Sleep should not be this difficult: An interpretive descriptive study of older adults' perspectives on behaviour change elements in Sleepwell and experiences with benzodiazepine discontinuation.

Benzodiazepine receptor agonists are often used for insomnia in older adults contrary to current evidence. The harms outweigh the benefits, which are limited. Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia is the first-line recommended treatment. Sleepwell was created as a repository of evidence-based resources to promote cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia and limit benzodiazepine receptor agonist use. This qualitative study uses an interpretive description design and reflexive thematic analysis to explore older adults' perspectives on behavioural change techniques used in Sleepwell resources. It also explores challenges and opportunities towards benzodiazepine receptor agonist discontinuation and cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia use. Participants were recruited from the Sleepwell arm of a randomized controlled trial. Data were collected from 15 older adults using semi-structured interviews. Two main themes were developed: (1) sleep should not be this difficult; and (2) whether you know it, or learn it, drugs are bad. Two sub-themes were created within the first theme: (1) justification of benzodiazepine receptor agonist use to achieve sleep goals; (2) efforts of committing to cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia. Several behavioural change techniques (e.g. information about consequences, anticipated regret, salience of consequences) were enablers of benzodiazepine receptor agonist-related behaviour change. For committing to cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia, several behavioural change techniques (e.g. self-monitoring of behaviour, distraction, stimulus substitution) were beneficial, but social support, which was perceived as useful, was absent. Older adults experienced tension with benzodiazepine receptor agonist use and deprescribing, despite knowing or learning the potential consequences of benzodiazepine receptor agonists. Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia implementation was challenging. Embedded behavioural change techniques in the Sleepwell booklets were identified as helpful, but more (e.g. social support) are needed to optimize cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia use.

Medical practitioners' experiences and considerations when managing sleep medication for adolescents and young adults.

INTRODUCTION: The prevalence of sleep disorders and use of sleep medication, particularly melatonin, are rising among adolescents and young adults (13-24 years). In Denmark, melatonin is approved for use in children with autism and ADHD up to 18 years of age, with other prescriptions being off-label in these age groups. The perspectives of medical practitioners on prescribing sleep medications to this age group remain largely unexplored. AIM: This study aims to investigate the considerations of general practitioners (GPs) and child and adolescent psychiatrists (psychiatrists) when prescribing and deprescribing sleep medications for 13-24-year-olds. METHODS: We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 10 GPs and six psychiatrists. Data were analyzed using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Psychiatrists typically prescribed melatonin with the expectation that deprescription would occur in general practice. Despite the universal goal of deprescription, it was hindered by various challenges. GPs identified patient motivation and a clear focus on deprescription as facilitative factors and expressed a need for enhanced emphasis on these aspects in general practice. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The findings align with existing prescription trends and literature on factors that promote and inhibit deprescription. The study underscores the complexities of deprescribing sleep medications for adolescents and young adults, suggesting the need for expanded guidelines and enhanced continuing education for GPs. CONCLUSIONS: The research highlights significant discrepancies among medical practitioners regarding the deprescription process of sleep medications for young individuals, complicated by multiple factors. This underscores the need for better guidelines and further studies.

A Qualitative Study of Perspectives of Older Adults on Deintensifying Diabetes Medications.

BACKGROUND: While many older adults with type 2 diabetes have tight glycemic control beyond guideline-recommended targets, deintensifying (stopping or dose-reducing) diabetes medications rarely occurs. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perspectives of older adults with type 2 diabetes around deintensifying diabetes medications. DESIGN: This qualitative study used individual semi-structured interviews, which included three clinical scenarios where deintensification may be indicated. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four adults aged ≥65 years with medication-treated type 2 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c <7.5% were included (to thematic saturation) using a maximal variation sampling strategy for diabetes treatment and physician specialty. APPROACH: Interviews were independently coded by two investigators and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. We identified major themes and subthemes and coded responses to the clinical scenarios as positive (in favor of deintensification), negative, or ambiguous. KEY RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 74 years, half were women, and 58% used a sulfonylurea or insulin. The first of four major themes was fear of losing control of diabetes, which participants weighed against the benefits of taking less medication (Theme 2). Few participants viewed glycemic control below target as a reason for deintensification and a majority would restart the medication if their home glucose increased. Some participants were anchored to their current diabetes treatment (Theme 3) driven by unrealistic views of medication benefits. A trusting patient-provider relationship (Theme 4) was a positive influence. In clinical scenarios, 8%, 4%, and 75% of participants viewed deintensification positively in the setting of poor health, limited life expectancy, and high hypoglycemia risk, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing deintensification requires patient education that describes both individualized glycemic targets and how they will change over the lifespan. Deintensification is an opportunity for shared decision-making, but providers must understand patients' beliefs about their medications and address misconceptions. Hypoglycemia prevention may be a helpful framing for discussing deintensification.

A National Survey of Physicians' Views on the Importance and Implementation of Deintensifying Diabetes Medications.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend deintensifying hypoglycemia-causing medications for older adults with diabetes whose hemoglobin A1c is below their individualized target, but this rarely occurs in practice. OBJECTIVE: To understand physicians' decision-making around deintensifying diabetes treatment. DESIGN: National physician survey. PARTICIPANTS: US physicians in general medicine, geriatrics, or endocrinology providing outpatient diabetes care. MAIN MEASURES: Physicians rated the importance of deintensifying diabetes medications for older adults with type 2 diabetes, and of switching medication classes, on 5-point Likert scales. They reported the frequency of these actions for their patients, and listed important barriers and facilitators. We evaluated the independent association between physicians' professional and practice characteristics and the importance of deintensifying and switching diabetes medications using multivariable ordered logistic regression models. KEY RESULTS: There were 445 eligible respondents (response rate 37.5%). The majority of physicians viewed deintensifying (80%) and switching (92%) diabetes medications as important or very important to the care of older adults. Despite this, one-third of physicians reported deintensifying diabetes medications rarely or never. While most physicians recognized multiple reasons to deintensify, two-thirds of physicians reported barriers of short-term hyperglycemia and patient reluctance to change medications or allow higher glucose levels. In multivariable models, geriatricians rated deintensification as more important compared to other specialties (p=0.027), and endocrinologists rated switching as more important compared to other specialties (p<0.006). Physicians with fewer years in practice rated higher importance of deintensification (p<0.001) and switching (p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: While most US physicians viewed deintensifying and switching diabetes medications as important for the care of older adults, they deintensified infrequently. Physicians had ambivalence about the relative benefits and harms of deintensification and viewed it as a potential source of conflict with their patients. These factors likely contribute to clinical inertia, and studies focused on improving shared decision-making around deintensifying diabetes medications are needed.

Revisiting systematic reviews on deprescribing trials to better inform future practice and research.

Deprescribing aims to address the problem of medication overuse in older adults. There has been an increasing number of systematic reviews of 'deprescribing'. We aimed to describe the categories of trials included in recent systematic reviews, and to make recommendations for future research. We categorized 122 trials included in eight recent deprescribing systematic reviews into: discontinuation, deprescribing implementation, medication optimisation (including medication initiation) and non-initiation trials. We identified heterogeneity and inconsistency in the categories of trials included in deprescribing systematic reviews. For example, 39 trials (32.0%) involved medication initiation in addition to the deprescribing component. It is now time for international researchers to develop and validate terminology used for trials involving discontinuation/deprescribing of medications, and to provide recommendations for evidence synthesis that will better inform future research, and translation into practice and policy.

Clinical practice guideline for deprescribing opioid analgesics: summary of recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Long term opioids are commonly prescribed to manage pain. Dose reduction or discontinuation (deprescribing) can be challenging, even when the potential harms of continuation outweigh the perceived benefits. The Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for deprescribing opioid analgesics was developed using robust guideline development processes and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and contains deprescribing recommendations for adults prescribed opioids for pain. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: Eleven recommendations provide advice about when, how and for whom opioid deprescribing should be considered, while noting the need to consider each person's goals, values and preferences. The recommendations aim to achieve: implementation of a deprescribing plan at the point of opioid initiation; initiation of opioid deprescribing for persons with chronic non-cancer or chronic cancer-survivor pain if there is a lack of overall and clinically meaningful improvement in function, quality of life or pain, a lack of progress towards meeting agreed therapeutic goals, or the person is experiencing serious or intolerable opioid-related adverse effects; gradual and individualised deprescribing, with regular monitoring and review; consideration of opioid deprescribing for individuals at high risk of opioid-related harms; avoidance of opioid deprescribing for persons nearing the end of life unless clinically indicated; avoidance of opioid deprescribing for persons with a severe opioid use disorder, with the initiation of evidence-based care, such as medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder; and use of evidence-based co-interventions to facilitate deprescribing, including interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary or multimodal care. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THESE GUIDELINES: To our knowledge, these are the first evidence-based guidelines for opioid deprescribing. The recommendations intend to facilitate safe and effective deprescribing to improve the quality of care for persons taking opioids for pain.

Pragmatic Delphi study aimed at determining practical components for a tool designed to assist Dutch primary care-givers in opioid deprescribing for non-cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decades, opioid prescriptions have increased in the Netherlands. The Dutch general practitioners' guideline on pain was recently updated and now aims to reduce opioid prescriptions and high-risk opioid use for non-cancer pain. The guideline, however, lacks practical measures for implementation. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine practical components for a tool that should assist Dutch primary care prescribers and implements the recently updated guideline to reduce opioid prescriptions and high-risk use. METHODS: A modified Delphi approach was used. The practical components for the tool were identified based on systematic reviews, qualitative studies, and Dutch primary care guidelines. Suggested components were divided into Part A, containing components designed to reduce opioid initiation and stimulate short-term use, and Part B, containing components designed to reduce opioid use among patients on long-term opioid treatment. During three rounds, a multidisciplinary panel of 21 experts assessed the content, usability, and feasibility of these components by adding, deleting, and adapting components until consensus was reached on the outlines of an opioid reduction tool. RESULTS: The resulting Part A consisted of six components, namely education, opioid decision tree, risk assessment, agreements on dosage and duration of use, guidance and follow-up, and interdisciplinary collaboration. The resulting Part B consisted of five components, namely education, patient identification, risk assessment, motivation, and tapering. CONCLUSIONS: In this pragmatic Delphi study, components for an opioid reduction tool for Dutch primary care-givers are identified. These components need further development, and the final tool should be tested in an implementation study.

Tackling potentially inappropriate prescriptions in older adults: development of deprescribing criteria by consensus from experts in Colombia, Argentina, and Spain.

BACKGROUND: Potentially inappropriate medication use is prevalent among older adults in primary care, leading to increased morbidity, adverse drug reactions, hospitalizations, and mortality. This study aimed to develop and validate a tool for identifying PIMs in older adults within the primary care setting. The tool is composed of a list of criteria and was created based on consensus among experts from three Spanish-speaking countries, including two from Latin America. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to identify existing tools, and prescription patterns were evaluated in a cohort of 36,111 older adults. An electronic Delphi method, consisting of two rounds, was used to reach a formal expert consensus. The panel included 18 experts from Spain, Colombia, and Argentina. The content validity index, validity of each content item, and Kappa Fleiss statistical measure were used to establish reliability. RESULTS: Round one did not yield a consensus, but a definitive consensus was reached in round two. The resulting tool consisted of a list of 5 general recommendations per disease, along with 33 criteria related to potential problems, recommendations, and alternative therapeutic options. The overall content validity of the tool was 0.87, with a Kappa value of 0.69 (95% CI 0.64-0.73; Substantial). CONCLUSIONS: The developed criteria provide a novel list that allows for a comprehensive approach to pharmacotherapy in older adults, intending to reduce inappropriate medication use, ineffective treatments, prophylactic therapies, and treatments with an unfavorable risk-benefit ratio for the given condition. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the impact of these criteria on health outcomes.

Reducing long-term use of benzodiazepine receptor agonists: In-depth interview study with primary care stakeholders.

AIMS: To increase our understanding of which factors contribute to long-term benzodiazepine receptor agonist (BZRA) use for insomnia in primary care, from a patients', general practitioners' (GP) and pharmacists' perspective. DESIGN: Qualitative research following a grounded theory approach. SETTING: Primary care in Belgium. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four participants were interviewed, including nine patients, six GPs and nine pharmacists. MEASUREMENTS: In-depth, semistructured interviews with iterative cycles of data collection and analysis. Transcripts were analysed using the framework method. Thematic findings were interpreted in the context of the Theoretical Domains Framework. FINDINGS: A reflexive relation was identified between views about hypnotic use at the level of society, healthcare and patients. Behaviour change appeared to depend strongly on context and social influence, including a need for supporting relationships by all stakeholders. Six key messages captured factors that contribute to long-term BZRA use for insomnia in primary care: societal beliefs as a game changer, the opportunity of nonpharmacological treatment, collaborative primary care, patient-centred goals, informed consent and self-management. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term BZRA use for insomnia is a complex and multifaceted public health problem that is not adequately addressed in primary care at this time. Although primary care professionals in this study found discontinuation of long-term BZRA use relevant to the patient's health, many organisational and personal barriers were reported. Moreover, the current social and healthcare context is not empowering patients and professionals to reduce long-term BZRA use for insomnia. Specifically, for primary care, all stakeholders reported the need for a nonmedicalised relationship between the patient and GP to lower prescribing rates. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The Flemish Patient Platform, a patient representative organisation, assisted with recruitment by launching a call for participants in their newsletter and volunteered to disseminate the results. The call for recruitment was also published online in social media groups regarding insomnia and via posters in public pharmacies. Patients or public were not involved in designing or conducting the interview study.

Psychiatric Deprescribing: A Narrative Review.

OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric deprescribing is an intervention where psychiatric medications are reduced or discontinued with the goal to improve health and reduce unnecessary risks. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the literature related to psychiatric deprescribing to discuss practice and research implications. METHODS: A structured search of the literature was conducted from May to September 2022, yielding 29 articles meeting inclusion criteria. Articles were reviewed and synthesized. RESULTS: Psychiatric deprescribing is a complex process with many potential facilitators and barriers. The extant literature provides insight into current gaps in knowledge and implications for clinical practice and research. CONCLUSIONS: In current clinical practice, psychiatric deprescribing is a priority but there are significant barriers. Several areas of future research could be pursued to better support evidence-based practice in this area.