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.

Cross-sectional questionnaire study of the experiences of community pharmacists in Northern Ireland during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic: preparation, experience and response.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the views and experiences of community pharmacists in Northern Ireland (NI) regarding changes in community pharmacy practice/processes in preparation for, and response to, the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Cross-sectional telephone-administered questionnaire. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Geographically stratified representative sample of 130 community pharmacists in NI between March and May 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: Community pharmacists' responses to questions focusing on their preparation, experience and response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Descriptive analysis was conducted including frequencies and percentages. Free-text comments were summarised using thematic analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty pharmacists completed the questionnaire. Pharmacists responded comprehensively to implementing infection control measures, for example, management of social distancing in the shop (96.2%), making adjustments to premises, for example, barriers/screens (95.4%), while maintaining medicines supply (100.0%) and advice to patients (93.1%). Newly commissioned services were provided, for example, emergency supply service (93.1%), influenza vaccination for healthcare workers (77.7%) and volunteer deliveries to vulnerable people (54.6%). Pharmacists were least prepared for the increased workload and patients' challenging behaviour, but the majority (96.9%) reported that they felt better prepared during the second wave. Pharmacists agreed/strongly agreed that they would be able to re-establish normal services (87.7%), were willing to administer COVID-19 vaccines (80.7%) and provide COVID-19 testing (60.8%) in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Community pharmacists remained accessible and maintained supply of essential medicines and advice to patients throughout the pandemic. Provision of modified and additional services such as vaccination reinforced the clinical and public health role of pharmacy.

'It stayed there, front and centre': perspectives on community pharmacy's contribution to front-line healthcare services during the COVID-19 pandemic in Northern Ireland.

OBJECTIVES: To explore community pharmacists and key stakeholders' perspectives and reflections on the community pharmacy workforce's preparedness for, and response to, COVID-19, including lessons for future public health crises. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews (via telephone or online videoconferencing platform), with community pharmacists and a range of key stakeholders (representing other health professions, professional/governing organisations concerned with community pharmacy and patient advocacy groups) from across Northern Ireland. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and constant comparison. RESULTS: Thirty interviews were conducted with community pharmacists (n=15) and key stakeholders (n=15). Four themes were identified: (1) adaptation and adjustment (reflecting how community responded quickly to the need to maintain services and adjusted and adapted services accordingly); (2) the primary point of contact (the continuing accessibility of community pharmacy when other services were not available and role as a communication hub, particularly in relation to information for patients and maintaining contact with other healthcare professionals); (3) lessons learnt (the flexibility of community pharmacy, the lack of infrastructure, especially in relation to information technology, and the need to build on the pandemic experience to develop practice); and (4) planning for the future (better infrastructure which reinforced concerns about poor technology, coordination of primary care services and preparing for the next public health crisis). There was a general view that community pharmacy needed to build on what had been learnt to advance the role of the profession. CONCLUSIONS: The strengths of community pharmacy and its contribution to healthcare services in the COVID-19 pandemic were noted by community pharmacists and acknowledged by key stakeholders. The findings from this study should inform the policy debate on community pharmacy and its contribution to the public health agenda.

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.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy in older people: a Cochrane systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To summarise the findings of an updated Cochrane review of interventions aimed at improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy in older people. DESIGN: Cochrane systematic review. Multiple electronic databases were searched including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from inception to November 2013). Hand searching of references was also performed. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series analyses reporting on interventions targeting appropriate polypharmacy in older people in any healthcare setting were included if they used a validated measure of prescribing appropriateness. Evidence quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation). SETTING: All healthcare settings. PARTICIPANTS: Older people (≥ 65 years) with ≥ 1 long-term condition who were receiving polypharmacy (≥ 4 regular medicines). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were the change in prevalence of appropriate polypharmacy and hospital admissions. Medication-related problems (eg, adverse drug reactions), medication adherence and quality of life were included as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: 12 studies were included: 8 RCTs, 2 cluster RCTs and 2 controlled before-and-after studies. 1 study involved computerised decision support and 11 comprised pharmaceutical care approaches across various settings. Appropriateness was measured using validated tools, including the Medication Appropriateness Index, Beers' criteria and Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions (STOPP)/ Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START). The interventions demonstrated a reduction in inappropriate prescribing. Evidence of effect on hospital admissions and medication-related problems was conflicting. No differences in health-related quality of life were reported. CONCLUSIONS: The included interventions demonstrated improvements in appropriate polypharmacy based on reductions in inappropriate prescribing. However, it remains unclear if interventions resulted in clinically significant improvements (eg, in terms of hospital admissions). Future intervention studies would benefit from available guidance on intervention development, evaluation and reporting to facilitate replication in clinical practice.

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. OBJECTIVES: This review sought 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: In November 2013, for this first update, a range of literature databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched, and handsearching of reference lists was performed. Search terms included 'polypharmacy', 'medication appropriateness' and 'inappropriate prescribing'. SELECTION CRITERIA: A range of study designs were eligible. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people 65 years of age and older in which a validated measure of appropriateness was used (e.g. Beers criteria, Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Study-specific estimates were pooled, and a random-effects model was used to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the overall quality of evidence for each pooled outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies were added to this review to bring the total number of included studies to 12. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support; 11 complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical approaches to interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals, such as prescribers and pharmacists. Appropriateness of prescribing was measured using validated tools, including the MAI score post intervention (eight studies), Beers criteria (four studies), STOPP criteria (two studies) and START criteria (one study). Interventions included in this review resulted in a reduction in inappropriate medication usage. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall quality of evidence for all pooled outcomes ranged from very low to low. A greater reduction in MAI scores between baseline and follow-up was seen in the intervention group when compared with the control group (four studies; mean difference -6.78, 95% CI -12.34 to -1.22). Postintervention pooled data showed a lower summated MAI score (five studies; mean difference -3.88, 95% CI -5.40 to -2.35) and fewer Beers drugs per participant (two studies; mean difference -0.1, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.09) in the intervention group compared with the control group. Evidence of the effects of interventions on hospital admissions (five studies) and of medication-related problems (six studies) was conflicting. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as pharmaceutical care, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they appear beneficial in terms of reducing inappropriate prescribing.

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 there is growing interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients. OBJECTIVES: This review sought 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: A range of literature databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched in addition to handsearching reference lists. Search terms included polypharmacy, Beers criteria, medication appropriateness and inappropriate prescribing. SELECTION CRITERIA: A range of study designs were eligible. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people aged 65 years and older where a validated measure of appropriateness was used (e.g. Beers criteria or Medication Appropriateness Index - MAI). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Study specific estimates were pooled, using a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals. MAIN RESULTS: Electronic searches identified 2200 potentially relevant citations, of which 139 were examined in detail. Following assessment, 10 studies were included. One intervention was computerised decision support and nine were complex, multifaceted pharmaceutical care provided in a variety of settings. Appropriateness of prescribing was measured using the MAI score postintervention (seven studies) and/or Beers criteria (four studies). The interventions included in this review demonstrated a reduction in inappropriate medication use. A mean difference of -6.78 (95% CI -12.34 to -1.22) in the change in MAI score in favour of the intervention group (four studies). Postintervention pooled data (five studies) showed a mean reduction of -3.88 (95% CI -5.40 to -2.35) in the summated MAI score and a mean reduction of -0.06 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.04) in the number of Beers drugs per patient (three studies). Evidence of the effect of the interventions on hospital admissions (four studies) was conflicting. Medication-related problems, reported as the number of adverse drug events (three studies), reduced significantly (35%) postintervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear if interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as pharmaceutical care, resulted in a clinically significant improvement; however, they appear beneficial in terms of reducing inappropriate prescribing and medication-related problems.

A cluster randomized controlled trial of an adapted U.S. model of pharmaceutical care for nursing home residents in Northern Ireland (Fleetwood Northern Ireland study): a cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an adapted U.S. model of pharmaceutical care to improve psychoactive prescribing for nursing home residents in Northern Ireland (Fleetwood NI Study). DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a cluster randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Nursing homes in NI randomized to intervention (receipt of the adapted model of care; n=11) or control (usual care continued; n=11). PARTICIPANTS: Residents aged 65 and older who provided informed consent (N=253; 128 intervention, 125 control) and who had full resource use data at 12 months. INTERVENTION: Trained pharmacists reviewed intervention home residents' clinical and prescribing information for 12 months, applied an algorithm that guided them in assessing the appropriateness of psychoactive medication, and worked with prescribers (general practitioners) to make changes. The control homes received usual care in which there was no pharmacist intervention. MEASUREMENTS: The proportion of residents prescribed one or more inappropriate psychoactive medications (according to standardized protocols), costs, and a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. The latter two outcomes are the focus for this article. RESULTS: The proportions of residents receiving inappropriate psychoactive medication at 12 months in the intervention and control group were 19.5% and 50.4%, respectively. The mean cost of healthcare resources used per resident per year was $4,923 (95% confidence interval (CI)=$4,206-5,640) for the intervention group and $5,053 (95% CI=$4,328-5,779) for the control group. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was high, even at low levels of willingness to pay to avoid a resident receiving inappropriately prescribed psychoactive medication. CONCLUSION: The Fleetwood NI model of care was more cost-effective than usual care.

An evaluation of an adapted U.S. model of pharmaceutical care to improve psychoactive prescribing for nursing home residents in northern ireland (fleetwood northern ireland study).

OBJECTIVES: To test the effect of an adapted U.S. model of pharmaceutical care on prescribing of inappropriate psychoactive (anxiolytic, hypnotic, and antipsychotic) medications and falls in nursing homes for older people in Northern Ireland (NI). DESIGN: Cluster randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Nursing homes randomized to intervention (receipt of the adapted model of care; n=11) or control (usual care continued; n=11). PARTICIPANTS: Residents aged 65 and older who provided informed consent (N=334; 173 intervention, 161 control). INTERVENTION: Specially trained pharmacists visited intervention homes monthly for 12 months and reviewed residents' clinical and prescribing information, applied an algorithm that guided them in assessing the appropriateness of psychoactive medication, and worked with prescribers (general practitioners) to improve the prescribing of these drugs. The control homes received usual care. MEASUREMENTS: The primary end point was the proportion of residents prescribed one or more inappropriate psychoactive medicine according to standardized protocols; falls were evaluated using routinely collected falls data mandated by the regulatory body for nursing homes in NI. RESULTS: The proportion of residents taking inappropriate psychoactive medications at 12 months in the intervention homes (25/128, 19.5%) was much lower than in the control homes (62/124, 50.0%) (odds ratio=0.26, 95% confidence interval=0.14-0.49) after adjustment for clustering within homes. No differences were observed at 12 months in the falls rate between the intervention and control groups. CONCLUSION: Marked reductions in inappropriate psychoactive medication prescribing in residents resulted from pharmacist review of targeted medications, but there was no effect on falls.

Assessment of a United States pharmaceutical care model for nursing homes in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the suitability of an American model of pharmaceutical care for nursing home residents (The Fleetwood model) for application in nursing homes in the United Kingdom. METHOD: Pharmacists (those from a hospital setting or involved in prescribing support), general practitioners, nursing home managers and advocates for older people were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews or focus groups. The American Fleetwood model was explained to all participants who were asked for their views and opinions on how such a model could be adapted for use in the UK setting. All interviews and focus groups were tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the framework method. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: An adapted model of pharmaceutical care for use in UK nursing homes. RESULTS: There was general concern about prescribing in nursing homes, particularly in relation to psychoactive drugs. All participants were supportive of the proposed model of care and endorsed the greater involvement of pharmacists. However, participants also recognised that unlike pharmacists in the US nursing home setting for which the Fleetwood model had been developed, pharmacists implementing this approach in the UK would face major challenges in relation to access to records (medical and medication), prescribers and residents. CONCLUSION: The findings highlighted the key elements of access which will need to be considered if this model of pharmaceutical care is to be applied to nursing home residents in the UK. IMPACT OF FINDINGS ON PRACTICE: The model has been revised to take account of the challenges relating to access and will be tested in a randomised controlled trial.