Physician Perspectives on Deprescribing Cardiovascular Medications for Older Adults

Perspectives on deprescribing in older people with type 2 diabetes and/or cardiovascular conditions: challenges from healthcare provider, patient and caregiver perspective and interventions to support a proactive approach

INTRODUCTION

For people with type 2 diabetes and/or cardiovascular conditions, deprescribing of glucose-lowering, blood pressure-lowering and/or lipid-lowering medication is recommended when they age, and their health status deteriorates. So far, deprescribing rates of these so-called cardiometabolic medications are low. A review of challenges and interventions addressing these challenges in this population is pertinent.

AREAS COVERED

We first provide an overview of relevant deprescribing recommendations. Next, we review challenges for healthcare providers (HCPs) to deprescribe cardiometabolic medication and provide insight in the patient and caregiver perspective on deprescribing. We summarize findings from research on implementing deprescribing of cardiometabolic medication and reflect on strategies to enhance deprescribing. We have used a combination of methods to search for relevant articles.

EXPERT OPINION

There is a need for rigorous development and evaluation of intervention strategies aimed at proactive deprescribing of cardiometabolic medication. To address challenges at different levels, these should be multifaceted interventions. All stakeholders must become aware of the relevance of deintensifying medication in this population. Education and training for HCPs and patients should support patient-centered communication and shared decision-making. Development of procedures and tools to select eligible patients and conduct targeted medication reviews are important for implementation of deprescribing in routine care.

Preferences for Management of Pediatric Pneumonia: A Clinician Survey of Artificially Generated Patient Cases

BACKGROUND

It is unknown which factors are associated with chest radiograph (CXR) and antibiotic use for suspected community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in children. We evaluated factors associated with CXR and antibiotic preferences among clinicians for children with suspected CAP using case scenarios generated through artificial intelligence (AI).

METHODS

We performed a survey of general pediatric, pediatric emergency medicine, and emergency medicine attending physicians employed by a private physician contractor. Respondents were given 5 unique, AI-generated case scenarios. We used generalized estimating equations to identify factors associated with CXR and antibiotic use. We evaluated the cluster-weighted correlation between clinician suspicion and clinical prediction model risk estimates for CAP using 2 predictive models.

RESULTS

A total of 172 respondents provided responses to 839 scenarios. Factors associated with CXR acquisition (OR, [95% CI]) included presence of crackles (4.17 [2.19, 7.95]), prior pneumonia (2.38 [1.32, 4.20]), chest pain (1.90 [1.18, 3.05]) and fever (1.82 [1.32, 2.52]). The decision to use antibiotics before knowledge of CXR results included past hospitalization for pneumonia (4.24 [1.88, 9.57]), focal decreased breath sounds (3.86 [1.98, 7.52]), and crackles (3.45 [2.15, 5.53]). After revealing CXR results to clinicians, these results were the sole predictor associated with antibiotic decision-making. Suspicion for CAP correlated with one of 2 prediction models for CAP (Spearman's rho = 0.25). Factors associated with a greater suspicion of pneumonia included prior pneumonia, duration of illness, worsening course of illness, shortness of breath, vomiting, decreased oral intake or urinary output, respiratory distress, head nodding, focal decreased breath sounds, focal rhonchi, fever, and crackles, and lower pulse oximetry.

CONCLUSIONS

Ordering preferences for CXRs demonstrated similarities and differences with evidence-based risk models for CAP. Clinicians relied heavily on CXR findings to guide antibiotic ordering. These findings can be used within decision support systems to promote evidence-based management practices for pediatric CAP.

Beliefs, practices, perceptions and motivations of healthcare professionals on medication deprescribing during end-of-life care: A systematic review

AIM

Conduct a systematic review to investigate current beliefs, practices, perceptions, and motivations towards deprescribing practices from the healthcare professional perspective in older adults residing in long term care facilities with cardiometabolic conditions, using a narrative approach.

METHODS

Studies were identified using a literature search of MEDLINE, CINAHL and Web of Science from inception to June 2023 Two reviewers (EH and AA) independently extracted data from each selected study using a standardised self-developed data extraction proforma. Studies reviewed included cross-sectional and observational studies. Data was extracted on baseline characteristics, motivations and beliefs and was discussed using a narrative approach.

RESULTS

Eight studies were identified for inclusion. Deprescribing approaches included complete withdrawal, dose reduction, or switching to an alternative medication, for at least one preventive medication. Most healthcare professionals were willing to initiate deprescribing strategies and stated the importance of such interventions, however many felt inexperienced and lacked the required knowledge to feel comfortable doing so.

CONCLUSION

Deprescribing is a key strategy when managing older people with cardiometabolic and multiple long term conditions (MLTC). Overall, HCPs including specialists, were happy to explore deprescribing strategies if provided with the relevant training and development to do so. Barriers that still exist include communication and consultation skills, a lack of evidence-based guidance and trust based policies, and a lack of MDT communications and involvement.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022335106.

A National Survey of Physicians' Views on the Importance and Implementation of Deintensifying Diabetes Medications

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend deintensifying hypoglycemia-causing medications for older adults with diabetes whose hemoglobin A1c is below their individualized target, but this rarely occurs in practice.

OBJECTIVE

To understand physicians' decision-making around deintensifying diabetes treatment.

DESIGN

National physician survey.

PARTICIPANTS

US physicians in general medicine, geriatrics, or endocrinology providing outpatient diabetes care.

MAIN MEASURES

Physicians rated the importance of deintensifying diabetes medications for older adults with type 2 diabetes, and of switching medication classes, on 5-point Likert scales. They reported the frequency of these actions for their patients, and listed important barriers and facilitators. We evaluated the independent association between physicians' professional and practice characteristics and the importance of deintensifying and switching diabetes medications using multivariable ordered logistic regression models.

KEY RESULTS

There were 445 eligible respondents (response rate 37.5%). The majority of physicians viewed deintensifying (80%) and switching (92%) diabetes medications as important or very important to the care of older adults. Despite this, one-third of physicians reported deintensifying diabetes medications rarely or never. While most physicians recognized multiple reasons to deintensify, two-thirds of physicians reported barriers of short-term hyperglycemia and patient reluctance to change medications or allow higher glucose levels. In multivariable models, geriatricians rated deintensification as more important compared to other specialties (p=0.027), and endocrinologists rated switching as more important compared to other specialties (p<0.006). Physicians with fewer years in practice rated higher importance of deintensification (p<0.001) and switching (p=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

While most US physicians viewed deintensifying and switching diabetes medications as important for the care of older adults, they deintensified infrequently. Physicians had ambivalence about the relative benefits and harms of deintensification and viewed it as a potential source of conflict with their patients. These factors likely contribute to clinical inertia, and studies focused on improving shared decision-making around deintensifying diabetes medications are needed.

Evaluation of deprescription by general practitioners in elderly people with different levels of dependence: cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy is easily achieved in elderly patients with multimorbidity and it is associated with a higher risk of potentially inappropriate medication use and worse health outcomes. Studies have shown that deprescription is safe, however, some barriers have been identified. The aim of this study was to analyse Portuguese General Practitioners (GP) deprescription's attitudes using clinical vignettes.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study using an online survey with 3 sections: demographic and professional characterization; two clinical vignettes with an elderly patient with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in which the dependency level varies; barriers and factors influencing deprescription. Frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated to describe the GPs. Analysis of the deprescription attitude, globally and for each drug, for each clinical vignette applying the McNeemar's test.

RESULTS

A sample of 396 GP was obtained with a mean age of 38 years, most of them female. A statistically significant difference (p < 0.01) was observed in deprescribing according to the patient dependency level, with more GPs (80.4% versus 75.3%) deprescribing in the most dependent patient. A statistically significant difference was found for all drugs except for antihypertensive drugs. All medications were deprescribed more often in dependent patients except for anti-dementia drugs. More than 70% of the participants considered life expectancy and quality of life as "very important" factors for deprescription and more than 90% classified the existence of guidelines and the risks and benefits of medication as "very important" or "important". In the open question, the factors most reported by the GP were those related to the patient (52,9%).

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest study on this topic carried out in Portugal using clinical vignettes, with a representative sample of Portuguese GP. The level of dependence significatively influenced the deprescription attitude of Portuguese GPs. The majority of the GPs classified the quality of life, life expectancies, potential negative effects and the existence of guidelines as "very important" or "important" while deprescribing. It is important to develop and test deprescribing in real life studies to analyze if these attitudes are the same in daily practice.

Unlocking Deprescribing Potential in Nursing Homes: Insights from a Focus Group Study with Healthcare Professionals

BACKGROUND

The nursing home population is characterized by multimorbidity and disabilities, which often result in extensive prescription of medication and subsequent polypharmacy. Deprescribing, a planned and supervised process of dose reduction or total cessation of medication, is a solution to combat this.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify barriers and enablers of deprescribing as experienced by nursing home physicians (NHPs) and collaborating pharmacists in the specific nursing home setting.

METHODS

This qualitative study utilized a semi-structured interview format with two focus groups consisting of a mix of NHPs and pharmacists. Directed content analysis was performed based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, a validated framework for understanding determinants of behavior change among health care professionals.

RESULTS

Sixteen health care professionals participated in two focus groups, including 13 NHPs and three pharmacists. The participating NHPs and pharmacists believed that deprescribing is a valuable process with enablers, such as multidisciplinary collaboration, good communication with patients and family, and involvement of the nursing staff. NHPs and pharmacists view deprescribing as a core task and feel assured in their ability to carry it out successfully. However, they also noted barriers: deprescribing is time-consuming; communication with residents, their relatives or medical specialists is difficult; and electronic patient systems often do not adequately support it.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides insight into the various barriers and enablers faced by NHPs and pharmacists when deprescribing in nursing homes. Specific for this population, deprescribing barriers focus on communication (with residents and their relatives, and also with medical specialists) and resources, while knowledge and expertise are mentioned as enablers.

Geriatricians, general internists, and potentially inappropriate medications for a national sample of older adults

BACKGROUND

Older adults are often prescribed medications that are potentially dangerous and geriatricians have specialized training in treating polypharmacy that may benefit these patients. To examine this, we compared potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) prescribing rates between geriatricians and similar general internists in the United States.

METHODS

Using national cross-sectional data from 2013 to 2019, we compared annual PIM prescribing rates between 2815 outpatient geriatricians certified by the American Board of Internal Medicine in 1994-2018 and general internists matched 1:1 on IM certification exam score and year, residency exam pass rate, gender, and US birth and/or US medical school. PIM prescribing was based on the Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set (HEDIS) PIM physician annual prescribing measures which consider medications flagged as potentially inappropriate in the American Geriatric Society Beers Criteria® guideline. We also examined prescribing of appropriate alternative medications. Prescribing rates were calculated as the percentage a physician's patients with Medicare fee-for-service part D enrollment seen in the outpatient setting in a given year (mean: 150 patients per physician) with a PIM prescription they prescribed.

RESULTS

Across 30,677 physician-year observations, geriatricians were 16.7% less likely (95% confidence interval (CI): -19.8 to -13.7, p < 0.001) to prescribe a PIM (7.2% versus 8.7% of patients respectively) and 2.7% more likely (95% CI: 0.8 to 4.5, p = 0.004) to prescribe an appropriate alternative medication (52.0% versus 50.7% of patients respectively). Lower PIM prescribing was observed for most medication sub-types including central nervous system, anticholinergic, pain, and endocrine medications. In sensitivity analyses, differences in prescribing were similar when comparing recently trained physicians with more experienced physicians.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest geriatricians in the United States prescribe PIMs at lower rates than general internists. This highlights the value geriatricians provide as well as opportunities to embed key principles of geriatric care into internal medicine training and health care delivery systems.

Deprescribing in a multimorbid older adult: A case vignette study among community pharmacists and primary care physicians

Collaborative deprescribing can include pharmacists' medication review with identification and suggestion of potential deprescribing targets to physicians. Case vignettes can be a valuable method for researching variations in clinical decision making, especially in settings unaccustomed to newer clinical approaches such as deprescribing. This study aimed to explore if pharmacists can identify deprescribing targets and if physicians would accept pharmacist's deprescribing rationales. A cross-sectional study was performed using an online case vignette based on a real-life elderly patient. Pharmacists were asked to indicate which medicines they would recommend deprescribing, alongside a rationale. Physicians were asked to state their acceptance of the proposed pharmacist's deprescribing suggestion. Pharmacists gave 1275 deprescribing rationales, and most were given for deprescribing opioids, NSAID and diuretics. Physicians would accept rationales to deprescribe a median of 10 medicines, while pharmacist would recommend deprescribing a median of six medicines. Most difference lays in deprescribing of preventative medicines. Healthcare providers share agreement on deprescribing targets, but pharmacists show hesitancies in making recommendations that could hamper potential collaboration. Action is needed to improve pharmacists' skills in recognizing deprescribing targets and confidence in making suggestions, which could lead to opening of possibilities for joint patient care.

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.

Deprescribing, shared decision-making, and older people: perspectives in primary care

Polypharmacy is an issue that affects many people, especially older adults, and could result in negative outcomes such as lower medication adherence and an increase in the likelihood of adverse drug reactions. Deprescribing is a possible solution to mitigating this issue. Examining polypharmacy and deprescribing in primary care settings is important as it could help older adults living in the community and their relatives by lowering their treatment burden and medication cost. Some guidelines have been developed to help with the deprescribing process; however, these guidelines are not applicable to all patients and situations. Thus, the deprescribing process needs to be based mainly on the patient's current situations, preferences, and values and this could be achieved using shared decision-making. However, some barriers slow down the process to deprescribe in primary care settings and measures should be taken to overcome these barriers. This review aims to examine the current situation of deprescribing, especially in primary care settings, and how SDM can be used to optimize the deprescribing process. To achieve this an illustration using one prominent model in SDM and one prominent model in deprescribing will be presented to showcase how SDM can be used in the deprescribing process.

Antihypertensive treatment in people of very old age with frailty: time for a paradigm shift?

The optimal management of hypertension in individuals aged 80 years or older with frailty remains uncertain due to multiple gaps in evidence. Complex health issues, polypharmacy, and limited physiological reserve make responding to antihypertensive treatments unpredictable. Patients in this age group may have limited life expectancy, so their quality of life should be prioritized when making treatment decisions. Further research is needed to identify which patients would benefit from more relaxed blood pressure targets and which antihypertensive medications are preferable or should be avoided. A paradigm shift is required in attitudes towards treatment, placing equal emphasis on deprescribing and prescribing when optimizing care. This review discusses the current evidence on managing hypertension in individuals aged 80 years or older with frailty, but further research is essential to address the gaps in knowledge and improve the care of this population.

Diuretics, SGLT2 inhibitors and falls in older heart failure patients: to prescribe or to deprescribe? A clinical review

PURPOSE

Both heart failure and its treatment with diuretics or SGLT2 inhibitors increase fall risk in older adults. Therefore, decisions to continue or deprescribe diuretics or SGLT2 inhibitors in older heart failure patients who have fallen are generally highly complex and challenging for clinicians. However, a comprehensive overview of information required for rationale and safe decision-making is lacking. The aim of this clinical review was to assist clinicians in safe (de)prescribing of these drug classes in older heart failure patients.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched and summarized published literature and international guidelines on the efficacy, fall-related safety issues, and deprescribing of the commonly prescribed diuretics and SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults.

RESULTS

Both diuretics and SGLT2 inhibitors potentially cause various fall-related adverse effects. Their fall-related side effect profiles partly overlap (e.g., tendency to cause hypotension), but there are also important differences; based on the currently available evidence of this relatively new drug class, SGLT2 inhibitors seem to have a favorable fall-related adverse effect profile compared to diuretics (e.g., low/absent tendency to cause hyperglycemia or electrolyte abnormalities, low risk of worsening chronic kidney disease). In addition, SGLT2 inhibitors have potential beneficial effects (e.g., disease-modifying effects in heart failure, renoprotective effects), whereas diuretic effects are merely symptomatic.

CONCLUSION

(De)prescribing diuretics and SGLT2 inhibitors in older heart failure patients who have fallen is often highly challenging, but this clinical review paper assists clinicians in individualized and patient-centered rational clinical decision-making: we provide a summary of available literature on efficacy and (subclass-specific) safety profiles of diuretics and SGLT2 inhibitors, and practical guidance on safe (de)prescribing of these drugs (e.g. a clinical decision tree for deprescribing diuretics in older adults who have fallen).

A National Physician Survey of Deintensifying Diabetes Medications for Older Adults With Type 2 Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

To determine physicians' approach to deintensifying (reducing/stopping) or switching hypoglycemia-causing medications for older adults with type 2 diabetes.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In this national survey, U.S. physicians in general medicine, geriatrics, or endocrinology reported changes they would make to hypoglycemia-causing medications for older adults in three scenarios: good health, HbA1c of 6.3%; complex health, HbA1c of 7.3%; and poor health, HbA1c of 7.7%.

RESULTS

There were 445 eligible respondents (response rate 37.5%). In patient scenarios, 48%, 4%, and 20% of physicians deintensified hypoglycemia-causing medications for patients with good, complex, and poor health, respectively. Overall, 17% of physicians switched medications without significant differences by patient health. One-half of physicians selected HbA1c targets below guideline recommendations for older adults with complex or poor health.

CONCLUSIONS

Most U.S. physicians would not deintensify or switch hypoglycemia-causing medications within guideline-recommended HbA1c targets. Physician preference for lower HbA1c targets than guidelines needs to be addressed to optimize deintensification decisions.

Cardiovascular Risk Management in Persons with Dementia

The number of people living with dementia, such as Alzheimer's disease, is increasing worldwide. Persons with dementia often have a high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and they are therefore theoretically eligible for treatment of hypertension and hyperlipidemia. However, in this population, beneficial and harmful effects of cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) may be different compared to older persons without cognitive impairment. Current CVRM guidelines are based on trials from which persons with dementia were excluded. In this narrative review, we will discuss how current guidelines can be translated to persons with dementia and which aspects should be taken into account when treating hypertension and hyperlipidemia to prevent major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Survival time is significantly shorter in persons with dementia. We therefore suggest that since the main goal of CVRM is prevention of MACE, first of all, the patient's life expectancy and treatment wishes should be evaluated. Risk assessment tools are to be used with care, as they tend to overestimate the 5- and 10-year risk of MACE and benefit from CVRM in the prevention of MACE in persons with dementia. When the clinician and patient have decided that treatment is initiated or intensified, patients should be closely monitored since they are at high risk for adverse drugs events and overtreatment due to the natural course of blood pressure in persons with dementia. In the event of intolerance or side effects, medication should be switched or withdrawn. For persons with dementia and limited life expectancy, deprescribing should be part of usual care.

Physician Perspectives on the Use of Beta Blockers in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction

β-blockers are commonly used in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), even in the absence of a compelling indication and despite the potential to cause harm. Identifying reasons for β-blocker prescription in HFpEF could permit the development of strategies to reduce unnecessary use and potentially improve medication prescribing patterns in this vulnerable population. We administered an online survey regarding β-blocker prescribing behavior to physicians trained in internal medicine or geriatrics (noncardiology physicians) and to cardiologists at 2 large academic medical centers. The survey assessed the reasons for β-blocker initiation, agreement regarding initiation and/or continuation of β-blockers by another clinician, and deprescribing behavior. The response rate was 28.2% (n = 231). Among respondents, 68.2% reported initiating β-blockers in patients with HFpEF. The most common reason for initiating a β-blocker was for treatment of an atrial arrhythmia. Notably, 23.7% of physicians reported initiating a β-blocker without an evidence-based indication. When a β-blocker was considered not necessary, 40.1% of physicians reported they were rarely or never willing to deprescribe. The most common reason for not deprescribing a β-blocker when the physician felt that a β-blocker was unnecessary was the concern about interfering with another physicians' treatment plan (76.6%). In conclusion, a significant proportion of noncardiology physicians and cardiologists report prescribing β-blockers to patients with HFpEF, even when evidence-based indications are absent, and rarely deprescribe β-blockers in these scenarios.

Optimizing Medications with the Geriatrics 5Ms: An Age-Friendly Approach

Polypharmacy is a common problem among older adults, as they are more likely to have multiple chronic conditions and may experience fragmentation of care among specialists. The Geriatrics 5Ms framework offers a person-centered approach to address polypharmacy and optimize medications, including deprescribing when appropriate. The elements of the Geriatrics 5Ms, which align with the approach of the Age-Friendly Health Systems initiative, include consideration of Medications, Mind, Mobility, Multicomplexity, and What Matters Most. Each M domain impacts and is impacted by medications, and learning about the patient's goals through questions guided by the Geriatrics 5Ms may inform an Age-Friendly medication optimization plan. While research on the implementation of each of the elements of the Geriatrics 5Ms shows benefit, further research is needed to study the impact of this framework in clinical practice.

Differences in Factors Influencing Deprescribing between Primary Care Providers: Cross-Sectional Study

Deprescribing is a notable approach to improve medication management, but few healthcare systems recognize it. To introduce a new practice, it is important to examine the factors influencing the provision of a new or elaborate cognitive service within the desired setting. This study explores the perceived barriers and facilitators of deprescribing by primary healthcare providers, and identifies the factors associated with a willingness to suggest deprescribing. A cross-sectional survey was conducted (in Croatia, between October 2021 and January 2022) using a validated comprehensive healthcare providers' opinions, preferences, and attitudes towards deprescribing (CHOPPED) questionnaire. A total of 419 pharmacists and 124 physicians participated. Participants showed a high willingness to deprescribe, with significantly higher scores in physicians than in pharmacists (5.00 (interquartile range-IQR 5-5) vs. 4.00 (IQR 4-5), p < 0.001). Pharmacists had significantly higher scores in seven out of ten factors (knowledge, awareness, collaboration facilitators, competencies facilitators, healthcare system facilitators, collaboration barriers, competencies barriers) while in the remaining three factors (patient facilitators, patient and healthcare system barriers) there was no difference in scores. The strongest positive correlation with willingness to suggest deprescribing was found with the collaboration and healthcare system facilitators factors for pharmacists (G = 0.331, p < 0.001, and G = 0.309, p < 0.001, respectively), and with knowledge, awareness, and patient facilitators factors for physicians (G = 0.446, p = 0.001; G = 0.771, p < 0.001; and G = 0.259, p = 0.043, respectively). Primary healthcare providers are willing to suggest deprescribing but face different barriers and facilitators. For pharmacists, the most important facilitators were extrinsic, while for physicians they were more intrinsic and patient related. The stated results provide target areas which one could focus upon to help to engage healthcare providers in deprescribing.

A Qualitative Study of Perspectives of Older Adults on Deintensifying Diabetes Medications

BACKGROUND

While many older adults with type 2 diabetes have tight glycemic control beyond guideline-recommended targets, deintensifying (stopping or dose-reducing) diabetes medications rarely occurs.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the perspectives of older adults with type 2 diabetes around deintensifying diabetes medications.

DESIGN

This qualitative study used individual semi-structured interviews, which included three clinical scenarios where deintensification may be indicated.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-four adults aged ≥65 years with medication-treated type 2 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c <7.5% were included (to thematic saturation) using a maximal variation sampling strategy for diabetes treatment and physician specialty.

APPROACH

Interviews were independently coded by two investigators and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. We identified major themes and subthemes and coded responses to the clinical scenarios as positive (in favor of deintensification), negative, or ambiguous.

KEY RESULTS

Participants' mean age was 74 years, half were women, and 58% used a sulfonylurea or insulin. The first of four major themes was fear of losing control of diabetes, which participants weighed against the benefits of taking less medication (Theme 2). Few participants viewed glycemic control below target as a reason for deintensification and a majority would restart the medication if their home glucose increased. Some participants were anchored to their current diabetes treatment (Theme 3) driven by unrealistic views of medication benefits. A trusting patient-provider relationship (Theme 4) was a positive influence. In clinical scenarios, 8%, 4%, and 75% of participants viewed deintensification positively in the setting of poor health, limited life expectancy, and high hypoglycemia risk, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimizing deintensification requires patient education that describes both individualized glycemic targets and how they will change over the lifespan. Deintensification is an opportunity for shared decision-making, but providers must understand patients' beliefs about their medications and address misconceptions. Hypoglycemia prevention may be a helpful framing for discussing deintensification.

Potentially inappropriate medication use and associated factors in residents of long-term care facilities: A nationwide cohort study

Background: Residents in long-term care (LTC) facilities (LTCFs) may have multimorbidity and be unable to self-administer medication. Thus, due to the risk of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), epidemiological studies on PIM use and its associated factors should be conducted to ensure safe medication use for residents in LTCFs. Objective: We evaluated PIM use among residents of LTCF and the associated factors in residents of LTCFs in Korea using a nationwide database. Methods: This cross-sectional study used the Korea National Health Insurance Service Senior Cohort (KNHIS-SC) database 2.0 of the National Health Insurance Service (NHIS), a single public insurer in Korea. We analyzed older adults aged ≥65 years who were residents of LTCFs in 2018, using the KNHIS-SC database. The 2019 American Geriatrics Society (AGS) Beers criteria was used for PIM identification. The prevalence of PIM use was defined as the proportion of LTCF residents who received PIM prescriptions at least once. We evaluated the frequency of prescriptions, including PIMs, and determined the most frequently used PIMs. We also conducted a multivariable logistic regression analysis to identify the factors associated with PIM use. Results: The prevalence of PIM among the LTCF residents was 81.6%. The prevalence of PIM was 74.9% for LTC grades 1 or 2 (high dependence) and 85.2% for LTC grades 3-5 (low dependence). Quetiapine was the most frequently prescribed PIM, followed by chlorpheniramine. The low dependence level was significantly associated with PIM use (odds ratio of LTC grades 3-5: 1.49, 95% confidence interval 1.32-1.68, reference: LTC grades 1 or 2); moreover, the number of medical institutions visited, and medications emerged as primary influencing factors. Conclusion: Most LTCF residents were vulnerable to PIM exposure. Furthermore, exposure to PIMs is associated with LTC grade. This result highlights the need for comprehensive medication management of LTCF residents.

Provider beliefs about the ideal design of an opioid deprescribing and substitution intervention for older adults

PURPOSE

Opportunities exist to meaningfully reduce suboptimal prescription opioid use among older adults. Deprescribing is one possible approach to reducing suboptimal use. Appropriate interventions should outline how to carefully taper opioids, closely monitor adverse events, substitute viable alternative and affordable nonopioid pain treatments, and initiate medications for opioid use disorder to properly manage use disorders, as needed. We sought to document and understand provider perceptions to begin developing effective and safe opioid deprescribing interventions.

METHODS

We conducted 3 semistructured focus groups that covered topics such as participant perspectives on opioid deprescribing in older adults, how to design an ideal intervention, and how to identify potential barriers or facilitators in implementing an intervention. Focus group transcripts were double coded and qualitatively analyzed to identify overarching themes.

RESULTS

Healthcare providers (n = 17), including physicians, pharmacists, nurses, social workers, and administrative staff, participated in 3 focus groups. We identified 4 key themes: (1) involve pharmacists in deprescribing and empower them as leaders of an opioid deprescribing service; (2) ensure tight integration and close collaboration throughout the deprescribing process from the inpatient to outpatient settings; (3) more expansive inclusion criteria than age alone; and (4) provision of access to alternative pharmacological and nonpharmacological pain management modalities to patients.

CONCLUSION

Our findings, which highlight various healthcare provider beliefs about opioid deprescribing interventions, are expected to serve as a framework for other organizations to develop and implement interventions. Future studies should incorporate patients' and family caregivers' perspectives.

Deprescription of aspirin for primary prevention is uncommon at discharge in hospitalised patients with gastrointestinal bleeding

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend against aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in individuals with a history of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB). It is unknown how often patients on primary prevention aspirin hospitalised with GIB have aspirin discontinued at discharge.

AIMS

To determine the rate of aspirin deprescription and explore long-term outcomes in patients taking aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events.

METHODS

We evaluated all patients hospitalised at Yale-New Haven Hospital between January 2014 and October 2021 with GIB who were on aspirin for primary prevention. Our primary endpoint was the frequency of aspirin deprescription at discharge. Our secondary endpoints were post-discharge hospitalisations for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or GIB. Time-to-event analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test.

RESULTS

We identified 320 patients with GIB on aspirin for primary prevention: median age was 72 (interquartile range [IQR] 61-81) years and 297 (92.8%) were on aspirin 81 mg daily. Only 25 (9.0%) patients surviving their hospitalisation were deprescribed aspirin at discharge. Among 260 patients with follow-up (median 1103 days; IQR 367-1670), MACE developed post-discharge in 2/25 (8.0%) with aspirin deprescription versus 37/235 (15.7%) with aspirin continuation (log-rank p = 0.28). 0/25 patients with aspirin deprescription had subsequent hospitalisation for GIB versus 17/235 (7.2%) who continued aspirin (log-rank p = 0.13).

CONCLUSIONS

Aspirin for primary cardiovascular prevention was rarely deprescribed at discharge in patients hospitalised with GIB. Processes designed to ensure appropriate deprescription of aspirin are crucial to improve adherence to guidelines, thereby improving the risk-benefit ratio in patients at high risk of subsequent GIB hospitalisations with minimal increased risk of MACE.

Barriers and facilitators to deprescribing of cardiovascular medications: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise the current knowledge on barriers and facilitators to deprescribing cardiovascular medications (CVMs) at the levels of patients, informal caregivers and healthcare providers (HCPs).

DESIGN/SETTING

We conducted a systematic review of studies exploring/assessing patient, informal caregiver and/or HCP barriers and/or facilitators to deprescribing CVMs.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid/MEDLINE and Embase from January 2003 to November 2021.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

We performed a deductive thematic analysis based on the framework of specific barriers and facilitators to deprescribing CVMs created by Goyal et al. We added a quantification of the occurrence of categories and themes in the selected articles to identify the resounding themes that indicate the greater impetus to address in future research.

RESULTS

Most frequent deprescribing barriers for patients, informal caregivers and HCPs included uncertainty due to lack of evidence regarding CVM deprescribing (in n=10 studies), fear of negative consequences following deprescribing (n=13) and social influences (n=14). A frequently reported facilitator to deprescribing, especially for patients and informal caregivers, was the occurrence of adverse drug events (n=7). Another frequently reported facilitator for patients were dislike of CVMs (n=9). Necessity and benefit of CVMs were seen as barriers or facilitators similarly by patients and HCPs.

CONCLUSION

The differences in patient, informal caregiver and HCP regarding barriers and facilitators to deprescribing CVMs stress the need for ground discussions about beliefs and preferences of each stakeholder implicated in deprescribing decisions. Furthermore, HCP uncertainty regarding CVM deprescribing highlights the need to provide HCPs with tools that enable sharing the risks and benefits of deprescribing with patients and ensure a safe deprescribing process.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020221973.

Beliefs and attitudes of residents, family members and healthcare professionals regarding deprescribing in long-term care: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy is prevalent among long-term care (LTC) residents and can cause significant morbidity. In 2018, we concluded a deprescribing pilot study that reduced potentially inappropriate medication use among LTC residents.

AIM

We sought to understand the experience and views of physicians, nurses, pharmacists, LTC residents and family members who participated in the pilot study.

METHOD

Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with residents and families, a physician, pharmacist and pharmacy student, and licensed-practical nurses. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using an inductive thematic analysis approach.

RESULTS

Interviews with 13 participants yielded themes in 3 categories: (1) views about medication use in LTC and willingness to engage in deprescribing, (2) perceived barriers and enablers for deprescribing, and (3) impact of participating in deprescribing study. Participants were willing to engage in deprescribing; residents were motivated by physician suggestions, and family members prioritized quality of life in decision-making and wanted to be part of the decision-making process. Solutions to overcome barriers included assigning responsibility to identify deprescribing opportunities to pharmacists, scheduling rounds to enable face-to-face team discussions, and consulting families to provide missing medical history to inform deprescribing decisions. Participating in a deprescribing intervention resulted in improved healthcare professional (HCP) confidence and interprofessional collaboration, and caused continued practice change after the study.

CONCLUSION

Residents, families, and HCPs are concerned about problems associated with polypharmacy in LTC and are willing to consider deprescribing. Barriers to deprescribing in LTC exist but are not insurmountable. Results provide valuable insight into strategies to optimize deprescribing interventions within LTC.

N-of-1 trials to facilitate evidence-based deprescribing: Rationale and case study

Deprescribing has emerged as an important aspect of patient-centred medication management but is vastly underutilized in clinical practice. The current narrative review will describe an innovative patient-centred approach to deprescribing-N-of-1 trials. N-of-1 trials involve multiple-period crossover design experiments conducted within individual patients. They enable patients to compare the effects of two or more treatments or, in the case of deprescribing N-of-1 trials, continuation with a current treatment versus no treatment or placebo. N-of-1 trials are distinct from traditional between-patient studies such as parallel-group or crossover designs which provide an average effect across a group of patients and obscure differences between individuals. By generating data on the effect of an intervention for the individual rather than the population, N-of-1 trials can promote therapeutic precision. N-of-1 trials are a particularly appealing strategy to inform deprescribing because they can generate individual-level evidence for deprescribing when evidence is uncertain, and can thus allay patient and physician concerns about discontinuing medications. To illustrate the use of deprescribing N-of-1 trials, we share a case example of an ongoing series of N-of-1 trials that compare maintenance versus deprescribing of beta-blockers in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. By providing quantifiable data on patient-reported outcomes, promoting personalized pharmacotherapy, and facilitating shared decision making, N-of-1 trials represent a potentially transformative strategy to address polypharmacy.

Polypharmacy in Older Heart Failure Patients: a Multidisciplinary Approach

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We provide a review of considerations when applying principles of optimal pharmacotherapy to older adults with heart failure (HF), an analysis on the pivotal clinical trials focusing on applicability to older adults, and multi-disciplinary strategies to optimize the health of HF patients with polypharmacy.

RECENT FINDINGS

Polypharmacy is very common among patients with HF, due to medications for both HF and non-HF comorbidities. Definitions of polypharmacy were not developed specifically for older adults with HF and may need to be modified in order to meaningfully describe medication burden and promote appropriate medical therapy. This is because clinical practice guidelines for multi-drug HF regimens have unique considerations, given that they improve outcomes and symptoms of HF. Adults older than 65 years are well represented in contemporary clinical trials for HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and guideline directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). While these trials did not have significant heterogeneity in safety or efficacy across a broad age spectrum, some may have limited representation of adults ≥ 80 years old, the sickest older adults, or those with decreased functional status. There is also a lack of data on the safety and efficacy of deprescribing HF medications, and deprescription in otherwise stable patients may lead to clinical destabilization or disease progression. There is therefore innate tension between the well-studied benefits of optimized HF therapy for older adults that must be weighed against the risks of polypharmacy and many unknowns that still exist. Given the strong evidence that optimized HF therapies confer symptomatic and mortality benefits for older adults, it is clear that polypharmacy in this context can be appropriate. A shift in paradigm is therefore needed when evaluating polypharmacy in patients with HF. Instead of assuming all polypharmacy is "good" or "bad," we propose a concerted move, using a multidisciplinary approach, to focus on the "appropriateness" of specific medications, in order to optimize HF medical therapy. Clinicians of all specialties caring for complex older adults with HF must consider goals of care, functional status, and new evidence-based therapies, in order to optimize this polypharmacy for older adults.

Frailty in patients undergoing percutaneous left atrial appendage closure

BACKGROUND

Frailty is associated with significant morbidity and mortality in older adults. Whether frailty predicts adverse outcomes after percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the association between frailty and clinical outcomes after percutaneous LAAC.

METHODS

We identified patients 65 years and older in Medicare fee-for-service claims who underwent LAAC between October 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019. Patients were identified as frail on the basis of the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS), a validated frailty measure centered on health resource utilization, with the cohort stratified into low (<5), intermediate (5-15), and high (>15) risk groups.

RESULTS

Of the 21,787 patients who underwent LAAC, 10,740 (49.3%) were considered frail (HFRS >5), including 3441 (15.8%) in the high-risk group. The mortality rate (up to 1095 days) were 16.1% in the low-risk group, 26.7% in the intermediate-risk group, and 41.1% in the high-risk group (P < .001). After adjusting for age, sex, and comorbidities, HFRS >15 (compared with HFRS <5) was associated with a higher risk of long hospital stay (odds ratio [OR] 8.29; 95% confidence interval [CI] 5.94-11.57), 30-day readmission (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.58-2.05), 30-day mortality (OR 5.68, 95% CI 3.40-9.40), and 1-year mortality (OR 2.83, 95% CI 2.39-3.35). In restricted cubic spline models, the adjusted OR for all outcomes monotonically increased with increasing HFRS.

CONCLUSION

Frailty is common in patients undergoing LAAC and is associated with increased risks of long hospital stay, readmissions, and short-term mortality.

Understanding medication use behaviors and perspectives in an older cardiovascular patient population: Opportunities for patient-centered deprescribing

Study objective

Describe self-reported medication use behaviors and perspectives to identify opportunities for collaborative deprescribing among older cardiovascular patients.

Design

Patient survey using convenience sampling.

Setting

Private cardiology practice in Maricopa County, Arizona, USA.

Participants

Established patients aged ≥65 years with an active medication list indicating prescription polypharmacy (≥5 medications) and/or use of ≥1 high risk medication (anticoagulant, antiarrhythmic, anti-hypotensive, insulin).

Intervention

Anonymous online survey.

Main outcome measures

Current medication use (prescription and over-the-counter), self-reported medication use behaviors measured by the Adherence to Refills and Medications Scale (ARMS-12), and perspectives on deprescribing.

Results

Overall, 138 participants were recruited, with a mean age of 76.7 years. All but two self-identified as Caucasian. Prescription polypharmacy was reported by 80 (58.0 %), with use of 5-9 medications by 66 (47.8 %) and use of ≥10 medications (excessive polypharmacy) by 14 (10.1 %). Approximately one-third (n = 45, 32.6 %) had ARMS = 12, indicating adherence to taking and refilling medications. More than 1 in 10 patients (11.6 %) used >1 high-risk medication. About 4 in 10 (40.6 %) used ≥5 OTC medications. Most highly prioritized reasons for continuing medications were to prolong life (40 %), feel better (17 %), and reduce stroke risk (15 %). Despite 66.7 % of patients indicating taking "just the right amount of medications," willingness to stop ≥1 medication was very high at 80.4 %.

Conclusion

Among older cardiovascular patients, prescription polypharmacy is prevalent as are medication use behaviors associated with some degree of nonadherence. Patients are supportive of deprescribing. Prioritizing what matters most to patients and focusing efforts to deprescribe potentially inappropriate medications is recommended.

Barriers and Enablers of Healthcare Providers to Deprescribe Cardiometabolic Medication in Older Patients: A Focus Group Study

Introduction

Benefits and risks of preventive medication change over time for ageing patients and deprescribing of medication may be needed. Deprescribing of cardiovascular and antidiabetic drugs can be challenging and is not widely implemented in daily practice.

Objective

The aim of this study was to identify barriers and enablers of deprescribing cardiometabolic medication as seen by healthcare providers (HCPs) of different disciplines, and to explore their views on their specific roles in the process of deprescribing.

Methods

Three focus groups with five general practitioners, eight pharmacists, three nurse practitioners, two geriatricians, and two elder care physicians were conducted in three cities in The Netherlands. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Directed content analysis was performed on the basis of the Theoretical Domains Framework. Two researchers independently coded the data.

Results

Most HCPs agreed that deprescribing of cardiometabolic medication is relevant but that barriers include lack of evidence and expertise, negative beliefs and fears, poor communication and collaboration between HCPs, and lack of resources. Having a guideline was considered an enabler for the process of deprescribing of cardiometabolic medication. Some HCPs feared the consequences of discontinuing cardiovascular or antidiabetic medication, while others were not motivated to deprescribe when the patients experienced no problems with their medication. HCPs of all disciplines stated that adequate patient communication and involving the patients and relatives in the decision making enables deprescribing. Barriers to deprescribing included the use of medication initiated by specialists, the poor exchange of information, and the amount of time it takes to deprescribe cardiometabolic medication. The HCPs were uncertain about each other’s roles and responsibilities. A multidisciplinary approach including the pharmacist and nurse practitioner was seen as the best way to support the process of deprescribing and address barriers related to resources.

Conclusion

HCPs recognized the importance of deprescribing cardiometabolic medication as a medical decision that can only be made in close cooperation with the patient. To successfully accomplish the process of deprescribing they strongly recommended a multidisciplinary approach.

Current practice in benzodiazepine receptor agonists deprescribing on acute geriatric wards: a cohort study

Background

Benzodiazepine receptor agonist (BZRA) use is highly prevalent in hospitalised older people although these drugs are associated with numerous and serious adverse events. Deprescribing can reduce risks associated with chronic BZRA use. The aim of this study was to measure the prevalence of, and factors associated with, BZRA deprescribing in acute geriatric units.

Methods

During a one-year period, this multicentre retrospective study included patients aged ≥70 years, hospitalised in acute geriatric units, and using ≥1 BZRA on admission. BZRA deprescribing at discharge was defined as: ≥25% decrease in lorazepam-equivalent admission dose; discontinuation of all BZRAs; or cessation of a rescue prescription at discharge. BZRA cessation was defined as discontinuation of all BZRAs at discharge. We identified social, medical, geriatric and medication factors associated with BZRA deprescribing using logistic regression.

Results

In total, 561 patients were included (mean age: 85.3±5.9 years, 70% of women). BZRA deprescribing occurred in 240 (42.8%), including 85 with BZRA cessation (15.2%). Deprescribing occurred more frequently in patients with a BZRA-related adverse event on admission or during hospital stay (odds ratio (OR) 4.5; 95% confidence interval [2.6; 7.9]), with an antidepressant (1.6 [1.1; 2.4]) and a higher lorazepam-equivalent dosage on admission (OR 1.2 [1; 1.4]), and less frequently in patients with antipsychotic drug (OR 0.5 [0.3; 0.8]). BZRA cessation was more likely in patients with a BZRA-related adverse event (OR 2.2 [1.2; 4.3]) and a lower lorazepam-equivalent dosage on admission (OR 0.5 [0.3; 0.6]).

Conclusions

During hospitalisation in the acute geriatric units of our hospital, BZRA deprescribing occurred in 42.8% of the patients. Identification of an BZRA-related adverse event by the treating physician appears to be a major factor: this reactive deprescribing accounted for 74% of cases in our study. Further prospective studies are needed to measure long-term persistence of in-hospital deprescribing and encourage proactive management.

Development of a multicomponent implementation strategy to reduce upper gastrointestinal bleeding risk in patients using warfarin and antiplatelet therapy, and protocol for a pragmatic multilevel randomized factorial pilot implementation trial

BACKGROUND

The concomitant use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet medications increases the risk of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Two underused evidence-based practices (EBPs) can reduce the risk: de-prescribe unnecessary antiplatelet therapy or initiate a proton pump inhibitor. We describe the development of a multicomponent intervention to increase use of these EBPs in patients treated with warfarin and followed by an anticoagulation monitoring service (AMS), and the design of a pilot pragmatic implementation trial.

METHODS

A participatory planning group iteratively used Implementation Mapping and the Multiphase Optimization Strategy to develop implementation strategies and plan the trial. Informed by qualitative interviews with patients and clinicians, we drew on several implementation science theories, as well as self-determination theory, to design interventions. For patients, we developed an activation guide to help patients discuss the EBPs with their clinicians. For clinicians, we developed two electronic health record (EHR)-based interventions: (1) clinician notification (CN) consists of a templated message that identifies a patient as high risk, summarizes the EBPs, and links to a guidance statement on appropriate use of antiplatelet therapy. (2) Clinician notification with nurse facilitation (CN+NF) consists of a similar notification message but includes additional measures by nursing staff to support appropriate and timely decision-making: the nurse performs a chart review to identify any history of vascular disease, embeds indication-specific guidance on antiplatelet therapy in the message, and offers to assist with medication order entry and patient education. We will conduct a pilot factorial cluster- and individual-level randomized controlled trial with a primary objective of evaluating feasibility. Twelve clinicians will be randomized to receive either CN or CN+NF for all their patients managed by the AMS while 50 patients will be individually randomized to receive either the activation guide or usual care. We will explore implementation outcomes using patient and clinician interviews along with EHR review.

DISCUSSION

This pilot study will prepare us to conduct a larger optimization study to identify the most potent and resource conscious multicomponent implementation strategy to help AMSs increase the use of best practices for upper GI bleeding risk reduction.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05085405 . Registered on October 19, 2021-retrospectively registered.

Polypharmacy in Older People With Heart Failure: Roles of the Geriatrician and Pharmacist

Heart failure (HF) is a common health condition that typically affects older adults. Many people with HF are cared for on an inpatient basis, by noncardiologists, such as acute medical physicians, geriatricians and other physicians. Treatment options for HF are ever increasing, and adherence to guidelines for prognostic therapy contributes to polypharmacy, which is very familiar to clinicians who care for older people. This article explores the recent trials in both HF with reduced ejection fraction and HF with preserved ejection fraction and the limitations of international guidance in their management with respect to older people. In addition, this article discusses the challenge of managing polypharmacy in those with advanced age, and the importance of involving a geriatrician and pharmacist in the HF multidisciplinary team to provide a holistic and person-centred approach to optimisation of HF therapies.

Deprescribing practices, habits and attitudes of geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training across Europe: a large web-based survey

PURPOSE

To provide an overview of the current deprescribing attitudes, practices, and approaches of geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training across Europe.

METHODS

An online survey was disseminated among European geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training. The survey comprised Likert scale and multiple-choice questions on deprescribing approaches and practices, deprescribing education and knowledge, and facilitators/barriers of deprescribing. Responses to the survey questions and participant characteristics were quantified and differences evaluated between geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training and between European regions.

RESULTS

The 964 respondents (median age 42 years old; 64% female; 21% geriatricians-in-training) were generally willing to deprescribe (98%) and felt confident about deprescribing (85%). Despite differences across European regions, the most commonly reported reasons for deprescribing were functional impairment and occurrence of adverse drug reactions. The most important barriers for deprescribing were patients' unwillingness, fear of negative consequences, lack of time, and poor communication between multiple prescribers. Perceived risk of adverse drug reactions was highest for psychotropic drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, cardiovascular drugs, and opioid analgesics. Only one in four respondents (23% of geriatricians and 37% of geriatricians-in-training) think education in medical school had sufficiently prepared them for deprescribing in clinical practice. They reported that their future deprescribing activities would probably increase with improved information sharing between various prescribers, deprescribing recommendations in guidelines, and increased education and training. Approximately 90% think that a paradigm shift is required for prescribers and patients, increasing focus on the possible benefits of deprescribing (potentially) inappropriate medications.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the outcomes of this survey, we recommend investing in improved inter-professional communication, better education and evidence-based recommendations to improve future patient-centered deprescribing practices.

Impediments to deprescription in Brazil: overview from a panel of geriatrics experts

Objectives: To identify impediments to deprescription among older adults from the perspective of a panel of Brazilian geriatricians. Methods: The Delphi method was used to obtain a consensus among Brazilian geriatricians about the factors that influence the lack of deprescription for older adults in clinical practice. The study was developed in two stages: (i) a survey and description of potential factors involved in deprescription; and (ii) applying the results of the survey to a panel of experts to obtain a consensus. Results: The deprescription process is influenced by the interaction of three pillars of older adult health care: the prescriber, the patient-family, and the health care system. In the professional and health care systems, professional training and communication skills, prolonged clinical follow-up, access to the multidisciplinary team, medical consultations of an adequate time, and unified electronic health records were identified as facilitators of deprescription. In the patient-family pillar, clear facilitators included health literacy, no sensory or cognitive deficits, and a clinical situation of transitional or palliative care. Conclusions: Deprescription is a complex, multifactorial process that requires attention, time, and specific skills and competencies from the attending physician, but it also requires shared decision-making and a health system compatible with a culture of deprescription.

Geriatric Choosing Wisely choice of recommendations in France: a pragmatic approach based on clinical audits

Background

The international Choosing Wisely campaign seeks to improve the appropriateness of care, notably through large campaigns among physicians and users designed to raise awareness of the risks inherent in overmedication.

Methods

In deploying the Choosing Wisely campaign, the French Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology chose early operationalization via a tool for clinical audit over a limited area before progressive dissemination. This enabled validation of four consensual recommendations concerning the management of urinary tract infections, the prolonged use of anxiolytics, the use of neuroleptics in dementia syndromes, and the use of statins in primary prevention. The fifth recommendation concerns the importance of a dialogue on the level of care. It was written by patient representatives directly involved in the campaign.

Results

The first cross-regional campaign in France involved 5337 chart screenings in 43 health facilities. Analysis of the results showed an important variability in practices between institutions and significant percentage of inappropriate prescriptions, notably of psychotropic medication.

Discussion

The high rate of participation of target institutions shows that geriatrics professionals are interested in the evaluation and optimization of professional practices. Frequent overuse of psychotropic medication highlights the need of campaigns to raise awareness and encourage deprescribing.

Statin Discontinuation and Cardiovascular Events Among Older People in Denmark

IMPORTANCE

Statin use is common in older persons. Given uncertainties in ongoing benefit, changes in health status, and shifting goals of care and preferences, statin discontinuation may be considered in some older persons, although there is currently little evidence to guide this decision.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the association between statin discontinuation and the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) among people aged 75 years or older who receive long-term statin treatment.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study included all persons in Denmark aged 75 years or older who were treated with statins for at least 5 consecutive years as of January 1, 2011. Participants were followed up until December 31, 2016. Data were analyzed from July to November, 2020.

EXPOSURE

Statin discontinuation.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Rate of occurrence of MACE and its components (myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, coronary revascularization, and death due to myocardial infarction or ischemic stroke) in persons continuing statins compared with those discontinuing statins. Confounding adjustment was done using inverse probability of treatment weighting. Analyses were conducted separately for primary prevention (no history of cardiovascular disease) and secondary prevention (history of cardiovascular disease).

RESULTS

The study included 67 418 long-term statin users, including 27 463 in the primary prevention analysis (median age, 79 years [IQR, 77-83 years]; 18 134 [66%] female) and 39 955 in the secondary prevention analysis (median age, 80 years [IQR, 77-84 years]; 18 717 [47%] female). In both primary and secondary prevention analyses, the rate of MACE was higher among persons who discontinued statins compared with those who continued statins. In the primary prevention cohort, the weighted rate difference was 9 per 1000 person-years (95% CI, 5-12 per 1000 person-years) and the adjusted sub-hazard ratio was 1.32 (95% CI, 1.18-1.48), corresponding to 1 excess MACE per 112 persons who discontinued statins per year. In the secondary prevention cohort, the weighted rate difference was 13 per 1000 person-years (95% CI, 8-17 per 1000 person-years) and the adjusted sub-hazard ratio was 1.28 (95% CI, 1.18-1.39), corresponding to 1 excess MACE per 77 persons who discontinued statins per year.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study, among older adults receiving long-term statin treatment, discontinuation of statins was associated with a higher rate of MACE compared with statin continuation in both the primary and the secondary prevention cohorts. These findings suggest a need for robust evidence from randomized clinical trials.

Prescriptions for Potentially Inappropriate Medications from the Beers Criteria Among Older Adults Hospitalized for Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

We sought to better understand patterns of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) from the Beers criteria among older adults hospitalized with heart failure (HF). This observational study of hospitalizations was derived from the geographically diverse REasons for Geographic and Racial Differences in Stroke cohort.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We examined participants aged 65 years and older with an expert-adjudicated hospitalization for HF. The Beers criteria medications were abstracted from medical records. The prevalence of PIMs was 61.1% at admission and 64.0% at discharge. Participants were taking a median of 1 PIM (interquartile range [IQR] 0-1 PIM) at hospital admission and a median of 1 PIM (IQR 0-2 PIM) at hospital discharge. Between admission and discharge, 19.1% of patients experienced an increase in the number of PIMs, 15.1% experienced a decrease, and 37% remained on the same number between hospital admission and discharge. The medications with the greatest increase from admission to discharge were proton pump inhibitors (32.6% to 38.6%) and amiodarone (6.2% to 12.2%). The strongest determinant of potentially harmful prescribing patterns was polypharmacy (relative risk 1.34, 95% confidence interval 1.16-1.55, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

PIMs are common among older adults hospitalized for HF and may be an important target to improve outcomes in this vulnerable population.

Evaluation of Provider Implementation of the 2019 American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association Aspirin for Primary Prevention Guideline Recommendations for Older People

Design Retrospective chart review study using electronic medical record data from Inova Health System patients. Setting All cardiology, endocrinology, and primary care outpatient clinics operated by Inova Medical Group (IMG) in Northern Virginia. Participants Participants included were 70 years of age or older and taking aspirin 81 mg as of April 1, 2019. They had completed at least one visit with an IMG provider in primary care, cardiology, or endocrinology clinics between April 1, 2019, and February 17, 2020. Main Outcome Measures The primary outcome of this study was percentage of older people seen by a primary care physician, cardiologist, or endocrinologist since guideline publication who were continued on aspirin for primary prevention. Results The percentage of participants continued on aspirin for primary prevention was 92% versus 8.0% who were discontinued (P < 0.0001). Differences in subgroup analyses based on smoking history, diagnosis of diabetes, or history of venous thromboembolism were not statistically significant. Conclusion There was a significantly greater rate of aspirin continuation versus discontinuation among patients 70 years of age and older in the setting of primary cardiovascular prevention. Based on this result, most primary care physicians, endocrinologists, and cardiologists at this institution have chosen to continue aspirin in older people following the 2019 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guideline statement publication.

Cardiovascular care of older adults

Age is an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease. With the accelerated growth of the population of older adults, geriatric and cardiac care are becoming increasingly entwined. Although cardiovascular disease in younger adults often occurs as an isolated problem, it is more likely to occur in combination with clinical challenges related to age in older patients. Management of cardiovascular disease is transmuted by the context of multimorbidity, frailty, polypharmacy, cognitive dysfunction, functional decline, and other complexities of age. This means that additional insight and skills are needed to manage a broader range of relevant problems in older patients with cardiovascular disease. This review covers geriatric conditions that are relevant when treating older adults with cardiovascular disease, particularly management considerations. Traditional practice guidelines are generally well suited for robust older adults, but many others benefit from a relatively more personalized therapeutic approach that allows for a range of medical circumstances and idiosyncratic goals of care. This requires weighing of risks and benefits amidst the patient's aggregate clinical status and the ability to communicate effectively about this with patients and, where appropriate, their care givers in a process of shared decision making. Such a personalized approach can be particularly gratifying, as it provides opportunities to optimize an older patient's function and quality of life at a time in life when these often become foremost therapeutic priorities.

Patient harm from cardiovascular medications

Background

Medication harm can lead to hospital admission, prolonged hospital stay and poor patient outcomes. Reducing medication harm is a priority for healthcare organisations worldwide. Recent Australian studies demonstrate cardiovascular (CV) medications are a leading cause of harm. However, they appear to receive less recognition as ‘high risk’ medications compared with those classified by the medication safety acronym, ‘APINCH’ (antimicrobials, potassium, insulin, narcotics, chemotherapeutics, heparin). Our aim was to determine the scale and type of medication harm caused by CV medications in healthcare.

Methods

A narrative review of adult (>16 years) medication harm literature identified from PubMed and CINAHL databases was undertaken. Studies with the primary outcome of measuring the incidence of medication harm were included. Harm caused by CV medications was described and ranked against other medication classes at four key stages of a patient’s healthcare journey. Where specified, the implicated medications and type of harm were investigated.

Results

A total of 75 studies were identified, including seven systematic reviews and three meta-analyses, with most focussing on harm causing hospital admission. CV medications were responsible for approximately 20% of medication harm; however, this proportion increased to 50% in older populations. CV medications were consistently ranked in the top five medication categories causing harm and were often listed as the leading cause.

Conclusion

CV medications are a leading cause of medication harm, particularly in older adults, and should be the focus of harm mitigation strategies. A practical approach to generate awareness among health professionals is to incorporate ‘C’ (for CV medications) into the ‘APINCH’ acronym.

Plain language summary

MediQuit, an Electronic Deprescribing Tool for Patients on Polypharmacy: Results of a Feasibility Study in German General Practice

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.

Interventions to optimize medication use in nursing homes: a narrative review

PURPOSE

Polypharmacy, medication errors and adverse drug events are frequent among nursing home residents. Errors can occur at any step of the medication use process. We aimed to review interventions aiming at optimization of any step of medication use in nursing homes.

METHODS

We narratively reviewed quantitative as well as qualitative studies, observational and experimental studies that described interventions, their effects as well as barriers and enablers to implementation. We prioritized recent studies with relevant findings for the European setting.

RESULTS

Many interventions led to improvements in medication use. However, because of outcome heterogeneity, comparison between interventions was difficult. Prescribing was the most studied aspect of medication use. At the micro-level, medication review, multidisciplinary work, and more recently, patient-centered care components dominated. At the macro-level, guidelines and legislation, mainly for specific medication classes (e.g., antipsychotics) were employed. Utilization of technology also helped improve medication administration. Several barriers and enablers were reported, at individual, organizational, and system levels.

CONCLUSION

Overall, existing interventions are effective in optimizing medication use. However there is a need for further European well-designed and large-scale evaluations of under-researched intervention components (e.g., health information technology, patient-centered approaches), specific medication classes (e.g., antithrombotic agents), and interventions targeting medication use aspects other than prescribing (e.g., monitoring). Further development and uptake of core outcome sets is required. Finally, qualitative studies on barriers and enablers for intervention implementation would enable theory-driven intervention design.

A narrative review of updates in deprescribing research

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Deprescribing is a strategy intended to reduce harms associated with potentially inappropriate medications. Reflective of the growing interest in deprescribing, there has been an increase in related research to better understand the landscape, opportunities for improvement, how best to develop and implement interventions, and remaining knowledge gaps that can be addressed with additional study.

DESIGN

We conducted a narrative review of recent deprescribing literature.

SETTING

As part of the US Deprescribing Network's inaugural conference in October 2020, we presented a narrative review of recent deprescribing literature to an audience with a range of clinical and research expertise.

PARTICIPANTS

We searched four databases for English-language articles published between January 1, 2019 and August 31, 2020.

MEASUREMENTS

We evaluated titles, abstracts, and full-length manuscripts for relevance, novelty, rigor and variety of methods; we also aimed for broad representation of authors, institutions, and nations.

RESULTS

The initial search returned 199 citations, from which we reviewed 18 full-length manuscripts, selecting 10 articles to present. Salient themes included missed opportunities to deprescribe in potentially eligible patients, with variable impact of medication- and patient-level factors, along with differing perspectives and behaviors between geriatricians, internists, and cardiologists. Clinical, financial, and economic drivers were also evaluated. Finally, attention was given to issues applicable to deprescribing research, including difficulty recruiting trial participants, perspectives of investigators, and integration of findings into clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

This narrative review summarizes key advances in the field while also identifying priority areas for additional research.

Attitudes toward deprescribing among adults with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Attitudes toward deprescribing could vary among subpopulations. We sought to understand patient attitudes toward deprescribing among patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Academic medical center in New York City.

PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive patients with HFpEF seen in July 2018-December 2019 at a program dedicated to providing care to older adults with HFpEF.

MEASUREMENTS

We assessed the prevalence of vulnerabilities outlined in the domain management approach for caring for patients with heart failure and examined data on patient attitudes toward having their medicines deprescribed via the revised Patient Attitudes Toward Deprescribing (rPATD).

RESULTS

Among 134 patients with HFpEF, median age was 75 (interquartile range 69-82), 60.4% were women, and 35.8% were nonwhite. Almost all patients had polypharmacy (94.0%) and 56.0% had hyperpolypharmacy; multimorbidity (80.6%) and frailty (78.7%) were also common. Overall, 90.3% reported that they would be willing to have one or more of their medicines deprescribed if told it was possible by their doctors; and 26.9% reported that they would like to try stopping one of their medicines to see how they feel without it. Notably, 91.8% of patients reported that they would like to be involved in decisions about their medicines. In bivariate logistic regression, nonwhite participants were less likely to want to try stopping one of their medicines to see how they feel without it (odds ratio 0.25, 95% confidence interval [0.09-0.62], p = 0.005).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with HFpEF contend with many vulnerabilities that could prompt consideration for deprescribing. Most patients with HFpEF were amenable to deprescribing. Race may be an important factor that impacts patient attitudes toward deprescribing.

Retrospective analysis of a pilot pharmacist-led hospice deprescribing program initiative

CONTEXT

Medication deprescribing in palliative care settings has been insufficiently studied.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility of a deprescribing program in hospice patients with limited life expectancy.

DESIGN

Pharmacist-led, single arm, single-centered, retrospective analysis of a pilot deprescribing program in an integrated healthcare delivery organization between 9/1/2018 to 1/31/2019.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved ≥50% reduction of the recommended medications to deprescribe.

RESULTS

A total of 97 patients were included in the analysis. The average age was 77.5 ± 23.7 years, with 53.6% being women and 54.6% white. The most common primary diagnosis was cancer (58.8%), with cardiovascular disease the next most common (15.5%). The mean number of baseline comorbidities was 2.0 ± 1.6. Of 698 prescriptions at the start of hospice enrollment, 79.4% of patients achieved a ≥50% reduction in medications recommended for deprescribing. This success was seen mostly in cardiovascular and other nonspecific medications. We found that every 1-unit increase in the number of patient encounters with hospice pharmacists was associated with a 3.2-fold higher odds of achieving a ≥50% reduction in medications that were recommended for deprescribing.

CONCLUSION

The findings from this pilot study revealed that a collaborative, pharmacist-led, collaborative medication deprescribing program initiative was associated with a 79% success in ≥50% medication reduction. More frequent patient encounters had higher odds of success. Future studies, utilizing a control group, should focus on determining the effectiveness of the program and the impact on quality of life.

Complex and Potentially Harmful Medication Patterns in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Complex medication regimens, often present in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, may increase the risk of adverse drug effects and harm. We sought to characterize this complexity by determining the prevalence of polypharmacy, potentially inappropriate medications, and therapeutic competition (where a medication for 1 condition may worsen another condition) in 1 of the few dedicated heart failure with preserved ejection fraction programs in the United States.

METHODS

We conducted chart review on 231 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction seen in the University of Michigan's Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Clinic between July 2016 and September 2019. We recorded: 1) standing medications to determine the presence of polypharmacy, defined as ≥10 medications; 2) potentially inappropriate medications based on the 2016 American Heart Association Scientific Statement on drugs that pose a major risk of causing or exacerbating heart failure, the 2019 Beers Criteria update, or a previously described list of medications associated with geriatric syndromes; and 3) competing conditions and subsequent medications that could create therapeutic competition.

RESULTS

The prevalence of polypharmacy was 74%, and the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications was 100%. Competing conditions were present in 81% of patients, of whom 49% took a medication that created therapeutic competition.

CONCLUSION

In addition to confirming that polypharmacy was highly prevalent, we found that potentially inappropriate medications and therapeutic competition were also frequently present. This supports the urgent need to develop patient-centered approaches to mitigate the negative effects of complex medication regimens endemic to adults with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use and severe drug interactions (SDIs) in older adults with cancer

BACKGROUND

Older adults with cancer frequently have other co-morbidities requiring prescription pharmacotherapy. The objectives of this study were to identify the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), severe drug interactions (SDIs) and associated risk factors in these patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This twelve-month prospective observation study was conducted at an Irish Hospital. PIMs were identified in older adults (≥65 years) using STOPP and OncPal criteria; potential SDIs using Stockley's interaction checker.

RESULTS

We enrolled 186 patients; mean age 72.5(SD5.7) years, 46.2% female, mean co-morbidities 7.5(SD3.4), median medications 7(IQR4-9). Polypharmacy (≥6 medications) and major polypharmacy (≥11 medications) were identified in 60.8% and 17.7% respectively. STOPP PIMs were observed in 73.1%; median 2(IQR1-3). The most common PIM identified was any drug prescribed beyond the recommended duration (46.5%). For each additional prescription, the odds of receiving a STOPP PIM increased by 79.2% (OR 1.792, 95% CI 1.459-2.02). Potential SDIs were identified in 50.5% participants. The most common were beta-blocker/alpha-blocker (6.5%), selective-serotonin re-uptake inhibitor (SSRI)/proton pump inhibitor (PPI) (5.9%) and SSRI/Aspirin (4.8%). For each additional prescription, the odds of an SDI increased by 50.8% (OR 1.508, 95% CI 1.288-1.764). Seventy-seven (41.4%) participants died within six months of enrolment. OncPal PIMs were observed in 81.8% of this cohort, median 2(IQR1-3). The most common OncPal PIM was statin therapy (38%). For each additional prescription, the odds of receiving an OncPal PIM increased by 38.2%, (OR 1.382, 95% CI 1.080-1.767).

CONCLUSIONS

PIMs and SDIs are common in this population. Comprehensive specialist evaluation of medications by a geriatrician may identify PIMs thereby reducing related adverse outcomes such as SDIs.

General practitioners' deprescribing decisions in older adults with polypharmacy: a case vignette study in 31 countries

BACKGROUND

General practitioners (GPs) should regularly review patients' medications and, if necessary, deprescribe, as inappropriate polypharmacy may harm patients' health. However, deprescribing can be challenging for physicians. This study investigates GPs' deprescribing decisions in 31 countries.

METHODS

In this case vignette study, GPs were invited to participate in an online survey containing three clinical cases of oldest-old multimorbid patients with potentially inappropriate polypharmacy. Patients differed in terms of dependency in activities of daily living (ADL) and were presented with and without history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). For each case, we asked GPs if they would deprescribe in their usual practice. We calculated proportions of GPs who reported they would deprescribe and performed a multilevel logistic regression to examine the association between history of CVD and level of dependency on GPs' deprescribing decisions.

RESULTS

Of 3,175 invited GPs, 54% responded (N = 1,706). The mean age was 50 years and 60% of respondents were female. Despite differences across GP characteristics, such as age (with older GPs being more likely to take deprescribing decisions), and across countries, overall more than 80% of GPs reported they would deprescribe the dosage of at least one medication in oldest-old patients (> 80 years) with polypharmacy irrespective of history of CVD. The odds of deprescribing was higher in patients with a higher level of dependency in ADL (OR =1.5, 95%CI 1.25 to 1.80) and absence of CVD (OR =3.04, 95%CI 2.58 to 3.57).

INTERPRETATION

The majority of GPs in this study were willing to deprescribe one or more medications in oldest-old multimorbid patients with polypharmacy. Willingness was higher in patients with increased dependency in ADL and lower in patients with CVD.

Statin Discontinuation and Life-Limiting Illness in Non-Skilled Stay Nursing Homes at Admission

OBJECTIVES

To estimate 30-day statin discontinuation among newly admitted nursing home residents overall and within categories of life-limiting illness.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort using Minimum Data Set 3.0 nursing home admission assessments from 2015 to 2016 merged to Medicare administrative data files.

SETTING

U.S. Medicare- and Medicaid-certified nursing home facilities (n = 13,092).

PARTICIPANTS

Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries, aged 65 years and older, newly admitted to nursing homes for non-skilled nursing facility stays on statin pharmacotherapy at the time of admission (n = 73,247).

MEASUREMENTS

Residents were categorized using evidence-based criteria to identify progressive, terminal conditions or limited prognoses (<6 months). Discontinuation was defined as the absence of a new Medicare Part D claim for statin pharmacotherapy in the 30 days following nursing home admission.

RESULTS

Overall, 19.9% discontinued statins within 30 days of nursing home admission, with rates that varied by life-limiting illness classification (no life-limiting illness: 20.5%; serious illness: 18.6%; receipt of palliative care consult: 34.5%; clinician designated as end-of-life: 45.0%). Relative to those with no life-limiting illness, risk of 30-day statin discontinuation increased with life-limiting illness severity (serious illness: adjusted risk ratio (aRR) = 1.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.02-1.10; palliative care index diagnosis: aRR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.10-1.21; palliative care consultation: aRR = 1.58; 95% CI = 1.43-1.74; clinician designated as end of life: aRR = 1.59; 95% CI = 1.42-1.79). Nevertheless, most remained on statins after entering the nursing home regardless of life-limiting illness status.

CONCLUSION

Statin use continues in a large proportion of Medicare beneficiaries after admission to a nursing home. Additional deprescribing research, which identifies how to engage nursing home residents and healthcare providers in a process to safely and effectively discontinue medications with questionable benefits, is warranted.