Evaluation of Oseltamivir Used to Prevent Hospitalization in Outpatients With Influenza: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance: Despite widespread use, summary evidence from prior meta-analyses has contradictory conclusions regarding whether oseltamivir decreases the risk of hospitalization when given to outpatients. Several large investigator-initiated randomized clinical trials have not yet been meta-analyzed. Objective: To assess the efficacy and safety of oseltamivir in preventing hospitalization among influenza-infected adult and adolescent outpatients. Data Sources: PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Europe PubMed Central, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry were searched from inception to January 4, 2022. Study Selection: Included studies were randomized clinical trials comparing oseltamivir vs placebo or nonactive controls in outpatients with confirmed influenza infection. Data Extraction and Synthesis: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines were followed. Two independent reviewers (R.H. and É.B.C.) extracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2.0. Each effect size was pooled using a restricted maximum likelihood random effects model. The quality of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) framework. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hospitalization was pooled as risk ratio (RR) and risk difference (RD) estimates with 95% CIs. Results: Of 2352 studies identified, 15 were included. The intention-to-treat infected (ITTi) population was comprised of 6166 individuals with 54.7% prescribed oseltamivir. Across study populations, 53.9% (5610 of 10 471) were female and the mean age was 45.3 (14.5) years. Overall, oseltamivir was not associated with reduced risk of hospitalization within the ITTi population (RR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.29; RD, -0.17%; 95% CI, -0.23% to 0.48%). Oseltamivir was also not associated with reduced hospitalization in older populations (mean age ≥65 years: RR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.21 to 4.90) or in patients considered at greater risk of hospitalization (RR, 0.65; 0.33 to 1.28). Within the safety population, oseltamivir was associated with increased nausea (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.82) and vomiting (RR, 1.83; 95% CI, 1.28 to 2.63) but not serious adverse events (RR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.46 to1.08). Conclusions and Relevance: In this systematic review and meta-analysis among influenza-infected outpatients, oseltamivir was not associated with a reduced risk of hospitalization but was associated with increased gastrointestinal adverse events. To justify continued use for this purpose, an adequately powered trial in a suitably high-risk population is justified.

Reducing potentially inappropriate polypharmacy at a national and international level: the impact of deprescribing networks.

INTRODUCTION: Over the past decade, polypharmacy has increased dramatically. Measurable harms include falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, and death. The associated costs are massive and contribute substantially to low-value health care. Deprescribing is a promising solution, but there are barriers. Establishing a network to address polypharmacy can help overcome barriers by connecting individuals with an interest and expertise in deprescribing and can act as an important source of motivation and resources. AREAS COVERED: Over the past decade, several deprescribing networks were launched to help tackle polypharmacy, with evidence of individual and collective impact. A network approach has several advantages; it can spark interest, ideas and enthusiasm through information sharing, meetings and conversations with the public, providers, and other key stakeholders. In this special report, the details of how four deprescribing networks were established across the globe are detailed. EXPERT OPINION: Networks create links between people who lead existing and/or budding deprescribing practices and policy initiatives, can influence people with a shared passion for deprescribing, and facilitate sharing of intellectual capital and tools to take initiatives further and strengthen impact.This report should inspire others to establish their own deprescribing networks, a critical step in accelerating a global deprescribing movement.

Enabling Healthy Aging to AVOID Frailty in Community Dwelling Older Canadians.

The Canadian population is aging. With aging, biological and social changes occur increasing the risk of developing chronic conditions and functional loss leading to frailty. Older adults living with frailty are more vulnerable to minor stressors, take longer to recover from illness, and have difficulty participating in daily activities. The Canadian Frailty Network's (CFN) mission is to improve the lives of older adults living with frailty. In September 2019, CFN launched the Activity & Exercise, Vaccination, Optimization of medications, Interaction & Socialization, and Diet & Nutrition (AVOID) Frailty public health campaign to promote assessing and reducing risk factors leading to the development of frailty. As part of the campaign, CFN held an Enabling Healthy Aging Symposium with 36 stakeholders from across Canada. Stakeholders identified individual and community-level opportunities and challenges for the enablement of healthy aging and frailty mitigation, as part of a focused consultative process. Stakeholders ranked the three most important challenges and opportunities at the individual and community levels for implementing AVOID Frailty recommendations. Concrete actions, further research areas, policy changes, and existing resources/programs to enhance the AVOID Frailty campaign were identified. The results will help inform future priorities and behaviour change strategies for healthy aging in Canada.

Interventions to address potentially inappropriate prescriptions and over-the-counter medication use among adults 65 years and older in primary care settings: protocol for a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on potentially inappropriate prescribing and over-the-counter (OTC) medication use among adults aged 65 years and older in primary care settings. This protocol outlines the planned scope and methods for a systematic review of the benefits and harms and acceptability of interventions to reduce potentially inappropriate prescriptions and OTC medication use. METHODS: De novo systematic reviews will be conducted to synthesize the available evidence on (a) the benefits and harms of interventions to reduce potentially inappropriate prescriptions and OTC medications compared to no intervention, usual care, or non- or minimally active intervention among adults aged 65 years and older and (b) the acceptability of these interventions or attributes among patients. Outcomes of interest for the benefits and harms review are all-cause mortality, hospitalization, non-serious adverse drug reactions, quality of life, emergency department visits, injurious falls, medical visits, and the number of medications (and number of pills). Outcomes for the acceptability review are the preference for and relative importance of different interventions or their attributes. For the benefits and harms review, we will search MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for randomized controlled trials. For the acceptability review, we will search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database for experimental and observational studies with a comparator. Websites of relevant organizations, other grey literature sources, and reference lists of included studies and reviews will be searched. Title and abstract screening will be completed by two independent reviewers using the liberal accelerated approach. Full-text review, data extraction, risk of bias assessments, and GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) will be completed independently by two reviewers, with any disagreements resolved by consensus or by consulting with a third reviewer. The GRADE approach will be used to assess the certainty of the evidence for outcomes. DISCUSSION: The results of this systematic review will be used by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to inform their recommendation on potentially inappropriate prescribing and OTC medication use among adults aged 65 years and older. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (KQ1: CRD42022302313; KQ2: CRD42022302324); Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/urj4b/ ).

The MedSafer Study-Electronic Decision Support for Deprescribing in Hospitalized Older Adults: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Scalable deprescribing interventions may reduce polypharmacy and the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs); however, few studies have been large enough to evaluate the impact that deprescribing may have on adverse drug events (ADEs). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of an electronic deprescribing decision support tool on ADEs after hospital discharge among older adults with polypharmacy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a cluster randomized clinical trial of older (≥65 years) hospitalized patients with an expected survival of more than 3 months who were admitted to 1 of 11 acute care hospitals in Canada from August 22, 2017, to January 13, 2020. At admission, participants were taking 5 or more medications per day. Data analyses were performed from January 3, 2021, to September 23, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Personalized reports of deprescribing opportunities generated by MedSafer software to address usual home medications and measures of prognosis and frailty. Deprescribing reports provided to the treating team were compared with usual care (medication reconciliation). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a reduction of ADEs within the first 30 days postdischarge (including adverse drug withdrawal events) captured through structured telephone surveys and adjudicated blinded to intervention status. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients with 1 or more PIMs deprescribed at discharge and the proportion of patients with an adverse drug withdrawal event (ADWE). RESULTS: A total of 5698 participants (median [range] age, 78 [72-85] years; 2858 [50.2%] women; race and ethnicity data were not collected) were enrolled in 3 clusters and were adjudicated for the primary outcome (control, 3204; intervention, 2494). Despite cluster randomization, there were group imbalances, eg, the participants in the intervention arm were older and had more PIMS prescribed at baseline. After hospital discharge, 4989 (87.6%) participants completed an ADE interview. There was no significant difference in ADEs within 30 days of discharge (138 [5.0%] of 2742 control vs 111 [4.9%] of 2247 intervention participants; adjusted risk difference [aRD] -0.8%; 95% CI, -2.9% to 1.3%). Deprescribing increased from 795 (29.8%) of 2667 control to 1249 (55.4%) of 2256 intervention participants [aRD, 22.2%; 95% CI, 16.9% to 27.4%]. There was no difference in ADWEs between groups. Several post hoc sensitivity analyses, including the use of a nonparametric test to address the low cluster number, group imbalances, and potential biases, did not alter study conclusions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cluster randomized clinical trial showed that providing deprescribing clinical decision support during acute hospitalization had no demonstrable impact on ADEs, although the intervention was safe and led to improvements in deprescribing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03272607.

Isolating together during COVID-19: Results from the Telehealth Intervention Program for older adults.

Background: A pressing challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond is to provide accessible and scalable mental health support to isolated older adults in the community. The Telehealth Intervention Program for Older Adults (TIP-OA) is a large-scale, volunteer-based, friendly telephone support program designed to address this unmet need. Methods: A prospective cohort study of 112 TIP-OA participants aged ≥60 years old was conducted in Quebec, Canada (October 2020-June 2021). The intervention consisted of weekly friendly phone calls from trained volunteers. The primary outcome measures included changes in scores of stress, depression, anxiety, and fear surrounding COVID-19, assessed at baseline, 4 and 8-weeks. Additional subgroup analyses were performed with participants with higher baseline scores. Results: The subgroup of participants with higher baseline depression scores (PHQ9 ≥10) had significant improvements in depression scores over the 8-week period measured [mean change score = -2.27 (±4.76), 95%CI (-3.719, -0.827), p = 0.003]. Similarly, participants with higher baseline anxiety scores (GAD7 ≥10) had an improvement over the same period, which, approached significance (p = 0.06). Moreover, despite peaks in the pandemic and related stressors, our study found no significant (p ≥ 0.09) increase in stress, depression, anxiety or fear of COVID-19 scores. Discussion: This scalable, volunteer-based, friendly telephone intervention program was associated with decreased scores of depression and anxiety in older adults who reported higher scores at baseline (PHQ 9 ≥10 and GAD7 ≥10).

The MedSafer Study: A Controlled Trial of an Electronic Decision Support Tool for Deprescribing in Acute Care.

OBJECTIVES: Polypharmacy is common, costly, and harmful for hospitalized older adults. Scalable strategies to reduce the burden of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are needed. We sought to leverage medication reconciliation in hospitalized older adults by pairing with MedSafer, an electronic decision support tool for deprescribing. DESIGN: This was a nonrandomized controlled before-and-after study. SETTING: The study took place on four internal medicine clinical teaching units. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects were aged 65 years and older, had an expected prognosis of 3 or more months, and were taking five or more usual home medications. INTERVENTION: In the baseline phase, patients received usual care that was medication reconciliation. Patients in the intervention arm also had a "deprescribing opportunity report" generated by MedSafer and provided to their in-hospital treating team. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was ascertained at the time of hospital discharge and was the proportion of patients who had one or more PIMs deprescribed. RESULTS: A total of 1066 patients were enrolled, and deprescribing opportunities were present for 873 (82%; 418 during the control and 455 during the intervention phases, respectively). The proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed at discharge increased from 46.9% in the control period to 54.7% in the intervention period with an adjusted absolute risk difference of 8.3% (2.9%-13.9%). Not all classes of drugs in the intervention arm were associated with an increase in deprescribing, and new PIM starts were equally common in both arms of the study. CONCLUSION: Using an electronic decision support tool for deprescribing, we increased the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed at hospital discharge as compared with usual care. Although this type of intervention may help address medication overload in hospitalized patients, it also underscores the importance of powering future trials for a reduction in adverse drug events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02918058. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1843-1850, 2019.

What Should I Know About Medication Deprescribing?

This JAMA Internal Medicine Patient Page describes the process of slowly and carefully cutting down on unnecessary medications with the guidance of a health care professional.

EMPOWERing Hospitalized Older Adults to Deprescribe Sedative Hypnotics: A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVES: To distribute the EMPOWER patient education brochure and use hospitalization as an opportunity to reduce inappropriate sedatives. DESIGN: Participants were sequentially recruited until we achieved 30-day follow-up telephone and pharmacy records for 50 individuals. The proportion meeting the primary outcome was compared with that of a control cohort and with rates of cessation achieved in the community. SETTING: Fifty-two-bed medical clinical teaching unit in Montréal, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Inpatients aged 65 and older who were chronic, regular sedative users. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was short-term sustained cessation 30-days after discharge. As a secondary outcome, we compared self-reported sleep disturbance before and after the intervention. RESULTS: Sedatives were deprescribed in 32 of 50 (64%) participants who received the EMPOWER brochure, which was significantly higher than our historical rate of 21% (p<.001). Participants did not report significant worsening in their quality of sleep after sedative cessation. CONCLUSION: Hospitalized individuals are willing to deprescribe, and contact with the healthcare system provides the opportunity to initiate the process with educational brochures. This type of intervention requires few resources and is feasible and inexpensive.

Hand hygiene "hall monitors": Leveraging the Hawthorne effect.

Unfortunately, more than a decade after the World Health Organization's campaign launched, many centers still face challenges with low rates of hand hygiene compliance. Several electronic hand hygiene monitoring systems are available, and the cost of setup and maintenance varies by institution. At our institution, with extremely limited funds for complex interventions, we instead hired a pragmatic teenager in search of a summer job and trained her as a hand hygiene "hall monitor." We describe an effective, inexpensive intervention that improved our unit's hand hygiene performance while also providing youth employment.