Interprofessional medication assessment among home care patients: any impact on functioning? Results from a randomised controlled trial

Community based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people: systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of community based complex interventions, grouped according to their intervention components, to sustain independence for older people.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 9 August 2021 and reference lists of included studies.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials or cluster randomised controlled trials with ≥24 weeks' follow-up studying community based complex interventions for sustaining independence in older people (mean age ≥65 years) living at home, with usual care, placebo, or another complex intervention as comparators.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Living at home, activities of daily living (personal/instrumental), care home placement, and service/economic outcomes at 12 months.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Interventions were grouped according to a specifically developed typology. Random effects network meta-analysis estimated comparative effects; Cochrane's revised tool (RoB 2) structured risk of bias assessment. Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) network meta-analysis structured certainty assessment.

RESULTS

The review included 129 studies (74 946 participants). Nineteen intervention components, including "multifactorial action from individualised care planning" (a process of multidomain assessment and management leading to tailored actions), were identified in 63 combinations. For living at home, compared with no intervention/placebo, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review and regular follow-ups (routine review) (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.59; moderate certainty); multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review without regular follow-ups (2.55, 0.61 to 10.60; low certainty); combined cognitive training, medication review, nutritional support, and exercise (1.93, 0.79 to 4.77; low certainty); and combined activities of daily living training, nutritional support, and exercise (1.79, 0.67 to 4.76; low certainty). Risk screening or the addition of education and self-management strategies to multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review may reduce odds of living at home. For instrumental activities of daily living, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (standardised mean difference 0.11, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.21; moderate certainty). Two interventions may reduce instrumental activities of daily living: combined activities of daily living training, aids, and exercise; and combined activities of daily living training, aids, education, exercise, and multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies. For personal activities of daily living, evidence favoured combined exercise, multifactorial action from individualised care planning, and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies (0.16, -0.51 to 0.82; low certainty). For homecare recipients, evidence favoured addition of multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (0.60, 0.32 to 0.88; low certainty). High risk of bias and imprecise estimates meant that most evidence was low or very low certainty. Few studies contributed to each comparison, impeding evaluation of inconsistency and frailty.

CONCLUSIONS

The intervention most likely to sustain independence is individualised care planning including medicines optimisation and regular follow-up reviews resulting in multifactorial action. Homecare recipients may particularly benefit from this intervention. Unexpectedly, some combinations may reduce independence. Further research is needed to investigate which combinations of interventions work best for different participants and contexts.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019162195.

The Sex-Specific Impact of the FORTA (Fit-fOR-The-Aged) List on Medication Quality and Clinical Endpoints in Older Hospitalized Patients: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Little is known about the sex-specific impact of drug optimization tools such as the Fit fOR The Aged (FORTA) list on drug use and relevant clinical endpoints in older people.

Objective

We aimed to detect gender differences of interventional effects on medication quality and related clinical effects in the VALFORTA trial.

Patients and methods

A sex-specific analysis of data from 409 patients (147 men and 262 women, mean age 79.4 and 82.7 years, respectively) in acute geriatric care comparing the control and FORTA intervention groups was performed. Changes of the FORTA score (sum of over- and undertreatment errors per patient), the incidence of adverse drug events (ADEs) during hospitalization, and several clinically relevant endpoints [e.g., the Barthel index (BI)] were tested for equivalence at a 20% margin. “Success” or “failure” for the development of these clinical endpoints was defined and their frequencies compared by a risk reduction analysis.

Results

Sex differences were insignificant for the reduction of the FORTA score, the improvement of BI, or over- and undertreatment errors (p > 0.05). In women only, the FORTA intervention significantly increased the number of patients without an ADE (p = 0.010). Statistical sex equivalence was found for the improvement of the FORTA scores, BI, and the number of prevented events (e.g., falls, confusion, or renal failure) (p < 0.05), but not for the improvement of specific mistreatments or over- and undertreatment scores under altered inclusion criteria (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

Both sexes benefit equally from the FORTA intervention regarding the amelioration of the quality of drug treatment as well as several clinically relevant outcomes. In addition, the positive impact of the FORTA intervention on the number of adverse drug events appears to be greater in women.

Trial Registration Number

DRKS00000531.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40801-022-00292-9.