Effectiveness of a complex intervention on Prioritising Multimedication in Multimorbidity (PRIMUM) in primary care: results of a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

Preliminary feasibility assessment of a targeted, pharmacist-led intervention for older adults with polypharmacy: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy is associated with the prescription of inappropriate medications and avoidable medication-related harm. A novel pharmacist-led intervention aims to identify and resolve inappropriate medication prescriptions in older adults with polypharmacy.

AIM

To conduct a preliminary feasibility assessment of the intervention in primary care, testing whether specific components of the intervention procedures and processes can be executed as intended.

METHOD

The mixed-methods study was approved by the New Zealand Health and Disability Ethics Committees and public health agency. Patients from a New Zealand general practice clinic were recruited over 4 weeks to receive the intervention. The preliminary feasibility assessment included measures of intervention delivery, patient-reported outcome measures, and perspectives from ten patients and six clinicians. Data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively to determine if a full-scale intervention trial is warranted. The study's progression criteria were based on established research and guided the decision-making process.

RESULTS

The intervention met the study's progression criteria, including patient recruitment, retention, and adherence to the intervention procedures. However, several modifications were identified, including: (1) enhancing patient recruitment, (2) conducting a preliminary meeting between the patient and pharmacist, (3) supporting pharmacists in maintaining a patient-centred approach, (4) reviewing the choice of patient-reported outcome measure, (5) extending the 8-week follow-up period, (6) allocating more time for pharmacists to conduct the intervention.

CONCLUSION

The study found the intervention feasible; however, additional development is required before progressing to a full-scale trial. This intervention has the potential to effectively reduce medication-related harm and improve outcomes for older adults with polypharmacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12621000268842 Date registered: 11/03/2021.

Defining, identifying and addressing problematic polypharmacy within multimorbidity in primary care: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Polypharmacy and multimorbidity pose escalating challenges. Despite numerous attempts, interventions have yet to show consistent improvements in health outcomes. A key factor may be varied approaches to targeting patients for intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To explore how patients are targeted for intervention by examining the literature with respect to: understanding how polypharmacy is defined; identifying problematic polypharmacy in practice; and addressing problematic polypharmacy through interventions.

DESIGN

We performed a scoping review as defined by the Joanna Briggs Institute.

SETTING

The focus was on primary care settings.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Cochrane along with ClinicalTrials.gov, Science.gov and WorldCat.org were searched from January 2004 to February 2024.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included all articles that had a focus on problematic polypharmacy in multimorbidity and primary care, incorporating multiple types of evidence, such as reviews, quantitative trials, qualitative studies and policy documents. Articles focussing on a single index disease or not written in English were excluded.

EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a narrative synthesis, comparing themes and findings across the collective evidence to draw contextualised insights and conclusions.

RESULTS

In total, 157 articles were included. Case-finding methods often rely on basic medication counts (often five or more) without considering medical history or whether individual medications are clinically appropriate. Other approaches highlight specific drug indicators and interactions as potentially inappropriate prescribing, failing to capture a proportion of patients not fitting criteria. Different potentially inappropriate prescribing criteria also show significant inconsistencies in determining the appropriateness of medications, often neglecting to consider multimorbidity and underprescribing. This may hinder the identification of the precise population requiring intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved strategies are needed to target patients with polypharmacy, which should consider patient perspectives, individual factors and clinical appropriateness. The development of a cross-cutting measure of problematic polypharmacy that consistently incorporates adjustment for multimorbidity may be a valuable next step to address frequent confounding.

Deprescribing in older adults with polypharmacy

Polypharmacy is common in older adults and is associated with adverse drug events, cognitive and functional impairment, increased healthcare costs, and increased risk of frailty, falls, hospitalizations, and mortality. Many barriers exist to deprescribing, but increased efforts have been made to develop and implement deprescribing interventions that overcome them. This narrative review describes intervention components and summarizes findings from published randomized controlled trials that have tested deprescribing interventions in older adults with polypharmacy, as well as reports on ongoing trials, guidelines, and resources that can be used to facilitate deprescribing. Most interventions were medication reviews in primary care settings, and many contained components such as shared decision making and/or a focus on patient care priorities, training for healthcare professionals, patient facing education materials, and involvement of family members, representing great heterogeneity in interventions addressing polypharmacy in older adults. Just over half of study interventions were found to perform better than usual care in at least one of their primary outcomes, and most study interventions were assessed over 12 months or less.

Measuring Quality of Life in Deprescribing Trials: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework: osf.io/aez6w.

Digital Medication Management in Polypharmacy

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate drug prescriptions for patients with polypharmacy can have avoidable adverse consequences. We studied the effects of a clinical decision-support system (CDSS) for medication management on hospitalizations and mortality.

METHODS

This stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized, controlled trial involved an open cohort of adult patients with polypharmacy in primary care practices (=clusters) in Westphalia-Lippe, Germany. During the period of the intervention, their medication lists were checked annually using the CDSS. The CDSS warns against inappropriate prescriptions on the basis of patient-related health insurance data. The combined primary endpoint consisted of overall mortality and hospitalization for any reason. The secondary endpoints were mortality, hospitalizations, and high-risk prescription. We analyzed the quarterly health insurance data of the intention- to-treat population with a mixed logistic model taking account of clustering and repeated measurements. Sensitivity analyses addressed effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and other effects.

RESULTS

688 primary care practices were randomized, and data were obtained on 42 700 patients over 391 994 quarter years. No significant reduction was found in either the primary endpoint (odds ratio [OR] 1.00; 95% confidence interval [0.95; 1.04]; p = 0.8716) or the secondary endpoints (hospitalizations: OR 1.00 [0.95; 1.05]; mortality: OR 1.04 [0.92; 1.17]; high-risk prescription: OR 0.98 [0.92; 1.04]).

CONCLUSION

The planned analyses did not reveal any significant effect of the intervention. Pandemicadjusted analyses yielded evidence that the mortality of adult patients with polypharmacy might potentially be lowered by the CDSS. Controlled trials with appropriate follow-up are needed to prove that a CDSS has significant effects on mortality in patients with polypharmacy.

Strategies to Improve Therapeutic Adherence in Polymedicated Patients over 65 Years: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Part of the population over 65 years of age suffer from several pathologies and are therefore polymedicated. In this systematic review and metanalysis, we aimed to determine the efficacy of several strategies developed to improve adherence to pharmacological treatment in polymedicated elderly people.

DESIGN

Web Of Science, PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched until 2 January 2024. In total, 17 of the 1508 articles found evaluated the efficacy of interventions to improve adherence to medication in polymedicated elderly patients. Methodological quality and the risk of bias were rated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Open Meta Analyst® software was used to create forest plots of the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

In 11 of the 17 studies, an improvement in adherence was observed through the use of different measurement tools and sometimes in combination. The most frequently used strategy was using instructions and counselling, always in combination, in a single strategy used to improve adherence; one involved the use of medication packs and the other patient follow-up. In both cases, the results in improving adherence were positive. Five studies using follow-up interventions via visits and phone calls showed improved adherence on the Morisky Green scale compared to those where usual care was received [OR = 1.900; 95% CI = 1.104-3.270] (p = 0.021).

DISCUSSION

There is a high degree of heterogeneity in the studies analyzed, both in the interventions used and in the measurement tools for improving adherence to treatment. Therefore, we cannot make conclusions about the most efficacious strategy to improve medication adherence in polymedicated elderly patients until more evidence of single-intervention strategies is available.

Deprescribing Interventions for Older Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Deprescribing reduces polypharmacy in older adults. A thorough study of the effect of deprescribing interventions on clinical outcomes in older adults is presently lacking. As a result, we evaluated the impact of deprescribing on clinical outcomes in older patients.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from the time of creation to March 2023.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized controlled trial with participants at least 60 years old.

MEASURES

Mortality, falls (number of fallers), hospitalization rates, emergency department visits, medication adherence, HRQoL (health-regulated quality of life), incidence of ADR (adverse drug reactions), PIM (potentially inappropriate medication), and PPO (potentially prescription omission) were evaluated in the meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 32 RCTs (18,670 patients) were included. Deprescribing interventions significantly reduced proportions of older adults with PIM, PPO, and the incidence of ADRs. The interventions group also improved medication compliance.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Compared to routine care, deprescribing interventions significantly improve clinical outcome indicators for older adults.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, so that many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients. This is the third update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions, alone or in combination, in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 13 January 2021, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies. We ran updated searches in February 2023 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Characteristics of studies awaiting classification'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

For this update, we included randomised trials only. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy (four or more medicines) in people aged 65 years and older, which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, and two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 38 studies, which includes an additional 10 in this update. The included studies consisted of 24 randomised trials and 14 cluster-randomised trials. Thirty-six studies examined complex, multi-faceted interventions of pharmaceutical care (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patients' outcomes), in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists, nurses and geriatricians, and most were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane risk of bias tool found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low. It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool) (mean difference (MD) -5.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.26 to -2.06; I2 = 97%; 8 studies, 947 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.05; I2 = 67%; 9 studies, 2404 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIM (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98; I2 = 84%; 13 studies, 4534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.05 to 0.09; I2 = 92%; 3 studies, 691 participants; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only three studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk of bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPO (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.91; I2 = 95%; 7 studies, 2765 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to hospital admissions (data not pooled; 14 studies, 4797 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to quality of life (data not pooled; 16 studies, 7458 participants; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in 10 studies (6740 participants) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies. This also applied to studies examining adherence to medication (nine studies, 3848 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy resulted in clinically significant improvement. Since the last update of this review in 2018, there appears to have been an increase in the number of studies seeking to address potential prescribing omissions and more interventions being delivered by multidisciplinary teams.

Implementation and evaluation of a complex intervention to improve information availability at the interface between inpatient and outpatient care in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy (HYPERION-TransCare) - study protocol for a pilot and feasibility cluster-randomized controlled trial in general practice in Germany

BACKGROUND

Despite attempts to improve the cross-sectoral flow of information, difficulties remain in routine healthcare. The resulting negative impact on continuity of care is often associated with poor health outcomes, especially in older patients. Our intervention aims to increase information availability with respect to medications and health conditions at the interface between inpatient and outpatient care and to contribute towards improving the quality of care in older patients. This pilot study focuses on feasibility and implementability.

METHODS

The idea of the complex intervention has been developed in a previous study. This intervention will be tested in a prospective, multicenter, cluster-randomized (via web tool), controlled pilot trial with two parallel study arms (intervention and control group). The pilot study will be conducted in 20 general practices in Hesse and Saxony (Germany) and include 200 patients (≥ 65 years of age with multimorbidity and polypharmacy) recruited by the practices. Practice staff and patients will be blinded. We will use qualitative and quantitative methods to assess the feasibility and implementability of the intervention and the study design in a process evaluation covering topics ranging from expectations to experiences. In addition, the feasibility of proposed outcome parameters for the future definitive trial will be explored. The composite endpoint will include health-related patient outcomes (hospitalization, falls, and mortality using, e.g., the FIMA questionnaire), and we will assess information on medications (SIMS questionnaire), symptoms and side effects of the medication (pro-CTCAE questionnaire), and health literacy (HLQ questionnaire). Data will be collected at study begin (baseline) and after 6 months. Furthermore, the study will include surveys and interviews with patients, general practitioners, and healthcare assistants.

DISCUSSION

The intervention was developed using a participatory approach involving stakeholders and patients. It aims to empower general practice teams as they provide patient-centered care and play a key role in the coordination and continuity of care. We aim to encourage patients to adopt an active role in their health care. Overall, we want to increase the availability of health-related information for patients and healthcare providers. The results of the pilot study will be used in the design and implementation of the future definitive trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered in DRKS-German Clinical Trials Register: registration number DRKS00027649 (date: 19 January 2022). Date and version identifier 10.07.2023; Version 1.3.

Optimising prescribing in older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care (OPTICA): cluster randomised clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To study the effects of a primary care medication review intervention centred around an electronic clinical decision support system (eCDSS) on appropriateness of medication and the number of prescribing omissions in older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy compared with a discussion about medication in line with usual care.

DESIGN

Cluster randomised clinical trial.

SETTING

Swiss primary care, between December 2018 and February 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible patients were ≥65 years of age with three or more chronic conditions and five or more long term medications.

INTERVENTION

The intervention to optimise pharmacotherapy centred around an eCDSS was conducted by general practitioners, followed by shared decision making between general practitioners and patients, and was compared with a discussion about medication in line with usual care between patients and general practitioners.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes were improvement in the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) and the Assessment of Underutilisation (AOU) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included number of medications, falls, fractures, and quality of life.

RESULTS

In 43 general practitioner clusters, 323 patients were recruited (median age 77 (interquartile range 73-83) years; 45% (n=146) women). Twenty one general practitioners with 160 patients were assigned to the intervention group and 22 general practitioners with 163 patients to the control group. On average, one recommendation to stop or start a medication was reported to be implemented per patient. At 12 months, the results of the intention-to-treat analysis of the improvement in appropriateness of medication (odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.87) and the number of prescribing omissions (0.90, 0.41 to 1.96) were inconclusive. The same was the case for the per protocol analysis. No clear evidence was found for a difference in safety outcomes at the 12 month follow-up, but fewer safety events were reported in the intervention group than in the control group at six and 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

In this randomised trial of general practitioners and older adults, the results were inconclusive as to whether the medication review intervention centred around the use of an eCDSS led to an improvement in appropriateness of medication or a reduction in prescribing omissions at 12 months compared with a discussion about medication in line with usual care. Nevertheless, the intervention could be safely delivered without causing any harm to patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03724539Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03724539.

Potentiality of algorithms and artificial intelligence adoption to improve medication management in primary care: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to investigate the effect of artificial intelligence (AI) and/or algorithms on drug management in primary care settings comparing AI and/or algorithms with standard clinical practice. Second, we evaluated what is the most frequently reported type of medication error and the most used AI machine type.

METHODS

A systematic review of literature was conducted querying PubMed, Cochrane and ISI Web of Science until November 2021. The search strategy and the study selection were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome framework. Specifically, the Population chosen was general population of all ages (ie, including paediatric patients) in primary care settings (ie, home setting, ambulatory and nursery homes); the Intervention considered was the analysis AI and/or algorithms (ie, intelligent programs or software) application in primary care for reducing medications errors, the Comparator was the general practice and, lastly, the Outcome was the reduction of preventable medication errors (eg, overprescribing, inappropriate medication, drug interaction, risk of injury, dosing errors or in an increase in adherence to therapy). The methodological quality of included studies was appraised adopting the Quality Assessment of Controlled Intervention Studies of the National Institute of Health for randomised controlled trials.

RESULTS

Studies reported in different ways the effective reduction of medication error. Ten out of 14 included studies, corresponding to 71% of articles, reported a reduction of medication errors, supporting the hypothesis that AI is an important tool for patient safety.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights how a proper application of AI in primary care is possible, since it provides an important tool to support the physician with drug management in non-hospital environments.

Family Conferences to Facilitate Deprescribing in Older Outpatients With Frailty and With Polypharmacy: The COFRAIL Cluster Randomized Trial

Importance

For older adults with frailty syndrome, reducing polypharmacy may have utility as a safety-promoting treatment option.

Objective

To investigate the effects of family conferences on medication and clinical outcomes in community-dwelling older adults with frailty receiving polypharmacy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 30, 2019, to June 30, 221, at 110 primary care practices in Germany. The study included community-dwelling adults aged 70 years or older with frailty syndrome, daily use of at least 5 different medications, a life expectancy of at least 6 months, and no moderate or severe dementia.

Interventions

General practitioners (GPs) in the intervention group received 3 training sessions on family conferences, a deprescribing guideline, and a toolkit with relevant nonpharmacologic interventions. Three GP-led family conferences for shared decision-making involving the participants and family caregivers and/or nursing services were subsequently held per patient at home over a period of 9 months. Patients in the control group received care as usual.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was the number of hospitalizations within 12 months, as assessed by nurses during home visits or telephone interviews. Secondary outcomes included the number of medications, the number of European Union list of the number of potentially inappropriate medication (EU[7]-PIM) for older people, and geriatric assessment parameters. Both per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses were conducted.

Results

The baseline assessment included 521 individuals (356 women [68.3%]; mean [SD] age, 83.5 [6.17] years). The intention-to-treat analysis with 510 patients showed no significant difference in the adjusted mean (SD) number of hospitalizations between the intervention group (0.98 [1.72]) and the control group (0.99 [1.53]). In the per-protocol analysis including 385 individuals, the mean (SD) number of medications decreased from 8.98 (3.56) to 8.11 (3.21) at 6 months and to 8.49 (3.63) at 12 months in the intervention group and from 9.24 (3.44) to 9.32 (3.59) at 6 months and to 9.16 (3.42) at 12 months in the control group, with a statistically significant difference at 6 months in the mixed-effect Poisson regression model (P = .001). After 6 months, the mean (SD) number of EU(7)-PIMs was significantly lower in the intervention group (1.30 [1.05]) than in the control group (1.71 [1.25]; P = .04). There was no significant difference in the mean number of EU(7)-PIMs after 12 months.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cluster randomized clinical trial with older adults taking 5 or more medications, the intervention consisting of GP-led family conferences did not achieve sustainable effects in reducing the number of hospitalizations or the number of medications and EU(7)-PIMs after 12 months.

Trial Registration

German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00015055.

Anticholinergic burden measures, symptoms, and fall-associated risk in older adults with polypharmacy: Development and validation of a prognostic model

BACKGROUND

Anticholinergic burden has been associated with adverse outcomes such as falls. To date, no gold standard measure has been identified to assess anticholinergic burden, and no conclusion has been drawn on which of the different measure algorithms best predicts falls in older patients from general practice. This study compared the ability of five measures of anticholinergic burden to predict falls. To account for patients' individual susceptibility to medications, the added predictive value of typical anticholinergic symptoms was further quantified in this context.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

To predict falls, models were developed and validated based on logistic regression models created using data from two German cluster-randomized controlled trials. The outcome was defined as "≥ 1 fall" vs. "no fall" within a 6-month follow-up period. Data from the RIME study (n = 1,197) were used in model development, and from PRIMUM (n = 502) for external validation. The models were developed step-wise in order to quantify the predictive ability of anticholinergic burden measures, and anticholinergic symptoms. In the development set, 1,015 patients had complete data and 188 (18.5%) experienced ≥ 1 fall within the 6-month follow-up period. The overall predictive value of the five anticholinergic measures was limited, with neither the employed anticholinergic variable (binary / count / burden), nor dose-dependent or dose-independent measures differing significantly in their ability to predict falls. The highest c-statistic was obtained using the German Anticholinergic Burden Score (0.73), whereby the optimism-corrected c-statistic was 0.71 after interval validation using bootstrapping and 0.63 in the external validation. Previous falls and dizziness / vertigo had the strongest prognostic value in all models.

CONCLUSIONS

The ability of anticholinergic burden measures to predict falls does not appear to differ significantly, and the added value they contribute to risk classification in fall-prediction models is limited. Previous falls and dizziness / vertigo contributed most to model performance.

Influence of health-system change on treatment burden: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Treatment burden is a patient-centred concept describing the effort required of people to look after their health and the impact this has on their functioning and wellbeing. High treatment burden is more likely for people with multiple long-term conditions (LTCs). Validated treatment burden measures exist, but have not been widely used in practice or as research outcomes.

AIM

To establish whether changes in organisation and delivery of health systems and services improve aspects contributing to treatment burden for people with multiple LTCs.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the impact of system-level interventions on at least one outcome relevant to previously defined treatment burden domains among adults with ≥2 LTCs.

METHOD

The Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched for terms related to multimorbidity, system-level change, and treatment burden published between January 2010 and July 2021. Treatment burden domains were derived from validated measures and qualitative literature. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) methodology was used to synthesise results and study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias (version 2) tool.

RESULTS

The searches identified 1881 articles, 18 of which met the review inclusion criteria. Outcomes were grouped into seven domains. There was some evidence for the effect of system-level interventions on some domains, but the studies exhibited substantial heterogeneity, limiting the synthesis of results. Some concern over bias gave low confidence in study results.

CONCLUSION

System-level interventions may affect some treatment burden domains. However, adoption of a standardised outcome set, incorporating validated treatment burden measures, and the development of standard definitions for care processes in future research would aid study comparability.

Decision support software-guided medication reviews in elderly patients with polypharmacy: a prospective analysis of routine data from community pharmacies (OPtiMed study protocol)

BACKGROUND

Pharmacist-led medication reviews are considered a valuable measure to address risks of polypharmacy. The software Medinspector^® is used in community pharmacies to assist the performance of this complex service by structuring the medication review process and supporting pharmacists in their decision-making with targeted clinical knowledge. Key feature is a computerized risk assessment of both the initial and adjusted medication regimen of a patient in multiple domains, thus aiming to support the identification and solving of drug-related problems. This study will examine the effects of medication reviews performed with the clinical decision support system in daily routine practice on medication-related and patient-reported outcomes in elderly patients with polypharmacy.

METHODS

A prospective, before-after observational study is conducted in German community pharmacies aiming to include 148 patients aged 65 or older, who chronically use five or more active pharmaceutical substances with systemic effects and utilize the software-supported medication review service. The study is based on routine documentation within the software over the course of the medication review, including a patient's baseline medication, the medication proposed by pharmacists, and the final medication regimen. A software-implemented questionnaire comprising self-developed and literature-derived instruments is used to collect patient-reported outcome data at baseline and follow-up. Primary outcome is the appropriateness of medication measured with an adapted version of the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI). Secondary medication-related outcomes are medication underuse, exposition towards anticholinergic/sedative drugs, number of drugs in long-term use and the implementation of pharmacist-proposed medication adjustments by the physicians. Secondary patient-reported outcomes are symptom burden, medication-related quality of life, adherence, fulfillment of medication review-related goals, and perception of the service.

DISCUSSION

With the recently introduced remuneration of community pharmacist-led MR in Germany, the demand for digital tools supporting the MR process is assumed to rise. The OPtiMed-study is expected to create evidence on the effects of a novel tool on patient care in a vulnerable patient population. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00027410. Registered 22 December 2021, https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00027410 . Also available on the WHO meta-registry: https://trialsearch.who.int/?TrialID=DRKS00027410.

Patterns of patients with polypharmacy in adult population from Korea

Polypharmacy and its rising global prevalence is a growing public health burden. Using a large representative nationwide Korean cohort (N = 761,145), we conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study aiming to identify subpopulations of patients with polypharmacy and characterize their unique patterns through cluster analysis. Patients aged ≥ 30 years who were prescribed at least one medication between 2014 and 2018 were included in our study. Six clusters were identified: cluster 1 mostly included patients who were hospitalized for a long time (4.3 ± 5.3 days); cluster 2 consisted of patients with disabilities (100.0%) and had the highest mean number of prescription drugs (7.7 ± 2.8 medications); cluster 3 was a group of low-income patients (99.9%); cluster 4 was a group of high-income patients (80.2%) who frequently (46.4 ± 25.9 days) visited hospitals/clinics (7.3 ± 2.7 places); cluster 5 was mostly elderly (74.9 ± 9.8 years) females (80.3%); and cluster 6 comprised mostly middle-aged (56.4 ± 1.5 years) males (88.6%) (all P < 0.001). Patients in clusters 1-5 had more prescribed medications and outpatient visit days than those in cluster 6 (all P < 0.001). Given limited health care resources, individuals with any of the identified phenotypes may be preferential candidates for participation in intervention programs for optimal medication use.

Patient and general practitioner experiences of implementing a medication review intervention in older people with multimorbidity: Process evaluation of the SPPiRE trial

INTRODUCTION

The SPPiRE cluster randomized controlled trial found that a general practitioner (GP)-delivered medication review that incorporated screening for potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP), a brown bag review and a patient priority assessment, resulted in a significant but small reduction in the number of medicines and no significant reduction in PIP. This process evaluation aims to explore the experiences of GPs and patients and the potential for system-wide implementation.

METHODS

The trial included 51 general practices and 404 participants with multimorbidity aged ≥65 years, prescribed ≥15 medicines. The process evaluation used mixed methods and ran parallel to the trial. Quantitative data was collected from the SPPiRE intervention website and analysed descriptively. Qualitative data on medication changes were collected from intervention GPs (18/26) and a purposive sample of intervention patients (27/208) via semi-structured telephone interviews. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic analysis. Qualitative and quantitative data were integrated using a triangulation protocol.

RESULTS

The analysis generated two themes, intervention implementation and mechanisms of action, and both were underpinned by the theme of context. Intervention delivery varied among practices and 45 patients (28%) had no review, primarily due to insufficient GP time. 80% of reviewed patients had ≥1 PIP identified, 59% had ≥1 problem identified during the brown bag review and 79% had ≥1 priority recorded. The brown bag review resulted in the most deprescription of medications. GPs and patients responded positively to the intervention but most GPs did not engage with the patient priority-setting process. GPs identified a lack of integration into practice software and resources as barriers to future implementation.

CONCLUSION

The SPPiRE intervention had a small effect in reducing the number of medicines and this was primarily mediated through the brown bag review. The context of resource shortages and deep-seated views around medical decision-making influenced intervention implementation.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Qualitative data on the implementation of the medication review and their wider views on their medicines was collected from older people with multimorbidity through semi-structured telephone interviews.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The SPPiRE trial was registered prospectively on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12752680).

Multimorbidity Clusters in the Oldest Old: Results from the EpiChron Cohort

Multimorbidity is challenging for both patients and healthcare systems due to its increasing prevalence and high impact on people's health and well-being. The risk of multimorbidity increases with age, but there is still more to discover regarding the clinical profile of the oldest old. In this study, we used information from the EpiChron Cohort Study to identify multimorbidity patterns in individuals who died during the period 2010-2019 at the ages of 80-89, 90-99, and ≥100. This cohort links the demographic, clinical, and drug dispensation information of public health system users in Aragón, Spain. We saw a significantly lower number of chronic diseases and drugs and a lower prevalence of polypharmacy in centenarians compared to those aged 80-99. K-means clustering revealed different multimorbidity clusters by sex and age group. We observed clusters of cardiovascular and metabolic diseases, obstructive pulmonary conditions, and neoplasms, amongst other profiles. One in three octogenarian women had a metabolic pattern (diabetes, dyslipidaemia, and other endocrine-metabolic disorders) with the highest number of diseases (up to seven) and prevalence of polypharmacy (64%). We observed clusters of dementia and genitourinary disorders in individuals on medication with anticholinergic activity. Our study offers an opportunity to better understand the urgency of adequately addressing multimorbidity in our older adults.

Multimorbidity

Multimorbidity (two or more coexisting conditions in an individual) is a growing global challenge with substantial effects on individuals, carers and society. Multimorbidity occurs a decade earlier in socioeconomically deprived communities and is associated with premature death, poorer function and quality of life and increased health-care utilization. Mechanisms underlying the development of multimorbidity are complex, interrelated and multilevel, but are related to ageing and underlying biological mechanisms and broader determinants of health such as socioeconomic deprivation. Little is known about prevention of multimorbidity, but focusing on psychosocial and behavioural factors, particularly population level interventions and structural changes, is likely to be beneficial. Most clinical practice guidelines and health-care training and delivery focus on single diseases, leading to care that is sometimes inadequate and potentially harmful. Multimorbidity requires person-centred care, prioritizing what matters most to the individual and the individual's carers, ensuring care that is effectively coordinated and minimally disruptive, and aligns with the patient's values. Interventions are likely to be complex and multifaceted. Although an increasing number of studies have examined multimorbidity interventions, there is still limited evidence to support any approach. Greater investment in multimorbidity research and training along with reconfiguration of health care supporting the management of multimorbidity is urgently needed.

Deprescribing medicines in older people living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: the TAILOR evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND

Tackling problematic polypharmacy requires tailoring the use of medicines to individual needs and circumstances. This may involve stopping medicines (deprescribing) but patients and clinicians report uncertainty on how best to do this. The TAILOR medication synthesis sought to help understand how best to support deprescribing in older people living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy.

OBJECTIVES

We identified two research questions: (1) what evidence exists to support the safe, effective and acceptable stopping of medication in this patient group, and (2) how, for whom and in what contexts can safe and effective tailoring of clinical decisions related to medication use work to produce desired outcomes? We thus described three objectives: (1) to undertake a robust scoping review of the literature on stopping medicines in this group to describe what is being done, where and for what effect; (2) to undertake a realist synthesis review to construct a programme theory that describes 'best practice' and helps explain the heterogeneity of deprescribing approaches; and (3) to translate findings into resources to support tailored prescribing in clinical practice.

DATA SOURCES

Experienced information specialists conducted comprehensive searches in MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, Google (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) and Google Scholar (targeted searches).

REVIEW METHODS

The scoping review followed the five steps described by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for conducting a scoping review. The realist review followed the methodological and publication standards for realist reviews described by the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) group. Patient and public involvement partners ensured that our analysis retained a patient-centred focus.

RESULTS

Our scoping review identified 9528 abstracts: 8847 were removed at screening and 662 were removed at full-text review. This left 20 studies (published between 2009 and 2020) that examined the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of deprescribing in adults (aged ≥ 50 years) with polypharmacy (five or more prescribed medications) and multimorbidity (two or more conditions). Our analysis revealed that deprescribing under research conditions mapped well to expert guidance on the steps needed for good clinical practice. Our findings offer evidence-informed support to clinicians regarding the safety, clinician acceptability and potential effectiveness of clinical decision-making that demonstrates a structured approach to deprescribing decisions. Our realist review identified 2602 studies with 119 included in the final analysis. The analysis outlined 34 context-mechanism-outcome configurations describing the knowledge work of tailored prescribing under eight headings related to organisational, health-care professional and patient factors, and interventions to improve deprescribing. We conclude that robust tailored deprescribing requires attention to providing an enabling infrastructure, access to data, tailored explanations and trust.

LIMITATIONS

Strict application of our definition of multimorbidity during the scoping review may have had an impact on the relevance of the review to clinical practice. The realist review was limited by the data (evidence) available.

CONCLUSIONS

Our combined reviews recognise deprescribing as a complex intervention and provide support for the safety of structured approaches to deprescribing, but also highlight the need to integrate patient-centred and contextual factors into best practice models.

FUTURE WORK

The TAILOR study has informed new funded research tackling deprescribing in sleep management, and professional education. Further research is being developed to implement tailored prescribing into routine primary care practice.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107544 and PROSPERO CRD42018104176.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Use of an Electronic Medication Management Support System in Patients with Polypharmacy in General Practice: A Quantitative Process Evaluation of the AdAM Trial

Polypharmacy is associated with a risk of negative health outcomes. Potentially inappropriate medications, interactions resulting from contradicting medical guidelines, and inappropriate monitoring, all increase the risk. This process evaluation (PE) of the AdAM study investigates implementation and use of a computerized decision-support system (CDSS). The CDSS analyzes medication appropriateness by including claims data, and hence provides general practitioners (GPs) with full access to patients’ medical treatments. We based our PE on pseudonymized logbook entries into the CDSS and used the four dimensions of the Medical Research Council PE framework. Reach, which examines the extent to which the intended study population was included, and Dose, Fidelity, and Tailoring, which examine how the software was actually used by GPs. The PE was explorative and descriptive. Study participants were representative of the target population, except for patients receiving a high level of nursing care, as they were treated less frequently. GPs identified and corrected inappropriate prescriptions flagged by the CDSS. The frequency and intensity of interventions documented in the form of logbook entries lagged behind expectations, raising questions about implementation barriers to the intervention and the limitations of the PE. Impossibility to connect the CDSS to GPs’ electronic medical records (EMR) of GPs due to technical conditions in the German healthcare system may have hindered the implementation of the intervention. Data logged in the CDSS may underestimate medication changes in patients, as documentation was voluntary and already included in EMR.

Effectiveness of the MULTIPAP Plus intervention in youngest-old patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy aimed at improving prescribing practices in primary care: study protocol of a cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The progressive ageing of the population is leading to an increase in multimorbidity and polypharmacy, which in turn may increase the risk of hospitalization and mortality. The enhancement of care with information and communications technology (ICT) can facilitate the use of prescription evaluation tools and support system for decision-making (DSS) with the potential of optimizing the healthcare delivery process.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the complex intervention MULTIPAP Plus, compared to usual care, in improving prescriptions for young-old patients (65-74 years old) with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care.

METHODS/DESIGN

This is a pragmatic cluster-randomized clinical trial with a follow-up of 18 months in health centres of the Spanish National Health System. Unit of randomization: family physician. Unit of analysis: patient.

POPULATION

Patients aged 65-74 years with multimorbidity (≥ 3 chronic diseases) and polypharmacy (≥ 5 drugs) during the previous 3 months were included.

SAMPLE SIZE

n = 1148 patients (574 per study arm).

INTERVENTION

Complex intervention based on the ARIADNE principles with three components: (1) family physician (FP) training, (2) FP-patient interview, and (3) decision-making support system.

OUTCOMES

The primary outcome is a composite endpoint of hospital admission or death during the observation period measured as a binary outcome, and the secondary outcomes are number of hospital admission, all-cause mortality, use of health services, quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), functionality (WHODAS), falls, hip fractures, prescriptions and adherence to treatment. Clinical and sociodemographic factors will be explanatory variables.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The main result is the difference in percentages in the final composite endpoint variable at 18 months, with its corresponding 95% CI. Adjustments by the main confounding and prognostic factors will be performed through a multilevel analysis. All analyses will be carried out in accordance to the intention-to-treat principle.

DISCUSSION

It is important to prevent the cascade of negative health and health care impacts attributable to the multimorbidity-polypharmacy binomial. ICT-enhanced routine clinical practice could improve the prescription process in patient care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04147130 . Registered on 22 October 2019.

Medication-related quality of life (MRQoL) in ambulatory older adults with multi-morbidity and polypharmacy

PURPOSE

To assess medication-related quality-of-life (MRQoL) in multi-morbid older adults with polypharmacy and correlations with medications, frailty and health-related QoL.

METHODS

With a cross sectional study of multi-morbid geriatric medicine outpatients, we assessed MRQoL (MRQol-LSv1), frailty status, potentially inappropriate medications, Medication Adherence Rating Scale (MARS), health-related-QoL (Short-Form 12, SF12) and medication burden (Living with Medicines Questionnaire, LMQv2).

RESULTS

One-in-four (n = 59) of 234 outpatient attendees met inclusion criteria. Almost half (n = 106, 45%) were excluded due to cognition (MMSE < 26). Included participants (n = 27, mean age 80.2 years) experienced a median of 11 (IQR 9-13.5) co-morbidities and were prescribed a median of 10 (IQR 8-12.25) medications. Overall, MRQoL-LS.v.1 scores were low, suggesting good medication-related quality of life (median MRQoL-LS.v.1 score of 14, IQR 14-22). Correlations between MRQoL, number of daily medications, co-morbidity burden, LMQv2 score, SF12 scores and number of PIMs were non-significant.

CONCLUSION

MRQoL-LSv.1 is unsuitable for most patients attending geriatric ambulatory services.

How to Improve Healthcare for Patients with Multimorbidity and Polypharmacy in Primary Care: A Pragmatic Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial of the MULTIPAP Intervention

(1) Purpose: To investigate a complex MULTIPAP intervention that implements the Ariadne principles in a primary care population of young-elderly patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy and to evaluate its effectiveness for improving the appropriateness of prescriptions. (2) Methods: A pragmatic cluster-randomized clinical trial was conducted involving 38 family practices in Spain. Patients aged 65–74 years with multimorbidity and polypharmacy were recruited. Family physicians (FPs) were randomly allocated to continue usual care or to provide the MULTIPAP intervention based on the Ariadne principles with two components: FP training (eMULTIPAP) and FP patient interviews. The primary outcome was the appropriateness of prescribing, measured as the between-group difference in the mean Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) score change from the baseline to the 6-month follow-up. The secondary outcomes were quality of life (EQ-5D-5 L), patient perceptions of shared decision making (collaboRATE), use of health services, treatment adherence, and incidence of drug adverse events (all at 1 year), using multi-level regression models, with FP as a random effect. (3) Results: We recruited 117 FPs and 593 of their patients. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the between-group difference for the mean MAI score change after a 6-month follow-up was −2.42 (95% CI from −4.27 to −0.59) and, between baseline and a 12-month follow-up was −3.40 (95% CI from −5.45 to −1.34). There were no significant differences in any other secondary outcomes. (4) Conclusions: The MULTIPAP intervention improved medication appropriateness sustainably over the follow-up time. The small magnitude of the effect, however, advises caution in the interpretation of the results given the paucity of evidence for the clinical benefit of the observed change in the MAI. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02866799.

Evaluation of Factors Associated With Appropriate Drug Prescription and Effectiveness of Informative and Educational Interventions—The EDU.RE.DRUG Project

Background: EDU.RE.DRUG study is a prospective, multicentre, open-label, parallel-arm, controlled, pragmatic trial directed to general practitioners (GPs) and their patients.

Methods: The study data were retrieved from health-related administrative databases of four local health units (LHUs) of Lombardy and four LHUs in Campania. According to the LHUs, the GPs/patients were assigned to (A) intervention on both GPs (feedback reports about appropriate prescribing among their patients and online courses) and patients (flyers and posters on proper drug use), (B) intervention on GPs, (C) intervention on patients, and (D) no intervention (control arm). A set of appropriate prescribing indicators (potential drug–drug interactions [pDDIs], potential and unnecessary therapeutic duplicates [pTDs], and inappropriate prescriptions in the elderly [ERD-list]) were measured at baseline and after the intervention phase. The effectiveness of the intervention was evaluated estimating the absolute difference in percentages of selected indicators carrying out linear random-intercept mixed-effect models.

Results: A cohort of 3,586 GPs (2,567 in intervention groups and 1,019 in the control group) was evaluated. In Campania, the mean pre-intervention percentage of patients with at least one pDDI was always greater than 20% and always lower than 15% in Lombardy. The pre–post difference was quite heterogeneous among the LHUs, ranging from 1.9 to −1.4 percentage points. The mean pre-intervention percentage of patients with pTDs ranged from 0.59 to 2.1%, with slightly higher values characterizing Campania LHUs. The magnitude of the pre–post difference was very low, ranging from −0.11 to 0.20. In Campania, the mean pre-intervention percentage of patients with at least one ERD criterium was considerably higher than in Lombardy (approximately 30% in Lombardy and 50% in Campania). The pre–post difference was again quite heterogeneous. The results from the models accounting for GP geographical belonging suggested that none of the interventions resulted in a statistically significant effect, for all the three indicators considered.

Conclusion: The proposed strategy was shown to be not effective in influencing the voluntary changes in GP prescription performance. However, the use of a set of explicit indicators proved to be useful in quantifying the inappropriateness. Further efforts are needed to find more efficient strategies and design more tailored interventions.

Development of an intervention to improve informational continuity of care in older patients with polypharmacy at the interface between general practice and hospital care: protocol for a participatory qualitative study in Germany

INTRODUCTION

Older patients with multimorbidity, polypharmacy and related complex care needs represent a growing proportion of the population and a challenge for healthcare systems. Particularly in transitional care (hospital admission and hospital discharge), medical errors, inappropriate treatment, patient concerns and lack of confidence in healthcare are major problems that may arise from a lack of information continuity. The aim of this study is to develop an intervention to improve informational continuity of care at the interface between general practice and hospital care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A qualitative approach will be used to develop our participatory intervention. Overall, 32 semistructured interviews with relevant stakeholders will be conducted and analysed. The stakeholders will include healthcare professionals from the outpatient setting (general practitioners, healthcare assistants, ambulatory care nurses) and the inpatient setting (clinical doctors, nurses, pharmacists, clinical information scientists) as well as patients and informal caregivers. At a series of workshops based on the results of the stakeholder analyses, we aim to develop a participatory intervention that will then be implemented in a subsequent pilot study. The same stakeholder groups will be invited for participation in the workshops.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for this study was waived by the Ethics Committee of Goethe University Frankfurt because of the nature of the proposed study. Written informed consent will be obtained from all study participants prior to participation. Results will be tested in a pilot study and disseminated at (inter)national conferences and via publication in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTATION NUMBER

Clinical Trials Register: registration number DRKS00027649.

Optimizing Hospital Electronic Prescribing Systems: A Systematic Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Considerable international investment in hospital electronic prescribing (ePrescribing) systems has been made, but despite this, it is proving difficult for most organizations to realize safety, quality, and efficiency gains in prescribing. The objective of this work was to develop policy-relevant insights into the optimization of hospital ePrescribing systems to maximize the benefits and minimize the risks of these expensive digital health infrastructures.

METHODS

We undertook a systematic scoping review of the literature by searching MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases. We searched for primary studies reporting on ePrescribing optimization strategies and independently screened and abstracted data until saturation was achieved. Findings were theoretically and thematically synthesized taking a medicine life-cycle perspective, incorporating consultative phases with domain experts.

RESULTS

We identified 23,609 potentially eligible studies from which 1367 satisfied our inclusion criteria. Thematic synthesis was conducted on a data set of 76 studies, of which 48 were based in the United States. Key approaches to optimization included the following: stakeholder engagement, system or process redesign, technological innovations, and education and training packages. Single-component interventions (n = 26) described technological optimization strategies focusing on a single, specific step in the prescribing process. Multicomponent interventions (n = 50) used a combination of optimization strategies, typically targeting multiple steps in the medicines management process.

DISCUSSION

We identified numerous optimization strategies for enhancing the performance of ePrescribing systems. Key considerations for ePrescribing optimization include meaningful stakeholder engagement to reconceptualize the service delivery model and implementing technological innovations with supporting training packages to simultaneously impact on different facets of the medicines management process.

GP-delivered medication review of polypharmacy, deprescribing, and patient priorities in older people with multimorbidity in Irish primary care (SPPiRE Study): A cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is a rising prevalence of multimorbidity, particularly in older patients, and a need for evidence-based medicines management interventions for this population. The Supporting Prescribing in Older Adults with Multimorbidity in Irish Primary Care (SPPiRE) trial aimed to investigate the effect of a general practitioner (GP)-delivered, individualised medication review in reducing polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) in community-dwelling older patients with multimorbidity in primary care.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) set in 51 GP practices throughout the Republic of Ireland. A total of 404 patients, aged ≥65 years with complex multimorbidity, defined as being prescribed ≥15 regular medicines, were recruited from April 2017 and followed up until October 2020. Furthermore, 26 intervention GP practices received access to the SPPiRE website where they completed an educational module and used a template for an individualised patient medication review that identified PIP, opportunities for deprescribing, and patient priorities for care. A total of 25 control GP practices delivered usual care. An independent blinded pharmacist assessed primary outcome measures that were the number of medicines and the proportion of patients with any PIP (from a predefined list of 34 indicators based predominantly on the STOPP/START version 2 criteria). We performed an intention-to-treat analysis using multilevel modelling. Recruited participants had substantial disease and treatment burden at baseline with a mean of 17.37 (standard deviation [SD] 3.50) medicines. At 6-month follow-up, both intervention and control groups had reductions in the numbers of medicines with a small but significantly greater reduction in the intervention group (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.899 to 0.999, p = 0.045). There was no significant effect on the odds of having at least 1 PIP in the intervention versus control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.39, 95% CI: 0.140 to 1.064, p = 0.066). Adverse events recorded included mortality, emergency department (ED) presentations, and adverse drug withdrawal events (ADWEs), and there was no evidence of harm. Less than 2% of drug withdrawals in the intervention group led to a reported ADWE. Due to the inability to electronically extract data, primary outcomes were measured at just 2 time points, and this is the main limitation of this work.

CONCLUSIONS

The SPPiRE intervention resulted in a small but significant reduction in the number of medicines but no evidence of a clear effect on PIP. This reduction in significant polypharmacy may have more of an impact at a population rather than individual patient level.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN12752680.

Man vs. machine: comparison of pharmacogenetic expert counselling with a clinical medication support system in a study with 200 genotyped patients

Background

Medication problems such as strong side effects or inefficacy occur frequently. At our university hospital, a consultation group of specialists takes care of patients suffering from medication problems. Nevertheless, the counselling of poly-treated patients is complex, as it requires the consideration of a large network of interactions between drugs and their targets, their metabolizing enzymes, and their transporters, etc.

Purpose

This study aims to check whether a score-based decision-support system (1) reduces the time and effort and (2) suggests solutions at the same quality level.

Patients and methods

A total of 200 multimorbid, poly-treated patients with medication problems were included. All patients were considered twice: manually, as clinically established, and using the Drug-PIN decision-support system. Besides diagnoses, lab data (kidney, liver), phenotype (age, gender, BMI, habits), and genotype (genetic variants with actionable clinical evidence I or IIa) were considered, to eliminate potentially inappropriate medications and to select individually favourable drugs from existing medication classes. The algorithm is connected to automatically updated knowledge resources to provide reproducible up-to-date decision support.

Results

The average turnaround time for manual poly-therapy counselling per patient ranges from 3 to 6 working hours, while it can be reduced to ten minutes using Drug-PIN. At the same time, the results of the novel computerized approach coincide with the manual approach at a level of > 90%. The holistic medication score can be used to find favourable drugs within a class of drugs and also to judge the severity of medication problems, to identify critical cases early and automatically.

Conclusion

With the computerized version of this approach, it became possible to score all combinations of all alternative drugs from each class of drugs administered (“personalized medication landscape “) and to identify critical patients even before problems are reported (“medication alert”). Careful comparison of manual and score-based results shows that the incomplete manual consideration of genetic specialties and pharmacokinetic conflicts is responsible for most of the (minor) deviations between the two approaches. The meaning of the reduction of working time for experts by about 2 orders of magnitude should not be underestimated, as it enables practical application of personalized medicine in clinical routine.

Interventions for improving medication adherence in community-dwelling older people with multimorbidity: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multimorbidity is highly prevalent amongst older people. Compared with those with a single disease, older people with multimorbidity are more susceptible to medication nonadherence, which causes adverse health outcomes and increased health care costs. The effectiveness of interventions for improving medication adherence in this population is still unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to improve medication adherence for community-dwelling older people with multimorbidity.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Ten databases: Airiti Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Cochrane CENTRAL, EBSCO CINAHL, OVID EMBASE, OVID MEDLINE, Proquest Central, PsycINFO, Wanfang Database and Web of Science Core Collection.

REVIEW METHODS

Studies evaluating the effects of interventions on medication adherence in community-dwelling older people with multimorbidity were included. Two researchers independently performed the study selection, data extraction and risk assessment. Intervention effects were pooled by random-effects meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies with 3,292 participants were included. Studies on self-management interventions revealed a significant and modest improvement in medication adherence (n = 3 studies; SMD 0.52; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.99; p = 0.03, I² = 43%). Studies using electronic health interventions demonstrated a small yet significant benefit for medication adherence (n = 2 studies; SMD 0.22; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.42; p = 0.03, I² = 0%). There was no pooled significant effect of medication review on medication adherence (n = 4 studies; SMD -0.03; 95% CI -0.21 to 0.15; p = 0.74, I² = 68%). Most of the studies failed to yield a significant improvement in patients' health outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-management interventions and electronic health interventions might be effective in improving medication adherence for older people with multimorbidity. Future adherence interventions are needed to demonstrate improvements in medication adherence and health outcomes.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020150500.

Trampisch H, Timmesfeld N, Thürmann P, Hackmann E, Barkhausen T, Junius-Walker U, Wilm S. Reduction of Potentially Inappropriate Medication in the Elderly

BACKGROUND

Medications with an unfavorable risk-benefit profile in the elderly, and for which there are safer alternatives, are designated as potentially inappropriate medications (PIM). The RIME trial (Reduction of Potentially Inappropriate Medication in the Elderly) was based on PRISCUS, a list of PIM that was developed in 2010 for the German pharmaceuticals market. In this trial, it was studied whether special training and the PRISCUS card could lessen PIM and undesired drug-drug interactions (DDI) among elderly patients in primary care.

METHODS

A three-armed, cluster-randomized, controlled trial was carried out in two regions of Germany. 137 primary care practices were randomized in equal numbers to one of two intervention groups-in which either the primary care physicians alone or the entire practice team received special training-or to a control group with general instructions about medication. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with at least one PIM or DDI (PIM/DDI) per practice. The primary hypothesis was that at 1 year this endpoint would be more effectively lowered in the intervention groups compared to the control group.

RESULTS

Among 1138 patients regularly taking more than five drugs, 453 (39.8%) had at least one PIM/DDI at the beginning of the trial. The percent - ages of PIM/DDI at the beginning of the trial and 1 year later were 43.0% and 41.3% in the intervention groups and 37.0% and 37.6% in the control group. The estimated intervention effect of any intervention (69 practices) versus control (68 practices) was 2.3% (p = 0.36), while that of team training (35 practices) versus physician training (34 practices) was 4.3% (p = 0.22).

CONCLUSION

The interventions in the RIME trial did not significantly lower the percentage of patients with PIM or DDI.

Interventions for improving outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community setting: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Multimorbidity, defined as the co-existence of two or more chronic conditions, presents significant challenges to patients, healthcare providers and health systems. Despite this, there is ongoing uncertainty about the most effective ways to manage patients with multimorbidity. This review updated and narrowed the focus of a previous Cochrane review and aimed to determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve outcomes in people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings, compared to usual care.

METHODS

We searched eight databases and two trials registers up to 9 September 2019. Two review authors independently screened potentially eligible titles and selected studies, extracted data, evaluated study quality and judged the certainty of the evidence (GRADE). Interventions were grouped by their predominant focus into care-coordination/self-management support, self-management support and medicines management. Main outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and mental health. Meta-analyses were conducted, where possible, but the synthesis was predominantly narrative.

RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs with 4753 participants, the majority being older adults with at least three conditions. There were eight care-coordination/self-management support studies, four self-management support studies and four medicines management studies. There was little or no evidence of an effect on primary outcomes of HRQoL (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.07, I2 = 39%) and mental health or on secondary outcomes with a small number of studies reporting that care coordination may improve patient experience of care and self-management support may improve patient health behaviours. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was graded as low due to significant variation in study participants and interventions.

CONCLUSIONS

There are remaining uncertainties about the effectiveness of interventions for people with multimorbidity, despite the growing number of RCTs conducted in this area. Our findings suggest that future research should consider patient experience of care, optimising medicines management and targeted patient health behaviours such as exercise.

Safer prescribing and care for the elderly (SPACE): cluster randomised controlled trial in general practice

Background

Safer prescribing in general practice may help to decrease preventable adverse drug events (ADE) and related hospitalisations.

Aim

To test the effect of the Safer Prescribing and Care for the Elderly (SPACE) intervention on high-risk prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and/or antiplatelet medicines and related hospitalisations.

Design & setting

A pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in general practice. Participants were patients at increased risk of ADEs from NSAIDs and/or antiplatelet medicines at baseline. SPACE comprises automated search to generate for each GP a list of patients with high-risk prescribing; pharmacist outreach to provide education and one-on-one review of list with GP; and automated letter inviting patients to seek medication review with their GP.

Method

The primary outcome was the difference in high-risk prescribing of NSAIDs and/or antiplatelet medicines at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were high-risk prescribing for gastrointestinal, renal, or cardiac ADEs separately, 12-month outcomes, and related ADE hospitalisations.

Results

Thirty-nine practices were recruited with 205 GPs and 191 593 patients, of which 21 877 (11.4%) were participants. Of the participants, 1479 (6.8%) had high-risk prescribing. High-risk prescribing improved in both groups at 6 and 12 months compared with baseline. At 6 months, there was no significant difference between groups (odds ratio [OR] 0.99; 95% confidence intervals [CI] = 0.87 to 1.13) although SPACE improved more for gastrointestinal ADEs (OR 0.81; 95% CI = 0.68 to 0.96). At 12 months, the control group improved more (OR 1.29; 95% CI = 1.11 to 1.49). There was no significant difference for related hospitalisations.

Conclusion

Further work is needed to identify scalable interventions that support safer prescribing in general practice. The use of automated search and feedback plus letter to patient warrants further exploration.

Prevalence and predictors of medication non-adherence among people living with multimorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to describe medication non-adherence among people living with multimorbidity according to the current literature, and synthesise predictors of non-adherence in this population.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses. PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched for relevant articles published in English language between January 2009 and April 2019. Quantitative studies reporting medication non-adherence and/or predictors of non-adherence among people with two or more chronic conditions were included in the review. A meta-analysis was conducted with a subgroup of studies that used an inclusive definition of multimorbidity to recruit participants, rather than seeking people with specific conditions. Remaining studies reporting prevalence and predictors of non-adherence were narratively synthesised.

RESULTS

The database search produced 10 998 records and a further 75 were identified through other sources. Following full-text screening, 178 studies were included in the review. The range of reported non-adherence differed by measurement method, at 76.5% for self-report, 69.4% for pharmacy data, and 44.1% for electronic monitoring. A meta-analysis was conducted with eight studies (n=8949) that used an inclusive definition of multimorbidity to recruit participants. The pooled prevalence of non-adherence was 42.6% (95% CI: 34.0 - 51.3%, k=8, I²=97%, p<0.01). The overall range of non-adherence was 7.0%-83.5%. Frequently reported correlates of non-adherence included previous non-adherence and treatment-related beliefs.

CONCLUSIONS

The review identified a heterogeneous literature in terms of conditions studied, and definitions and measures of non-adherence used. Results suggest that future attempts to improve adherence among people with multimorbidity should determine for which conditions individuals require most support. The variable levels of medication non-adherence highlight the need for more attention to be paid by healthcare providers to the impact of multimorbidity on chronic disease self-management.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019133849.

Predicting hospital admissions from individual patient data (IPD): an applied example to explore key elements driving external validity

OBJECTIVE

To explore factors that potentially impact external validation performance while developing and validating a prognostic model for hospital admissions (HAs) in complex older general practice patients.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Using individual participant data from four cluster-randomised trials conducted in the Netherlands and Germany, we used logistic regression to develop a prognostic model to predict all-cause HAs within a 6-month follow-up period. A stratified intercept was used to account for heterogeneity in baseline risk between the studies. The model was validated both internally and by using internal-external cross-validation (IECV).

RESULTS

Prior HAs, physical components of the health-related quality of life comorbidity index, and medication-related variables were used in the final model. While achieving moderate discriminatory performance, internal bootstrap validation revealed a pronounced risk of overfitting. The results of the IECV, in which calibration was highly variable even after accounting for between-study heterogeneity, agreed with this finding. Heterogeneity was equally reflected in differing baseline risk, predictor effects and absolute risk predictions.

CONCLUSIONS

Predictor effect heterogeneity and differing baseline risk can explain the limited external performance of HA prediction models. With such drivers known, model adjustments in external validation settings (eg, intercept recalibration, complete updating) can be applied more purposefully.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO id: CRD42018088129.

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.

A narrative review of evidence to guide deprescribing among older adults

Potentially inappropriate prescription and polypharmacy are well‐known risk factors for morbidity and mortality among older adults. However, recent systematic reviews have failed to demonstrate the overall survival benefits of deprescribing. Thus, it is necessary to synthesize the current evidence to provide a practical direction for future research and clinical practice. This review summarizes the existing body of evidence regarding deprescribing to identify useful intervention elements. There is evidence that even simple interventions, such as direct deprescribing targeted at risky medications and explicit criteria‐based approaches, effectively reduce inappropriate prescribing. On the other hand, if the goal is to improve clinical outcomes such as hospitalization and emergency department visits, patient‐centered multimodal interventions such as a combination of medication review, multidisciplinary collaboration, and patient education are likely to be more effective. We also consider the opportunities and challenges for deprescribing within the Japanese healthcare system.

The effects of clinical decision support system for prescribing medication on patient outcomes and physician practice performance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) for Prescribing are one of the innovations designed to improve physician practice performance and patient outcomes by reducing prescription errors. This study was therefore conducted to examine the effects of various CDSSs on physician practice performance and patient outcomes.

Methods

This systematic review was carried out by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library from 2005 to 2019. The studies were independently reviewed by two researchers. Any discrepancies in the eligibility of the studies between the two researchers were then resolved by consulting the third researcher. In the next step, we performed a meta-analysis based on medication subgroups, CDSS-type subgroups, and outcome categories. Also, we provided the narrative style of the findings. In the meantime, we used a random-effects model to estimate the effects of CDSS on patient outcomes and physician practice performance with a 95% confidence interval. Q statistics and I² were then used to calculate heterogeneity.

Results

On the basis of the inclusion criteria, 45 studies were qualified for analysis in this study. CDSS for prescription drugs/COPE has been used for various diseases such as cardiovascular diseases, hypertension, diabetes, gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases, AIDS, appendicitis, kidney disease, malaria, high blood potassium, and mental diseases. In the meantime, other cases such as concurrent prescribing of multiple medications for patients and their effects on the above-mentioned results have been analyzed. The study shows that in some cases the use of CDSS has beneficial effects on patient outcomes and physician practice performance (std diff in means = 0.084, 95% CI 0.067 to 0.102). It was also statistically significant for outcome categories such as those demonstrating better results for physician practice performance and patient outcomes or both. However, there was no significant difference between some other cases and traditional approaches. We assume that this may be due to the disease type, the quantity, and the type of CDSS criteria that affected the comparison. Overall, the results of this study show positive effects on performance for all forms of CDSSs.

Conclusions

Our results indicate that the positive effects of the CDSS can be due to factors such as user-friendliness, compliance with clinical guidelines, patient and physician cooperation, integration of electronic health records, CDSS, and pharmaceutical systems, consideration of the views of physicians in assessing the importance of CDSS alerts, and the real-time alerts in the prescription.

The Effect of a Comprehensive, Interdisciplinary Medication Review on Quality of Life and Medication Use in Community Dwelling Older People with Polypharmacy

Background: We conducted a comprehensive medication review at the patients’ home, using data from electronic patient records, and with input from relevant specialists, general practitioners and pharmacists formulated and implemented recommendations to optimize medication use in patients aged 60+ years with polypharmacy. We evaluated the effect of this medication review on quality of life (QoL) and medication use. Methods: Cluster randomized controlled trial (stepped wedge), randomly assigning general practices to one of three consecutive steps. Patients received usual care until the intervention was implemented. Primary outcome was QoL (SF-36 and EQ-5D); secondary outcomes were medication changes, medication adherence and (instrumental) activities of daily living (ADL, iADL) which were measured at baseline, and around 6- and 12-months post intervention. Results: Twenty-four general practices included 360 women and 410 men with an average age of 75 years (SD 7.5). A positive effect on SF-36 mental health (estimated mean was stable in the intervention, but decreased in the control condition with −6.1, p = 0.009,) was found with a reduced number of medications at follow-up compared to the control condition. No significant effects were found on other QoL subscales, ADL, iADL or medication adherence. Conclusion: The medication review prevented decrease of mental health (SF36), with no significant effects on other outcome measures, apart from a reduction in the number of prescribed medications.

Predicting negative health outcomes in older general practice patients with chronic illness: Rationale and development of the PROPERmed harmonized individual participant data database

The prevalence of multimorbidity and polypharmacy increases significantly with age and are associated with negative health consequences. However, most current interventions to optimize medication have failed to show significant effects on patient-relevant outcomes. This may be due to ineffectiveness of interventions themselves but may also reflect other factors: insufficient sample sizes, heterogeneity of population. To address this issue, the international PROPERmed collaboration was set up to obtain/synthesize individual participant data (IPD) from five cluster-randomized trials. The trials took place in Germany and The Netherlands and aimed to optimize medication in older general practice patients with chronic illness. PROPERmed is the first database of IPD to be drawn from multiple trials in this patient population and setting. It offers the opportunity to derive prognostic models with increased statistical power for prediction of patient-relevant outcomes resulting from the interplay of multimorbidity and polypharmacy. This may help patients from this heterogeneous group to be stratified according to risk and enable clinicians to identify patients that are likely to benefit most from resource/time-intensive interventions. The aim of this manuscript is to describe the rationale behind PROPERmed collaboration, characteristics of the included studies/participants, development of the harmonized IPD database and challenges faced during this process.

Are Anticholinergic Symptoms a Risk Factor for Falls in Older General Practice Patients With Polypharmacy? Study Protocol for the Development and Validation of a Prognostic Model

Background: Cumulative anticholinergic exposure, also known as anticholinergic burden, is associated with a variety of adverse outcomes. However, studies show that anticholinergic effects tend to be underestimated by prescribers, and anticholinergics are the most frequently prescribed potentially inappropriate medication in older patients. The grading systems and drugs included in existing scales to quantify anticholinergic burden differ considerably and do not adequately account for patients’ susceptibility to medications. Furthermore, their ability to link anticholinergic burden with adverse outcomes such as falls is unclear. This study aims to develop a prognostic model that predicts falls in older general practice patients, to assess the performance of several anticholinergic burden scales, and to quantify the added predictive value of anticholinergic symptoms in this context.

Methods: Data from two cluster-randomized controlled trials investigating medication optimization in older general practice patients in Germany will be used. One trial (RIME, n = 1,197) will be used for the model development and the other trial (PRIMUM, n = 502) will be used to externally validate the model. A priori, candidate predictors will be selected based on a literature search, predictor availability, and clinical reasoning. Candidate predictors will include socio-demographics (e.g. age, sex), morbidity (e.g. single conditions), medication (e.g. polypharmacy, anticholinergic burden as defined by scales), and well-being (e.g. quality of life, physical function). A prognostic model including sociodemographic and lifestyle-related factors, as well as variables on morbidity, medication, health status, and well-being, will be developed, whereby the prognostic value of extending the model to include additional patient-reported symptoms will be also assessed. Logistic regression will be used for the binary outcome, which will be defined as “no falls” vs. “≥1 fall” within six months of baseline, as reported in patient interviews.

Discussion: As the ability of different anticholinergic burden scales to predict falls in older patients is unclear, this study may provide insights into their relative importance as well as into the overall contribution of anticholinergic symptoms and other patient characteristics. The results may support general practitioners in their clinical decision-making and in prescribing fewer medications with anticholinergic properties.

Identification of the multimorbidity training needs of primary care professionals: Protocol of a survey

Current epidemiological situation has prompted the consideration of multimorbility (MM) as a prevalent condition, influenced by age, educational level and social support, related to unfavorable social and health determinants. Primary Care (PC) has a key role in its approach but further training of professionals in MM is required. The evidence on the effectiveness of training interventions in MM is still limited. Knowing the experiences, opinions and training needs of professionals is essential to enhance training interventions.

OBJECTIVES

Identify perceived training needs by PC health professionals (doctors and nurses) in MM and polypharmacy.

METHODS

Design: Cross-sectional study based on an online survey (anonymous-ad hoc questionnaire). Participants and recruitment: 384 doctors and nurses working in healthcare centers and out-of-hospital emergencies of the Spanish National Health System. Non-probabilistic convenience sampling via email addressed to Health Institutions, and social networks.

DATA

Demographic characteristics and professional profile data (close-ended and multiple-choice questions) will be collected. Open-ended questions will be used to identify training needs, difficulties and resources about MM; required skills to care patients with MM will be assessed using a 4-item ordinal scale.

ANALYSIS

Coding of data prior to analysis. Descriptive statistical analysis, participation and completion rates of the questionnaire and estimation of absolute and relative frequencies and 95% confidence intervals in close-ended questions. Content analysis with inductive methodology in open-ended questions. Ethics: Ethical approval, Online informed consent.

CONCLUSIONS

The identification of training needs of health professionals who care for patients with MM will be necessary data for developing highly effective training activities.

Improving medication appropriateness in nursing homes via structured interprofessional medication-review supported by health information technology: a non-randomized controlled study

Background

In nursing home residents (NHRs), polypharmacy is widespread, accompanied by elevated risks of medication related complications. Managing medication in NHRs is a priority, but prone to several challenges, including interprofessional cooperation. Against this background, we implemented and tested an interprofessional intervention aimed to improve medication appropriateness for NHRs.

Methods

A non-randomized controlled study (SiMbA; “Sicherheit der Medikamentherapie bei AltenheimbewohnerInnen”, Safety of medication therapy in NHRs) was conducted in six nursing homes in Austria (2016–2018). Educational training, introduction of tailored health information technology (HIT) and a therapy check process were combined in an intervention aimed at healthcare professionals. Medication appropriateness was assessed using the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI). Data was collected before (t0), during (t1, month 12) and after (t2, month 18) intervention via self-administered assessments and electronic health records.

Results

We included 6 NHs, 17 GPs (52.94% female) and 240 NHRs (68.75% female; mean age 85.0). Data of 159 NHRs could be included in the analysis. Mean MAI-change was − 3.35 (IG) vs. − 1.45 (CG). In the subgroup of NHRs with mean MAI ≥23, MAI-change was − 10.31 (IG) vs. −3.52 (CG). The intervention was a significant predictor of improvement in MAI when controlled for in a multivariable regression model.

Conclusions

Improvement of medication appropriateness was clearest in residents with inappropriate baseline MAI-scores. This improvement was independent of variances in certain covariates between the intervention and the control group. We conclude that our intervention is a feasible approach to improve NHRs’ medication appropriateness.

Trial registration

DRKS Data Management, ID: DRKS00012246. Registered 16.05.2017 – Retrospectively registered.

Deprescribing for Community-Dwelling Older Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy and use of inappropriate medications have been linked to increased risk of falls, hospitalizations, cognitive impairment, and death. The primary objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, and harms of deprescribing interventions among community-dwelling older adults.

METHODS

We searched OVID MEDLINE Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from 1990 through February 2019 for controlled clinical trials comparing any deprescribing intervention to usual care or another intervention. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hospitalizations, health-related quality of life, and falls. The secondary outcome was use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Interventions were categorized as comprehensive medication review, educational initiatives, and computerized decision support. Data abstracted by one investigator were verified by another. We used the Cochrane criteria to rate risk of bias for each study and the GRADE system to determine certainty of evidence (COE) for primary outcomes.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight low and medium risk of bias clinical trials were included. Comprehensive medication review may have reduced all-cause mortality (OR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.58 to 0.95, I2 = 0, k = 12, low COE) but probably had little to no effect on falls, health-related quality of life, or hospitalizations (low to moderate COE). Nine of thirteen trials reported fewer PIMs in the intervention group. Educational interventions probably had little to no effect on all-cause mortality, hospitalizations, or health-related quality of life (low to moderate COE). The effect on falls was uncertain (very low COE). All 11 education trials that included PIMs reported fewer in the intervention than in the control groups. Two of 4 computerized decision support trials reported fewer PIMs in the intervention arms; none included any primary outcomes.

DISCUSSION

In community-dwelling people aged 65 years and older, medication deprescribing interventions may provide small reductions in mortality and use of potentially inappropriate medications.

REGISTRY INFORMATION

PROSPERO - CRD42019132420.

Development and internal validation of prognostic models to predict negative health outcomes in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in general practice

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy interventions are resource-intensive and should be targeted to those at risk of negative health outcomes. Our aim was to develop and internally validate prognostic models to predict health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the combined outcome of falls, hospitalisation, institutionalisation and nursing care needs, in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in general practices.

METHODS

Design: two independent data sets, one comprising health insurance claims data (n=592 456), the other data from the PRIoritising MUltimedication in Multimorbidity (PRIMUM) cluster randomised controlled trial (n=502). Population: ≥60 years, ≥5 drugs, ≥3 chronic diseases, excluding dementia. Outcomes: combined outcome of falls, hospitalisation, institutionalisation and nursing care needs (after 6, 9 and 24 months) (claims data); and HRQoL (after 6 and 9 months) (trial data). Predictor variables in both data sets: age, sex, morbidity-related variables (disease count), medication-related variables (European Union-Potentially Inappropriate Medication list (EU-PIM list)) and health service utilisation. Predictor variables exclusively in trial data: additional socio-demographics, morbidity-related variables (Cumulative Illness Rating Scale, depression), Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI), lifestyle, functional status and HRQoL (EuroQol EQ-5D-3L). Analysis: mixed regression models, combined with stepwise variable selection, 10-fold cross validation and sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Most important predictors of EQ-5D-3L at 6 months in best model (Nagelkerke's R² 0.507) were depressive symptoms (-2.73 (95% CI: -3.56 to -1.91)), MAI (-0.39 (95% CI: -0.7 to -0.08)), baseline EQ-5D-3L (0.55 (95% CI: 0.47 to 0.64)). Models based on claims data and those predicting long-term outcomes based on both data sets produced low R² values. In claims data-based model with highest explanatory power (R²=0.16), previous falls/fall-related injuries, previous hospitalisations, age, number of involved physicians and disease count were most important predictor variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Best trial data-based model predicted HRQoL after 6 months well and included parameters of well-being not found in claims. Performance of claims data-based models and models predicting long-term outcomes was relatively weak. For generalisability, future studies should refit models by considering parameters representing well-being and functional status.

A prognostic model predicted deterioration in health-related quality of life in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy

OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate a prognostic model to predict deterioration in health-related quality of life (dHRQoL) in older general practice patients with at least one chronic condition and one chronic prescription.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We used individual participant data from five cluster-randomized trials conducted in the Netherlands and Germany to predict dHRQoL, defined as a decrease in EQ-5D-3 L index score of ≥5% after 6-month follow-up in logistic regression models with stratified intercepts to account for between-study heterogeneity. The model was validated internally and by using internal-external cross-validation (IECV).

RESULTS

In 3,582 patients with complete data, of whom 1,046 (29.2%) showed deterioration in HRQoL, and 12/87 variables were selected that were related to single (chronic) conditions, inappropriate medication, medication underuse, functional status, well-being, and HRQoL. Bootstrap internal validation showed a C-statistic of 0.71 (0.69 to 0.72) and a calibration slope of 0.88 (0.78 to 0.98). In the IECV loop, the model provided a pooled C-statistic of 0.68 (0.65 to 0.70) and calibration-in-the-large of 0 (-0.13 to 0.13). HRQoL/functionality had the strongest prognostic value.

CONCLUSION

The model performed well in terms of discrimination, calibration, and generalizability and might help clinicians identify older patients at high risk of dHRQoL.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ID: CRD42018088129.

The evolution of an evidence based intervention designed to improve prescribing and reduce polypharmacy in older people with multimorbidity and significant polypharmacy in primary care (SPPiRE)

Introduction

By the time an intervention is ready for evaluation in a definitive RCT the context of the evidence base may have evolved. To avoid research waste, it is imperative that intervention design and evaluation is an adaptive process incorporating emerging evidence and novel concepts. The aim of this study is to describe changes that were made to an evidence based intervention at the protocol stage of the definitive RCT to incorporate emerging evidence.

Methods

The original evidence based intervention, a GP delivered web guided medication review, was modified in a five step process:Identification of core components of the original intervention.Literature review.Modification of the intervention.Pilot study.Final refinements. A framework, developed in public health research, was utilised to describe the modification process.

Results

The population under investigation changed from older people with a potentially inappropriate prescription (PIP) to older people with significant polypharmacy, a proxy marker for complex multimorbidity. An assessment of treatment priorities and brown bag medication review, with a focus on deprescribing were incorporated into the original intervention. The number of repeat medicines was added as a primary outcome measure as were additional secondary patient reported outcome measures to assess treatment burden and attitudes towards deprescribing.

Conclusions

A framework was used to systematically describe how and why the original intervention was modified, allowing the new intervention to build upon an effective and robustly developed intervention but also to be relevant in the context of the current evidence base.

Avoiding harm: Tackling problematic polypharmacy through strengthening expert generalist practice

Problematic polypharmacy is a growing challenge. Medication that is intended to improve patients' health and wellbeing is instead becoming part of the problem. The way we practice medicine has become a driver for the problem. Dealing with the challenge will need us to think differently about how we do clinical care. A 2013 Kings Fund report stated that tackling problematic polypharmacy requires us to actively build a principle of compromise into the way we use medicines. There are implications for how we consult and make decisions with patients, in how we design health practice and systems to support that decision making, and, in our understanding of the process of research, how we generate the knowledge that informs practice. This review considers the current state of play in all 3 areas and identifies some of the work we still need to do in order to generate the practice-based evidence needed to tackle this most challenging problem. Finding a way to redesign practice to address problematic polypharmacy could offer a template for tackling other related complex issues facing medical practice such as multimorbidity, chronic pain and complex mental health.

A complex intervention for multimorbidity in primary care: A feasibility study

Aim

To assess the feasibility of a patient-centered complex intervention for multimorbidity (CIM) based on general practice in collaboration with community health-care centers and outpatient clinics.

Methods

Inclusion criteria were age ≥18 years, diagnoses of two or more of three chronic conditions (diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and chronic heart conditions), and a hospital contact during the previous year. The CIM included extended consultations and nurse care manager support in general practice and intensified cross-sectorial collaboration. Elements included a structured care plan based on patients' care goals, coordination of services, and, if appropriate, shifting outpatient clinic visits to general practice, medication review, referral to rehabilitation, and home care. The acceptability dimension of feasibility was assessed with validated questionnaires, observations, and focus groups.

Results

Forty-eight patients were included (mean age 72.2 (standard deviation (SD) 9.5, range 52-89); 23 (48%) were men. Thirty-seven patients had two diseases; most commonly COPD and cardiovascular disease (46%), followed by diabetes and cardiovascular disease (23%), and COPD and diabetes (15%). Eleven (23%) patients had all three conditions. Focus group interviews with patients with multimorbidity identified three main themes: (1) lack of care coordination existed across health-care sectors before the CIM, (2) extended consultations provided better care coordination, and (3) patients want to be involved in planning their treatment and care. In focus groups, health-care professionals discussed two main themes: (1) patient-centered care and (2) culture and organizational change. Completion rates for questionnaires were 98% (47/48).

Conclusions

Patients and health-care professionals found the CIM acceptable.