Supporting prescribing in older people with multimorbidity and significant polypharmacy in primary care (SPPiRE): a cluster randomised controlled trial protocol and pilot

Cost effectiveness of a GP delivered medication review to reduce polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients with multimorbidity in Irish primary care: the SPPiRE cluster randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Evidence on the cost effectiveness of deprescribing in multimorbidity is limited.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the cost effectiveness of a general practitioner (GP) delivered, individualised medication review to reduce polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients with multimorbidity in Irish primary care.

METHODS

Within trial economic evaluation, from a healthcare perspective and based on a cluster randomised controlled trial with a 6 month follow up and 403 patients (208 Intervention and 195 Control) recruited between April 2017 and December 2019. Intervention GPs used the SPPiRE website which contained educational materials and a template to support a web-based individualised medication review. Control GPs delivered usual care. Incremental costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) generated using the EQ-5D-5L instrument, and expected cost effectiveness were estimated using multilevel modelling and multiple imputation techniques. Uncertainty was explored using parametric, deterministic and probabilistic methods.

RESULTS

On average, the SPPiRE intervention was dominant over usual care, with non-statistically significant mean cost savings of €410 (95% confidence interval (CI): - 2211, 1409) and mean health gains of 0.014 QALYs (95% CI - 0.011, 0.039). At cost effectiveness threshold values of €20,000 and €45,000 per QALY, the probability of SPPiRE being cost effective was 0.993 and 0.988. Results were sensitive to missing data and data collection period.

CONCLUSIONS

The study observed a pattern towards dominance for the SPPiRE intervention, with high expected cost effectiveness. Notably, observed differences in costs and outcomes were consistent with chance, and missing data and related uncertainty was non trivial. The cost effectiveness evidence may be considered promising but equivocal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN: 12752680, 20th October 2016.

Decreasing polypharmacy in older adults with cancer: A pilot cluster-randomized trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Polypharmacy is prevalent in older adults with cancer and associated with multiple adverse outcomes. A single-site, cluster-randomized clinical trial will enroll older adults with cancer and polypharmacy starting chemotherapy and will assess the effectiveness and feasibility of deprescribing interventions by comparing two arms: a pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention and a patient educational brochure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study will be conducted in two phases. In phase I, focus groups and semi-structured individual interviews will guide adaptation of deprescribing interventions for the oncology clinic (phase Ia), and eight patients will undergo the pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention with iterative adaptations (phase Ib). In phase II, a pilot cluster-randomized trial (n = 72) will compare a pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention with a patient education brochure, with treating oncologists as the cluster. Both efficacy (relative dose intensity of planned chemotherapy, potentially inappropriate medications successfully deprescribed, chemotherapy toxicity, functional status, hospitalizations, falls, and symptoms) and implementation outcomes (barriers and facilitators) will be assessed.

DISCUSSION

This study is anticipated to provide pilot data to inform a nationwide randomized clinical trial of deprescribing in older adults starting cancer treatment. The cluster randomization is intended to provide an initial estimate for the intervention effect as well as oncologists' intra-class correlation coefficient. Deprescribing interventions may improve outcomes in older adults starting cancer treatment, but these interventions are understudied in this population, and it is unknown how best to implement them into oncology practice. The results of this trial will inform the design of large, randomized phase III trials of deprescribing.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov Identifier:NCT05046171. Date of registration: September 16, 2021.

Recruiting general practitioners and older patients with multimorbidity to randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Older patients with multimorbidity are under-represented in experimental research.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the barriers and facilitators to general practitioner (GP) and older patient recruitment and retention in a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT).

METHOD

This descriptive study uses qualitative and quantitative data from a cluster RCT, designed to evaluate the effectiveness of a medicines optimization intervention. The SPPiRE cluster RCT enrolled 51 general practices and 404 patients aged ≥65 years and prescribed ≥15 medicines. Quantitative data were collected from all recruited practices and 32 additional practices who were enrolled, but unable to recruit sufficient participants. Qualitative data were collected from purposive samples of intervention GPs (18/26), patients (27/208), and researcher logs and analysed thematically using inductive coding.

RESULTS

Enrolment rates for practices and patients were 37% and 25%, respectively. Barriers to GP recruitment were lack of resources and to patient recruitment were difficulty understanding trial material and concern about medicines being taken away. GPs' primary motivation was perceived importance of the research question, whereas patients' primary motivation was trust in their GP. All general practices were retained. Thirty-five patients (8.6%) were lost to follow-up for primary outcomes, mainly because they had died and 45% did not return patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

CONCLUSION

Patient retention for the primary outcome was high, as it was collected directly from patient records. Patient completion of PROM data was poor, reflecting difficulty in understanding trial material. Recruiting older patients with multimorbidity to clinical trials is possible but requires significant resource and planning.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN12752680.

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.

Usability of an app-based clinical decision support system to monitor psychotropic drug prescribing appropriateness in dementia

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend reluctant psychotropic drug (PD) prescribing in nursing home residents with dementia and neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS), as efficacy of PDs is limited, and side effects are common. Nevertheless, PDs are commonly prescribed to reduce NPS. A smartphone application that evaluates appropriateness of PD prescriptions and provides recommendations from the revised Dutch guideline on problem behaviour in dementia may promote guideline adherence and increase appropriate prescribing.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess user experiences, barriers and facilitators of the Dutch 'Psychotropic Drug Tool' smartphone application (PDT) in the context of appropriate prescribing of PDs to nursing home residents with dementia and NPS.

METHODS/DESIGN

The PDT was developed according to the recommendations of the Dutch guideline for treatment of NPS in people with dementia. Feedback provided during usability testing with two end-users was applied to improve the PDT before implementation in day-to-day practice. Sixty-three prescribers were asked to use the PDT at their own convenience for four months. User expectations and experiences were assessed at baseline and after four months with the System Usability Scale and the Assessment of Barriers and Facilitators for Implementation.

RESULTS

Expected usability (M = 72.59; SD = 11.84) was similar to experienced usability after four months (M = 69.13; SD = 16.48). Appreciation of the PDTs user-friendliness (on average 6.7 out of 10) and design (7.3) were moderately positive, in contrast to the global rating of the PDT (5.7). Perceived barriers for PDT use were time consumption and lack of integration with existing electronic systems. Perceived facilitators were ease of use and attractive lay out. For broader implementation, physicians suggested a change in direction of the PDT: start assessment of appropriateness based on the list of NPS instead of PD as primary input.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pragmatic prospective cohort study we found that the PDT was used by elderly care physicians, with mediocre user satisfaction. The PDT will be optimized based on user feedback regarding experienced usability, barriers and facilitators, after which broader implementation can be initialized. The Medical Ethics Review Board of the University Medical Center Groningen declared this is a non-WMO study (UMCG RR Number: 201800284).

Multimorbidity and adverse longitudinal outcomes among patients attending chronic outpatient medical care in Bahir Dar, Northwest Ethiopia

Background

Multimorbidity is becoming more prevalent in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, the evidence base on the burden and its longitudinal outcomes are limited. This study aimed to determine the longitudinal outcomes of patients with multimorbidity among a sample of individuals attending chronic outpatient non communicable diseases (NCDs) care in Bahir Dar, northwest Ethiopia.

Methods

A facility-based longitudinal study was conducted among 1,123 participants aged 40+ attending care for single NCD (n = 491) or multimorbidity (n = 633). Data were collected both at baseline and after 1 year through standardized interviews and record reviews. Data were analyzed using Stata V.16. Descriptive statistics and longitudinal panel data analyzes were run to describe independent variables and identify factors predicting outcomes. Statistical significance was considered at p-value <0.05.

Results

The magnitude of multimorbidity has increased from 54.8% at baseline to 56.8% at 1 year. Four percent (n = 44) of patients were diagnosed with one or more NCDs and those having multimorbidity at baseline were more likely than those without multimorbidity to develop new NCDs. In addition, 106 (9.4%) and 22 (2%) individuals, respectively were hospitalized and died during the follow up period. In this study, about one-third of the participants had higher quality of life (QoL), and those having higher high activation status were more likely to be in the higher versus the combined moderate and lower QoL [AOR1 = 2.35, 95%CI: (1.93, 2.87)] and in the combined higher and moderate versus lower level of QoL [AOR2 = 1.53, 95%CI: (1.25, 1.88)].

Conclusion

Developing new NCDs is a frequent occurrence and the prevalence of multimorbidity is high. Living with multimorbidity was associated with poor progress, hospitalization and mortality. Patients having a higher activation level were more likely than those with low activation to have better QoL. If health systems are to meet the needs of the people with chronic conditions and multimorbidity, it is essential to understand diseases trajectories and of impact of multimorbidity on QoL, and determinants and individual capacities, and to increase their activation levels for better health improve outcomes through education and activation.

Medication changes and potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients with significant polypharmacy

BACKGROUND

Number of medicines and medicines appropriateness are often used as outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of deprescribing interventions.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in prescribing, potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP) and prescribing of low-value medicines in older people with multimorbidity and significant polypharmacy.

METHOD

This study was a retrospective secondary analysis of prescription data from a cluster randomised controlled trial involving 404 participants aged ≥ 65 years and prescribed ≥ 15 repeat medicines from 51 different general practices. For this study, repeat medications at baseline and follow-up (~ 1 year later) were assigned Anatomical Therapeutic Classification (ATC) codes. Outcomes were the most commonly prescribed and potentially inappropriately prescribed drug groups, the most frequently discontinued or initiated drug groups and the number of changes per person between baseline and follow-up.

RESULTS

There were 7051 medicines prescribed to 404 participants at baseline. There was a median of 17 medicines (IQR 15-19) at baseline and 16 (IQR 14-19) at follow-up. PIP represented 17.1% of prescriptions at baseline and 15.7% (n = 6777) at follow-up. There were reductions in the prescription of most drug groups with the largest reduction in antiplatelet prescriptions. Considering medication discontinuations, initiations and switches, there was a median of five medication changes per person (range 0-30, IQR 3-9) by follow-up. There were 95 low-value prescriptions at baseline reducing to 78 at follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The number of medication changes per person was not reflected by summarising medication count at two time points, highlighting the complexity of prescribing for patients with polypharmacy. Frequent medication changes has potentially important implications for patients in terms of adherence and medication safety.

TRIAL REGISTRY

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

In simulated data and health records, latent class analysis was the optimum multimorbidity clustering algorithm

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

To investigate the reproducibility and validity of latent class analysis (LCA) and hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA), multiple correspondence analysis followed by k-means (MCA-kmeans) and k-means (kmeans) for multimorbidity clustering.

METHODS

We first investigated clustering algorithms in simulated datasets with 26 diseases of varying prevalence in predetermined clusters, comparing the derived clusters to known clusters using the adjusted Rand Index (aRI). We then them investigated the medical records of male patients, aged 65 to 84 years from 50 UK general practices, with 49 long-term health conditions. We compared within cluster morbidity profiles using the Pearson correlation coefficient and assessed cluster stability using in 400 bootstrap samples.

RESULTS

In the simulated datasets, the closest agreement (largest aRI) to known clusters was with LCA and then MCA-kmeans algorithms. In the medical records dataset, all four algorithms identified one cluster of 20-25% of the dataset with about 82% of the same patients across all four algorithms. LCA and MCA-kmeans both found a second cluster of 7% of the dataset. Other clusters were found by only one algorithm. LCA and MCA-kmeans clustering gave the most similar partitioning (aRI 0.54).

CONCLUSION

LCA achieved higher aRI than other clustering algorithms.

The multimorbidity collaborative medication review and decision making (MyComrade) study: a pilot cluster randomised trial in two healthcare systems

BACKGROUND

While international guidelines recommend medication reviews as part of the management of multimorbidity, evidence on how to implement reviews in practice in primary care is lacking. The MyComrade (MultimorbiditY Collaborative Medication Review And Decision Making) intervention is an evidence-based, theoretically informed novel intervention which aims to support the conduct of medication reviews for patients with multimorbidity in primary care.

AIM

The pilot study aimed to assess the feasibility of a definitive trial of the MyComrade intervention across two healthcare systems (Republic of Ireland (ROI) and Northern Ireland (NI)).

DESIGN

A pilot cluster-randomised controlled trial was conducted (clustered at general practice level), using specific progression criteria and a process evaluation framework.

SETTING

General practices in the ROI and NI.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible practices were those in defined geographical areas who had GP's and Practice Based Pharmacists (PBP's) (in NI) willing to conduct medication reviews. Eligible patients were those aged 18 years and over, with multi morbidity and on ten or more medications.

INTERVENTION

The MyComrade intervention is an evidence-based, theoretically informed novel intervention which aims to support the conduct of medication reviews for patients with multimorbidity in primary care, using a planned collaborative approach guided by an agreed checklist, within a specified timeframe.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Feasibility outcomes, using pre-determined progression criteria, assessed practice and patient recruitment and retention and intervention acceptability and fidelity. Anonymised patient-related quantitative data, from practice medical records and patient questionnaires were collected at baseline, 4 and 8 months, to inform potential outcome measures for a definitive trial. These included (i) practice outcomes-completion of medication reviews; (ii) patient outcomes-treatment burden and quality of life; (iii) prescribing outcomes-number and changes of prescribed medications and incidents of potentially inappropriate prescribing; and (iv) economic cost analysis. The framework Decision-making after Pilot and feasibility Trials (ADePT) in conjunction with a priori progression criteria and process evaluation was used to guide the collection and analysis of quantitative and qualitative data.

RESULTS

The recruitment of practices (n = 15) and patients (n = 121, mean age 73 years and 51% female), representing 94% and 38% of a priori targets respectively, was more complex and took longer than anticipated; impacted by the global COVID-19 pandemic. Retention rates of 100% of practices and 85% of patients were achieved. Both practice staff and patients found the intervention acceptable and reported strong fidelity to the My Comrade intervention components. Some practice staff highlighted concerns such as poor communication of the reviews to patients, dissatisfaction regarding incentivisation and in ROI the sustainability of two GPs collaboratively conducting the medication reviews. Assessing outcomes from the collected data was found feasible and appropriate for a definitive trial. Two progression criteria met the 'Go' criterion (practice and patient retention), two met the 'Amend' criterion (practice recruitment and intervention implementation) and one indicated a 'Stop - unless changes possible' (patient recruitment).

CONCLUSION

The MyComrade intervention was found to be feasible to conduct within two different healthcare systems. Recruitment of participants requires significant time and effort given the nature of this population and the pairing of GP and pharmacist may be more sustainable to implement in routine practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registry: ISRCTN, ISRCTN80017020 ; date of confirmation 4/11/2019; retrospectively registered.

Optimising a person-centred approach to stopping medicines in older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy using the DExTruS framework: a realist review

BACKGROUND

Tackling problematic polypharmacy requires tailoring the use of medicines to individual circumstances and may involve the process of deprescribing. Deprescribing can cause anxiety and concern for clinicians and patients. Tailoring medication decisions often entails beyond protocol decision-making, a complex process involving emotional and cognitive work for healthcare professionals and patients. We undertook realist review to highlight and understand the interactions between different factors involved in deprescribing and to develop a final programme theory that identifies and explains components of good practice that support a person-centred approach to deprescribing in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy.

METHODS

The realist approach involves identifying underlying causal mechanisms and exploring how, and under what conditions they work. We conducted a search of electronic databases which were supplemented by citation checking and consultation with stakeholders to identify other key documents. The review followed the key steps outlined by Pawson et al. and followed the RAMESES standards for realist syntheses.

RESULTS

We included 119 included documents from which data were extracted to produce context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) and a final programme theory. Our programme theory recognises that deprescribing is a complex intervention influenced by a multitude of factors. The components of our final programme theory include the following: a supportive infrastructure that provides clear guidance around professional responsibilities and that enables multidisciplinary working and continuity of care, consistent access to high-quality relevant patient contextual data, the need to support the creation of a shared explanation and understanding of the meaning and purpose of medicines and a trial and learn approach that provides space for monitoring and continuity. These components may support the development of trust which may be key to managing the uncertainty and in turn optimise outcomes. These components are summarised in the novel DExTruS framework.

CONCLUSION

Our findings recognise the complex interpretive practice and decision-making involved in medication management and identify key components needed to support best practice. Our findings have implications for how we design medication review consultations, professional training and for patient records/data management. Our review also highlights the role that trust plays both as a central element of tailored prescribing and a potential outcome of good practice in this area.

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.

Deprescribing Education vs Usual Care for Patients With Cognitive Impairment and Primary Care Clinicians: The OPTIMIZE Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial

Background

Individuals with dementia or mild cognitive impairment frequently have multiple chronic conditions (defined as ≥2 chronic medical conditions) and take multiple medications, increasing their risk for adverse outcomes. Deprescribing (reducing or stopping medications for which potential harms outweigh potential benefits) may decrease their risk of adverse outcomes.

Objective

To examine the effectiveness of increasing patient and clinician awareness about the potential to deprescribe unnecessary or risky medications among patients with dementia or mild cognitive impairment.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This pragmatic, patient-centered, 12-month cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, at 18 primary care clinics in a not-for-profit integrated health care delivery system. The study included 3012 adults aged 65 years or older with dementia or mild cognitive impairment who had 1 or more additional chronic medical conditions and were taking 5 or more long-term medications.

Interventions

An educational brochure and a questionnaire on attitudes toward deprescribing were mailed to patients prior to a primary care visit, clinicians were notified about the mailing, and deprescribing tip sheets were distributed to clinicians at monthly clinic meetings.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The number of prescribed long-term medications and the percentage of individuals prescribed 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.

Results

This study comprised 1433 individuals (806 women [56.2%]; mean [SD] age, 80.1 [7.2] years) in 9 intervention clinics and 1579 individuals (874 women [55.4%]; mean [SD] age, 79.9 [7.5] years) in 9 control clinics who met the eligibility criteria. At baseline, both groups were prescribed a similar mean (SD) number of long-term medications (7.0 [2.1] in the intervention group and 7.0 [2.2] in the control group), and a similar proportion of individuals in both groups were taking 1 or more PIMs (437 of 1433 individuals [30.5%] in the intervention group and 467 of 1579 individuals [29.6%] in the control group). At 6 months, the adjusted mean number of long-term medications was similar in the intervention and control groups (6.4 [95% CI, 6.3-6.5] vs 6.5 [95% CI, 6.4-6.6]; P = .14). The estimated percentages of patients in the intervention and control groups taking 1 or more PIMs were similar (17.8% [95% CI, 15.4%-20.5%] vs 20.9% [95% CI, 18.4%-23.6%]; P = .08). In preplanned subgroup analyses, adjusted differences between the intervention and control groups were -0.16 (95% CI, -0.34 to 0.01) for individuals prescribed 7 or more long-term medications at baseline (n = 1434) and -0.03 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.13) for those prescribed 5 to 6 medications (n = 1578) (P = .28 for interaction; P = .19 for subgroup interaction for PIMs).

Conclusions and Relevance

This large-scale educational deprescribing intervention for older adults with cognitive impairment taking 5 or more long-term medications and their primary care clinicians demonstrated small effect sizes and did not significantly reduce the number of long-term medications and PIMs. Such interventions should target older adults taking relatively more medications.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03984396.

The MultimorbiditY COllaborative Medication Review And DEcision Making (MyComrade) study: a protocol for a cross-border pilot cluster randomised controlled trial

Background

While international guidelines recommend medication reviews as part of the management of multimorbidity, evidence on how to implement reviews in practice in primary care is lacking. The MultimorbiditY Collaborative Medication Review And Decision Making (MyComrade) intervention is an evidence-based, theoretically informed novel intervention which aims to support the conduct of medication reviews for patients with multimorbidity in primary care. Our aim in this pilot study is to evaluate the feasibility of a trial of the intervention with unique modifications accounting for contextual variations in two neighbouring health systems (Republic of Ireland (ROI) and Northern Ireland (NI)).

Methods

A pilot cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted, using a mixed-methods process evaluation to investigate the feasibility of a trial of the MyComrade intervention based on pre-defined progression criteria. A total of 16 practices will be recruited (eight in ROI; eight in NI), and four practices in each jurisdiction will be randomly allocated to intervention or control. Twenty people living with multimorbidity and prescribed ≥ 10 repeat medications will be recruited from each practice prior to practice randomisation. In intervention practices, the MyComrade intervention will be delivered by pairs of general practitioners (GPs) in ROI, and a GP and practice-based pharmacist (PBP) in NI. The GPs/GP and PBP will schedule the time to review the medications together using a checklist. Usual care will proceed in practices in the control arm. Data will be collected via electronic health records and postal questionnaires at recruitment and 4 and 8 months after randomisation. Qualitative interviews to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and explore experiences related to multimorbidity management will be conducted with a purposive sample of GPs, PBPs, practice administration staff and patients in intervention and control practices. The feasibility of conducting a health economic evaluation as part of a future definitive trial will be assessed.

Discussion

The findings of this pilot study will assess the feasibility of a trial of the MyComrade intervention in two different health systems. Evaluation of the progression criteria will guide the decision to progress to a definitive trial and inform trial design. The findings will also contribute to the growing evidence-base related to intervention development and feasibility studies.

Trial registration

ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN80017020. Date of confirmation is 4/11/2019.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40814-022-01018-y.

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.

'Just keep taking them, keep hoping they'll work': A qualitative study of adhering to medications for multimorbidity

OBJECTIVE

Compared to single diseases, health psychology reflects many areas of medical research by affording relatively less attention to the experiences of people self-managing multiple co-occurring conditions and, in particular, the experience of managing the associated complex medication regimens. This study aimed to explore the experience of self-managing multimorbidity among older adults, with a focus on medication adherence.

DESIGN

A qualitative approach was taken, using individual semi-structured interviews.

METHODS

Sixteen people with complex multimorbidity aged 65 years or older were recruited through general practice to take part in semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed following guidelines for reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Two themes were generated, with each theme comprising three subthemes. Theme one represents the amplified burden arising from multimorbidity that leads to unique challenges for self-management, such as integrating multiple medications into daily life, accumulating new symptoms and treatments, and managing evolving medication regimens. Theme two represents pathways towards relief that reduce this burden and promote medication adherence, such as prioritising certain conditions and treatments, resigning to the need for multiple medications, and identifying and utilising adherence supports.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified factors relevant to medication adherence for older adults with multimorbidity that go beyond single-disease influences and account for the amplified experience of chronic disease that multimorbidity can produce for some people. While evidence of single-disease influences remains fundamental to tailoring behavioural interventions to individuals, the impact of multimorbidity on medication adherence should be accounted for in research and practice.

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.

Deprescribing intervention activities mapped to guiding principles for use in general practice: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To identify and characterise activities for deprescribing used in general practice and to map the identified activities to pioneering principles of deprescribing.

SETTING

Primary care.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL, Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), Clinicaltrials.gov, ISRCTN registry, OpenGrey, Annals of Family Medicine, BMC Family Practice, Family Practice and British Journal of General Practice (BJGP) from inception to the end of June 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Included studies were original research (randomised controlled trial, quasi-experimental, cohort study, qualitative and case studies), protocol papers and protocol registrations.

DATA EXTRACTION

Screening and data extraction was completed by one reviewer; 10% of the studies were independently reviewed by a second reviewer. Coding of full-text articles in NVivo was conducted and mapped to five deprescribing principles.

RESULTS

Fifty studies were included. The most frequently used activities were identification of appropriate patients for deprescribing (76%), patient education (50%), general practitioners (GP) education (48%), and development and use of a tapering schedule (38%). Six activities did not align with the five deprescribing principles. As such, two principles (engage practice staff in education and appropriate identification of patients, and provide feedback to staff about deprescribing occurrences within the practice) were added.

CONCLUSION

Activities and guiding principles for deprescribing should be paired together to provide an accessible and comprehensive guide to deprescribing by GPs. The addition of two principles suggests that practice staff and practice management teams may play an instrumental role in sustaining deprescribing processes within clinical practice. Future research is required to determine the most of effective activities to use within each principle and by whom.

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.

Anticholinergic drug burden according to the anticholinergic drug scale and the German anticholinergic burden and their impact on cognitive function in multimorbid elderly German people: a multicentre observational study

OBJECTIVES

The aims of our study were to examine the anticholinergic drug use and to assess the association between anticholinergic burden and cognitive function in the multimorbid elderly patients of the MultiCare cohort.

SETTING

MultiCare was conducted as a longitudinal cohort study in primary care, located in eight different study centres in Germany.

PARTICIPANTS

3189 patients (59.3% female).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Baseline data were used for the following analyses. Drugs were classified according to the well-established anticholinergic drug scale (ADS) and the recently published German anticholinergic burden (German ACB). Cognitive function was measured using a letter digit substitution test (LDST) and a mixed-effect multivariate linear regression was performed to calculate the influence of anticholinergic burden on the cognitive function.

RESULTS

Patients used 1764 anticholinergic drugs according to ADS and 2750 anticholinergics according to the German ACB score (prevalence 38.4% and 53.7%, respectively). The mean ADS score was 0.8 (±1.3), and the mean German ACB score was 1.2 (±1.6) per patient. The most common ADS anticholinergic was furosemide (5.8%) and the most common ACB anticholinergic was metformin (13.7%). The majority of the identified anticholinergics were drugs with low anticholinergic potential: 80.2% (ADS) and 73.4% (ACB), respectively. An increasing ADS and German ACB score was associated with reduced cognitive function according to the LDST (-0.26; p=0.008 and -0.24; p=0.003, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Multimorbid elderly patients are in a high risk for using anticholinergic drugs according to ADS and German ACB score. We especially need to gain greater awareness for the contribution of drugs with low anticholinergic potential from the cardiovascular system. As anticholinergic drug use is associated with reduced cognitive function in multimorbid elderly patients, the importance of rational prescribing and also deprescribing needs to be further evaluated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN89818205.

Link workers providing social prescribing and health and social care coordination for people with multimorbidity in socially deprived areas (the LinkMM trial): protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Link workers are non-health or social care professionals based in primary care who support people to develop and achieve a personalised set of health and social goals by engaging with community resources. Link workers have been piloted in areas of deprivation, but there remains insufficient evidence to support their effectiveness. Multimorbidity is increasing in prevalence, but there are limited evidence-based interventions. This paper presents the protocol for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) that will test the effectiveness of link workers based in general practices in deprived areas in improving health outcomes for people with multimorbidity.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The protocol presents the proposed pragmatic RCT, involving 10 general practitioner (GP) practices and 600 patients. Eligible participants will be community dwelling adults with multimorbidity (≥two chronic conditions) identified as being suitable for referral to a practice-based link worker. Following baseline data collection, the patients will be randomised into intervention group that will meet the link worker over a1-month period, or a 'wait list' control that will receive usual GP care. Primary outcomes are health-related quality of life as assessed by EQ-5D-5L and mental health assessed by Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Secondary outcomes are based on the core outcome set for multimorbidity. Data will be collected at baseline and on intervention completion at 1 month using questionnaires self-completed by participants and GP records. Parallel process and economic analyses will be conducted to explore participants' experiences and examine cost-effectiveness of the link worker intervention.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted by the Irish College of General Practitioners Ethics Committee. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN10287737;Pre-results.

Attitudes toward deprescribing in a middle-aged health disparities population

BACKGROUND

Patients' attitudes toward deprescribing are crucial to understand before developing interventions, but no such data exists in the medically underserved, health disparities population of rural Appalachian United States.

OBJECTIVE(S)

Assess Appalachian women's openness to deprescribing medications and determine if polypharmacy influenced their attitudes toward deprescribing.

METHODS

Before and after a cognitive behavioral therapy intervention, middle-aged Appalachian women self-reported medication use and completed the revised Patients' Attitudes Toward Deprescribing Questionnaire (rPATD). Responses were described, stratified by presence of polypharmacy.

RESULTS

30 women completed the rPATD pre- and post-intervention (mean [SD] age 55.8 [6.6] years; 96.7% white). Those with polypharmacy (n = 16) had higher burden and involvement scores (median 2.8 vs 2.0, p = 0.01; 4.9 vs 4.6, p = 0.06), and lower appropriateness scores (3.4 vs 3.9, p = 0.04). Burden, concerns about stopping, and involvement factor scores were similar before and after the intervention (p = 0.08, 0.86, and 0.41 respectively). ≥90% of participants were satisfied with their current medications yet would be willing to stop one or more.

CONCLUSIONS

Middle-aged women in rural Appalachian United States are open to deprescribing; polypharmacy is associated with lower belief in the appropriateness of medications. Larger studies are needed to inform future deprescribing interventions for this and other similarly disadvantaged populations.

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.

Deprescribing interventions in primary health care mapped to the Behaviour Change Wheel: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy and inappropriate medication use are an increasing concern. Deprescribing may improve medication use through planned and supervised dose reduction or stopping of medications. As most medication management occurs in primary health care, which is generally described as the first point of access for day-to-day care, deprescribing in primary health care is the focus on this review.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aimed to identify and characterize strategies for deprescribing in primary health care and map the strategies to the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW).

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted that involved searches of six databases (2002-2018) and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and included studies. Studies that described and evaluated deprescribing strategies in primary health care were eligible. Two independent reviewers screened articles and completed data charting with charting verified by a third. Deprescribing strategies were mapped to the intervention functions of the BCW and linked to specific Behaviour Change Techniques (BCT).

RESULTS

Searches yielded 6871 citations of which 43 were included. Nineteen studies were randomized, 24 were non-randomized. Studies evaluated deprescribing in terms of medication changes, feasibility, and prescriber/patient perspectives. Deprescribing strategies involved various professionals (physicians, pharmacists, nurses), as well as patients and were generally multifaceted. A wide range of intervention functions were identified, with 41 BCTs mapped to Environmental restructuring, 38 BCTs mapped to Enablement, and 34 BCTs mapped to Persuasion.

CONCLUSIONS

Deprescribing strategies in primary health care have used a variety of BCTs to address individual professionals (e.g. education) as well as strategies that addressed the practice setting, including support from additional team members (e.g. pharmacists, nurses and patients). Further research is warranted to determine comparative effectiveness of different BCTs, which can help facilitate implementation of deprescribing strategies, thereby reducing polypharmacy, in primary health care.

Evaluation of the General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) intervention to optimise prescribing in Irish primary care: a non-randomised pilot study

OBJECTIVE

Limited evidence suggests integration of pharmacists into the general practice team could improve medicines management for patients, particularly those with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. This study aimed to develop and assess the feasibility of an intervention involving pharmacists, working within general practices, to optimise prescribing in Ireland.

DESIGN

Non-randomised pilot study.

SETTING

Primary care in Ireland.

PARTICIPANTS

Four general practices, purposively sampled and recruited to reflect a range of practice sizes and demographic profiles.

INTERVENTION

A pharmacist joined the practice team for 6 months (10 hours/week) and undertook medication reviews (face to face or chart based) for adult patients, provided prescribing advice, supported clinical audits and facilitated practice-based education.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Anonymised practice-level medication (eg, medication changes) and cost data were collected. Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) data were collected on a subset of older adults (aged ≥65 years) with polypharmacy using patient questionnaires, before and 6 weeks after medication review by the pharmacist.

RESULTS

Across four practices, 786 patients were identified as having 1521 prescribing issues by the pharmacists. Issues relating to deprescribing medications were addressed most often by the prescriber (59.8%), compared with cost-related issues (5.8%). Medication changes made during the study equated to approximately €57 000 in cost savings assuming they persisted for 12 months. Ninety-six patients aged ≥65 years with polypharmacy were recruited from the four practices for PROM data collection and 64 (66.7%) were followed up. There were no changes in patients' treatment burden or attitudes to deprescribing following medication review, and there were conflicting changes in patients' self-reported quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

This non-randomised pilot study demonstrated that an intervention involving pharmacists, working within general practices is feasible to implement and has potential to improve prescribing quality. This study provides rationale to conduct a randomised controlled trial to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this intervention.

Multimorbidity Patterns in the General Population: Results from the EpiChron Cohort Study

The correct management of patients with multimorbidity remains one of the main challenges for healthcare systems worldwide. In this study, we analyze the existence of multimorbidity patterns in the general population based on gender and age. We conducted a cross-sectional study of individuals of all ages from the EpiChron Cohort, Spain (1,253,292 subjects), and analyzed the presence of systematic associations among chronic disease diagnoses using exploratory factor analysis. We identified and clinically described a total of 14 different multimorbidity patterns (12 in women and 12 in men), with some relevant differences in the functions of age and gender. The number and complexity of the patterns was shown to increase with age in both genders. We identified associations of circulatory diseases with respiratory disorders, chronic musculoskeletal diseases with depression and anxiety, and a very consistent pattern of conditions whose co-occurrence is known as metabolic syndrome (hypertension, diabetes, obesity, and dyslipidaemia), among others. Our results demonstrate the potential of using real-world data to conduct large-scale epidemiological studies to assess the complex interactions among chronic conditions. This could be useful in designing clinical interventions for patients with multimorbidity, as well as recommendations for healthcare professionals on how to handle these types of patients in clinical practice.

Interventions for improving medication-taking ability and adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications

BACKGROUND

Older people taking multiple medications represent a large and growing proportion of the population. Managing multiple medications can be challenging, and this is especially the case for older people, who have higher rates of comorbidity and physical and cognitive impairment than younger adults. Good medication-taking ability and medication adherence are necessary to ensure safe and effective use of medications.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve medication-taking ability and/or medication adherence in older community-dwelling adults prescribed multiple long-term medications.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from inception until June 2019. We also searched grey literature, online trial registries, and reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs. Eligible studies tested interventions aimed at improving medication-taking ability and/or medication adherence among people aged ≥ 65 years (or of mean/median age > 65 years), living in the community or being discharged from hospital back into the community, and taking four or more regular prescription medications (or with group mean/median of more than four medications). Interventions targeting carers of older people who met these criteria were also included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts and full texts of eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We conducted meta-analyses when possible and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect, risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, along with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Narrative synthesis was performed when meta-analysis was not possible. We assessed overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Primary outcomes were medication-taking ability and medication adherence. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life (HRQoL), emergency department (ED)/hospital admissions, and mortality.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 50 studies (14,269 participants) comprising 40 RCTs, six cluster-RCTs, and four quasi-RCTs. All included studies evaluated interventions versus usual care; six studies also reported a comparison between two interventions as part of a three-arm RCT design. Interventions were grouped on the basis of their educational and/or behavioural components: 14 involved educational components only, 7 used behavioural strategies only, and 29 provided mixed educational and behavioural interventions. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions was low to very low due to a high degree of heterogeneity of included studies and high or unclear risk of bias across multiple domains in most studies. Five studies evaluated interventions for improving medication-taking ability, and 48 evaluated interventions for improving medication adherence (three studies evaluated both outcomes). No studies involved educational or behavioural interventions alone for improving medication-taking ability. Low-quality evidence from five studies, each using a different measure of medication-taking ability, meant that we were unable to determine the effects of mixed interventions on medication-taking ability. Low-quality evidence suggests that behavioural only interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.38; 4 studies) and mixed interventions (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.37; 12 studies) may increase the proportions of people who are adherent compared with usual care. We could not include in the meta-analysis results from two studies involving mixed interventions: one had a positive effect on adherence, and the other had little or no effect. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of educational only interventions (5 studies) on the proportions of people who are adherent. Low-quality evidence suggests that educational only interventions (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.43; 5 studies) and mixed interventions (SMD 0.47, 95% CI -0.08 to 1.02; 7 studies) may have little or no impact on medication adherence assessed through continuous measures of adherence. We excluded 10 studies (4 educational only and 6 mixed interventions) from the meta-analysis including four studies with unclear or no available results. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of behavioural only interventions (3 studies) on medication adherence when assessed through continuous outcomes. Low-quality evidence suggests that mixed interventions may reduce the number of ED/hospital admissions (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.90; 11 studies) compared with usual care, although results from six further studies that we were unable to include in meta-analyses indicate that the intervention may have a smaller, or even no, effect on these outcomes. Similarly, low-quality evidence suggests that mixed interventions may lead to little or no change in HRQoL (7 studies), and very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects on mortality (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.30; 7 studies). Moderate-quality evidence shows that educational interventions alone probably have little or no effect on HRQoL (6 studies) or on ED/hospital admissions (4 studies) when compared with usual care. Very low-quality evidence means that we are uncertain of the effects of behavioural interventions on HRQoL (1 study) or on ED/hospital admissions (2 studies). We identified no studies evaluating effects of educational or behavioural interventions alone on mortality. Six studies reported a comparison between two interventions; however due to the limited number of studies assessing the same types of interventions and comparisons, we are unable to draw firm conclusions for any outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Behavioural only or mixed educational and behavioural interventions may improve the proportion of people who satisfactorily adhere to their prescribed medications, but we are uncertain of the effects of educational only interventions. No type of intervention was found to improve adherence when it was measured as a continuous variable, with educational only and mixed interventions having little or no impact and evidence of insufficient quality to determine the effects of behavioural only interventions. We were unable to determine the impact of interventions on medication-taking ability. The quality of evidence for these findings is low due to heterogeneity and methodological limitations of studies included in the review. Further well-designed RCTs are needed to investigate the effects of interventions for improving medication-taking ability and medication adherence in older adults prescribed multiple medications.

Evidence gap on antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy in frail older adults : A systematic review

Background

Although antihyperglycemic pharmacotherapy in frail older adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is challenging, recommendations from international guidelines are mainly based on indirect evidence from trials not including frail participants.

Objective

This systematic review investigated the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy in frail older adults with T2DM.

Material and methods

Randomized (RCT) and non-randomized prospective clinical trials (non-RCT) were searched in three electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Central) up to October 2018. Trials in older adults with T2DM who were assessed as significantly or severely impaired by defined cut-off scores of assessment instruments on frailty, activities of daily living or physical functional impairment were included.

Results

Two reviewers independently screened 17,391 references for inclusion and assessed risk of bias with ROBINS‑I. Five non-RCTs and no RCT were identified. Treatment of T2DM without insulin compared to insulin could be associated with increased improvement in cardiac functions in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy and with decreased falls in frail older women. While better glycemic control with low variability and low HbA1c (hemoglobin A1c) values (<7%) was associated with better maintenance of physical function in community-dwelling older persons, higher HbA1c values (8–8.9%) were associated with a reduction in the composite outcome of death or functional decline in community-dwelling diabetic older adults with need for skilled assistance. Due to serious risk of bias in all studies, results should be considered with caution.

Conclusion

Well-designed, large-scale RCTs including this important group of patients are required to assess the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy and HbA1c targets.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00391-020-01724-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Study protocol for a process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing and polypharmacy in patients with multimorbidity in Irish primary care (SPPiRE)

Background: Multimorbidity (the presence of two or more chronic conditions) is associated with poorer health outcomes, particularly for patients with significant polypharmacy (≥15 medications), due to the higher risk of adverse events and drug interactions. The SPPiRE study will assess the effectiveness of a complex intervention to support general practitioners (GPs) to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing and consider deprescribing in older people with multimorbidity and significant polypharmacy. The aim of the SPPiRE process evaluation is to understand how and why the intervention is effective or ineffective and to explore the potential for system wide implementation of the intervention using the Medical Research Council general themes of context, implementation and mechanism of impact.

Methods: The SPPiRE study is a clustered randomised controlled trial (RCT), aiming to recruit 55 general practices and 400 patients (≥65 years) on ≥15 medications throughout the Republic of Ireland.

This mixed-methods process evaluation of the SPPiRE study will integrate both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data will be collected on use of the intervention elements and from GP questionnaires. Qualitative data will be collected from semi-structured telephone interviews with all intervention GPs and a purposeful sample of patients from intervention practices. The topic guide will explore barriers and facilitators to participation and implementation of the intervention.

Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics. Interviews will be transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data will be then be integrated.

Discussion: The SPPiRE cluster RCT will provide evidence regarding the effectiveness and practicability of delivering a structured medication review in reducing polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing for patients with multimorbidity. This process evaluation will provide information on how the intervention was implemented, how it was or was not effective and the potential for a system wide implementation.

Trial registration:ISRCTN 12752680, registration: 20/10/2016

Study protocol for a process evaluation of a cluster randomised controlled trial to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing and polypharmacy in patients with multimorbidity in Irish primary care (SPPiRE)

Background: Multimorbidity (the presence of two or more chronic conditions) is associated with poorer health outcomes, particularly for patients with significant polypharmacy (≥15 medications), due to the higher risk of adverse events and drug interactions. The SPPiRE study will assess the effectiveness of a complex intervention to support general practitioners (GPs) to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing and consider deprescribing in older people with multimorbidity and significant polypharmacy. The aim of the SPPiRE process evaluation is to understand how and why the intervention is effective or ineffective and to explore the potential for system wide implementation of the intervention using the Medical Research Council general themes of context, implementation and mechanism of impact. Methods: The SPPiRE study is a clustered randomised controlled trial (RCT), aiming to recruit 55 general practices and 400 patients (≥65 years) on ≥15 medications throughout the Republic of Ireland. This mixed-methods process evaluation of the SPPiRE study will integrate both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data will be collected on use of the intervention elements and from GP questionnaires. Qualitative data will be collected from semi-structured telephone interviews with all intervention GPs and a purposeful sample of patients from intervention practices. The topic guide will explore barriers and facilitators to participation and implementation of the intervention. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics. Interviews will be transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data will be then be integrated. Discussion: The SPPiRE cluster RCT will provide evidence regarding the effectiveness and practicability of delivering a structured medication review in reducing polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing for patients with multimorbidity. This process evaluation will provide information on how the intervention was implemented, how it was or was not effective and the potential for a system wide implementation. Trial registration: ISRCTN 12752680, registration: 20/10/2016.

Improving inappropriate medication and information transfer at hospital discharge: study protocol for a cluster RCT

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate medication and polypharmacy increase morbidity, hospitalisation rate, costs and mortality in multimorbid patients. At hospital discharge of elderly patients, polypharmacy is often even more pronounced than at admission. However, the optimal discharge strategy in view of sustained medication appropriateness remains unclear. In particular, unreflectingly switching back to the pre-hospitalisation medication must be avoided. Therefore, both the patients and the follow-up physicians should be involved in the discharge process. In this study, we aim to test whether a brief medication review which takes the patients' priorities into account, combined with a standardised communication strategy at hospital discharge, leads to sustained medication appropriateness and extends readmission times among elderly multimorbid patients.

METHODS

The study is designed as a two-armed, double-blinded, cluster-randomised trial, involving 42 senior hospital physicians (HPs) with their junior HPs and 2100 multimorbid patients aged 60 years or older. Using a randomised minimisation strategy, senior HPs will be assigned to either intervention or control group. Following instructions of the study team, the senior HPs in the intervention group will teach their junior HPs how to integrate a simple medication review tool combined with a defined communication strategy into their ward's discharge procedure. The untrained HPs in the control group will provide data on usual care, and their patients will be discharged following usual local routines. Primary outcome is the time until readmission within 6 months after discharge, and secondary outcomes cover readmission rates, number of emergency and GP visits, classes and numbers of drugs prescribed, proportions of potentially inappropriate medications, and the patients' quality of life after discharge. Additionally, the characteristics of both the HPs as well as the patients will be collected before the intervention. Process evaluation outcomes will be assessed parallel to the ongoing core study using qualitative research methods.

DISCUSSION

So far, interventions to reduce polypharmacy are still scarce at the crucial interface between HPs and GPs. To our knowledge, this trial is the first to analyse the combination of a brief deprescribing intervention with a standardised communication strategy at hospital discharge and in the early post-discharge period.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, ISRCTN18427377 . Registered 11 January 2018.

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, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective 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 7 February 2018, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people aged 65 years and older, prescribed polypharmacy (four or more medicines), 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

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of 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 32 studies, 20 from this update. Included studies consisted of 18 randomised trials, 10 cluster randomised trials (one of which was a stepped-wedge design), two non-randomised trials and two controlled before-after studies. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support (CDS); and 31 were complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical-care based approaches (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patient's outcomes), one of which incorporated a CDS component as part of their multi-faceted intervention. Interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists and geriatricians, and all 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) -4.76, 95% CI -9.20 to -0.33; 5 studies, N = 517; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.05; 7 studies; N = 1832; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs, (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.02; 11 studies; N = 3079; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.81, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.64; 2 studies; N = 569; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPOs (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 5 studies; N = 1310; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in hospital admissions (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 4052; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in quality of life (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 3211; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in eight studies (N = 10,087) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as reviews of patients' prescriptions, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they may be slightly beneficial in terms of reducing potential prescribing omissions (PPOs); but this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias.

Behavioral, Psychiatric, and Cognitive Adverse Events in Older Persons Treated with Glucocorticoids

Background: Since the introduction of glucocorticoids (GCs) in the physician's pharmacological arsenal, it has been known that they are a cause of behavioral or psychiatric adverse events (BPAE), as well as of cognitive problems. To the best of our knowledge, the relationship between these adverse events and GCs in older persons has never been evaluated, except through case-reports or series with few cases. In this paper, a review of the literature regarding BPAEs and cognitive disorders in older people treated with CSs is undertaken. Methods: A comprehensive literature search for BPAEs was carried out on the three main bibliographic databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO (NICE HDAS interface). Emtree terms were: Steroid, steroid therapy, mental disease, mania, delirium, agitation, depression, behavior change, dementia, major cognitive impairment, elderly. The search was restricted to all clinical studies and case reports with focus on the aged (65+ years) published in any language since 1998. Results: Data on the prevalence of the various BPAEs in older patients treated with GCs were very scarse, consisting mainly of case reports and of series with small numbers of patients. It was hence not possible to perform any statistical evaluation of the data (including meta-analysis). Amongst BPAEs, he possibility that delirium can be induced by GCs has been recently been questioned. Co-morbidities and polypharmacy were additional risk factors for BPAEs in older persons. Conclusions: Data on BPAEs in older persons treated with GCs, have several unmet needs that need to be further evaluated with appropriately designed studies.

Safer Prescribing and Care for the Elderly (SPACE): a pilot study in general practice

Background

High-risk prescribing places patients at increased risk of adverse drug events (ADEs). High-risk prescribing and ADE hospitalisations are increasingly common as people are living longer and taking more medicines for multiple chronic conditions. The Safer Prescribing and Care for the Elderly (SPACE) intervention is designed to foster patient engagement in medicines management and prompt medicines review.

Aim

To pilot the SPACE intervention in preparation for a larger cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT).

Design & setting

A pilot study in two general practices. Study participants were all patients at increased risk of an adverse drug reaction (ADE) from non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and/or antiplatelet medicines. The primary outcome was the proportion of participants receiving high-risk prescribing at 6 months and 12 months compared with baseline.

Method

The SPACE intervention comprised automated practice audit to identify and generate for each GP a list of patients with high-risk prescribing for these medicines; an outreach visit by clinical advisory pharmacist to deliver education and to go through with each GP their list of at-risk patients and indicate in a tick-box the intended action for each patient; and a mail-out from GPs to selected patients containing a medicines information brochure and a letter encouraging patients to discuss their medicines when they next see their GP.

Results

SPACE can be delivered within existing primary care infrastructure. The rate of high-risk prescribing was reduced at 6 months following the delivery of the intervention, but these improvements were not evident at 12 months.

Conclusion

SPACE prompts medicines review and shows promising signs of supporting safer prescribing in general practice in the short term. A randomised trial of SPACE started in 2018.

Supporting prescribing in Irish primary care: protocol for a non-randomised pilot study of a general practice pharmacist (GPP) intervention to optimise prescribing in primary care

Background

Prescribing for patients taking multiple medicines (i.e. polypharmacy) is challenging for general practitioners (GPs). Limited evidence suggests that the integration of pharmacists into the general practice team could improve the management of these patients. The aim of this study is to develop and test an intervention involving pharmacists, working within GP practices, to optimise prescribing in Ireland, which has a mixed public and private primary healthcare system.

Methods

This non-randomised pilot study will use a mixed-methods approach. Four general practices will be purposively sampled and recruited. A pharmacist will join the practice team for 6 months. They will participate in the management of repeat prescribing and undertake medication reviews (which will address high-risk prescribing and potentially inappropriate prescribing, deprescribing and cost-effective and generic prescribing) with adult patients. Pharmacists will also provide prescribing advice regarding the use of preferred drugs, undertake clinical audits, join practice team meetings and facilitate practice-based education. Throughout the 6-month intervention period, anonymised practice-level medication (e.g. medication changes) and cost data will be collected. A nested Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) study will be undertaken during months 4 and 5 of the 6-month intervention period to explore the impact of the intervention in older adults (aged ≥ 65 years). For this, a sub-set of 50 patients aged ≥ 65 years with significant polypharmacy (≥ 10 repeat medicines) will be recruited from each practice and invited to a medication review with the pharmacist. PROMs and healthcare utilisation data will be collected using patient questionnaires, and a 6-week follow-up review conducted. Acceptability of the intervention will be explored using pre- and post-intervention semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. Quantitative and qualitative data analysis will be undertaken and an economic evaluation conducted.

Discussion

This non-randomised pilot study will provide evidence regarding the feasibility and potential effectiveness of general practice-based pharmacists in Ireland and provide data on whether a randomised controlled trial of this intervention is indicated. It will also provide a deeper understanding as to how a pharmacist working as part of the general practice team will affect organisational processes and professional relationships in a mixed public and private primary healthcare system.