Deprescribing to optimise health outcomes for frail older people: a double-blind placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial-outcomes of the Opti-med study

The Australian Team Approach to Polypharmacy Evaluation and Reduction (AusTAPER) hospital study: effect of a collaborative medication review on the number of current regular medicines for older hospital inpatients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Potentially harmful polypharmacy is a growing public health concern. This article aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured Team Approach to Polypharmacy Evaluation and Reduction (AusTAPER) framework.

METHODS

We recruited patients at metropolitan hospitals for a randomised controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up. The intervention included a comprehensive medicines history, multidisciplinary meeting and medicines review prior to discharge, with engagement with the participants' general practitioner extending after discharge. The primary outcome was the change in the number of regular medicines used at 12 months from baseline. A cost consequence was performed to estimate costs per participant during the study period.

RESULTS

There were 98 participants enrolled in the study. The number of regular medicines was significantly reduced from baseline in both groups (-1.7 ± 4.3, t = 2.38, P = 0.02 in the control group vs -2.7 ± 3.6, t = 4.48, P = 0.0001 in the intervention group), although there was no statistical difference detected between the two groups (1.0 (SE 0.9), t = 1.03, P = 0.31). The intervention was estimated to cost AU$644.17 and was associated with cost savings of AU$552.53 per participant in sustained reduced medicines cost. Health outcomes and healthcare costs were similar in both groups.

DISCUSSION

Medicines were significantly reduced in both groups, with a trend to a larger reduction in medicines at 12 months in the intervention group. The intervention cost was approximately offset by sustained reduced medicines cost, although these results should be regarded cautiously because of the absence of significance in the differences in outcomes between groups.

Effects of the discontinuation of antihypertensive treatment on neuropsychiatric symptoms and quality of life in nursing home residents with dementia (DANTON): a multicentre, open-label, blinded-outcome, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Based on observational studies and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), the benefit-harm balance of antihypertensive treatment in older adults with dementia is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether discontinuing antihypertensive treatment reduces neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPSs) and maintains quality of life (QoL) in nursing home residents with dementia.

DESIGN

Open-label, blinded-outcome RCT. Randomisation 1:1, stratified by nursing home organisation and baseline NPS. Trial registration: NL7365.

SUBJECTS

Dutch long-term care residents with moderate-to-severe dementia and systolic blood pressure (SBP) ≤160 mmHg during antihypertensive treatment. Exclusion criteria included heart failure NYHA-class-III/IV, recent cardiovascular events/procedures or life expectancy <4 months (planned sample size n = 492).

MEASUREMENTS

Co-primary outcomes NPS (Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing Home [NPI-NH]) and QoL (Qualidem) at 16 weeks.

RESULTS

From 9 November 2018 to 4 May 2021, 205 participants (median age 85.8 [IQR 79.6-89.5] years; 79.5% female; median SBP 134 [IQR 123-146] mmHg) were randomised to either antihypertensive treatment discontinuation (n = 101) or usual care (n = 104). Safety concerns, combined with lacking benefits, prompted the data safety and monitoring board to advice a premature cessation of randomisation. At 16-week follow-up, no significant differences were found between groups for NPI-NH (adjusted mean difference 1.6 [95% CI -2.3 to 5.6]; P = 0.42) or Qualidem (adjusted mean difference - 2.5 [95% CI -6.0 to 1.0]; P = 0.15). Serious adverse events (SAEs) occurred in 36% (discontinuation) and 24% (usual care) of the participants (adjusted hazard ratio 1.65 [95% CI 0.98-2.79]). All 32-week outcomes favoured usual care.

CONCLUSION

Halfway through this study, a non-significant increased SAE risk associated with discontinuing antihypertensive treatment was observed, and an associated interim analysis showed that significant worthwhile health gain for discontinuation of antihypertensive treatment was unlikely. This unbeneficial benefit-harm balance shows that discontinuation of antihypertensive treatment in this context does not appear to be either safe or beneficial enough to be recommended in older adults with dementia.

The Impact of Deprescribing Interventions on the Drug Burden Index and Other Outcomes: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

The Drug Burden Index (DBI) calculates a person's exposure to anticholinergic and sedative medications. We aimed to review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of deprescribing interventions that reported the DBI as an outcome, their characteristics, effectiveness in reducing the DBI, and impact on other outcomes.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

RCTs of deprescribing interventions where the DBI was measured as a primary or secondary outcome in humans within any setting were included.

METHODS

Electronic databases, citation indexes, and gray literature were searched from April 1, 2007, to September 1, 2023. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.

RESULTS

Of 1721 records identified, 9 met the inclusion criteria. Six interventions were delivered by pharmacists and 3 were delivered by pharmacists/nurses or pharmacists/geriatricians. All interventions required at least intermediate-level skills and involved multiple components and target groups. Studies were conducted in the community (n = 5), nursing homes (n = 2), and hospitals (n = 2). The mean or median age was ≥75 years and most participants were women in all studies. Most (n = 6) studies were underpowered. The follow-up period ranged from 3 to 12 months. Three studies reported a lower DBI in the intervention group compared with control: 1 pharmacist independent prescriber-delivered in nursing homes (adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.92), 1 pharmacist/nurse practitioner-delivered in hospital (adjusted mean difference (MD), -0.28; 95% CI, -0.51 to -0.04), and 1 geriatrician/pharmacist-delivered in hospital (MD, -0.28; 95% CI, -0.52 to -0.04). Meta-analysis showed no difference in the change in DBI between control and intervention groups in the community including nursing homes (MD, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.01) or hospital setting (MD, -0.19; 95% CI, -0.45 to 0.06). Interventions had inconsistent effects on cognition and no effect on other reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

RCTs of deprescribing interventions had no significant impact on reducing DBI or improving outcomes. Further suitably powered studies are required.

Medicines Regimens Charted for Older People Living in Residential Aged Care: A Repeated Cross-Sectional Study Describing the Number of Medicines, Regimen Complexity, High-Risk Prescribing, and Potential Underprescribing

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to explore medicines regimens charted for older people living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs).

DESIGN

Repeated cross-sectional study using routinely collected data sampled in a cross-sectional manner at 11 time points (day of admission, then at 1, 3, 7, 14, and 30 days, and 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post admission).

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

The cohort is set in 34 RACFs managed by a single Australasian provider. People aged ≥65 years admitted to permanent care between January 1, 2017, and October 1, 2021, with medicines charted on the date of admission.

METHODS

Medicines charted were evaluated for potentially suboptimal prescribing including number of medicines, high-risk prescribing (eg, potentially inappropriate medicines, anticholinergic burden), and potential underprescribing.

RESULTS

The 3802 residents in the final cohort had a mean age of 84.9 ± 7.2 years at admission. At least 1 example of suboptimal prescribing was identified in 3479 (92%) residents at admission increasing to 1410 (97%) at 24 months. The number of medicines charted for each resident increased over time from 6.0 ± 3.8 regular and 2.8 ± 2.7 as required medicines at admission to 8.9 ± 4.1 regular and 8.1 ± 3.7 as required medicines at 24 months. Anticholinergic drug burden increased from 1.6 ± 2.4 at admission to 3.0 ± 2.8 at 24 months. Half the residents (2173; 57%) used at least 1 potentially inappropriate medicine at admission, which rose to nearly three-quarters (1060; 73%) at 24 months admission.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The total number of medicines charted for older adults living in RACFs increases with length of stay, with charted as required medicines nearly tripling. Effective interventions to optimize medicines use in this vulnerable population are required.

A comparison of changes in drug burden index between older inpatients who fell and people who have not fallen: A case-control study

OBJECTIVE

Older inpatients who fall are often frail, with multiple co-morbidities and polypharmacy. Although the causes of falls are multifactorial, sedating and delirium-inducing drugs increase that risk. The aims were to determine whether people who fell had a change in their sedative and anticholinergic medication burden during an admission compared to people who did not fall. A secondary aim was to determine the factors associated with change in drug burden.

METHODS

A retrospective, observational, case-control study of inpatients who fell. Two hundred consecutive people who fell were compared with 200 randomly selected people who had not fallen. Demographics, functional ability, frailty and cognition were recorded. For each patient, their total medications and anticholinergic and sedative burden were calculated on admission and on discharge, using the drug burden index (DBI).

RESULTS

People who fell were more dependent and cognitively impaired than people who did not fallen. People who fell had a higher DBI on admission, than people who had not fall (mean: .69 vs .43, respectively, p < .001) and discharge (.66 vs .38, p < .001). For both cohorts, the DBI decreased between admission and discharge (-.03 and -.05), but neither were clinically significant. Higher total medications and a higher number DBI medications on admission were both associated with greater DBI changes (p = .003 and <.001, respectively). However, the presence (or absence) of cognitive impairment, dependency, frailty and single vs multiple falls were not significantly associated with DBI changes.

CONCLUSIONS

In older people, DBI medications and falls are both common and have serious consequences, yet this study was unable to demonstrate any clinically relevant reduction in average DBI either in people who fell or people who had not fallen during a hospital admission.

Reducing potentially inappropriate polypharmacy at a national and international level: the impact of deprescribing networks

INTRODUCTION

Over the past decade, polypharmacy has increased dramatically. Measurable harms include falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, and death. The associated costs are massive and contribute substantially to low-value health care. Deprescribing is a promising solution, but there are barriers. Establishing a network to address polypharmacy can help overcome barriers by connecting individuals with an interest and expertise in deprescribing and can act as an important source of motivation and resources.

AREAS COVERED

Over the past decade, several deprescribing networks were launched to help tackle polypharmacy, with evidence of individual and collective impact. A network approach has several advantages; it can spark interest, ideas and enthusiasm through information sharing, meetings and conversations with the public, providers, and other key stakeholders. In this special report, the details of how four deprescribing networks were established across the globe are detailed.

EXPERT OPINION

Networks create links between people who lead existing and/or budding deprescribing practices and policy initiatives, can influence people with a shared passion for deprescribing, and facilitate sharing of intellectual capital and tools to take initiatives further and strengthen impact.This report should inspire others to establish their own deprescribing networks, a critical step in accelerating a global deprescribing movement.

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.

Cost-Consequence Analysis of Deprescribing to Optimize Health Outcomes for Frail Older People: A Within-Trial Analysis

OBJECTIVES

The structured, clinically supervised withdrawal of medicines, known as deprescribing, is one strategy to address inappropriate polypharmacy. This study aimed to evaluate the costs and consequences of deprescribing in frail older people living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) in Australia.

DESIGN

A within-trial cost-consequence analysis of a deprescribing intervention-Opti-Med. The Opti-Med double-blind randomized controlled trial of deprescribing included 3 groups: blinded control, blinded intervention, and an open intervention group.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Seventeen RACFs in Western Australia and New South Wales. Participants were 303 older people living in participating RACFs from March 2014 to February 2019.

METHODS

Analysis was conducted from the health sector perspective. Health economic outcomes assessed include cost saved from deprescribed medicines and the incremental quality-adjusted life-years. Costs were presented in 2022 Australian dollars.

RESULTS

The total cost of the Opti-Med intervention was $239.13 per participant. The costs saved through deprescribed medicines over 12 months after adjusting for mortality within the trial period was $328.90 per participant in the blinded intervention group and $164.00 per participant in the open intervention group. On average, the cost of the intervention was more than offset by the cost saved from deprescribed medicines. Extrapolating these findings to the Australian population suggests a potential net cost saving of about $1 to $16 million per annum for the health system nationally. The incremental quality-adjusted life-years were very similar across the 3 groups within the trial period.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Deprescribing for frail older people living in RACFs can be a cost-saving intervention without reducing the quality of life. Systemwide implementation of deprescribing across RACFs in Australia has the potential to improve health care delivery through the cost savings, which could be reapplied to further optimize care within RACFs.

[Management of polypharmacy in older people with multimorbidity]

If the individual diagnoses of older people with multimorbidity are treated according to guidelines and by different specialists, confusing medication plans are sometimes the consequence. Therefore, a regular and structured drug evaluation is essential. As the life goals of patients can be very different, especially in older age, certain preliminary considerations should be made when starting, prescribing or discontinuing medication, taking into account the individual situation, including geriatric aspects. Updated so-called positive and negative lists provide assistance as to which medications are suitable or unsuitable for older people. Discontinuing certain medications when the life expectancy is reduced certainly makes sense but undertreatment of symptoms that cause distress to people, such as pain, should definitely be avoided.