1
|
Japelj N, Horvat N, Knez L, Kos M. Deprescribing: An umbrella review. ACTA PHARMACEUTICA (ZAGREB, CROATIA) 2024; 74:249-267. [PMID: 38815201 DOI: 10.2478/acph-2024-0011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/04/2024] [Indexed: 06/01/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nuša Japelj
- 1University of Ljubljana Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Social Pharmacy 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Nejc Horvat
- 1University of Ljubljana Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Social Pharmacy 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
| | - Lea Knez
- 1University of Ljubljana Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Social Pharmacy 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
- 2University Clinic Golnik 4204 Golnik, Slovenia
| | - Mitja Kos
- 1University of Ljubljana Faculty of Pharmacy, Department of Social Pharmacy 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Tsang JY, Sperrin M, Blakeman T, Payne RA, Ashcroft D. Defining, identifying and addressing problematic polypharmacy within multimorbidity in primary care: a scoping review. BMJ Open 2024; 14:e081698. [PMID: 38803265 PMCID: PMC11129052 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081698] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2023] [Accepted: 05/11/2024] [Indexed: 05/29/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jung Yin Tsang
- Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester Division of Population Health Health Services Research and Primary Care, Manchester, UK
- NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Research Collaboration (GMPSRC), Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Matthew Sperrin
- NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Research Collaboration (GMPSRC), Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Thomas Blakeman
- Centre for Primary Care and Health Services Research, School of Health Sciences, The University of Manchester Division of Population Health Health Services Research and Primary Care, Manchester, UK
- NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Research Collaboration (GMPSRC), Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Rupert A Payne
- Department of Health and Community Sciences, University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK
| | - Darren Ashcroft
- NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Research Collaboration (GMPSRC), Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Sciences Centre (MAHSC), The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
- Division of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Berger J. Quelques outils pour mettre en œuvre la déprescription. ACTUALITES PHARMACEUTIQUES 2023. [DOI: 10.1016/j.actpha.2023.01.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/13/2023]
|
4
|
Polypharmacie et patient âgé. ACTUALITES PHARMACEUTIQUES 2023. [DOI: 10.1016/j.actpha.2023.01.034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/13/2023]
|
5
|
Michiels-Corsten M, Gerlach N, Junius-Walker U, Schleef T, Donner-Banzhoff N, Viniol A. MediQuit – an electronic deprescribing tool: a pilot study in German primary care; GPs’ and patients’ perspectives. BMC PRIMARY CARE 2022; 23:252. [PMID: 36162994 PMCID: PMC9511770 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-022-01852-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/01/2022] [Accepted: 09/01/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
Abstract
Background General practitioners (GPs) are the central coordinators for patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in most health care systems. They are entrusted with the challenging task of deprescribing when inappropriate polypharmacy is present. MediQuit (MQu) is a newly developed electronic tool that guides through a deprescribing consultation. It facilitates the identification of a medicine to be discontinued (stage 1), a shared decision-making process weighing the pros and cons (stage 2), and equips patients with take-home instructions on how to discontinue the drug and monitor its impact (stage 3). We here aim to evaluate utility and acceptance of MQu from GPs’ and patients’ perspectives. Methods Uncontrolled feasibility study, in which 16 GPs from two regions in Germany were invited to use MQu in consultations with their multimorbid patients. We collected quantitative data on demography, utility and acceptance of MQu and performed descriptive statistical analyses. Results Ten GPs performed 41 consultations using MQu. Identification (step 1) and implementation elements (Step 3) were perceived most helpful by GPs. Whereas, shared-decision making elements (step 2) revealed room for improvement. Patients appreciated the use of MQu. They were broadly satisfied with the deprescribing consultation (85%) and with their decision made regarding their medication (90%). Conclusions Implementation of MQu in general practice generally seems possible. Patients welcome consultations targeting medication optimization. GPs were satisfied with the support of MQu and likewise gave important hints for future development. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01852-2.
Collapse
|
6
|
Trueba MM, Rubio BF, Pérez AR, Wittel MB, Fidalgo SS. Identification and characterisation of deprescribing tools for older patients: A scoping review. Res Social Adm Pharm 2022; 18:3484-3491. [DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2022.03.008] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/17/2021] [Revised: 03/13/2022] [Accepted: 03/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/25/2022]
|
7
|
Junius-Walker U, Viniol A, Michiels-Corsten M, Gerlach N, Donner-Banzhoff N, Schleef T. MediQuit, an Electronic Deprescribing Tool for Patients on Polypharmacy: Results of a Feasibility Study in German General Practice. Drugs Aging 2021; 38:725-733. [PMID: 34251594 PMCID: PMC8342343 DOI: 10.1007/s40266-021-00861-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 04/15/2021] [Indexed: 10/25/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Deprescribing is an important task for general practitioners (GPs) in the face of risky polypharmacy. The electronic tool "MediQuit" was developed to guide GPs and patients through a deprescribing consultation that entails a drug-selection phase, shared decision making, and advice on safe implementation. OBJECTIVES A pilot study was conducted to determine the target group of patients that is selected for consultation and to assess the impact, patient involvement, and feasibility of the tool. METHODS This was an uncontrolled pilot study. GPs from two German regions were invited to use MediQuit in consultations with a view to deprescribing one drug, if appropriate. They selected patients on the basis of broad inclusion criteria. Collected data entailed participants' characteristics, patients' medication lists, deprescribed drugs, and feasibility assessments. Patients were contacted shortly after the consultation and again after 4 weeks. RESULTS In total, 16 GPs agreed to participate, of whom ten actually performed deprescribing consultations. They selected 41 predominately older patients on excessive polypharmacy. Deprescribing was achieved in 70% of consultations in agreement with patients. Drugs deprescribed were symptom-lowering and preventive drugs (mainly anatomical therapeutic chemical classes A and C). GPs found MediQuit useful in initiating communication on this issue and enhancing deliberations for a deprescribing decision. The median consultation length was 15 min (interquartile range 10-20). At follow-up, GPs and patients infrequently disagreed on which drug(s) was discontinued, and GPs rated patient involvement higher than did patients themselves. DISCUSSION MediQuit assists in identifying concrete deprescribing opportunities, patient involvement, and shared decision making. The three-step deprescribing procedure is well-accepted once initial organizational efforts are overcome. After revision, further studies are needed to enhance the quality of evidence on acceptance and effectiveness.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Annika Viniol
- Institute of General Practice, Marburg University, Marburg, Germany
| | | | - Navina Gerlach
- Institute of General Practice, Marburg University, Marburg, Germany
| | | | - Tanja Schleef
- Institute of General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Gerlach N, Michiels-Corsten M, Viniol A, Schleef T, Junius-Walker U, Krause O, Donner-Banzhoff N. Professional roles of general practitioners, community pharmacists and specialist providers in collaborative medication deprescribing - a qualitative study. BMC FAMILY PRACTICE 2020; 21:183. [PMID: 32887551 PMCID: PMC7487755 DOI: 10.1186/s12875-020-01255-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/31/2020] [Accepted: 08/27/2020] [Indexed: 12/02/2022]
Abstract
Background Collaborative care approaches between general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists have received international recognition for medication optimization and deprescribing efforts. Although specialist providers have been shown to influence deprescribing, their profession so far remains omitted from collaborative care approaches for medication optimization. Similarly, while explorative studies on role perception and collaboration between GPs and pharmacists grow, interaction with specialists for medication optimization is neglected. Our qualitative study therefore aims to explore GPs’, community pharmacists’ and specialist providers’ role perceptions of deprescribing, and to identify interpersonal as well as structural factors that may influence collaborative medication optimization approaches. Method Seven focus-group discussions with GPs, community pharmacists and community specialists were conducted in Hesse and Lower Saxony, Germany. The topic guide focused on views and experiences with deprescribing with special attention to inter-professional collaboration. We conducted conventional content analysis and conceptualized emerging themes using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Results Twenty-six GPs, four community pharmacists and three community specialists took part in the study. The main themes corresponded to the four domains ‘Social/professional role and identity’ (1), ‘Social influences’ (2), ‘Reinforcement’ (3) and ´Environmental context and resources’ (4) which were further described by beliefs statements, that is inductively developed key messages. For (1), GPs emerged as central medication managers while pharmacists and specialists were assigned confined or subordinated tasks in deprescribing. Social influences (2) encompassed patients’ trust in GPs as a support, while specialists and pharmacists were believed to threaten GPs’ role and deprescribing attempts. Reinforcements (3) negatively affected GPs’ and pharmacists’ effort in medication optimization by social reprimand and lacking reward. Environmental context (4) impeded deprescribing efforts by deficient reimbursement and resources as well as fragmentation of care, while informational and gate-keeping resources remained underutilized. Conclusion Understanding stakeholders’ role perceptions on collaborative deprescribing is a prerequisite for joint approaches to medication management. We found that clear definition and dissemination of roles and responsibilities are premise for avoiding intergroup conflicts. Role performance and collaboration must further be supported by structural factors like adequate reimbursement, resources and a transparent continuity of care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Navina Gerlach
- Department of General Practice, University of Marburg, Karl-von-Frisch-Straße 4, D-35043, Marburg, Germany.
| | - Matthias Michiels-Corsten
- Department of General Practice, University of Marburg, Karl-von-Frisch-Straße 4, D-35043, Marburg, Germany
| | - Annika Viniol
- Department of General Practice, University of Marburg, Karl-von-Frisch-Straße 4, D-35043, Marburg, Germany
| | - Tanja Schleef
- Hannover Medical School, Institute of General Practice, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, D-30625, Hannover, Germany
| | - Ulrike Junius-Walker
- Hannover Medical School, Institute of General Practice, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, D-30625, Hannover, Germany
| | - Olaf Krause
- Hannover Medical School, Institute of General Practice, Carl-Neuberg-Straße 1, D-30625, Hannover, Germany
| | - Norbert Donner-Banzhoff
- Department of General Practice, University of Marburg, Karl-von-Frisch-Straße 4, D-35043, Marburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Michiels-Corsten M, Gerlach N, Schleef T, Junius-Walker U, Donner-Banzhoff N, Viniol A. Generic instruments for drug discontinuation in primary care: A systematic review. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2020; 86:1251-1266. [PMID: 32216066 PMCID: PMC7319012 DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14287] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/25/2019] [Revised: 02/14/2020] [Accepted: 02/25/2020] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Aims The aim of this systematic review was to identify generic instruments for drug discontinuation in patients with polypharmacy in the primary care setting. Methods We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE, 8 guideline databases (AWMF, NICE, NGC, SIGN, NHMRC, CPG, KCE), the Cochrane Library and grey literature (Google) in 2016 and 2017. Two independent researchers screened and analysed data. The drug discontinuation instruments of the included publications were described and classified. Results We identified 16 relevant publications. Here we found complex algorithms as well as instruments composed of distinct sequential steps. Two guidelines are constructed as electronic web‐applications. Instruments revealed diverging emphases on the stages of deprescribing, i.e. preparation, drug evaluation, decision‐making and implementation. Accordingly, 3 types of instruments emerged: general frameworks, detailed drug assessment tools and comprehensive discontinuation guidelines. Conclusion Diverse generic instruments exist for different areas of applications in regard to drug discontinuation. However, there is still a need for practical and user‐friendly tools that support physicians in communicational aspects, visualise trade‐offs and also enhance patient involvement.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Navina Gerlach
- Department of General Practice/Family Medicine, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany
| | - Tanja Schleef
- Institute for General Practice, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany
| | | | - Norbert Donner-Banzhoff
- Department of General Practice/Family Medicine, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany
| | - Annika Viniol
- Department of General Practice/Family Medicine, Philipps University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany
| |
Collapse
|