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.

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.

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.

Consumer and Healthcare Professional Led Priority Setting for Quality Use of Medicines in People with Dementia: Gathering Unanswered Research Questions.

BACKGROUND: Historically, research questions have been posed by the pharmaceutical industry or researchers, with little involvement of consumers and healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVE: To determine what questions about medicine use are important to people living with dementia and their care team and whether they have been previously answered by research. METHODS: The James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership process was followed. A national Australian qualitative survey on medicine use in people living with dementia was conducted with consumers (people living with dementia and their carers including family, and friends) and healthcare professionals. Survey findings were supplemented with key informant interviews and relevant published documents (identified by the research team). Conventional content analysis was used to generate summary questions. Finally, evidence checking was conducted to determine if the summary questions were 'unanswered'. RESULTS: A total of 545 questions were submitted by 228 survey participants (151 consumers and 77 healthcare professionals). Eight interviews were conducted with key informants and four relevant published documents were identified and reviewed. Overall, analysis resulted in 68 research questions, grouped into 13 themes. Themes with the greatest number of questions were related to co-morbidities, adverse drug reactions, treatment of dementia, and polypharmacy. Evidence checking resulted in 67 unanswered questions. CONCLUSION: A wide variety of unanswered research questions were identified. Addressing unanswered research questions identified by consumers and healthcare professionals through this process will ensure that areas of priority are targeted in future research to achieve optimal health outcomes through quality use of medicines.

Development of a tool to evaluate medication management guidance provided to carers of people living with dementia at hospital discharge: a mixed methods study.

OBJECTIVE: Medication management guidance for carers of people with dementia at hospital discharge is important to prevent medication-related harm during transitions of care. This study aimed to develop a tool to evaluate medication management guidance provided to carers of people with dementia at hospital discharge. DESIGN: The tool was developed using mixed methods involving two stages. Stage 1 involved item generation and content validation. Items were based on a previous qualitative study and systematic review. Content validation involved experts and consumers with knowledge or experience of medication management guidance in the acute care setting, and rating each item on importance and relevance. Stage 2 involved conducting cognitive interviews with carers of people with dementia to pretest the tool. SETTING: For stage 1, experts and consumers from Australia, USA and New Zealand were included. For stage 2, carers of people with dementia were recruited across Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 18 experts and consumers participated in round 1 of content validation, and 13 experts and consumers completed round 2. Five carers of people with dementia participated in cognitive interviews. RESULTS: The final tool contained 30 items capturing information across five domains: (1) provision of medication management guidance at hospital discharge; (2) carer understanding of medication management guidance provided at discharge; (3) carer engagement in discussing the safe use of medications at discharge; (4) carer preparedness to conduct medication management activities after discharge; and (5) co-ordination of medication management guidance after discharge. CONCLUSIONS: We developed the first tool to assess medication management guidance provided for carers of people with dementia at hospital discharge. The tool may be useful to inform future research strategies to improve the delivery of medication management guidance at discharge.

The Prevalence of Frailty Among Older Adults Living With Dementia: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of frailty in older adults living with dementia and explore the differences in medication use according to frailty status. DESIGN: Systematic review of published literature from inception to August 20, 2020. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adults age ≥65 years living with dementia in acute-care, community and residential care settings. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in Embase, Medline, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, APA PscyInfo, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened records and conducted quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Sixteen articles met the inclusion criteria, with 7 studies conducted in acute care setting and 9 studies in community-dwelling adults. Five studies recruited people with dementia exclusively, and 11 studies were conducted in older populations that included individuals with dementia diagnosis. Among studies conducted in acute care setting, the prevalence of frailty ranged from 50.8% to 91.8% compared with studies in community-dwelling setting, which reported a prevalence of 24.3% to 98.9%. With respect to medication exposure, 3 studies documented medication use according to frailty status but not dementia status. Higher medications use, measured as total number of medications was reported in frail [7.0 ± 4.0 (SD) -12.0 ± 9.0 (SD)] compared with nonfrail participants [6.1 ± 3.1(SD) -10.4 ± 3.8 (SD)]. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Current data suggests a wide range of frailty prevalence in individuals with dementia. Future studies should systematically document frailty in adults living with dementia and its impact on medication use.

Perspectives of residents on shared decision making in medication management: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision making is the process in which the person, their representative, and health care professional share information with each other, participate in the decision-making process, and agree on a course of action. At present, very little is known about shared decision making (SDM) in medication management from the perspective of long-term care facility residents. The objective of this study was to identify residents' beliefs, motivation, and aspects of the environment that facilitate or impede SDM. DESIGN: A qualitative study was conducted using face-to-face semi-structured interviews, and data analysis was carried out using a thematic approach. SETTING: Six long-term care facilities in Sydney, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-one residents. RESULTS: Enablers to resident involvement in SDM were resident beliefs in exercising their right to take part in medication-related decisions, preference to maintain control over decisions, and motivation to raise concern about medication. Residents were not motivated to be involved in SDM if they believed they had no control over life circumstance, perceived that medications were necessary, or experienced no problems with their medications. Participation in SDM was hindered by limitations in opportunities for resident involvement, engagement with staff and primary care physician to discuss issues related to medications, and continuity of care with their regular physician. CONCLUSION: This study highlights that the residents' beliefs in control over decisions and concerns about medication are a significant function of the SDM process. It is important that residents are given the choice to take part in SDM, their beliefs and values regarding SDM are understood, and the culture of the care facility respects residents' right to participate in SDM.

The value of deprescribing in older adults with dementia: a narrative review.

Introduction:Mitigating the burden of unnecessary polypharmacy or multiple medication use in people living with dementia has been recognized as a key priority internationally. One approach to reducing inappropriate polypharmacy is through medication withdrawal or deprescribing.Area covered:Non-systematic searches of key databases including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were conducted from inception to 28 February 2021 for articles that assessed the safety and/or efficacy of deprescribing in older adults living with dementia. Personal reference libraries were also utilized. Information on current clinical trials was found in clinicaltrial.gov.Expert Opinion: There is limited direct evidence to inform deprescribing in older adults with dementia specifically. This review identified nineteen studies that have assessed the impact of deprescribing interventions to reduce inappropriate polypharmacy or direct deprescribing of specific medications. However, the current evidence is limited in scope as most studies focused on medication-related outcomes (e.g. discontinuation of high-risk medications) rather than patient-centered outcomes in individuals living with dementia. Furthermore, most studies focused on addressing inappropriate polypharmacy in older adults with dementia living in long-term care facilities, and interventions did not involve the person and their carer. Further evidence on the impact of deprescribing in this population across clinical settings is needed.

Tools to evaluate medication management for caregivers of people living with dementia: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Caregivers often undertake medication management for people living with dementia without formal training. There is a need to evaluate caregiver medication management practices for people living with dementia to identify and address the key issues that contribute to caregiver burden. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to identify and summarize approaches that evaluate medication management for caregivers of people living with dementia and appraise caregiver's involvement in aspects of medication management. SEARCH STRATEGY: A systematic search was undertaken in five databases: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. Studies written in English that contained tools and surveys that evaluated aspects of medication management for caregivers of PWD were included. RESULTS: A total of 10 studies were included. Medication selection was assessed in six studies, supply and monitoring/review was captured in seven studies, with administration assessed in nine studies. Caregivers were commonly involved in decision-making for medication changes (77.1%-86.8%) and in the ordering (55.9%-86.0%) and collection (87.0%-92.4%) of medications. Reported caregiver involvement in medication administration showed a wide range (44%-94.7%) between the studies. Challenges in administration were commonly related to polypharmacy and dosage regimen complexity. CONCLUSIONS: Current tools capture specific aspects of medication management, with medication administration the most evaluated aspect of medication management. Future research is needed to develop a tool to holistically evaluate the complexities of medication management for caregivers of people living with dementia to minimize adverse events at transitions of care. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: From the authors' previous research, caregivers highlighted the need to address key issues in medication management for people living with dementia.

Caregivers' experiences of medication management advice for people living with dementia at discharge.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: Caregivers of people living with dementia play an essential role in managing medications across transitions of care. Adequate caregiver medication management guidance at hospital discharge is important to ensure optimal outcomes from medication use. This qualitative study explores the experiences and perspectives of caregivers about the medication management guidance provided at hospital discharge. METHODS: A qualitative approach using semi-structured, telephone interviews was conducted with 31 caregivers of people with dementia across Australia. Purposive sampling was used to ensure maximum variation of diverse experiences and perspectives. RESULTS: Caregivers' experiences of medication guidance for people with dementia at discharge were described in three themes including: (a) inadequate information about medication management at discharge; (b) limited caregiver engagement in medication management decisions; and (c) difficulties ensuring medication supply post discharge. Most participants indicated they would like to be included in discussions at discharge. However, participation was influenced by caregivers being overwhelmed by discharge processes; proactively seeking information on medication-related harm; and belief in advocacy as part of their caregiver role. Caregivers reported they would like to receive a tailored medication list for people with dementia which included information on medications that may impact on the patient's cognition, and for hospital staff to communicate with both the community pharmacist and primary care physician, to improve co-ordination post transition. DISCUSSION: In our study of caregivers of people with dementia, we identified key recommendations to facilitate regular participation of people living with dementia and their caregiver around medication guidance at discharge.

Interventions at Hospital Discharge to Guide Caregivers in Medication Management for People Living with Dementia: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Hospital discharge has a significant impact on the continuity of care for people living with dementia. Clear guidance on medication management should be provided to caregivers of people living with dementia to ensure appropriate use of medications post-discharge. AIM: Identify and appraise the impact of interventions at hospital discharge to guide caregivers in the medication management for people living with dementia. METHOD: A systematic search of original studies was performed in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. Articles published in English that reported on interventions to guide caregivers in medication management for people living with dementia were included. Two authors independently reviewed titles and abstract. Full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and quality assessment was conducted by two authors. RESULTS: A total of five studies were included with a range of interventions that were typically delivered post-discharge by a multidisciplinary team and most targeted administration of medications by caregivers. Overall, three types of discharge interventions were identified including a pre-discharge caregiver educational intervention, a post-discharge multidisciplinary team intervention, and discharge summary documentation intervention at transitions of care. Of these, a pre-discharge caregiver education led to shorter hospital stay (25 days vs. 31 days, p = 0.005). A post-discharge intervention that included follow-up visits resulted in lower use of high-risk medications (19% vs. 40%), and reduction in 30-day re-hospitalization rates (11% vs. 20%). In contrast, in another post-discharge intervention study, no difference in one-month re-hospitalization rates (8.4% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.82) was demonstrated. In another study, a post-discharge hospital educational program provided to caregivers  led to significantly reduced caregiver burden (31.7 ± 17.6 (SD) pre-intervention to 27.7 ± 16.9 (SD) post-intervention (p = 0.037)). DISCUSSION: Current findings suggest there is a need for well-designed interventions to guide caregivers in all aspects of medication management for people living with dementia, and should include support for caregivers in care coordination.

Prevalence of adverse drug events and adverse drug reactions in hospital among older patients with dementia: A systematic review.

AIMS: This systematic review aimed to quantify the prevalence of adverse drug events (ADEs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in older inpatients with dementia. METHODS: A systematic search of observational studies was performed in Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Scopus and Informit. Articles published in English that reported the prevalence of ADEs or ADRs in hospital patients aged 65 years or older with dementia were included. Two authors reviewed titles and abstracts and all eligible full-text articles. Relevant information relating to ADEs, ADRs and dementia was obtained from each article. RESULTS: In total, 5 articles were included. One study reported the prevalence of ADEs to be 81.5%, defined using the Naranjo algorithm. Four studies assessed the prevalence of ADRs, ranging from 12.7 to 24.0%, assessed using various methods. One study defined ADRs according to the World Health Organization-Uppsala Monitoring Centre criteria, 2 studies employed the World Health Organization definition and 1 study did not explicitly define ADRs. The most frequently reported drug classes implicated in ADEs and ADRs were psychotropic, antihypertensive and analgesic drugs. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest a high prevalence of ADEs and ADRs in older inpatients with dementia. However, only 1 study documented ADEs and there was variability in approaches to ADR assessment. A greater understanding of ADEs and ADRs, as well as tailored assessment tools, will promote prevention of ADEs and ADRs in people with dementia.

The utility of a computerised clinical decision support system intervention in home medicines review: A mixed-methods process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Use of high-risk medications is common and associated with adverse effects in older adults, including those living with dementia. A Computerised Clinical Decision Support System (CCDSS) called G-MEDSS© (Goal-directed Medication Review Electronic Decision Support System) contains tools that identify medications with anticholinergic and sedative effects and align older adult's health and medication goals of care with medication management strategies. OBJECTIVES: To describe the utility of a CCDSS called G-MEDSS in Home Medicines Review (HMR) by an accredited clinical pharmacist (ACP) using a mixed-methods process evaluation method. METHODS: A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted as part of a nation-wide cluster-randomised clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of implementing G-MEDSS in HMR. Data were collected from ACPs and HMR recipients (the patient) using a feedback survey (ACPs and HMR recipients) and one-on-one telephone interviews (HMR recipients). Quantitative and qualitative data were combined at the start of analysis. Content analysis of the qualitative data was conducted, and emerging categories were linked to quantitative data. RESULTS: Feedback surveys were completed by eight ACPs and 26 HMR recipients; 11 HMR recipients completed one-on-one telephone interviews. Overall, ACPs and HMR recipients who received the intervention reported a positive attitude towards the utility of G-MEDSS in HMR. ACPs reported that G-MEDSS enhanced their ability to make evidence-based recommendations about anticholinergic and sedative medications, and to better align HMR recommendations with HMR recipients' goals of care. However, ACPs described that it was difficult to obtain goals of care from HMR recipients. HMR recipients gave mixed reports about the ACPs consultations: some HMR recipients reported that they were engaged in discussions about their views on medications, whilst other participants reported that discussions about their concerns towards medications and goals was limited. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that a CCDSS, such as G-MEDSS, demonstrates good utility to assist ACPs to identify and assess anticholinergic and sedative medications. Given the mixed feedback from the ACPs on the different components of the G-MEDSS, further refinement of these tools and their use in combination in practice may be needed.

Impact of the Goal-directed Medication Review Electronic Decision Support System on Drug Burden Index: A cluster-randomised clinical trial in primary care.

AIMS: The Goal-directed Medication Review Electronic Decision Support System (G-MEDSS) assesses and reports a patient's goals, attitudes to deprescribing and Drug Burden Index (DBI) score, a measure of cumulative exposure to anticholinergic and sedative medications. This study evaluated the effect of implementing G-MEDSS in home medicines reviews (HMRs) on DBI exposure and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A cluster-randomised clinical trial was performed across Australia. Accredited clinical pharmacists were randomised into intervention (G-MEDSS with usual care HMR) or comparison groups (usual care HMR alone). Patients were recruited by pharmacists from those routinely referred by general practitioners for HMR. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with any reduction in DBI at 3-months follow-up. Secondary outcomes included change in DBI continuous score at 3-months, HMR recommendations to change DBI and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: There were 201 patient participants at baseline (n = 88 intervention, n = 113 comparison), with 159 followed-up at 3-months (n = 63 intervention, n = 96 comparison). The proportion of patients with a reduction in DBI was not significantly different at 3-months (intervention 17%, comparison 11%; adjusted odds ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 0.56-3.80). Regarding secondary outcomes, there was no difference in change in DBI score at 3-months. However, the HMR report made recommendations to reduce DBI for a significantly greater proportion of patients in the intervention than in the comparison group (intervention 37%, comparison 14%; adjusted odds ratio 3.20, 95% confidence interval 1.50-6.90). No changes were observed in clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Implementation of G-MEDSS within HMR did not reduce patients' DBI at 3 months compared with usual care HMR.

Correction to: Implementation of the goal-directed medication review electronic decision support system (G-MEDSS)© into home medicines review: a protocol for a clusterrandomised clinical trial in older adults.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Withdrawal of antihypertensive drugs in older people.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is an important risk factor for subsequent cardiovascular events, including ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, cognitive decline and premature death. Overall, the use of antihypertensive medications has led to reduction in cardiovascular disease, morbidity rates and mortality rates. However, the use of antihypertensive medications is also associated with harms, especially in older people, including the development of adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions and can contribute to increasing medication-related burden. As such, discontinuation of antihypertensives may be considered and appropriate in some older people. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether withdrawal of antihypertensive medications is feasible, and evaluate the effects of withdrawal of antihypertensive medications on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, hypertension and quality of life in older people. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to April 2019: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2019, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also conducted reference checking, citation searches and, when appropriate, contacted study authors to identify any additional studies. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of withdrawal versus continuation of antihypertensive medications used for hypertension or primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older adults (defined as 50 years and over). Participants were eligible if they lived in the community, residential aged care facilities, or were based in hospital settings. We sought to include trials looking at the complete withdrawal of the antihypertensive medication, and those focusing on a dose reduction of the antihypertensive medicine. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We compared the intervention of discontinuing or reducing antihypertensive medication to usual treatment using mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for continuous variables and we used Peto odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI for binary variables. Our primary outcomes included: mortality, myocardial infarction, development of adverse drug reactions or adverse drug withdrawal reactions. Secondary outcomes included: blood pressure, hospitalisation, stroke, success of withdrawing from antihypertensives, quality of life, and falls. Two authors independently, and in duplicate, conducted all stages of study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. MAIN RESULTS: Six RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review (1073 participants). Study duration and follow-up ranged from 4 weeks to 56 weeks. Meta-analysis of studies showed that, in the discontinuation group compared to continuation, the odds for all-cause mortality were 2.08 (95% CI 0.79 to 5.46; low certainty of evidence), for myocardial infarction 1.86 (95% CI 0.19 to 17.98; very low certainty of evidence) and for stroke 1.44 (95% CI 0.25 to 8.35; low certainty of evidence). Blood pressure was higher in the discontinuation group than the continuation group (systolic blood pressure: MD = 9.75 mmHg, 95% CI 7.33 to 12.18; and diastolic blood pressure: MD = 3.5 mmHg, 95% CI 1.82 to 5.18; low certainty of evidence). For the development of adverse events, meta-analysis was not possible; antihypertensive discontinuation did not appear to increase the risk of adverse events and may lead to resolution of adverse drug reactions, although eligible studies had limited reporting of adverse effects of drug withdrawal (very low certainty of evidence). One study reported hospitalisation with an odds ratio of 0.83 for discontinuation compared to continuation (95% CI 0.33 to 2.10; low certainty of evidence). No studies were identified which reported falls. Between 10.5% and 33.3% of participants in the discontinuation group compared to 9% to 15% in the continuation group experienced raised blood pressure or other clinical criteria (as pre-defined by the studies) that would require restarting of therapy/removal from the study. The sources of bias included selective reporting (reporting bias), lack of blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), and lack of blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of an effect of discontinuing compared with continuing antihypertensives used for hypertension or primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older adults on all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction. The evidence was low to very low certainty mainly due to small studies and low event rates. These limitations mean that we cannot make any firm conclusions about the effect of deprescribing antihypertensives on these outcomes. Future research should focus on populations with the greatest uncertainty of the benefit:risk ratio for use of antihypertensive medications, such as those with frailty, older age groups and those taking polypharmacy, and measure clinically important outcomes such as falls, quality of life and adverse drug events.

Psychotropic Medicine Stewardship: A Critical Role for Pharmacists in Long-Term Care Facilities.

There are many opportunities for pharmacists to contribute to the better use of anxiolytic and sedative-hypnotic drugs, typically overprescribed and maintained for longer than recommended. Our research group has conducted a series of in-depth qualitative analyses that have deepened our understanding of the impact of organizational culture in long-term care facilities on the use of psychotropic medications.

A systems approach to identifying the challenges of implementing deprescribing in older adults across different health-care settings and countries: a narrative review.

Introduction: There is increasing recognition of the need for deprescribing of inappropriate medications in older adults. However, efforts to encourage implementation of deprescribing in clinical practice have resulted in mixed results across settings and countries.Area covered: Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar in June 2019. Reference lists, citation checking, and personal reference libraries were also utilized. Studies capturing the main challenges of, and opportunities for, implementing deprescribing into clinical practice across selected health-care settings internationally, and international deprescribing-orientated policies were included and summarized in this narrative review.Expert opinion: Deprescribing intervention studies are inherently heterogeneous because of the complexity of interventions employed and often do not reflect the real-world. Further research investigating enhanced implementation of deprescribing into clinical practice and across health-care settings is required. Process evaluations in deprescribing intervention studies are needed to determine the contextual factors that are important to the translation of the interventions in the real-world. Deprescribing interventions may need to be individually tailored to target the unique barriers and opportunities to deprescribing in different clinical settings. Introduction of national policies to encourage deprescribing may be beneficial, but need to be evaluated to determine if there are any unintended consequences.