[Polypharmacy and medication review in the context of prehabilitation]. / Polypharmazie und Medikamentencheck im Kontext der Prähabilitation.

Against the background of typical geriatric multimorbidity and with the particular vulnerability of geriatric patients, polypharmacy deserves special attention. In accordance with the guidelines, medication should not only be reviewed regularly, but also on an ad hoc basis and with each hospital stay-and also in the context of prehabilitation. Thus, not only substances that interfere with the currently planned intervention, anesthesia, or risk of bleeding should be considered, but any medication that increases common risks for geriatric patients. These include drugs that cause or increase a tendency to fall, induce delirium, or alter the comedication through potential drug-drug interactions. Measures to minimize the risk include the following: exact documentation of medications, structured and complete transfer of information, patient and family training about any side effects that may occur, a recall system for possible laboratory checks, and compliance with the instructions for taking the medication.

Polypharmacy and Deprescribing.

This JAMA Patient Page describes the problem of polypharmacy and its consequences, and how deprescribing can reduce polypharmacy.

[Pharmacotherapeutics for Older Adults].

Older adults are likely to develop adverse drug events owing to age-related changes in pharmacokinetics and polypharmacy. In terms of pharmacokinetics, the drug should be prescribed at a reduced dose, which should be reconsidered and reduced during long-term use. For polypharmacy, "List of drugs to be prescribed with special caution" should be referred and deprescription should be practiced in consideration of the priority of treatment. Because older adults often show reduced ability to manage their medication due to cognitive dysfunction, low visual acuity, and hearing loss, measures should be taken to maintain their adherence.

Development of a Metric to Detect and Decrease Low-Value Prescribing in Older Adults.

Importance: Metrics that detect low-value care in common forms of health care data, such as administrative claims or electronic health records, primarily focus on tests and procedures but not on medications, representing a major gap in the ability to systematically measure low-value prescribing. Objective: To develop a scalable and broadly applicable metric that contains a set of quality indicators (EVOLV-Rx) for use in health care data to detect and reduce low-value prescribing among older adults and that is informed by diverse stakeholders' perspectives. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study used an online modified-Delphi method to convene an expert panel of 15 physicians and pharmacists. This panel, comprising clinicians, health system leaders, and researchers, was tasked with rating and discussing candidate low-value prescribing practices that were derived from medication safety criteria; peer-reviewed literature; and qualitative studies of patient, caregiver, and physician perspectives. The RAND ExpertLens online platform was used to conduct the activities of the panel. The panelists were engaged for 3 rounds between January 1 and March 31, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Panelists used a 9-point Likert scale to rate and then discuss the scientific validity and clinical usefulness of the criteria to detect low-value prescribing practices. Candidate low-value prescribing practices were rated as follows: 1 to 3, indicating low validity or usefulness; 3.5 to 6, uncertain validity or usefulness; and 6.5 to 9, high validity or usefulness. Agreement among panelists and the degree of scientific validity and clinical usefulness were assessed using the RAND/UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) Appropriateness Method. Results: Of the 527 low-value prescribing recommendations identified, 27 discrete candidate low-value prescribing practices were considered for inclusion in EVOLV-Rx. After round 1, 18 candidate practices were rated by the panel as having high scientific validity and clinical usefulness (scores of ≥6.5). After round 2 panel deliberations, the criteria to detect 19 candidate practices were revised. After round 3, 18 candidate practices met the inclusion criteria, receiving final median scores of 6.5 or higher for both scientific validity and clinical usefulness. Of those practices that were not included in the final version of EVOLV-Rx, 3 received high scientific validity (scores ≥6.5) but uncertain clinical usefulness (scores <6.5) ratings, whereas 6 received uncertain scientific validity rating (scores <6.5). Conclusions and Relevance: This study culminated in the development of EVOLV-Rx and involved a panel of experts who identified the 18 most salient low-value prescribing practices in the care of older adults. Applying EVOLV-Rx may enhance the detection of low-value prescribing practices, reduce polypharmacy, and enable older adults to receive high-value care across the full spectrum of health services.

Association of Hyper-Polypharmacy With Clinical Outcomes in Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is associated with a poor prognosis in the elderly, however, information on the association of polypharmacy with cardiovascular outcomes in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction is sparse. This study sought to investigate the relationship between polypharmacy and adverse cardiovascular events in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. METHODS: Baseline total number of medications was determined in 1758 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction enrolled in the Americas regions of the TOPCAT trial (Treatment of Preserved Cardiac Function Heart Failure With an Aldosterone Antagonist), by 3 categories: nonpolypharmacy (<5 medications), polypharmacy (5-9), and hyper-polypharmacy (≥10). We examined the relationship of polypharmacy status with the primary outcome (cardiovascular death, HF hospitalization, or aborted cardiac arrest), hospitalizations for any reason, and serious adverse events. RESULTS: The proportion of patients taking 5 or more medications was 92.5% (inclusive of polypharmacy [38.7%] and hyper-polypharmacy [53.8%]). Over a 2.9-year median follow-up, compared with patients with polypharmacy, hyper-polypharmacy was associated with an increased risk for the primary outcome, hospitalization for any reason and any serious adverse events in the univariable analysis, but not significantly associated with mortality. After multivariable adjustment for demographic and comorbidities, hyper-polypharmacy remained significantly associated with an increased risk for hospitalization for any reason (hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 1.05-1.41]; P=0.009) and any serious adverse events (hazard ratio, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.07-1.42]; P=0.005), whereas the primary outcome was no longer statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Hyper-polypharmacy was common and associated with an elevated risk of hospitalization for any reason and any serious adverse events in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. There were no significant associations between polypharmacy status and mortality.

The role of senolytics in osteoporosis and other skeletal pathologies.

The skeletal system undergoes irreversible structural deterioration with aging, leading to increased fracture risk and detrimental changes in mobility, posture, and gait. This state of low bone mass and microarchitectural changes, diagnosed as osteoporosis, affects millions of individuals worldwide and has high clinical and economic burdens. Recently, pre-clinical studies have linked the onset of age-related bone loss with an accumulation of senescent cells in the bone microenvironment. These senescent cells appear to be causal to age-related bone loss, as targeted clearance of these cells leads to improved bone mass and microarchitecture in old mice. Additionally, other pathologies leading to bone loss that result from DNA damage, such as cancer treatments, have shown improvements after clearance of senescent cells. The development of new therapies that clear senescent cells, termed "senolytics", is currently underway and may allow for the modulation of bone loss that results from states of high senescent cell burden, such as aging.

Antipsychotic Polypharmacy Is Associated With Adverse Drug Events in Psychiatric Inpatients: The Japan Adverse Drug Events Study.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic (AP) polypharmacy (APP), the coprescription of more than 1 AP, is frequently practiced in psychiatric inpatients and is considered to be a risk factor for adverse drug events (ADEs). However, the association between APP and ADEs among psychiatric inpatients has not been well investigated. METHODS: The Japan Adverse Drug Events (JADE) study was a series of cohort studies conducted in several clinical settings. In particular, the JADE study for psychiatric inpatients was a retrospective cohort study of 448 psychiatric inpatients with a cumulative 22,733 patient-days. We investigated the relationship between APP, defined as a concurrent prescription of 2 or more APs and ADEs. We also assessed the relationship between potential risk factors for ADEs due to APs. RESULTS: Among the 448 patients included in this study, 106 patients (24%) had APP and the remaining 342 patients were prescribed 1 AP or none. Risperidone was the most frequent drug (25%, 109/442 AP prescriptions) used, and levomepromazine was most frequently prescribed as a concurrent medication with other APs (91%, 29/32). The median number of ADEs among the patients with APP was significantly higher than in those without APP (P = 0.001). Antipsychotic polypharmacy was a risk factor for the occurrence of first (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% confidence interval, 1.15-2.04) and second (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.99; 95% confidence interval, 1.40-2.79) ADEs. CONCLUSIONS: Antipsychotic polypharmacy was a risk factor for the occurrence of single and multiple ADEs. Antipsychotic polypharmacy should be conservatively and minimally practiced.

Deprescribing medications that may increase the risk of hepatic encephalopathy: A qualitative study of patients with cirrhosis and their doctors.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Multiple medications are associated with an increased risk of incident hepatic encephalopathy. Despite this known risk, medications such as opioids, benzodiazepines, gabapentin/pregabalin, and/or proton pump inhibitors are increasingly prescribed to persons with cirrhosis. Deprescribing is a promising intervention to reduce the burden of hepatic encephalopathy. Given that deprescribing has not been trialed in cirrhosis, we evaluated the barriers and facilitators to safe and successful deprescribing in cirrhosis. METHODS: We conducted, transcribed, and analyzed semi-structured interviews using qualitative methodology with 22 subjects. This included eight patients with cirrhosis and recent use of opiates, benzodiazepines, gabapentin/Lyrica, and/or proton pump inhibitors as well as 14 providers (primary care, transplant surgery, transplant hepatology). Interviews explored opinions, behaviors, and understanding surrounding the risks and benefits of deprescribing. RESULTS: Major provider-specific barriers included deferred responsibility of the deprescribing process, knowledge gaps regarding the risk of hepatic encephalopathy associated with medications (e.g., proton pump inhibitors) as well as the safe method of deprescription (i.e., benzodiazepines), and time constraints. Patient-specific barriers included knowledge gaps regarding the cirrhosis-specific risks of their medications and anxiety about the recurrence of symptoms after medication discontinuation. Patients uniformly reported trust in their provider's opinions on risks and wished for more comprehensive education during or after visits. Providers uniformly reported support for deprescription resources including pharmacist or nurse outreach. CONCLUSION: Given knowledge of medication risks related to hepatic encephalopathy in patients with cirrhosis, deprescribing is universally seen as important. Knowledge gaps, inaction, and uncertainty regarding feasible alternatives prevent meaningful implementation of deprescription. Trials of protocolized pharmacy-based deprescribing outreach and patient-facing education on risks are warranted.