Experience of hospital-initiated medication changes in older people with multimorbidity: a multicentre mixed-methods study embedded in the OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people (OPERAM) trial.

BACKGROUND: A patient-centred approach to medicines optimisation is considered essential. The OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people (OPERAM) trial evaluated the effectiveness of medication review with shared decision-making (SDM) in older people with multimorbidity. Beyond evaluating the clinical effectiveness, exploring the patient experience facilitates a better understanding of contextual factors and mechanisms affecting medication review effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To explore experiences of hospital-initiated medication changes in older people with multimorbidity. METHODS: We conducted a multicentre mixed-methods study, embedded in the OPERAM trial, combining semi-structured interviews and the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) with a purposive sample of 48 patients (70-94 years) from four European countries. Interviews were analysed using the Framework approach. Trial implementation data on SDM were collected and the 9-item SDM questionnaire was conducted with 17 clinicians. RESULTS: Patients generally displayed positive attitudes towards medication review, yet emphasised the importance of long-term, trusting relationships such as with their general practitioners for medication review. Many patients reported a lack of information and communication about medication changes and predominantly experienced paternalistic decision-making. Patients' beliefs that 'doctors know best', 'blind trust', having limited opportunities for questions, use of jargon terms by clinicians, 'feeling too ill', dismissive clinicians, etc highlight the powerlessness some patients felt during hospitalisation, all representing barriers to SDM. Conversely, involvement of companions, health literacy, empathetic and trusting patient-doctor relationships, facilitated SDM. Paradoxical to patients' experiential accounts, clinicians reported high levels of SDM. The BMQ showed that most patients had high necessity and low concern beliefs about medicines. Beliefs about medicines, experiencing benefits or harms from medication changes, illness perception, trust and balancing advice between different healthcare professionals all affected acceptance of medication changes. CONCLUSION: To meet patients' needs, future medicines optimisation interventions should enhance information exchange, better prepare patients and clinicians for partnership in care and foster collaborative medication reviews across care settings.

Performance of a trigger tool for detecting drug-related hospital admissions in older people: analysis from the OPERAM trial.

BACKGROUND: identifying drug-related hospital admissions (DRAs) in older people is difficult. A standardised chart review procedure has recently been developed. It includes an adjudication team (physician and pharmacist) screening using 26 triggers and then performing causality assessment to determine whether an adverse drug event (ADE) occurred (secondary to an adverse drug reaction, overuse, misuse or underuse) and whether the ADE contributed to hospital admission (DRA). OBJECTIVE: to assess the performance of those triggers in detecting DRA. DESIGN: retrospective study using data from the OPERAM (OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people) trial. SETTINGS: four European medical centres. SUBJECTS: multimorbid (≥ 3 chronic medical conditions) older (≥ 70 years) inpatients with polypharmacy (≥ 5 chronic medications) were enrolled in the OPERAM trial (N = 2,008) and followed for 12 months. We included patients with ≥1 adjudicated hospitalisation during the follow-up. METHODS: the positive predictive value (PPV; number of DRAs identified by trigger/number of triggers) was calculated for each trigger and for the tool as a whole. RESULTS: of 1,235 hospitalisations adjudicated for 832 patients, 716 (58%) had at least one trigger; an ADE was identified in 673 (54%) and 518 (42%) were adjudicated as DRAs. The overall PPV of the trigger tool for detecting DRAs was 0.66 [0.62-0.69]. CONCLUSIONS: this tool performs well for identifying DRAs in older people. Based on our results, a revised version of the tool was proposed but will require external validation before it can be incorporated into research and clinical practice.

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

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

An International Consensus List of Potentially Clinically Significant Drug-Drug Interactions in Older People.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to establish an explicit list of potentially clinically significant drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in people aged ≥65 years. DESIGN: A preliminary list of potentially clinically significant DDIs was compiled, based on 154 DDIs identified from literature review. Subsequently, a 2-round online Delphi survey was undertaken with a multidisciplinary expert panel. A consensus meeting and a final round were conducted to validate the final DDI list and the scope of information provided. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty nine experts, including geriatricians and clinical pharmacists from 8 European countries. MEASURES: For each DDI, in the first 2 rounds, experts were asked to score the severity of potential harm on a 5-point Likert-type scale. DDIs were directly included on the final list if the median score was 4 (major) or 5 (catastrophic). DDIs with a median score of 3 (moderate) were discussed at a consensus meeting and included if ≥75% of participants voted for inclusion in the final round. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved on 66 potentially clinically significant DDIs (28 had a median score of 4/5 and 48 of 3 in the Delphi survey). Most concerned cardiovascular, antithrombotic, and central nervous system drugs. The final list includes information on the mechanism of interaction, harm, and management. Treatment modification is recommended for three-quarters of DDIs. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: We validated a list of potentially clinically significant DDIs in older people, which can be used in clinical practice and education to support identification and management of DDIs or to assess prevalence in epidemiologic and intervention studies.

Medication review and reconciliation in older adults.

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

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

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

Identification of behaviour change techniques in deprescribing interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Deprescribing interventions safely and effectively optimize medication use in older people. However, questions remain about which components of interventions are key to effectively reduce inappropriate medication use. This systematic review examines the behaviour change techniques (BCTs) of deprescribing interventions and summarizes intervention effectiveness on medication use and inappropriate prescribing. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Academic Search Complete and grey literature were searched for relevant literature. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if they reported on interventions in people aged ≥65 years. The BCT taxonomy was used to identify BCTs frequently observed in deprescribing interventions. Effectiveness of interventions on inappropriate medication use was summarized in meta-analyses. Medication appropriateness was assessed in accordance with STOPP criteria, Beers' criteria and national or local guidelines. Between-study heterogeneity was evaluated by I-squared and Chi-squared statistics. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration Tool for randomized controlled studies. RESULTS: Of the 1561 records identified, 25 studies were included in the review. Deprescribing interventions were effective in reducing number of drugs and inappropriate prescribing, but a large heterogeneity in effects was observed. BCT clusters including goals and planning; social support; shaping knowledge; natural consequences; comparison of behaviour; comparison of outcomes; regulation; antecedents; and identity had a positive effect on the effectiveness of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: In general, deprescribing interventions effectively reduce medication use and inappropriate prescribing in older people. Successful deprescribing is facilitated by the combination of BCTs involving a range of intervention components.

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

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

International core outcome set for clinical trials of medication review in multi-morbid older patients with polypharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Comparisons of clinical trial findings in systematic reviews can be hindered by the heterogeneity of the outcomes reported. Moreover, the outcomes that matter most to patients might be underreported. A core outcome set can address these issues, as it defines a minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in all clinical trials in a particular area of research. The objective in this study was to develop a core outcome set for clinical trials of medication review in multi-morbid older patients with polypharmacy. METHODS: Firstly, eligible outcomes were identified through a systematic review of trials of medication review in older patients (≥65 years) and interviews with 15 older patients. Secondly, an international three-round Delphi survey in four countries involving patients, healthcare professionals, and experts was conducted to validate outcomes to be included in the core outcome set. Consensus meetings were conducted to validate the results. RESULTS: Of the 164 participants invited to take part in the Delphi survey, 150 completed Round 1, including 55 patients or family caregivers, 55 healthcare professionals, and 40 experts. A total of 129 participants completed all three rounds. Sixty-four eligible outcomes were extracted from 47 articles, 32 clinical trial protocols, and patient interviews. Thirty outcomes were removed and one added after Round 1, 18 outcomes were removed after Round 2, and seven after Round 3. Results were discussed during consensus meetings. Consensus was reached on seven outcomes, which constitute the core outcome set: drug-related hospital admissions; drug overuse; drug underuse; potentially inappropriate medications; clinically significant drug-drug interactions; health-related quality of life; pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a core outcome set of seven outcomes which should be used in future trials of medication review in multi-morbid older patients with polypharmacy.

Development of a core outcome set for medication review in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: a study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Medication review has been advocated to address the challenge of polypharmacy in older patients, yet there is no consensus on how best to evaluate its efficacy. Heterogeneity of outcomes reported in clinical trials can hinder the comparison of clinical trial findings in systematic reviews. Moreover, the outcomes that matter most to older patients might be under-reported or disregarded altogether. A core outcome set can address this issue as it defines a minimum set of outcomes that should be reported in all clinical trials in any particular field of research. As part of the European Commission-funded project, called OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in the Multimorbid elderly, this paper describes the methods used to develop a core outcome set for clinical trials of medication review in older patients with multimorbidity. METHODS/DESIGN: The study was designed in several steps. First, a systematic review established which outcomes were measured in published and ongoing clinical trials of medication review in older patients. Second, we undertook semistructured interviews with older patients and carers aimed at identifying additional relevant outcomes. Then, a multilanguage European Delphi survey adapted to older patients was designed. The international Delphi survey was conducted with older patients, health care professionals, researchers, and clinical experts in geriatric pharmacotherapy to validate outcomes to be included in the core outcome set. Consensus meetings were conducted to validate the results. DISCUSSION: We present the method for developing a core outcome set for medication review in older patients with multimorbidity. This study protocol could be used as a basis to develop core outcome sets in other fields of geriatric research.

A systematic review of the outcomes reported in trials of medication review in older patients: the need for a core outcome set.

AIM: Medication review has been advocated as one of the measures to tackle the challenge of polypharmacy in older patients, yet there is no consensus on how best to evaluate its efficacy. This study aimed to assess outcome reporting in trials of medication review in older patients. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective studies and RCT protocols involving medication review performed in patients aged 65 years or older in any setting of care were identified from: (1) a recent systematic review; (2) RCT registries of ongoing studies; (3) the Cochrane library. The type, definition, and frequency of all outcomes reported were extracted independently by two researchers. RESULTS: Forty-seven RCTs or prospective published studies and 32 RCT protocols were identified. A total of 327 distinct outcomes were identified in the 47 published studies. Only one fifth (21%) of the studies evaluated the impact of medication reviews on adverse events such as drug reactions or drug-related hospital admissions. Most of the outcomes were related to medication use (n = 114, 35%) and healthcare use (n = 74, 23%). Very few outcomes were patient-related (n = 24, 7%). A total of 248 distinct outcomes were identified in the 32 RCT protocols. Overall, the number of outcomes and the number and type of health domains covered by the outcomes varied largely. CONCLUSION: Outcome reporting from RCTs concerning medication review in older patients is heterogeneous. This review highlights the need for a standardized core outcome set for medication review in older patients, to improve outcome reporting and evidence synthesis.