Antibiotic Prescribing Patterns for Respiratory Tract Illnesses Following the Conclusion of an Education and Feedback Intervention in Primary Care.

BACKGROUND: A study previously conducted in primary care practices found that implementation of an educational session and peer comparison feedback was associated with reduced antibiotic prescribing for respiratory tract diagnoses (RTDs). Here, we assess the long-term effects of this intervention on antibiotic prescribing following cessation of feedback. METHODS: RTD encounters were grouped into tiers based on antibiotic prescribing appropriateness: tier 1, almost always indicated; tier 2, possibly indicated; and tier 3, rarely indicated. A χ2 test was used to compare prescribing between 3 time periods: pre-intervention, intervention, and post-intervention (14 months following cessation of feedback). A mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the association between period and prescribing. RESULTS: We analyzed 260 900 RTD encounters from 29 practices. Antibiotic prescribing was more frequent in the post-intervention period than in the intervention period (28.9% vs 23.0%, P < .001) but remained lower than the 35.2% pre-intervention rate (P < .001). In multivariable analysis, the odds of prescribing were higher in the post-intervention period than the intervention period for tier 2 (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10-1.30; P < .05) and tier 3 (OR, 1.20; 95% CI: 1.12-1.30) indications but was lower compared to the pre-intervention period for each tier (OR, 0.66; 95% CI: 0.59-0.73 tier 2; OR, 0.68; 95% CI: 0.61-0.75 tier 3). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention effects appeared to last beyond the intervention period. However, without ongoing provider feedback, there was a trend toward increased prescribing. Future studies are needed to determine optimal strategies to sustain intervention effects.

Deprescribing of antidepressants: development of indicators of high-risk and overprescribing using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are first-line medications for many psychiatric disorders. However, their widespread long-term use in some indications (e.g., mild depression and insomnia) is concerning. Particularly in older adults with comorbidities and polypharmacy, who are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions, the risks and benefits of treatment should be regularly reviewed. The aim of this consensus process was to identify explicit criteria of potentially inappropriate antidepressant use (indicators) in order to support primary care clinicians in identifying situations, where deprescribing of antidepressants should be considered. METHODS: We used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to identify the indicators of high-risk and overprescribing of antidepressants. We combined a structured literature review with a 3-round expert panel, with results discussed in moderated meetings in between rounds. Each of the 282 candidate indicators was scored on a 9-point Likert scale representing the necessity of a critical review of antidepressant continuation (1-3 = not necessary; 4-6 = uncertain; 7-9 = clearly necessary). Experts rated the indicators for the necessity of review, since decisions to deprescribe require considerations of patient risk/benefit balance and preferences. Indicators with a median necessity rating of ≥ 7 without disagreement after 3 rating rounds were accepted. RESULTS: The expert panel comprised 2 general practitioners, 2 clinical pharmacologists, 1 gerontopsychiatrist, 2 psychiatrists, and 3 internists/geriatricians (total N = 10). After 3 assessment rounds, there was consensus for 37 indicators of high-risk and 25 indicators of overprescribing, where critical reviews were felt to be necessary. High-risk prescribing indicators included settings posing risks of drug-drug, drug-disease, and drug-age interactions or the occurrence of adverse drug reactions. Indicators with the highest ratings included those suggesting the possibility of cardiovascular risks (QTc prolongation), delirium, gastrointestinal bleeding, and liver injury in specific patient subgroups with additional risk factors. Overprescribing indicators target patients with long treatment durations for depression, anxiety, and insomnia as well as high doses for pain and insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: Explicit indicators of antidepressant high-risk and overprescribing may be used directly by patients and health care providers, and integrated within clinical decision support tools, in order to improve the overall risk/benefit balance of this commonly prescribed class of prescription drugs.

When antimicrobial stewardship begins with microbiological test requests: the case of asymptomatic bacteriuria.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: We aim to review the rationale, methods, and experiences with diagnostic stewardship targeted at urinary tract infection (UTI) and related urinary syndromes. RECENT FINDINGS: In the last 18 months, several articles have demonstrated the impact of diagnostic stewardship interventions at limiting inappropriate diagnosis of UTIs or inappropriate antibiotic-prescribing, targeting the urinary tract. Antimicrobial stewardship programs may create and implement interventions at the point of urine test ordering, urine test resulting, or at the point of prescribing antibiotics after results have returned. Specific design and implementation of stewardship interventions depends on context. To maximize their impact, interventions should be accompanied by education and garner buy-in from providers. SUMMARY: Diagnostic stewardship can decrease unnecessary antibiotics and inappropriate diagnosis of UTI with multifaceted interventions most likely to be effective. Remaining questions include how to reduce ASB treatment in new populations, such as those with immune compromise, and persistent unknowns regarding UTI diagnosis and diagnostics.

Prevalence of Inappropriate Antibiotic Prescribing with or without a Plausible Antibiotic Indication among Safety-Net and Non-Safety Net Populations.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians can prescribe antibiotics inappropriately without coding the indication for antibiotics. Whether the prevalence of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing with or without a plausible indication differs between safety-net and non-safety-net populations is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess differences in inappropriate antibiotic prescribing with or without a plausible indication between safety-net and non-safety net populations. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. PARTICIPANTS: Office visits in the 2016, 2018, 2019 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey with ≥ 1 antibiotic prescription among children (0-17 years) and adults (18-64 years). MAIN MEASURES: Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing with a plausible indication (visits with infection-related diagnosis codes that do not warrant antibiotics, e.g., acute bronchitis); inappropriate prescribing without a plausible indication (visits with codes that are not antibiotic indications, e.g., hypertension). By age group, we used linear regression to assess differences between safety-net (public/no insurance) and non-safety net populations (privately insured), controlling for patient and visit characteristics. KEY RESULTS: Analyses included 67,065,108 and 122,731,809 weighted visits for children and adults, respectively. Among visits for children in the safety-net and non-safety populations, the prevalence of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing with a plausible indication was 11.7% and 22.0% (adjusted difference: -8.0%, 95% CI: -17.1%, 1.0%); the prevalence of inappropriate prescribing without a plausible indication was 11.8% and 8.6% (adjusted difference: -2.0%, 95% CI: -4.6%, 0.6%). Among visits for adults in the safety-net and non-safety populations, the prevalence of inappropriate antibiotic prescribing with a plausible indication was 12.1% and 14.3% (adjusted difference: -0.1%, 95% CI -9.4%, 9.1%); the prevalence of inappropriate prescribing without a plausible indication was 48.2% and 32.3% (adjusted difference: 12.5%, 95% CI: 3.6%, 21.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate antibiotic prescribing with or without a plausible antibiotic indication is common in all populations, highlighting the importance of broad-based antibiotic stewardship initiatives. However, targeted initiatives focused on improving coding quality in adult safety-net settings may be warranted.

Tools and guidelines to assess the appropriateness of medication and aid deprescribing: An umbrella review.

AIMS: The aim of this umbrella review was to identify tools and guidelines to aid the deprescribing process of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), evaluate development and validation methods, and describe evidence levels for medication inclusion. METHODS: Searches were conducted on MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase.com, Cochrane CDSR, CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science Core Collection and guideline databases from the date of inception to 7 July 2022. Following the initial search, an additional search was conducted to identify an updated versions of tools on 17 July 2023. We analysed the contents of tools and guidelines. RESULTS: From 23 systematic reviews and guidelines, we identified 95 tools (72 explicit, 12 mixed and 11 implicit) and nine guidelines. Most tools (83.2%) were developed to use for older persons, including 14 for those with limited life expectancy. Seven tools were for children <18 years (7.37%). Most explicit/mixed tools (78.57%) and all guidelines were validated. We found 484 PIMs and 202 medications with different appropriateness independent of disease for older persons with normal and limited life expectancy, respectively. Only two tools and eight guidelines reported the evidence level, and a quarter of medications had high-quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Tools are available for a diversity of populations. There were discrepancies, with the same medication being classified as inappropriate in some tools and appropriate in others, possibly due to low-quality evidence. In particular, tools for patients with limited life expectancy were developed based on very limited evidence, and research to generate this evidence is urgently needed. Our medication lists, along with the level of evidence, could facilitate efforts to strengthen the evidence.

Impact of narcotics information management system on inappropriate benzodiazepine receptor agonist prescriptions: A quasi-experimental analysis in South Korea.

AIMS: The South Korean government implemented the narcotics information management system (NIMS) on 18 May 2018 to manage benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BzRAs) and narcotics effectively and establish a reporting mechanism for these drugs. This study assessed the effects of NIMS on inappropriate use of BzRAs. METHODS: Using national patient sample data from 2016 to 2020, we analysed adult outpatients who were prescribed oral BzRAs. We conducted a time series and segmented regression analysis using selected indicators to analyse the monthly variations related to the inappropriate use of these medications. RESULTS: The study revealed no significant changes in the indicators of inappropriate BzRA use following the NIMS implementation. Contrary to expectations, there was a significant increase in the proportion of patients exceeding defined daily dose (DDD) and in those receiving concurrent prescriptions of multiple BzRAs, following the implementation of NIMS. The immediate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was an increase in DDD exceedance; however, overall, this did not significantly affect BzRA use. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of NIMS did not significantly enhance the management of BzRA misuse. Additional measures, including continuous monitoring, system improvements and comprehensive education for prescribers and patients, are recommended to ensure the appropriate use of psychotropic medications.

Appropriateness of direct oral anticoagulant prescribing in older subjects with atrial fibrillation discharged from acute medical wards.

AIMS: Knowledge on the prescriptive practice of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in older subjects with atrial fibrillation (AF) hospitalized in acute medical wards is limited. This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence and appropriateness of DOAC prescriptions in hospitalized older subjects with AF, discharged from acute medical wards. METHODS: We analysed a cohort of 609 subjects with AF, aged ≥65 years (mean age 85 years) enrolled from 39 geriatric and nephrology wards in Italy. DOAC prescriptive appropriateness was evaluated according to the summary of product characteristics (smPC), 2019 Beers and STOPP criteria, and drug-drug interactions (DDIs). RESULTS: At hospital discharge, 33% of patients with AF were prescribed with DOAC, 26% with vitamin-K antagonist, while 41% did not receive any anticoagulant. Among subjects on DOAC therapy, 31% presented a violation of the smPC criteria (mainly underdosage-17%), while 48% and 18% presented a Beers/STOPP inappropriate prescription, or a DDI, respectively. Older age, lower body mass index (BMI), cancer and higher estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) were independently associated with DOAC underdosage or missed prescription (age: adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.00-1.12 for underdosage; eGFR: aOR 1.04, 95% CI 1.02-1.07 for underdosage; BMI: aOR 0.95, 95% CI 0.91-0.99 for missed prescription; cancer: aOR 1.93, 95% CI 1.19-3.13 for missed prescription). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed a suboptimal DOAC prescriptive practice in older in-patients, with frequent missed prescription and DOAC underdosage. Contrary to current recommendations, physicians appear overly concerned by bleeding risk in real-life older and frailer subjects. Strategies should be developed to promote appropriate DOAC prescription in the hospital setting.

Geriatric Emergency Medication Safety Recommendations (GEMS-Rx): Modified Delphi Development of a High-Risk Prescription List for Older Emergency Department Patients.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Half of emergency department (ED) patients aged 65 years and older are discharged with new prescriptions. Potentially inappropriate prescriptions contribute to adverse drug events. Our objective was to develop an evidence- and consensus-based list of high-risk prescriptions to avoid among older ED patients. METHODS: We performed a modified, 3-round Delphi process that included 10 ED physician experts in geriatrics or quality measurement and 1 pharmacist. Consensus members reviewed all 35 medication categories from the 2019 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria and ranked each on a 5-point Likert scale (5=highest) for overall priority for avoidance (Round 1), risk of short-term adverse events and avoidability (Round 2), and reasonable medical indications for high-risk medication use (Round 3). RESULTS: For each round, questionnaire response rates were 91%, 82%, and 64%, respectively. After Round 1, benzodiazepines (mean, 4.60 [SD, 0.70]), skeletal muscle relaxants (4.60 [0.70]), barbiturates (4.30 [1.06]), first-generation antipsychotics (4.20 [0.63]) and first-generation antihistamines (3.70 [1.49]) were prioritized for avoidance. In Rounds 2 and 3, hypnotic "Z" drugs (4.29 [1.11]), metoclopramide (3.89 [0.93]), and sulfonylureas (4.14 [1.07]) were prioritized for avoidability, despite lower concern for short-term adverse events. All 8 medication classes were included in the final list. Reasonable indications for prescribing high-risk medications included seizure disorders, benzodiazepine/ethanol withdrawal, end of life, severe generalized anxiety, allergic reactions, gastroparesis, and prescription refill. CONCLUSION: We present the first expert consensus-based list of high-risk prescriptions for older ED patients (GEMS-Rx) to improve safety among older ED patients.

Reliability and validity of the Swedish indicator 'Drugs that should be avoided in older people'-an appraisal of a set of potentially inappropriate medications.

PURPOSE: To analyse the reliability and validity of the Swedish indicator 'Drugs that should be avoided in older people'. METHODS: From a previous study that included consecutive primary care patients ≥ 65 years of age, all patients ≥ 75 years of age were analysed. Two physicians independently screened their medication lists and medical records, applying the Swedish indicator which includes potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs): long-acting benzodiazepines, drugs with anticholinergic action, tramadol, propiomazine, codeine, and glibenclamide. The clinical relevance of identified PIMs was independently assessed. Thereafter, the physicians determined in consensus whether some medical action related to the drug treatment was medically justified and prioritised before the next regular visit. If so, the drug treatment was considered inadequate, and if not, adequate. RESULTS: A total of 1,146 drugs were assessed in 149 patients (75‒99 years, 62% female, 0‒20 drugs per patient). In 29 (19%) patients, at least one physician identified ≥ 1 PIM according to the indicator at issue; 24 (16%) patients were concordantly identified with ≥ 1 such PIM (kappa: 0.89). Of 26 PIMs concordantly identified, the physicians concordantly assessed four as clinically relevant and 12 as not clinically relevant (kappa: 0.17). After the consensus discussion, six (4%) patients had ≥ 1 PIM according to the studied indicator that merited action. Using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the indicator did not outperform chance in identifying inadequate drug treatment: 0.56 (95% confidence interval: 0.46 to 0.66). CONCLUSION: The Swedish indicator has strong reliability regarding PIM detection but does not validly reflect the adequacy of drug treatment.

Stakeholder perceptions of and attitudes towards problematic polypharmacy and prescribing cascades: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: Problematic polypharmacy is the prescribing of five or more medications potentially inappropriately. Unintentional prescribing cascades represent an under-researched aspect of problematic polypharmacy and occur when an adverse drug reaction (ADR) is misinterpreted as a new symptom resulting in the initiation of a new medication. The aim of this study was to elicit key stakeholders' perceptions of and attitudes towards problematic polypharmacy, with a focus on prescribing cascades. METHODS: qualitative one-to-one semi-structured interviews were conducted with predefined key stakeholder groups. Inductive thematic analysis was employed. RESULTS: Thirty-one stakeholders were interviewed: six patients, two carers, seven general practitioners, eight pharmacists, four hospital doctors, two professional organisation representatives and two policymakers. Three main themes were identified: (i) ADRs and prescribing cascades-a necessary evil. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) expressed concern that experiencing an ADR would negatively impact patients' confidence in their doctor. However, patients viewed ADRs pragmatically as an unpredictable risk. (ii) Balancing the risk/benefit tipping point. The complexity of prescribing decisions in the context of polypharmacy made balancing this tipping point challenging. Consequently, HCPs avoided medication changes. (iii) The minefield of medication reconciliation. Stakeholders, including patients and carers, viewed medication reconciliation as a perilous activity due to systemic communication deficits. CONCLUSION: Stakeholders believed that at a certain depth of polypharmacy, the risk that a new symptom is being caused by an existing medication becomes incalculable. Therefore, in the absence of harm, medication changes were avoided. However, medication reconciliation post hospital discharge compelled prescribing decisions and was seen as a high-risk activity by stakeholders.

Prescribing and deprescribing in older people with life-limiting illnesses receiving hospice care at the end of life: A longitudinal, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Although prescribing and deprescribing practices in older people have been the subject of much research generally, there are limited data in older people at the end of life. This highlights the need for research to determine prescribing and deprescribing patterns, as a first step to facilitate guideline development for medicines optimisation in this vulnerable population. AIMS: To examine prescribing and deprescribing patterns in older people at the end of life and to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medication use. DESIGN: A longitudinal, retrospective cohort study where medical records of eligible participants were reviewed, and data extracted. Medication appropriateness was assessed using two sets of consensus-based criteria; the STOPPFrail criteria and criteria developed by Morin et al. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Decedents aged 65 years and older admitted continuously for at least 14 days before death to three inpatient hospice units across Northern Ireland, who died between 1st January and 31st December 2018, and who had a known diagnosis, known cause of death and prescription data. Unexpected/sudden deaths were excluded. RESULTS: Polypharmacy was reported to be continued until death in 96.2% of 106 decedents (mean age of 75.6 years). Most patients received at least one potentially inappropriate medication at the end of life according to the STOPPFrail and the criteria developed by Morin et al. (57.5 and 69.8% respectively). Limited prevalence of proactive deprescribing interventions was observed. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of systematic rationalisation of drug treatments, a substantial proportion of older patients continued to receive potentially inappropriate medication until death.

Development of a list of Australian potentially inappropriate medicines using the Delphi technique.

BACKGROUND: Older people are at high risk of medicines-related harms. otentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs) list has been developed to assist clinicians and researchers to identify medicines with risks that may potentially outweigh their benefits in order to improve medication management and safety. AIM: To develop a list of PIMs for older people specific to Australia. METHODS: The study obtained expert consensus through the utilisation of the Delphi technique in Australia. A total of 33 experts partook in the initial round, while 32 experts engaged in the subsequent round. The primary outcomes encompass medicines assessed as potentially inappropriate, the specific contexts in which their inappropriateness arises and potentially safer alternatives. RESULTS: A total of 16 medicines or medicine classes had one or more medicines deemed as potentially inappropriate in older people. Up to 19 medicines or medicine classes had specific conditions that make them more potentially inappropriate, while alternatives were suggested for 16 medicines or classes. CONCLUSION: An explicit PIMs list for older people living in Australia has been developed containing 19 drugs/drug classes. The PIMs list is intended to be used as a guide for clinicians when assessing medication appropriateness in older people in Australian clinical settings and does not substitute individualised treatment advice from clinicians.

Active deprescribing attitudes and practices in a large regional tertiary health service: a mixed methods study.

In this pilot study, we explored current attitudes and deprescribing practices of clinicians in a large regional health service through a mixed methods approach. Respondents included doctors, pharmacists and nurse practitioners, who outlined three themes including professional and organisational contexts, disconnect between goals and practices and factors influencing deprescribing.

Using a mobile application to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing for older Brazilian adults in primary care: a triple-blind randomised clinical trial.

BACKGOUND: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) has been evaluated in several countries, and several strategies have been devised for deprescribing drugs in older adults. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a mobile application in reducing PIP for older adults in primary care facilities in Brazil. METHODS: This randomised, triple-blind, parallel-group trial was conducted in 22 public primary care facilities in Brazil. During the intervention phase, the general practitioners (GPs) were randomly allocated to the intervention (MPI Brasil app provides information about PIP, therapeutic alternatives and deprescribing) or control (MedSUS app provides general information about medications) group. All GPs were trained on the Clinical Decision-Making Process and how to access an Evidence-Based Health website. The GPs received an Android tablet with an installed mobile application depending on their allocated group, which they used when caring for older patients over at least 3 months. At the end of this period, a sample of older patients aged ≥ 60 years who had been awaiting medical consultation by the participating GPs were interviewed and their prescriptions analysed. The primary outcome was the frequency of PIP in and between the groups. RESULTS: Among 53 GPs who were administered the baseline survey, 14 were included in the clinical trial. At baseline, 146 prescriptions were analysed: the PIP overall was 37.7% (55/146), in the intervention group was 40.6% (28/69), and in the control group was 35.1% (27/77). After the intervention, 284 prescriptions were analysed: the PIP overall was 31.7% (90/284), in the intervention group was 32.2% (46/143), and in the control group was 31.2% (44/141) (RR: 1.16; 95% CI, 0.76-1.76). In the within-group analysis, the PIP reduced from before to after the intervention in both groups-more significantly in the intervention than in the control group (p < 0.001). In the stratified analysis of PIP frequency by GPs, there was a relative risk reduction in 86% (6/7) of GPs in the intervention group compared to 71% (5/7) in the control group. CONCLUSION: We found that the MPI Brasil app effectively reduced PIP, suggesting that it may be useful to incorporate this tool into clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02918643). First registration on 22/09/2016.

Application of STOPP/START criteria in older patients in primary care using RStudio®.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the frequency of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in outpatients according to STOPP/START criteria, and to identify risk factors. For this purpose, an algorithm was developed and validated in RStudio® based on the information collected in the electronic prescription. METHODS: The data corresponds to dispensations from two pharmacies in Spain made to patients over 18 years, over 4 years. For the analysis, only patients aged ≥ 65 years who are targeted by the STOPP/START criteria are included. The statistical programming language RStudio® was used to develop the algorithm. The STOPP criteria used as models for the implementation of the method were L2 and B12. A logistic regression analysis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 15,601 treatment plans were obtained from 2312 patients ≥ 65 years (56% women), of whom 46.6% had polypharmacy (≥ 5 drugs) and 9.3% had excessive polypharmacy (≥ 10 drugs). In this group, PIPs were detected in 57% of patients and in 38% of their treatment plans; of these PIPs the most common were those related to the use of benzodiazepines for more than 28 days (D5 criterion) in 25.9% of patients, followed by the use of opioids prescribed without an associated laxative (L2 criterion) in 13.8% and finally, drugs duplication (A3 criterion) in 5.7%. The most numerous duplications related to criterion A3 were benzodiazepines (39%) and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (37.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The method developed and validated in RStudio® with different STOPP criteria allows us to analyse the pharmacological treatment of many patients using different databases and to identify those at risk of suffering a PIP according to the STOPP criteria. Our results indicate a high prevalence of PIPs in patients ≥ 65 years, with polypharmacy being the most common risk factor affecting PIP.

Multidisciplinary medication review during older patient hospitalization according to STOPP/START criteria reduces potentially inappropriate prescriptions: MoPIM cohort study.

PURPOSE: Multimorbidity and polypharmacy in older adults converts the detection and adequacy of potentially inappropriate drug prescriptions (PIDP) in a healthcare priority. The objectives of this study are to describe the clinical decisions taken after the identification of PIDP by clinical pharmacists, using STOPP/START criteria, and to evaluate the degree of accomplishment of these decisions. METHODS: Multicenter, prospective, non-comparative cohort study in patients aged 65 and older, hospitalized because of an exacerbation of their chronic conditions. Each possible PIDP was manually identified by the clinical pharmacist at admission and an initial decision was taken by a multidisciplinary clinical committee. At discharge, criteria were re-applied and final decisions recorded. RESULTS: From all patients (n = 674), 493 (73.1%) presented at least one STOPP criteria at admission, significantly reduced up to 258 (38.3%) at discharge. A similar trend was observed for START criteria (36.7% vs. 15.7%). Regarding the top 10 most prevalent STOPP criteria, the clinical committee initially agreed to withdraw 257 (34.2%) prescriptions and to modify 93 (12.4%) prescriptions. However, the evaluation of final clinical decisions revealed that 503 (67.0%) of those STOPP criteria were ultimately amended. For the top 10 START criteria associated PIDP, the committee decided to initiate 149 (51.7%) prescriptions, while a total of 198 (68.8%) were finally introduced at discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical committee, through a pharmacotherapy review, succeeded in identifying and reducing the degree of prescription inadequacy, for both STOPP and START criteria, in older patients with high degree of multimorbidity and polypharmacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02830425.

General practitioners' views on inappropriate prescribing for older patients: a qualitative study through focus groups.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate prescribing (IP) is a common problem in the older population. Despite numerous attempts to tackle this issue, it remains a public health concern. In most European countries, general practitioners (GPs) are responsible for global primary care and are thus gatekeepers for the adequacy of medicines, specifically for older people. An in-depth analysis of the situation is necessary to understand why this phenomenon is still prevalent and to identify solutions that could help avoid IP in primary practice. METHOD: A qualitative study based on five focus groups (FG) comprising nine to thirteen general practitioners was conducted in the French-speaking part of Belgium. Participants were recruited among the Local Medical Evaluation Groups (LMEG) and selected to guarantee heterogeneity in working organisations, years of professional experience, gender and age. All interviews were recorded with prior agreement and transcribed in verbatims. The transcripts were coded and analysed to highlight the primary themes, considering dominant and marginal discourses. RESULTS: Fifty four GPs participated in the study, with an average experience of 30 years. IPs are perceived as a significant problem in the older population, leading to dangerous health situations. The issue is associated with polypharmacy and multimorbidity, and GPs stated to manage IP using their clinical experience. Most of the study participants faced difficulties managing IP, mostly due to the specificity and complexity of elderly care. Indeed, managing an older patient is challenging due to medical complexity, poor adherence to drug regimes, or low medical literacy. In addition, the medical environment of general practice is challenging, with multiple providers, lack of time, prescribing routine and the absence of effective communication with specialists or other care providers. Additionally, the tools and support available to help medication management in primary care are inadequate. Enhancing collaboration with pharmacists is perceived as a strong potential facilitator. CONCLUSION: This article addresses the complex management of IP in the old age, from the point of view of GPs. Interesting clues were highlighted, like the need to clarify roles of healthcare providers, the better fit of tools to facilitate medication's review with particularities of GPs needs and the empowerment of pharmacist collaboration.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing for people with dementia in ambulatory care: a cross-sectional observational study.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is highly prevalent among people with dementia (PwD) and linked to negative outcomes, such as hospitalisation and mortality. However, there are limited data on prescribing appropriateness for PwD in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the prevalence of PIP and investigate associations between PIP and other patient characteristics among PwD in an ambulatory care setting. METHODS: A cross-sectional, retrospective analysis was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia. Patients who were ≥ 65 years old, had dementia, and visited ambulatory care clinics between 01/01/2019 and 31/12/2021 were included. Prescribing appropriateness was evaluated by applying the Screening Tool of Older Persons Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria. Descriptive analyses were used to describe the study population. Prevalence of PIP and the prevalence per each STOPP criterion were calculated as a percentage of all eligible patients. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate associations between PIP, polypharmacy, age and sex; odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Analyses were conducted using SPSS v27. RESULTS: A total of 287 PwD were identified; 56.0% (n = 161) were female. The mean number of medications prescribed was 9.0 [standard deviation (SD) ± 4.2]. The prevalence of PIP was 61.0% (n = 175). Common instances of PIP were drugs prescribed beyond the recommended duration (n = 90, 31.4%), drugs prescribed without an evidence-based clinical indication (n = 78, 27.2%), proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for > 8 weeks (n = 75, 26.0%), and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors with concurrent drugs that reduce heart rate (n = 60, 21.0%). Polypharmacy was observed in 82.6% (n = 237) of patients and was strongly associated with PIP (adjusted OR 24.1, 95% CI 9.0-64.5). CONCLUSIONS: Findings have revealed a high prevalence of PIP among PwD in Saudi Arabia that is strongly associated with polypharmacy. Future research should aim to explore key stakeholders' experiences and perspectives of medicines management to optimise medication use for this vulnerable patient population.

Medications for community pharmacists to dose adjust or avoid to enhance prescribing safety in individuals with advanced chronic kidney disease: a scoping review and modified Delphi.

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacists commonly see individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and are in an ideal position to mitigate harm from inappropriate prescribing. We sought to develop a relevant medication list for community pharmacists to dose adjust or avoid in individuals with an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) below 30 mL/min informed through a scoping review and modified Delphi panel of nephrology, geriatric and primary care pharmacists. METHODS: A scoping review was undertaken to identify higher risk medications common to community pharmacy practice, which require a dose adaptation in individuals with advanced CKD. A 3-round modified Delphi was conducted, informed by the medications identified in our scoping review, to establish consensus on which medications community pharmacists should adjust or avoid in individuals with stage 4 and 5 CKD (non-dialysis). RESULTS: Ninety-two articles and 88 medications were identified from our scoping review. Of which, 64 were deemed relevant to community pharmacy practice and presented for consideration to 27 panel experts. The panel consisted of Canadian pharmacists practicing in nephrology (66.7%), geriatrics (18.5%) and primary care (14.8%). All participants completed rounds 1 and 2 and 96% completed round 3. At the end of round 3, the top 40 medications to adjust or avoid were identified. All round 3 participants selected metformin, gabapentin, pregabalin, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, nitrofurantoin, ciprofloxacin and rivaroxaban as the top ranked medications. CONCLUSION: Medications eliminated by the kidneys may accumulate and cause harm in individuals with advanced chronic kidney disease. This study provides an expert consensus of the top 40 medications that community pharmacists should collaboratively adjust or avoid to enhance medication safety and prescribing for individuals with an eGFR below 30 mL/min.

Evaluation of the strategies opioid manufacturers used to recruit health professionals and encourage overprescribing: an analysis of industry documents.

BACKGROUND: More than 263,000 individuals died due to prescription opioid misuse between 1999 and 2020. Between 2013 and 2015 alone, pharmaceutical companies spent over $39 million to market opioids to over 67,000 prescribers. However, there is still limited information about differences in provider responses to promotions for medications. In this study we investigated and evaluated strategies used by opioid manufacturers to encourage overprescribing, specifically focusing on oncology. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of opioid industry documents released in litigation between 1999 and 2021. We began with a preliminary search for business plans in a subset of collections that identified key terms and phrases. These search terms were then used to narrow the investigation, which ultimately focused on Insys Therapeutics, and how they targeted oncology providers as well as patients with cancer pain. RESULTS: We found that, overall, Insys sought to market to institutions with fewer resources, to less experienced and high-volume providers, and directly to cancer patients, with the goal of encouraging increased opioid prescribing and use. CONCLUSIONS: Our research revealed gaps in provider training that may make some providers more susceptible to pharmaceutical marketing. Developing and promoting continuing education courses for providers that are free from conflicts of interest, particularly at smaller institutions, may be one step towards reducing opioid overprescribing and its associated harms.