An Emulated Clinical Trial of Deprescribing Proton Pump Inhibitors in Patients With Cirrhosis.

INTRODUCTION: Proton pump inhibitors (PPI) are overused and carry harms in cirrhosis. Deprescribing is advocated but has not been trialed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We emulated a clinical trial using Medicare data. All patients were receiving chronic PPI therapy before a compensated cirrhosis diagnosis. We compared the risk death/decompensation over 3 years between continuous users and deprescribers. We find that PPI deprescription is associated with less ascites and that cumulative PPI use is associated with more ascites and encephalopathy. Ultimately, 71% of deprescribers restart PPIs. DISCUSSION: PPI deprescribing has benefits but requires ongoing support and alternative therapies for gastrointestinal symptoms.

Effectiveness of Bundled Hyperpolypharmacy Deprescribing Compared With Usual Care Among Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Older patients using many prescription drugs (hyperpolypharmacy) may be at increased risk of adverse drug effects. Objective: To test the effectiveness and safety of a quality intervention intended to reduce hyperpolypharmacy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial allocated patients 76 years or older who used 10 or more prescription medications to a deprescribing intervention or to usual care (1:1 ratio) at an integrated health system with multiple preexisting deprescribing workflows. Data were collected from October 15, 2020, to July 29, 2022. Intervention: Physician-pharmacist collaborative drug therapy management, standard-of-care practice recommendations, shared decision-making, and deprescribing protocols administered by telephone over multiple cycles for a maximum of 180 days after allocation. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary end points were change in the number of medications and in the prevalence of geriatric syndrome (falls, cognition, urinary incontinence, and pain) from 181 to 365 days after allocation compared with before randomization. Secondary outcomes were use of medical services and adverse drug withdrawal effects. Results: Of a random sample of 2860 patients selected for potential enrollment, 2470 (86.4%) remained eligible after physician authorization, with 1237 randomized to the intervention and 1233 to usual care. A total of 1062 intervention patients (85.9%) were reached and agreed to enroll. Demographic variables were balanced. The median age of the 2470 patients was 80 (range, 76-104) years, and 1273 (51.5%) were women. In terms of race and ethnicity, 185 patients (7.5%) were African American, 234 (9.5%) were Asian or Pacific Islander, 220 (8.9%) were Hispanic, 1574 (63.7%) were White (63.7%), and 257 (10.4%) were of other (including American Indian or Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or >1 race or ethnicity) or unknown race or ethnicity. During follow-up, both the intervention and usual care groups had slight reductions in the number of medications dispensed (mean changes, -0.4 [95% CI, -0.6 to -0.2] and -0.4 [95% CI, -0.6 to -0.3], respectively), with no difference between the groups (P = .71). There were no significant changes in the prevalence of a geriatric condition in the usual care and intervention groups at the end of follow-up and no difference between the groups (baseline prevalence: 47.7% [95% CI, 44.9%-50.5%] vs 42.9% [95% CI, 40.1%-45.7%], respectively; difference-in-differences, 1.0 [95% CI, -3.5 to 5.6]; P = .65). No differences in use of medical services or adverse drug withdrawal effects were observed. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial from an integrated care setting with various preexisting deprescribing workflows, a bundled hyperpolypharmacy deprescribing intervention was not associated with reduction in medication dispensing, prevalence of geriatric syndrome, utilization of medical services, or adverse drug withdrawal effects. Additional research is needed in less integrated settings and in more targeted populations. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05616689.

Attitudes of Older Adult Patients and Caregivers Towards Deprescribing of Medications in Ethiopia.

Background: Deprescribing is essential for reducing inappropriate medication use and polypharmacy. For a holistic approach, it is essential to know how older adult patients and their caregivers perceive deprescribing. Objective: To assess the attitude of older adult patients and caregivers towards deprescribing medication at Ambo University Referral Hospital. Methodology: Institutional-based cross-sectional study was conducted using the revised Patients' Attitude Towards Deprescribing tool (rPATD). The data was analyzed using the SPSS-25 software. Backward linear regression and logistic regression were used to measure association between outcome and determinant variables. The two-sided P-value ≤0.05 with 95% confidence interval was utilized for reporting significant factors. Results: One hundred fifty-six (81.3%) of the respondents (ie, 85.0% of older adult and 77.2% of caregivers) agreed to stop one or more of their regular medications if the physician said it was possible despite 98 (51.0%) of them (ie, 49.0% of older adult and 53.3% of caregivers) being satisfied with their/their care recipient's medications. On the overall aggregate mean score, the respondents had a neutral position (2.6-3.59) regarding the burden and concerns of stopping medications whereas the majority of them disagree (1.0-2.59) with the inappropriateness of the medication they were taking and agreed (3.6-5.0) with the need for their involvement in treatment decision making. Concerns about stopping medicine scores (AOR = 0.440, 95% CI = 0.262-0.741, P = 0.035) and perceived levels of medication inappropriateness (AOR = 0.653, 95% CI = 0.456-0.936, P = 0.020) was significantly associated with the willingness to discontinue and overall satisfaction with their medicine regimen respectively. Conclusion: The majority of older adult patients and caregivers would like to deprescribe if the physicians recommended it. The perceived concerns of stopping and inappropriateness of the medicines were associated with the willingness to deprescribe and overall satisfaction with their medicine respectively. Healthcare providers should prompt the deprescribing process with older adult patients and caregivers by addressing their concerns about stopping medications.

Can a practice pharmacist improve prescribing safety and reduce costs in polypharmacy patients? A pilot study of an intervention in an Irish general practice setting.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to develop and assess the feasibility and cost impact of an intervention involving a practice pharmacist embedded in general practice to improve prescribing safety, deprescribe where appropriate and reduce costs. SETTING: Four-doctor suburban general practice. PARTICIPANTS: Inclusion criteria: patients receiving 10+ repeat drugs per month. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: deceased, <18 years of age, nursing home resident, no longer attending, late-stage life-limiting condition, unsuitable on clinical/capacity grounds. 137 patients were eligible. 78 were recruited as participants, all of whom completed the study. INTERVENTION: Pharmacist conducting holistic medication reviews in the study group over a 6-month period. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Anonymised medication changes, cost, biochemical monitoring and clinical measurements data were collected. Cost analysis of having a pharmacist as part of the general practice team was calculated. RESULTS: In total, 198 potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs), and 163 opportunities for deprescribing were identified; 127 PIPs (64.1%) were actioned; 104 deprescribing opportunities were actioned (63.8%). The pharmacist identified 101 instances in which further investigations were warranted prior to prescription issue, of which 80 were actioned (79.2%). It was calculated that monthly savings of €1252 were made as a result of deprescribing. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that the integration of pharmacists within general practice in Ireland is feasible and is an effective means of improving prescribing safety and implementing deprescribing through medication reviews. The combination of safety and cost concerns support taking a holistic approach to deprescribing with the patient. This study highlights the ease with which a pharmacist could integrate into the general practice setting in Ireland and points to how this could be sustainably funded.

Deprescribing Education vs Usual Care for Patients With Cognitive Impairment and Primary Care Clinicians: The OPTIMIZE Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

Background: Individuals with dementia or mild cognitive impairment frequently have multiple chronic conditions (defined as ≥2 chronic medical conditions) and take multiple medications, increasing their risk for adverse outcomes. Deprescribing (reducing or stopping medications for which potential harms outweigh potential benefits) may decrease their risk of adverse outcomes. Objective: To examine the effectiveness of increasing patient and clinician awareness about the potential to deprescribe unnecessary or risky medications among patients with dementia or mild cognitive impairment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic, patient-centered, 12-month cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, at 18 primary care clinics in a not-for-profit integrated health care delivery system. The study included 3012 adults aged 65 years or older with dementia or mild cognitive impairment who had 1 or more additional chronic medical conditions and were taking 5 or more long-term medications. Interventions: An educational brochure and a questionnaire on attitudes toward deprescribing were mailed to patients prior to a primary care visit, clinicians were notified about the mailing, and deprescribing tip sheets were distributed to clinicians at monthly clinic meetings. Main Outcomes and Measures: The number of prescribed long-term medications and the percentage of individuals prescribed 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: This study comprised 1433 individuals (806 women [56.2%]; mean [SD] age, 80.1 [7.2] years) in 9 intervention clinics and 1579 individuals (874 women [55.4%]; mean [SD] age, 79.9 [7.5] years) in 9 control clinics who met the eligibility criteria. At baseline, both groups were prescribed a similar mean (SD) number of long-term medications (7.0 [2.1] in the intervention group and 7.0 [2.2] in the control group), and a similar proportion of individuals in both groups were taking 1 or more PIMs (437 of 1433 individuals [30.5%] in the intervention group and 467 of 1579 individuals [29.6%] in the control group). At 6 months, the adjusted mean number of long-term medications was similar in the intervention and control groups (6.4 [95% CI, 6.3-6.5] vs 6.5 [95% CI, 6.4-6.6]; P = .14). The estimated percentages of patients in the intervention and control groups taking 1 or more PIMs were similar (17.8% [95% CI, 15.4%-20.5%] vs 20.9% [95% CI, 18.4%-23.6%]; P = .08). In preplanned subgroup analyses, adjusted differences between the intervention and control groups were -0.16 (95% CI, -0.34 to 0.01) for individuals prescribed 7 or more long-term medications at baseline (n = 1434) and -0.03 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.13) for those prescribed 5 to 6 medications (n = 1578) (P = .28 for interaction; P = .19 for subgroup interaction for PIMs). Conclusions and Relevance: This large-scale educational deprescribing intervention for older adults with cognitive impairment taking 5 or more long-term medications and their primary care clinicians demonstrated small effect sizes and did not significantly reduce the number of long-term medications and PIMs. Such interventions should target older adults taking relatively more medications. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03984396.

Barriers and enablers to monitoring and deprescribing opioid analgesics for chronic non-cancer pain: a systematic review with qualitative evidence synthesis using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

BACKGROUND: Understanding barriers and enablers to monitoring and deprescribing opioids will enable the development of tailored interventions to improve both practices. OBJECTIVE: To perform a qualitative evidence synthesis of the barriers and enablers to monitoring ongoing appropriateness and deprescribing of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) and to map the findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). METHODS: We included English-language qualitative studies that explored healthcare professional (HCP), patient, carer and the general public's perceptions regarding monitoring and deprescribing opioids for CNCP. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and PsycINFO from inception to August 2020. Two authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data, assessed the methodological quality using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, and assessed the confidence in the findings using GRADE CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research). We used an inductive approach to synthesis of qualitative data and mapped identified themes to TDF domains. RESULTS: From 6948 records identified we included 21 studies, involving 209 HCPs and 330 patients. No studies involved carers or the general public. Five barrier themes were identified: limited alternatives to opioids, management of pain is top priority, patient understanding, expectations and experiences, prescriber pressures, and reluctance to change. Four enabler themes were identified: negative effects of opioids and benefits of deprescribing, clear communication and expectations for deprescribing, support for patients, and support for prescribers. 16 barrier and 12 enabler subthemes were identified; most were graded as high (n=15) or moderate (n=9) confidence. The TDF domains 'beliefs about consequences', 'environmental context and resources', 'social influences' and 'emotion' were salient for patients and HCPs. The domains 'skills' and 'beliefs about capabilities' were more salient for HCPs. CONCLUSION: Future implementation interventions aimed at monitoring and deprescribing opioids should target the patient and HCP barriers and enablers identified in this synthesis. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019140784.

Applying QI-focused SPIDER approach to safer deprescribing for geriatric patients: Results of the Toronto Feasibility Study.

Context: More than 25% of Canadian seniors are prescribed 10+ different medications each year. There is a direct association between more medications and persistent high care needs/costs for seniors. Effective and appropriate deprescribing for seniors in primary care is needed. Objective: To present results of a feasibility study of the Structured Process Informed by Data, Evidence and Research (SPIDER) project aiming at improving safer deprescribing for complex older patients in community-based primary care. Study Design: Single-arm mixed methods study in Toronto, Ontario. Evaluation included participant interviews, focus groups, field notes and quantitative EMR data. Setting: Primary care practices affiliated with the University of Toronto Practice-Based Research Network (UTOPIAN). Population Studied: Patients aged 65+ years taking 10+ different medications. Intervention: 1) QI-focused Learning Collaboratives (LCs); 2) practice coaching; and 3) EMR data for audit & feedback. Outcome Measures: feasibility across eight dimensions: acceptability, demand, implementation, adaptation, integration, practicality, and efficacy. Results: Demand: 33 physicians and 24 allied health professionals from ten UTOPIAN practices and one community health centre participated in the Toronto LC. Implementation: the LC included a full day initial workshop, two short webinars, and a half-day summative congress over nine months. Practices had a monthly call with their QI coach and quarterly data reports. Adaptation, integration, practicality: teams developed various deprescribing tools and processes that were integratable to local context and existing practices. Acceptability: Teams perceived access to coaching as a valuable element of the approach. The initial review and validation of patients identified in the data reports were deemed time-consuming, particularly for under-resourced practices with a large cohort of target patient population. Access to pharmacist services and in-house QI and data support was considered two critical enablers to the sustainability of the approach. Efficacy: reductions in PIP prevalence and prevalence of patients with at least one PIP were 3.6% (p=.4) and 1.4% (p=.5), respectively. Conclusions: The SPIDER approach appears to be feasible. Access to coaching support and pharmacist services may enhance sustainability.

The process of deprescribing in older adults: a methodological protocol / Processo de desprescrição em idosos: protocolo metodológico

Objective: To report, by means of a methodological protocol, the process of deprescribing implemented in a geriatric psychiatry outpatient clinic of a teaching hospital. Methods: The topic of interest was comprehensively reviewed in the scientific literature. Instruments and tools necessary to develop the protocol were selected, including the Treatment Adherence Measure, Beers criteria, the EURO-FORTA List, the Brazilian Consensus on Potentially Inappropriate Medications for Older Persons, Drugs.com, and deprescribing algorithms. Results: The protocol consists of the following steps: 1) Review: Assess older patients' physical and behavioral status and family context and list all medications used; 2) Analyze: Review patients' drug therapy; 3) Act: Initiate deprescribing (if indicated); 4) Adjust: Discuss patients' expectations, beliefs, and preferences and adjust the prescription to their real possibilities; 5) Monitor: Identify responses to treatment, assess adherence to the deprescribing process, and detect return of symptoms or worsening of the underlying disease. Conclusions: Health care professionals need to work together to provide comprehensive care for older persons. The inclusion of deprescribing in more research groups focused on the geriatric population will increase attention to the safety of pharmacological treatment for older patients.

Objetivo: Relatar como ocorre o processo de desprescrição em um ambulatório de Psiquiatria Geriátrica de um hospital universitário, por meio de um protocolo metodológico. Metodologia: O assunto foi revisado na literatura científica e foram selecionados instrumentos e ferramentas necessários para desenvolver o protocolo, incluindo a Medida de Adesão aos Tratamentos, o Critério de Beers, a Lista Fit for the Aged (EURO-FORTA), o Consenso Brasileiro de Medicamentos Potencialmente Inapropriados para Idosos, Drugs.com e algoritmos de desprescrição. Resultados: O protocolo elaborado é composto das seguintes etapas: 1) revisar: avaliar o estado físico e comportamental e o contexto familiar do idoso e listar todos os medicamentos utilizados; 2) analisar: revisar a farmacoterapia do paciente; 3) agir: iniciar a desprescrição (se tiver indicação); 4) ajustar: pactuar expectativas, crenças e preferências do paciente, adaptando a prescrição às suas reais possibilidades; 5) monitorar: verificar as respostas ao tratamento, avaliar a adesão à desprescrição, detectar ressurgimento dos sintomas ou agravamento da doença de base. Conclusões: Os profissionais da saúde precisam trabalhar em conjunto para proporcionar atenção completa ao idoso. A inserção da desprescrição em mais grupos de pesquisa com o foco na população geriátrica possibilitará maior atenção à segurança dos tratamentos farmacológicos dos pacientes.

Retrospective analysis of a pilot pharmacist-led hospice deprescribing program initiative.

CONTEXT: Medication deprescribing in palliative care settings has been insufficiently studied. OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of a deprescribing program in hospice patients with limited life expectancy. DESIGN: Pharmacist-led, single arm, single-centered, retrospective analysis of a pilot deprescribing program in an integrated healthcare delivery organization between 9/1/2018 to 1/31/2019. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved ≥50% reduction of the recommended medications to deprescribe. RESULTS: A total of 97 patients were included in the analysis. The average age was 77.5 ± 23.7 years, with 53.6% being women and 54.6% white. The most common primary diagnosis was cancer (58.8%), with cardiovascular disease the next most common (15.5%). The mean number of baseline comorbidities was 2.0 ± 1.6. Of 698 prescriptions at the start of hospice enrollment, 79.4% of patients achieved a ≥50% reduction in medications recommended for deprescribing. This success was seen mostly in cardiovascular and other nonspecific medications. We found that every 1-unit increase in the number of patient encounters with hospice pharmacists was associated with a 3.2-fold higher odds of achieving a ≥50% reduction in medications that were recommended for deprescribing. CONCLUSION: The findings from this pilot study revealed that a collaborative, pharmacist-led, collaborative medication deprescribing program initiative was associated with a 79% success in ≥50% medication reduction. More frequent patient encounters had higher odds of success. Future studies, utilizing a control group, should focus on determining the effectiveness of the program and the impact on quality of life.

Medication Discontinuation Following Transurethral Prostatectomy: an Unrecognized Effectiveness Measure?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Freedom from medication is a common goal for patients undergoing surgical treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)/lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS). Knowing medication discontinuation rates following various forms of transurethral prostatectomy may aid patient counseling and assessing the comparative effectiveness of different approaches. This review examined discontinuation rates of BPH/LUTS medications following transurethral prostatectomy. RECENT FINDINGS: Rates of BPH/LUTS medication use after transurethral resection of the prostate varied from 15% to 55%, and discontinuation rates were 54-95% across medications and follow-up periods. For laser prostatectomy, approximately 18% of patients continued medications postoperatively and discontinuation rates ranged from 53% to 75%. Minimal data on holmium laser enucleation existed. For reference, medication discontinuation rates after transurethral needle ablation or microwave therapy were only 15-28%. No recommendations or best practices inform the use of medical therapy following BPH surgery. Rates of BPH/LUTS medication use following transurethral prostatectomy are considerable.

Promoting Patient-Centeredness in Opioid Deprescribing: a Blueprint for De-implementation Science.

A downward trend in opioid prescribing between 2011 and 2018 has brought per-capita opioid prescriptions below the levels of 2006, the earliest year for which the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has published data. That trend has affected roughly ten million patients who previously received long-term opioid therapy. Any effort to reduce or replace a prior health practice is termed de-implementation. We suggest that the evaluation of opioid prescribing de-implementation has been misdirected, within US policy and health research, resulting in detrimental impacts on patients, their families and clinicians. Policymakers and implementation scientists can address these deficiencies in how we study and how we perform opioid de-implementation by applying an implementation science framework: the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The Consolidated Framework lays out relevant domains of activity (internal, external, etc.) that influence implementation processes and outcomes. It can deepen our understanding of how policies are chosen, communicated, and carried out. Policymakers and researchers who embrace this framework will need a better approach to measuring success and failure in health care where both pain and opioids are concerned. This would involve shifting from a reductive focus on opioid prescription counts toward measures that are more effective, holistic, and patient-centered.

Deprescribing Opioids in Chronic Non-cancer Pain: Systematic Review of Randomised Trials.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing, the process of reducing or discontinuing unnecessary or harmful medicines is an essential part of clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of interventions designed to deprescribe opioid analgesics for pain relief in patients with chronic non-cancer pain. METHODS: We searched electronic databases, including clinical trial registries, from database inception to 13th January 2020 without restrictions, and conducted citation tracking. Our systematic review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions reducing the prescription, or use of opioid analgesics in patients with chronic pain versus control. Inventions could be aimed at the patient, clinician, or both. We excluded trials enrolling patients with cancer or illicit drug use. Two authors independently screened and extracted data. Outcome follow-up timepoints were short (≤ 3 months), intermediate (> 3 but < 12 months) or long (≥ 12 months) term. Primary outcome was the reduction in opioid dose [morphine milligram equivalent (MME) mg/day]. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. RESULTS: We included ten patient-focused RCT interventions (n = 835; median 37 participants) and 2 testing clinician-focused interventions (n = 291 clinicians); none at low risk of bias. Patient-focused interventions did not reduce opioid dose in the intermediate term [e.g. dose reduction protocol, mean difference (MD) - 19.9 MME, 95% CI - 107.5 to 67.7], nor did they increase the number of participants who ceased their dose, or increase the risk of serious adverse events or adverse events. One clinician intervention of education plus decision tools versus decision tools alone reduced the number of opioid prescriptions (risk difference (RD) - 0.1, 95% CI - 0.2 to - 0.1), dose (MD - 5.3 MME, 95% CI - 6.2 to - 4.5) and use (RD - 0.1, 95% CI - 0.1 to - 0.0) in the long term. LIMITATIONS: Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. CONCLUSION: The small number of studies and heterogeneity prevented firm conclusions to recommend any one opioid-analgesic-deprescribing strategy in patients with chronic pain. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42017068422.

Evaluation of a Pharmacist-Managed Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs Deprescribing Program in an Integrated Health Care System.

BACKGROUND: Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to treat symptoms of chronic inflammatory diseases such as osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis; however, they are also associated with various adverse effects, including gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and renal harm. As patients get older, some medications may no longer be beneficial or may even cause harm. Deprescribing is defined as the planned and supervised process of dose reduction or discontinuation of medications. While there are studies showing that deprescribing strategies with several classes of medications positively affects outcomes in elderly patients, there is a lack of strong evidence and guidance to deprescribe NSAIDs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness, safety, and economic impact of pharmacists deprescribing NSAIDs under the guidance of a standardized deprescribing program compared with usual care within an integrated health care system. METHODS: This retrospective, propensity score-matched cohort study included patients aged ≥ 65 years who were eligible for the NSAID deprescribing program from July 2016 to June 2018. Those patients in the deprescribing group were assessed by pharmacists and had their medications deprescribed. Patients who were eligible for the deprescribing program but did not receive any interventions were matched to the deprescribed group using propensity score matching at a 4:1 ratio and became the usual care group. Patients were followed for 6 months, until end of membership, or until death, whichever occurred first. The effectiveness and safety outcomes included rates of 3 adverse events: GI bleeds, acute kidney injuries (AKI), and exacerbation of pain triggering a hospitalization or emergency room visit. The economic outcome was the change in monthly NSAID cost. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, chi-square tests, and conditional logistic regression models were used for analysis. RESULTS: There were 431 patients in the deprescribed group and 1,724 patients in the usual care group, with similar baseline characteristics after propensity score matching. The adjusted results showed no significant difference between the deprescribed and usual care groups for GI bleed events (OR = 0.65, 95% CI = 0.36-1.16, P = 0.15) and AKI (OR = 0.53, 95% CI = 0.24-1.16, P = 0.11). The deprescribed group experienced a significant 2-fold decrease in the odds of exacerbation of pain versus the deprescribed group (OR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.33-0.77, P < 0.01). Finally, there was no significant difference in the change in monthly NSAIDs costs between the 2 groups (median change, IQR: -$0.29, -$2.37 to -$0.11 for deprescribed group; -$0.23, -2.59 to 0.00 for usual care group, P = 0.054). CONCLUSIONS: Although this study did not find any difference in the rate of GI bleed or AKI, we found a significant decrease in the rate of exacerbation of pain in the deprescribed group versus the usual care group. This result suggests that deprescribing NSAIDs did not cause harm during the 6-month follow-up. Further long-term studies are necessary to validate these outcomes. DISCLOSURES: No funding was provided to support this research study. The authors of this study have no actual or potential conflicts of interest to report. Parts of this study were presented in a nonreviewed resident poster at the AMCP Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; March 25-28, 2019; San Diego, CA.

Evaluation of a health system-wide pharmacist-driven emergency department laboratory follow-up and antimicrobial management program.

BACKGROUND: Emergency Department (ED) follow-up programs ensure that cultures, laboratory studies, and empiric antimicrobials are appropriately managed post-discharge. We sought to provide a comprehensive assessment of a pharmacist-driven laboratory follow-up process in a large, integrated health system. METHODS: A retrospective, observational review of 13 EDs was conducted. Patients were included if they had a laboratory study sent from the ED between December 1, 2017 and May 31, 2018 that did not result while the patient was in the ED. Microbiology results analyzed were urine, wound, respiratory, stool, throat, bacterial vaginosis, vaginal candidiasis, and sexually transmitted infections (STI). Examples of laboratory results assessed were metabolic panels and drug levels. The primary objective was to quantify the number of interventions made by pharmacists. RESULTS: During a 6-month period, pharmacists reviewed 9107 microbiology results and 6211 laboratory results. The majority of results were urine cultures (3998, 50.6%) followed by STI results (1198, 15.2%). Of 7663 encounters, 39.8% required interventions and/or follow-up with a total of 3049 interventions made and 3333 patients educated. The most common interventions were initiation of therapy (1629, 53.4%), change in medication (505, 16.6%), and follow-up with a clinician (322, 10.6%). Pharmacists reviewed microbiology results and completed interventions in a median of 25.3 h from the time the result was received in the electronic health record. CONCLUSION: Almost 40% of ED encounters required an intervention after discharge. A pharmacist led laboratory follow-up program is an important adjunct to facilitating stewardship and culture management in the ED.

Deprescribing as a Clinical Improvement Focus.

OBJECTIVES: Polypharmacy is a concern in the practice of geriatrics because of consequences such as adverse drug events and poorer quality of life. Deprescribing, a response to polypharmacy, refers to the systematic, programmed, and appropriate reduction in drug number and dose. Although now broadly recognized, challenges exist in practice for effective implementation. This study was conducted to determine the deprescribing success rate and relate it to drug classes and clinical settings, and to identify factors that influence the deprescribing process. DESIGN: As a performance improvement (PI) project, fellows in geriatric medicine, under supervision of faculty geriatricians, attempted deprescribing during at least 1 encounter daily at 2 long-term care (LTC) facilities and an outpatient geriatrics clinic (C) in Bronx, New York, from August 2018 to January 2019. Deprescribing was initiated following discussion and consent from patient or caregiver. Following the data collection, involved fellows and faculty physicians participated in a survey to identify factors that influenced the process. RESULTS: Out of 449 encounters, 383 encounters were included for analysis. Average patient age was 78.2 years (LTC: 77.9, C: 79.1). Average patient comorbidities was 6.5 (LTC: 6.7, C: 5.8). Deprescribing was successful in 90.1% of encounters (LTC: 96.9%, C: 67.4%). On average, 1.3 medications were deprescribed per encounter (LTC: 1.4, C: 1.0). Analgesics (32.2%), multivitamin-minerals supplements (29.7%), lipid-lowering agents (22.9%), antihistamines (46.7%), and acid blockers (26.2%) had highest success. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Deprescribing is possible in practice in both LTC and community settings at each encounter, until it is no longer applicable. Factors that contribute to successful deprescribing primarily include meaningful and earnest provider effort, ideally in collaboration with interdisciplinary team members (nurses, pharmacists, social worker, and others), besides interactions with consultants for the patient. Certain medication classes such as vitamins, minerals, analgesics, and proton pump inhibitors can be deprescribed with high success, as noted in our study, whereas antipsychotic agents, antidepressants, and ophthalmic preparations, prescribed by specialists, proved harder to deprescribe. An understanding of barriers to deprescribing (outlined in the article) and addressing them are crucial in enabling success. The study demonstrates that as a performance improvement project in collaborative effort with multiple disciplines, deprescribing is possible in health care. Factors promoting success and barriers to deprescribing are detailed. Appropriate deprescribing has the potential to help lower adverse drug events, costs of care, and possibly improve quality of life.

Deprescribing: a challenge for clinical cardiologists.

Deprescribing is a holistic process to identify medications that can be ceased, substituted or reduced. This process can improve the health of older patients and also enhance their compliance to the prescribed medications which are actually beneficial. Recommendations and guidelines have been elaborated for extensively prescribed drugs. In clinical cardiology the process of deprescribing is a challenge for doctors because of withdrawal-related adverse effects, but it may be applied in certain clinical conditions such as the discontinuation of statin prescription in patients with advanced senile dementia and those with limited life expectancy. Deprescribing is also focussed on the scarcely known effects of prolonged therapy after the acute phase of a disease is over, especially when continuation may signify potential life-long treatment. There needs to be collaboration between the consultant cardiologist who first prescribes medications and family doctors who are responsible for the long-term care of the patient and reviewing prescribed medications may be necessary.

Comparative Effectiveness of Transurethral Prostate Procedures at Enabling Urologic Medication Discontinuation: A Retrospective Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that transurethral prostate procedures (TUPPs) eliminating tissue result in greater medication discontinuation and lower de novo initiation rates than procedures inducing tissue necrosis. METHODS: Retrospective review of all men undergoing first time TUPPs at a large tertiary center from 2001 to 2016 was completed. Procedure type and urologic medication use before, 3-12 months after, and greater than 12 months after TUPP were analyzed with simple open prostatectomy as a comparator. Tissue-eliminating TUPPs included transurethral resection of the prostate and laser prostatectomy. Tissue-necrosing procedures included microwave therapy (transurethral microwave therapy) and radiofrequency ablation (transurethral needle ablation), which were grouped in analyses. Medication types were 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (5ARI), alpha blockers, anticholinergics, and beta-3 agonists (B3A). RESULTS: A total 5150 TUPPs were analyzed. Preoperative medication use significantly varied across TUPPs for 5ARI (P <.01), alpha-blockers (P .01), and anticholinergics (P .047), but not B3A (P .476). Transurethral resection of the prostate and laser prostatectomy were associated with significantly higher medication discontinuation rates and lower resumption and initiation rates compared to tissue-necrosing procedures. Relative to TUPPs, simple prostatectomy had significantly higher medication discontinuation, as well as the lowest resumption and initiation rates. CONCLUSION: Tissue-eliminating benign prostatic hyperplasia procedures were associated with better medication discontinuation, resumption, and de novo initiation rates compared to tissue-necrosing benign prostatic hyperplasia procedures.

Evaluation of a Pharmacist-Managed Antidiabetic Deprescribing Program in an Integrated Health Care System.

BACKGROUND: In the elderly, use of medications may increase the propensity for adverse drug events due to alterations in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles from normal aging processes. Deprescribing is the planned and supervised process of dose reduction or discontinuation of medications that may lead to harm or are no longer beneficial. While there are studies detailing strategies to deprescribe medications such as benzodiazepines and antipsychotics in nursing homes or for patients with dementia, there is a lack of guidance to safely deprescribe chronic medications, such as antidiabetics, for older patients in the community setting. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the risk of hypoglycemia and other outcomes of pharmacist-managed deprescribing on selected antidiabetic medications under the guidance of a standardized program compared with usual care within an integrated health care system. METHODS: This was a retrospective propensity score-matched cohort study. The pharmacist-managed deprescribing group included patients who were enrolled in the deprescribing program between July 1, 2016, and June 30, 2017. The usual care group included eligible patients who did not receive the deprescribing intervention and were matched to the deprescribing group using propensity score matching (PSM). Baseline demographics and clinical variables were used for matching. Patients were followed for 6 months or the end of membership or death, whichever occurred first. Primary outcome was the risk of hypoglycemia. Secondary outcomes included risk of hyperglycemia, proportion of patients at goal (A1c), change in A1c, change in monthly antidiabetic drug cost, and all-cause mortality. Outcomes were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multivariant regression or Cox proportional hazard models when appropriate. RESULTS: After PSM, 685 patients in the deprescribing group and 2,055 patients in the usual care group were similar in age, gender, weight, and comorbidity burden (mean [SD] age 82.4 [5.4] years, 48% female, mean [SD] weight 81.7 [19.2] kg, mean [SD] Charlson Comorbidity Index score 3.2 [1.6]). Compared with the usual care group, the deprescribing group had a lower risk of hypoglycemia (1.5% vs. 3.1%, P < 0.02; adjusted odds ratio 0.42, P < 0.01). As for the secondary outcomes, the deprescribing group had a greater change (SD) in A1c (0.3 [0.6] vs. 0.2 [0.7] P < 0.01) and lower all-cause mortality (2.3% vs 5.6%, P < 0.01; adjusted hazard ratio 0.35, P < 0.01). There were no differences observed in the risk of hyperglycemia, proportion of patients at goal A1c < 7%, and change in monthly antidiabetic drug costs between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: There are currently no studies to our knowledge that evaluate the outcomes of a pharmacist-managed deprescribing program targeting antidiabetic medications. The results of our study showed that deprescribing of selected antidiabetics reduced the risk of hypoglycemia and may have mortality benefit in elderly patients with well-controlled type 2 diabetes, who are taking medications that can cause hypoglycemia. Further and longer studies are needed to validate these benefits. DISCLOSURES: No outside funding was provided to support this research study. The authors of this study have no actual or potential conflicts of interest to report. Parts of this study were presented in a nonreviewed resident poster at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Managed Care and Specialty Pharmacy Annual Meeting; April 23-26, 2018; Boston, MA.

Undiagnosing to prevent overprescribing.

Health care focuses on controlling symptoms and managing risk factors to improve survival by avoiding future complications. Diagnoses describe a group of signs and symptoms, often implying specific aetiologies and underlying pathophysiological disease processes. The diagnosis provides a tool for the health professional to conceptualise and classify a presentation, and thus manage the condition, and can provide the patient with an explanation or validation of their experience. Not every diagnosis holds significant clinical implications. There are diagnosed conditions that do not require treatment and, moreover, where treatment has the potential for harm without the potential for benefit. Promoting investigations and diagnoses can lead to overdiagnosis related to vested interests in increased services, use of devices or therapeutics. Multiple factors drive this issue, including broadening disease definitions and cultural factors that encourage tests and treatments, as well as medicolegal factors. While the traditional medicine review process typically involved cross-referencing medicines used with current diagnoses, a more sophisticated version of this process critically reviews the medicines and associated diagnosis, giving less emphasis to diagnoses that are no longer relevant. Known as undiagnosis, this process facilitates the withdrawal of corresponding medicines used to manage those conditions. Systematically reviewing diagnoses regularly and the associated medicine management strategies could reduce prescribing. The novel ERASE process can help clinicians Evaluate diagnoses to consider Resolved conditions, Ageing normally and Selecting appropriate targets to Eliminate unnecessary diagnoses and their corresponding medicines.