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.

Falls in older adults hospitalized in tertiary centers in Colombia. Clinical description and complications.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence of falls in elderly patients in the hospital environment is three times higher than that in the community. The aim was to determine the characteristics of patients who suffered in-hospital falls and their complications. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study with patients older than 64 years of age, admitted between 2018 and 2020 to four clinics in Colombia who presented a fall during their stay. Clinical data, reasons for the fall, complications and use of drugs with a known risk for causing falls and with an anticholinergic load were reviewed. RESULTS: A total of 249 patients were included. The mean age was 77.5 ± 7.4 years, and there was a predominance of males (63.9%). The patients were hospitalized mainly for community-acquired pneumonia (12.4%) and heart failure (10.4%). Falls occurred most frequently in hospitalization wards (77.1%) and emergency departments (20.9%). Falls were related to standing alone (34.4%) and on the way to the bathroom (28.9%), with 40.6% (n = 102) of falls resulting in trauma, especially to the head (27.7%); the incidence of fractures was low (3.2%). Ninety-two percent of patients had polypharmacy (≥5 drugs), 88.0% received psychotropic drugs, and 37.3% received drugs with an anticholinergic load ≥3 points. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized adults over 65 years of age suffered falls, mainly in hospitalization wards and emergency departments, especially during the process of solitary ambulation. Most had received psychotropic drugs and medications with a high anticholinergic load. These results suggest that it is necessary to improve risk prevention strategies for falls in this population.

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.

Protocol for the development and validation of a Polypharmacy Assessment Score.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of people are using multiple medications each day, named polypharmacy. This is driven by an ageing population, increasing multimorbidity, and single disease-focussed guidelines. Medications carry obvious benefits, yet polypharmacy is also linked to adverse consequences including adverse drug events, drug-drug and drug-disease interactions, poor patient experience and wasted resources. Problematic polypharmacy is 'the prescribing of multiple medicines inappropriately, or where the intended benefits are not realised'. Identifying people with problematic polypharmacy is complex, as multiple medicines can be suitable for people with several chronic conditions requiring more treatment. Hence, polypharmacy is often potentially problematic, rather than always inappropriate, dependent on clinical context and individual benefit vs risk. There is a need to improve how we identify and evaluate these patients by extending beyond simple counts of medicines to include individual factors and long-term conditions. AIM: To produce a Polypharmacy Assessment Score to identify a population with unusual levels of prescribing who may be at risk of potentially problematic polypharmacy. METHODS: Analyses will be performed in three parts: 1. A prediction model will be constructed using observed medications count as the dependent variable, with age, gender and long-term conditions as independent variables. A 'Polypharmacy Assessment Score' will then be constructed through calculating the differences between the observed and expected count of prescribed medications, thereby highlighting people that have unexpected levels of prescribing. Parts 2 and 3 will examine different aspects of validity of the Polypharmacy Assessment Score: 2. To assess 'construct validity', cross-sectional analyses will evaluate high-risk prescribing within populations defined by a range of Polypharmacy Assessment Scores, using both explicit (STOPP/START criteria) and implicit (Medication Appropriateness Index) measures of inappropriate prescribing. 3. To assess 'predictive validity', a retrospective cohort study will explore differences in clinical outcomes (adverse drug reactions, unplanned hospitalisation and all-cause mortality) between differing scores. DISCUSSION: Developing a cross-cutting measure of polypharmacy may allow healthcare professionals to prioritise and risk stratify patients with polypharmacy using unusual levels of prescribing. This would be an improvement from current approaches of either using simple cutoffs or narrow prescribing criteria.

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.

Potentially Inappropriate Medication in Older Persons With Dementia: Does a Migration Background Matter?

OBJECTIVES: Previous research in the general population shows more potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) among persons with a migration background compared with persons without a migration background. This study investigated the association between non-Western (nw) migration background (MB) and dementia-specific PIMs in older adults with dementia in the Netherlands. DESIGN: Cohort study using routinely recorded electronic health records and administrative data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Electronic health record data of general practitioners from the NIVEL-Primary Care Database, were linked to registries managed by Statistics Netherlands (2013-2014). A total of 9055 community-dwelling older adults with dementia were included, among whom 294 persons had an nw-MB from Africa, South America, or Asia, based on their country of birth. METHODS: We determined the presence of dementia-specific PIM prescriptions and compared this between persons with an nw-MB and without an MB, using logistic regression analysis adjusted for follow-up time, age, sex, and total number of prescriptions. Interaction effects of potentially relevant covariates were tested. The 3 largest nw-MB groups in the Netherlands were analyzed separately. RESULTS: Dementia-specific PIMs were less frequently prescribed to persons with an nw-MB compared to persons without an MB with a dementia diagnosis [30.6% vs 34.4%, odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.54-0.92], with especially less often a benzodiazepine prescription in the group with an nw-MB, compared to persons without an MB (15.0% vs 19.3%, OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.43-0.84). Dementia duration, living alone, household income, and degree of urbanization did not influence the associations. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Among older adults with dementia in the Netherlands, persons with an nw-MB had less often a dementia-specific PIM prescription compared to persons without an MB. Whether this difference is a reflection of better quality of care, higher professional uncertainty, or less recognition of (mental) health problems in persons with an nw-MB and dementia, needs further investigation.

Management of potentially inappropriate medication use among older adult's patients in primary care settings: description of an interventional prospective non-randomized study.

BACKGROUND: The management of inappropriate medication use in older patients suffering from multimorbidity and polymedication is a major healthcare challenge. In a primary care setting, a medication review is an effective tool through which a pharmacist can collaborate with a practitioner to detect inappropriate drug use. AIM: This project described the implementation of a systematic process for the management of potentially inappropriate medication use among Lebanese older adults. Its aim was to involve pharmacists in geriatric care and to suggest treatment optimization through the analysis of prescriptions using explicit and implicit criteria. METHOD: This study evaluated the medications of patients over 65 years taking a minimum of five chronic medications a day in different regions of Lebanon. Descriptive statistics for all the included variables using mean and standard deviation (Mean (SD)) for continuous variables and frequency and percentage (n, (%)) for multinomial variables were then performed. RESULTS: A total of 850 patients (50.7% women, 28.6% frail, 75.7 (8.01) mean age (SD)) were included in this study. The mean number of drugs per prescription was 7.10 (2.45). Roughly 88% of patients (n = 748) had at least one potentially inappropriate drug prescription: 66.4% and 64.4% of the patients had at least 1 drug with an unfavorable benefit-to-risk ratio according to Beers and EU(7)-PIM respectively. Nearly 50.4% of patients took at least one medication with no indication. The pharmacists recommended discontinuing medication for 76.5% of the cases of drug related problems. 26.6% of the overall proposed interventions were implemented. DISCUSSION: The rate of potentially inappropriate drug prescribing (PIDP) (88%) was higher than the rates previously reported in Europe, US, and Canada. It was also higher than studies conducted in Lebanon where it varied from 22.4 to 80% depending on the explicit criteria used, the settings, and the medical conditions of the patients. We used both implicit and explicit criteria with five different lists to improve the detection of all types of inappropriate medication use since Lebanon obtains drugs from many different sources. Another potential source for variation is the lack of a standardized process for the assessment of outpatient medication use in the elderly. CONCLUSION: The prevalence PIDP detected in the sample was higher than the percentages reported in previous literature. Systematic review of prescriptions has the capacity to identify and resolve pharmaceutical care issues thus improving geriatric care.

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.

Beta-lactam allergy risk stratification in a maternity population in Australia: Scope for allergy de-labelling.

BACKGROUND: Unconfirmed beta-lactam allergy in pregnant people has been associated with higher morbidity, unnecessary exposure to broad-spectrum antibiotics and prolonged hospitalisation. There are no published data on beta-lactam allergies in pregnant people in Australia. AIMS: The aim was to describe patient-reported beta-lactam allergies and appropriateness for antibiotic allergy de-labelling in a maternity cohort in Australia. METHODS: Maternity patients aged ≥18 years admitted to our institution between March 2021 and June 2021 with a beta-lactam allergy documented in their electronic medical record were interviewed for details of their allergy. The documented allergies were compared to the allergy history obtained from the interview. Severity of the allergy was rated, and appropriateness for allergy de-labelling was assessed using the Victorian Therapeutics Advisory Group beta-lactam antibiotic allergy assessment tool. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-three beta-lactam allergies (182 reactions) were reported by 145 patients. Penicillin class antibiotics were the most frequently implicated, including unspecified penicillins (95/153, 62%), amoxicillin (19/153, 13%) and amoxicillin-clavulanate (8/153, 5%). Allergy documentation required amending in 52 of 145 patients (36%); 85 of 153 (56%) of the beta-lactam allergies were considered low risk and potentially appropriate for direct oral re-challenge. CONCLUSION: Beta-lactam allergies were inaccurately documented in more than one third of the maternity patients included in our study. As such, education of maternity care providers about the importance of accurate allergy history taking remains an urgent unmet need. Furthermore, allergy assessment and de-labelling during pregnancy should be considered in maternity patients to optimise antibiotic prescribing and to improve maternal and neonatal health outcomes.

Reliability and validity of the Swedish indicator 'Drugs that should be avoided in older people'-an appraisal of a set of potentially inappropriate medications.

PURPOSE: To analyse the reliability and validity of the Swedish indicator 'Drugs that should be avoided in older people'. METHODS: From a previous study that included consecutive primary care patients ≥ 65 years of age, all patients ≥ 75 years of age were analysed. Two physicians independently screened their medication lists and medical records, applying the Swedish indicator which includes potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs): long-acting benzodiazepines, drugs with anticholinergic action, tramadol, propiomazine, codeine, and glibenclamide. The clinical relevance of identified PIMs was independently assessed. Thereafter, the physicians determined in consensus whether some medical action related to the drug treatment was medically justified and prioritised before the next regular visit. If so, the drug treatment was considered inadequate, and if not, adequate. RESULTS: A total of 1,146 drugs were assessed in 149 patients (75‒99 years, 62% female, 0‒20 drugs per patient). In 29 (19%) patients, at least one physician identified ≥ 1 PIM according to the indicator at issue; 24 (16%) patients were concordantly identified with ≥ 1 such PIM (kappa: 0.89). Of 26 PIMs concordantly identified, the physicians concordantly assessed four as clinically relevant and 12 as not clinically relevant (kappa: 0.17). After the consensus discussion, six (4%) patients had ≥ 1 PIM according to the studied indicator that merited action. Using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the indicator did not outperform chance in identifying inadequate drug treatment: 0.56 (95% confidence interval: 0.46 to 0.66). CONCLUSION: The Swedish indicator has strong reliability regarding PIM detection but does not validly reflect the adequacy of drug treatment.

Preliminary feasibility assessment of a targeted, pharmacist-led intervention for older adults with polypharmacy: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is associated with the prescription of inappropriate medications and avoidable medication-related harm. A novel pharmacist-led intervention aims to identify and resolve inappropriate medication prescriptions in older adults with polypharmacy. AIM: To conduct a preliminary feasibility assessment of the intervention in primary care, testing whether specific components of the intervention procedures and processes can be executed as intended. METHOD: The mixed-methods study was approved by the New Zealand Health and Disability Ethics Committees and public health agency. Patients from a New Zealand general practice clinic were recruited over 4 weeks to receive the intervention. The preliminary feasibility assessment included measures of intervention delivery, patient-reported outcome measures, and perspectives from ten patients and six clinicians. Data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively to determine if a full-scale intervention trial is warranted. The study's progression criteria were based on established research and guided the decision-making process. RESULTS: The intervention met the study's progression criteria, including patient recruitment, retention, and adherence to the intervention procedures. However, several modifications were identified, including: (1) enhancing patient recruitment, (2) conducting a preliminary meeting between the patient and pharmacist, (3) supporting pharmacists in maintaining a patient-centred approach, (4) reviewing the choice of patient-reported outcome measure, (5) extending the 8-week follow-up period, (6) allocating more time for pharmacists to conduct the intervention. CONCLUSION: The study found the intervention feasible; however, additional development is required before progressing to a full-scale trial. This intervention has the potential to effectively reduce medication-related harm and improve outcomes for older adults with polypharmacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621000268842 Date registered: 11/03/2021.

Association between regulator inspection and ratings on primary care prescribing: an observational study in England 2014 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare regulators in many countries undertake inspections of healthcare providers and publish inspection outcomes with the intention of improving quality of care. Comprehensive inspections of general practices in England by the Care Quality Commission began for the first time in 2014. It is assumed that inspection and rating will raise standards and improve care, but the presence and extent of any improvements is unknown. We aim to determine if practice inspection ratings are associated with past performance on prescribing indicators and if prescribing behaviour changes following inspection. METHODS: Longitudinal study using a dataset of 6771 general practices in England. Practice inspection date and score was linked with monthly practice-level data on prescribing indicators relating to antibiotics, hypnotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The sample covers practices receiving their first inspection between September 2014 and December 2018. Regression analysis and the differential timing of inspections is used to identify the impact on prescribing. RESULTS: Better-rated practices had better prescribing in the period before inspections began. In the six months following inspections, no overall change in prescribing was observed. However, the differences between the best and worse rated practices were reduced but not fully. The same is also true when taking a longer-term view. There is little evidence that practices responded in anticipation of inspection or reacted differently once the ratings were made public. CONCLUSION: While some of the observed historic variation in prescribing behaviour has been lessened by the process of inspection and ratings, we find this change is small and appears to come from both improvements among lower-rated practices and deteriorations among higher-rated practices. While inspection and rating no doubt had other impacts, these prescribing indicators were largely unchanged.

Validated medication deprescribing instruments for patients with palliative care needs: a systematic review / Instrumentos validados de desprescripción de medicamentos para los pacientes que reciben cuidados paliativos: una revisión sistemática

Objectives: Patients with life-limiting illnesses are prone to unnecessary polypharmacy. Deprescribing tools may contribute to minimizing negative outcomes. Thus, the aims of the study were to identify validated instruments for deprescribing inappropriate medications for patients with palliative care needs and to assess the impact on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases (until May 2021). A manual search was performed in the references of enrolled articles. The screening, eligibility, extraction, and bias risk assessment were carried out by 2 independent researchers. Experimental and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Results: Out of the 5791 studies retrieved, after excluding duplicates (n = 1050), conducting title/abstract screening (n = 4741), and full reading (n = 41), only 1 study met the inclusion criteria. In this included study, a randomized controlled trial was conducted, which showed a high level of bias risk overall. Adults 75 years or older (n = 130) with limited life expectancy and polypharmacy were allocated to 2 groups [intervention arm (deprescribing); and control arm (usual care)]. Deprescribing was performed with the aid of the STOPPFrail tool. The mean number of inappropriate medications and monthly medication costs were significantly lower in the intervention arm. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of unscheduled hospital presentations, falls, fractures, mortality, and quality of life. Conclusions: Despite the availability of several instruments to support deprescribing in patients with palliative care needs, only 1 of them has undergone validation and robust assessment for effectiveness in clinical practice. The STOPPFrail tool appears to reduce the number of inappropriate medications for older people with limited life expectancy (and probably palliative care needs)...(AU)

Objetivo: Los pacientes con enfermedades terminales son propensos a la polifarmacia innecesaria. Las herramientas de desprescripción pueden contribuir a minimizar los resultados negativos. Por lo tanto, los objetivos del estudio fueron identificar instrumentos validados para la desprescripción de medicamentos inapropiados en pacientes con necesidades de cuidados paliativos y evaluar el impacto en los resultados clínicos, humanísticos y económicos. Métodos: Se realizó una revisión sistemática en las bases de datos LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE y WEB OF SCIENCE (hasta mayo de 2021). Se realizó una búsqueda manual en las referencias de los artículos incluidos. La selección, elegibilidad, extracción y evaluación del riesgo de sesgo se llevaron a cabo por dos investigadores independientes. Se aceptó la inclusión de estudios observacionales y experimentales. Resultados: De los 5791 estudios recuperados, después de excluir duplicados (n = 1050), realizar la selección de títulos/resúmenes (n = 4741) y la lectura completa (n = 41), solo un estudio cumplió con los criterios de inclusión. En este estudio incluido, se realizó un ensayo controlado aleatorizado, que mostró un alto nivel de riesgo de sesgo en general. A los adultos de 75 años o más (n = 130) con esperanza de vida limitada y polifarmacia se les asignaron dos grupos [grupo de intervención (desprescripción) y grupo de control (atención habitual)]. Se realizó la desprescripción con la ayuda de la herramienta STOPPFrail. El número promedio de medicamentos inapropiados y los costos mensuales de los medicamentos fueron significativamente más bajos en el grupo de intervención. No se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en términos de presentaciones hospitalarias no programadas, caídas, fracturas, mortalidad y calidad de vida. Conclusiones: A pesar de la disponibilidad de varias herramientas para apoyar la deprescripción en pacientes con necesidades de cuidados paliativos...(AU)

Instrumentos validados de desprescripción de medicamentos para los pacientes que reciben cuidados paliativos: una revisión sistemática / Validated medication deprescribing instruments for patients with palliative care needs: a systematic review

Objectives: Patients with life-limiting illnesses are prone to unnecessary polypharmacy. Deprescribing tools may contribute to minimizing negative outcomes. Thus, the aims of the study were to identify validated instruments for deprescribing inappropriate medications for patients with palliative care needs and to assess the impact on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases (until May 2021). A manual search was performed in the references of enrolled articles. The screening, eligibility, extraction, and bias risk assessment were carried out by 2 independent researchers. Experimental and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Results: Out of the 5791 studies retrieved, after excluding duplicates (n = 1050), conducting title/abstract screening (n = 4741), and full reading (n = 41), only 1 study met the inclusion criteria. In this included study, a randomized controlled trial was conducted, which showed a high level of bias risk overall. Adults 75 years or older (n = 130) with limited life expectancy and polypharmacy were allocated to 2 groups [intervention arm (deprescribing); and control arm (usual care)]. Deprescribing was performed with the aid of the STOPPFrail tool. The mean number of inappropriate medications and monthly medication costs were significantly lower in the intervention arm. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of unscheduled hospital presentations, falls, fractures, mortality, and quality of life. Conclusions: Despite the availability of several instruments to support deprescribing in patients with palliative care needs, only 1 of them has undergone validation and robust assessment for effectiveness in clinical practice. The STOPPFrail tool appears to reduce the number of inappropriate medications for older people with limited life expectancy (and probably palliative care needs)...(AU)

Objetivo: Los pacientes con enfermedades terminales son propensos a la polifarmacia innecesaria. Las herramientas de desprescripción pueden contribuir a minimizar los resultados negativos. Por lo tanto, los objetivos del estudio fueron identificar instrumentos validados para la desprescripción de medicamentos inapropiados en pacientes con necesidades de cuidados paliativos y evaluar el impacto en los resultados clínicos, humanísticos y económicos. Métodos: Se realizó una revisión sistemática en las bases de datos LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE y WEB OF SCIENCE (hasta mayo de 2021). Se realizó una búsqueda manual en las referencias de los artículos incluidos. La selección, elegibilidad, extracción y evaluación del riesgo de sesgo se llevaron a cabo por dos investigadores independientes. Se aceptó la inclusión de estudios observacionales y experimentales. Resultados: De los 5791 estudios recuperados, después de excluir duplicados (n = 1050), realizar la selección de títulos/resúmenes (n = 4741) y la lectura completa (n = 41), solo un estudio cumplió con los criterios de inclusión. En este estudio incluido, se realizó un ensayo controlado aleatorizado, que mostró un alto nivel de riesgo de sesgo en general. A los adultos de 75 años o más (n = 130) con esperanza de vida limitada y polifarmacia se les asignaron dos grupos [grupo de intervención (desprescripción) y grupo de control (atención habitual)]. Se realizó la desprescripción con la ayuda de la herramienta STOPPFrail. El número promedio de medicamentos inapropiados y los costos mensuales de los medicamentos fueron significativamente más bajos en el grupo de intervención. No se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en términos de presentaciones hospitalarias no programadas, caídas, fracturas, mortalidad y calidad de vida. Conclusiones: A pesar de la disponibilidad de varias herramientas para apoyar la deprescripción en pacientes con necesidades de cuidados paliativos...(AU)

Potentially inappropriate prescribing for people with dementia in ambulatory care: a cross-sectional observational study.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is highly prevalent among people with dementia (PwD) and linked to negative outcomes, such as hospitalisation and mortality. However, there are limited data on prescribing appropriateness for PwD in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the prevalence of PIP and investigate associations between PIP and other patient characteristics among PwD in an ambulatory care setting. METHODS: A cross-sectional, retrospective analysis was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia. Patients who were ≥ 65 years old, had dementia, and visited ambulatory care clinics between 01/01/2019 and 31/12/2021 were included. Prescribing appropriateness was evaluated by applying the Screening Tool of Older Persons Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria. Descriptive analyses were used to describe the study population. Prevalence of PIP and the prevalence per each STOPP criterion were calculated as a percentage of all eligible patients. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate associations between PIP, polypharmacy, age and sex; odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Analyses were conducted using SPSS v27. RESULTS: A total of 287 PwD were identified; 56.0% (n = 161) were female. The mean number of medications prescribed was 9.0 [standard deviation (SD) ± 4.2]. The prevalence of PIP was 61.0% (n = 175). Common instances of PIP were drugs prescribed beyond the recommended duration (n = 90, 31.4%), drugs prescribed without an evidence-based clinical indication (n = 78, 27.2%), proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for > 8 weeks (n = 75, 26.0%), and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors with concurrent drugs that reduce heart rate (n = 60, 21.0%). Polypharmacy was observed in 82.6% (n = 237) of patients and was strongly associated with PIP (adjusted OR 24.1, 95% CI 9.0-64.5). CONCLUSIONS: Findings have revealed a high prevalence of PIP among PwD in Saudi Arabia that is strongly associated with polypharmacy. Future research should aim to explore key stakeholders' experiences and perspectives of medicines management to optimise medication use for this vulnerable patient population.

Comparison of polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults with and without dementia receiving residential medication management reviews.

OBJECTIVES: Among residents who had a residential medication management review (RMMR), there is a lack of studies assessing exposure to polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in people with dementia. This study compared the exposure to polypharmacy and PIMs in residents with dementia and without dementia receiving RMMR. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using data of 16,261 residents living in 343 Australian residential aged care facilities who had an RMMR in 2019. Medication use was assessed as polypharmacy (defined as ≥9 medications) and use of ≥1 PIMs using the 2019 updated Beers criteria. Dementia diagnosis was determined with ICD-10 coding from medical records. Descriptive analyses reported resident demographics and patterns of medication use. Pearson's χ2 tests and logistic regression analysis were conducted to compare medication exposure between residents with and without dementia. RESULTS: Among 16,261 residents, 6781 (42%) had dementia. Residents with dementia were significantly more likely to be exposed to polypharmacy and PIMs, compared to those without dementia (74% vs. 70% and 83% vs. 73%, p < .001 respectively). Residents with dementia had 1.31 times the odds of exposure to polypharmacy (adjusted OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.22-1.41, p < .001) and 1.88 times the odds of being prescribed ≥1 PIMs than people without dementia (adjusted OR: 1.88, 95% CI: 1.73-2.04, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a study of residents receiving RMMR, polypharmacy and PIMs were highly common, and those with dementia were more likely to be exposed to inappropriate polypharmacy. There is a need for targeted deprescribing strategies to immediately address inappropriate prescribing in residents, particularly those living with dementia.

Evidence-based Medication knowledge Brokers in Residential Aged CarE (EMBRACE): protocol for a helix-counterbalanced randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice guidelines recommend against the routine use of psychotropic medications in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). Knowledge brokers are individuals or groups who facilitate the transfer of knowledge into practice. The objective of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using knowledge brokers to translate Australia's new Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Appropriate Use of Psychotropic Medications in People Living with Dementia and in Residential Aged Care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Evidence-based Medication knowledge Brokers in Residential Aged CarE (EMBRACE) trial is a helix-counterbalanced randomised controlled trial. The 12-month trial will be conducted in up to 19 RACFs operated by four Australian aged care provider organisations in Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland. RACFs will be randomised to receive three levels of implementation strategies (knowledge broker service, pharmacist-led quality use of medications education activities and distribution of the Guidelines and supporting materials) across three medication contexts (antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and antidepressants). Implementation strategies will be delivered by an embedded on-site aged care pharmacist working at a system level across each participating RACF. All RACFs will receive all implementation strategies simultaneously but for different medication contexts. The primary outcome will be a composite dichotomous measure of 6-month RACF-level concordance with Guideline recommendations and good practice statements among people using antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and antidepressants for changed behaviours. Secondary outcomes will include proportion of residents with Guideline concordant use of antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and antidepressants measured at the RACF-level and proportion of residents with psychotropic medication use, hospitalisation, falls, falls with injury, polypharmacy, quality of life, activities of daily living, medication incidents and behavioural incidents measured at the RACF-level. DISCUSSION: The EMBRACE trial investigates a novel guideline implementation strategy to improve the safe and effective use of psychotropic medications in RACFs. We anticipate that the findings will provide new information on the potential role of knowledge brokers for successful and cost-effective guideline implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12623001141639. Registered 6 November 2023 - retrospectively registered, https://www.anzctr.org.au/TrialSearch.aspx .

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.