Identification of seniors at risk (ISAR) score and potentially inappropriate prescribing: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is usually associated with a higher risk of adverse health outcomes. It is therefore important to identify PIP in older adults. However, there are no clear prioritisation strategies to select patients requiring prescription reviews. AIM: The aim of this study was to assess the association between the identification of seniors at risk (ISAR) score and the number of PIPs. METHOD: A 12-month retrospective hospital-based study was conducted. PIPs, including potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs), were detected using the STOPP/START tool. Multivariate linear regressions were conducted to identify factors associated with the number of PIPs. Sensitivity, specificity, Youden index, and ROC curve were calculated to determine the predictive power of ISAR score. RESULTS: This study included 266 records. The analysis led to the detection of 420 PIMs and 210 PPOs, with a prevalence of 80.1% and 54.9%, respectively. Multivariate linear regression revealed that the ISAR score (p = 0.041), and the number of medications (p < 0.001) were determinants of PIP. The number of medications remained the sole determinant of the number of PIMs (p < 0.001), while living in a nursing home was the only determinant of the number of PPOs (p = 0.036). CONCLUSION: The study showed that the ISAR score and the number of medications were independently associated with the number of PIPs. Considering the use of the ISAR score and the number of medications may be useful strategies to prioritise patients for whom prescribing appropriateness should be assessed using explicit criteria.

Factors associated with potentially inappropriate prescribing in elderly patients with various degrees of chronic kidney disease.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare the prevalence of potentially inappropriately prescribed drugs in hemodialysis patients and patients with chronic kidney disease who did not require renal replacement therapy, as well as to identify risk factors associated with potentially inappropriate prescribing. METHODS: The study was designed as a cross-sectional study conducted at the Department of Nephrology, Clinical Center in Nis, Serbia. The patients were divided into two groups: (1) patients on hemodialysis treatment and (2) patients with various degrees of chronic kidney disease without renal replacement therapy. The presence or absence of potentially inappropriate prescribing was determined using the 2015 AGS Beers criteria. FINDINGS: The study included a total of 218 patients aged 65 years and over. The number of patients with potentially inappropriate prescribed drugs did not differ significantly (chi-square = 0.000, p = 1.000) between patients on hemodialysis (27 of 83, i.e., 32.5%) and patients with various degrees of chronic kidney disease without renal replacement therapy (44 of 135, i.e., 32.6%). Factors associated with potentially inappropriate prescribing in hemodialysis patients were the number of drugs (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.919, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.325-2.780) and number of comorbidities (HR = 1.743, 95% CI: 1.109-2.740). The number of drugs (HR = 1.438, 95% CI: 1.191-1.736) was the only independent factor associated with increased risk of potentially inappropriate prescribing in patients without renal replacement therapy. DISCUSSION: Our study showed that potentially inappropriate prescribing is a relatively frequent phenomenon present in about a third of patients in both study groups. The number of prescribed drugs was the main factor associated with the increased risk of potentially inappropriate prescribing in both groups.

What about the relevance of PIP of psychotropics in older psychiatric inpatients?

OBJECTIVE: In 2019, a regional survey of potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP) of psychotropic drugs in elderly psychiatric inpatients was carried out highlighting their inappropriate use in this population. The aim of this study was to assess the clinical relevance - defined as the provision of an appropriate and necessary treatment, chosen from other alternatives as being the most likely to produce the expected results for a given patient - of these prescriptions considered inappropriate according to current established criteria. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Patients aged over 75, or 64 to 75 and polypathological with at least one PIP of psychotropic drugs or drugs with a high anticholinergic burden, identified by an audit grid established on the basis of STOPP/STARTv2 criteria and the Laroche list on the prescription at 48h of hospitalization, were included. The weighing of the inappropriateness nature of the prescription (resistance to treatment, period of crisis, comorbidities…) was established by a pharmacist-psychiatrist pair on the entire computerized record of the current episode. The clinical relevance of the PIP and the overall prescription was rated as 0 (irrelevant), 1 (partially relevant) or 2 (relevant). RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were included. One hundred and twenty-five PIP of psychotropic drugs were noted: 50.4% concerned benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepines anxiolytics (BZD/Z), 25.6% neuroleptics (NL), 12% antidepressants (ATD) and 12% drugs with a high anticholinergic burden. On one hand, 49.2% of PIP of BZD/Z, 50% of PIP of NL and 20% of PIP of ATD were considered irrelevant. On the other hand, 49.2% of PIP of BZD/Z, 31.3% of PIP of NL and 13.3% of PIP of ATD were considered partially relevant. Furthermore, 1.6% of PIP of BZD/Z, 18.8% of PIP of NL and 66.7% of PIP of ATD were considered relevant. For PIPs of drugs with a high anticholinergic burden, 80% were deemed irrelevant, 13.3% partially relevant and 6.7% relevant. In all, of the 34 drug prescriptions studied, three (8.8%) were considered irrelevant, 11 (32.4%) partially relevant and 20 (58.8%) clinically relevant. CONCLUSION: This study highlighted the clinical relevance of more than half the prescriptions considered inappropriate according to current PPI criteria in the elderly. It underlines the interest of a new PPI detection tool for elderly patients with psychiatric disorders.

Assessing the prevalence of Beers medication utilization in the Medicare Part D population in 2020.

BACKGROUND: Medication utilization has been increasing in the U.S. year-over-year for several decades. As older adults take more medications, there is a higher risk of them being exposed to drug-drug or drug-disease interactions. The American Geriatrics Society in 2019 updated their Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication (PIM) Use in Older Adults. The objective of this study was to assess the prevalence of utilization of medications included in the 2019 Beers Criteria. METHODS: An analysis was conducted using the Medicare Part D Provider Utilization and Payment Data Public Use File for calendar-year 2020. Medications identified in the 2019 Beers Criteria were applied to the analysis. Two categories of medications were assessed: (1) "Avoid" and (2) "Use With Caution." RESULTS: In 2020, 56 million prescriptions were dispensed to Medicare patients 65 years and older that are recommended to be avoided without exception (4.7% of all prescriptions) totaling $957 million in medication costs. The most utilized medication classes in this category were benzodiazepines (25,949,994 prescriptions), "Z-drugs" (6,204,909 prescriptions), long-acting sulfonylureas (5,306,577 prescriptions), 1st-generation antihistamines (5,049,289 prescriptions), and tricyclic antidepressants (4,190,062 prescriptions). Additionally, 135 million prescriptions were dispensed to Medicare beneficiaries 65 years and older for medications which the Beers Criteria states to use caution (11.3% of all prescriptions) exceeding $2.85 billion in medication costs. The most utilized medications for this category were diuretics (74,599,126 prescriptions), selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (30,033,121 prescriptions), serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (11,858,968 prescriptions), tramadol (11,450,878 prescriptions), and mirtazapine (5,737,304 prescriptions). CONCLUSION: Even with the existence of the AGS Beers Criteria for PIM Use in Older Adults and its continued updated versions, 16% of medications dispensed to Medicare Part D were potentially inappropriate. Future studies are needed to assess if this has led to worsened outcomes among older adults who utilized these PIM.

Appropriate Prescribing for older adults with Multimorbidity (Pro-M): protocol for a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Potentially inappropriate prescribing is common among older adults with multimorbidity due to various reasons, from concurrent application of multiple single-disease clinical guidelines to fragmentation of care. Interventions such as medication review have been implemented worldwide to reduce inappropriate prescribing for older adults. However, the implementability of such interventions are underexplored in the outpatient clinics in Singapore's public hospitals. Hence, the Pro-M study aims to assess the feasibility of implementing a physician-pharmacist collaborative care intervention in geriatric medicine outpatient clinics to facilitate appropriate prescribing for older adults in Singapore. METHODS: This is a single-arm, non-randomised feasibility study using a pre-post evaluation design. This study consists of two parts: (1) implementation phase of the intervention (6 months) and an (2) evaluation phase (3 months). Eligible patients will be recruited from geriatric medicine outpatient clinics at two public hospitals in Singapore through convenience sampling. The main components of the Pro-M intervention are: (1) pharmacist-facilitated medication reviews with feedback on any medication issues and potential recommendations to physicians, and (2) physicians communicating changes to other relevant prescribers. The evaluation phase will involve surveying and interviewing physicians and pharmacists involved in the implementation of the intervention. A mixed-method approach will be employed for data collection and analysis. The quantitative and qualitative findings will be triangulated and reported using Proctor's implementation outcomes: appropriateness, penetration, acceptability, fidelity, feasibility, and sustainability. A basic cost analysis will be conducted alongside the study. DISCUSSION: This is a phase 2 study to test the feasibility of implementing an intervention that was co-created with stakeholders during phase 1 development of an intervention to optimise prescribing for older adults with multimorbidity. The implementation will be assessed using Proctor's implementation outcomes to provide insights on the process and the feasibility of implementing medication reviews for older adults with multimorbidity as a routine practice in outpatient clinics. Data collected from this study will inform a subsequent scale-up study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05756478. Registered on 06 March 2023.

Clinical decision support system supported interventions in hospitalized older patients: a matter of natural course and adequate timing.

BACKGROUND: Drug-related problems (DRPs) and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) are associated with adverse patient and health care outcomes. In the setting of hospitalized older patients, Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) could reduce PIP and therefore improve clinical outcomes. However, prior research showed a low proportion of adherence to CDSS recommendations by clinicians with possible explanatory factors such as little clinical relevance and alert fatigue. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of a CDSS in a real-life setting of hospitalized older patients. We aim to (I) report the natural course and interventions based on the top 20 rule alerts (the 20 most frequently generated alerts per clinical rule) of generated red CDSS alerts (those requiring action) over time from day 1 to 7 of hospitalization; and (II) to explore whether an optimal timing can be defined (in terms of day per rule). METHODS: All hospitalized patients aged ≥ 60 years, admitted to Zuyderland Medical Centre (the Netherlands) were included. The evaluation of the CDSS was investigated using a database used for standard care. Our CDSS was run daily and was evaluated on day 1 to 7 of hospitalization. We collected demographic and clinical data, and moreover the total number of CDSS alerts; the total number of top 20 rule alerts; those that resulted in an action by the pharmacist and the course of outcome of the alerts on days 1 to 7 of hospitalization. RESULTS: In total 3574 unique hospitalized patients, mean age 76.7 (SD 8.3) years and 53% female, were included. From these patients, in total 8073 alerts were generated; with the top 20 of rule alerts we covered roughly 90% of the total. For most rules in the top 20 the highest percentage of resolved alerts lies somewhere between day 4 and 5 of hospitalization, after which there is equalization or a decrease. Although for some rules, there is a gradual increase in resolved alerts until day 7. The level of resolved rule alerts varied between the different clinical rules; varying from > 50-70% (potassium levels, anticoagulation, renal function) to less than 25%. CONCLUSION: This study reports the course of the 20 most frequently generated alerts of a CDSS in a setting of hospitalized older patients. We have shown that for most rules, irrespective of an intervention by the pharmacist, the highest percentage of resolved rules is between day 4 and 5 of hospitalization. The difference in level of resolved alerts between the different rules, could point to more or less clinical relevance and advocates further research to explore ways of optimizing CDSSs by adjustment in timing and number of alerts to prevent alert fatigue.

Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing and Potential Prescribing Omissions and Their Association with Adverse Drug Reaction-Related Hospital Admissions.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) and their association with ADR-related hospital admissions in patients aged ≥ 65 years admitted acutely to the hospital. METHODS: Information on medications and morbidities was extracted from the Adverse Drug Reactions in an Ageing Population (ADAPT) cohort (N = 798: N = 361 ADR-related admissions; 437 non-ADR-related admissions). PIP and PPOs were assessed using Beers Criteria 2019 and STOPP/START version 2. Multivariable logistic regression (adjusted odds ratios (aOR), 95%CI) was used to examine the association between PIP, PPOs and ADR-related admissions, adjusting for covariates (age, gender, comorbidity, polypharmacy). RESULTS: In total, 715 (90%; 95% CI 87-92%) patients had ≥1 Beers Criteria, 555 (70%; 95% CI 66-73%) had ≥ 1 STOPP criteria and 666 patients (83%; 95% CI 81-86%) had ≥ 1 START criteria. Being prescribed at least one Beers (aOR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.00-2.77), or meeting STOPP (aOR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.79-1.45) or START (aOR = 0.72; 95%CI = 0.50-1.06) criteria or the number of PIP/PPO criteria met was not significantly associated with ADR-related admissions. Patients prescribed certain drug classes (e.g., antiplatelet agents, diuretics) per individual PIP criteria were more likely to have an ADR-related admission. CONCLUSION: There was a high prevalence of PIP and PPOs in this cohort but no association with ADR-related admissions.

The effect of prescription drug insurance on the incidence of potentially inappropriate prescribing: Evidence from Medicare Part D.

The Medicare Part D program has been documented to increase the affordability and accessibility of drugs and improve the quality of prescription drug use; however, less is known about the equity impact of the Part D program on potentially inappropriate prescribing-specifically, incidences of polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use based on different racial/ethnic groups. Using a difference in the regression discontinuity design, we found that among Whites, Part D was associated with increases in polypharmacy and "broadly defined" PIM use, while the use of "always avoid" PIM remained unchanged. Conversely, Blacks and Hispanics reported no changes in such drug utilization patterns.

Prevalence and predictors of inappropriate prescribing in outpatients with severe mental illness.

Background: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is frequent in geriatrics and results in an increased risk for adverse effects, morbidity, mortality and reduced quality of life. Research on PIP in psychiatry has mainly focused on elderly patients and inpatients. Objectives: To determine the prevalence and the predictors of PIP of psychotropic medication in outpatients with severe mental illness. Design: This study is part of the Muva study, a pragmatic open Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial of a physical activity intervention for patients (age ⩾ 16 years) with severe mental illness. Methods: A structured medication interview, questionnaires on social functioning, quality of life and psychiatric symptoms, and BMI and waist circumference measurements were performed followed by a structured medication review. Patients were divided into groups: PIP versus no PIP. Between-group differences were calculated and a multivariate binary logistic regression was performed to examine predictors for PIP. A receiver operating characteristics analysis was performed to determine the area under the curve (AUC). Results: In 75 patients, an average of 5.2 medications of which 2.5 psychotropic medication was used. 35 (46.7%) patients were identified with PIP. Unindicated long-term benzodiazepine use was the most frequently occurring PIP (34.1%). Predictors of PIP were female gender [odds ratio (OR) = 4.88, confidence interval (CI) = 1.16-20.58, p = 0.03], number of medications (OR = 1.41, CI = 1.07-1.86, p = 0.02) and lower social functioning (OR = 1.42, CI = 1.01-2.00, p = 0.05). The AUC was 0.88 for the combined prediction model. Conclusion: The prevalence of PIP of psychotropic medication in outpatients with severe mental illness is high. It is therefore important to identify, and where possible, resolve PIP by frequently performing a medication review with specific attention to females, patients with a higher number of medications and patients with lower social functioning. Trial registration: This trial was registered in The Netherlands Trial Register (NTR) as NTR NL9163 on 20 December 2020 (https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NL9163).

Appropriateness of medication prescribing in nursing homes: A collaboration project between pharmacy and geriatric departments / Adecuación farmacoterapéutica en centros sociosanitarios: proyecto de coordinación entre servicio de farmacia y geriatría

Purpose: To evaluate the appropriateness of medication prescribing and to analyze interventions carried out in polymedicated elderly patients in nursing homes (NHs). Methods: Prospective study of potentially inappropriate medication prescribing in polymedicated older adults living in NHs, implemented via a collaborative project between NHs and the geriatric and pharmacy departments of a university hospital. The pharmacist reviewed patients’ active medical prescriptions and prepared an individualized report with proposals aimed at therapeutic optimization that was sent for evaluation to the geriatrician in charge of the NH. The drug-related problems (DRPs) were classified according to the Third Consensus of Granada and the potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) were identified by explicit criteria (STOPP/START, BEERS, LESS-CHRON), implicit criteria (MAI) and CheckTheMeds® software. It was measured the degree of acceptance of the interventions carried out, and the economic impact was calculated from the direct costs of the discontinued drugs. Results: Of the 210 patients reviewed by the pharmacy department, 105 patients from 10 NHs were analyzed. A total of 510 prescriptions with possible DRPs were identified (38.5% of all prescribed drugs). According to STOPP/START/BEERS or LESS-CHRON criteria, 41.2% were PIPs. The main DRPs identified were: unfavorable risk-benefit ratio, inappropriate dose/regimen, inappropriate treatment duration, probability of adverse events, medication not indicated, and duplicate therapy. Interventions were proposed for 81.5% of the DRPs detected, of which 73.3% were accepted. This resulted in a 23.1% reduction in the number of drugs prescribed per patient and an economic saving of €16,218 per 6-month period. (AU)

Objetivos: Adecuar la farmacoterapia y analizar las intervenciones realizadas en pacientes ancianos institucionalizados en centros sociosanitarios (CSS) con polifarmacia. Métodos: Estudio prospectivo de un programa de adecuación farmacoterapéutica en pacientes ancianos polimedicados de CSS mediante la puesta en marcha de un proyecto de coordinación de geriatría, farmacia hospitalaria y CSS desde el área de atención especializada. El farmacéutico realizó una revisión farmacoterapéutica de las prescripciones activas de los pacientes, elaborándose un informe individualizado con propuestas dirigidas a la optimización terapéutica. Los problemas relacionados con la medicación (PRM) encontrados se clasificaron según el Tercer Consenso de Granada, y las prescripciones potencialmente inapropiadas (PPI) se identificaron mediante criterios explícitos (STOPP/START, BEERS, criterios de deprescripción LESS-CHRON), criterios implícitos (MAI) y el programa informático CheckTheMeds®. Se midió el grado de aceptación de las intervenciones realizadas, y la repercusión económica se calculó a partir de los costes directos de los fármacos desprescritos.Resultados: De los 210 pacientes revisados por el servicio de farmacia se analizaron 105 pacientes evaluados por geriatría pertenecientes a 10 CSS. Se detectaron 510 prescripciones con posibles PRM (38,5% del total de fármacos prescritos). El 41,2% se correspondían a PPI según criterios STOPP/START/BEERS o LESS-CHRON. Los principales PRM identificados fueron: fármacos de beneficio/riesgo desfavorable, dosis o pauta no adecuada, duración no adecuada, mayor probabilidad de efectos adversos, medicamento no indicado y duplicidad. Se intervino en el 81,5% de los PRM detectados, con un grado de aceptación del 73,3% y una reducción del 23,1% en el número de medicamentos prescritos por paciente, con un ahorro económico de 16.218€/6 meses. (AU)

Is It Safe to Buy Medications from an App? Evaluation of Medication Prescribing Applications Available in Australia.

Prescription request applications (apps) have changed the way consumers can obtain prescription-only medications. However, there is a lack of research surrounding such apps and their potential risks to consumers. We conducted an Australian study to (1) identify and characterise prescription request apps available in Australia and (2) assess whether prescription request apps in Australia adhere to guidelines for safe prescribing. Three online platforms (iOS App Store, Google Play store and Google search engine) were searched using 14 different search terms. Prescription request apps were identified based on pre-defined inclusion criteria. To determine whether the prescription request apps adhere to a safe prescribing framework, five medications were selected, and their corresponding consultation questionnaires were assessed against the Australian National Prescribing Service MedicineWise 12 core competencies for safe prescribing. A total of seven prescription request apps were identified. Assessment of the prescription request apps revealed that none of the apps provided prescribers with sufficient information to meet all the competencies required for safe prescribing; rather, they inconsistently adhered to the safe prescribing framework. Thus, consumers and healthcare professionals should consider the implications and safety concerns of obtaining medications via prescription request apps.

The effectiveness and cost of integrating pharmacists within general practice to optimize prescribing and health outcomes in primary care patients with polypharmacy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy and associated potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) place a considerable burden on patients and represent a challenge for general practitioners (GPs). Integration of pharmacists within general practice (herein 'pharmacist integration') may improve medications management and patient outcomes. This systematic review assessed the effectiveness and costs of pharmacist integration. METHODS: A systematic search of ten databases from inception to January 2021 was conducted. Studies that evaluated the effectiveness or cost of pharmacist integration were included. Eligible interventions were those that targeted medications optimization compared to usual GP care without pharmacist integration (herein 'usual care'). Primary outcomes were PIP (as measured by PIP screening tools) and number of prescribed medications. Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life, health service utilization, clinical outcomes, and costs. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, interrupted-time-series, controlled before-after trials and health-economic studies were included. Screening and risk of bias using Cochrane EPOC criteria were conducted by two reviewers independently. A narrative synthesis and meta-analysis of outcomes where possible, were conducted; the certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: In total, 23 studies (28 full text articles) met the inclusion criteria. In ten of 11 studies, pharmacist integration probably reduced PIP in comparison to usual care (moderate certainty evidence). A meta-analysis of number of medications in seven studies reported a mean difference of -0.80 [-1.17, -0.43], which indicated pharmacist integration probably reduced number of medicines (moderate certainty evidence). It was uncertain whether pharmacist integration improved health-related quality of life because the certainty of evidence was very low. Twelve health-economic studies were included; three investigated cost effectiveness. The outcome measured differed across studies limiting comparisons and making it difficult to make conclusions on cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacist integration probably reduced PIP and number of medications however, there was no clear effect on other patient outcomes; and while interventions in a small number of studies appeared to be cost-effective, further robust, well-designed cluster RCTs with economic evaluations are required to determine cost-effectiveness of pharmacist integration. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42019139679.

Adverse drug reactions in geriatric psychiatry-retrospective cohort study of a 6-year period.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the frequency and characteristics of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) that occurred on the gerontopsychiatric ward of Hannover Medical School over a 6-year period. DESIGN: Retrospective monocentric cohort study. RESULTS: Six hundred thirty-four patient cases (mean age 76.6 ± 7.1 years; 67.2% female) were analysed. In total, 92 ADRs in 56 patient cases were registered in the study population. The overall ADR prevalence, the ADR prevalence upon hospital admission, and the ADR prevalence during hospitalisation were 8.8%, 6.3%, and 4.9%, respectively. The most frequent ADRs were extrapyramidal symptoms, alterations in blood pressure or heart rate, and electrolyte disturbances. Of note, two cases of asystole and one case of obstructive airway symptoms related to general anaesthesia in the context of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) were detected. The presence of coronary heart disease was associated with an increased risk of ADR occurrence (odds ratio (OR) 2.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.37-6.22), while the presence of dementia was associated with a decreased risk of ADR development (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Type and prevalence of ADRs in the present study were largely in accordance with previous reports. By contrast, we did not observe a relationship between advanced age or female sex and ADR occurrence. We detected a risk signal for cardiopulmonary ADRs related to general anaesthesia in the context of ECT that warrants further investigation. Elderly psychiatric patients should be carefully screened for cardiopulmonary comorbidities before initiation of ECT.

Appropriateness of medication prescribing in nursing homes: A collaboration project between pharmacy and geriatric departments.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the appropriateness of medication prescribing and to analyze interventions carried out in polymedicated elderly patients in nursing homes (NHs). METHODS: Prospective study of potentially inappropriate medication prescribing in polymedicated older adults living in NHs, implemented via a collaborative project between NHs and the geriatric and pharmacy departments of a university hospital. The pharmacist reviewed patients' active medical prescriptions and prepared an individualized report with proposals aimed at therapeutic optimization that was sent for evaluation to the geriatrician in charge of the NH. The drug-related problems (DRPs) were classified according to the Third Consensus of Granada and the potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) were identified by explicit criteria (STOPP/START, BEERS, LESS-CHRON), implicit criteria (MAI) and CheckTheMeds® software. It was measured the degree of acceptance of the interventions carried out, and the economic impact was calculated from the direct costs of the discontinued drugs. RESULTS: Of the 210 patients reviewed by the pharmacy department, 105 patients from 10 NHs were analyzed. A total of 510 prescriptions with possible DRPs were identified (38.5% of all prescribed drugs). According to STOPP/START/BEERS or LESS-CHRON criteria, 41.2% were PIPs. The main DRPs identified were: unfavorable risk-benefit ratio, inappropriate dose/regimen, inappropriate treatment duration, probability of adverse events, medication not indicated, and duplicate therapy. Interventions were proposed for 81.5% of the DRPs detected, of which 73.3% were accepted. This resulted in a 23.1% reduction in the number of drugs prescribed per patient and an economic saving of €16,218 per 6-month period. CONCLUSION: The appropriateness of medication prescribing in polymedicated older adults living in NHs by the pharmacist has made it possible to reduce DRPs and PIPs and to save costs thanks to the high degree of acceptance by geriatricians.

Medication changes and potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients with significant polypharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Number of medicines and medicines appropriateness are often used as outcome measures to evaluate the effectiveness of deprescribing interventions. AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate changes in prescribing, potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP) and prescribing of low-value medicines in older people with multimorbidity and significant polypharmacy. METHOD: This study was a retrospective secondary analysis of prescription data from a cluster randomised controlled trial involving 404 participants aged ≥ 65 years and prescribed ≥ 15 repeat medicines from 51 different general practices. For this study, repeat medications at baseline and follow-up (~ 1 year later) were assigned Anatomical Therapeutic Classification (ATC) codes. Outcomes were the most commonly prescribed and potentially inappropriately prescribed drug groups, the most frequently discontinued or initiated drug groups and the number of changes per person between baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: There were 7051 medicines prescribed to 404 participants at baseline. There was a median of 17 medicines (IQR 15-19) at baseline and 16 (IQR 14-19) at follow-up. PIP represented 17.1% of prescriptions at baseline and 15.7% (n = 6777) at follow-up. There were reductions in the prescription of most drug groups with the largest reduction in antiplatelet prescriptions. Considering medication discontinuations, initiations and switches, there was a median of five medication changes per person (range 0-30, IQR 3-9) by follow-up. There were 95 low-value prescriptions at baseline reducing to 78 at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The number of medication changes per person was not reflected by summarising medication count at two time points, highlighting the complexity of prescribing for patients with polypharmacy. Frequent medication changes has potentially important implications for patients in terms of adherence and medication safety. TRIAL REGISTRY: The SPPiRE trial was registered prospectively on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12752680).

The Prevalence of Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing in Two Family Health Units in Portugal.

OBJECTIVE: Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) are growing concerns in the ageing population. They carry the risk of increasing adverse effects, medical interactions, and difficulties managing the medication. Few studies in Portugal evaluate the prevalence of polypharmacy and PIP in primary care. No previous studies in the primary care setting in Portugal have been conducted using the European Union (EU)(7)-PIM (potentially inappropriate medication) list tool. In this study, we aimed to estimate the prevalence of polypharmacy and PIP in two family health units in Portugal.  Methods: To answer this question, we enrolled a sample of 361 elderly patients from two family health units in a descriptive observational transversal study. We randomly selected patients, consulted their prescription records in the previous 12 months, and applied the EU(7)-PIM list tool, validated for the Portuguese population. The data was then analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, IBM Corp., Version 24.0, Armonk, NY). RESULTS: Our results showed a prevalence of 79.8% of polypharmacy in the elderly population and 73.4% of PIP. These values are higher than predicted in the literature, but different screening tools have been used among papers. The mean number of prescribed drugs per patient was nine in one unit and seven in the other, and the mode was eleven per patient. The most identified PIP-associated drugs were proton pump inhibitors in 46.4% of the patients in one unit and 43.7% in the other. We also found a statistically significant higher prevalence of PIP and polypharmacy in females and patients over 75 years. CONCLUSION: From a prevalence perspective, we found higher-than-expected prevalences of PIP and polypharmacy in our population. Contributing factors might be a higher ageing index in the Portuguese population, modern practices using combination therapy, and the use of a screening tool that does not take into account the personal clinical history of patients. Further limitations involve only including patients with follow-up in the units studied. Even so, it suggests both PIP and polypharmacy as concerns to address, and we will strive to educate both health teams on PIP, polypharmacy, and deprescribing. We also emphasize the need to widen the study to other family health units.

Assessment of Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing for People With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Using IMPACT2DM, a New Explicit Tool.

BACKGROUND: People with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) are at greater risk of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) due to multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy. IMPACT2DM (Inappropriate Medication Prescribing Assessment Criteria for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus) is a tool designed to identify PIP for adults with T2DM. OBJECTIVES: To assess PIP for adults with T2DM in Ethiopia using the IMPACT2DM and to test the face validity and clinical validity of the tool. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was undertaken using data extracted retrospectively from the medical records of adults being managed for T2DM at Debretabore Hospital. PIP was assessed using IMPACT2DM. Some items/item components of IMPACT2DM were modified to increase the tool's applicability for the outpatient setting, to clarify content or to use the terms most common in this particular setting. Multivariant logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify factors associated with PIP. RESULTS: More than 90% of medical records had at least 1 PIP. Prescribing omission (80.9%) was the most commonly identified type of PIP. Adults with prescribing omissions are more likely to be ≥40 years old or to be prescribed with <5 medications. Adults with dosing problems were more likely ≥50 years old, or have had a fasting blood sugar (FBS) level out of the target range (80-130 mg/dL). CONCLUSIONS: IMPACT2DM is a clinically valid PIP identification tool for application in an Ethiopian outpatient setting. Health professionals should be alert to check for potential prescribing omissions for adults ≥40 years old and dosing problems for adults with an FBS level out of the target range or >50 years.

Patient and general practitioner experiences of implementing a medication review intervention in older people with multimorbidity: Process evaluation of the SPPiRE trial.

INTRODUCTION: The SPPiRE cluster randomized controlled trial found that a general practitioner (GP)-delivered medication review that incorporated screening for potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP), a brown bag review and a patient priority assessment, resulted in a significant but small reduction in the number of medicines and no significant reduction in PIP. This process evaluation aims to explore the experiences of GPs and patients and the potential for system-wide implementation. METHODS: The trial included 51 general practices and 404 participants with multimorbidity aged ≥65 years, prescribed ≥15 medicines. The process evaluation used mixed methods and ran parallel to the trial. Quantitative data was collected from the SPPiRE intervention website and analysed descriptively. Qualitative data on medication changes were collected from intervention GPs (18/26) and a purposive sample of intervention patients (27/208) via semi-structured telephone interviews. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic analysis. Qualitative and quantitative data were integrated using a triangulation protocol. RESULTS: The analysis generated two themes, intervention implementation and mechanisms of action, and both were underpinned by the theme of context. Intervention delivery varied among practices and 45 patients (28%) had no review, primarily due to insufficient GP time. 80% of reviewed patients had ≥1 PIP identified, 59% had ≥1 problem identified during the brown bag review and 79% had ≥1 priority recorded. The brown bag review resulted in the most deprescription of medications. GPs and patients responded positively to the intervention but most GPs did not engage with the patient priority-setting process. GPs identified a lack of integration into practice software and resources as barriers to future implementation. CONCLUSION: The SPPiRE intervention had a small effect in reducing the number of medicines and this was primarily mediated through the brown bag review. The context of resource shortages and deep-seated views around medical decision-making influenced intervention implementation. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Qualitative data on the implementation of the medication review and their wider views on their medicines was collected from older people with multimorbidity through semi-structured telephone interviews. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The SPPiRE trial was registered prospectively on the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN12752680).

Evaluating Inappropriate Medication Prescribing Among Elderly Patients in Palestine Using the STOPP/ START Criteria.

Background: Elderly patients suffer from chronic diseases and are prone to polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP). This study aimed to identify potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) among elderly patients in a tertiary care hospital setting and to estimate the prevalence of polypharmacy. Methods: This multicenter retrospective observational study reviewed patient data from two major Palestinian hospitals. The collected data included patient demographics, comorbidities, and medications administered during hospitalization and discharge. The study included 247 patients aged ≥ 65 years hospitalized between January 2019 and December 2019. The STOPP/START criteria version 2 was used to identify the prevalence of PIMs and PPOs. Clinical pharmacists verified the data, and SPSS was used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics, one-tailed bivariate correlations, and Pearson's test were applied to the variables of interest to examine their association with the STOPP/START criteria. Results: A total of 247 patients were included in the study, and 50.2% were females. As a result, 165 (66.8%) participants were identified with PIPs, including 30 patients with PPOs, 91 with PIMs, and 44 with both. Furthermore, the prevalence of PIP during hospitalization and discharge was 56.29% and 64.39%, respectively. Polypharmacy (5-9 medications) was 44.5% and 52.1% during hospitalization and discharge, respectively, and excessive polypharmacy (ten medications or more) was 33.6% and 16.4% during hospitalization and discharge, respectively. Moreover, 47.3% of the patients had a comorbidity index of ≥ 5. Conclusion: This study identified a high prevalence of PIPs among elderly patients during hospital admission and discharge. In addition, more than half of the geriatric patients in this study had PIP and a high prevalence of polypharmacy. Therefore, this study emphasizes the importance of adapting evidence-based tools, such as the STOPP/START criteria, to optimize patient medication therapy and guide prescribers in identifying and resolving PIMs and PPOs.

A machine learning-based risk warning platform for potentially inappropriate prescriptions for elderly patients with cardiovascular disease.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP), including potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs), is a major risk factor for adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Establishing a risk warning model for PIP to screen high-risk patients and implementing targeted interventions would significantly reduce the occurrence of PIP and adverse drug events. Elderly patients with cardiovascular disease hospitalized at the Sichuan Provincial People's Hospital were included in the study. Information about PIP, PIM, and PPO was obtained by reviewing patient prescriptions according to the STOPP/START criteria (2nd edition). Data were divided into a training set and test set at a ratio of 8:2. Five sampling methods, three feature screening methods, and eighteen machine learning algorithms were used to handle data and establish risk warning models. A 10-fold cross-validation method was employed for internal validation in the training set, and the bootstrap method was used for external validation in the test set. The performances were assessed by area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), and the risk warning platform was developed based on the best models. The contributions of features were interpreted using SHapley Additive ExPlanation (SHAP). A total of 404 patients were included in the study (318 [78.7%] with PIP; 112 [27.7%] with PIM; and 273 [67.6%] with PPO). After data sampling and feature selection, 15 datasets were obtained and 270 risk warning models were built based on them to predict PIP, PPO, and PIM, respectively. External validation showed that the AUCs of the best model for PIP, PPO, and PIM were 0.8341, 0.7007, and 0.7061, respectively. The results suggested that angina, number of medications, number of diseases, and age were the key factors in the PIP risk warning model. The risk warning platform was established to predict PIP, PIM, and PPO, which has acceptable accuracy, prediction performance, and potential clinical application perspective.