Factors associated with potentially inappropriate prescriptions and barriers to medicines optimisation among older adults in primary care settings: a systematic review

Comparing AGS Beers 2019, STOPP version 2, and EU(7)-PIM list in Portuguese older adults in primary health care

PURPOSE

This study aims to identify PIM prevalence in older adults according to the 2019 Beers criteria, Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions version 2 (STOPP v2) criteria, and the Portuguese EU(7)-PIM list and also to analyze the concordance between these criteria.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted among 1200 Portuguese older adults (≥ 65 years old), users of primary health care. Demographic, clinical, and pharmacological data were collected concerning the period between April 2021 and August 2022. A comparative analysis was performed between the three PIM identification criteria, and the concordance was determined according to the Lin concordance correlation coefficient.

RESULTS

The mean age was 76.3 (SD 7.7) years old and 57.6% of the older adults were females. Our findings indicate varying prevalence rates among these criteria with 63.8% (95% CI 61.0-66.6%), 66.8% (95% CI 64.1-69.5%), and 50.1% (95% CI 47.2-53.0%) of the older adults take at least one PIM according to the EU(7)-PIM list, Beers 2019, and STOPP v2 criteria, respectively. The highest prevalence observed was for proton pump inhibitors according to EU(7)-PIM list (30.1%, 95% CI 27.6-32.9) and Beers criteria (30.1%, 95% CI 27.6-32.9) and alprazolam according to STOPP v2 criteria (10.1%, 95% CI 8.4-11.9%). A poor concordance between criteria was observed (< 0.834). The highest concordance coefficient was found between the EU(7)-PIM list and the Beers criteria (0.833), and the lowest between the EU(7)-PIM list and STOPP criteria (0.735).

CONCLUSION

This study reveals varying prevalence rates of PIM in older adults, as assessed by different criteria, and highlights the need for targeted interventions and improved prescribing practices. In the future, studies should focus on the occurrence of negative outcomes in older adults associated with PIM consumption.

Medication review and deprescribing in different healthcare settings: a position statement from an Italian scientific consortium

Recent medical advancements have increased life expectancy, leading to a surge in patients affected by multiple chronic diseases and consequent polypharmacy, especially among older adults. This scenario increases the risk of drug interactions and adverse drug reactions, highlighting the need for medication review and deprescribing to reduce inappropriate medications and optimize therapeutic regimens, with the ultimate goal to improving patients' health and quality of life. This position statement from the Italian Scientific Consortium on medication review and deprescribing aims to describe key elements, strategies, tools, timing, and healthcare professionals to be involved, for the implementation of medication review and deprescribing in different healthcare settings (i.e., primary care, hospital, long-term care facilities, and palliative care). Challenges and potential solutions for the implementation of medication review and deprescribing are also discussed.

Older adults' attitudes towards deprescribing and medication changes: a longitudinal sub-study of a cluster randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between older patients' willingness to have one or more medications deprescribed and: (1) change in medications, (2) change in the appropriateness of medications and (3) implementation of prescribing recommendations generated by the electronic decision support system tested in the 'Optimising PharmacoTherapy In the Multimorbid Elderly in Primary CAre' (OPTICA) trial.

DESIGN

A longitudinal sub-study of the OPTICA trial, a cluster randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Swiss primary care settings.

PARTICIPANTS

Participants were aged ≥65 years, with ≥3 chronic conditions and ≥5 regular medications recruited from 43 general practitioner (GP) practices.

EXPOSURES

Patients' willingness to have medications deprescribed was assessed using three questions from the 'revised Patient Attitudes Towards Deprescribing' (rPATD) questionnaire and its concerns about stopping score.

MEASURES/ANALYSES

Medication-related outcomes were collected at 1 year follow-up. Aim 1 outcome: change in the number of long-term medications between baseline and 12 month follow-up. Aim 2 outcome: change in medication appropriateness (Medication Appropriateness Index). Aim 3 outcome: binary variable on whether any prescribing recommendation generated during the OPTICA medication review was implemented. We used multilevel linear regression analyses (aim 1 and aim 2) and multilevel logistic regression analyses (aim 3). Models were adjusted for sociodemographic variables and the clustering effect at GP level.

RESULTS

298 patients completed the rPATD, 45% were women and 78 years was the median age. A statistically significant association was found between the concerns about stopping score and the change in the number of medications over time (per 1-unit increase in the score the average number of medications use was 0.65 higher; 95% CI: 0.08 to 1.22). Other than that we did not find evidence for statistically significant associations between patients' agreement with deprescribing and medication-related outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not find evidence for an association between most measures of patient agreement with deprescribing and medication-related outcomes over 1 year.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03724539.

General practitioners' attitudes towards and frequency of collaboration with pharmacists in China: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Building interprofessional working relationships between general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists is essential to ensure high-quality patient care. However, there is limited Chinese literature on GP-pharmacist collaboration, and few studies have explored GPs' experiences with pharmacist integration into general practices. This study aimed to investigate GPs' attitudes towards and frequency of collaboration with pharmacists in China.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study used an online self-administered questionnaire integrating two scales, ATCI-GP and FICI-GP, which had been translated and validated to investigate 3,248 GPs from February 15 to March 15, 2023 across Zhejiang Province, China. Descriptive analyses were used, and the factors associated with GPs' frequency of collaboration with pharmacists were explored using logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 2,487 GPs (76.6%) responded and consented to participate in the survey; 52.3% were male and the mean age was 35.4 years. Most GPs agreed that they shared common goals and objectives with pharmacists when caring for patients (90.0%), and pharmacists were open to working with them on patients' medication management (80.8%). However, half of the GPs did not change or seldom changed the patient's medication on the pharmacist's advice (51.4%). Logistic regression analysis showed that GPs who were older and had more years of practice were more likely to agree that pharmacists were willing to collaborate, had common goals for treatment and that they would change the patient's medication on the advice of the pharmacist. GPs who had regular communication protocols (adjusted odds ratio1 [aOR1] = 1.88, 95% CI 1.45-2.45; aOR2 = 3.33, 95% CI 2.76-4.02), participated in joint continuing education (aOR1 = 1.87, 95% CI 1.44-2.43; aOR2 = 2.27, 95% CI 1.91-2.70), provided recommendations for medication review (aOR1 = 3.01, 95% CI 2.07-4.38; aOR2 = 3.50, 95% CI 2.51-4.86), and communicated with pharmacists during resident training (aOR1 = 2.15, 95% CI 1.78-2.60; aOR2 = 1.38, 95% CI 1.18-1.62) were associated with a more positive attitude towards and higher frequency of cooperation.

CONCLUSIONS

GPs in China displayed a positive attitude towards cooperating with pharmacists, but they did not demonstrate a similar level of practice. As environmental determinants impact interdisciplinary collaboration, healthcare managers and policy-makers need to implement measures that foster a supportive environment conducive to interdisciplinary collaboration.

Evaluation of potentially inappropriate medications use and medication complexity in elderly patients applying to community pharmacy in Turkey

BACKGROUND

Older adults often use multiple medicines to manage comorbidities well or to prevent associated complications. This study aims to determine polypharmacy, the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) using the 2019 Beers Criteria and to determine the Medication Regimen Complexity Index (MRCI) score. It also aims to identify factors associated with the presence of PIMs and the MRCI score.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was carried out between 6 and 2023 and 5 May 2023 in a community pharmacy in Turkey. Elderly patients over 65 years of age, who used at least one drug, and who came to the pharmacy for any reason were included in the study. PIMs were determined according to the 2019 Beers Criteria. The Turkish validated version of the MRCI was used to determine the medication complexity score.

RESULTS

200 patients were included in this study. 59.5% of the patients were female and the median age was 70 (IQR, 66-74.75). Polypharmacy was detected in 33% of patients. The use of PIMs was determined in 63.5% of the patients. The median of the MRCI score was 11 (IQR, 7-15). The number of chronic diseases and drugs, presence of polypharmacy, MRCI score and mental disorders were found to be significantly higher in those with PIMs than in those without (p < 0.05). Having less than eight years of education, presence of polypharmacy, the presence of comorbidity (diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, thyroid, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), asthma and mental disorders) were associated with significantly higher MRCI scores (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results of our study, it was found that the elderly patients who came to the pharmacy had low MRCI scores, but had high PIMs use. Community pharmacists have an important role in identifying inappropriate drug use, so they should be trained to develop skills in identifying and reducing PIMs in older patients.

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.

Benefits of deprescribing for older people with frailty and polypharmacy: part two

Polypharmacy is a significant issue for many older people, including those with frailty, and it is associated with a range of adverse effects. Therefore, it is important to address polypharmacy by optimising patients' medicines use. Medication reviews are one of the main approaches to medicines optimisation, and various tools are available to support healthcare professionals with conducting these. Another approach is deprescribing, which can improve health outcomes for patients and may have financial benefits for healthcare organisations, but can also present various challenges. This article, the second of two parts, explores the benefits of medicines optimisation in the form of medication reviews and deprescribing for older people with frailty and polypharmacy.

Inappropriate prescribing in geriatric rural primary care: impact on adverse outcomes and relevant risk factors in a prospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Several tools have revealed an association between potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) and adverse outcomes, but the one most fitted for the rural population has not been determined.

AIMS

We investigated the performance of the Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions (STOPP) and Screening Tool to Alert doctors to the Right Treatment (START) in identifying inappropriate prescribing and its association with adverse outcomes among older rural primary health care users.

METHODS

A cohort of consenting outpatients aged ≥ 65 years in a rural Greek primary care center was assessed for PIM and potential prescribing omissions (PPO) using the START/STOPP version 2 criteria. Medications, comorbidities, functional status, and laboratory data were recorded along with 6-month incidence of emergency department visits, hospitalization, and death prospectively.

RESULTS

Among 104 participants (median age 78 years, 49.1% women, receiving a median of 6 drugs), PPO was found in 78% and PIMs in 61%. PIM was multivariately correlated with multimorbidity (p = 0.029) and polypharmacy (p < 0,001), while drug-PPO was only associated with multimorbidity (p = 0.039). The number of PIM predicted emergency department visits and hospitalizations at 6-month follow-up (p value 0.011), independent of age, sex, frailty, comorbidities, and total medication number.

DISCUSSION

The START/STOPP tool is useful in identifying inappropriate prescribing patterns leading to increased utilization of acute care services in older adults followed at a rural primary care setting.

CONCLUSION

Inappropriate prescribing as identified by the START/STOPP criteria is prevalent among older adults with multimorbidity in rural primary care, and independently associated with future acute care visits.

The ART of Electronic Prescribing

Medication errors are common. Electronic Health Records (EHR) reduce some of the roots with some while they create others. EHR need to evolve. A suggestion is made to deal with prescriptions that are new. being titrated, to support the process of prescribing and hopefully correcting errors linked to it.

Primary care physician responses to requests by older adults for unnecessary drugs: a qualitative study

Background

Unnecessary drug use can cause avoidable harm to older adults and is particularly common in primary care, but how primary care physicians (PCPs) respond to older adult requests for unnecessary drugs has not been well studied. This study is to explore PCPs’ responses to requests for unnecessary drugs from older adults, and their influencing factors and potential solutions.

Methods

This qualitative study was conducted through semi-structured, in-depth interviews from January 4 to September 30, 2020 using a grounded theory methodology. A purposive sample of PCPs affiliated with community healthcare centers in Zhejiang Province and Guangdong Province, China were recruited. The face-to-face interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and independently coded by two investigators. Themes surrounding PCPs’ responses to requests for unnecessary drugs, their influencing factors and potential solutions were analysed using a constant comparative approach.

Results

Of the 23 participants involved in this study, 12 (52%) were women and the mean age was 35 years. PCPs frequently declined older adults’ requests for unnecessary drugs through dissuasion, and occasionally rebuffed patients or referred them to another practitioner. PCPs may fulfill requests due to physician acquiescence, patient pressure, or inadequate supervision and support. Participants recommended four potential solutions to improve the quality of prescribing, including developing professional communication skills, enhancing pharmacist-physician collaboration, improving electronic prescription systems, and strengthening prescription management.

Conclusions

PCPs typically deny requests by older adults for unnecessary drugs according to three main patterns, and guidance is necessary to reduce the potential for adverse consequences. Factors contributing to request fulfillment by PCPs require attention, and the potential solutions recommended by participants deserve consideration to improve the service quality of prescribing for older adults in primary care practices.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12875-022-01857-x.

Barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of pharmacist services in primary care clinics: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Inappropriate medication use is a leading cause of avoidable harm in health systems and is particularly severe in primary care settings. Evidence has shown that the integration of pharmacists into primary care clinics has favourable satisfaction and effectiveness in health outcomes. However, barriers to and facilitators of pharmacist services in these settings have not been comprehensively reviewed. Therefore, this scoping review aims to map and examine the literature available on the barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of pharmacist services in primary care clinics to guide future implementation research.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This scoping review will be undertaken following the six-stage framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and be guided by recommendations by Levac et al. Eight electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CNKI and Wanfang) will be searched. Reference lists and related citations, and grey literature from websites will be searched manually. Available information that has been reported in Chinese or English up to 31 August 2021 will be included. Studies will be selected and screened by two reviewers independently. Findings from the included studies will be extracted by two independent reviewers and supervised by a third reviewer. A content analysis of the findings will be performed using MAXQDA 2020.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval will not be required for this scoping review, as all data and information will be obtained from publicly available literature. The findings of this scoping review will be shared with healthcare managers in primary care institutions and health authorities as well as disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal.