Deprescribing medicines in older people living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: the TAILOR evidence synthesis

Exploring factors influencing quality of life variability among individuals with coeliac disease: an online survey

OBJECTIVE

Patients with coeliac disease (CD) need to follow a strict gluten-free diet to manage symptoms and prevent complications. Restrictions imposed by the diet can be challenging and affect quality of life (QoL). We explored sources of variation in QoL among patients with CD.

DESIGN

We conducted an online survey of coeliac patients in the UK, including a CD-specific QoL tool (CD-QOL V.1.0), questions on diet adherence and an optional comment box at the end. The survey was disseminated via social media and went live between January and March 2021. We performed multiple linear regression and free text analysis.

RESULTS

We found a median CD-QOL score of 61 (IQR 44-76, range 4-100, n=215) suggesting good QoL (Good >59); however, the individual QoL scores varied significantly. Regression analyses showed that people who found diet adherence difficult and people adhering very strictly had a lower QoL. Free text comments suggested that people who adhered very strictly may do so because they have symptoms with minimal gluten exposure. People who found diet adherence difficult may be people who only recently started the diet and were still adjusting to its impact. Comments also highlighted that individuals with CD often perceive a lack of adequate follow-up care and support after diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Better support and follow-up care is needed for people with CD to help them adjust to a gluten-free diet and minimise the impact on their QoL. Better education and increased awareness are needed among food businesses regarding cross-contamination to reduce anxiety and accidental gluten exposure.

'Troubling' medication reviews in the context of polypharmacy and ageing: A linguistic ethnography

Healthy ageing is a global priority. Polypharmacy (the use of 5+ medicines) amongst older people is increasing, with over one-third of adults in England, aged 80-89, prescribed at least eight medications. Although sometimes necessary, polypharmacy can be harmful; the risk of harm increases with age and number of medicines prescribed. Medication reviews are recommended as one way of reducing the potential harms of polypharmacy although evidence of clinically significant benefit of medication reviews as currently delivered is limited. What happens in medication reviews in practice is poorly understood. We used a linguistic ethnography approach to explore how medication reviews proceed and what is accomplished during these consultations. We studied 18 video-recorded medication review consultations from three general practices in England. The consultations involved patients aged 65 or older, prescribed 10+ medications ('higher risk' polypharmacy), and primary care clinicians (general practitioner or clinical pharmacist). Video-recordings were gathered as part of a wider ethnographic study investigating practices of polypharmacy in primary care between 2017 and 2021. We conducted microanalysis of consultation data, drawing on our ethnographic knowledge of the organisational, institutional and domestic contexts of polypharmacy to inform our interpretation of these interactions. Consultations were time-consuming and involved lengthy stretches of interactional trouble: non-understandings; misunderstandings; misalignments. These stretches revealed profound uncertainties as to the effectiveness of medicines in the context of multimorbidity and polypharmacy. These uncertainties seeped further into 'troubles talk' concerning patients' existential concerns relating to enduring illness, ageing and mortality. Although these existential concerns were partially articulated, clinicians and patients left such troubles talk unelaborated, unresolved and unfinished. Participants succeeded in smoothing over interactional difficulties and maintaining respectful relationships but often fell short of addressing problematic polypharmacy more directly.

Structured medication reviews for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Polypharmacy is common among individuals with multimorbidity, often leading to inappropriate medication use and is associated with an increased risk of frailty, hospitalisation and mortality. Structured medication reviews (SMRs) have emerged as a promising method for optimising medication use. However, research examining their efficacy is limited. This review aims to evaluate the impact of SMRs on improving outcomes for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care settings. Additionally, this review seeks to identify prevailing patterns and trends in the mode of delivery of SMRs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review will be conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL (1997-present). Primary outcomes will include medication-related measures such as dose, frequency and dosage form. Secondary outcomes under investigation will include physical, mental, functional and health service outcomes, as reported. Two independent reviewers will conduct the screening and data extraction, resolving disagreements through discussion. Once eligible studies are identified, the extracted data will be summarised in tabular format. The risk of bias in the articles will be assessed using either the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, depending on the design of the studies retrieved. Subgroup analysis will be performed using demographic variables and modes of delivery where the data supports. If appropriate, a meta-analysis of the data extracted will be conducted to determine the impact of the SMRs on reported outcomes. If a meta-analysis is not possible due to heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis approach will be adopted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This proposed review is exempt from ethical approval as it aims to collate and summarise peer-reviewed, published evidence. This protocol and the subsequent review will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, conferences and patient-led lay summaries.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023454965.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

The focus was on primary care settings.

DATA SOURCES

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

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

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

EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Deprescribing in older adults with polypharmacy

Polypharmacy is common in older adults and is associated with adverse drug events, cognitive and functional impairment, increased healthcare costs, and increased risk of frailty, falls, hospitalizations, and mortality. Many barriers exist to deprescribing, but increased efforts have been made to develop and implement deprescribing interventions that overcome them. This narrative review describes intervention components and summarizes findings from published randomized controlled trials that have tested deprescribing interventions in older adults with polypharmacy, as well as reports on ongoing trials, guidelines, and resources that can be used to facilitate deprescribing. Most interventions were medication reviews in primary care settings, and many contained components such as shared decision making and/or a focus on patient care priorities, training for healthcare professionals, patient facing education materials, and involvement of family members, representing great heterogeneity in interventions addressing polypharmacy in older adults. Just over half of study interventions were found to perform better than usual care in at least one of their primary outcomes, and most study interventions were assessed over 12 months or less.

Characterizing Aging-Related Health in Older Women with a History of Incarceration: Multimorbidity, Polypharmacy, Mortality, Frailty, and Depression

OBJECTIVE

To characterize aging-related health in women with past CLSI and compare with women with no-CLSI.

METHOD

Health and Retirement Study Wave 11 and 12 data from women age >50 with CLSI were compared with data from women age >50 with no-CLSI. Generalized linear models were estimated for aging-related health outcomes.

RESULTS

The group with CLSI (n = 230) was significantly younger than the no-CLSI group (n = 8035) yet had more physical, functional, and mental health challenges and fewer resources. Incarceration significantly predicted aging-related outcomes of multimorbidity, polypharmacy, mortality, frailty, and depression.

DISCUSSION

Earlier onset of physical and functional health conditions in women with past CLSI has implications for health education and promotion, clinical practice, and intervention design.

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.

Optimizing pharmacotherapy and deprescribing strategies in older adults living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: EuGMS SIG on pharmacology position paper

Inappropriate polypharmacy is highly prevalent among older adults and presents a significant healthcare concern. Conducting medication reviews and implementing deprescribing strategies in multimorbid older adults with polypharmacy are an inherently complex and challenging task. Recognizing this, the Special Interest Group on Pharmacology of the European Geriatric Medicine Society has compiled evidence on medication review and deprescribing in older adults and has formulated recommendations to enhance appropriate prescribing practices. The current evidence supports the need for a comprehensive and widespread transformation in education, guidelines, research, advocacy, and policy to improve the management of polypharmacy in older individuals. Furthermore, incorporating deprescribing as a routine aspect of care for the ageing population is crucial. We emphasize the importance of involving geriatricians and experts in geriatric pharmacology in driving, and actively participating in this transformative process. By doing so, we can work towards achieving optimal medication use and enhancing the well-being of older adults in the generations to come.

What makes a multidisciplinary medication review and deprescribing intervention for older people work well in primary care? A realist review and synthesis

BACKGROUND

A third of older people take five or more regular medications (polypharmacy). Conducting medication reviews in primary care is key to identify and reduce/ stop inappropriate medications (deprescribing). Recent recommendations for effective deprescribing include shared-decision making and a multidisciplinary approach. Our aim was to understand when, why, and how interventions for medication review and deprescribing in primary care involving multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) work (or do not work) for older people.

METHODS

A realist synthesis following the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards guidelines was completed. A scoping literature review informed the generation of an initial programme theory. Systematic searches of different databases were conducted, and documents screened for eligibility, with data extracted based on a Context, Mechanisms, Outcome (CMO) configuration to develop further our programme theory. Documents were appraised based on assessments of relevance and rigour. A Stakeholder consultation with 26 primary care health care professionals (HCPs), 10 patients and three informal carers was conducted to test and refine the programme theory. Data synthesis was underpinned by Normalisation Process Theory to identify key mechanisms to enhance the implementation of MDT medication review and deprescribing in primary care.

FINDINGS

A total of 2821 abstracts and 175 full-text documents were assessed for eligibility, with 28 included. Analysis of documents alongside stakeholder consultation outlined 33 CMO configurations categorised under four themes: 1) HCPs roles, responsibilities and relationships; 2) HCPs training and education; 3) the format and process of the medication review 4) involvement and education of patients and informal carers. A number of key mechanisms were identified including clearly defined roles and good communication between MDT members, integration of pharmacists in the team, simulation-based training or team building training, targeting high-risk patients, using deprescribing tools and drawing on expertise of other HCPs (e.g., nurses and frailty practitioners), involving patents and carers in the process, starting with 'quick wins', offering deprescribing as 'drug holidays', and ensuring appropriate and tailored follow-up plans that allow continuity of care and management.

CONCLUSION

We identified key mechanisms that could inform the design of future interventions and services that successfully embed deprescribing in primary care.

Self-regulatory coping among community dwelling older adults with multiple chronic conditions

Objectives

Many older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) frequently experience hospitalizations, functional limitations, and poor quality of life. Outcomes may be improved by promoting self-regulation, which may individuals respond to health threats and manage their health conditions. The aim of this study was to describe self-regulatory coping among older adults with MCC.

Methods

A qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured interviews and content analysis and guided by the Common-Sense Self-Regulation Model. Seventeen community-dwelling older adults with two or more chronic conditions participated in our study.

Results

Three themes were developed from the analysis: (1) "I don't think about it unless something happens": coping in the absence of a health event, (2) "doing what I am supposed to do": coping during a health event, and (3) "How do I know if what I did works?": appraisal of coping success.

Discussion

Self-regulatory coping was influenced by individual beliefs and experiences (illness representations), context, self-efficacy and availability of support and resources to cope with MCC. These findings suggest implications for clinical practice and future self-regulation interventions for older adults with MCC.

Factors which influence the deprescribing decisions of community-living older adults and GPs in Australia

Deprescribing aims to reduce polypharmacy and inappropriate medication use. Both General Practitioners (GPs) and older adults have expressed a willingness to consider deprescribing. However, deprescribing is often deferred in practice. The aim of this study was to identify factors which influence GP and older adult decisions about deprescribing in primary care. Semi-structured interviews were used in this qualitative study, conducted in a regional area in Australia. Participants included GPs and adults aged 65 years or older, using five or more medications and living independently in the community. Data were collected between January 2018 and May 2019. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the verbatim transcribed interviews using NVivo 12. A total of 41 interviews were conducted, 25 with older adults and 16 with GPs. Four key themes influenced deprescribing decisions: views of ageing, shared decision-making, attitudes toward medication use and characteristics of the health care environment. Discussions of deprescribing were limited by the influence of negative stereotypes toward age and ageing, a lack of older adult participation in shared decision-making, a positive attitude towards ongoing medication use and perception of the normality of using medications in older age. Time constraints, poor communication about prescribing information and unclear roles regarding responsibility for deprescribing also prevented discussions. Continuity of care, involvement of older adults in medication reviews and GPs who asserted their generalist role were the main factors which promoted discussion of deprescribing. GPs are well placed to discuss deprescribing with their older patients because they are trusted and can provide continuity of care. Actively encouraging and involving older adults in medication reviews in order to understand their preferences, supports shared decision-making about deprescribing. Active involvement may also reduce the influence of negative views of ageing held by both older adults and GPs.