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

Defining, identifying and addressing problematic polypharmacy within multimorbidity in primary care: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Polypharmacy and multimorbidity pose escalating challenges. Despite numerous attempts, interventions have yet to show consistent improvements in health outcomes. A key factor may be varied approaches to targeting patients for intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To explore how patients are targeted for intervention by examining the literature with respect to: understanding how polypharmacy is defined; identifying problematic polypharmacy in practice; and addressing problematic polypharmacy through interventions.

DESIGN

We performed a scoping review as defined by the Joanna Briggs Institute.

SETTING

The focus was on primary care settings.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Cochrane along with ClinicalTrials.gov, Science.gov and WorldCat.org were searched from January 2004 to February 2024.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included all articles that had a focus on problematic polypharmacy in multimorbidity and primary care, incorporating multiple types of evidence, such as reviews, quantitative trials, qualitative studies and policy documents. Articles focussing on a single index disease or not written in English were excluded.

EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a narrative synthesis, comparing themes and findings across the collective evidence to draw contextualised insights and conclusions.

RESULTS

In total, 157 articles were included. Case-finding methods often rely on basic medication counts (often five or more) without considering medical history or whether individual medications are clinically appropriate. Other approaches highlight specific drug indicators and interactions as potentially inappropriate prescribing, failing to capture a proportion of patients not fitting criteria. Different potentially inappropriate prescribing criteria also show significant inconsistencies in determining the appropriateness of medications, often neglecting to consider multimorbidity and underprescribing. This may hinder the identification of the precise population requiring intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved strategies are needed to target patients with polypharmacy, which should consider patient perspectives, individual factors and clinical appropriateness. The development of a cross-cutting measure of problematic polypharmacy that consistently incorporates adjustment for multimorbidity may be a valuable next step to address frequent confounding.

Association between patient attitudes towards deprescribing and subsequent prescription changes

Deprescribing is an essential component of safe prescribing, especially for people with higher levels of polypharmacy. Identifying individuals prepared to consider medicine changes may facilitate deprescribing-orientated reviews. We aimed to explore the relationship between revised patients' attitudes towards deprescribing (rPATD) scores and medication changes in older people prescribed ≥15 medicines. A secondary analysis of rPATD scores and prescription data from a cluster randomised controlled trial of a GP-delivered, deprescribing-orientated medication review was conducted. The association between number of medicines stopped, started and changed and baseline rPATD scores was assessed using Poisson regression, adjusting for patient age, gender, study group allocation, baseline number of medicines and effects of clustering. Participants (n = 404) had a mean age of 76.4 years and were prescribed a mean of 17.1 medicines at baseline. Willingness to stop a medicine was associated with higher rates of both deprescribing (IRR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.06-1.84) and initiating medicines (IRR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.09-1.88). Satisfaction with current medicines was associated with a lower rate of deprescribing (IRR: 0.69; 95% CI: 0.57-0.85). The rPATD questionnaire could be used as part of a deprescribing intervention to identify participants who may be prepared to engage in deprescribing, enabling more efficient use of clinician time during complex consultations.

Factors affecting clinical pharmacist decision-making when reviewing and prescribing z-drugs in primary care: a qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Z-drugs (zopiclone, zolpidem and zaleplon) are drugs with dependence forming characteristics licensed for the short-term management of insomnia. Patients regularly prescribed z-drugs are candidates for 'structured medication reviews', routinely delivered by pharmacists employed in general practice or primary care networks in England.

AIM

To understand the factors that affect pharmacist decision-making when reviewing and prescribing z-drugs in primary care.

METHOD

Qualitative semi-structured interviews with general practice based pharmacists were conducted using MS Teams®. Clinical vignettes to simulate real-world practice were sent to participants and then discussed at interview, followed by structured interview questions. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed to identify themes and sub-themes expressed by participants.

RESULTS

Three over-arching themes emerged over the course of qualitative interviews with 10 clinical pharmacists: the perceived role of the pharmacist in deprescribing, the decision-making process, and perceptions of best practice. Pharmacists highlighted that relationships with patients were an important foundation for medication reviews regarding z-drugs and that at times they felt pressure to continue prescribing z-drugs beyond their licensed use. Participants explored rule-based reasoning and compassionate care when rationalising their decision-making for reviewing and prescribing z-drugs.

CONCLUSION

Patient factors, time pressures, 'rule-based' beliefs and pharmacist self-efficacy were key practice aspects which can influence the pharmacist decision-making process when reviewing or prescribing z-drugs. Pharmacists believed z-drugs should be short-term interventions for insomnia, with non-pharmacological, holistic treatment being more appropriate for long term management.

The effectiveness and cost of integrating pharmacists within general practice to optimize prescribing and health outcomes in primary care patients with polypharmacy: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy and associated potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) place a considerable burden on patients and represent a challenge for general practitioners (GPs). Integration of pharmacists within general practice (herein 'pharmacist integration') may improve medications management and patient outcomes. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and costs of pharmacist integration.

METHODS

A systematic search of ten databases from inception to January 2021 was conducted. Studies that evaluated the effectiveness or cost of pharmacist integration were included. Eligible interventions were those that targeted medications optimization compared to usual GP care without pharmacist integration (herein 'usual care'). Primary outcomes were PIP (as measured by PIP screening tools) and number of prescribed medications. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, health service utilization, clinical outcomes, and costs. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, interrupted-time-series, controlled before-after trials and health-economic studies were included. Screening and risk of bias using Cochrane EPOC criteria were conducted by two reviewers independently. A narrative synthesis and meta-analysis of outcomes where possible, were conducted; the certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

In total, 23 studies (28 full text articles) met the inclusion criteria. In ten of 11 studies, pharmacist integration probably reduced PIP in comparison to usual care (moderate certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of number of medications in seven studies reported a mean difference of -0.80 [-1.17, -0.43], which indicated pharmacist integration probably reduced number of medicines (moderate certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether pharmacist integration improved health-related quality of life because the certainty of evidence was very low. Twelve health-economic studies were included; three investigated cost effectiveness. The outcome measured differed across studies limiting comparisons and making it difficult to make conclusions on cost effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacist integration probably reduced PIP and number of medications however, there was no clear effect on other patient outcomes; and while interventions in a small number of studies appeared to be cost-effective, further robust, well-designed cluster RCTs with economic evaluations are required to determine cost-effectiveness of pharmacist integration.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42019139679.