The potential for deprescribing in care home residents with Type 2 diabetes

Exploring the Policies Applied to Pharmaceutical Care Practice for Type 2 Diabetes over the Last Decade in European Community Pharmacies

In the last decade (2010–2020), more than half of European countries have improved their health policies within the primary care for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Community pharmacies have been and could continue to be essential actors in this evolution of fighting the disease by providing a set of pharmacotherapeutic follow-up services for the person with diabetes. These services, designated by the Pharmaceutical Group of the European Union as “diabetes management” and “glucose measurement”, have aimed to optimize adherence to therapy and improve health outcomes. However, to follow the European guidelines of Good Pharmacy Practice, providing these services implies having a normative framework or a legal basis. Thus, this study sought to analyze the normative and regulatory framework on which community pharmacies in 28 European countries were based on providing this health care over the last decade.

Pharmacist-led intervention on the reduction of inappropriate medication use in patients with heart failure: A systematic review of randomized trials and non-randomized intervention studies

BACKGROUND

Polipharmacy has been identified as a contributing factor to the high hospital readmission rates of heart failure (HF) patients. Nevertheless, there limited evidence on pharmacist-led intervention on the reduction of inappropriate medication use in patients.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the available evidence resulting from interventions, led by pharmacists (alone or as part of a professional team), aimed at reducing inappropriate medications in patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using MEDLINE through PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and Scopus until June 2020. We reviewed both randomized controlled trials and non-randomized intervention studies.The quality of evidence was assessed in accordance with the modified Cochrane Collaboration tool to assess risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. The search and extraction process followed PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

Of the 4367 records screening, 9 studies were included in the analysis. In 4 (44.4%) studies, the intervention was carried out by a pharmacist working together with a physician; in 4 (44.4%) the intervention was carried out by a pharmacist alone, and in 1 study, the pharmacist collaborated with a nurse. Only 5 (55.5%) studies described the utilization of guidelines or recommendations to carry out the deprescription, and 3 of these showed improved clinical outcomes in the interventional group compared to the control group. The other studies (4, 44.4%) did not follow a specific guideline or recommendation to evaluate the appropriateness of medication, and none of them showed statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes between interventional and control groups.

CONCLUSION

Only those studies where pharmacists evaluated the appropriateness of treatment to specific HF guidelines showed significant differences in patients' clinical outcomes. The development and validation of a specific tool to evaluate medication appropriateness in patients with HF, could contribute to the improvement of patient health.

Potential Overtreatment and Undertreatment of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in Long-Term Care Facilities: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence, outcomes, and factors associated with potential glycemic overtreatment and undertreatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in long-term care facilities (LTCFs).

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Residents with T2DM and aged ≥60 years living in LTCFs.

MEASURES

Articles published between January 2000 and September 2020 were retrieved following a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL plus, and gray literature. Inclusion criteria were the reporting of (1) potential overtreatment and undertreatment quantitatively defined (implicitly or explicitly) based on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and/or blood glucose; (2) prevalence, outcomes, and associated factors of potential glycemic overtreatment and undertreatment; and (3) the study involved residents of LTCFs.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were included. Prevalence of potential overtreatment (5%-86%, n = 15 studies) and undertreatment (1.4%-35%, n = 8 studies) varied widely among facilities and geographical locations, and according to definitions used. Prevalence of potential overtreatment was 16%-74% when defined as treatment with a glucose-lowering medication in a resident with ≥1 hypoglycemia risk factor or serious comorbidity, together with a HbA1c <7% (n = 10 studies). Potential undertreatment was commonly defined as residents on glucose-lowering medication having HbA1c >8.5% and the prevalence 1.4%-14.8% (n = 6 studies). No studies prospectively measured resident health outcomes from overtreatment and undertreatment. Potential overtreatment was positively associated with use of oral glucose-lowering medications, dementia diagnosis or dementia severity, and/or need for assistance with activities of daily living (n = 2 studies). Negative association was found between potential overtreatment and use of insulin/combined insulin and oral glucose-lowering medication. No studies reported factors associated with potential undertreatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

The prevalence of potential glycemic overtreatment and undertreatment varied widely among residents with T2DM depending on the definition(s) used in each study. Longitudinal studies examining associations between glycemic management and health outcomes, and the use of consensus definitions of overtreatment and undertreatment are required to establish findings about actual glycemic overtreatment and undertreatment in LTCFs.

Association between control of diabetes mellitus and polypharmacy at the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil)

PURPOSE

To determine whether desirable diabetes control is associated with polypharmacy and to evaluate potential drug interactions (DI) in participants with diabetes mellitus in the Brazilian Longitudinal Study on Adult Health (ELSA-Brasil).

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 1418 participants with medical diagnosis of diabetes at study baseline (2008-2010). Polypharmacy was defined as the use of ≥5 drugs. We described the frequency of the most common pharmacological groups used by patients and the potential DI.The association between desirable diabetes control (normal A1c, blood pressure and lipid levels) and polypharmacy was investigated using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Most participants were men (52.5%), mean age 57.6 (SD 8.4) years, educated to the university level (39.4%), and self-reported as white (42.9%). In this study, 7.1% (n = 101) of participants had desirable control of diabetes, while 40.4% (n = 573) used polypharmacy, and this use was not significantly associated with better diabetes control (adjusted odds ratio (OR = 1.35 [95%CI 0.86-2.13] P = .19).The pharmacological groups most frequently used were oral antidiabetics followed by acetylsalicylic acid, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE inhibitors) and statins.The prevalence of potentially mild, moderate and severe DI were, respectively, 2.5%, 14.7% and 0.9%; however, in the desirable control of DM group, these potential DI were related to comorbidity control.

CONCLUSION

Faced with the importance of achieving optimal control of diabetes and minimizing risks of potential DI, these results, which are in keeping with previous findings described in the literature, might indicate that guidelines for the patient-centered management of control of diabetes must be revised.

Deprescribing: Polypharmacy management in older adults with comorbidities

In today's clinical landscape, the simultaneous use of multiple drugs to treat a single condition has become a major patient safety issue. Recent evidence suggests a need to identify deprescribing opportunities in the management of polypharmacy. NPs, as clinical gatekeepers, are in a key position to spearhead deprescribing best practices, specifically as they relate to older adults with multiple medication regimens.

Deintensification in older patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review of approaches, rates and outcomes

AIM

To assess deintensification approaches and rates and evaluate the harm and benefits of deintensification with antidiabetic medication and other therapies among older people (≥ 65 years) with type 2 diabetes with or without cardiometabolic conditions.

METHODS

We identified relevant studies in a literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane databases to 30 October 2018. Data were extracted on baseline characteristics, details on deintensification and outcomes, and was synthesized using a narrative approach.

RESULTS

Ten studies (observational cohorts and interventional studies) with data on 26 558 patients with comorbidities were eligible. Deintensification approaches included complete withdrawal, discontinuation, reducing dosage, conversion, or substitution of at least one medication, but the majority of studies were based on complete withdrawal or discontinuation of antihyperglycaemic medication. Rates of deintensification approaches ranged from 13.4%-75%. The majority of studies reported no deterioration in HbA1c levels, hypoglycaemic episodes, falls or hospitalizations on deintensification. On adverse events and mortality, no significant differences were observed among the comparison groups in the majority of studies.

CONCLUSION

Available but limited evidence suggests that the benefits of deintensification outweigh the harm in older people with type 2 diabetes with or without comorbidities. Given the heterogeneity of patients with diabetes, further research is warranted on which deintensification approaches are appropriate and beneficial for each specific patient population.

Deintensification of hypoglycaemic medications-use of a systematic review approach to highlight safety concerns in older people with type 2 diabetes

IMPORTANCE

Intensive treatment of older people with diabetes is common placing them at increased risk of adverse events such as hypoglycaemia and hospitalisation for drug errors. Little is known about when, how or for whom to deintensify hypoglycaemic medications.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the characteristics of patients for whom deintensification is appropriate and to determine the outcome of deintensification.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Medline, Google scholar and EmBase search from 1997 to present was performed using keywords relating to diabetes mellitus, polypharmacy, hypoglycaemia, hospitalisation, deintensification, deprescribing and reduction, simplification or withdrawal of hypoglycaemic medications. Only English language articles were selected. Articles were reviewed for relevance by abstract. A manual review of citations in retrieved articles was performed in addition to the electronic literature search.

FINDINGS

Those who are over treated appear to be of older age group, frail with weight loss and have multiple medical morbidities especially renal impairment and dementia. Simplification, reduction or even complete withdrawal of hypoglycaemic medications in these patients appears to be feasible without deterioration of glycaemic control.

CONCLUSIONS

Over treatment is common in frail older people with multiple comorbidities and deintensification appears safe in this group of patients. Current recommendations emphasise preventing underuse rather than overuse of medications, and therefore, a change in guidelines advice may be warranted.

Minimally Disruptive Medicine for Patients with Diabetes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patients with diabetes must deal with the burden of symptoms and complications (burden of illness). Simultaneously, diabetes care demands practical and emotional work from patients and their families, work to access and use healthcare and to enact self-care (burden of treatment). Patient work must compete with the demands of family, job, and community life. Overwhelmed patients may not have the capacity to access care or enact self-care and will thus experience suboptimal diabetes outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

Minimally disruptive medicine (MDM) is a patient-centered approach to healthcare that prioritizes patients' goals for life and health while minimizing the healthcare disruption on patients' lives. In patients with diabetes, particularly in those with complex lives and multimorbidity, MDM coordinates healthcare and community responses to improve outcomes, reduce treatment burden, and enable patients to pursue their life's hopes and dreams.