Reducing Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions for Older Patients Using Computerized Decision Support Tools: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Older adults are more vulnerable to polypharmacy and prescriptions of potentially inappropriate medications. There are several ways to address polypharmacy to prevent its occurrence. We focused on computerized decision support tools. OBJECTIVE: The available literature was reviewed to understand whether computerized decision support tools reduce potentially inappropriate prescriptions or potentially inappropriate medications in older adult patients and affect health outcomes. METHODS: Our systematic review was conducted by searching the literature in the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, and Web of Science databases for interventional studies published through February 2018 to assess the impact of computerized decision support tools on potentially inappropriate medications and potentially inappropriate prescriptions in people aged 65 years and older. RESULTS: A total of 3756 articles were identified, and 16 were included. More than half (n=10) of the studies were randomized controlled trials, one was a crossover study, and five were pre-post intervention studies. A total of 266,562 participants were included; of those, 233,144 participants were included and assessed in randomized controlled trials. Intervention designs had several different features. Computerized decision support tools consistently reduced the number of potentially inappropriate prescriptions started and mean number of potentially inappropriate prescriptions per patient. Computerized decision support tools also increased potentially inappropriate prescriptions discontinuation and drug appropriateness. However, in several studies, statistical significance was not achieved. A meta-analysis was not possible due to the significant heterogeneity among the systems used and the definitions of outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Computerized decision support tools may reduce potentially inappropriate prescriptions and potentially inappropriate medications. More randomized controlled trials assessing the impact of computerized decision support tools that could be used both in primary and secondary health care are needed to evaluate the use of medication targets defined by the Beers or STOPP (Screening Tool of Older People's Prescriptions) criteria, adverse drug reactions, quality of life measurements, patient satisfaction, and professional satisfaction with a reasonable follow-up, which could clarify the clinical usefulness of these tools. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42017067021; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017067021.

Computerised decision to reduce inappropriate medication in the elderly: a systematic review with meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Life expectancy continues to increase in developed countries. Elderly people are more likely to consume more medications and become vulnerable to age-related changes in drugs' pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Recent studies have identified opportunities and barriers for deprescribing potentially inappropriate medications. It has already been demonstrated that computerised decision support systems can reduce physician orders for unnecessary tests. We will systematically review the available literature to understand if computerised decision support is effective in reducing the use of potentially inappropriate medications, thus having an impact on health outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review will be conducted using MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE and Web of Science databases, as well as the grey literature assessing the effectiveness of computer decision support interventions in deprescribing inappropriate medication, with an impact on health outcomes in the elderly. The search will be performed during January and February 2018. Two reviewers will conduct articles' screening, selection and data extraction, independently and blind to each other. Eligible sources will be selected after discussing non-conformities. All extracted data from the included articles will be assessed based on studies' participants, design and setting, methodological quality, bias and any other potential sources of heterogeneity. This review will be conducted and reported in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement of quality for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As a systematic review, this research is exempt from ethical approval. We intend to publish the full article in a related peer-reviewed journal and present it at international conferences. PROSPEROREGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017067021.