Pharmacist-driven interventions to de-escalate urinary antimuscarinics in the Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly

The effect of deprescribing interventions on mortality and health outcomes in older people: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Previous systematic reviews suggest that deprescribing may improve survival, particularly in frail older people. Evidence is rapidly accumulating, suggesting a need for an updated review of the literature.

METHODS

We updated a 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis to include studies published from inception to 26 April 2024 from specified databases. Studies in which older people had at least one medication deprescribed were included and grouped by study designs and targeted medications. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa tool. Odds ratios (OR) or mean differences were calculated as the effect measures using either the Mantel-Haenszel or generic inverse-variance method with fixed- or random-effects meta-analyses. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes were adverse drug withdrawal events, physical health, cognitive function, quality of life and effect on medication regimen. Subgroup analyses were performed based on age and intervention types.

RESULTS

A total of 259 studies (reported in 286 papers) were included in this updated review. Deprescribing polypharmacy did not result in a significant reduction in mortality in both randomized (OR 0.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.09) and non-randomized studies (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.36-1.38). Further subgroup analyses of randomized studies on deprescribing polypharmacy demonstrated a significant reduction in mortality in the young old (aged 65-79) (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-0.99) and when patient-specific interventions were applied (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Deprescribing can be achieved with potentially important benefits in terms of improved survival, particularly when patient-specific interventions are applied and initiated early in the young old.

Delirium event and associated treatment modifications among older adults with Alzheimer's disease: An interrupted time-series analysis of Medicare data

BACKGROUND

Both Alzheimer's disease (AD) and deliriogenic medications increase the risk of delirium in older adults. This study examined the association between delirium and the subsequent monthly use of anticholinergic, sedative, and opioid medications in the 1 year after delirium in older adults with AD.

METHODS

This comparative interrupted time series analysis involved adults (aged 65 years and older) with a diagnosis of AD initiating on cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) based on 2013-2017 Medicare data. Separate patient-level segmented regression models were used for each outcome to evaluate changes in the cumulative anticholinergic burden (CAB), sedative load, and opioid load after the delirium/index event using a 12-month baseline and follow-up period among patients who had a delirium event and those without delirium (control group). Propensity score-based stabilized weights were utilized to balance baseline factors in the delirium and control groups.

RESULTS

The study included 80,019 older adults with AD with incident ChEI use; 17.11% had delirium. There was an immediate decline in monthly CAB after the delirium event (mean estimate -0.86, p-value: 0.01) compared to the control group. A similar decline was observed when examining the sedative load (-0.06, p-value: 0.002) after the delirium event. However, there was no decline in opioid load (-0.50, p-value: 0.18). In the long term, CAB (0.13; p-value: <0.0001), sedative load (0.01; p-value: <0.001), and opioid load (0.07; p-value: 0.006) increased over the 1-year post-delirium period in the delirium group compared to those without delirium.

CONCLUSION

This study found the burden of deliriogenic medications over the 1-year follow-up showed increasing trends in older adults with AD, even though there was some level shift in CAB and sedative load after the delirium event.

Prevalence of strong anticholinergic use in residents with and without cognitive impairment and frailty: Analysis from 106 nursing homes in 12 Asia-Pacific and European countries

PURPOSE

There is a need to balance the benefits and risks associated with strong anticholinergic medications in older adults, particularly among those with frailty and cognitive impairment. This study explored the international prevalence of strong anticholinergic medication use in residents of nursing homes with and without cognitive impairment and frailty.

METHODS

Secondary, cross-sectional analyses of data from 5,800 residents of 106 nursing homes in Australia, China, Czech Republic, England, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, and Spain were conducted. Strong anticholinergic medications were defined as medications with a score of 2 or 3 on the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden scale. Dementia or cognitive impairment was defined as a documented diagnosis or using a validated scale. Frailty was defined using the FRAIL-NH scale as 0-2 (non-frail), 3-6 (frail) and 7-14 (most-frail). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Overall, 17.4 % (n = 1010) residents used ≥1 strong anticholinergic medication, ranging from 1.3 % (n = 2) in China to 27.1 % (n = 147) in Italy. The most prevalent strong anticholinergics were quetiapine (n = 290, 5.0 % of all residents), olanzapine (132, 2.3 %), carbamazepine (102, 1.8 %), paroxetine (88, 1.5 %) and amitriptyline (87, 1.5 %). Prevalence was higher among residents with cognitive impairment (n = 602, 17.9 %) compared to those without (n = 408, 16.8 %), and among residents who were most frail (n = 553, 17.9 %) compared to those who were frail (n = 286, 16.5 %) or non-frail (n = 171, 17.5 %).

CONCLUSIONS

One in six residents who were most frail and living with cognitive impairment used a strong anticholinergic. However, there was a 20-fold variation in prevalence across the 12 countries. Targeted deprescribing interventions may reduce potentially avoidable medication-harm.

Development and Pilot Testing of an Algorithm-Based Approach to Anticholinergic Deprescribing in Older Patients

BACKGROUND

Adverse anticholinergic drug reactions are common, yet evidence on how to reduce exposure to anticholinergic activity and reliably measure successful deprescribing is still scant. This study proposes an algorithm-based approach to evaluate and reduce anticholinergic load, and reports the results of its pilot testing.

METHODS

Based on published evidence and expert opinion, a list of 85 anticholinergic drugs and 21 algorithms for reducing anticholinergic load, e.g., by recommending alternative drugs with lower risk, were developed. An accompanying test battery was assembled by focusing on instruments that sensitively reflect anticholinergic load and may be sensitive to depict changes (Neuropsychological Assessment Battery to measure memory and attention, validated assessments for constipation, urinary symptoms, and xerostomia, as well as blood biomarkers). The approach was pilot-tested in a geriatric rehabilitation unit, with clinician feedback as the primary outcome and characterization of anticholinergic symptoms as the secondary outcome. The intervention was delivered by a pharmacist and a clinical pharmacologist who used the algorithms to generate personalized recommendation letters.

RESULTS

We included a total of 20 patients, 13 with anticholinergic drugs and 7 without. Recommendations were made for 22 drugs in nine patients from the intervention group, of which seven letters (78%) were considered helpful and 8/22 (36%) anticholinergic drugs were discontinued, reducing anticholinergic load in seven patients. In contrast to patients without drug change, memory assessment in patients with reduced anticholinergic load improved significantly after 2 weeks (6 ± 3 vs. -1 ± 6 points).

CONCLUSIONS

The approach was well received by the participating physicians and might support standardized anticholinergic deprescribing.

Management of use of urinary antimuscarinics and alpha blockers for benign prostatic hyperplasia in older adults at risk of falls: a clinical review

PURPOSE

We aimed to outline the existing information and the underlying mechanisms of risk of falls associated with the use of urinary antimuscarinics for overactive bladder (OAB) or alpha-blockers for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) in older adults. In addition, we aimed to provide assistance to clinicians in decision-making about (de-)prescribing these drugs in older adults.

METHODOLOGY

Based on a literature search in PubMed and Google Scholar, we reviewed the literature, and identified additional relevant articles from reference lists, with an emphasis on the most commonly prescribed drugs in OAB and BPH in older patients. We discussed the use of bladder antimuscarinics and alpha-blockers, their potential side effects related to falls, and the deprescribing of these drugs in older adults.

RESULTS

Urinary urgency or incontinence and lower urinary tract symptoms due to untreated OAB and BPH contribute to fall risk. On the other hand, the use of bladder antimuscarinics and alpha-blockers is also related to fall risk. They contribute to (or cause) falling through dizziness, somnolence, visual impairment, and orthostatic hypotension while they differ in their side-effect profiles regarding these problems. Falls are common and can cause a remarkable amount of morbidity and mortality. Thus, preventive measures should be taken to lower the risk. If the clinical condition allows, withdrawal of bladder antimuscarinics and alpha-blockers is recommended in fall-prone older adults. There are practical resources and algorithms that guide and assist clinicians in deprescribing these drug groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision to prescribe or deprescribe these treatments in patients at high risk of falls should be individualized. In addition to explicit tools that are helpful for clinical decision-making in (de-)prescribing these drugs, STOPPFall (a recently developed expert-based decision aid specifically aiming to prevent falls) is present to assist prescribers in attaining decisions.

Comment on: Pharmacist-driven interventions to de-escalate urinary antimuscarinics in the Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly

See the Reply by David Bankes and Jacques Turgeon.

Reply to: Commentary on: Pharmacist-driven interventions to de-escalate urinary antimuscarinics in the Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly

This letter comments on the letter by Daniel Snyder and Salim Mujais.