NSAIDs for Pain Control During the Peri-Operative Period of Hip Fracture Surgery: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Hip fracture (HF) mostly affects older adults and is responsible for increased morbidity and mortality. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are part of the peri-operative multimodal analgesic management, but their use could be associated with adverse events in older adults. This systematic review aimed to assess outcomes associated with NSAIDs use in the peri-operative period of HF surgery. METHODS: This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines. Three databases (PubMed/EMBASE/Cochrane Central) were used to search for clinical trials and observational studies assessing efficacy, safety and impact of NSAIDs use on non-specific post-operative outcomes, such as functional status and post-operative complications. RESULTS: Among the 1320 references initially identified, four provided data on efficacy, four on safety and six on non-specific post-operative outcomes (three randomized controlled clinical trials, three observational studies). Mean study population ages ranged from 68 to 87 years. Two studies found that NSAIDs were effective on pain control, but two studies found conflicting results on opioid sparing. No increased risk of acute kidney injury was observed, while results concerning bleeding risk and delirium were conflicting. No study has found any effect of NSAIDs use on walk recovery. Quality of evidence was high for pain control, but low to very low for all the other studied outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The use of NSAIDs may be effective for pain control in the peri-operative period of HF surgery. However, safety data were conflicting with low levels of certainty. Further studies are needed to assess their benefit-risk balance in this context. The research protocol was previously registered on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42021237649).

Implementation of clinical medication review in a geriatric ward to reduce potentially inappropriate prescriptions among older adults.

PURPOSE: The impact of several pharmaceutical interventions to reduce the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potentially omitted medications (POMs) has been recently studied. We aimed to determine whether clinical medication review (CMR) (i.e. a systematic and patient-centred clinical assessment of all medicines currently taken by a patient) performed by a geriatrician and a pharmacist added to standard pharmaceutical care (SPC) (i.e. medication reconciliation and regular prescription review by the pharmacist) resulted in more appropriate prescribing compared to SPC among older inpatients. METHODS: A retrospective observational single-centre study was conducted in a French geriatric ward. Six criteria for appropriate prescribing were chosen: the number of PIMs and POMs as defined by the STOPP/STARTv2 list, the total number of drugs prescribed, the number of administrations per day and the number of psychotropic and anticholinergic drugs. These criteria were compared between CMR and SPC group using linear and logistic regression models weighted on propensity scores. RESULTS: There were 137 patients included, 66 in the CMR group and 71 in the SPC group. The mean age was 87 years, the sex ratio was 0.65, the mean number of drugs prescribed was 9, the mean MMSE was 21 and at admission 242 POMs, and 363 PIMs were prescribed. Clinical medication review did not reduce the number of PIMs at discharge compared to SPC (beta = - 0.13 [- 0.84; 0.57], p = 0.71) nor did it reduce the number of drugs prescribed (p = 0.10), the number of psychotropic drugs (p = 0.17) or the anticholinergic load (p = 0.87). Clinical medication review resulted in more POMs being prescribed than in standard pharmaceutical care (beta = - 0.39 [- 0.72; - 0.06], p = 0.02). Cardiology POMs were more implemented in the medication review group (p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Clinical medication review did not reduce the number of PIMs but helped clinicians introduce underused drugs, especially cardiovascular drugs, which are known to be associated with morbidity and mortality risk reduction.

Safety and efficacy of very short dual antiplatelet therapy followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy in older patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: older patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) represent a growing population sharing both a high ischemic and bleeding risk. Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) reduces the incidence of thrombotic events but exposes patients to an increased risk of bleeding and subsequent mortality. Its optimal duration after PCI remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: to assess the impact of short-duration DAPT on both bleeding and ischemic events in the specific population of older patients undergoing PCI. METHODS: we performed a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing the safety and efficacy of standard versus very short duration (≤ 3 months, followed by P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy) DAPT after PCI with a drug-eluting stent in older patients. RESULTS: four studies, representing 8,961 older patients, were finally included. Compared with standard duration, short-duration DAPT was associated with similar rates of major bleeding (relative risks, RR 0.70 [0.47; 1.05]) and the composite efficacy endpoint (RR 0.85 [0.63; 1.14]). There was a high level of heterogeneity between the studies (I2 = 68%) regarding major bleeding. CONCLUSION: our meta-analysis suggests that short DAPT may be a valid option in older patients after PCI but it also highlights the need for specific studies in such patients on optimal duration of antiplatelet therapy.