Association of polypharmacy and potential drug-drug interactions with adverse treatment outcomes in older adults with advanced cancer.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is common in older adults who are starting cancer treatment and is associated with an increased risk of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential drug-drug interactions (PDIs). The authors evaluated the association of medication measures with adverse outcomes in older adults with advanced cancer who were receiving systemic therapy. METHODS: This secondary analysis from GAP 70+ Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02054741; principal investigator, Supriya G. Mohile) enrolled patients aged 70 years and older with advanced cancer who planned to start a new treatment regimen (n = 718). Polypharmacy was assessed before the initiation of treatment and was defined as the concurrent use of eight or more medications. PIMs were categorized using 2019 Beers Criteria and the Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions. PDIs were evaluated using Lexi-Interact Online. Study outcomes were assessed within 3 months of treatment and included: (1) the number of grade ≥2 and ≥3 toxicities according to the National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria, (2) treatment-related unplanned hospitalization, and (3) early treatment discontinuation. Multivariable regression models examined the association of medication measures with outcomes. RESULTS: The mean patient age was 77 years, and 57% had lung or gastrointestinal cancers. The median number of medications was five (range, 0-24 medications), 28% of patients received eight or more medications, 67% received one or more PIM, and 25% had one or more major PDI. The mean number of grade ≥2 toxicities in patients with polypharmacy was 9.8 versus 7.7 in those without polypharmacy (adjusted ß = 1.87; standard error, 0.71; p <.01). The mean number of grade ≥3 toxicities in patients with polypharmacy was 2.9 versus 2.2 in patients without polypharmacy (adjusted ß = 0.59; standard error, 0.29; p = .04). Patients with who had one or more major PDI had 59% higher odds of early treatment discontinuation (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-2.46; p = .03). CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of older adults with advanced cancer, polypharmacy and PDIs were associated with an increased risk of adverse treatment outcomes. Providing meaningful screening and interventional tools to optimize medication use may improve treatment-related outcomes in these patients.

How "age-friendly" are deprescribing interventions? A scoping review of deprescribing trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess how age-friendly deprescribing trials are regarding intervention design and outcome assessment. Reduced use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) can be addressed by deprescribing-a systematic process of discontinuing and/or reducing the use of PIMs. The 4Ms-"Medication", "Mentation", "Mobility", and "What Matters Most" to the person-can be used to guide assessment of age-friendliness of deprescribing trials. DATA SOURCE: Published literature. STUDY DESIGN: Scoping review. DATA EXTRACTION METHODS: The literature was identified using keywords related to deprescribing and polypharmacy in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, ProQuest, CINAHL, and Cochrane and snowballing. Study characteristics were extracted and evaluated for consideration of 4Ms. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Thirty-seven of the 564 trials identified met the review eligibility criteria. Intervention design: "Medication" was considered in the intervention design of all trials; "Mentation" was considered in eight trials; "Mobility" (n = 2) and "What Matters Most" (n = 6) were less often considered in the design of intervention. Most trials targeted providers without specifying how matters important to older adults and their families were aligned with deprescribing decisions. OUTCOME ASSESSMENT: "Medication" was the most commonly assessed outcome (n = 33), followed by "Mobility" (n = 13) and "Mentation" (n = 10) outcomes, with no study examining "What Matters Most" outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: "Mentation" and "Mobility", and "What Matters Most" have been considered to varying degrees in deprescribing trials, limiting the potential of deprescribing evidence to contribute to improved clinical practice in building an age-friendly health care system.

Implementation considerations of deprescribing interventions: A scoping review.

Over half of older adults experience polypharmacy, including medications that may be inappropriate or unnecessary. Deprescribing, which is the process of discontinuing or reducing inappropriate and/or unnecessary medications, is an effective way to reduce polypharmacy. This review summarizes (1) the process of deprescribing and conceptual models and tools that have been developed to facilitate deprescribing, (2) barriers, enablers, and factors associated with deprescribing, and (3) characteristics of deprescribing interventions in completed trials, as well as (4) implementation considerations for deprescribing in routine practice. In conceptual models of deprescribing, multilevel factors of the patient, clinician, and health-care system are all related to the efficacy of deprescribing. Numerous tools have been developed for clinicians to facilitate deprescribing, yet most require substantial time and, thus, may be difficult to implement during routine health-care encounters. Multiple deprescribing interventions have been evaluated, which mostly include one or more of the following components: patient education, medication review, identification of deprescribing targets, and patient and/or provider communication about high-risk medications. Yet, there has been limited consideration of implementation factors in prior deprescribing interventions, especially with regard to the personnel and resources in existing health-care systems and the feasibility of incorporating components of deprescribing interventions into the routine care processes of clinicians. Future trials require a more balanced consideration of both effectiveness and implementation when designing deprescribing interventions.

Improving Quality and Value of Cancer Care for Older Adults.

The concepts of quality and value have become ubiquitous in discussions about health care, including cancer care. Despite their prominence, these concepts remain difficult to encapsulate, with multiple definitions and frameworks emerging over the past few decades. Defining quality and value for the care of older adults with cancer can be particularly challenging. Older adults are heterogeneous and often excluded from clinical trials, severely limiting generalizable data for this population. Moreover, many frameworks for quality and value focus on traditional outcomes of survival and toxicity and neglect goals that may be more meaningful for older adults, such as quality of life and functional independence. A history of quality and value standards and an evaluation of some currently available standards and frameworks elucidate the potential gaps in application to older adults with cancer. However, narrowing the focus to processes of care presents several opportunities for improving the care of older adults with cancer now, even while further work is ongoing to evaluate outcomes and efficiency. New models of care, including the patient-centered medical home, as well as new associated bundled payment models, would be advantageous for older adults with cancer, facilitating collaboration, communication, and patient-centeredness and minimizing the fragmentation that impairs the current provision of cancer care. Advances in information technology support the foundation for these models of care; these technologies facilitate communication, increase available data, support shared decision making, and increase access to multidisciplinary specialty care. Further work will be needed to define and to continue to tailor processes of care to achieve relevant outcomes for older patients with cancer to fulfill the promise of quality and value of care for this vulnerable and growing population.

A Comprehensive Look at Polypharmacy and Medication Screening Tools for the Older Cancer Patient.

UNLABELLED: : Inappropriate medication use and polypharmacy are extremely common among older adults. Numerous studies have discussed the importance of a comprehensive medication assessment in the general geriatric population. However, only a handful of studies have evaluated inappropriate medication use in the geriatric oncology patient. Almost a dozen medication screening tools exist for the older adult. Each available tool has the potential to improve aspects of the care of older cancer patients, but no single tool has been developed for this population. We extensively reviewed the literature (MEDLINE, PubMed) to evaluate and summarize the most relevant medication screening tools for older patients with cancer. Findings of this review support the use of several screening tools concurrently for the elderly patient with cancer. A deprescribing tool should be developed and included in a comprehensive geriatric oncology assessment. Finally, prospective studies are needed to evaluate such a tool to determine its feasibility and impact in older patients with cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The prevalence of polypharmacy increases with advancing age. Older adults are more susceptible to adverse effects of medications. "Prescribing cascades" are common, whereas "deprescribing" remains uncommon; thus, older patients tend to accumulate medications over time. Older patients with cancer are at high risk for adverse drug events, in part because of the complexity and intensity of cancer treatment. Additionally, a cancer diagnosis often alters assessments of life expectancy, clinical status, and competing risk. Screening for polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications could reduce the risk for adverse drug events, enhance quality of life, and reduce health care spending for older cancer patients.

Interprofessional training enhances collaboration between nursing and medical students: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Effective collaboration among healthcare providers is an essential component of high-quality patient care. Interprofessional education is foundational to ensuring that students are prepared to engage in optimal collaboration once they enter clinical practice particularly in the care of complex geriatric patients undergoing surgery. STUDY DESIGN: To enhance interprofessional education between nursing students and medical students in a clinical environment, we modeled the desired behavior and skills needed for interprofessional preoperative geriatric assessment for students, then provided an opportunity for students to practice skills in nurse/physician pairs on standardized patients. This experience culminated with students performing skills independently in a clinic setting. RESULTS: Nine nursing students and six medical students completed the pilot project. At baseline and after the final clinic visit we administered a ten question geriatric assessment test. Post-test scores (M=90.33, SD=11.09) were significantly higher than pre-test scores (M=72.33, SD=12.66, t(14)=-4.50, p<0.001. Nursing student post-test scores improved a mean of 22.0 points and medical students a mean of 11.7 points over pre-test scores. Analysis of observational notes provided evidence of interprofessional education skills in the themes of shared problem solving, conflict resolution, recognition of patient needs, shared decision making, knowledge and development of one's professional role, communication, transfer of interprofessional learning, and identification of learning needs. CONCLUSIONS: Having nursing and medical students "learn about, from and with each other" while conducting a preoperative geriatric assessment offered a unique collaborative educational experience for students that better prepares them to integrate into interdisciplinary clinic teams.

Treatment of leptomeningeal carcinomatosis: current challenges and future opportunities.

Leptomeningeal metastasis (LM) in breast cancer patients confers a uniformly poor prognosis and decreased quality of life. Treatment options are limited and often ineffective, due in large part to limitations imposed by the blood-brain barrier and the very aggressive nature of this disease. The majority of studies investigating the treatment of LM are not specific to site of origin. Conducting randomized, disease-specific clinical trials in LM is challenging, and much clinical outcomes data are based on case reports or retrospective case series. Multiple studies have suggested that chemo-radiotherapy is superior to either chemotherapy or radiation therapy alone. Attempts to overcome current obstacles in the treatment of breast cancer LM hold promise for the future. We review the epidemiology, diagnosis, and prognosis of LM in breast cancer, and discuss the treatment options currently available as well as those under investigation.