variables including demographic characteristics, the number of chronic conditions, the number of prescription medications used, level of pain, and sleep difficulty. In addition, we present five cases in order to offer greater insight into PIM use among our sample.

RESULTS

One-third of participants had at least one use of PIM. Polypharmacy (≥5 medications) was observed in 55% of our sample. In addition, 46% took drugs to be used with caution (UWC). In total, 16% were taking between 9 and 24 medications, whereas 39% and 46% were taking 5 to 8 and 1 to 4 prescription medications, respectively. The multinomial logit regression analysis showed that (controlling for demographic variables) increased PIM use was associated with an increased number of prescription medications, number of chronic conditions, sleep difficulty, lack of access to primary care, financial strains, and poor self-rated health.

DISCUSSION

Both qualitative and quantitative analysis revealed recurrent themes in the missed identification of potential drug-related harm among underserved Latino older adults. Our data suggest that financial strain, lack of access to primary care, as well as an increased number of medications and co-morbidity are inter-connected. Lack of continuity of care often leads to fragmented care, putting vulnerable patients at risk of polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions as clinicians lack access to a current and complete list of medications patients are using at any given time. Therefore, improving access to health care and thereby continuity of care among older Latino adults with multimorbidity has the potential to reduce both polypharmacy and PIM use. Programs that increase access to regular care and continuity of care should be prioritized among multimorbid, undeserved, Latino older adults in an effort toward improved health equity.

Uptake of pharmacist recommendations by patients after discharge: Implementation study of a patient-centered medicines review service

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medicine use is common in older people, resulting in harm increased by lack of patient-centred care. Hospital clinical pharmacy services may reduce such harm, particularly prevalent at transitions of care. An implementation program to achieve such services can be a complex long-term process.

OBJECTIVES

To describe an implementation program and discuss its application in the development of a patient-centred discharge medicine review service; to assess service impact on older patients and their caregivers.

METHOD

An implementation program was begun in 2006. To assess program effectiveness, 100 patients were recruited for follow-up after discharge from a private hospital between July 2019 and March 2020. There were no exclusion criteria other than age less than 65 years. Medicine review and education were provided for each patient/caregiver by a clinical pharmacist, including recommendations for future management, written in lay language. Patients were asked to consult their general practitioner to discuss those recommendations important to them. Patients were followed-up after discharge.

RESULTS

Of 368 recommendations made, 351 (95%) were actioned by patients, resulting in 284 (77% of those actioned) being implemented, and 206 regularly taken medicines (19.7 % of all regular medicines) deprescribed.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of a patient-centred medicine review discharge service resulted in patient-reported reduction in potentially inappropriate medicine use and hospital funding of this service. This study was registered retrospectively on 12^th July 2022 with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21156862, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN21156862 .

TANGO: Development of Consumer Information Leaflets to Support TAperiNG of Opioids in Older Adults with Low Back Pain and Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis

INTRODUCTION

Globally, the rate of opioid prescription is high for chronic musculoskeletal conditions despite guidelines recommending against their use as their adverse effects outweigh their modest benefit. Deprescribing opioids is a complex process that can be hindered by multiple prescriber- and patient-related barriers. These include fear of the process of, or outcomes from, weaning medications, or a lack of ongoing support. Thus, involving patients, their carers, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) in the development of consumer materials that can educate and provide support for patients and HCPs over the deprescribing process is critical to ensure that the resources have high readability, usability, and acceptability to the population of interest.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to (1) develop two educational consumer leaflets to support opioid tapering in older people with low back pain (LBP) and hip or knee osteoarthritis (HoKOA), and (2) evaluate the perceived usability, acceptability, and credibility of the consumer leaflets from the perspective of consumers and HCPs.

DESIGN

This was an observational survey involving a consumer review panel and an HCP review panel.

PARTICIPANTS

30 consumers (and/or their carers) and 20 HCPs were included in the study. Consumers were people older than 65 years of age who were currently experiencing LBP or HoKOA, and with no HCP background. Carers were people who provided unpaid care, support, or assistance to an individual meeting the inclusion criteria for consumers. HCPs included physiotherapists (n = 9), pharmacists (n = 7), an orthopaedic surgeon (n = 1), a rheumatologist (n = 1), nurse practitioner (n = 1) and a general practitioner (n = 1), all with at least three years of clinical experience and who reported working closely with this target patient population within the last 12 months.

METHODS

Prototypes of two educational consumer leaflets (a brochure and a personal plan) were developed by a team of LBP, OA, and geriatric pharmacotherapy researchers and clinicians. The leaflet prototypes were evaluated by two separate chronological review panels involving (1) consumers and/or their carers, and (2) HCPs. Data collection for both panels occurred via an online survey. Outcomes were the perceived usability, acceptability, and credibility of the consumer leaflets. Feedback received from the consumer panel was used to refine the leaflets, before circulating the leaflets for further review by the HCP panel. Additional feedback from the HCP review panel was then used to refine the final versions of the consumer leaflets.

RESULTS

Both consumers and HCPs perceived the leaflets and personal plan to be usable, acceptable, and credible. Consumers rated the brochure against several categories, which scored between 53 and 97% positive responses. Similarly, the overall feedback provided by HCPs was 85-100% positive. The modified System Usability Scale scores obtained from HCPs was 55-95% positive, indicating excellent usability. Feedback for the personal plan from both HCPs and consumers was largely positive, with consumers providing the highest positive ratings (80-93%). While feedback for HCPs was also high, we did identify that prescribers were hesitant to provide the plan to patients frequently (no positive responses).

CONCLUSIONS

This study led to the development of a leaflet and personal plan to support the reduction of opioid use in older people with LBP or HoKOA. The development of the consumer leaflets incorporated feedback provided by HCPs and consumers to maximise clinical effectiveness and future intervention implementation.

A Need for Benzodiazepine Deprescribing in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cohort Study

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on patients’ mental health. The aim of this study was to explore whether the pandemic influenced the use and prescription of benzodiazepines and increased the need for community pharmacist involvement in counselling on deprescribing. Electronic prescription-related data from one pharmacy in Croatia were retrospectively collected for the COVID-19 period (April 2020 to March 2021) and compared with pre-COVID-19 (April 2019 to March 2020) data. Data were collected for patients diagnosed with anxiety disorders who filled out more than one prescription for benzodiazepines, and included age, sex, number of medicines, benzodiazepines, and comorbidities. A total of 1290 benzodiazepine users were identified; of these, 32.87% started using benzodiazepines during the COVID-19 period, while 35.2% continued with benzodiazepine use. More than half of all benzodiazepine users were identified as potential deprescribing candidates (dispensed more than three prescriptions). Women, older patients, multimorbid individuals, and patients with polypharmacy were more likely to use benzodiazepines for a prolonged period. The results show a negative trend of benzodiazepine usage among community-dwelling patients during the pandemic. Community pharmacists can identify potential candidates for deprescribing and initiate a process that ensures more rational use of benzodiazepines and increases the safety of treatment.

Co-prescribing of opioids and benzodiazepines/Z-drugs associated with all-cause mortality—A population-based longitudinal study in primary care with weak opioids most commonly prescribed

Introduction: The risk of mortality associated with the co-prescribing of benzodiazepines and opioids has been explored in a number of papers mainly focusing on strong opioids. The mortality risk associated with the use of weak opioids has not been dealt with to a similar extent.

Objective: To assess the mortality risk in primary care patients with consistent 3-year co-prescribing of benzodiazepine/Z-drugs (benzodiazepine receptor modulators) and mainly weak opioids (codeine, tramadol).

Methods: Of 221,804 patients contacting the primary healthcare centres, 124,436 were selected for further analysis, 88,832 participants fulfilled the inclusion criteria, aged 10–69 years and were divided into four groups with neither any use of benzodiazepines/Z-drugs nor opioids as Group 1, 3 years’ use of opioids and no/minimal benzodiazepines/Z-drugs as Group 2, with benzodiazepines/Z-drugs and no/minimal opioids as Group 3, and finally both benzodiazepines/Z-drugs and opioids as Group 4. Hazard ratios were calculated with the no-drug group as a reference, using Cox proportional hazards regression model adjusted for age, sex, number of chronic conditions and cancer patients excluded (n = 87,314).

Results: Hazard ratios for mortality increased both in Group 3 where it was 2.66 (95% CI 2.25–3.09) and in Group 4 where it was 5.12 (95% CI 4.25–6.17), with increased dose and higher number of chronic conditions. In Group 4 an opioid dose-dependent increase in mortality among persons using >1000 DDDs benzodiazepines/Z-drugs was observed when those on less than ≤300 DDDs of opioids with HR 4.94 (95% CI 3.54–6.88) were compared to those on >300 DDDs with HR 7.61/95% CI 6.08–9.55). This increase in mortality was not observed among patients on <1000 DDDs of benzodiazepines/Z-drugs.

Conclusion: The study supports evidence suggesting that mortality increases in a dose-dependent manner in patients co-prescribed benzodiazepines/Z-drugs and weak opioids (codeine, tramadol). An association between the number of chronic conditions and a rise in mortality was found. Long-term use of these drugs should preferably be avoided. Non-pharmacological therapy should be seriously considered instead of long-term use of benzodiazepines/Z-drugs, and deprescribing implemented for chronic users of these drugs when possible.

Optimising a person-centred approach to stopping medicines in older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy using the DExTruS framework: a realist review

BACKGROUND

Tackling problematic polypharmacy requires tailoring the use of medicines to individual circumstances and may involve the process of deprescribing. Deprescribing can cause anxiety and concern for clinicians and patients. Tailoring medication decisions often entails beyond protocol decision-making, a complex process involving emotional and cognitive work for healthcare professionals and patients. We undertook realist review to highlight and understand the interactions between different factors involved in deprescribing and to develop a final programme theory that identifies and explains components of good practice that support a person-centred approach to deprescribing in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy.

METHODS

The realist approach involves identifying underlying causal mechanisms and exploring how, and under what conditions they work. We conducted a search of electronic databases which were supplemented by citation checking and consultation with stakeholders to identify other key documents. The review followed the key steps outlined by Pawson et al. and followed the RAMESES standards for realist syntheses.

RESULTS

We included 119 included documents from which data were extracted to produce context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) and a final programme theory. Our programme theory recognises that deprescribing is a complex intervention influenced by a multitude of factors. The components of our final programme theory include the following: a supportive infrastructure that provides clear guidance around professional responsibilities and that enables multidisciplinary working and continuity of care, consistent access to high-quality relevant patient contextual data, the need to support the creation of a shared explanation and understanding of the meaning and purpose of medicines and a trial and learn approach that provides space for monitoring and continuity. These components may support the development of trust which may be key to managing the uncertainty and in turn optimise outcomes. These components are summarised in the novel DExTruS framework.

CONCLUSION

Our findings recognise the complex interpretive practice and decision-making involved in medication management and identify key components needed to support best practice. Our findings have implications for how we design medication review consultations, professional training and for patient records/data management. Our review also highlights the role that trust plays both as a central element of tailored prescribing and a potential outcome of good practice in this area.

Identifying and managing adverse drug reactions to promote medicines adherence and safety

Unpleasant side effects or adverse drug reactions (ADRs) caused by medicines can have significant effects on people's quality of life and therapeutic outcomes. Knowledge of how ADRs occur enables nurses who prescribe and/or administer medicines to identify and manage them effectively, which can improve the patient experience and increase adherence. This article outlines the types of ADRs and explains how nurses can reduce medicines-related harm by following the principles of medicines optimisation, undertaking regular medication reviews and communicating openly with patients about their medicines.

Identifying Potential Drug-Related Problems Among Geriatric Patients With Use of an Integrated Clinical Decision Support Tool

Background: Drug-related problems (DRPs) which arise from potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are a common problem in older people with multi-morbidity and polypharmacy.

Aim: To develop an integrated PIM clinical decision support tool for identification of DRPs in geriatric multi-morbid polypharmacy patients, using the EU(7)-PIM and EURO-FORTA lists, with a focus on high-risk medications.

Methods: The integrated PIM tool used the information on PIMs in both databases—the EU(7)-PIM and EURO-FORTA. PIMs were classified into four color groups based on risk profile: high-risk PIMs (should be avoided in older patients) as red, moderate-risk PIMs (require dose and/or treatment duration adjustment) as yellow, low-risk PIMs (low DRP risk) as green, and questionable PIMs (incomplete/missing information) as grey.

Results: The summarized list of the high-risk (red and some grey) PIMs contained 81 active substances and medication classes. According to the ATC classification, most of the high-risk PIMs (n = 60, 74.1%) belong to the A, C, and N medication groups and 50.6% (n = 41) of the high-risk PIMs have currently marketing authorization in Estonia. The preliminary list of the moderate- and low-risk (yellow, green, and other grey) PIMs contained 240 active substances and medication classes, but sub-classification of this category into one or another group depends mainly on an individual patient´s clinical characteristics in a concrete analyzed study sample and needs further research.

Conclusion: The integrated clinical decision support tool based on the EU(7)-PIM and EURO-FORTA criteria addresses the need for more efficient identification of DRPs. It can be applied to identify PIMs and geriatric prescribing problems in different health care settings, and also in a context of little clinical information available.

Attitudes Toward Deprescribing in Older Adults and Caregivers: A Survey in Quebec, Canada

This study aimed to describe attitudes toward deprescribing among older adults and caregivers. We recruited 110 adults 65 years and above using at least one prescribed medication for at least 3 months, and 95 unrelated caregivers (18+) of older adults with such characteristics, who answered the validated French version of the revised Patients’ Attitudes Towards Deprescribing questionnaire. More older adults (84.5%) than caregivers (70.5%) (p = .007) would be willing to stop at least one medication if the doctor said it was possible. Conversely, 93.5% of older adults and 78.9% of caregivers were satisfied with the current medications taken (p = .0024). The results did not vary according to age, sex, number of medications taken, education level, or residency. Thus, older adults and caregivers are disposed to undertake deprescribing, regardless of sociodemographic characteristics. However, relying solely on satisfaction with current medications may not be sufficient to identify relevant deprescribing opportunities.

Deprescribing Interventions among Community-Dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing can reduce the use of inappropriate or unnecessary medication; however, the economic value of such interventions is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

This study seeks to identify and synthetise the economic evidence of deprescribing interventions among community-dwelling older adults.

METHODS

Full economic evaluation studies of deprescribing interventions, conducted in the community or primary care settings, in community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 years were systematically reviewed. MEDLINE, EconLit, Scopus, Web of Science, CEA-TUFTS, CRD York and Google Scholar databases were searched from inception to February 2021. Two researchers independently screened all retrieved articles according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. The main outcome was the economic impact of the intervention from any perspective, converted into 2019 US Dollars. The World Health Organization threshold of 1 gross domestic product per capita was used to define cost effectiveness. Studies were appraised for methodological quality using the extended Consensus on Health Economics Criteria checklist.

RESULTS

Of 6154 articles identified by the search strategy, 14 papers assessing 13 different interventions were included. Most deprescribing interventions included some type of medication review with or without a supportive educational component (n = 11, 85%), and in general were delivered within a pharmacist-physician care collaboration. Settings included community pharmacies, primary care/outpatient clinics and patients' homes. All economic evaluations were conducted within a time horizon varying from 2 to 12 months with outcomes in most of the studies derived from a single clinical trial. Main health outcomes were reported in terms of quality-adjusted life-years, prevented number of falls and the medication appropriateness index. Cost effectiveness ranged from dominant to an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $112,932 per quality-adjusted life-year, a value above the country's World Health Organization threshold. Overall, 85% of the interventions were cost saving, dominated usual care or were cost effective considering 1 gross domestic product per capita. Nine studies scored > 80% (good) and two scored ≤ 50% (low) on critical quality appraisal.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a growing interest in economic evaluations of deprescribing interventions focused on community-dwelling older adults. Although results varied across setting, time horizon and intervention, most were cost effective according to the World Health Organization threshold. Deprescribing interventions are promising from an economic viewpoint, but more studies are needed.

Chronic-pharma: New Platform for Chronic Patients Pharmacotherapy Optimization

We describe the technological development of a web platform named CHRONIC-PHARMA that integrates three prescription support tools for patients with chronic diseases: Anticholinergic Burden Calculator (ABC), LESS-CHRON criteria and TRIGGER-CHRON. They focus on the optimization and evaluation of pharmacotherapy in patients with chronic diseases, resulting in a useful, single platform that can facilitate the review of pharmacotherapy and improve the safety of chronically ill patients. This is achieved by estimating and reducing the anticholinergic risk (ABC), detecting opportunities for deprescribing drugs and monitoring its success (LESS-CHRON criteria), as well as calculating the risk of adverse drug events (TRIGGER-CHRON). The platform is freely accessible online (https://chronic-pharma.com/) as well as through a mobile application, and therefore easily accessible among the healthcare community.

Assessing community pharmacists' attitudes towards identifying opportunities for deprescribing in clinical practice in Ireland

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study was to assess community pharmacists' thoughts regarding the role they can play in effectively integrating deprescribing into clinical practice in Ireland. The aim was to assess pharmacists' (1) knowledge of deprescribing, (2) confidence in deprescribing, (3) attitudes towards deprescribing and (4) barriers and facilitators to deprescribing in a community pharmacy setting.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was disseminated to pharmacists currently registered with the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland, with instruction only to complete if working in community pharmacy. Statistical analysis was conducted on the quantitative data, whereas thematic analysis was carried out on the open-ended responses.

KEY FINDINGS

Results indicate good knowledge scores and positive attitudes surrounding deprescribing, with demographic factors having no significant effect on results. Although deprescribing knowledge is high, willingness to engage is hindered by obstacles such as time. Remuneration was identified as an enabler for deprescribing. Interdisciplinary educational opportunities and bidirectional communication channels with prescribers are viewed as the major facilitators of deprescribing.

CONCLUSIONS

Community pharmacists demonstrate that they possess sufficient knowledge, confidence and willingness to play a greater role in facilitating deprescribing. To enable this role expansion, enablers such as education and funding need to be implemented, to overcome barriers such as insufficient time. Further studies are required to assess community pharmacists' deprescribing competence, to demonstrate their ability to fulfil this role in clinical practice in Ireland.

Barriers and enablers to deprescribing in long-term care facilities: a 'best-fit' framework synthesis of the qualitative evidence

INTRODUCTION

older adults are at risk of adverse outcomes due to a high prevalence of polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Deprescribing interventions have been demonstrated to reduce polypharmacy and PIMs. However, deprescribing is not performed routinely in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). This qualitative evidence synthesis aims to identify the factors which limit and enable health care workers' (HCWs) engagement with deprescribing in LTCFs.

METHODS

the 'best-fit' framework approach was used to synthesise evidence by using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) as the a priori framework. Included studies were analysed qualitatively to identify LTCF barriers and enablers of deprescribing and were mapped to the TDF. Constructs within domains were refined to best represent the LTCF context. A conceptual model was created, hypothesising relationships between barriers and enablers.

RESULTS

of 655 records identified, 14 met the inclusion criteria. The 'best-fit' framework included 17 barriers and 16 enablers, which mapped to 11 of the 14 TDF domains. Deprescribing barriers included perceptions of an 'established hierarchy' within LTCFs, negatively affecting communication and insufficient resources which limited HCWs' engagement with deprescribing. Enablers included tailored deprescribing guidelines, interprofessional support and working with a patient focus, allowing the patients' condition to influence decisions.

DISCUSSION

this study identified that education, interprofessional support and collaboration can facilitate deprescribing. To overcome deprescribing barriers, change is required to a patient-centred model and HCWs need to be equipped with necessary resources and adequate reimbursement. The LTCF organisational structure must support deprescribing, with communication between health care systems.

The process of deprescribing in older adults: a methodological protocol

Objective: To report, by means of a methodological protocol, the process of deprescribing implemented in a geriatric psychiatry outpatient clinic of a teaching hospital. Methods: The topic of interest was comprehensively reviewed in the scientific literature. Instruments and tools necessary to develop the protocol were selected, including the Treatment Adherence Measure, Beers criteria, the EURO-FORTA List, the Brazilian Consensus on Potentially Inappropriate Medications for Older Persons, Drugs.com, and deprescribing algorithms. Results: The protocol consists of the following steps: 1) Review: Assess older patients’ physical and behavioral status and family context and list all medications used; 2) Analyze: Review patients’ drug therapy; 3) Act: Initiate deprescribing (if indicated); 4) Adjust: Discuss patients’ expectations, beliefs, and preferences and adjust the prescription to their real possibilities; 5) Monitor: Identify responses to treatment, assess adherence to the deprescribing process, and detect return of symptoms or worsening of the underlying disease. Conclusions: Health care professionals need to work together to provide comprehensive care for older persons. The inclusion of deprescribing in more research groups focused on the geriatric population will increase attention to the safety of pharmacological treatment for older patients.

Deprescribing Medications that Increase the Risk of Falls in Older People: Exploring Doctors' Perspectives Using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)

BACKGROUND

Falls can lead to hospitalisation and death in older people. Polypharmacy is a major risk factor, and deprescribing fall-risk increasing drugs (FRIDs) is one of several possible important preventive measures. The objective of this study was to explore the factors that influence doctors when deprescribing FRIDs in a hospital setting.

METHOD

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with consultant geriatricians and hospital doctors experienced in dealing with patients aged 65 years or older, at a large academic teaching hospital (~ 1000 beds), Dublin, Ireland. The interviews were directed by an interview guide and audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, with subsequent thematic analysis in NVivo 12 software.

RESULTS

A total of 18 participants were interviewed. Barriers to deprescribing included: insufficient time, incomplete patient records, changing medications initiated by other specialists and difficulties following up patients after discharge. Facilitators included: enhanced documentation through electronic patient records, the support of other healthcare professionals such as clinical pharmacists, and patients' engagement, which is considered essential for the success of the deprescribing process's outcome.

CONCLUSION

Deprescribing FRIDs in older adults in the hospital setting is challenging. Implementation of the process in practice requires combined effort from stakeholders to tackle everyday work environment challenges. Future studies are required examining the clinical effect of the suggested interventions and exploring patients' involvement in deprescribing decisions.

Development of Patient Education Material for Proton Pump Inhibitor Deprescribing: A Mixed-Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Proton pump inhibitor (PPI) deprescribing is recommended in case of inappropriate use. Patient education materials are key elements in the deprescribing process.

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to develop patient education material for PPI deprescribing in primary care in France.

METHODS

This was a mixed-methods study involving (1) a literature review of the existing patient education materials on PPI deprescribing to identify key points to optimize the layout and content of the document; (2) development of a first version of the brochure by a pluri-professional steering group, following the national reference methodology of the French National Authority for Health (Haute Autorité de Santé) and iterative modifications of the patient brochure; (3) assessment of the content and understandability of the brochure by questionnaires followed by semistructured interviews with target patients; and (4) iterative brochure readability assessment with the Flesch reading ease tool.

RESULTS

The final patient education material is a double-sided A3 brochure-that is, 4 A4 pages. The first round of user testing by questionnaire (n = 14 patients) led to modifications to improve the document understandability, validated in the second round of user testing by questionnaire (n = 10 patients). The semistructured interviews (n = 10 patients) highlighted an adequate comprehension, whereas actionability required some minor modifications. The readability test score of the final education brochure was 59.4.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

This patient education brochure for PPI deprescribing is targeted to patients in primary care. Its impact on PPI deprescribing will be assessed in a population-based pragmatic trial in primary care.

Practices and pitfalls in medication adherence in hemodialysis settings - a focus-group study of health care professionals

BACKGROUND

Medication nonadherence is common among patients with hemodialysis, leading to poorer patient outcomes. Health care professionals have an important role in assessing risk of nonadherence and intervening to support adherence. The aim of this study was to explore physicians' and nurses' current medication adherence practices in hemodialysis settings.

METHOD

A generic qualitative design with inductive content analysis and focus group methodology. Focus groups with health care professionals were conducted in four Nephrology Centers, representing three different regions of Denmark. An interview guide was developed in collaboration with 3 patient representatives.

RESULTS

Six focus group interviews involving a total of forty-two health care professionals were conducted. Five main categories were identified; Laboratory tests are the "gold standard" for assessing adherence, suggesting that abnormal results motivated investigation of adherence, Varying practices for supporting adherence, alluding to the impact of individual clinician priority and preference on choice of adherence interventions, Unclear allocation of roles and responsibility, specifically referring to uncertainty in the delegation of roles between physicians and nurses, Navigating time and resource limitations, intimating the resources needed to support medication adherence and Suggestions for future strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest implementing systematic use of validated patient-reported outcome measures for assessing adherence and deprescribing tools to support adherence, as these instruments might identify the patients who are in most need of support and promote patient adherence to their prescribed medications. The findings also point to a need for interdisciplinary clarification of roles and responsibilities regarding medication adherence, with the aim of building a strong collaborative partnership between professions.

Assessment of a new strategy for catalyzing deprescribing in community pharmacies

BACKGROUND

Although community pharmacists have been actively engaged in patient care, their role in deprescribing is still restricted.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of a new educational approach designed to catalyze deprescribing in community pharmacies.

METHODS

In this 4-month, randomized, controlled trial, 108 community pharmacies in Egypt were randomly and equally distributed to either the active or the control groups. Participants from the active group pharmacies received 31 deprescribing-related clinical case scenarios, designed according to the available deprescribing guideline and clinical experiences of an expert panel members, and delivered through WhatsApp. Then participants from both groups reported the incidence of potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs), the frequency of deprescribing opportunities, and related pharmacist interventions.

RESULTS

Pharmacists from the active group reported a considerably higher incidence of PIMs (20.87%) than that reported by pharmacists from the control group (5.03%). In addition, they made 1326 deprescribing-related interventions, of which 1022 (77.07%) were accepted and 641 (48.34%) were significant interventions. The proportions of cessation of drug therapy, reducing the dose, and persuasion of patients to accept deprescribing pharmacist interventions in the active group were 37.85%, 22.09%, and 10.63%, respectively. In contrast, 150 of 268 deprescribing-related interventions (55.97%) in the active group were accepted. The clinical value and type of deprescribing decision were statistically significant determinants for the acceptance of deprescribing decisions. The mean time needed to persuade the patient about deprescribing and the cost saved per patient across the active and the control groups were 5.09 ± 3.54 minutes versus 10.03 ± 6.19 minutes and 17.88 ± 9.60 U.S. dollars versus 4.49 ± 2.44 U.S. dollars, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The intervention proposed improved the frequency and clinical value of deprescribing decisions.

Deprescribing practice in a resource-limited setting: Healthcare providers' insights

AIMS

Inappropriate polypharmacy poses risks of adverse drug events, high healthcare costs and mortality. Deprescribing could minimise inappropriate polypharmacy and the consequences thereof. The aim of this study was to evaluate healthcare providers' (HCPs') attitudes toward and experiences with deprescribing practice in Ethiopia.

METHODS

We conducted an institution-based cross-sectional survey among HCPs at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, Ethiopia. We used a validated questionnaire developed by Linsky et al. The tool included questions that explore medication characteristics, current patient clinical factors, predictions of future health states, patients' resources to manage their own health and education and experience. One-way ANOVA was used to test the association between sociodemographic variables and their perception of deprescribing decisions.

RESULTS

Of 85 HCPs approached, about 82 HCPs completed the survey, giving a response rate of 96.5%. Most of the participants (n = 73, 89%) have scored less than 1.5 points showing they are reluctant to proactively deprescribe. Physicians seem to be affected by the significant physical health conditions (mean = 1.68) and clinical endpoint like blood pressure (mean = 1.5) to make deprescribing decisions. According to the post hoc analysis of one-way ANOVA, clinical pharmacists seemed to have a better attitude toward deprescribing decisions compared with physicians (P = .025).

CONCLUSION

HCPs' decision to discontinue a medication could be multifactorial. Physicians could be influenced by physical health condition and clinical endpoints for deprescribing decision. Future studies should emphasise on barriers and facilitators to deprescribing practice specific to the context in Ethiopia.

Deprescribing in the Older Patient: A Narrative Review of Challenges and Solutions

Polypharmacy is a major challenge in healthcare for older people, and is associated with increased risks of adverse outcomes, such as delirium, falls, frailty, cognitive impairment and hospitalization. There is significant public and professional interest in the role of deprescribing in reducing medication-related harms in older people. We aim to provide a narrative review of 1) the safety and efficacy of deprescribing interventions, 2) the challenges and solutions of deprescribing research and implementation in clinical practice, and 3) the benefits of using Computerized Clinical Decision Support Systems (CCDSS) and Quality Indicators (QIs) in deprescribing research and practice. Deprescribing is an established management strategy to minimize polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications. There is limited clinical evidence for its efficacy on global and geriatric outcomes. Various challenges at patient, healthcare professional and healthcare system levels may impact on the success of deprescribing interventions in research and practice. Management strategies that target all levels of the healthcare system are required to overcome these challenges. Future studies may consider large multicenter prospective designs to establish the effects and sustainability of deprescribing interventions on clinical outcomes.

A Digital Intervention for Primary Care Practitioners to Support Antidepressant Discontinuation (Advisor for Health Professionals): Development Study

BACKGROUND

The number of people receiving antidepressants has increased in the past 3 decades, mainly because of people staying on them longer. However, in many cases long-term treatment is not evidence based and risks increasing side effects. Additionally, prompting general practitioners (GPs) to review medication does not improve the rate of appropriate discontinuation. Therefore, GPs and other health professionals may need help to support patients discontinuing antidepressants in primary care.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to develop a digital intervention to support practitioners in helping patients discontinue inappropriate long-term antidepressants (as part of a wider intervention package including a patient digital intervention and patient telephone support).

METHODS

A prototype digital intervention called Advisor for Health Professionals (ADvisor HP) was planned and developed using theory, evidence, and a person-based approach. The following elements informed development: a literature review and qualitative synthesis, an in-depth qualitative study, the development of guiding principles for design elements, and theoretical behavioral analyses. The intervention was then optimized through think-aloud qualitative interviews with health professionals while they were using the prototype intervention.

RESULTS

Think-aloud qualitative interviews with 19 health professionals suggested that the digital intervention contained useful information and was readily accessible to practitioners. The development work highlighted a need for further guidance on drug tapering schedules for practitioners and clarity about who is responsible for broaching the subject of discontinuation. Practitioners highlighted the need to have information in easily and quickly accessible formats because of time constraints in day-to-day practice. Some GPs felt that some information was already known to them but understood why this was included. Practitioners differed in their ideas about how they would use ADvisor HP in practice, with some preferring to read the resource in its entirety and others wanting to dip in and out as needed. Changes were made to the wording and structure of the intervention in response to the feedback provided.

CONCLUSIONS

ADvisor HP is a digital intervention that has been developed using theory, evidence, and a person-based approach. The optimization work suggests that practitioners may find this tool to be useful in supporting the reduction of long-term antidepressant use. Further quantitative and qualitative evaluation through a randomized controlled trial is needed to examine the feasibility, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.

Leveraging implementation science to increase the translation of deprescribing evidence into practice

Implementation science may address some of the limitations that impede the translation of deprescribing recommendations into practice and policy. Application of principles and standard terminologies from implementation science could improve understanding and interpretation of deprescribing research findings. As such, in this commentary we propose three main avenues to help achieve this. These include: The application of these concepts derived from implementation science could help inform future deprescribing needs for clinicians and researchers. Ultimately, this could help ensure the quality use of medications and examination of meaningful outcomes in deprescribing studies. This could result in more consistent and widespread translation of deprescribing evidence into practice and policy across various healthcare settings.

Deprescribing: Moving beyond barriers and facilitators

Unnecessary polypharmacy continues to be a problem among older adults. The field of deprescribing (planned, supervised process of medication discontinuation) aims to address this problem. Deprescribing is a relatively new field despite having grown substantially in recent years. Much of the early research in this area focused on identifying barriers to and facilitators of deprescribing in clinical practice, which contributed to a large body of work on this topic. However, with continuing research around barriers and facilitators, we need to be mindful to undertake research that builds on existing knowledge, addresses known gaps, and advances the field. Additionally, there is a need in deprescribing research to shift focus to developing ways to address known barriers and harness knowledge of facilitators. That is, translating existing knowledge into strategies and tools that can impact clinical practice and lead to practical and sustained deprescribing efforts.

Interventions to reduce polypharmacy and optimize medication use in older adults with cancer

The use of polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) is an increasingly common, concerning public health issue in older adults, and a concurrent cancer diagnosis only further escalates the prevalence and complexity. Polypharmacy and PIM use has been associated with negative patient outcomes, including falls, chemotherapy toxicities and other adverse events, postoperative complications, frailty, functional impairment, and shortened survival. Despite the recognition of the harms, the prevalence of polypharmacy and PIM use continues to rise due to a lack of standardized identification and intervention methods. Efforts to reduce the prevalence have included use of explicit PIM screening tools (e.g., Beers criteria), comprehensive medication reviews, and deprescribing algorithms. However, these efforts are not widespread and the research on the effectiveness of such interventions is limited. To better understand what is known, this paper summarized available studies evaluating the effect of interventions on reducing the burden of polypharmacy/PIMs and provided recommendations to guide further practice models to reduce the negative consequences associated with polypharmacy and PIM use. Furthermore, we aim to establish a framework for clinical practice and to highlight areas for future intervention-based research to improve outcomes for older adults with cancer.

Guidance for appropriate use of psychotropic drugs in older people

Psychotropic drugs are widely prescribed in older people although their use is associated with important risks. In this position paper, we discuss the appropriateness of using these medications in older people in terms of different aspects such as indications, contraindications, dosing, adverse drug reactions, interactions and duration of therapy. Consequently, we discuss different strategies to increase the appropriateness of therapy while formulating some practical recommendations to keep in mind when (de)prescribing psychotropic drugs in older people.