Age disparities in glucose-lowering treatment for Danish people with type 2 diabetes: a cross-sectional study between 2019 and 2020.

BACKGROUND: The pharmacotherapeutic guidelines for type 2 diabetes have changed considerably during the past decades. SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists have emerged as first-line agents by preventing cardiovascular events within a few years of treatment. In contrast, sulphonylureas and insulin have been deprioritised due to less beneficial effects and the risk of hypoglycaemia-particularly in older people who are frail. We hypothesised that medications with a high risk of hypoglycaemia were used more often in older people compared with younger people. METHODS: In a nationwide cohort of people with type 2 diabetes in Denmark from 2019 to 2020, we described the use of specific glucose-lowering medications in relation to age and glycated haemoglobin A1C (HbA1c) by descriptive statistics and regression models adjusted for sex, socioeconomic factors, renal function, and several comorbidities. FINDINGS: Among 290 890 people with type 2 diabetes, glucose-lowering medication usage peaked at age 70 years. Increasing age was associated with relatively less use of metformin, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and SGLT2 inhibitors and more use of basal insulin, DDP-4 inhibitors, and sulphonylureas. When comparing 80-year-olds with 60-year-olds at similar HbA1c levels of 6·5% (48 mmol/mol), 80-year-olds used 8% (95% CI 7-10%) fewer glucose-lowering medications, were 55% less likely to receive GLP-1 receptor agonists or SGLT2 inhibitors (relative ratio 0·45, 95% CI 0·42-0·48), and 65% more likely to receive sulphonylureas (1·65, 1·54-1·76). Among 23 032 individuals aged 80 years or older with HbA1c levels of less than 6·5% (<48 mmol/mol), 2291 (10%) used sulphonylureas or insulin. INTERPRETATION: In Danish people with type 2 diabetes, the likelihood of using glucose-lowering medications with a high risk of hypoglycaemia (eg, sulphonylureas and basal insulin) increased with age, whereas the likelihood of using GLP-1 receptor agonists and SGLT2 inhibitors decreased. Some people aged 80 years or older with an HbA1c level of less than 6·5% (48 mmol/mol) were potentially overtreated with sulphonylureas or insulin. These findings emphasise the importance of frequently re-evaluating glucose-lowering treatments. FUNDING: None. TRANSLATION: For the Danish translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Nationally Shared Medication Lists - Describing Systems in the Nordic Countries.

This paper provides an overview of shared medication lists (SMLs) in four Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden) with a focus on the type of information the list is based on. This is a structured comparison conducted in stages using an expert group, grey papers, unpublished materials, web pages, as well as scientific papers. Denmark and Finland have implemented their solutions for an SML and Norway and Sweden are working on the implementation of their solution. Denmark and Norway have or are aiming at a list based on medication orders, while Finland and Sweden have lists based on prescriptions.

Medication review in hospitalised patients to reduce morbidity and mortality.

BACKGROUND: A medication review can be defined as a structured evaluation of a patient's medication conducted by healthcare professionals with the aim of optimising medication use and improving health outcomes. Optimising medication therapy though medication reviews may benefit hospitalised patients. OBJECTIVES: We examined the effects of medication review interventions in hospitalised adult patients compared to standard care or to other types of medication reviews on all-cause mortality, hospital readmissions, emergency department contacts and health-related quality of life. SEARCH METHODS: In this Cochrane Review update, we searched for new published and unpublished trials using the following electronic databases from 1 January 2014 to 17 January 2022 without language restrictions: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). To identify additional trials, we searched the reference lists of included trials and other publications by lead trial authors, and contacted experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials of medication reviews delivered by healthcare professionals for hospitalised adult patients. We excluded trials including outpatients and paediatric patients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted trial authors for data clarification and relevant unpublished data. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous data (with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the overall certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: In this updated review, we included a total of 25 trials (15,076 participants), of which 15 were new trials (11,501 participants). Follow-up ranged from 1 to 20 months. We found that medication reviews in hospitalised adults may have little to no effect on mortality (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.05; 18 trials, 10,108 participants; low-certainty evidence); likely reduce hospital readmissions (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98; 17 trials, 9561 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); may reduce emergency department contacts (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.03; 8 trials, 3527 participants; low-certainty evidence) and have very uncertain effects on health-related quality of life (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.30; 4 trials, 392 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Medication reviews in hospitalised adult patients likely reduce hospital readmissions and may reduce emergency department contacts. The evidence suggests that mediation reviews may have little to no effect on mortality, while the effect on health-related quality of life is very uncertain. Almost all trials included elderly polypharmacy patients, which limits the generalisability of the results beyond this population.

Physician-led medication reviews in polypharmacy patients treated with at least 12 medications in a type 2 diabetes outpatient clinic: A randomised trial.

AIMS: Medication reviews can be used to promote appropriate pharmacotherapy and negate the harmful consequences of polypharmacy. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of physician-led medication reviews and increased cross-sectoral communication as a supplement to standard care in a type 2 diabetes outpatient clinic. METHODS: This pragmatic randomised clinical trial enrolled patients with type 2 diabetes treated with at least 12 medications. The subjects were randomised to either standard care (standard care consultation at the outpatient clinic) or standard care plus a medication review consultation and increased cross-sectoral communication. The primary outcome was the number of medications used after six months. Health-related quality of life was quantified using the EuroQoL 5-dimension 5-level (EQ5D-5 L) questionnaire. RESULTS: We recruited 50 participants with a median age of 72 (IQR 67-75) years. The mean number of medications per patient changed from 17.9 to 14.3 in the intervention group and 17.6 to 17.2 in the control group (rate ratio 0.81). The reasons for discontinuations were medication no longer indicated (60%), safety issues (20%), efficacy issues (15%) or patient preferences (5%). There was a significant difference in the change in health-related quality of life (EQ5D-5 L index score) in favour of the intervention (0.111, 95% CI 0.001 to 0.221). CONCLUSIONS: Physician-led medication reviews and increased cross-sectoral communication in patients with type 2 diabetes treated with at least 12 medications reduced the number of medications used and improved health-related quality of life. Implementing and further investigating similar interventions as standard care seems reasonable.

Scoping Review of Randomized Trials With Discontinuation of Medicines in Older Adults.

OBJECTIVES: To map the randomized trial evidence describing the feasibility of discontinuing active medications with potential adverse effects in older patients. DESIGN: Scoping review with systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized trials investigating discontinuation of a single medicine or medicine class in patients with mean age ≥65 years. METHODS: We extracted trial characteristics including study design and assessed bias. As proxies for the "feasibility of discontinuation," we extracted the "dropout rate" and "disease recurrence rate." RESULTS: We identified 40 trials investigating discontinuation of symptomatic (n = 26), preventive (n = 6), or both preventive and symptomatic medicines (n = 8) against psychiatric (n = 10), neurologic (n = 9), musculoskeletal (n = 8), cardiovascular (n = 5), respiratory (n = 4), and urologic diseases (n = 4). Five discontinuation designs were used, 75% (30/40) of trials were placebo-controlled, and 48% (19/40) of trials had bias disfavoring discontinuation. The dropout rate was similar between the discontinuation group and the continuation group in 79% of the trials (30/38), whereas disease recurrence was similar in 72% (23/32) of the trials. In 42% (13/31) of trials reporting both dropout rate and disease recurrence rate, the differences between groups were statistically insignificant and less than 10%; these trials investigated discontinuation of cholinesterase inhibitors for Alzheimer's disease in various settings (n = 3), alendronate for osteoporosis (n = 3), glucosamine for osteoarthritis, lithium as adjunct for unipolar depression, statins for cardiovascular disease in patients with limited life expectancy, droxidopa for neurogenic orthostatic hypotension, tamsulosin for lower urinary tract symptoms, sertraline for major depressive episode, and fentanyl patch for low back or osteoarthritis pain. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: We identified 40 randomized trials using a variety of designs investigating discontinuation of both symptomatic and preventive medicines in older patients. Discontinuation of medicines seems feasible for most of the investigated medicines. This scoping review can guide clinical practice and future trials on deprescribing.

Causes of discrepancies between medications listed in the national electronic prescribing system and patients' actual use of medications.

Discrepancies between registered prescriptions and patients' actual use of medications are described as frequent and often resulting in adverse medication events. We aimed to assess the extent of and causes behind discrepancies between medications listed in the Danish national prescription system (Shared Medication Record) and patients' actual use of medications. We prospectively reconciled medication for 260 consecutively admitted polypharmacy patients (>50 years and ≥5 prescriptions) at two hospitals in the Capital Region of Denmark. The type of discrepancies were determined and the cause of the discrepancies were evaluated as primarily caused by (1) the patient (i.e., intentional or unintentional non-adherence) or (2) the health care system (i.e., lack of appropriate update of the SMR by physicians in primary or secondary care). There was a median of 12 [IQR 9-15] medications listed and 3 [IQR 1-5] medication discrepancies per patient (total n = 925). The majority (53%) of discrepancies were caused by the health care system, 32% were caused by the patients, of which 70% were intentional non-adherence, and 15% had an indeterminable cause. In conclusion, discrepancies between medications listed in the Shared Medication Record and actual use of medications were frequent and were most often caused by clinicians not updating the prescription information.

Discrepancies Between the Medication List in Electronic Prescribing Systems and Patients' Actual Use of Medicines.

Discrepancies between electronic prescribing systems and patients' actual use of medicines can result in adverse events and medication errors and have serious consequences for the patients. The discrepancies can be identified when performing a thorough medication reconciliation. Computerized health care systems throughout the Danish health care sector are integrated with the Shared Medication Record (SMR). In the SMR, current medication and medication prescriptions are registered. The aim of this study was to evaluate the number and types of discrepancies between medications listed in the SMR and an updated medication list, obtained through a thorough medication reconciliation, for patients admitted in Danish hospitals. Pharmacists listed the number and type of discrepancies for 412 patients. A total of 1,004 discrepancies were registered, with a mean number of 2.4 medication discrepancies per patient. For 25% (n = 101) of the patients, no discrepancies were found, 20% (n = 86) had one discrepancy, and 16% (n = 66) had five or more discrepancies. More than 50% of the patients had one or more medications in the SMR that the patient did not administer, and 12.6% used medications that were not listed in the SMR. This shows that the SMR should not be used as the only source of information when recording medication history.

Important Aspects of Pharmacist-led Medication Reviews in an Acute Medical Ward.

In some hospitals, clinical pharmacists review the medication to find drug-related problems (DRPs) in acutely admitted patients. We aimed to identify the nature of identified DRPs and investigate factors of potential importance for the clinical implementation of pharmacist suggestions. In 100 randomly selected medication review (MR) notes, we retrospectively evaluated the clinical implementation and classified (1) timing and communication of the review; (2) DRPs and related suggestions for the physician; and (3) DRPs' potential clinical relevance to patients as 'beneficial', 'somewhat beneficial', 'no relevance' or 'other relevance'. Of 327 DRPs (0-13 DRPs per patient), 42% were implemented. The clinical implementation was higher if the MR note was made prior to (instead of after) the physician's admission, and even higher if the suggestions were communicated verbally (instead of only in writing) to the physicians (44% versus 79%, p < 0.05). The clinical relevance of the DRPs was either 'beneficial' (16%), 'somewhat beneficial' (43%), 'no relevance' (22%) or 'other relevance' (19%). The 'beneficial' DRPs had a higher clinical implementation (53%) than 'no relevance' (34%) (p < 0.05). The most frequently implemented suggestions were based on DRPs concerning 'indication for drug treatment not noticed', 'inappropriate drug form' and 'drug dose too low', with implementation rates of 83%, 67% and 63%, respectively. In our sample, the pharmacist's MR suggestions were only implemented by physicians in 42% of the cases, but review prior to physician contact and verbal communication of the suggestions, higher clinical relevance and specific types of DRPs were associated with a higher implementation rate.

[Different models are used to obtain medication history and medication review in Danish hospitals].

The objective of the article is to characterize the models used by pharmacists to obtain medication history and medication review in Danish hospitals. The models are characterized based on the sources used to create an overview of the patient's medication as well as the time spent per patient. Currently pharmacists perform medication review at 16 departments. The sources frequently used are the patient journal (81%) and clinical data (81%). The patient contributes to the medication review in 25%.