Adverse drug reactions and associated patient characteristics in older community-dwelling adults: a 6-year prospective cohort study

The patient's perspectives of safe and routine proactive deprescribing in primary care for older people living with polypharmacy: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

The process of identifying and discontinuing medicines in instances in which harms outweigh benefits (deprescribing) can mitigate the negative consequences of problematic polypharmacy. This process should be conducted with a focus on the patient and involve collaborative decision-making. Evidence is needed regarding patients' views on how deprescribing should be safely and routinely implemented in English primary care to improve its application. This study aimed to identify optimal methods of introducing and actioning deprescribing from the patient's perspective.

METHODS

Participants in England aged 65 and above who were taking five or more medicines and residing in their own homes were recruited through social media and service user groups. An interview guide was created from deprescribing literature and input from patients and the public, guided by the Normalisation Process Theory (NPT). The interviews were held online using Microsoft Teams® or via phone, recorded, and then transcribed. The data was analysed using the Framework analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty patients (mean age of 74.5, SD = 6.93), with 75% being female, were enrolled in the study. Three main themes emerged: (1) 'Why deprescribe now?' emphasised the significance of explaining the reasons behind deprescribing; (2) 'Monitoring and follow-up' underscored the necessity of safety measures during deprescribing and patients' willingness to self-monitor post-intervention; (3) 'Roles and relationships' explored patient perceptions of various healthcare professionals involved in deprescribing and the essential interpersonal skills for fostering therapeutic relationships.

CONCLUSION

Optimal methods of introducing deprescribing included communicating a convincing rationale for stopping medicines and preparing patients for deprescribing conversations. Patients required support from a range of healthcare professionals with whom they had an existing therapeutic relationship. Whilst patients were motivated to self-monitor unwanted/unexpected effects post-deprescribing, timely support was required. The nature of such bolstered collective action and cognitive participation within NPT enhances the normalisation potential of deprescribing. These findings highlight the significance of considering the content and process of deprescribing consultations to enhance normalisation and tackle problematic polypharmacy. This provides a deeper understanding of patients' needs for implementing safe and routine deprescribing in primary care, which should be considered when designing medication review and deprescribing services.

[Pharmacological intervention in the medication review of institutionalised elderly patients under polypharmacy]

OBJECTIVE

To describe the Drug-Related Problems (DRP) and their resolution after pharmacological review in institutionalised elderly patients under polypharmacy.

DESIGN

Descriptive, retrospective cohort study from January to October of 2022.

LOCATION

Twelve nursing homes at the Community of Madrid.

PARTICIPANTS

295 patients aged 65 or older taking at least 5 chronic medications prescribed prior to the treatment review.

INTERVENTIONS

Medication reviews carried out by the pharmacist and agreed upon in face-to-face meetings between the primary care doctor, the nursing home doctor and the pharmacist.

MAIN MEASUREMENTS

Detected DRP, types and resolution. A age, sex, and number of medications before and after the intervention. Pharmacological subgroups according to anatomical therapeutic chemical classification system (ATC) and active pharmaceutical ingredients involved in the detected DRPs.

RESULTS

1425 DRP were detected, with a mean of 4.85 (SD 3.33) DRPs/patient. The most frequent DRP was reconciliation error (32.52%), followed by pharmaceutical regimen and dosaje. Among the 1425 improvement proposals, 86.73% of them were accepted.Significant statistically differences were observed between the number of medications per patient prior to the pharmacotherapy review (12.29) and after it (10.20), obtaining an average difference of 2.09 (95%CI: 1.98-2.21; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

It is found that the intervention of multidisciplinary team in which the pharmacist performs a revision of the medication decreased the number of prescribed medications. Therefore, it reduces polymedication and its associated risks.

Pharmacist-Led Deprescribing Using STOPPFrail for Frail Older Adults in Nursing Homes

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of pharmacist-guided deprescribing using the STOPPFrail (Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions in Frail adults with a limited life expectancy) criteria in frail older nursing home residents.

DESIGN

Prospective, unblinded, non-randomized, intervention study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Adults aged ≥65 years with advanced frailty resident in 6 independent nursing homes in Ireland.

METHODS

STOPPFrail-based deprescribing recommendations were developed by a pharmacist and presented to residents' general practitioners (GPs), who decided to implement or not. Measured outcomes included number of prescribed medications, medication costs, anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB), drug burden index (DBI), modified medication appropriateness index (MMAI), quality of life (QoL), non-elective hospitalizations, emergency department visits, falls, and mortality were measured at baseline, post review, and at 6 months post review.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine residents were recruited. Most (94%) were prescribed ≥1 potentially inappropriate medication (PIM). The most frequent PIMs were medications without a clearly documented indication (29.6%) and vitamin D (16.9%). Of 348 recommendations provided to GPs, 203 (58%) were accepted and 193 (55%) were implemented. Relating to baseline, post review, and at 6 months: the mean ± standard deviation (SD) number of medications was 16.0 ± 6.1, 14.6 ± 5.7 (P < .001), and 15.4 ± 5.5 (P < .001). The monthly mean ± SD medication cost per patient was €186.8 ± 123.7, €172.7 ± 119.0 (P < .001), and €186.4 ± 121.2 (P = .95). There were significant post-review decreases in the mean DBI, ACB, and MMAI of 9.7%, 9.6%, and 3.7%, respectively (P < .001), which remained significant at 6 months (P < .001). There were no significant differences in falls, emergency department visits, non-elective hospitalizations, or QoL.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

STOPPFrail-guided deprescribing led by a pharmacist in nursing homes appeared to significantly reduce PIMs, medication costs (initially), and anticholinergic and sedative burdens, without adversely affecting other patient outcomes. Greater consideration should therefore be given to the wider integration of pharmacists into nursing homes to optimize the medications and health outcomes of frail older adults.

Patients' Identification, Management and Prevention of Adverse Drug Reactions: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Patients with Severe Adverse Drug Reactions

Background: Few studies have been conducted on how patients identify, manage, and prevent severe adverse drug reactions (ADRs). This study aimed to explore the reasoning that patients use to identify symptoms of severe ADRs and the methods they employ to manage and prevent them. Methods: A cross-sectional survey using structured telephone interviews was administered to patients with a self-assessed severe ADR and to patients with serious skin ADRs from a hospital medical record database (in-patient and out-patient) from 1 September 2016 to 1 September 2019. Patients identified via the medical records were asked to assess their ADR for severity, and only patients that rated their ADR as severe were followed up with a telephone interview. Structured telephone interviews were conducted with respondents by a research pharmacist and audio-recorded. Results: A total of 722 patients with a severe ADR were identified, with 300 completing the interview (41.6%). The most frequently cited reasons for classifying ADRs as severe was worsening ADR symptoms (58.3%), severe ADR symptoms (44.4%), and ADR symptoms interfering with their life (36.4%). Only severe ADR symptoms were significantly different between the questionnaire and the medical records database groups (p = 0.007). The most frequent method of ADR management was discontinuation of drug by physicians (88.3%). About 79.0% of patients stated that they increased their carefulness when using other drugs after experiencing ADRs. The main method patients used to prevent ADRs was informing healthcare professionals (HCPs) about their drug allergy history (65.7%). Conclusions: Worsening ADR symptoms were often used to identify severe ADRs. However, HCPs were mainly responsible for the management and prevention of severe ADRs. Increasing awareness of ADRs by HCPs, and providing additional drug information, may improve patient safety.

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.

Comorbidity of patients with noncommunicable diseases in general practice. Eurasian guidelines

Создание руководства поддержано Советом по терапевтическим наукам отделения клинической медицины Российской академии наук.

The therapeutic landscape for COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 medications from genetic profiling of the Vietnamese population and a predictive model of drug-drug interaction for comorbid COVID-19 patients

Despite the raised awareness of the role of pharmacogenomic (PGx) in personalized medicines for COVID-19, data for COVID-19 drugs is extremely scarce and not even a publication on this topic for post-COVID-19 medications to date. In the current study, we investigated the genetic variations associated with COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 therapies by using whole genome sequencing data of the 1000 Vietnamese Genomes Project (1KVG) in comparison with other populations retrieved from the 1000 Genomes Project Phase 3 (1KGP3) and the Genome Aggregation Database (gnomAD). Moreover, we also evaluated the risk of drug interactions in comorbid COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 patients based on pharmacogenomic profiles of drugs using a computational approach. For COVID-19 therapies, variants related to the response of two causal treatment agents (tolicizumab and ritonavir) and antithrombotic drugs are common in the Vietnamese cohort. Regarding post-COVID-19, drugs for mental manipulations possess the highest number of clinical annotated variants carried by Vietnamese individuals. Among the superpopulations, East Asian populations shared the most similar genetic structure with the Vietnamese population, whereas the African population showed the most difference. Comorbid patients are at an increased drug-drug interaction (DDI) risk when suffering from COVID-19 and after recovering as well due to a large number of potential DDIs which have been identified. Our results presented the population-specific understanding of the pharmacogenomic aspect of COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 therapy to optimize therapeutic outcomes and promote personalized medicine strategy. We also partly clarified the higher risk in COVID-19 patients with underlying conditions by assessing the potential drug interactions.

Development of prescribing indicators related to opioid-related harm in patients with chronic pain in primary care-a modified e-Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Long-term opioid use is associated with dependency, addiction, and serious adverse events. Although a framework to reduce inappropriate opioid prescribing exists, there is no consensus on prescribing indicators for preventable opioid-related problems in patients with chronic pain in primary care in the UK. This study aimed to identify opioid prescription scenarios for developing indicators for prescribing opioids to patients with chronic pain in primary care.

METHODS

Scenarios of opioid prescribing indicators were identified from a literature review, guidelines, and government reports. Twenty-one indicators were identified and presented in various opioid scenarios concerning opioid-related harm and adverse effects, drug-drug interactions, and drug-disease interactions in certain disease conditions. After receiving ethics approval, two rounds of electronic Delphi panel technique surveys were conducted with 24 expert panellists from the UK (clinicians, pharmacists, and independent prescribers) from August 2020 to February 2021. Each indicator was rated on a 1-9 scale from inappropriate to appropriate. The score's median, 30th and 70th percentiles, and disagreement index were calculated.

RESULTS

The panel unanimously agreed that 15 out of the 21 opioid prescribing scenarios were inappropriate, primarily due to their potential for causing harm to patients. This consensus was reflected in the low appropriateness scores (median ranging from 1 to 3). There were no scenarios with a high consensus that prescribing was appropriate. The indicators were considered inappropriate due to drug-disease interactions (n = 8), drug-drug interactions (n = 2), adverse effects (n = 3), and prescribed dose and duration (n = 2). Examples included prescribing opioids during pregnancy, concurrently with benzodiazepines, long-term without a laxative prescription and prescribing > 120-mg morphine milligram equivalent per day or long-term duration over 3 months after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The high agreement on opioid prescribing indicators indicates that these potentially hazardous consequences are relevant and concerning to healthcare practitioners. Future research is needed to evaluate the feasibility and implementation of these indicators within primary care settings. This research will provide valuable insights and evidence to support opioid prescribing and deprescribing strategies. Moreover, the findings will be crucial in informing primary care practitioners and shaping quality outcome frameworks and other initiatives to enhance the safety and quality of care in primary care settings.

Frequency and impact of medication reviews for people aged 65 years or above in UK primary care: an observational study using electronic health records

BACKGROUND

Medication reviews in primary care provide an opportunity to review and discuss the safety and appropriateness of a person's medicines. However, there is limited evidence about access to and the impact of routine medication reviews for older adults in the general population, particularly in the UK. We aimed to quantify the proportion of people aged 65 years and over with a medication review recorded in 2019 and describe changes in the numbers and types of medicines prescribed following a review.

METHODS

We used anonymised primary care electronic health records from the UK's Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD GOLD) to define a population of people aged 65 years or over in 2019. We counted people with a medication review record in 2019 and used Cox regression to estimate associations between demographic characteristics, diagnoses, and prescribed medicines and having a medication review. We used linear regression to compare the number of medicines prescribed as repeat prescriptions in the three months before and after a medication review. Specifically, we compared the 'prescription count' - the maximum number of different medicines with overlapping prescriptions people had in each period.

RESULTS

Of 591,726 people prescribed one or more medicines at baseline, 305,526 (51.6%) had a recorded medication review in 2019. Living in a care home (hazard ratio 1.51, 95% confidence interval 1.40-1.62), medication review in the previous year (1.83, 1.69-1.98), and baseline prescription count (e.g. 5-9 vs 1 medicine 1.41, 1.37-1.46) were strongly associated with having a medication review in 2019. Overall, the prescription count tended to increase after a review (mean change 0.13 medicines, 95% CI 0.12-0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

Although medication reviews were commonly recorded for people aged 65 years or over, there was little change overall in the numbers and types of medicines prescribed following a review. This study did not examine whether the prescriptions were appropriate or other metrics, such as dose or medicine changes within the same class. However, by examining the impact of medication reviews before the introduction of structured medication review requirements in England in 2020, it provides a useful benchmark which these new reviews can be compared with.