Effect of a patient-centred deprescribing procedure in older multimorbid patients in Swiss primary care - A cluster-randomised clinical trial

Effects of a multicomponent communication training to involve older people in decisions to DEPRESCRIBE cardiometabolic medication in primary care (CO-DEPRESCRIBE): protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing of medication for cardiovascular risk factors and diabetes has been incorporated in clinical guidelines but proves to be difficult to implement in primary care. Training of healthcare providers is needed to enhance deprescribing in eligible patients. This study will examine the effects of a blended training program aimed at initiating and conducting constructive deprescribing consultations with patients.

METHODS

A cluster-randomized trial will be conducted in which local pharmacy-general practice teams in the Netherlands will be randomized to conducting clinical medication reviews with patients as usual (control) or after receiving the CO-DEPRESCRIBE training program (intervention). People of 75 years and older using specific cardiometabolic medication (diabetes drugs, antihypertensives, statins) and eligible for a medication review will be included. The CO-DEPRESCRIBE intervention is based on previous work and applies models for patient-centered communication and shared decision making. It consists of 5 training modules with supportive tools. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients with at least 1 cardiometabolic medication deintensified. Secondary outcomes include patient involvement in decision making, healthcare provider communication skills, health/medication-related outcomes, attitudes towards deprescribing, medication regimen complexity and health-related quality of life. Additional safety and cost parameters will be collected. It is estimated that 167 patients per study arm are needed in the final intention-to-treat analysis using a mixed effects model. Taking loss to follow-up into account, 40 teams are asked to recruit 10 patients each. A baseline and 6-months follow-up assessment, a process evaluation, and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted.

DISCUSSION

The hypothesis is that the training program will lead to more proactive and patient-centered deprescribing of cardiometabolic medication. By a comprehensive evaluation, an increase in knowledge needed for sustainable implementation of deprescribing in primary care is expected.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT05507177).

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

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

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

Impact of a deprescribing tool on the use of sedative hypnotics among older patients: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial in Swiss primary care (the HYPE trial)

INTRODUCTION

Benzodiazepines and other sedative hypnotics (BSH) are potentially inappropriate and harmful medications in older people due to their higher susceptibility for adverse drug events. BSH prescription rates are constantly high among elderly patients and even increase with higher age and comorbidity. Deprescribing BSH can be challenging both for healthcare providers and for patients for various reasons. Thus, physicians and patients may benefit from a supportive tool to facilitate BSH deprescribing in primary care consultations. This study intends to explore effectiveness, safety, acceptance and feasibility of such a tool.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this prospective, cluster randomised, controlled, two-arm, double-blinded trial in the ambulatory primary care setting, we will include general practitioners (GPs) from German-speaking Switzerland and their BSH consuming patients aged 65 years or older, living at home or in nursing homes. GPs will be randomly assigned to either intervention or control group. In the intervention group, GPs will participate in a 1-hour online training on how to use a patient support tool (decision-making guidance plus tapering schedule and non-pharmaceutical alternative treatment suggestions for insomnia). The control group GPs will participate in a 1-hour online instruction about BSH epidemiology and sleep hygiene counselling. This minimal intervention aims to prevent unblinding of control group GPs without jeopardising their 'usual care'.The primary outcome will be the percentage of patients who change their BSH use (ie, stop, reduce or switch to a non-BSH insomnia treatment) within 6 months from the initial consultation.

EXPECTED BENEFIT

Based on the results of the study, we will learn how GPs and their patients benefit from a supportive tool that facilitates BSH deprescribing in primary care consultations. The study will emphasise on exploring barriers and facilitators to BSH deprescribing among patients and providers. Positive results given, the study will improve medication safety and the quality of care for patients with sleeping disorders.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Canton of Zurich (KEK-ZH Ref no. 2023-00054, 4 April 2023). Informed consent will be sought from all participating GPs and patients. The results of the study will be publicly disseminated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN34363838.

Deprescribing Anticholinergic and Sedative Drugs to Reduce Polypharmacy in Frail Older Adults Living in the Community: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy is associated with poor outcomes in older adults. Targeted deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative medications may improve health outcomes for frail older adults. Our pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention was a pragmatic 2-arm randomized controlled trial stratified by frailty. We compared usual care (control) with the intervention of pharmacists providing deprescribing recommendations to general practitioners.

METHODS

Community-based older adults (≥65 years) from 2 New Zealand district health boards were recruited following a standardized interRAI needs assessment. The Drug Burden Index (DBI) was used to quantify the use of sedative and anticholinergic medications for each participant. The trial was stratified into low, medium, and high-frailty. We hypothesized that the intervention would increase the proportion of participants with a reduction in DBI ≥ 0.5 within 6 months.

RESULTS

Of 363 participants, 21 (12.7%) in the control group and 21 (12.2%) in the intervention group had a reduction in DBI ≥ 0.5. The difference in the proportion of -0.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -7.9% to 7.0%) provided no evidence of efficacy for the intervention. Similarly, there was no evidence to suggest the effectiveness of this intervention for participants of any frailty level.

CONCLUSION

Our pharmacist-led medication review of frail older participants did not reduce the anticholinergic/sedative load within 6 months. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown measures required modification of the intervention. Subgroup analyses pre- and post-lockdown showed no impact on outcomes. Reviewing this and other deprescribing trials through the lens of implementation science may aid an understanding of the contextual determinants preventing or enabling successful deprescribing implementation strategies.

Outcomes in deprescribing implementation trials and compliance with expert recommendations: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Deprescribing, defined as discontinuing or reducing the dose of medications that are no longer needed or for which the risks outweigh the benefits is a way to reduce polypharmacy. In 2022, the US Deprescribing Research Network (USDeN) published recommendations concerning the measurement of outcomes for deprescribing intervention studies. The objectives of this systematic review were to identify the outcome categories used in deprescribing intervention trials and to relate them to the previously published recommendations.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, and the Cochrane library from January 2012 through January 2022. Studies were included if they were randomized controlled trials evaluating a deprescribing intervention. After data extraction, outcomes were categorized by type: medication outcomes, clinical outcomes, system outcomes, implementation outcomes, and other outcomes based on the previously published recommendations.

RESULTS

Thirty-six studies were included. The majority of studies focused on older adults in nursing homes and targeted inappropriate medications or polypharmacy. In 20 studies, the intervention was a medication review; in seven studies, the intervention was educational or informative; and three studies based their intervention on motivational interviewing or patient empowerment. Thirty-one studies presented a medication outcome (primary outcome in 26 studies), 25 a clinical outcome, 18 a system outcome, and seven an implementation outcome. Only three studies presented all four types of outcomes, and 10 studies presented three types of outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides an update on the implementation of gold standard deprescribing studies in clinical practice. Implementation outcomes need to be developed and specified to facilitate the implementation of these practices on a larger scale and clinical outcome need to be prioritized. Finally, this review provides new elements for future real-life deprescribing studies.

A pharmacist-led medication review service with a deprescribing focus guided by implementation science

Background: Little research addressed deprescribing-focused medication optimization interventions while utilizing implementation science. This study aimed to develop a pharmacist-led medication review service with a deprescribing focus in a care facility serving patients of low income receiving medications for free in Lebanon followed by an assessment of the recommendations' acceptance by prescribing physicians. As a secondary aim, the study evaluates the impact of this intervention on satisfaction compared to satisfaction associated with receiving routine care. Methods: The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to address implementation barriers and facilitators by mapping its constructs to the intervention implementation determinants at the study site. After filling medications and receiving routine pharmacy service at the facility, patients 65 years or older and taking 5 or more medications, were assigned into two groups. Both groups of patients received the intervention. Patient satisfaction was assessed right after receiving the intervention (intervention group) or just before the intervention (control group). The intervention consisted of an assessment of patient medication profiles before addressing recommendations with attending physicians at the facility. Patient satisfaction with the service was assessed using a validated translated version of the Medication Management Patient Satisfaction Survey (MMPSS). Descriptive statistics provided data on drug-related problems, the nature and the number of recommendations as well as physicians' responses to recommendations. Independent sample t-tests were used to assess the intervention's impact on patient satisfaction. Results: Of 157 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 143 patients were enrolled: 72 in the control group and 71 in the experimental group. Of 143 patients, 83% presented drug-related problems (DRPs). Further, 66% of the screened DRPs met the STOPP/START criteria (77%, and 23% respectively). The intervention pharmacist provided 221 recommendations to physicians, of which 52% were to discontinue one or more medications. Patients in the intervention group showed significantly higher satisfaction compared to the ones in the control group (p < 0.001, effect size = 1.75). Of those recommendations, 30% were accepted by the physicians. Conclusion: Patients showed significantly higher satisfaction with the intervention they received compared to routine care. Future work should assess how specific CFIR constructs contribute to the outcomes of deprescribing-focused interventions.

[Choosing Wisely in Patients with Polypharmacy]

Choosing Wisely in Patients with Polypharmacy Abstract. Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication have a negative impact on health. For reducing or stopping medication (deprescribing) patient benefits are crucial. The following stepwise approach has turned out to be successful: a. ask patients to bring along all their medication and compare them with the current medication list; b. offer shared decision making; c. evaluate every drug for indication, balance between benefit and harm, side effects and dose; d. prioritize benefit and harm according to values, preferences and goals of the patient; e. decide together about deprescribing; f. track changes in the medication plan und arrange a follow-up consultation. We illustrate this approach by the example of an older, frail female patient with polypharmacy. Deprescribing is just as important for patients' well-being as is prescribing!

Tailoring a complex intervention to reduce antidepressants in institutionalized older persons with dementia

INTRODUCTION

First-line treatment for behavioral and psychiatric symptoms of dementia is non-pharmacological. Still, psychotropic medication is widely used, despite its limited effect and harmful side-effects. More than half of all nursing home residents with dementia receive antidepressants, even though deprescribing is safe and feasible. Interventions to promote deprescribing of antidepressants in nursing homes are few and complex. To optimize the deprescribing process through an intervention, transparency for the development of the intervention is needed. We aim to describe the steps in the development and tailoring of an intervention targeting GPs, nursing home staff, and relatives to enhance collaboration on reducing the use of antidepressants in institutionalized older persons with dementia in Denmark.

METHOD

A step-wise process guided by the core elements in the Medical Research Council constituted the tailoring process. Five steps were included; 1) a literature search, 2) interviews with stakeholders, 3) drafting the intervention prototype, 4) professionals' assessment of the intervention, and 5) refinement of the intervention. The steps were conducted from June 2020 to June 2022.

RESULTS

Based on the literature search, interviews with stakeholders, and professionals' assessment of the intervention, four main themes were identified; 1) focusing on antidepressants, 2) importance of professional qualifications, 3) collaboration and communication, and 4) patient and relative involvement. They guided intervention development and refinement of the final intervention, which included 1) a case-based training course and 2) a dialog tool including a symptom assessment scale to be used in a structured consultation at the nursing home.

CONCLUSION

This study presents a detailed account of the tailoring process for a complex intervention to optimize deprescribing of antidepressants for older persons with dementia at nursing homes. By presenting a thorough development process, we expect to achieve increased adherence to the intervention which is currently being tested in an ongoing cluster randomized controlled trial. The transparency of the process will also increase the future development of other similar complex interventions.

Involving patients in medicines optimisation in general practice: a development study of the “PREparing Patients for Active Involvement in medication Review” (PREPAIR) tool

Background

Many patients have multiple health conditions and take multiple medications (polypharmacy). Active patient involvement may improve treatment outcomes and ensure patient-centred care. Yet, patient involvement remains a challenge in clinical practice. We aimed to develop and pilot test a questionnaire-based preparation and dialogue tool, the PREparing Patients for Active Involvement in medication Review (PREPAIR) tool, to encourage the involvement of patients with polypharmacy in medicines optimisation in general practice.

Methods

We conducted a literature review followed by a co-production process to develop the tool: a workshop with six GPs and pilot testing, including observations and interviews, with 22 patients, three GPs and three practice staff. During this process, we made continuous adaptations to the prototype. We analysed the qualitative data thematically, focusing on the development process and mechanisms of impact.

Findings

The final PREPAIR tool included five items concerning the patient’s experience of 1) adverse drug reactions, 2) excess medication, 3) unnecessary medication, 4) medication satisfaction and 5) medication-related topics to discuss with the GP (open-ended question). The applied workflow during testing was as follows; the patient completed the PREPAIR tool at home, to encourage reflection on the medication, and brought it to the GP consultation. During the consultation, the GP and the patient reviewed the patient’s responses and discussed potential medication-related problems. For some patients, the increased reflection led to worries about the medications. Still, the pilot testing showed that, when using the PREPAIR tool, the patients arrived at the clinic well prepared and empowered to speak. From the PREPAIR-supported dialogue, the GPs obtained a better understanding of patients’ perspectives and provided a more patient-centred consultation. For the patients, the PREPAIR-supported dialogue ultimately promoted an increased sense of security, satisfaction and insight into their medication, despite initial worries for some patients.

Conclusions

We developed a brief tool to support active patient involvement in medication review in general practice. The PREPAIR-tool was well received by both patients and GPs and fitted well into the existing clinical practice. Our findings suggest that the PREPAIR-tool can support patient involvement during consultations and facilitate patient-centred care.

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.

Shared decision-making and patient and public involvement: Can they become standard in Switzerland?

The Swiss healthcare system is highly decentralized, making implementation of shared decision making (SDM) and patient and public involvement (PPI) quite slow; nonetheless, change is happening. SDM is now a core communication competency for medical school graduates, as reflected by a dedicated station on the federal exam, and is endorsed by several national societies. Multiple local initiatives are contributing to international best practices, local implementation, and increased capacity. PPI is also gaining momentum, most notably in research, with the development of a national platform for clinical research and inclusion of patients in the evaluation committees for funding. The challenge now is going from example projects by motivated early adopters in academia to making SDM and PPI standard practice.

Medication use problems among older adults at a primary care: A narrative of literature review

Appropriate medication use is one of the most significant challenges among the older population. Although medication use problems are well documented at the secondary and tertiary health care level, the evidence at the primary care level of OECD region is limited. A narrative review of existing literature was conducted through a nonsystematic search for original articles through electronic search databases, Ovid Medline, Google Scholar from 2001 to 2021, and a combination of citation references. Medication use problems are prevalent in older adults at the primary care level. The main issues of medication use identified were as follows; nonadherence, adverse drug events, accessibility, polypharmacy, inappropriate medications, belief about medications, lack of knowledge and awareness, and lack of deprescribing. In addition, the current review has identified the possibilities of the problems: many medications, forgetfulness, lack of deprescribing, lack of communication, poor understanding, and limited awareness of inappropriate medications. This review found that various medication use problems subclusters were identified to impact the health care need among older adults. Therefore, effective interventions targeting these issues need to be developed to reduce medication use problems among older adults at a primary care level.

Prevalence of polypharmacy in community-dwelling older adults from seven centres in five European countries: a cross-sectional study of DO-HEALTH

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the prevalence of polypharmacy and characteristics associated with polypharmacy in older adults from seven European cities.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of baseline data from DO-HEALTH.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

DO-HEALTH enrolled 2157 community-dwelling adults age 70 and older from seven centres in Europe. Participants were excluded if they had major health problems or Mini-Mental State Examination Score <24 at baseline.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Extensive information on prescription and over-the-counter medications were recorded. Polypharmacy was defined as the concomitant use of five or more medications, excluding vitamins or dietary supplements. Bivariate and multivariable logistic regression was used to test the association of sociodemographic factors (age, sex, years of education, living situation and city) and health-related indicators (number of comorbidities, cognitive function, frailty status, body mass index (BMI), prior fall, self-rated health and smoking status) with polypharmacy.

RESULTS

27.2% of participants reported polypharmacy ranging from 16.4% in Geneva to 60.8% in Coimbra. In the multivariable logistic regression analyses, older age (OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.10), greater BMI (OR 1.09; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.12) and increased number of comorbidities (OR 2.13; 95% CI 1.92 to 2.36) were associated with polypharmacy. Women were less likely to report polypharmacy than men (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.84). In comparison to participants from Zurich, participants from Coimbra were more likely to report polypharmacy (OR 2.36; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.55), while participants from Geneva or Toulouse were less likely to report polypharmacy ((OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.59 and OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.96), respectively). Living situation, smoking status, years of education, prior fall, cognitive function, self-rated health and frailty status were not significantly associated with polypharmacy.

CONCLUSION

Polypharmacy is common among relatively healthy older adults, with moderate variability across seven European cities. Independent of several confounders, being a woman, older age, greater BMI and greater number of comorbidities were associated with increased odds for polypharmacy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT01745263.

Older Adults With Complex Chronic Conditions Who Receive Care at Home: The Importance of Primary Care Assessment

The current study aimed to describe the characteristics of older adults with complex chronic conditions cared for at home. One hundred thirty-eight participants were recruited. Participants' average age was 85.9 years and 69.6% were female. Poly-pharmacy was present in 89.9% of participants. Participants who presented with polypharmacy had a worse self-perception of health (p = 0.002), and the worst fall rate. A total of 22.5% had experienced a fall during the past 6 months. Approximately one half of participants rated their self-perceived quality of life as bad or very bad. The percentage who used emergency services (54.3%) was greater than the percentage who needed to be admitted (43.5%). A worse self-perception of physical health was significantly associated with hospital admissions (p = 0.01). Geriatric assessment by nurses can provide information to improve care in situations in which frailty, dependency, and chronic conditions occur together. Obtaining information on the needs of individuals with frailty is important in designing successful nursing interventions. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 47(11), 31-38.].

Functional Status among Polymedicated Geriatric Inpatients at Discharge: A Population-Based Hospital Register Analysis

This study explored and compared the functional status of polymedicated and non-polymedicated geriatric inpatients at hospital discharge. We used a cross-sectional registry of geriatric patients' hospital records from a multi-site public hospital center in Switzerland. The analysis included all inpatients aged 65 years old or more admitted between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2017 (n = 53,690), of whom 67.5% were polymedicated at hospital discharge, 52.1% were women (n = 18,909), and 42.7% were 75-84 years old (n = 15,485). On average, the polymedicated patients' hospital lengths of stay were six days longer, they presented with more than three comorbidities, and they were prescribed more than nine medications at hospital discharge (p < 0.001). They showed more frequent general mobility decline (43.2% vs. 41.9%), gait disorders (46.2% vs. 43%), fatigue (48.6% vs. 43.4%) and dependence on lower-body care (49.7% vs. 47.6%), and presented a higher malnutrition risk (OR = 1.411; 95%CI 1.263-1.577; p < 0.001). However, the non-polymedicated inpatients had proportionally more physical and cognitive impairments. The comparison of the functional status of polymedicated and non-polymedicated geriatric inpatients at hospital discharge is important for clinicians trying to identify and monitor those who are most vulnerable to functional decline, and to design targeted strategies for the prevention of functional impairment and related adverse health outcomes.

An Update on Medication Use in Older Adults: a Narrative Review

Purpose of Review

The global phenomenon of population aging is impacting the health and care needs of society. The use of medications by older adults is acknowledged to be the most common form of medical intervention for many acute and chronic conditions and prescribing in this population continues to increase. In this narrative review, we summarise the age-related factors that should be considered when prescribing for older adults, address some of the perennial challenges related to medicine use in older people, and highlight important emerging research in this area.

Recent Findings

A range of age-related factors should be considered when prescribing for older adults. However, the evidence base still lacks data pertaining to older adults due to their continued under-representation in clinical trials. Multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and inappropriate prescribing continue to remain prevalent among older adults, although recent research has been focused on the development and evaluation of complex interventions to address these challenges.

Summary

Further high-quality studies of interventions to improve and support medication use in older adults are needed, ensuring that older adults are well represented in such trials and consideration is given to the measurement of patient- and provider-focused outcomes.

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.