Does Deprescribing Improve Quality of Life? A Systematic Review of the Literature

Deprescribing: An umbrella review

This umbrella review examined systematic reviews of deprescribing studies by characteristics of intervention, population, medicine, and setting. Clinical and humanistic outcomes, barriers and facilitators, and tools for deprescribing are presented. The Medline database was used. The search was limited to systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in English up to April 2022. Reviews reporting deprescribing were included, while those where depre-scribing was not planned and supervised by a healthcare professional were excluded. A total of 94 systematic reviews (23 meta--analyses) were included. Most explored clinical or humanistic outcomes (70/94, 74 %); less explored attitudes, facilitators, or barriers to deprescribing (17/94, 18 %); few focused on tools (8/94, 8.5 %). Reviews assessing clinical or humanistic outcomes were divided into two groups: reviews with deprescribing intervention trials (39/70, 56 %; 16 reviewing specific deprescribing interventions and 23 broad medication optimisation interventions), and reviews with medication cessation trials (31/70, 44 %). Deprescribing was feasible and resulted in a reduction of inappropriate medications in reviews with deprescribing intervention trials. Complex broad medication optimisation interventions were shown to reduce hospitalisation, falls, and mortality rates. In reviews of medication cessation trials, a higher frequency of adverse drug withdrawal events underscores the importance of prioritizing patient safety and exercising caution when stopping medicines, particularly in patients with clear and appropriate indications.

Measuring Quality of Life in Deprescribing Trials: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework: osf.io/aez6w.

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.

Antidepressant deprescribing: State of the art and recommendations-A literature overview

INTRODUCTION

In recent years, the consumption of antidepressants has arisen. However, deprescribing antidepressant therapy is very complicated. The aim of this study was to implement practical recommendations for the development of guidelines to be used for antidepressant deprescription in clinical practice.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The literature search has been conducted on March 13, 2023, using Scopus and PubMed databases. The following search string has been used: "antidepressants AND (deprescribing OR deprescription)". All studies reporting a deprescribing intervention for antidepressant medication, regardless of the study design, have been included. Studies that did not report antidepressant drug deprescription interventions and non-English-language papers have been excluded.

RESULTS

From the literature search, a total of 230 articles have been extracted. Applying the exclusion criteria, 26 articles have been considered eligible. Most of the analyzed studies (16, 61%) have been carried out in the real world, 3 (11%) were RCTs, 5 (19%) were qualitative studies, in particular expert opinions, 1 (4%) was a literature review, and 1 (4%) was a post-trial observational follow-up of an RCT. In 8 out of 26 studies (31%), the analyzed antidepressants have been specified: 2 (8%) focused on anticholinergics, 2 (8%) on SSRIs, 3 (11%) on tricyclic antidepressants, and 1 (4%) on esketamine. Nineteen out of 26 studies (73%) did not stratify antidepressants by therapeutic class. The sample sizes analyzed in the studies ranged from a minimum of 4 patients to a maximum of 113,909, and 12 studies included geriatric age as an inclusion criterion. A patient's therapy review has been the main deprescribing intervention, and it has been identified in 14 (54%) articles. Interventions have been carried out by clinicians in 4 (15%) studies, general practitioners in 5 (19%) studies, nurses in 2 (8%) studies, pharmacists in 4 (15%) studies, multidisciplinary teams in 10 (38%) studies, and patients in 1 (4%) study.

CONCLUSIONS

From the literature review, it emerged that there is no clear evidence useful to support clinicians in antidepressant deprescribing interventions.

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.

Polypharmacy in the Cardiovascular Geriatric Critical Care Population: Improving Outcomes

The cardiovascular geriatric population requiring intensive or critical care is a group vulnerable to adverse outcomes because of age, the critical care environment, geriatric syndromes, and multiple chronic conditions. Polypharmacy increases the risk of adverse events in this group. Several tools and aids are available to guide the clinical practice of appropriate prescribing and deprescribing. To optimize the care of the cardiovascular geriatric population, evidence-based prescribing, and deprescribing tools can be implemented by the interprofessional team consisting of the patient, their support system, critical care nurses, advanced practice clinicians, physicians, and allied health professionals.

Impact of deprescribing intervention on potentially inappropriate medications and clinical outcomes among hospitalized older adults in Malaysia: a randomized controlled trial (REVMED RCT) protocol

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy and the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are prevalent among older patients admitted to hospitals, posing a heightened risk of adverse drug events. This trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention in reducing medications, PIM and improving clinical outcomes, using the locally developed Malaysian Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing Screening tool in Older Adults (MALPIP).

METHODS

This is an 18-month cluster-randomized, open-label, parallel-arm controlled trial conducted at 14 public hospitals in the Perak state of Malaysia. Patients aged 60 and above, who have at least one medication and one comorbidity are eligible. A stratified-cluster randomization design is employed, with 7 hospitals assigned to the control arm and 7 hospitals assigned to the intervention arm. The MALPIP screening tool will be used in the intervention group to review the medications. If PIM is detected, the pharmacists will discuss with doctors and decide whether to stop or reduce the dose. The primary outcomes of this trial are the total number of medications and number of PIM. The secondary outcomes include fall, emergency department visits, readmissions, quality of life and mortality. Outcomes will be measured during enrolment, discharge, 6, 12, and 18 months.

DISCUSSION

This REVMED trial aims to test the hypothesis that a pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention initiated in the hospital will reduce the total number of medications and PIM 18 months after hospital discharge, reducing fall, emergency department visits, readmissions, mortality and lead to improvement in quality of life. Trial findings will quantify the clinical outcomes associated with reducing medications and PIM for hospitalized older adults with polypharmacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This trial was prospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT05875623) on the 25th of May 2023. NCT05875623 Clinicaltrials.gov URL: NCT05875623 registered on 25th July 2023.

Attitudes and beliefs of older adults and caregivers towards deprescribing in French-speaking countries: a multicenter cross-sectional study

PURPOSE

Successful deprescribing requires understanding the attitudes of older adults and caregivers towards this process. This study aimed to capture these attitudes in four French-speaking countries and to investigate associated factors.

METHODS

A multicenter cross-sectional study was conducted by administrating the French version of the revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire in Belgium, Canada, France, and Switzerland. Community-dwelling or nursing home older adults ≥ 65 years taking ≥ 1 prescribed medications and caregivers of older adults with similar characteristics were included. Multivariate logistic regressions were carried out to examine factors associated with willingness to deprescribe.

RESULTS

A total of 367 older adults (79.3 ± 8.7 years, 63% community-dwelling, 54% ≥ 5 medications) and 255 unrelated caregivers (64.4 ± 12.6 years) of care recipients (83.4 ± 7.9 years, 52% community-dwelling, 69% ≥ 5 medications) answered the questionnaire. Among them, 87.5% older adults and 75.6% caregivers would be willing to stop medications if the physician said it was possible. Reluctance to stop a medication taken for a long time was expressed by 46% of both older adults and caregivers. A low score for the factor "concerns about stopping" (older adults: aOR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.07-0.59), and a high score for the factor "involvement" (older adults: aOR: 2.66; 95% CI: 1.01-7.07; caregivers: aOR: 11.28; 95% CI: 1.48-85.91) were associated with willingness to deprescribe.

CONCLUSIONS

A significant proportion of older adults and caregivers of French-speaking countries are open to deprescribing. Despite this apparent willingness, deprescribing conversations in clinical practice remains marginal, emphasizing the importance of optimizing the integration of existing tools such as rPATD.

Improvement in prescriptions while maintaining overall health outcomes: a prospective observational study conducted in Japanese facilities for older people

Background

Improvements in the use of polypharmacy or potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) may reduce medication costs in Japan. We aimed to evaluate the impact of improvement in prescription on both overall health outcomes and medication costs in Japanese facilities for older people.

Methods

Residents in Japanese facilities for older people between March 2019 and March 2020 were included in this study. The following five indices were used to evaluate overall health outcomes: EuroQoL-5D-5L, Barthel Index, Mini Mental State Examination, Dementia Behaviour Disturbance Scale, and Vitality Index. The team, which consisted of one physician and several pharmacists, suggested improved prescriptions for the attending physicians of the participants. The impact of improvement in prescriptions on the health outcomes score, medication costs, and the number of medications were evaluated through two comparison groups: those whose number of medications decreased (decrement group, DG) and those whose medications did not (not decrement group, NDG); those prescribed PIMs in March 2019 and those not prescribed PIMs in March 2020 (improvement group, IG) and those prescribed PIMs both in March 2019 and March 2020 (not improvement group, NIG). In both comparison groups, propensity score matching was performed to balance demographics, and all health outcome scores, medication costs, and the number of medications in March 2020 were assessed using a t-test. Statistical significance was set at a p-value of < 0.05.

Results

Eight-hundred-and-ninety-one participants (75.5% women, 86.2 ± 7.9 years old) were enrolled. After matching, in the comparison between the DG (N = 232, 77.2%, 85.7 ± 8.5) and NDG (N = 232, 78.5%, 86.0 ± 3.1), changes in the health outcomes score were nonsignificant. However, the medication costs and the number of medications significantly decreased. After matching, in the comparison between IG (N = 141, 75.2%, 86.7 ± 8.1) and NIG (N = 273, 74.2%, 86.2 ± 8.3), changes in health outcome scores and medication costs were not significant. However, the number of medications significantly decreased.

Conclusions

Improvements in prescriptions did not adversely affect the overall health outcomes. However, it impacted medication costs and the number of medications. Improvement in prescriptions could decrease medication costs while maintaining overall health outcomes.

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.

Prevalence and Predictors of Potentially Inappropriate Medications Among Patients Aged ≥65 Years on Hospital Admissions in Kuwait

BACKGROUND

Potentially inappropriate medications are major health concerns for patients aged ≥65 years. To investigate the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications, Beer's criteria can be used. We estimated the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications prescription among patients aged ≥65 years admitted to Kuwait's largest hospital and identified the predictors of prescribing a potentially inappropriate medication.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted retrospectively using inpatient records from the medical department at the Hospital in Kuwait from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2019. The latest version of Beer's criteria was used to identify potentially inappropriate medications in patients' medical records. Data were analyzed descriptively to estimate the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications and to describe participant characteristics. The predictors of potentially inappropriate medications prescribing were determined using binary logistic regression.

RESULTS

A total of 423 medical records of patients were collected. The mean age of the patients admitted was 76 ± 7 years, and 222 of them (52.5%) were women. Upon hospital admission, potentially inappropriate medication was prevalent in 58.4% of patients. The most prevalent potentially inappropriate medications identified were proton pump inhibitors (27.3%), diuretics (21.5%), antipsychotic agents (9%), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (5%), and methyldopa (4%). Polypharmacy, Alzheimer's disease, depression, irritable bowel syndrome, hypothyroidism, chronic kidney disease were predictors of potentially inappropriate medications prescription.

CONCLUSION

A high prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication prescription was observed among patients aged ≥65 years admitted to a hospital in Kuwait. The most likely predictor of potentially inappropriate medication prescription was polypharmacy.

Avoidable Adverse Events Related to Ignoring the Do-Not-Do Recommendations: A Retrospective Cohort Study Conducted in the Spanish Primary Care Setting

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to measure the frequency and severity of avoidable adverse events (AAEs) related to ignoring do-not-do recommendations (DNDs) in primary care.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study analyzing the frequency and severity of AAEs related to ignoring DNDs (7 from family medicine and 3 from pediatrics) was conducted in Spain. Data were randomly extracted from computerized electronic medical records by a total of 20 general practitioners and 5 pediatricians acting as reviewers; data between February 2018 and September 2019 were analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 2557 records of adult and pediatric patients were reviewed. There were 1859 (72.7%) of 2557 (95% confidence interval [CI], 71.0%-74.4%) DNDs actions in 1307 patients (1507 were performed by general practitioners and 352 by pediatricians). Do-not-do recommendations were ignored more often in female patients (P < 0.0001). Sixty-nine AAEs were linked to ignoring DNDs (69/1307 [5.3%]; 95% CI, 4.1%-6.5%). Of those, 54 (5.1%) of 1062 were in adult patients (95% CI, 3.8%-6.4%) and 15 (6.1%) of 245 in pediatric patients (95% CI, 3.1%-9.1%). In adult patients, the majority of AAEs (51/901 [5.7%]; 95% CI, 4.2%-7.2%) occurred in patients 65 years or older. Most AAEs were characterized by temporary minor harm both in adult patients (28/54 [51.9%]; 95% CI, 38.5%-65.2%) and pediatric patients (15/15 [100%]).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide a new perspective about the consequences of low-value practices for the patients and the health care systems. Ignoring DNDs could place patients at risk, and their safety might be unnecessarily compromised.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03482232.

Effects of an interprofessional deprescribing intervention in Swiss nursing homes: the Individual Deprescribing Intervention (IDeI) randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) has been shown to be beneficial to nursing home (NH) residents' health. Medication reviews are the most widely studied deprescribing intervention; in a previous trial, we showed that another intervention, a deprescribing-focused interprofessional quality circle, can reduce the use of inappropriate medications at the NH level. However, this intervention cannot account for the variety of the residents' clinical situations. Therefore, we trialled a subsequent intervention in NH that enacted the quality circle intervention in the previous year.

METHODS

In 7 NHs, the most heavily medicated residents were recruited and randomised to receive usual care or the intervention. The intervention was a pharmacist-led, deprescribing-focused medication review, followed by the creation of an individualised treatment modification plan in collaboration with nurses and physicians. Intervention's effects were assessed after four months on the number and dose of PIMs used, quality of life, and safety outcomes (mortality, hospitalisations, falls, and use of physical restraints). Data were analysed using Poisson multivariate regression models.

RESULTS

Sixty-two NH residents participated, falling short of the expected 100 participants; 4 died before initial data collection. Participants used a very high number of drugs (median 15, inter-quartile range [12-19]) and PIMs (median 5, IQR [3-7]) at baseline. The intervention did not reduce the number of PIMs prescribed to the participants; however, it significantly decreased their dose (incidence rate ratio 0.763, CI95 [0.594; 0.979]), in particular for chronic drugs (IRR 0.716, CI95 [0.546; 0.938]). No adverse effects were seen on mortality, hospitalisations, falls, and restraints use, but, in the intervention group, three participants experienced adverse events that required the reintroduction of withdrawn treatments, and a decrease in quality of life is possible.

CONCLUSIONS

As it did not reach its recruitment target, this trial should be seen as exploratory. Results indicate that, following a NH-level deprescribing intervention, a resident-level intervention can further reduce some aspects of PIMs use. Great attention must be paid to residents' well-being when further developing such deprescribing interventions, as a possible reduction in quality of life was found in the intervention group, and some participants suffered adverse events following deprescribing.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03688542, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03688542 ), registered on 31.08.2018.

Prospective cohort study of nonspecific deprescribing in older medical inpatients being discharged to a nursing home

Background:

Older patients from nursing homes are commonly exposed to polypharmacy before a hospital admission. Deprescribing has been promoted as a solution to this problem, though systematic reviews have not found benefit. The aim of this study was to understand if in-hospital deprescribing of certain classes of medications is associated with certain benefits or risks.

Methods:

We conducted a prospective, multicentre, cohort study in 239 medical inpatients ⩾75 years (mean age 87.4 years) who were exposed to polypharmacy (⩾5 medications) prior to admission and discharged to a nursing home for permanent placement. Patients were categorised by whether deprescribing occurred, mortality and readmissions were assessed 30 and 90 days after hospital discharge. The EQ-5D-5 L health survey assessed changes in health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 90 days, with comparison to EQ-5D-5 L results at day 30. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to investigate associations between patterns of prescribed and deprescribed medications and mortality.

Results:

Patients for whom deprescribing occurred had a higher Charlson Index; there were no differences between the groups in principal diagnosis, total or Beers list number of medications on admission. The number of Beers list medications increased in both groups before discharge. Patients who had medications deprescribed had nonsignificantly greater odds of dying within 90 days [odds ration (OR) = 3.23 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.68, 14.92; p = 0.136]. Deprescribing of certain classes was associated with higher 90-day mortality: antihypertensives (OR = 2.27, 95% CI: 1.004, 5; p = 0.049) and statins (OR = 5, 95% CI: 1.61, 14.28; p = 0.005). Readmissions and 1-year mortality rates were similar. There was no deterioration in HRQOL when medications were deprescribed. LCA showed that patients with the least medication changes had the lowest mortality.

Conclusion:

Deprescribing certain classes of medications during hospitalisation was associated with worse mortality, but not readmissions or overall HRQOL. Larger controlled deprescribing studies targeting specific medications are warranted to further investigate these findings.

This study was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN1 2616001336471.

Plain language summary

Background: When an older person living in a nursing home is admitted to hospital, does stopping long-term medications help them?

Many older people from nursing homes take a large number of medications each day to treat symptoms and prevent adverse events. “Polypharmacy” is a term used to describe taking multiple long-term medications, and it is associated with many negative outcomes such as increased number of falls, cognitive decline, hospital readmission, even death. Deprescribing of nonessential medications – whether stopping or reducing the dose – is promoted as good hospital practice and is assumed to help older frail people live longer and feel better. However, we often don’t fully understand what is and is not essential.

We wanted to better understand the effect of deprescribing long-term medications for older frail patients during an unplanned hospital admission as they were going to a nursing home to live.

Methods: While admitted to hospital, medications are often reviewed by a clinical pharmacist and specialist physician. Sometimes medications are ceased; sometimes they are not. This gave us the opportunity to study two groups of older frail people from nursing homes: those who had regular, long-term medications ceased or reduced and those who did not. We wanted to see if one group did better. For example, did they feel worse if we stopped certain medications? Did they suffer other bad events compared with those patients for whom no medications were ceased? Were they readmitted to hospital earlier or more often?

Results and conclusion: Despite the assumption that stopping medications for this type of patient is good practice, we found no benefit. We were also surprised to find stopping or reducing certain drug classes (e.g. antihypertensives and cholesterol-lowering drugs) was associated with greater mortality. Larger, randomised studies will better answer these important questions.

Impact of deprescribing dual-purpose medications on patient-related outcomes for older adults near end-of-life: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction:

The decision to deprescribe medications used for both disease prevention and symptom control (dual-purpose medications or DPMs) is often challenging for clinicians. We aim to establish the impact of deprescribing DPMs on patient-related outcomes for older adults near end-of-life (EOL).

Methods:

This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guideline. Literature was searched on PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Google Scholar until December 2019 for studies on deprescribing intervention with a control group (with or without randomisation); targeting ⩾65-year olds, at EOL, with at least one life-limiting illness and at least one potentially inappropriate DPM. We were interested in any patient-related outcomes. Studies with similar outcome assessment criteria were subjected to meta-analysis and narrative synthesis otherwise. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias and ROBINS-I tools for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental non-randomised controlled studies, respectively.

Results:

Five studies covering 689 participants with mean age 81.6–85.7 years, the majority (74.6–100%) with dementia were included. The risk of bias was moderate to low. The deprescribing of DPMs lowered the risk of mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.44–0.79) and referral to acute care facilities (RR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.22–0.73), but did not have a significant impact on the risk of falls, non-vertebral fracture, emergency presentation, unplanned hospital admission, or general practitioner visits. No significant difference was observed in the quality of life, physical and cognitive functions between the intervention and control groups.

Conclusion:

There is some evidence that deprescribing of DPMs for older adults near the EOL can lower the risk of mortality and referral to acute care facilities, but there are insufficient good-quality studies powered to confirm a benefit in terms of quality of life, physical or cognitive function, health service utilisation and adverse events.

Plain Language Summary

What is the health impact of withdrawal or dose reduction of medication used for disease prevention and symptom control in older adults near end-of-life?

Introduction: Older adults (aged ⩾ 65 years) with advanced diseases such as cancer, dementia, and organ failure tend to have a limited life expectancy. With the progression of these diseases towards the end-of-life, the intensity for day-to-day supportive care becomes increasingly necessary. The use of medications for symptom management is a critical part of such care, but the use of medications for long-term disease prevention can become irrelevant due to the already shortened life expectancy and may become harmful due to alterations in physiology and pharmacology associated with age and frailty. This necessitates the withdrawal or dose reduction of inappropriate medications, the process called deprescribing. The decision to deprescribe medications used for both disease prevention and symptom control (DPMs) in this population is often challenging for clinicians. In this context, whether deprescribing of DPMs can improve patient-related health outcomes is unknown.

Methods: Evidence from the literature was reviewed and analysed, and the quality of studies was assessed. Five studies were identified, which had 689 participants with an average age above 80 years and mostly suffering from dementia.

Results: The analysis of these studies showed deprescribing of DPMs lowered the risk of death and referral to acute care facilities at 12 months but had no significant impact on falls, non-vertebral fractures, emergency presentations, unplanned hospital admission, general practitioner visits, quality of life, physical and mental functions.

Conclusion: In conclusion, there were insufficient numbers of high-quality studies powered to confirm whether deprescribing of DPMs reduces adverse events, health service use, or improves the quality of life or functioning in older adults near the end of life.

Community-based pharmacists' role in deprescribing: A systematic review

AIMS

Community-based pharmacists are an important stakeholder in providing continuing care for chronic multi-morbid patients, and their role is steadily expanding. The aim of this study is to examine the literature exploring community-based pharmacist-initiated and/or -led deprescribing and to evaluate the impact on the success of deprescribing and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Library and clinical trials databases were searched from inception to March 2020. Studies were included if they explored deprescribing in adults, by community-based pharmacists and were available in English. Two reviewers extracted data independently using a pre-agreed data extraction template. Meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity of study designs, types of intervention and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies were included in the review. Results were grouped based on intervention method into four categories: educational interventions; interventions involving medication review, consultation or therapy management; pre-defined pharmacist-led deprescribing interventions; and pharmacist-led collaborative interventions. All types of interventions resulted in greater discontinuation of medications in comparison to usual care. Educational interventions reported financial benefits as well. Medication review by community-based pharmacist can lead to successful deprescribing of high-risk medication, but do not affect the risk or rate of falls, rate of hospitalisations, mortality or quality of life. Pharmacist-led medication review, in patients with mental illness, resulting in deprescribing improves anticholinergic side effects, memory and quality of life. Pre-defined pharmacist-led deprescribing did not reduce healthcare resource consumptions but can contribute to financial savings. Short follow-up periods prevent evaluation of long-term sustainability of deprescribing interventions.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review suggests community-based pharmacists can lead deprescribing interventions and that they are valuable partners in deprescribing collaborations, providing necessary monitoring throughout tapering and post-follow-up to ensure the success of an intervention.

The effects of in-hospital deprescribing on potential prescribing omission in hospitalized elderly patients with polypharmacy

No studies to investigate the effect of a deprescribing intervention on the occurrence of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) among elderly patients with polypharmacy have been conducted. Therefore, the effect of deprescribing on PPOs among elderly patients with polypharmacy was investigated. All 121 consecutive elderly patients who received in-hospital deprescribing interventions were evaluated. The primary outcome was any occurrence of PPOs based on the 2015 STOPP/START criteria. The proportion of patients who had any PPOs significantly increased after the deprescribing interventions (52.9% vs 77.7%, p < 0.001). In the multivariable analysis, older age was the only independent risk factor associated with an increased risk of any PPOs after the deprescribing interventions (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.16). In-hospital deprescribing interventions for elderly patients with polypharmacy may increase the occurrence of PPOs. Further study is warranted to investigate the effects on clinical outcomes of the increased occurrence of PPOs due to the deprescribing intervention.

A systematic review of the evidence for deprescribing interventions among older people living with frailty

BACKGROUND

Older people living with frailty are often exposed to polypharmacy and potential harm from medications. Targeted deprescribing in this population represents an important component of optimizing medication. This systematic review aims to summarise the current evidence for deprescribing among older people living with frailty.

METHODS

The literature was searched using Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library up to May 2020. Interventional studies with any design or setting were included if they reported deprescribing interventions among people aged 65+ who live with frailty identified using reliable measures. The primary outcome was safety of deprescribing; whereas secondary outcomes included clinical outcomes, medication-related outcomes, feasibility, acceptability and cost-related outcomes. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise findings and study quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklists.

RESULTS

Two thousand three hundred twenty-two articles were identified and six (two randomised controlled trials) were included with 657 participants in total (mean age range 79-87 years). Studies were heterogeneous in their designs, settings and outcomes. Deprescribing interventions were pharmacist-led (n = 3) or multidisciplinary team-led (n = 3). Frailty was identified using several measures and deprescribing was implemented using either explicit or implicit tools or both. Three studies reported safety outcomes and showed no significant changes in adverse events, hospitalisation or mortality rates. Three studies reported positive impact on clinical outcomes including depression, mental health status, function and frailty; with mixed findings on falls and cognition; and no significant impact on quality of life. All studies described medication-related outcomes and reported a reduction in potentially inappropriate medications and total number of medications per-patient. Feasibility of deprescribing was reported in four studies which showed that 72-91% of recommendations made were implemented. Two studies evaluated and reported the acceptability of their interventions and further two described cost saving.

CONCLUSION

There is a paucity of research about the impact of deprescribing in older people living with frailty. However, included studies suggest that deprescribing could be safe, feasible, well tolerated and can lead to important benefits. Research should now focus on understanding the impact of deprescribing on frailty status in high risk populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The review was registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) ID number: CRD42019153367 .

Effectiveness and sustainability of deprescribing for hospitalized older patients near end of life: a systematic review

Introduction: Polypharmacy is prevalent in hospitals and deprescribing strategies for older people are strongly promoted. However, evidence of their feasibility and sustainability among patients receiving end of life care is lacking. The objective of this review was to ascertain effectiveness and post-discharge sustainability of hospital-initiated deprescribing strategies in older people near the end of life. Areas covered: The authors searched for controlled trials, with low risk of bias and measures of effectiveness post-discharge. Intervention description, duration, and healthcare provider engagement were investigated for their impact on reduction of number of medications, proportions of patients prescribed inappropriate medications, returns to emergency, hospital admission and adverse events. Expert opinion: Limited evidence suggests hospital-initiated deprescribing interventions may reduce prescribing inappropriateness among older terminal patients in the short term, but evidence beyond 3 months is lacking for significant prevention of adverse events or health service utilization. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis, and short follow-up periods precluded quantitative assessment of sustainability. Trials of older people with terminal conditions with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods are needed to confirm the effectiveness and sustainability of deprescribing at the end of life. Objective tools to reliably identify near end-of-life status would be useful in selecting target groups for these interventions.

Deprescribing in nursing homes: Protocol for nested, randomised controlled hybrid trials of deprescribing interventions

INTRODUCTION

Polypharmacy and the use of potentially inappropriate medication (PIMs) are frequent among nursing home (NH) residents, and are associated with adverse health outcomes like falls, hospitalisation and death. Deprescribing has been proposed as a way to curtail both problems; however, the best way to implement deprescribing and its real impact are still unclear. This article describes nested trials of two consecutive deprescribing interventions, the first at the NH level, and the second at the resident level.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The first intervention (QC-DeMo) will be a deprescribing module to be carried out in existing interprofessional quality circles in NHs, with the goal to develop a NH-wide deprescribing consensus. Its effects will be evaluated on the use of PIMs and on patient safety outcomes such as death, hospitalisation and falls. All NHs in the cantons of Vaud and Fribourg with an integrated pharmacy service will be eligible. The second intervention (IDeI), at the resident level, will be a deprescribing-focused medication review, resulting in the implementation of a deprescribing plan. Its effects will be evaluated on the use of PIMs and chronic medications, and on quality of life. This second trial will take place in the NHs allocated to the intervention group of the first trial. All residents of these NHs over 65 years old, living in the NH for at least 4 months, and taking 5 or more medications will be eligible to participate. Both trials will be hybrid effectiveness and implementation trials, aiming to understand the implementation process for the interventions, and to identify barriers and facilitators.

ETHICS, REGISTRATION AND FUNDING

Both trials were approved by the relevant ethics committee, registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (QC-DeMo: NCT03688542; IDeI: NCT03655405), and funded by the Swiss National Fund for Scientific Research.

One-year persistence of potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults: A population-based study

AIMS

To assess the 1-year persistence of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use and identify associated factors in community-dwelling older adults in Quebec, Canada.

METHODS

A population-based cohort study was conducted using the Quebec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System. Individuals insured by the public drug plan and aged ≥66 years who initiated a PIM between 1 April 2014 and 31 March 2015 were followed-up for 1 year. PIMs were identified using the 2015 Beers criteria. One-year persistence of PIM use was defined as continuous treatment with any PIM, without interruption for more than 60 days between prescriptions refills. Poisson regression models were performed to identify factors associated with 1-year persistence of any PIM.

RESULTS

In total, 25.1% of PIM initiators were persistent at 1 year. In non-persistent individuals, the median time to PIM discontinuation was 31 days (interquartile range 21-92). Individuals were more persistent at 1 year with antipsychotics (43.9%), long-duration sulphonylureas (40.2%), antiarrhythmics/immediate-release nifedipine (36.5%) and proton pump inhibitors (36.0%). Factors significantly associated with persistence were an increased age, being a man and having a high number of medications and chronic diseases, especially dementia, diabetes and cardiovascular diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

One-quarter of community-dwelling older adults are continuously exposed to PIMs. To optimize medication prescribing in the older population, further interventions are needed to limit the use of PIMs most likely to be continued, especially in individuals most at risk of being persistent and also particularly vulnerable to adverse events.