Effects of an interprofessional deprescribing intervention in Swiss nursing homes: the Individual Deprescribing Intervention (IDeI) randomised controlled trial

Pharmacists' attitudes towards interprofessional collaboration to optimise medication use in older patients in Switzerland: a survey study

BACKGROUND

Collaboration between physicians and pharmacists facilitates the conduct of medication optimisation efforts. In the context of deprescribing, pharmacists' roles are often described as making deprescribing recommendations to physicians. Little is known about factors associated with pharmacists' willingness to make deprescribing recommendations and their interprofessional collaboration with physicians in Swiss primary care settings.

OBJECTIVE

To explore pharmacists' perspectives on medication optimisation and deprescribing in older adults, and their preferences for interprofessional collaboration in Swiss primary care settings.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, a random sample of 1000 pharmacist members of the Swiss Pharmacists Association pharmaSuisse was invited to participate in a survey on medication optimisation, deprescribing, and interprofessional collaboration. The survey contained three case vignettes of multimorbid patients with polypharmacy aged ≥ 80 years old, with different levels of dependency in activities in daily living (ADL) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). For each case vignette, pharmacists were asked if and which medications they would deprescribe. We calculated proportions of pharmacists' willingness to deprescribe by case vignette and performed a multilevel logistic regression to assess associations between CVD, ADL, and willingness to deprescribe.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-eight (14%) pharmacists responded to the survey: 113 (82%) were female, their mean age was 44 years (SD = 11), and 66% (n = 77) reported having never received any specific training on how to conduct structured medication reviews. Eighty-three (72%) pharmacists reported to be confident in identifying deprescribing opportunities. All pharmacists were willing to deprescribe ≥ 1 medication in all vignettes. Patients with CVD were at lower odds of having medications deprescribed (OR = 0.27, 95%CI 0.21 to 0.36). Willingness to deprescribe was lower with higher dependency in ADL (medium versus low dependency: OR = 0.68, 95%CI 0.54 to 0.87, high versus low dependency: OR = 0.72, 95%CI 0.56 to 0.91). However, the effect of dependency in ADL on willingness to deprescribe was significantly modified by the history of CVD. One hundred five pharmacists (97%) reported to interact with physicians to clarify questions regarding prescriptions at least once a week and 88 (81%) wished to be more involved in deprescribing and medication review.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacists were willing to make deprescribing suggestions for older patients with polypharmacy, but two-thirds reported having received no formal training on how to perform structured medication reviews. Pharmacists would like to be more involved in the process of medication review and deprescribing, which should be leveraged in the context of Swiss primary care settings.

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.

Implementation considerations of deprescribing interventions: A scoping review

Over half of older adults experience polypharmacy, including medications that may be inappropriate or unnecessary. Deprescribing, which is the process of discontinuing or reducing inappropriate and/or unnecessary medications, is an effective way to reduce polypharmacy. This review summarizes (1) the process of deprescribing and conceptual models and tools that have been developed to facilitate deprescribing, (2) barriers, enablers, and factors associated with deprescribing, and (3) characteristics of deprescribing interventions in completed trials, as well as (4) implementation considerations for deprescribing in routine practice. In conceptual models of deprescribing, multilevel factors of the patient, clinician, and health-care system are all related to the efficacy of deprescribing. Numerous tools have been developed for clinicians to facilitate deprescribing, yet most require substantial time and, thus, may be difficult to implement during routine health-care encounters. Multiple deprescribing interventions have been evaluated, which mostly include one or more of the following components: patient education, medication review, identification of deprescribing targets, and patient and/or provider communication about high-risk medications. Yet, there has been limited consideration of implementation factors in prior deprescribing interventions, especially with regard to the personnel and resources in existing health-care systems and the feasibility of incorporating components of deprescribing interventions into the routine care processes of clinicians. Future trials require a more balanced consideration of both effectiveness and implementation when designing deprescribing interventions.

Polypharmacy in the Cardiovascular Geriatric Critical Care Population: Improving Outcomes

The cardiovascular geriatric population requiring intensive or critical care is a group vulnerable to adverse outcomes because of age, the critical care environment, geriatric syndromes, and multiple chronic conditions. Polypharmacy increases the risk of adverse events in this group. Several tools and aids are available to guide the clinical practice of appropriate prescribing and deprescribing. To optimize the care of the cardiovascular geriatric population, evidence-based prescribing, and deprescribing tools can be implemented by the interprofessional team consisting of the patient, their support system, critical care nurses, advanced practice clinicians, physicians, and allied health professionals.

Exploring medication safety structures and processes in nursing homes: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Medication safety is important to limit adverse events for nursing home residents. Several factors, such as interprofessional collaboration with pharmacists and medication reviews, have been shown in the literature to influence medication safety processes.

AIM

This study had three main objectives: (1) To assess how facility- and unit-level organization and infrastructure are related to medication use processes; (2) To determine the extent of medication safety-relevant processes; and (3) To explore pharmacies' and pharmacists' involvement in nursing homes' medication-related processes.

METHOD

Cross-sectional multicenter survey data (2018-2019) from a convenience sample of 118 Swiss nursing homes were used. Data were collected on facility and unit characteristics, pharmacy services, as well as medication safety-related structures and processes. Descriptive statistics were used.

RESULTS

Most of the participating nursing homes (93.2%) had electronic resident health record systems that supported medication safety in various ways (e.g., medication lists, interaction checks). Electronic data exchanges with outside partners such as pharmacies or physicians were available for fewer than half (10.2-46.3%, depending on the partner). Pharmacists collaborating with nursing homes were mainly involved in logistical support. Medication reviews were reportedly conducted regularly in two-thirds of facilities.

CONCLUSION

A high proportion of Swiss nursing homes have implemented diverse processes and structures that support medication use and safety for residents; however, their collaboration with pharmacists remains relatively limited.

Intervention of pharmacist included in multidisciplinary team to reduce adverse drug event: a qualitative systematic review

BACKGROUND

Preventable harm in healthcare is a growing public health challenge. In addition to the economic costs of safety failures, adverse drug events (ADE) may lead to complication or even death. Multidisciplinary care team involving a pharmacist appears to be an adequate response to prevention of adverse drug event. This qualitative systematic review aims to identify and describe multidisciplinary planned team-based care involving at least one pharmacist to limit or prevent adverse drug events in the adult patients.

METHODS

To determine the type of interprofessional collaboration to prevent adverse drug event in which a pharmacist was involved, we conducted a qualitative systematic review of the literature of randomized controlled trials. Two independent reviewers screened trials in three databases: Medline, Web of Science, ScienceDirect. Prospective studies of at least three different health professionals' interventions, one of whom was a pharmacist in the last five years were included. Two reviewers performed data extraction and quality appraisal independently. We used TIDieR checklist to appraise articles quality.

RESULTS

In total 803 citations were retrieved, 34 were analysed and 16 full-text articles were reviewed. Only 3 studies published an implementation evaluation. More than half of the interventions (62%) targeted elderly patients including 6 whom lived in nursing homes. Studies outcomes were heterogeneous, and we did not perform a statistical analysis of the impact of these interventions. Most teams are composed of a physician/pharmacist/nurse trio (94%; 100%; 88%). Half of the teams were composed of the primary care physician. Other professionals were included such as physical therapists (25%), social worker (19%), occupational therapists (12%), and community health educator (6%). Multidisciplinary medication review was the most common intervention and was generally structured in four steps: data collection and baseline assessment, appraisal report by health professionals, a multidisciplinary medication review meeting and a patient follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The most common multidisciplinary intervention to prevent ADE in the adult population is the multidisciplinary drug review meeting at least the physician/pharmacist/nurse trio. Interventions target mostly elderly people in nursing homes, although complex chronic patients could benefit from this type of assessment.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration: CRD42022334685.

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.

Association of medication use with falls and mortality among long-term care residents: a longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND

Falls in long-term care are common. The aim of our study was to explore how medication use is associated with incidence of falls, related consequences, and all-cause mortality among long-term care residents.

METHODS

Five hundred thirty two long-term care residents aged 65 years or older participated in this longitudinal cohort study in 2018-2021. Data on medication use were retrieved from medical records. Polypharmacy was defined as use of 5-10 medications and excessive polypharmacy as use of > 10 medications. The numbers of falls, injuries, fractures, and hospitalizations were collected from medical records over 12 months following baseline assessment. Participants were followed for three years for mortality. All analysis were adjusted for age, sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, Clinical dementia rating, and mobility.

RESULTS

A total of 606 falls occurred during the follow-up. Falls increased significantly with the number of medications used. Fall rate was 0.84/person-years (pyrs) (95% CI 0.56 to 1.13) for the non-polypharmacy group, 1.13/pyrs (95% CI 1.01 to 1.26) for the polypharmacy group, and 1.84/pyrs (95% CI 1.60 to 2.09) for the excessive polypharmacy group. Incidence rate ratio for falls was 1.73 (95% CI 1.44 to 2.10) for opioids, 1.48 (95% CI 1.23 to 1.78) for anticholinergic medication, 0.93 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.25) for psychotropics, and 0.91 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.08) for Alzheimer medication. The three-year follow-up showed significant differences in mortality between the groups, the lowest survival rate (25%) being in the excessive polypharmacy group.

CONCLUSION

Polypharmacy, opioid and anticholinergic medication use predicted incidence of falls in long-term care. The use of more than 10 medications predicted all-cause mortality. Special attention should be paid to both number and type of medications when prescribing in long-term care.

Medication reviews and deprescribing as a single intervention in falls prevention: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

our aim was to assess the effectiveness of medication review and deprescribing interventions as a single intervention in falls prevention.

METHODS

DESIGN

systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO until 28 March 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

randomised controlled trials of older participants comparing any medication review or deprescribing intervention with usual care and reporting falls as an outcome.

STUDY RECORDS

title/abstract and full-text screening by two reviewers.

RISK OF BIAS

Cochrane Collaboration revised tool.

DATA SYNTHESIS

results reported separately for different settings and sufficiently comparable studies meta-analysed.

RESULTS

forty-nine heterogeneous studies were included.

COMMUNITY

meta-analyses of medication reviews resulted in a risk ratio (RR) of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.29, I2 = 0%, 3 studies(s)) for number of fallers, in an RR = 0.95 (0.70-1.27, I2 = 37%, 3 s) for number of injurious fallers and in a rate ratio (RaR) of 0.89 (0.69-1.14, I2 = 0%, 2 s) for injurious falls.

HOSPITAL

meta-analyses assessing medication reviews resulted in an RR = 0.97 (0.74-1.28, I2 = 15%, 2 s) and in an RR = 0.50 (0.07-3.50, I2 = 72% %, 2 s) for number of fallers after and during admission, respectively.

LONG-TERM CARE

meta-analyses investigating medication reviews or deprescribing plans resulted in an RR = 0.86 (0.72-1.02, I2 = 0%, 5 s) for number of fallers and in an RaR = 0.93 (0.64-1.35, I2 = 92%, 7 s) for number of falls.

CONCLUSIONS

the heterogeneity of the interventions precluded us to estimate the exact effect of medication review and deprescribing as a single intervention. For future studies, more comparability is warranted. These interventions should not be implemented as a stand-alone strategy in falls prevention but included in multimodal strategies due to the multifactorial nature of falls.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020218231.