Disentangling concepts of inappropriate polypharmacy in old age: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Polypharmacy is a common concern, especially in the older population. In some countries more that 50% of all individuals over 60 receive five or more drugs, most often due to multimorbidity and increased longevity. However, polypharmacy is associated with multiple adverse events, and more medication may not always be the answer. The terms "appropriate" and "inappropriate" are often used to distinguish between "much" and "too much" medications in relation to polypharmacy in research and practice, but no explicit definition exists to describe what these terms encompass. The aim of this review is to unfold the different understandings of and perspectives on (in)appropriate polypharmacy and suggest a framework for further research and practice. METHOD: A scoping review was conducted using the framework of Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al. Pubmed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane database, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for references in English, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish using the search string "Polypharmacy" AND "Appropriate" OR "Inappropriate". Data was extracted on author information, aims and objectives, methodology, study population and setting, country of origin, main findings and implications, and all text including the words "appropriate," "inappropriate," and "polypharmacy." Qualitative meaning condensation analysis was used and data charted using descriptive and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of 3982 references, a total of 92 references were included in the review. Most references were from 2016-2021, from fields related to medicine or pharmacy, and occurred within primary and secondary healthcare settings. Based on the qualitative analysis, a framework were assembled consisting of Context, three domains (Standardization, Practices and Values & Concerns) and Patient Perspective. CONCLUSION: Inappropriate polypharmacy is a concept loaded by its heterogeneity and the usefulness of a single definition is doubtful. Instead, the framework suggested in this article representing different dimensions of inappropriate polypharmacy may serve as an initial strategy for focusing research and practice on polypharmacy in old age.

The evidence behind the use of LASER for genitourinary syndrome of menopause, vulvovaginal atrophy, urinary incontinence and lichen sclerosus: A state-of-the-art review.

In recent years, LASER has been introduced as a minimally invasive treatment for a broad range of vaginal and vulvar symptoms and diseases. However, the efficacy and safety of vaginal and vulvar LASER has continuously been questioned. The aim of this study is to create an overview of the current literature and discuss the controversies within the use of LASER for genitourinary syndrome of menopause, vulvovaginal atrophy, urinary incontinence and lichen sclerosus. A search string was built in PubMed. The search was commenced on August 25, 2021 and closed on October 27, 2021. Two authors screened the studies in Covidence for inclusion according to the eligibility criteria in the protocol. The data were extracted from the studies and are reported in both text and tables. This review included 114 papers, of which 15 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The effect of LASER as a vaginal treatment was investigated for genitourinary syndrome of menopause in 36 studies (six RCTs), vulvovaginal atrophy in 34 studies (four RCTs) and urinary incontinence in 30 studies (two RCTs). Ten studies (three RCTs) investigated the effect of vulvar treatment for lichen sclerosus. Half of the included RCTs, irrespective of indication, did not find a significant difference in improvement in women treated with vaginal CO2 or Er:YAG LASER compared with their respective controls. However, most non-comparative studies reported significant improvement after exposure to vaginal or vulvar LASER across all indications. Included studies generally had a short follow-up period and only a single RCT followed their participants for more than 6 months post treatment. Adverse events were reported as mild and transient and 99 studies including 51 094 patients provided information of no serious adverse events. In conclusion, this review found that the effect of vaginal and vulvar LASER decreases with higher study quality where potential biases have been eliminated. We therefore stress that all patients who are treated with vaginal or vulvar LASER should be carefully monitored and that LASER for those indications as a treatment should be kept on a research level until further high-quality evidence is available.