Economic Evaluations of Interventions to Optimize Medication Use in Older Adults with Polypharmacy and Multimorbidity: A Systematic Review

Potentially Inappropriate Medication: A Pilot Study in Institutionalized Older Adults

Institutionalized older adults often face complex medication regimens, increasing their risk of adverse drug events due to polypharmacy, overprescribing, medication interactions, or the use of Potentially Inappropriate Medications (PIM). However, data on medication use and associated risks in this population remain scarce. This pilot study aimed to characterize the sociodemographic, clinical and pharmacotherapeutic profiles, and the use of PIM among institutionalized elders residing in Residential Structures for Elderly People (ERPI) in the Faro municipality, located in the Portuguese region of the Algarve. We conducted a cross-sectional study in a non-randomized sample of 96 participants (mean age: 86.6 ± 7.86 years) where trained researchers reviewed medication profiles and identified potentially inappropriate medications using the EU(7)-PIM list. Over 90% of participants exhibited polypharmacy (≥5 medications), with an average of 9.1 ± 4.15 medications per person. About 92% had potential drug interactions, including major and moderate interactions. More than 86% used at least one potentially inappropriate medication, most commonly central nervous system drugs. This pilot study demonstrates that institutionalized older adults may be at high risk of potential medication-related problems. Implementing comprehensive medication review programs and promoting adapted prescribing practices are crucial to optimize medication use and improve the well-being of this vulnerable population.

Deprescribing interventions in older adults: An overview of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

The growing deprescribing field is challenged by a lack of consensus around evidence and knowledge gaps. The objective of this overview of systematic reviews was to summarize the review evidence for deprescribing interventions in older adults.

METHODS

11 databases were searched from 1st January 2005 to 16th March 2023 to identify systematic reviews. We summarized and synthesized the results in two steps. Step 1 summarized results reported by the included reviews (including meta-analyses). Step 2 involved a narrative synthesis of review results by outcome. Outcomes included medication-related outcomes (e.g., medication reduction, medication appropriateness) or twelve other outcomes (e.g., mortality, adverse events). We summarized outcomes according to subgroups (patient characteristics, intervention type and setting) when direct comparisons were available within the reviews. The quality of included reviews was assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2).

RESULTS

We retrieved 3,228 unique citations and assessed 135 full-text articles for eligibility. Forty-eight reviews (encompassing 17 meta-analyses) were included. Thirty-one of the 48 reviews had a general deprescribing focus, 16 focused on specific medication classes or therapeutic categories and one included both. Twelve of 17 reviews meta-analyzed medication-related outcomes (33 outcomes: 25 favored the intervention, 7 found no difference, 1 favored the comparison). The narrative synthesis indicated that most interventions resulted in some evidence of medication reduction while for other outcomes we found primarily no evidence of an effect. Results were mixed for adverse events and few reviews reported adverse drug withdrawal events. Limited information was available for people with dementia, frailty and multimorbidity. All but one review scored low or critically low on quality assessment.

CONCLUSION

Deprescribing interventions likely resulted in medication reduction but evidence on other outcomes, in particular relating to adverse events, or in vulnerable subgroups or settings was limited. Future research should focus on designing studies powered to examine harms, patient-reported outcomes, and effects on vulnerable subgroups.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42020178860.

Polypharmacy Management in Chronic Conditions: A Systematic Literature Review of Italian Interventions

Background: Potentially inappropriate polypharmacy (PIP) is among the major factors leading to adverse drug reactions, increased healthcare costs, reduced medication adherence, and worsened patient conditions. This study aims to identify existing interventions implemented to monitor and manage polypharmacy in the Italian setting. Methods: A systematic literature review (PROSPERO: CRD42023457049) was carried out according to the PRISMA statement guidelines. PubMed, Embase, ProQuest, and Web of Science were queried without temporal constraints, encompassing all published papers until October 2023. Inclusion criteria followed the PICO model: patients with polypharmacy; interventions to monitor/manage polypharmacy regimen versus no/any intervention; outcomes in terms of intervention effectiveness and cost variation. Results: After duplicate deletion, 153 potentially relevant publications were extracted. Following abstract and full-text screenings, nine articles met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 78% (n = 7) were observational studies, 11% (n = 1) were experimental studies, and 11% (n = 1) were two-phase studies. A total of 44% (n = 4) of the studies involved patients aged ≥ 65 years, while 56% (n = 5) were disease-specific. Monitoring was the most prevalent choice of intervention (67%; n = 6). Outcomes were mainly related to levels of polypharmacy (29%; n = 6) and comorbidities (29%; n = 6), effectiveness rates (14%; n = 3), and avoidable costs (9%; n = 2). Conclusions: This review outlines that Italy is still lacking in interventions to monitor/manage PIP, addressing an unmet need in developing patient-tailored strategies for reducing health-system burden.

Economic cost-benefit analysis of person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists

BACKGROUND

Medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists improve patient outcomes, but little is known about the associated economic outcomes, particularly in patients at higher risk of medicines-related harm.

AIM

To conduct an economic cost-benefit analysis of pharmacists providing person-centred medicines reviews to patients with hyperpolypharmacy (prescribed ≥ 10 regular medicines) and/or at high risk of medicines-related harm across multiple general practice settings.

METHOD

Service delivery costs were calculated based on the pharmacist's salary, recorded timings, and a general practitioner fee. Direct cost savings were calculated from the cost change of patients' medicines post review, projected over 1 year. Indirect savings were calculated using two models, a population-based model for avoidance of hospital admissions due to adverse drug reactions and an intervention-based model applying a probability of adverse drug reaction avoidance. Sensitivity analyses were performed using varying workday scenarios.

RESULTS

Based on 1471 patients (88.4% with hyperpolypharmacy), the cost of service delivery was €153 per review. Using the population-based model, net cost savings ranging from €198 to €288 per patient review and from €73,317 to €177,696 per annum per pharmacist were calculated. Using the intervention-based model, net cost savings of €651-€741 per review, with corresponding annual savings of €240,870-€457,197 per annum per pharmacist, were calculated. Savings ratios ranged from 181 to 584% across all models and inputs.

CONCLUSION

Person-centred medicines reviews by general practice pharmacists for patients at high risk of medicines-related harm result in substantial cost savings. Wider investment in general practice pharmacists will be beneficial to minimise both patient harm and healthcare system expenditure.

Defining, identifying and addressing problematic polypharmacy within multimorbidity in primary care: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Polypharmacy and multimorbidity pose escalating challenges. Despite numerous attempts, interventions have yet to show consistent improvements in health outcomes. A key factor may be varied approaches to targeting patients for intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To explore how patients are targeted for intervention by examining the literature with respect to: understanding how polypharmacy is defined; identifying problematic polypharmacy in practice; and addressing problematic polypharmacy through interventions.

DESIGN

We performed a scoping review as defined by the Joanna Briggs Institute.

SETTING

The focus was on primary care settings.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Cochrane along with ClinicalTrials.gov, Science.gov and WorldCat.org were searched from January 2004 to February 2024.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included all articles that had a focus on problematic polypharmacy in multimorbidity and primary care, incorporating multiple types of evidence, such as reviews, quantitative trials, qualitative studies and policy documents. Articles focussing on a single index disease or not written in English were excluded.

EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

We performed a narrative synthesis, comparing themes and findings across the collective evidence to draw contextualised insights and conclusions.

RESULTS

In total, 157 articles were included. Case-finding methods often rely on basic medication counts (often five or more) without considering medical history or whether individual medications are clinically appropriate. Other approaches highlight specific drug indicators and interactions as potentially inappropriate prescribing, failing to capture a proportion of patients not fitting criteria. Different potentially inappropriate prescribing criteria also show significant inconsistencies in determining the appropriateness of medications, often neglecting to consider multimorbidity and underprescribing. This may hinder the identification of the precise population requiring intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

Improved strategies are needed to target patients with polypharmacy, which should consider patient perspectives, individual factors and clinical appropriateness. The development of a cross-cutting measure of problematic polypharmacy that consistently incorporates adjustment for multimorbidity may be a valuable next step to address frequent confounding.

Cumulative Update of a Systematic Overview Evaluating Interventions Addressing Polypharmacy

Importance

Polypharmacy is associated with mortality, falls, hospitalizations, and functional and cognitive decline. The study of polypharmacy-related interventions has increased substantially, prompting the need for an updated, more focused systematic overview.

Objective

To systematically evaluate and summarize evidence across multiple systematic reviews (SRs) examining interventions addressing polypharmacy.

Evidence Review

A search was conducted of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects for articles published from January 2017-October 2022, as well as those identified in a previous overview (January 2004-February 2017). Systematic reviews were included regardless of study design, setting, or outcome. The evidence was summarized by 4 categories: (1) medication-related process outcomes (eg, potentially inappropriate medication [PIM] and potential prescribing omission reductions), (2) clinical and functional outcomes, (3) health care use and economic outcomes, and (4) acceptability of the intervention.

Findings

Fourteen SRs were identified (3 from the previous overview), 7 of which included meta-analyses, representing 179 unique published studies. Nine SRs examined medication-related process outcomes (low to very low evidence quality). Systematic reviews using pooled analyses found significant reductions in the number of PIMs, potential prescribing omissions, and total number of medications, and improvements in medication appropriateness. Twelve SRs examined clinical and functional outcomes (very low to moderate evidence quality). Five SRs examined mortality; all mortality meta-analyses were null, but studies with longer follow-up periods found greater reductions in mortality. Five SRs examined falls incidence; results were predominantly null save for a meta-analysis in which PIMs were discontinued. Of the 8 SRs examining quality of life, most (7) found predominantly null effects. Ten SRs examined hospitalizations and readmissions (very low to moderate evidence quality) and 4 examined emergency department visits (very low to low evidence quality). One SR found significant reductions in hospitalizations and readmissions among higher-intensity medication reviews with face-to-face patient components. Another meta-analysis found a null effect. Of the 7 SRs without meta-analyses for hospitalizations and readmissions, all had predominantly null results. Two of 4 SRs found reductions in emergency department visits. Two SRs examined acceptability (very low evidence quality), finding wide variation in the adoption of polypharmacy-related interventions.

Conclusions and Relevance

This updated systematic overview noted little evidence of an association between polypharmacy-related interventions and reduced important clinical and health care use outcomes. More evidence is needed regarding which interventions are most useful and which populations would benefit most.

Polypharmacy, physical activity, and sedentary time in older adults: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To map out the studies that have investigated the associations of polypharmacy and/or potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use with physical activity and sedentary time in older adults.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search from inception to December 2022 in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

observational studies including older adults (≥60 years); English, Portuguese, and Spanish languages; any definition of polypharmacy; implicit and explicit criteria of PIM use; physical activity and/or sedentary time data.

RESULTS

Fourteen cross-sectional studies were included; 11 defined polypharmacy as ≥5 medications (prevalence ranging from 9.5 % to 57 %). No study reported information on PIM use. Most studies included participants aged <80 years. Twelve studies included self-reported measures of physical activity, while two studies used accelerometer-measured physical activity. Ten studies included analyses adjusted for confounders, and nine considered polypharmacy as an outcome. All of them demonstrated an inverse association between physical activity and polypharmacy, irrespective of the definition of polypharmacy and the assessment method employed (self-reported or accelerometry). One study reported an inverse association between polypharmacy (as the exposure) and physical activity (as the outcome). None of the studies investigated the association between sedentary time and polypharmacy.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited evidence suggests an inverse association between physical activity and polypharmacy in older adults. However, the relationship between PIM use, physical activity, and sedentary time remains unknown. Longitudinal studies utilizing objectively-measured physical activity and sedentary time are needed to better clarify the relationship between these movement behaviors and polypharmacy and/or PIM use in older adults.

The effects of pharmaceutical interventions on potentially inappropriate medications in older patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) is a particular concern in older patients and is associated with negative health outcomes. As various interventions have been developed to manage it, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of pharmaceutical interventions on outcomes of PIMs in older patients.

Methods

Meta-analysis of eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to report the outcomes of pharmaceutical interventions in older patients searching from the databases of Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Clinicaltrials.gov, SinoMed and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR). The PRISMA guidelines were followed and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019134754). Cochrane bias risk assessment tool and the modified Jadad scale were used to assess the risk bias. RevMan software was used for data processing, analysis and graphical plotting.

Results

Sixty-five thousand, nine hundred seventy-one patients in 14 RCTs were included. Of the primary outcomes, pharmaceutical interventions could significantly reduce the incidence of PIMs in older patients (OR = 0.51, 95% CI: 0.42, 0.62; p < 0.001), and the number of PIMs per person (MD = -0.41, 95%CI: -0.51, -0.31; p < 0.001), accompanying by a low heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis showed that the application of computer-based clinical decision support for pharmacological interventions could remarkably decrease the incidence of PIMs and two assessment tools were more effective. Of the secondary outcomes, the meta-analysis showed that pharmacological interventions could reduce the number of drugs used per person (MD = -0.94, 95%CI: -1.51, -0.36; p = 0.001) and 30-day readmission rate (OR = 0.58, 95%CI: 0.36, 0.92; p = 0.02), accompanying by a low heterogeneity. However, the pharmaceutical interventions demonstrated no significant improvement on all-cause mortality and the number of falls.

Conclusion

Our findings supported the efficacy of pharmaceutical interventions to optimize the use and management of drugs in older patients.

Systematic review registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov/, CRD42019134754.

Interventions and management on multimorbidity: An overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Multimorbidity poses an immense burden on the healthcare systems globally, whereas the management strategies and guidelines for multimorbidity are poorly established. We aim to synthesize current evidence on interventions and management of multimorbidity.

METHODS

We searched four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). Systematic reviews (SRs) on interventions or management of multimorbidity were included and evaluated. The methodological quality of each SR was assessed by the AMSTAR-2 tool, and the quality of evidence on the effectiveness of interventions was assessed by the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system.

RESULTS

A total of 30 SRs (464 unique underlying studies) were included, including 20 SRs of interventions and 10 SRs summarizing evidence on management of multimorbidity. Four categories of interventions were identified: patient-level interventions, provider-level interventions, organization-level interventions, and combined interventions (combining the aforementioned two or three- level components). The outcomes were categorized into six types: physical conditions/outcomes, mental conditions/outcomes, psychosocial outcomes/general health, healthcare utilization and costs, patients' behaviors, and care process outcomes. Combined interventions (with patient-level and provider-level components) were more effective in promoting physical conditions/outcomes, while patient-level interventions were more effective in promoting mental conditions/outcomes and psychosocial outcomes/general health. As for healthcare utilization and care process outcomes, organization-level and combined interventions (with organization-level components) were more effective. The challenges in the management of multimorbidity at the patient, provider and organizational levels were also summarized.

CONCLUSION

Combined interventions for multimorbidity at different levels would be favored to promote different types of health outcomes. Challenges exist in the management at the patient, provider, and organization levels. Therefore, a holistic and integrated approach of patient-, provider- and organization- level interventions is required to address the challenges and optimize care of patients with multimorbidity.

Economic evaluations of interventional opportunities for the management of mental-physical multimorbidity: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Economic evaluations of interventions for people with mental-physical multimorbidity, including a depressive disorder, are sparse. This study examines whether such interventions in adults are cost-effective.

DESIGN

A systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science and NHS EED databases were searched until 5 March 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included studies involving people aged ≥18 with two or more chronic conditions (one being a depressive disorder). Economic evaluation studies that compared costs and outcomes of interventions were included, and those that assessed only costs or effects were excluded.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two authors independently assessed risk of bias in included studies using recommended checklists. A narrative analysis of the characteristics and results by type of intervention and levels of healthcare provision was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 19 studies, all undertaken in high-income countries, met inclusion criteria. Four intervention types were reported: collaborative care, self-management, telephone-based and antidepressant treatment. Most (14 of 19) interventions were implemented at the organisational level and were potentially cost-effective, particularly, the collaborative care for people with depressive disorder and diabetes, comorbid major depression and cancer and depression and multiple long-term conditions. Cost-effectiveness ranged from £206 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for collaborative care programmes for older adults with diabetes and depression at primary care clinics (USA) to £79 723 per QALY for combining collaborative care with improved opportunistic screening for adults with depressive disorder and diabetes (England). Conclusions on cost-effectiveness were constrained by methodological aspects of the included studies: choice of perspectives, time horizon and costing methods.

CONCLUSIONS

Economic evaluations of interventions to manage multimorbidity with a depressive disorder are non-existent in low-income and middle-income countries. The design and reporting of future economic evaluations must improve to provide robust conclusions.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022302036.

Strategies and Tools for Supporting the Appropriateness of Drug Use in Older People

Through this structured review of the published literature, we aimed to provide an up-to-date description of strategies (human-related) and tools (mainly from the digital field) facilitating the appropriateness of drug use in older adults. The evidence of each strategy and tool’s effectiveness and sustainability largely derives from local and heterogeneous experiences, with contrasting results. As a general framework, three main steps should be considered in implementing measures to improve appropriateness: prescription, acceptance by the patient, and continuous monitoring of adherence and risk-benefit profile. Each step needs efforts from specific actors (physicians, patients, caregivers, healthcare professionals) and dedicated supporting tools. Moreover, how to support the appropriateness also strictly depends on the particular setting of care (hospital, ambulatory or primary care, nursing home, long-term care) and available economic resources. Therefore, it is urgent assigning to each approach proposed in the literature the following characteristics: level of effectiveness, strength of evidence, setting of implementation, needed resources, and issues for its sustainability.

Home-dwelling older adults' experiences of living with both frailty and multimorbidity: A meta-ethnography

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review qualitative studies about home-dwelling older adults' experiences of living with both frailty and multimorbidity.

METHODS

This study adopted a meta-ethnography; the databases included PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar. Qualitative peer-reviewed articles in English were searched up to December 31, 2021. Themes and concepts were extracted through constant comparison across the included studies by three reviewers.

RESULTS

Of the 147 articles screened, nine qualitative articles, encompassing a total sample of 173 participants, were included. The four final synthesised themes were 'Being isolated in a closed life,' 'Being dependent on help from others,' 'Rebuilding to maximise quality of life,' and 'Struggling to live a meaningful life.'

CONCLUSION

Home-dwelling older adults with both frailty and multimorbidity are more likely to be socially isolated due to their physical limitations and lack of integration between hospital-based care and community healthcare services.

Effectiveness of Interventions to Reduce Potentially Inappropriate Medication in Older Patients: A Systematic Review

Background: Age-related multiple comorbidities cause older adults to be prone to the use of potentially inappropriate medicines (PIM) resulting in an increased risk of adverse events. Several strategies have emerged to support PIM prescription, and a huge number of interventions to reduce PIM have been proposed. This work aims to analyze the effectiveness of PIM interventions directed to older adults.

Methods: A systematic review was performed searching the literature in the MEDLINE PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane scientific databases for interventional studies that assessed the PIM interventions in older adults (≥65 years).

Results: Forty-seven articles were included, involving 52 to 124,802 patients. Various types of interventions were analyzed such as medication review, educational strategies, clinical decision support system, and organizational and multifaceted approaches. In the hospital, the most successful intervention was medication review (75.0%), while in primary care, the analysis of all included studies revealed that educational strategies were the most effective. However, the analysis of interventions that have greater evidence by its design was inconclusive.

Conclusion: The results obtained in this work suggested that PIM-setting-directed interventions should be developed to promote the wellbeing of the patients through PIM reduction. Although the data obtained suggested that medication review was the most assertive strategy to decrease the number of PIM in the hospital setting, more studies are necessary.

Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021233484], identifier [PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021233484].