What do clinical practice guidelines say about deprescribing? A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Deprescribing (medication dose reduction or cessation) is an integral component of appropriate prescribing. The extent to which deprescribing recommendations are included in clinical practice guidelines is unclear. This scoping review aimed to identify guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations, qualitatively explore the content and format of deprescribing recommendations and estimate the proportion of guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations. METHODS: Bibliographic databases and Google were searched for guidelines published in English from January 2012 to November 2022. Guideline registries were searched from January 2017 to February 2023. Two reviewers independently screened records from databases and Google for guidelines containing one or more deprescribing recommendations. A 10% sample of the guideline registries was screened to identify eligible guidelines and estimate the proportion of guidelines containing a deprescribing recommendation. Guideline and recommendation characteristics were extracted and language features of deprescribing recommendations including content, form, complexity and readability were examined using a conventional content analysis and the SHeLL Health Literacy Editor tool. RESULTS: 80 guidelines containing 316 deprescribing recommendations were included. Deprescribing recommendations had substantial variability in their format and terminology. Most guidelines contained recommendations regarding for who (75%, n=60), what (99%, n=89) and when or why (91%, n=73) to deprescribe, however, fewer guidelines (58%, n=46) contained detailed guidance on how to deprescribe. Approximately 29% of guidelines identified from the registries sample (n=14/49) contained one or more deprescribing recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Deprescribing recommendations are increasingly being incorporated into guidelines, however, many guidelines do not contain clear and actionable recommendations on how to deprescribe which may limit effective implementation in clinical practice. A co-designed template or best practice guide, containing information on aspects of deprescribing recommendations that are essential or preferred by end-users should be developed and employed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf.io/fbex4.

The Impact of Deprescribing Interventions on the Drug Burden Index and Other Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: The Drug Burden Index (DBI) calculates a person's exposure to anticholinergic and sedative medications. We aimed to review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of deprescribing interventions that reported the DBI as an outcome, their characteristics, effectiveness in reducing the DBI, and impact on other outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: RCTs of deprescribing interventions where the DBI was measured as a primary or secondary outcome in humans within any setting were included. METHODS: Electronic databases, citation indexes, and gray literature were searched from April 1, 2007, to September 1, 2023. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: Of 1721 records identified, 9 met the inclusion criteria. Six interventions were delivered by pharmacists and 3 were delivered by pharmacists/nurses or pharmacists/geriatricians. All interventions required at least intermediate-level skills and involved multiple components and target groups. Studies were conducted in the community (n = 5), nursing homes (n = 2), and hospitals (n = 2). The mean or median age was ≥75 years and most participants were women in all studies. Most (n = 6) studies were underpowered. The follow-up period ranged from 3 to 12 months. Three studies reported a lower DBI in the intervention group compared with control: 1 pharmacist independent prescriber-delivered in nursing homes (adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.92), 1 pharmacist/nurse practitioner-delivered in hospital (adjusted mean difference (MD), -0.28; 95% CI, -0.51 to -0.04), and 1 geriatrician/pharmacist-delivered in hospital (MD, -0.28; 95% CI, -0.52 to -0.04). Meta-analysis showed no difference in the change in DBI between control and intervention groups in the community including nursing homes (MD, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.01) or hospital setting (MD, -0.19; 95% CI, -0.45 to 0.06). Interventions had inconsistent effects on cognition and no effect on other reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: RCTs of deprescribing interventions had no significant impact on reducing DBI or improving outcomes. Further suitably powered studies are required.

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.

The Carer Assessment of MedicaTion Management GuidanCe for People With Dementia at Hospital Discharge (CATCH) Tool: Exploratory Factor Analysis.

PURPOSE: The Carer Assessment of medicaTion management guidanCe for people with dementia at Hospital discharge (CATCH) tool was developed to examine the carer's experiences of medication management guidance delivery at discharge. This study explored its factor structure, characterized carers' experiences at discharge, and identified predictors of carer preparedness to manage medications at discharge. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of carers across Australia was distributed. Survey responses were analyzed descriptively, and exploratory factor and regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 185 survey responses were completed. Exploratory factor analysis revealed 2 factors in the CATCH tool: (1) shared and supported decision-making in medication management (16 items loading 0.47 to 0.93); 2) provision of medication management guidance that is easy to understand (4 items loading (0.48 to 0.82). Internal consistency was acceptable (Cronbach alpha >0.8). Almost 18% of participants stated that they were not included in decisions about medications for people with dementia. The carer reported that the measure of how guidance is provided was positively related to their confidence in the management of medications postdischarge and satisfaction ( P < 0.05 for both). CONCLUSIONS: The CATCH tool can give the patient and carer an opportunity to provide feedback on key elements of medication management guidance delivered at discharge.

Strategies for Identifying Patients for Deprescribing of Blood Pressure Medications in Routine Practice: An Evidence Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarise the evidence regarding which patients might benefit from deprescribing antihypertensive medications. RECENT FINDINGS: Older patients with frailty, multi-morbidity and subsequent polypharmacy are at higher risk of adverse events from antihypertensive treatment, and therefore may benefit from antihypertensive deprescribing. It is possible to examine an individual's risk of these adverse events, and use this to identify those people where the benefits of treatment may be outweighed by the harms. While such patients might be considered for deprescribing, the long-term effects of this treatment strategy remain unclear. Evidence now exists to support identification of those who are at risk of adverse events from antihypertensive treatment. These patients could be targeted for deprescribing interventions, although the long-term benefits and harms of this approach are unclear. PERSPECTIVES: Randomised controlled trials are still needed to examine the long-term effects of deprescribing in high-risk patients with frailty and multi-morbidity.

Survey content validation evaluating the dissemination and implementation of deprescribing guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Policies, protocols and processes within organisations can facilitate or hinder guideline adoption. There is limited knowledge on the strategies used by organisations to disseminate and implement evidence-based deprescribing guidelines or their impact. METHODS: We aimed to develop an online survey targeting key organisations involved in deprescribing guideline endorsement, dissemination, modification or translation internationally. Survey questions were drafted, mirroring the six components of the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Content validation was undertaken and established by a panel of clinicians, researchers and implementation experts. RESULTS: A 52-item survey underwent two rounds of content validation. The minimum threshold (I-CVI > 0.78) for relevance and importance was met for 39 items (75%) in the first round and 44 of 48 items (92%) in the second round. The expert panel concluded that the adoption, implementation and effectiveness survey sections were largely relevant and important to this topic, whereas the reach and maintenance sections were harder to understand and may be less pertinent to the research question. CONCLUSIONS: A 44-item survey investigating dissemination and implementation strategies for deprescribing guidelines has been developed and its content validated. Widespread survey distribution may identify effective strategies and inform dissemination and implementation planning for newly developed guidelines.

Understanding general practitioners' prescribing choices to patients with chronic low back pain: a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Although NSAIDs are recommended as a first line analgesic treatment, opioids are very commonly prescribed to patients with low back pain (LBP) despite risks of harms. AIM: This study aimed to determine factors contributing to general practitioners' (GPs') prescribing choices to patients with chronic LBP in a primary care setting. METHOD: This discrete choice experiment (DCE) presented 210 GPs with hypothetical scenarios of a patient with chronic LBP. Participants chose their preferred treatment for each choice set, either the opioid, NSAID or neither. The scenarios varied by two patient attributes; non-specific LBP or LBP with referred leg pain (sciatica) and number of comorbidities. The three treatment attributes also varied, being: the type of opioid or NSAID, degree of pain reduction and number of adverse events. The significance of each attribute in influencing clinical decisions was the primary outcome and the degree to which GPs preferred the alternative based on the number of adverse events or the amount of pain reduction was the secondary outcome. RESULTS: Overall, GPs preferred NSAIDs (45.2%, 95% CI 38.7-51.7%) over opioids (28.8%, 95% CI 23.0-34.7%), however there was no difference between the type of NSAID or opioid preferred. Additionally, the attributes of pain reduction and adverse events did not influence a GP's choice between NSAIDs or opioids for patients with chronic LBP. CONCLUSION: GPs prefer prescribing NSAIDs over opioids for a patient with chronic low back pain regardless of patient factors of comorbidities or the presence of leg pain (i.e. sciatica).

Context matters: using an Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework to develop and encourage uptake of opioid deprescribing guideline recommendations at the point-of-care.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the development and use of an Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework when formulating recommendations for the Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline for Deprescribing Opioid Analgesics. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Evidence was derived from an overview of systematic reviews and qualitative studies conducted with healthcare professionals and people who take opioids for pain. A multidisciplinary guideline development group conducted extensive EtD framework review and iterative refinement to ensure that guideline recommendations captured contextual factors relevant to the guideline target setting and audience. RESULTS: The guideline development group considered and accounted for the complexities of opioid deprescribing at the individual and health system level, shaping recommendations and practice points to facilitate point-of-care use. Stakeholders exhibited diverse preferences, beliefs, and values. This variability, low certainty of evidence, and system-level policies and funding models impacted the strength of the generated recommendations, resulting in the formulation of four 'conditional' recommendations. CONCLUSION: The context within which evidence-based recommendations are considered, as well as the political and health system environment, can contribute to the success of recommendation implementation. Use of an EtD framework allowed for the development of implementable recommendations relevant at the point-of-care through consideration of limitations of the evidence and relevant contextual factors.

Association of the Drug Burden Index (DBI) exposure with outcomes: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The Drug Burden Index (DBI) measures an individual's total exposure to anticholinergic and sedative medications. This systematic review aimed to investigate the association of the DBI with clinical and prescribing outcomes in observational pharmaco-epidemiological studies, and the effect of DBI exposure on functional outcomes in pre-clinical models. METHODS: A systematic search of nine electronic databases, citation indexes and gray literature was performed (April 1, 2007-December 31, 2022). Studies that reported primary data on the association of the DBI with clinical or prescribing outcomes conducted in any setting in humans aged ≥18 years or animals were included. Quality assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools and the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Of 2382 studies screened, 70 met the inclusion criteria (65 in humans, five in animals). In humans, outcomes reported included function (n = 56), cognition (n = 20), falls (n = 14), frailty (n = 7), mortality (n = 9), quality of life (n = 8), hospitalization (n = 7), length of stay (n = 5), readmission (n = 1), other clinical outcomes (n = 15) and prescribing outcomes (n = 2). A higher DBI was significantly associated with increased falls (11/14, 71%), poorer function (31/56, 55%), and cognition (11/20, 55%) related outcomes. Narrative synthesis was used due to significant heterogeneity in the study population, setting, study type, definition of DBI, and outcome measures. Results could not be pooled due to heterogeneity. In animals, outcomes reported included function (n = 18), frailty (n = 2), and mortality (n = 1). In pre-clinical studies, a higher DBI caused poorer function and frailty. CONCLUSIONS: A higher DBI may be associated with an increased risk of falls and decreased function and cognition. Higher DBI was inconsistently associated with increased mortality, length of stay, frailty, hospitalization or reduced quality of life. Human observational findings with respect to functional outcomes are supported by preclinical interventional studies. The DBI may be used as a tool to identify older adults at higher risk of harm.

Barriers and facilitators to reducing paracetamol use in low back pain: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Paracetamol is widely used for low back pain (LBP), but research questions its efficacy and safety. Patient education booklets have been explored for promoting deprescribing, but barriers and facilitators specific to LBP deprescribing remain unexamined. OBJECTIVE: To identify contextual factors facilitating and obstructing successful deprescribing of paracetamol for LBP after receiving an educational booklet. STUDY DESIGN: This study is part of an uncontrolled cohort feasibility study (CEASE NOW) in the community, recruiting from Musculoskeletal Australia and painaustralia. PATIENT SAMPLE: Twenty-four participants with acute, sub-acute, or chronic LBP, self-reporting paracetamol consumption, were included. METHODS: Thematic content analysis was used to analyze qualitative data on barriers and facilitators. Data were categorized by deprescribing outcomes: i) successful deprescribing, ii) attempted but failed, or iii) no attempt. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted within one week after each participant completed the one-month follow-up. RESULTS: Successful deprescribing was facilitated by supportive healthcare professionals, willingness, high self-efficacy, fear of future illness, and diverse strategies for deprescribing plans. Barriers included unsupportive healthcare professionals and fear of flare-ups. Participants not attempting deprescribing believed it unnecessary, perceived it as effortful, unquestioningly trusted healthcare professionals, and lacked risk awareness. CONCLUSIONS: Support from healthcare professionals, patient willingness, perceived necessity, risk awareness, effort, and varied strategies influence deprescribing outcomes for LBP patients using paracetamol. Addressing these factors is crucial when designing interventions to promote safe and effective deprescribing in LBP management.

Preferences for deprescribing antihypertensive medications amongst clinicians, carers and people living with dementia: a discrete choice experiment.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of hypertension in people with dementia may involve deprescribing antihypertensives. Understanding differing treatment priorities is important to enable patient-centred care. This study explored preferences for antihypertensive deprescribing amongst people living with dementia, carers and clinicians. METHODS: Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) are a stated preference survey method, underpinned by economic theory. A DCE was conducted, and respondents completed 12 labelled choice-questions, each presenting a status quo (continuing antihypertensives) and antihypertensive deprescribing option. The questions included six attributes, including pill burden, and event risks for stroke, myocardial infarction, increased blood pressure, cognitive decline, falls. RESULTS: Overall, 112 respondents (33 carers, 19 people living with dementia, and 60 clinicians) completed the survey. For people with dementia, lower pill burden increased preferences for deprescribing (odds ratio (OR) 1.95, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 1.08-3.52). Increased stroke risk (for each additional person out of 100 having a stroke) decreased the likelihood of deprescribing for geriatricians (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.55-0.92) and non-geriatrician clinicians (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.45-0.86), and carers (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.58-0.88). Increased myocardial infarction risk decreased preferences for deprescribing for non-geriatricians (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.95) and carers (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.73-0.98). Avoiding cognitive decline increased preferences for deprescribing for geriatricians (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03-1.33) and carers (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09-1.48). Avoiding falls increased preferences for deprescribing for clinicians (geriatricians (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.11-1.29); non-geriatricians (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.07-1.25)). Other attributes did not significantly influence respondent preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Antihypertensive deprescribing preferences differ amongst people with dementia, carers and clinicians. The study emphasises the importance of shared decision-making within the deprescribing process.

Frailty knowledge, training and barriers to frailty management: A national cross-sectional survey of health professionals in Australia.

OBJECTIVE(S): To understand Australian health professionals' perceptions of their knowledge and previous training about frailty, as well as barriers to frailty assessment and management in their practice. METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was developed and distributed to health professionals (medical, nursing and allied health) engaged in clinical practice in Australia through convenience and snowball sampling techniques from March to May 2022. The survey consisted of five sections: frailty training and knowledge; confidence in recognising and managing adults with frailty; the importance and relevance of frailty; barriers to assessing and managing frailty in practice; and interest in further frailty training. Responses were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The survey was taken by 736 health professionals. Less than half of respondents (44%, 321/733) reported receiving any training on frailty, with 14% (105/733) receiving training specifically focussed on frailty. Most respondents (78%, 556/712) reported 'good' or 'fair' understanding of frailty. The majority (64%, 448/694) reported being 'fairly' or 'somewhat' confident with identifying frailty. Almost all respondents (>90%) recognised frailty as having an important impact on outcomes and believed that there are beneficial interventions for frailty. Commonly reported barriers to frailty assessment in practice included 'lack of defined protocol for managing frailty' and 'lack of consensus about which frailty assessment tool to use'. Most respondents (88%, 521/595) were interested in receiving further education on frailty, with a high preference for online training. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest frailty is important to health professionals in Australia, and there is a need for and interest in further frailty education.

Transforming blood pressure control in primary care through a novel remote decision support strategy based on wearable blood pressure monitoring: The NEXTGEN-BP randomized trial protocol.

BACKGROUND: Despite high blood pressure being the leading preventable risk factor for death, only 1 in 3 patients achieve target blood pressure control. Key contributors to this problem are clinical inertia and uncertainties in relying on clinic blood pressure measurements to make treatment decisions. METHODS: The NEXTGEN-BP open-label, multicenter, randomized controlled trial will investigate the efficacy, safety, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of a wearable blood pressure monitor-based care strategy for the treatment of hypertension, compared to usual care, in lowering clinic blood pressure over 12 months. NEXTGEN-BP will enroll 600 adults with high blood pressure, treated with 0 to 2 antihypertensive medications. Participants attending primary care practices in Australia will be randomized 1:1 to the intervention of a wearable-based remote care strategy or to usual care. Participants in the intervention arm will undergo continuous blood pressure monitoring using a wrist-wearable cuffless device (Aktiia, Switzerland) and participate in 2 telehealth consultations with their primary care practitioner (general practitioner [GP]) at months 1 and 2. Antihypertensive medication will be up-titrated by the primary care practitioner at the time of telehealth consults should the percentage of daytime blood pressure at target over the past week be <90%, if clinically tolerated. Participants in the usual care arm will have primary care consultations according to usual practice. The primary outcome is the difference between intervention and control in change in clinic systolic blood pressure from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes will be assessed at month 3 and month 12, and include acceptability to patients and practitioners, cost-effectiveness, safety, medication adherence and patient engagement. CONCLUSIONS: NEXTGEN-BP will provide evidence for the effectiveness and safety of a new paradigm of wearable cuffless monitoring in the management of high blood pressure in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12622001583730.

Clinical practice guideline for deprescribing opioid analgesics: summary of recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Long term opioids are commonly prescribed to manage pain. Dose reduction or discontinuation (deprescribing) can be challenging, even when the potential harms of continuation outweigh the perceived benefits. The Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for deprescribing opioid analgesics was developed using robust guideline development processes and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and contains deprescribing recommendations for adults prescribed opioids for pain. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: Eleven recommendations provide advice about when, how and for whom opioid deprescribing should be considered, while noting the need to consider each person's goals, values and preferences. The recommendations aim to achieve: implementation of a deprescribing plan at the point of opioid initiation; initiation of opioid deprescribing for persons with chronic non-cancer or chronic cancer-survivor pain if there is a lack of overall and clinically meaningful improvement in function, quality of life or pain, a lack of progress towards meeting agreed therapeutic goals, or the person is experiencing serious or intolerable opioid-related adverse effects; gradual and individualised deprescribing, with regular monitoring and review; consideration of opioid deprescribing for individuals at high risk of opioid-related harms; avoidance of opioid deprescribing for persons nearing the end of life unless clinically indicated; avoidance of opioid deprescribing for persons with a severe opioid use disorder, with the initiation of evidence-based care, such as medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder; and use of evidence-based co-interventions to facilitate deprescribing, including interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary or multimodal care. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THESE GUIDELINES: To our knowledge, these are the first evidence-based guidelines for opioid deprescribing. The recommendations intend to facilitate safe and effective deprescribing to improve the quality of care for persons taking opioids for pain.

Deprescribing interventions for gabapentinoids in adults: A scoping review.

The emerging issue of rising gabapentinoid misuse is being recognized alongside the lack of current evidence supporting the safe and effective deprescribing of gabapentinoids. This scoping review aimed to assess the extent and nature of gabapentinoid deprescribing interventions in adults, either in reducing dosages, or prescribing of, gabapentinoids. Electronic databases were searched on 23 February 2022 without restrictions. Eligible studies included randomized, non-randomized and observational studies that assessed an intervention aimed at reducing/ceasing the prescription/use of a gabapentinoid in adults for any indication in a clinical setting. The research outcomes investigated the type of intervention, prescribing rates, cessations, patient outcomes and adverse events. Extracted outcome data were categorized as either short (≤3 months), intermediate (>3 but <12 months) or long (≥12 months) term. A narrative synthesis was conducted. The four included studies were conducted in primary and acute care settings. Interventions were of dose-reducing protocols, education and/or pharmacological-based approaches. In the randomized trials, gabapentinoid use could be ceased in at least one third of participants. In the two observational trials, gabapentinoid prescribing rates decreased by 9%. Serious adverse events and adverse events specifically related to gabapentinoids were reported in one trial. No study included patient-focused psychological interventions in the deprescribing process, nor provided any long-term follow-up. This review highlights the lack of existing evidence in this area. Due to limited available data, our review was unable to make any firm judgements on the most effective gabapentinoid deprescribing interventions in adults, highlighting the need for more research in this area.

Impact of a Comprehensive Intervention Bundle Including the Drug Burden Index on Deprescribing Anticholinergic and Sedative Drugs in Older Acute Inpatients: A Non-randomised Controlled Before-and-After Pilot Study.

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of the Drug Burden Index (DBI) as a risk assessment tool in clinical practice may facilitate deprescribing. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate how a comprehensive intervention bundle using the DBI impacts (i) the proportion of older inpatients with at least one DBI-contributing medication stopped or dose reduced on discharge, compared with admission; and (ii) the changes in deprescribing of different DBI-contributing medication classes during hospitalisation. METHODS: This before-and-after study was conducted in an Australian metropolitan tertiary referral hospital. Patients aged ≥ 75 years admitted to the acute aged care service for ≥ 48 h from December 2020 to October 2021 and prescribed DBI-contributing medication were included. During the control period, usual care was provided. During the intervention, access to the intervention bundle was added, including a clinician interface displaying DBI score in the electronic medical record. In a subsequent 'stewardship' period, a stewardship pharmacist used the bundle to provide clinicians with patient-specific recommendations on deprescribing of DBI-contributing medications. RESULTS: Overall, 457 hospitalisations were included. The proportion of patients with at least one DBI-contributing medication stopped/reduced on discharge increased from 29.9% (control period) to 37.5% [intervention; adjusted risk difference (aRD) 6.5%, 95% confidence intervals (CI) -3.2 to 17.5%] and 43.1% (stewardship; aRD 12.1%, 95% CI 1.0-24.0%). The proportion of opioid prescriptions stopped/reduced rose from 17.9% during control to 45.7% during stewardship (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Integrating a comprehensive intervention bundle and accompanying stewardship program is a promising strategy to facilitate deprescribing of sedative and anticholinergic medications in older inpatients.

Towards Optimizing Hospitalized Older adults' MEdications (TO HOME): Multi-centre study of medication use and outcomes in routine care.

AIMS: Comprehensively investigate prescribing in usual care of hospitalized older people with respect to polypharmacy; potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) according to Beers criteria; and cumulative anticholinergic and sedative medication exposure calculated with Drug Burden Index (DBI). Specifically, to quantify exposure to these measures on admission, changes between admission and discharge, associations with adverse outcomes and medication costs. METHODS: Established new retrospective inpatient cohort of 2000 adults aged ≥75 years, consecutively admitted to 6 hospitals in Sydney, Australia, with detailed information on medications, clinical characteristics and outcomes. Conducted cross-sectional analyses of index admission data from cohort. RESULTS: Cohort had mean (standard deviation) age 86.0 (5.8) years, 59% female, 21% from residential aged care. On admission, prevalence of polypharmacy was 77%, PIMs 34% and DBI > 0 in 53%. From admission to discharge, mean difference (95% confidence interval) in total number of medications increased 1.05 (0.92, 1.18); while prevalence of exposure to PIMs (-3.8% [-5.4, -2.1]) and mean DBI score (-0.02 [-0.04, -0.01]) decreased. PIMs and DBI score were associated with increased risks (adjusted odds ratio [95% confidence interval]) of falls (PIMs 1.63 [1.28, 2.08]; DBI score 1.21[1.00, 1.46]) and delirium (PIMs 1.76 [1.38, 1.46]; DBI score 1.42 [1.19, 1.71]). Each measure was associated with increased risk of adverse drug reactions (polypharmacy 1.42 [1.19, 1.71]; PIMs 1.87 [1.40, 2.49]; DBI score 1.90 [1.55, 2.15]). Cost (AU$/patient/hospital day) of medications contributing to PIMs and DBI was low ($0.29 and $0.88). CONCLUSION: In this large cohort of older inpatients, usual hospital care results in an increase in number of medications and small reductions in PIMs and DBI, with variable associations with adverse outcomes.

Patient-targeted interventions for opioid deprescribing: An overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing (reduction or cessation) of prescribed opioids can be challenging for both patients and healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize and evaluate evidence from systematic reviews examining the effectiveness and outcomes of patient-targeted opioid deprescribing interventions for all types of pain. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in five databases with results screened against predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Primary outcomes were (i) reduction in opioid dose, reported as change in oral Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (oMEDD) and (ii) success of opioid deprescribing, reported as the proportion of the sample for which opioid use declined. Secondary outcomes included pain severity, physical function, quality of life and adverse events. The certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. FINDINGS: Twelve reviews were eligible for inclusion. Interventions were heterogeneous in nature and included pharmacological (n = 4), physical (n = 3), procedural (n = 3), psychological or behavioural (n = 3) and mixed (n = 5) interventions. Multidisciplinary care programmes appeared to be the most effective intervention for opioid deprescribing; however, the certainty of evidence was low, with significant variability in opioid reduction across interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is too uncertain to draw firm conclusions about specific populations who may derive the greatest benefit from opioid deprescribing, warranting further investigation.

Availability and evaluation of medication management resources for carers of people with dementia: a scoping review with an environmental scan.

INTRODUCTION: There is a need for resources to guide informal carers in medication management for people with dementia. Availability of resources on medication management guidance has yet to be explored. AREAS COVERED: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO was performed in May 2022 to identify and evaluate resources for carers of people with dementia that provide guidance in medication management. Google and known repositories were also searched. Readability of text-based resources was examined using the Flesch-Kincaid reading level, the Flesch reading ease and the Gunning-Fog index. Resources were further evaluated using the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT or PEMAT-A/V). EXPERT OPINION: Fifteen resources were identified, which largely focused on medication administration with limited discussion of shared decision-making. Current resources do not appear to have included people living with dementia or their carers in their development and did not address high-risk care settings. Codesign of resources with carers and people with dementia would ensure that resources are comprehensive and target their needs. Future research should therefore focus on development of readily available and understandable resources that provide medication management guidance for carers across different health settings, to comprehensively address the multi-faceted nature of dementia.