Maintenance or Discontinuation of Antidepressants in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: Patients with depression who are treated in primary care practices may receive antidepressants for prolonged periods. Data are limited on the effects of maintaining or discontinuing antidepressant therapy in this setting. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind trial involving adults who were being treated in 150 general practices in the United Kingdom. All the patients had a history of at least two depressive episodes or had been taking antidepressants for 2 years or longer and felt well enough to consider stopping antidepressants. Patients who had received citalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, or mirtazapine were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to maintain their current antidepressant therapy (maintenance group) or to taper and discontinue such therapy with the use of matching placebo (discontinuation group). The primary outcome was the first relapse of depression during the 52-week trial period, as evaluated in a time-to-event analysis. Secondary outcomes were depressive and anxiety symptoms, physical and withdrawal symptoms, quality of life, time to stopping an antidepressant or placebo, and global mood ratings. RESULTS: A total of 1466 patients underwent screening. Of these patients, 478 were enrolled in the trial (238 in the maintenance group and 240 in the discontinuation group). The average age of the patients was 54 years; 73% were women. Adherence to the trial assignment was 70% in the maintenance group and 52% in the discontinuation group. By 52 weeks, relapse occurred in 92 of 238 patients (39%) in the maintenance group and in 135 of 240 (56%) in the discontinuation group (hazard ratio, 2.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.56 to 2.70; P<0.001). Secondary outcomes were generally in the same direction as the primary outcome. Patients in the discontinuation group had more symptoms of depression, anxiety, and withdrawal than those in the maintenance group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in primary care practices who felt well enough to discontinue antidepressant therapy, those who were assigned to stop their medication had a higher risk of relapse of depression by 52 weeks than those who were assigned to maintain their current therapy. (Funded by the National Institute for Health Research; ANTLER ISRCTN number, ISRCTN15969819.).

Health TAPESTRY Ontario: A Multi-Site Randomized Controlled Trial Testing Implementation and Reproducibility.

PURPOSE: Health Teams Advancing Patient Experience: Strengthening Quality (Health TAPESTRY) is a complex primary care program aimed at assisting older adults to stay healthier for longer. This study evaluated the feasibility of implementation across multiple sites, and the reproducibility of the effects found in the previous randomized controlled trial. METHODS: This was a pragmatic, unblinded, 6-month parallel group randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized (intervention or control) using a computer-generated system. Eligible patients, aged 70 years and older, were rostered to 1 of 6 participating interprofessional primary care practices (urban and rural). In total, 599 (301 intervention, 298 control) patients were recruited from March 2018 through August 2019. Intervention participants received a home visit from volunteers to collect information on physical and mental health, and social context. An interprofessional care team created and implemented a plan of care. The primary outcomes were physical activity and number of hospitalizations. RESULTS: Based on the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, Health TAPESTRY had widespread reach and adoption. In the intention-to-treat analysis (257 intervention, 255 control), there were no statistically significant between-group differences for hospitalizations (incidence rate ratio = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.48-1.30; P = .35) or total physical activity (mean difference = -0.26; 95% CI, -1.18 to 0.67; P = .58). There were 37 non-study related serious adverse events (19 intervention, 18 control). CONCLUSIONS: We found Health TAPESTRY was successfully implemented for patients in diverse primary care practices; however, implementation did not reproduce the effect on hospitalizations and physical activity found in the initial randomized controlled trial.

Deprescribing to optimise health outcomes for frail older people: a double-blind placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial-outcomes of the Opti-med study.

BACKGROUND: potentially harmful polypharmacy is very common in older people living in aged care facilities. To date, there have been no double-blind randomised controlled studies of deprescribing multiple medications. METHODS: three-arm (open intervention, blinded intervention and blinded control) randomised controlled trial enrolling people aged over 65 years (n = 303, noting pre-specified recruitment target of n = 954) living in residential aged care facilities. The blinded groups had medications targeted for deprescribing encapsulated while the medicines were deprescribed (blind intervention) or continued (blind control). A third open intervention arm had unblinded deprescribing of targeted medications. RESULTS: participants were 76% female with mean age 85.0 ± 7.5 years. Deprescribing was associated with a significant reduction in the total number of medicines used per participant over 12 months in both intervention groups (blind intervention group -2.7 medicines, 95% CI -3.5, -1.9, and open intervention group -2.3 medicines; 95% CI -3.1, -1.4) compared with the control group (-0.3, 95% CI -1.0, 0.4, P = 0.053). Deprescribing regular medicines was not associated with any significant increase in the number of 'when required' medicines administered. There were no significant differences in mortality in the blind intervention group (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.50, 1.73, P = 0.83) or the open intervention group (HR 1.47, 95% CI 0.83, 2.61, P = 0.19) compared to the control group. CONCLUSIONS: deprescribing of two to three medicines per person was achieved with protocol-based deprescribing during this study. Pre-specified recruitment targets were not met, so the impact of deprescribing on survival and other clinical outcomes remains uncertain.

The association between patients' frailty status, multimorbidity, and demographic characteristics and changes in primary care for chronic conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic: a pre-post study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of SARS-COV-2 (Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) pandemic on primary care management (frequency of monitoring activities, regular prescriptions, and test results) of older adults with common chronic conditions (diabetes, hypertension, and chronic kidney disease) and to examine whether any changes were associated with age, sex, neighbourhood income, multimorbidity, and frailty. METHODS: A research database from a sub-set of McMaster University Sentinel and Information Collaboration family practices was used to identify patients ≥65 years of age with a frailty assessment and 1 or more of the conditions. Patient demographics, chronic conditions, and chronic disease management information were retrieved. Changes from 14 months pre to 14 months since the pandemic were described and associations between patient characteristics and changes in monitoring, prescriptions, and test results were analysed using regression models. RESULTS: The mean age of the 658 patients was 75 years. While the frequency of monitoring activities and prescriptions related to chronic conditions decreased overall, there were no clear trends across sub-groups of age, sex, frailty level, neighbourhood income, or number of conditions. The mean values of disease monitoring parameters (e.g. blood pressure) did not considerably change. The only significant regression model demonstrated that when controlling for all other variables, patients with 2 chronic conditions and those with 4 or more conditions were twice as likely to have reduced numbers of eGFR (Estimated glomerular filtration rate) measures compared to those with only 1 condition ((OR (odds ratio) = 2.40, 95% CI [1.19, 4.87]); (OR = 2.19, 95% CI [1.12, 4.25]), respectively). CONCLUSION: In the first 14 months of the pandemic, the frequency of common elements of chronic condition care did not notably change overall or among higher-risk patients.

Understanding collaborative implementation between community and academic partners in a complex intervention: a qualitative descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Community-academic partnerships (CAPs) can improve the relevance, sustainability, and uptake of new innovations within the community. However, little is known about what topics CAPs focus on and how their discussions and decisions impact implementation at ground level. The objectives of this study were to better understand the activities and learnings from implementation of a complex health intervention by a CAP at the planner/decision-maker level, and how that compared to experiences implementing the program at local sites. METHODS: The intervention, Health TAPESTRY, was implemented by a nine-partner CAP including academic, charitable organizations, and primary care practices. Meeting minutes were analyzed using qualitative description, latent content analysis, and a member check with key implementors. An open-answer survey about the best and worst elements of the program was completed by clients and health care providers and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: In total, 128 meeting minutes were analyzed, 278 providers and clients completed the survey, and six people participated in the member check. Prominent topics of discussion categories from the meeting minutes were: primary care sites, volunteer coordination, volunteer experience, internal and external connections, and sustainability and scalability. Clients liked that they learned new things and gained awareness of community programs, but did not like the volunteer visit length. Clinicians liked the regular interprofessional team meetings but found the program time-consuming. CONCLUSIONS: An important learning was about who had "voice" at the planner/decision-maker level: many of the topics discussed in meeting minutes were not identified as issues or lasting impacts by clients or providers; this may be due to differing roles and needs, but may also identify a gap. Overall, we identified three phases that could serve as a guide for other CAPs: Phase (1) recruitment, financial support, and data ownership; Phase (2) considerations for modifications and adaptations; Phase (3) active input and reflection.

Optimising a person-centred approach to stopping medicines in older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy using the DExTruS framework: a realist review.

BACKGROUND: Tackling problematic polypharmacy requires tailoring the use of medicines to individual circumstances and may involve the process of deprescribing. Deprescribing can cause anxiety and concern for clinicians and patients. Tailoring medication decisions often entails beyond protocol decision-making, a complex process involving emotional and cognitive work for healthcare professionals and patients. We undertook realist review to highlight and understand the interactions between different factors involved in deprescribing and to develop a final programme theory that identifies and explains components of good practice that support a person-centred approach to deprescribing in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. METHODS: The realist approach involves identifying underlying causal mechanisms and exploring how, and under what conditions they work. We conducted a search of electronic databases which were supplemented by citation checking and consultation with stakeholders to identify other key documents. The review followed the key steps outlined by Pawson et al. and followed the RAMESES standards for realist syntheses. RESULTS: We included 119 included documents from which data were extracted to produce context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) and a final programme theory. Our programme theory recognises that deprescribing is a complex intervention influenced by a multitude of factors. The components of our final programme theory include the following: a supportive infrastructure that provides clear guidance around professional responsibilities and that enables multidisciplinary working and continuity of care, consistent access to high-quality relevant patient contextual data, the need to support the creation of a shared explanation and understanding of the meaning and purpose of medicines and a trial and learn approach that provides space for monitoring and continuity. These components may support the development of trust which may be key to managing the uncertainty and in turn optimise outcomes. These components are summarised in the novel DExTruS framework. CONCLUSION: Our findings recognise the complex interpretive practice and decision-making involved in medication management and identify key components needed to support best practice. Our findings have implications for how we design medication review consultations, professional training and for patient records/data management. Our review also highlights the role that trust plays both as a central element of tailored prescribing and a potential outcome of good practice in this area.

The implementation and validation of the NoMAD during a complex primary care intervention.

BACKGROUND: Normalization process theory (NPT) has been widely used to better understand how new interventions are implemented and embedded. The NoMAD (Normalization Measurement Development questionnaire) is a 23-item NPT instrument based on NPT. As the NoMAD is a relatively new instrument, the objectives of this paper are: to describe the experience of implementing the NoMAD, to describe it being used as a feedback mechanism to gain insight into the normalization process of a complex health intervention, and to further explore the psychometric properties of the instrument. METHODS: Health TAPESTRY was implemented in six Family Health Teams (total of seven sites) across Ontario. Healthcare team members at each site were invited to complete the NoMAD, and three general questions about normalization, six times over a 12-month period. Each site was then provided a visual traffic light summary (TLS) reflecting the implementation of the Health TAPESTRY. The internal consistency of each sub-scale and validity of the NoMAD were assessed. Learnings from the implementation of the NoMAD and subsequent feedback mechanism (TLS) are reported descriptively. RESULTS: In total, 56 diverse health care team members from six implementation sites completed the NoMAD. Each used it at least once during the 12-month study period. The implementation of the NoMAD and TLS was time consuming to do with multiple collection (and feedback) points. Most (60%) internal consistency values of the four subscales (pooled across site) across each collection point were satisfactory. All correlations were positive, and most (86%) were statistically significant among NoMAD subscales. All but one correlation between the NoMAD subscales and the general questions were positive, and most (72%) were significant. Generally, scores on the subscales were higher at 12-month than baseline, albeit did not follow a linear pattern of change across implementation. Generally, scores were higher for experienced sites compared to first-time implementors. CONCLUSION: Our experience would suggest fewer collection points; three timepoints spaced out by several months are adequate, if repeated administration of the NoMAD is used for feedback loops. We provide additional evidence of the psychometric properties of the NoMAD. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03397836 .

Understanding how context and culture in six communities can shape implementation of a complex intervention: a comparative case study.

BACKGROUND: Contextual factors can act as barriers or facilitators to scaling-up health care interventions, but there is limited understanding of how context and local culture can lead to differences in implementation of complex interventions with multiple stakeholder groups. This study aimed to explore and describe the nature of and differences between communities implementing Health TAPESTRY, a complex primary care intervention aiming to keep older adults healthier in their homes for longer, as it was scaled beyond its initial effectiveness trial. METHODS: We conducted a comparative case study with six communities in Ontario, Canada implementing Health TAPESTRY. We focused on differences between three key elements: interprofessional primary care teams, volunteer program coordination, and the client experience. Sources of data included semi-structured focus groups and interviews. Data were analyzed through the steps of thematic analysis. We then created matrices in NVivo by splitting the qualitative data by community and comparing across the key elements of the Health TAPESTRY intervention. RESULTS: Overall 135 people participated (39 clients, 8 clinical managers, 59 health providers, 6 volunteer coordinators, and 23 volunteers). The six communities had differences in size and composition of both their primary care practices and communities, and how the volunteer program and Health TAPESTRY were implemented. Distinctions between communities relating to the work of the interprofessional teams included characteristics of the huddle lead, involvement of physicians and the volunteer coordinator, and clarity of providers' role with Health TAPESTRY. Key differences between communities relating to volunteer program coordination included the relationship between the volunteers and primary care practices, volunteer coordinator characteristics, volunteer training, and connections with the community. Differences regarding the client experience between communities included differing approaches used in implementation, such as recruitment methods. CONCLUSIONS: Although all six communities had the same key program elements, implementation differed community-by-community. Key aspects that seemed to lead to differences across categories included the size and spread of communities, size of primary care practices, and linkages between program elements. We suggest future programs engaging stakeholders from the beginning and provide clear roles; target the most appropriate clients; and consider the size of communities and practices in implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03397836 .

Strategies for working across Canadian practice-based research and learning networks (PBRLNs) in primary care: focus on frailty.

BACKGROUND: Practice based research and learning networks (PBRLNs) are groups of learning communities that focus on improving delivery and quality of care. Accurate data from primary care electronic medical records (EMRs) is crucial in forming the backbone for PBRLNs. The purpose of this work is to: (1) report on descriptive findings from recent frailty work, (2) describe strategies for working across PBRLNs in primary care, and (3) provide lessons learned for engaging PBRLNs. METHODS: We carried out a participatory based descriptive study that engaged five different PBRLNs. We collected Clinical Frailty Scale scores from a sample of participating physicians within each PBRLN. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze frailty scores and patients' associated risk factors and demographics. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to inform thematic analysis of qualitative data (meeting minutes, notes, and conversations with co-investigators of each network) in recognizing challenges of working across networks. RESULTS: One hundred nine physicians participated in collecting CFS scores across the five provinces (n = 5466). Percentages of frail (11-17%) and not frail (82-91%) patients were similar in all networks, except Ontario who had a higher percentage of frail patients (25%). The majority of frail patients were female (65%) and had a significantly higher prevalence of hypertension, dementia, and depression. Frail patients had more prescribed medications and numbers of healthcare encounters. There were several noteworthy challenges experienced throughout the research process related to differences across provinces in the areas of: numbers of stakeholders/staff involved and thus levels of burden, recruitment strategies, data collection strategies, enhancing engagement, and timelines. DISCUSSION: Lessons learned throughout this multi-jurisdictional work included: the need for continuity in ethics, regular team meetings, enhancing levels of engagement with stakeholders, the need for structural support and recognizing differences in data sharing across provinces. CONCLUSION: The differences noted across CPCSSN networks in our frailty study highlight the challenges of multi-jurisdictional work across provinces and the need for consistent and collaborative healthcare planning efforts.

Strategies to Mitigate Anxiety and Pain in Intrauterine Device Insertion: A Systematic Review.

One barrier to the use of intrauterine devices (IUDs) as a contraceptive method is the experience of anxiety and pain during the insertion procedure. Previous reviews have focused on pharmacological methods used to relieve pain during IUD insertion; however, few similar reviews have examined non-pharmacological methods to relieve pain or strategies to reduce anxiety. The objectives of this study were to identify and categorize strategies for reducing anxiety and pain with respect to IUD insertion and the ways in which anxiety and pain were assessed. In particular, the study aimed to identify non-pharmacological interventions and studies that included anxiety as a research outcome. A literature search was conducted of all English-language studies between inception and the week of July 29, 2018 from the following online databases: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PubMed. The search revealed 426 studies after removal of duplicates, 35 of which fulfilled the inclusion criteria. A total of 29 studies were identified as assessing pharmacological interventions for the management of pain, and six studies assessed non-pharmacological interventions. Only one study included a measurement of patient anxiety during the procedure as an outcome measure. Research on non-pharmacological interventions for the management of anxiety and pain during IUD insertion is lacking. This review found that evidence for the studied pharmacological interventions is conflicting, and there is very little evidence on understanding the effectiveness of strategies to manage anxiety during the IUD insertion procedure. Further high-quality research on non-pharmacological pain and anxiety management strategies is warranted.

Combining volunteers and primary care teamwork to support health goals and needs of older adults: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Health TAPESTRY (Health Teams Advancing Patient Experience: STRengthening QualitY) intervention was designed to improve primary care teamwork and promote optimal aging. We evaluated the effectiveness of Health TAPESTRY in attaining goals of older adults (e.g., physical activity, productivity, social connection, medical status) and other outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic randomized controlled trial between January and October 2015 in a primary care practice in Hamilton, Ontario. Older adults were randomized (1:1) to Health TAPESTRY (n = 158) or control (n = 154). Trained community volunteers gathered information on people's goals, needs and risks in their homes, using electronic forms. Interprofessional primary care teams reviewed summaries and addressed issues. Participants reported goal attainment (primary outcome), self-efficacy, quality of life, optimal aging, social support, empowerment, physical activity, falls, and access to and comprehensiveness of the health system. We determined use of health care resources through chart audit. RESULTS: There were no differences between groups in goal attainment or many other patient-reported outcome and experience assessments at 6 months. More primary care visits took place in the intervention versus control group over 6 months (mean ± standard deviation [SD] 4.93 ± 3.86 v. 3.50 ± 3.53; difference of 1.52 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 2.19]). The odds of having 1 or more hospital admission were lower for the intervention group (odds ratio [OR] 0.44 [95% CI 0.20 to 0.95]). INTERPRETATION: Health TAPESTRY did not improve the primary outcome of goal attainment but showed signals of shifting care from reactive to active preventive care. Further evaluation will help in understanding effective components, costs and consequences of the intervention. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, no. NCT02283723.

Legacy Drug-Prescribing Patterns in Primary Care.

PURPOSE: Polypharmacy is a key clinical challenge for primary care. Drugs that should be prescribed for an intermediate term (longer than 3 months, but not indefinitely) that are not appropriately discontinued could contribute to polypharmacy. We named this type of prescribing legacy prescribing. Commonly prescribed drugs with legacy prescribing potential include antidepressants, bisphosphonates, and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). We evaluated the proportion of legacy prescribing within these drug classes. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data from the McMaster University Sentinel and Information Collaboration (MUSIC) Primary Care Practice Based Research Network, located in Hamilton, Ontario. All adult patients (aged 18 or older) in the MUSIC data set during 2010-2016 were included (N = 50,813). We calculated rates of legacy prescribing of antidepressants (prescription longer than 15 months), bisphosphonates (longer than 5.5 years), and PPIs (longer than 15 months). RESULTS: The proportion of patients having a legacy prescription at some time during the study period was 46% (3,766 of 8,119) for antidepressants, 14% (228 of 1,592) for bisphosphonates, and 45% (2,885 of 6,414) for PPIs. Many of these patients held current prescriptions. The mean duration of prescribing for all legacy prescriptions was significantly longer than that for non-legacy prescriptions (P <.001). Concurrent legacy prescriptions for both antidepressants and PPIs was common, signaling a potential prescribing cascade. CONCLUSIONS: The phenomenon of legacy prescribing appears prevalent. These data demonstrate the potential of legacy prescribing to contribute to unnecessary polypharmacy, providing an opportunity for system-level intervention in primary care with enormous potential benefit for patients.

Protocol for a Delphi consensus exercise to identify a core set of criteria for selecting health related outcome measures (HROM) to be used in primary health care.

BACKGROUND: Promoting the collection and use of health related outcome measures (HROM) in daily practice has long been a goal for improving and assessing the effectiveness of care provided to patients. However, there has been a lack of consensus on what criteria to use to select outcomes or instruments, particularly in the context of primary health care settings where patients present with multiple concurrent health conditions and interventions are whole-health and person-focused. The purpose of this proposed study is to undertake a formal consensus exercise to establish criteria for selecting HROM (including patient-reported (PRO or PROM), observer-reported (ObsR)), clinician-reported (ClinRO) and performance related outcomes (PerfO) for use in shared decision-making, or in assessing, screening or monitoring health status in primary health care settings. METHODS: A Delphi consensus online survey will be developed. Criteria for the Delphi panel participants to consider were selected from a targeted literature search. These initial criteria (n = 35) were grouped into four categories within which items will be presented in the Delphi survey, with the option to suggest additional items. Panel members invited to participate will include primary health care practitioners and administrators, policy-makers, researchers, and experts in HROM development; patients will be excluded. Standard Delphi methodology will be employed with an expectation of at least 3 rounds to achieve consensus (75% agreement). As the final list of criteria for selecting HROM emerges, panel members will be asked to provide opinions about potential weighting of items. The Delphi survey was approved by the Ethics Committee in the Faculty of Health Sciences at McMaster University. DISCUSSION: Previous literature establishing criteria for selecting HROM were developed with a focus on patient reported outcomes, psychological/ behavioural outcomes or outcomes for minimum core outcome sets in clinical trials. Although helpful, these criteria may not be applicable and feasible for application in a primary health care context where patients with multi-morbidity and complex interventions are typical and the constraints of providing health services differ from those in research studies. The findings from this Delphi consensus study will address a gap for establishing consensus on criteria for selecting HROM for use across primary health care settings.

Do Residents Need All Their Medications? A Cross-Sectional Survey of RNs' Views on Deprescribing and the Role of Clinical Pharmacists.

A cross-sectional survey was mailed to 307 RNs of a nationally representative sample of residential aged care facilities to investigate their views and perceptions on medication use and deprescribing in older adults. Questions were grouped according to each stage of the medication use process, and a dedicated section to explore nurses' views on deprescribing was included. Ninety-one questionnaires were received, yielding a 29.6% response rate. Respondents highlighted several challenges including achieving medication reconciliation for new residents, access to physicians to admit patients in a timely fashion, and issues pertaining to lack of clear medical information transcribing when transferring patients between health care settings. More than one half (67.4%) of nurses agreed or strongly agreed that deprescribing implemented with the help of a clinical pharmacist would be beneficial to residents and could improve medication adherence (44%), benefit residents' quality of life (50.5%), and reduce the length of time spent by nurses on medication administration (35.2%). Increased awareness regarding polypharmacy and potential deprescribing benefits is necessary to improve appropriate prescribing and medication use. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 43(10), 13-20.].

The Drug Burden Index and Level of Frailty as Determinants of Healthcare Costs in a Cohort of Older Frail Adults in New Zealand.

OBJECTIVES: Frailty is common in older people and is associated with increased use of healthcare services and ongoing use of multiple medications. This study provides insights into the healthcare cost structure of a frail group of older adults in Aotearoa, New Zealand. Furthermore, we investigated the relationship between participants' anticholinergic and sedative medication burden and their total healthcare costs to explore the viability of deprescribing interventions within this cohort. METHODS: Healthcare cost analysis was conducted using data collected during a randomized controlled trial within a frail, older cohort. The collected information included participant demographics, medications used, frailty, cost of service use of aged residential care and outpatient hospital services, hospital admissions, and dispensed medications. RESULTS: Data from 338 study participants recruited between 25 September 2018 and 30 October 2020 with a mean age of 80 years were analyzed. The total cost of healthcare per participant ranged from New Zealand $15 (US dollar $10) to New Zealand $270 681 (US dollar $175 943) over 6 months postrecruitment into the study. Four individuals accounted for 26% of this cohort's total healthcare cost. We found frailty to be associated with increased healthcare costs, whereas the drug burden was only associated with increased pharmaceutical costs, not overall healthcare costs. CONCLUSIONS: With no relationship found between a patient's anticholinergic and sedative medication burden and their total healthcare costs, more research is required to understand how and where to unlock healthcare cost savings within frail, older populations.

Prevalence of multimorbidity and polypharmacy among adults and older adults: a systematic review.

Multimorbidity (multiple conditions) and polypharmacy (multiple medications) are increasingly common, yet there is a need to better understand the prevalence of co-occurrence. In this systematic review, we examined the prevalence of multimorbidity and polypharmacy among adults (≥18 years) and older adults (≥65 years) in clinical and community settings. Six electronic databases were searched, and 87 studies were retained after two levels of screening. Most studies focused on adults 65 years and older and were done in population-based community settings. Although the operational definitions of multimorbidity and polypharmacy varied across studies, consistent cut-points (two or more conditions and five or more medications) were used across most studies. In older adult samples, the prevalence of multimorbidity ranged from 4·8% to 93·1%, while the prevalence of polypharmacy ranged from 2·6% to 86·6%. High heterogeneity between studies indicates the need for more consistent reporting of specific lists of conditions and medications used in operational definitions.