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.

Deprescribing medicines in older people living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: the TAILOR evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Tackling problematic polypharmacy requires tailoring the use of medicines to individual needs and circumstances. This may involve stopping medicines (deprescribing) but patients and clinicians report uncertainty on how best to do this. The TAILOR medication synthesis sought to help understand how best to support deprescribing in older people living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. OBJECTIVES: We identified two research questions: (1) what evidence exists to support the safe, effective and acceptable stopping of medication in this patient group, and (2) how, for whom and in what contexts can safe and effective tailoring of clinical decisions related to medication use work to produce desired outcomes? We thus described three objectives: (1) to undertake a robust scoping review of the literature on stopping medicines in this group to describe what is being done, where and for what effect; (2) to undertake a realist synthesis review to construct a programme theory that describes 'best practice' and helps explain the heterogeneity of deprescribing approaches; and (3) to translate findings into resources to support tailored prescribing in clinical practice. DATA SOURCES: Experienced information specialists conducted comprehensive searches in MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, Google (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) and Google Scholar (targeted searches). REVIEW METHODS: The scoping review followed the five steps described by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for conducting a scoping review. The realist review followed the methodological and publication standards for realist reviews described by the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) group. Patient and public involvement partners ensured that our analysis retained a patient-centred focus. RESULTS: Our scoping review identified 9528 abstracts: 8847 were removed at screening and 662 were removed at full-text review. This left 20 studies (published between 2009 and 2020) that examined the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of deprescribing in adults (aged ≥ 50 years) with polypharmacy (five or more prescribed medications) and multimorbidity (two or more conditions). Our analysis revealed that deprescribing under research conditions mapped well to expert guidance on the steps needed for good clinical practice. Our findings offer evidence-informed support to clinicians regarding the safety, clinician acceptability and potential effectiveness of clinical decision-making that demonstrates a structured approach to deprescribing decisions. Our realist review identified 2602 studies with 119 included in the final analysis. The analysis outlined 34 context-mechanism-outcome configurations describing the knowledge work of tailored prescribing under eight headings related to organisational, health-care professional and patient factors, and interventions to improve deprescribing. We conclude that robust tailored deprescribing requires attention to providing an enabling infrastructure, access to data, tailored explanations and trust. LIMITATIONS: Strict application of our definition of multimorbidity during the scoping review may have had an impact on the relevance of the review to clinical practice. The realist review was limited by the data (evidence) available. CONCLUSIONS: Our combined reviews recognise deprescribing as a complex intervention and provide support for the safety of structured approaches to deprescribing, but also highlight the need to integrate patient-centred and contextual factors into best practice models. FUTURE WORK: The TAILOR study has informed new funded research tackling deprescribing in sleep management, and professional education. Further research is being developed to implement tailored prescribing into routine primary care practice. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107544 and PROSPERO CRD42018104176. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Many patients take multiple medicines, every day, on a long-term basis. Some feel overloaded by their medicines. However, both doctors and patients have told us that they feel anxious about knowing when and how to safely stop medicines. TAILOR aimed to help by providing the information that doctors and patients need to make individual (tailored) decisions about whether or not to stop (deprescribe) medicines. We had two research questions and so used a different research method to answer each. Both methods involved us first finding all the published research looking at deprescribing for older people living with long-term conditions and using five or more medicines a day. Our first (scoping) review produced a map of what we know about deprescribing: how it is done and if it is safe. We found evidence that structured deprescribing can be safe and acceptable to clinicians, but specific effects were very varied and patient views were often not reported. Our team's patient partners continuously reminded us that medicines mean more to individuals than just a medical effect (e.g. a 'tablet for my blood pressure'), meaning that our research needed to describe good person-centred deprescribing. Our second (realist) review focused on this by looking at if and how tailored deprescribing decisions happen. Our results showed that health-care services need to give clinicians the permission and resources they need to work with patients to develop a joint understanding of the value of medicines, to guide decisions about using/changing medicines, and so to build and maintain trust. Our findings remind us that decisions about medicines are personal. We need to remember that any changes in medicines affect not just an individual's disease, but also their understanding of their health and health care. Our work makes recommendations on how future practice and research can be more person centred. We are now working with patients and health-care professionals to share our findings with a wide audience.

Global, regional, and national consumption of controlled opioids: a cross-sectional study of 214 countries and non-metropolitan territories.

INTRODUCTION: The consumption of opioids has increased globally since the 1990s. Previous studies of global opioid consumption have concentrated on morphine alone or a subset of opioids, with a focus on cancer pain and palliative care. In this study, we have determined the global, regional, and national consumption of all controlled opioids, including anaesthetics, analgesics, antidiarrheals, opioid substitution therapies, and cough suppressants. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB). We calculated mean opioid consumption (mg/person) globally, regionally, and nationally for 2015-2017, where consumption refers to the total amount of controlled opioids distributed for medical purposes and excludes recreational use. We ranked countries by total consumption and quantified the types of opioids consumed globally. RESULTS: Between 2015 and 2017, 90% of the world's population consumed only 11% of controlled opioids. An average of 32 mg/person was consumed annually, but this was not equally distributed across the world. Consumption was the highest in Germany (480 mg/person), followed by Iceland (428 mg/person), the United States (398 mg/person) and Canada (333 mg/person). Oxycodone (35%) was the most heavily consumed controlled opioid globally, followed by morphine (15.9%), methadone (15.8%) and tilidine (14%). CONCLUSION: Large disparities persist in most of the world in accessing essential opioid medicines. Consumption patterns should continue to be monitored, and collaborative strategies should be developed to promote access and the appropriate prescribing of opioids in all countries and non-metropolitan territories.

Benefits and harms of Risperidone and Paliperidone for treatment of patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder: a meta-analysis involving individual participant data and clinical study reports.

BACKGROUND: Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are severe mental illnesses which are highly prevalent worldwide. Risperidone and Paliperidone are treatments for either illnesses, but their efficacy compared to other antipsychotics and growing reports of hormonal imbalances continue to raise concerns. As existing evidence on both antipsychotics are solely based on aggregate data, we aimed to assess the benefits and harms of Risperidone and Paliperidone in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, using individual participant data (IPD), clinical study reports (CSRs) and publicly available sources (journal publications and trial registries). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Central, EMBASE and PsycINFO until December 2020 for randomised placebo-controlled trials of Risperidone, Paliperidone or Paliperidone palmitate in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. We obtained IPD and CSRs from the Yale University Open Data Access project. The primary outcome Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score was analysed using one-stage IPD meta-analysis. Random-effect meta-analysis of harm outcomes involved methods for coping with rare events. Effect-sizes were compared across all available data sources using the ratio of means or relative risk. We registered our review on PROSPERO, CRD42019140556. RESULTS: Of the 35 studies, IPD meta-analysis involving 22 (63%) studies showed a significant clinical reduction in the PANSS in patients receiving Risperidone (mean difference - 5.83, 95% CI - 10.79 to - 0.87, I2 = 8.5%, n = 4 studies, 1131 participants), Paliperidone (- 6.01, 95% CI - 8.7 to - 3.32, I2 = 4.3%, n = 13, 3821) and Paliperidone palmitate (- 7.89, 95% CI - 12.1 to - 3.69, I2 = 2.9%, n = 5, 2209). CSRs reported nearly two times more adverse events (4434 vs. 2296 publication, relative difference (RD) = 1.93, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.00) and almost 8 times more serious adverse events (650 vs. 82; RD = 7.93, 95% CI 6.32 to 9.95) than the journal publications. Meta-analyses of individual harms from CSRs revealed a significant increased risk among several outcomes including extrapyramidal disorder, tardive dyskinesia and increased weight. But the ratio of relative risk between the different data sources was not significant. Three treatment-related gynecomastia events occurred, and these were considered mild to moderate in severity. CONCLUSION: IPD meta-analysis conclude that Risperidone and Paliperidone antipsychotics had a small beneficial effect on reducing PANSS score over 9 weeks, which is more conservative than estimates from reviews based on journal publications. CSRs also contained significantly more data on harms that were unavailable in journal publications or trial registries. Sharing of IPD and CSRs are necessary when performing meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics.

The health impacts of preventive cardiovascular medication reduction on older populations: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is inevitable and appropriate for many conditions, but in some cases, it can be problematic resulting in an increased risk of harm and reduced quality of life. There has been an increasing interest to reduce cardioprotective medications in older adults to potentially reduce the risk of harm due to treatment; however, there is no evidence on safety and efficacy to support this practice currently. This paper describes a protocol for a systematic review on the safety and efficacy of reducing cardioprotective medication in older populations. METHODS: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) will be searched from their inception onwards for relevant studies. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies on interventions (prospective, retrospective cohort, case-control) conducted in older adults (75 years or older) examining reduction of cardioprotective medications will be included. The primary outcome of this study will be all-cause hospitalisation. Secondary outcome variables of interest are all-cause hospitalisation, mortality, quality of life, serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events, falls, fractures, cognitive functioning, bleeding events, renal functioning, medication burden, drug reinstatement, time-in-hospital, and frailty status. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and extract data. Confidence in cumulative evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach; the risk of bias will be assessed by the RoB-II tool for randomised controlled studies and ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies. Where sufficient data are available, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis by combining the outcomes of the included studies. Sub-group analysis and meta-regression are planned to assess the potential harms and risks of different drug classes and the impacts in different patient populations (e.g. sex, cognitive status, renal status, and age). DISCUSSION: The study will be a comprehensive review on all published articles identified using our search strategy on the safety and efficacy of cardioprotective medication reduction in the older population. The findings will be crucial to inform clinicians on potential health outcomes of reducing cardiovascular medication in the elderly. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020208223.

GPs' use and understanding of the benefits and harms of treatments for long-term conditions: a qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: To support shared decision making and improve the management of polypharmacy, it is recommended that GPs take into account quantitative information on the benefits and harms of treatments (QIRx). Quantitative evidence shows GPs' knowledge of this is low. AIM: To explore GPs' attitudes to and understanding of QIRx for long-term conditions. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative interview study in UK general practice. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 15 GPs. Audiorecordings were transcribed verbatim and a framework approach was used for analysis. RESULTS: Participants described knowing or using QIRx for only a few treatments. There was awareness of this knowledge deficit coupled with low confidence in statistical terminology. Some GPs perceived an absence of this information as an important barrier to optimal care, while others were content to follow guidelines. In the absence of this knowledge, other strategies were described to individualise treatment decisions. The idea of increasing the use of QIRx appealed to most participants, with imagined benefits for patients and themselves. However, potential barriers were described: a need for accessible information that can be understood and integrated into real-world practice, system factors, and communication challenges. CONCLUSION: GPs were aware of their knowledge deficit with regard to an understanding of QIRx. Most participants were positive about the idea of increasing their use of QIRx in practice but described important challenges, which need to be considered when designing solutions.

Naltrexone-bupropion (Mysimba) in management of obesity: A systematic review and meta-analysis of unpublished clinical study reports.

AIMS: To compare the benefits and harms of naltrexone-bupropion using evidence from clinical study reports. METHODS: We searched Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency websites, PubMed, and Clinicaltrials.gov (May 2016) to identify pivotal trials; we then sent a freedom of information request to the European Medicines Agency (July 2016). We included pivotal, phase III placebo-controlled trials. We assessed the risks of bias using the Cochrane criteria, and the quality of the evidence using GRADE. We used a random-effects model for meta-analyses. RESULTS: Over a 27-month period (July 2016 to August 2018), we received 31 batches of clinical study report documents containing over 65 000 pages of data from 4 pivotal trials (n = 4536). Significantly more participants who took naltrexone-bupropion achieved ≥5% reduction in body weight: risk ratio (RR) = 2.1 (95% confidence interval 1.35-3.28), P = .001, GRADE = low, number needed to treat (NNT) to benefit = 5 (3-17); this represents a 2.53 kg (1.85-3.21) reduction in baseline body weight compared with placebo. Naltrexone-bupropion had significantly beneficial effects on other cardiovascular risk factors; however, the true effect sizes for these are uncertain because of incomplete outcome data. Naltrexone-bupropion significantly increased the risk of adverse events: RR = 1.11 (1.05-1.18, P = .0004, GRADE = low, NNT to harm = 12 7-27); serious adverse events: RR = 1.70 (1.38-2.1, P < .00001, GRADE = moderate, NNT to harm = 21 13-38); and discontinuation because of adverse events: RR = 1.92 (1.65-2.24, P < .00001, GRADE = moderate, NNT to discontinue treatment = 9 8-13). CONCLUSIONS: Naltrexone-bupropion significantly reduces body weight by a small amount but significantly increases the risk of adverse events. A rigorous process of postmarketing surveillance is required.

Current understanding and implementation of 'care navigation' across England: a cross-sectional study of NHS clinical commissioning groups.

BACKGROUND: Care navigation is an avenue to link patients to activities or organisations that can help address non-medical needs affecting health and wellbeing. An understanding of how care navigation is being implemented across primary care is lacking. AIM: To determine how 'care navigation' is interpreted and currently implemented by clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional study involving CCGs in England. METHOD: A questionnaire was sent to all CCGs inviting them to comment on who provided care navigation, the type of patients for whom care navigation was provided, how individuals were referred, and whether services were being evaluated. Responses were summarised using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The authors received usable responses from 83% of CCGs (n = 162), and of these >90% (n = 147) had some form of care navigation running in their area. A total of 75 different titles were used to describe the role. Most services were open to all adult patients, though particular groups may have been targeted; for example, people who are older and those with long-term conditions. Referrals tended to be made by a professional, or people were identified by a receptionist when they presented to a surgery. Evaluation of care navigation services was limited. CONCLUSION: There is a policy steer to engaging patients in social prescribing, using some form of care navigator to help with this. Results from this study highlight that, although this type of role is being provided, its implementation is heterogeneous. This could make comparison and the pooling of data on care navigation difficult. It may also leave patients unsure about what care navigation is about and how it could help them.

Device-Guided Breathing for Hypertension: a Summary Evidence Review.

Persistently raised blood pressure is one of the major risk factors for diseases such as myocardial infarction and stroke. Uncontrolled hypertension is also associated with high rates of mortality, particularly in middle and high-income countries. Lifestyle factors such as poor diet, obesity, physical inactivity and smoking are all thought to contribute to the development of hypertension. As a result, the management of hypertension should begin with modifying these lifestyle factors. Beyond this, drug interventions are used as the predominant form of management. However, adherence to medications can be highly variable, medication side effects are common, and may require regular monitoring or, in some individuals may be ineffective. Therefore, additional non-pharmacologic interventions that lower blood pressure may be advantageous when combined with lifestyle modifications. Such interventions may include relaxation therapies such as slow breathing exercises, which can be initiated by means of specific devices. The technique of device-guided breathing (DGB) has been considered by guideline developers in the management of hypertension. One specific device, the Resperate, has received US FDA and UK NHS approval over the last few years. In this review, we summarise the evidence base on efficacy and find that although some clinical trials exist that demonstrate a BP-lowering effect, others do not. There is currently insufficient evidence from pooled data to recommend the routine use of device-guided breathing in hypertensive patients.

Neuraminidase inhibitors for preventing and treating influenza in healthy adults and children

BACKGROUND: Neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) are stockpiled and recommended by public health agencies for treating and preventing seasonal and pandemic influenza. They are used clinically worldwide. OBJECTIVE: To describe the potential benefits and harms of NIs for influenza in all age groups by reviewing all clinical study reports of published and unpublished randomised, placebo-controlled trials and regulatory comments. METHODS Search methods: We searched trial registries, electronic databases (to 22 July 2013) and regulatory archives, and corresponded with manufacturers to identify all trials. We also requested clinical study reports. We focused on the primary data sources of manufacturers but we checked that there were no published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from non-manufacturer sources by running electronic searches in the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Embase.com, PubMed (not MEDLINE), the Database of Reviews of Effects, the NHS Economic Evaluation Database and the Health Economic Evaluations Database. Selection criteria: Randomised, placebo-controlled trials on adults and children with confirmed or suspected exposure to naturally occurring influenza. Data collection and analysis: We extracted clinical study reports and assessed risk of bias using purpose-built instruments. We analysed the effects of zanamivir and oseltamivir on time to first alleviation of symptoms, influenza outcomes, complications, hospitalisations and adverse events in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. All trials were sponsored by the manufacturers. MAIN RESULTS: We obtained 107 clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), GlaxoSmithKline and Roche. We accessed comments by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), EMA and Japanese regulator. We included 53 trials in Stage 1 (a judgement of appropriate study design) and 46 in Stage ...

Is rheumatoid factor useful in primary care? A retrospective cross-sectional study.

Rheumatoid factor (RF) is frequently tested in general practice where its utility as a diagnostic test for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is not known. We undertook a retrospective cross-sectioal study to determine the utility and cost of RF in a primary care population. We compared RF with recorded clinical features based on the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria as a diagnostic test for RA in 235 patients in general practice using receiver operating characteristic curves and calculated the cost of testing per case of RA. We analysed 36,191 RF requests made to one laboratory from 2003-2009 at a mean annual cost of £58,164 and the variation and annual cost of RF testing between 77 practices. The sensitivity and specificity of RF at the optimal cut-off value of 20 U/ml were 0.6 and 0.96 and that of two documented clinical ACR criteria were 0.9 and 0.92, respectively. No ACR criteria were documented in 150 (63.8%) patients who had RF tested. The overall cost of RF testing per case of seropositive RA was £708.75. Of all RF requests, 66.6% was made by GPs, 7.0% by rheumatologists and 26.4% by other hospital departments. The proportion of positive tests was 5.8% in primary care and 17.7% in rheumatology. The mean number of tests performed annually in primary care was 4.65 (SD 2.7) per 1,000 patients. RF is less sensitive for RA than clinical features in primary care and is frequently requested in cases without clinical evidence of the disease, adding to the overall cost.