Inappropriate Combined Antiplatelet and Anticoagulant Therapy in Older Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: Trend over Time (2009-18).

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Antiplatelet therapy, when prescribed in combination with anticoagulant therapy to older patients with atrial fibrillation and no recent cardiovascular event, is inappropriate and a reversible risk factor of major bleeding. We aimed to assess the trend over time of the prevalence of inappropriate combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy and to determine its associated factors during the direct oral anticoagulant era. METHODS: This was a study of consecutive older patients (age ≥ 75 years) with atrial fibrillation, receiving anticoagulant therapy upon admission, and undergoing a comprehensive geriatric assessment during their first admission in a Belgian teaching hospital between 2009 and 2018. Antiplatelet therapy was considered inappropriate in the absence of a recent cardiovascular event. We studied the prevalence of inappropriate combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy by 2-year periods and assessed its associated factors since the year 2013. RESULTS: Inappropriate combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy was identified in 21% of the 654 patients (median age 84 years, 51% women), with a prevalence decreasing (p ≤ 0.01) from 25% (2009-10) to 14.8% (2017-18). Among the 469 patients recruited during the direct oral anticoagulant era, inappropriate combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy (19%) was associated in a multivariable analysis with a history of stroke/transient ischemic attack (odds ratio 2.13, p = 0.007), anticoagulation with low-molecular-weight heparin (odds ratio 3.44, p = 0.015), and a history of vascular disease (odds ratio 5.68, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: While inappropriate combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy has declined over the last decade, there is still room for improvement. Antiplatelet deprescribing should be considered in all patients with inappropriate combined antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy, including those with vascular disease and no recent cardiovascular event.

Optimizing Therapy to Prevent Avoidable Hospital Admissions in Multimorbid Older Adults (OPERAM): cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of optimising drug treatment on drug related hospital admissions in older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy admitted to hospital. DESIGN: Cluster randomised controlled trial. SETTING: 110 clusters of inpatient wards within university based hospitals in four European countries (Switzerland, Netherlands, Belgium, and Republic of Ireland) defined by attending hospital doctors. PARTICIPANTS: 2008 older adults (≥70 years) with multimorbidity (≥3 chronic conditions) and polypharmacy (≥5 drugs used long term). INTERVENTION: Clinical staff clusters were randomised to usual care or a structured pharmacotherapy optimisation intervention performed at the individual level jointly by a doctor and a pharmacist, with the support of a clinical decision software system deploying the screening tool of older person's prescriptions and screening tool to alert to the right treatment (STOPP/START) criteria to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary outcome was first drug related hospital admission within 12 months. RESULTS: 2008 older adults (median nine drugs) were randomised and enrolled in 54 intervention clusters (963 participants) and 56 control clusters (1045 participants) receiving usual care. In the intervention arm, 86.1% of participants (n=789) had inappropriate prescribing, with a mean of 2.75 (SD 2.24) STOPP/START recommendations for each participant. 62.2% (n=491) had ≥1 recommendation successfully implemented at two months, predominantly discontinuation of potentially inappropriate drugs. In the intervention group, 211 participants (21.9%) experienced a first drug related hospital admission compared with 234 (22.4%) in the control group. In the intention-to-treat analysis censored for death as competing event (n=375, 18.7%), the hazard ratio for first drug related hospital admission was 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.77 to 1.17). In the per protocol analysis, the hazard ratio for a drug related hospital admission was 0.91 (0.69 to 1.19). The hazard ratio for first fall was 0.96 (0.79 to 1.15; 237 v 263 first falls) and for death was 0.90 (0.71 to 1.13; 172 v 203 deaths). CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate prescribing was common in older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy admitted to hospital and was reduced through an intervention to optimise pharmacotherapy, but without effect on drug related hospital admissions. Additional efforts are needed to identify pharmacotherapy optimisation interventions that reduce inappropriate prescribing and improve patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02986425.

Medication review and reconciliation in older adults.

Older people are frequently exposed to polypharmacy, inappropriate prescribing, and adverse drug events. Two clinical processes can help geriatricians to optimize and increase the safety of drug prescriptions for older adults: medication reconciliation and medication review. Medication reconciliation provides the best possible medication history and identifies and resolves discrepancies in drug prescriptions. During the medication review, the best possible medication history is crosschecked against other data, including morbidities, patient's preferences, or geriatric syndromes, to produce a personalized medication strategy. Alignment of treatment recommendations with patient preferences and goals through shared decision-making is particularly important in medication review. Medication reconciliation and medication review have proven to be effective, but their broad implementation remains difficult. Indeed, these procedures are time-consuming and require specific skills, coordination between different healthcare professionals, organizations and dedicated means. The involvement of geriatricians therefore remains essential for the successful implementation of medication reconciliation and medication review in geriatric settings and among frail older people.

A User-Centered design and usability testing of a web-based medication reconciliation application integrated in an eHealth network.

BACKGROUND: Medication discrepancies, which are a threat to patient safety, can be reduced by medication reconciliation (MedRec). MedRec is a complex process that can be supported by the use of information technology and patient engagement. Therefore, the SEAMPAT project aims to develop a MedRec IT platform based on two applications. The application for the professionals is called: the "MedRec app". OBJECTIVE: In the present study, we aimed to describe the development and usability testing of the MedRec app, reporting results of a three iterations user-centered usability evaluation. METHODS: We used a three phase iterative user-centered study spread over 16 months. At each phase, the usability evaluation included several methods (observations, questionnaires, and follow-up discussions with participants) to collect quantitative and qualitative data in order to improve the current prototype and evolve to the next prototype. RESULTS: In total, 48 healthcare professionals (25 general practitioners and 23 hospital clinicians) participated to the MedRec app evaluation. There were 14, 32 and 5 participants for phases 1, 2 and 3 respectively. At each phase, many design modifications were done to strengthen usability. Concerning usability, participants considered the prototypes as an acceptable interface with a median System Usability Score of 73 at phase 2 and 75 at phase 3. Participants emphasized the need for improvements concerning workflow integration, usefulness and interoperability. CONCLUSION: The MedRec app was perceived as being useful, usable and satisfying. However, further improvements are required in several usability aspects. Our study demonstrates the importance of conducting usability assessments before investing time and resources in a large study evaluating the effect of an eMedRec approach on clinical outcomes. Our findings may also increase the chances of acceptability and sustained use over time by clinicians.

Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing and Related Hospital Admissions in Geriatric Patients: A Comparative Analysis between the STOPP and START Criteria Versions 1 and 2.

BACKGROUND: Older persons are at significant risk of drug-related admissions (DRAs). We previously demonstrated that 27% of hospitalizations in geriatric patients were associated with potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs) and/or potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) identified by the Screening Tool of Older People's Prescriptions/Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment (STOPP/START) criteria version 1 (v1). The updated STOPP/START criteria version 2 (v2) comprised a 31% increase in prescribing criteria. OBJECTIVE: As a secondary analysis of our study conducted in 2008, we aimed to compare the prevalence and types of DRAs identified by STOPP/START.v1 and STOPP/START.v2. METHODS: We applied the STOPP/START.v2 criteria to a subset of 100 consecutively admitted geriatric patients selected from our original cross-sectional study of 302 patients. A geriatrician and a pharmacist adjudicated whether the identified PIMs and PPOs were related to acute hospitalization. Admissions were defined as DRAs if the identified PIM(s) and/or PPO(s) were related to the main cause of admission or played a significant contributory role in the admission. RESULTS: The median patient age was 83 years and the median number of medications at home was 8. Compared with STOPP/START.v1, STOPP/START.v2 not only yielded more instances of inappropriate prescribing but also targeted significantly more PIMs and PPOs associated with preventable DRAs (23% vs. 40% of all admissions, p < 0.001). PIMs of fall-risk-increasing drugs, and PPOs of musculoskeletal and cardiovascular system drugs, were most frequently associated with DRAs. CONCLUSION: The latter instances of inappropriate prescribing with major clinical relevance warrant particular attention during medication review in older persons.

A web application to involve patients in the medication reconciliation process: a user-centered usability and usefulness study.

Objective: Medication reconciliation (MedRec) can improve patient safety by resolving medication discrepancies. Because information technology (IT) and patient engagement are promising approaches to optimizing MedRec, the SEAMPAT project aims to develop a MedRec IT platform based on two applications: the "patient app" and the "MedRec app." This study evaluates three dimensions of the usability (efficiency, satisfaction, and effectiveness) and usefulness of the patient app. Methods: We performed a four-month user-centered observational study. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected. Participants completed the system usability scale (SUS) questionnaire and a second questionnaire on usefulness. Effectiveness was assessed by measuring the completeness of the medication list generated by the patient application and its correctness (ie medication discrepancies between the patient list and the best possible medication history). Qualitative data were collected from semi-structured interviews, observations and comments, and questions raised by patients. Results: Forty-two patients completed the study. Sixty-nine percent of patients considered the patient app to be acceptable (SUS Score ≥ 70) and usefulness was high. The medication list was complete for a quarter of the patients (7/28) and there was a discrepancy for 21.7% of medications (21/97). The qualitative data enabled the identification of several barriers (related to functional and non-functional aspects) to the optimization of usability and usefulness. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the importance and value of user-centered usability testing of a patient application implemented in "real-world" conditions. To achieve adoption and sustained use by patients, the app should meet patients' needs while also efficiently improving the quality of MedRec.

Development of a standardized chart review method to identify drug-related hospital admissions in older people.

AIMS: We aimed to develop a standardized chart review method to identify drug-related hospital admissions (DRA) in older people caused by non-preventable adverse drug reactions and preventable medication errors including overuse, underuse and misuse of medications: the DRA adjudication guide. METHODS: The DRA adjudication guide was developed based on design and test iterations with international and multidisciplinary input in four subsequent steps: literature review; evaluation of content validity using a Delphi consensus technique; a pilot test; and a reliability study. RESULTS: The DRA adjudication guide provides definitions, examples and step-by-step instructions to measure DRA. A three-step standardized chart review method was elaborated including: (i) data abstraction; (ii) explicit screening with a newly developed trigger tool for DRA in older people; and (iii) consensus adjudication for causality by a pharmacist and a physician using the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre and Hallas criteria. A 15-member international Delphi panel reached consensus agreement on 26 triggers for DRA in older people. The DRA adjudication guide showed good feasibility of use and achieved moderate inter-rater reliability for the evaluation of 16 cases by four European adjudication pairs (71% agreement, κ = 0.41). Disagreements arose mainly for cases with potential underuse. CONCLUSIONS: The DRA adjudication guide is the first standardized chart review method to identify DRA in older persons. Content validity, feasibility of use and inter-rater reliability were found to be satisfactory. The method can be used as an outcome measure for interventions targeted at improving quality and safety of medication use in older people.

Underuse of Anticoagulation in Older Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and CHADS2 Score ≥ 2: Are We Doing Better Since the Marketing of Direct Oral Anticoagulants?

OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to (1) describe the evolution of the underuse of anticoagulants in older people with atrial fibrillation (AF) and a CHADS2 score ≥ 2 since direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) were introduced to the market and (2) describe factors associated with this underuse. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study including geriatric patients admitted during the pre-DOAC (2008-2011) and post-DOAC (2013-2015) periods in an academic hospital in Belgium. Five inclusion criteria were met: age ≥ 75 years, diagnosis of AF, indication for anticoagulation (CHADS2 score ≥ 2), risk of functional decline (Identification of Seniors At Risk [ISAR] score ≥ 2), and comprehensive geriatric assessment. The use of anticoagulants and antiplatelets at home before admission was recorded. Risks of stroke and bleeding were calculated using CHADS2 and HEMORR2HAGES scores, respectively. Three different logistic regression models were performed to describe the evolution of and factors associated with the underuse of anticoagulants after DOAC marketing. RESULTS: Anticoagulant underuse, present in 209 of 614 (34%) geriatric patients with AF, was lower in patients with a history of stroke (28.5%) or congestive heart failure (26.9%) but higher in those receiving antiplatelets (56.2%) and in older individuals. Anticoagulant underuse decreased significantly from the pre-DOAC (37.3%) to the post-DOAC (29.7%) era, as shown by two analyses using propensity scores. CONCLUSION: In older patients with AF, anticoagulant underuse was mainly associated with antiplatelet use. Anticoagulant underuse and antiplatelet use have both decreased since DOAC marketing. Underuse of anticoagulants was still a concern for three in ten geriatric patients with AF at high risk of stroke (CHADS2 score ≥ 2).

Electronic tools to support medication reconciliation: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is essential for reducing patient harm caused by medication discrepancies across care transitions. Electronic support has been described as a promising approach to moving MedRec forward. We systematically reviewed the evidence about electronic tools that support MedRec, by (a) identifying tools; (b) summarizing their characteristics with regard to context, tool, implementation, and evaluation; and (c) summarizing key messages for successful development and implementation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library, and identified additional reports from reference lists, reviews, and patent databases. Reports were included if the electronic tool supported medication history taking and the identification and resolution of medication discrepancies. Two researchers independently selected studies, evaluated the quality of reporting, and extracted data. RESULTS: Eighteen reports relative to 11 tools were included. There were eight quality improvement projects, five observational effectiveness studies, three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or RCT protocols (ie, descriptions of RCTs in progress), and two patents. All tools were developed in academic environments in North America. Most used electronic data from multiple sources and partially implemented functionalities considered to be important. Relevant information on functionalities and implementation features was frequently missing. Evaluations mainly focused on usability, adherence, and user satisfaction. One RCT evaluated the effect on potential adverse drug events. CONCLUSION: Successful implementation of electronic tools to support MedRec requires favorable context, properly designed tools, and attention to implementation features. Future research is needed to evaluate the effect of these tools on the quality and safety of healthcare.

STOPP/START version 2-development of software applications: easier said than done?

Explicit criteria, such as the STOPP/START criteria, are increasingly used both in clinical practice and in research to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people. In an article on the STOPP/START criteria version 2, O'Mahony et al have pointed out the advantages of developing computerised criteria. Both clinical decision support systems to support healthcare professionals and software applications to automatically detect inappropriate prescribing in research studies can be developed. In the process of developing such tools, difficulties may occur. In the context of a research study, we have developed an algorithm to automatically apply STOPP/START criteria version 2 to our research database. We comment in this paper on different kinds of difficulties encountered and make suggestions that could be taken into account when developing the next version of the criteria.