Impact of arterial stiffness on cerebrovascular function: a review of evidence from humans and preclincal models.

With advancing age, the cerebral vasculature becomes dysfunctional, and this dysfunction is associated with cognitive decline. However, the initiating cause of these age-related cerebrovascular impairments remains incompletely understood. A characteristic feature of the aging vasculature is the increase in stiffness of the large elastic arteries. This increase in arterial stiffness is associated with elevated pulse pressure and blood flow pulsatility in the cerebral vasculature. Evidence from both humans and rodents supports that increases in large elastic artery stiffness are associated with cerebrovascular impairments. These impacts on cerebrovascular function are wide-ranging and include reductions in global and regional cerebral blood flow, cerebral small vessel disease, endothelial cell dysfunction, and impaired perivascular clearance. Furthermore, recent findings suggest that the relationship between arterial stiffness and cerebrovascular function may be influenced by genetics, specifically APOE and NOTCH genotypes. Given the strength of the evidence that age-related increases in arterial stiffness have deleterious impacts on the brain, interventions that target arterial stiffness are needed. The purpose of this review is to summarize the evidence from human and rodent studies, supporting the role of increased arterial stiffness in age-related cerebrovascular impairments.

A mixed-methods study on the pharmacological management of pain in Australian and Japanese nursing homes.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how analgesics are used in different countries can inform initiatives to improve the pharmacological management of pain in nursing homes. AIMS: To compare patterns of analgesic use among Australian and Japanese nursing home residents; and explore Australian and Japanese healthcare professionals' perspectives on analgesic use. METHODS: Part one involved a cross-sectional comparison among residents from 12 nursing homes in South Australia (N = 550) in 2019 and four nursing homes in Tokyo (N = 333) in 2020. Part two involved three focus groups with Australian and Japanese healthcare professionals (N = 16) in 2023. Qualitative data were deductively content analysed using the World Health Organization six-step Guide to Good Prescribing. RESULTS: Australian and Japanese residents were similar in age (median: 89 vs 87) and sex (female: 73% vs 73%). Overall, 74% of Australian and 11% of Japanese residents used regular oral acetaminophen, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or opioids. Australian and Japanese healthcare professionals described individualising pain management and the first-line use of acetaminophen. Australian participants described their therapeutic goal was to alleviate pain and reported analgesics were often prescribed on a regular basis. Japanese participants described their therapeutic goal was to minimise impacts of pain on daily activities and reported analgesics were often prescribed for short-term durations, corresponding to episodes of pain. Japanese participants described regulations that limit opioid use for non-cancer pain in nursing homes. CONCLUSION: Analgesic use is more prevalent in Australian than Japanese nursing homes. Differences in therapeutic goals, culture, analgesic regulations and treatment durations may contribute to this apparent difference.

Deprescribing antihypertensive drugs in frail older adults.

Antihypertensive drugs are commonly used by older adults because of the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, and the increased absolute benefit of blood pressure reduction with increasing age. Clinical trials of blood pressure reduction in older adults have generally excluded older adults with multimorbidity, frailty and limited life expectancy. In this population, the benefit-harm ratio of aggressive blood pressure lowering may become unfavourable; a more relaxed blood pressure target may be appropriate; and deprescribing (cessation or dose reduction) of one or more antihypertensive drugs can be considered. Before deprescribing an antihypertensive drug, it is important to consider other indications for which it may have been prescribed (e.g. heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, diabetic nephropathy, atrial fibrillation). Evidence from randomised controlled deprescribing trials indicates that it is possible to deprescribe antihypertensives in frail older people. However, some patients may experience an increase in blood pressure that warrants restarting the drug. There are limited data on long-term outcomes (follow-up in deprescribing trials ranged from 4 to 56 weeks). The risk of adverse outcomes associated with deprescribing, such as withdrawal effects, can be minimised through appropriate planning, patient engagement, dose tapering and monitoring.

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

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

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

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

Willingness of older people living with dementia and mild cognitive impairment and their caregivers to have medications deprescribed.

BACKGROUND: people living with cognitive impairment commonly take multiple medications including potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), which puts them at risk of medication related harms. AIMS: to explore willingness to have a medication deprescribed of older people living with cognitive impairment (dementia or mild cognitive impairment) and multiple chronic conditions and assess the relationship between willingness, patient characteristics and belief about medications. METHODS: cross-sectional study using results from the revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing questionnaire (rPATDcog) collected as baseline data in the OPTIMIZE study, a pragmatic, cluster-randomised trial educating patients and clinicians about deprescribing. Eligible participants were 65+, diagnosed with dementia or mild cognitive impairment, and prescribed at least five-long-term medications. RESULTS: the questionnaire was mailed to 1,409 intervention patients and 553 (39%) were returned and included in analysis. Participants had a mean age of 80.1 (SD 7.4) and 52.4% were female. About 78.5% (431/549) of participants said that they would be willing to have one of their medications stopped if their doctor said it was possible. Willingness to deprescribe was negatively associated with getting stressed when changes are made and with previously having a bad experience with stopping a medication (P < 0.001 for both). CONCLUSION: most older people living with cognitive impairment are willing to deprescribe. Addressing previous bad experiences with stopping a medication and stress when changes are made to medications may be key points to discuss during deprescribing conversations.

Large artery stiffness and brain health: insights from animal models.

There are no effective treatments available to halt or reverse the progression of age-related cognitive decline and Alzheimer's disease. Thus, there is an urgent need to understand the underlying mechanisms of disease etiology and progression to identify novel therapeutic targets. Age-related changes to the vasculature, particularly increases in stiffness of the large elastic arteries, are now recognized as important contributors to brain aging. There is a growing body of evidence for an association between greater large artery stiffness and cognitive impairment among both healthy older adults and patients with Alzheimer's disease. However, studies in humans are limited to only correlative evidence, whereas animal models allow researchers to explore the causative mechanisms linking arterial stiffness to neurocognitive dysfunction and disease. Recently, several rodent models of direct modulation of large artery stiffness and the consequent effects on the brain have been reported. Common outcomes among these models have emerged, including evidence that greater large artery stiffness causes cerebrovascular dysfunction associated with increased oxidative stress and inflammatory signaling. The purpose of this mini-review is to highlight the recent findings associating large artery stiffness with deleterious brain outcomes, with a specific focus on causative evidence obtained from animal models. We will also discuss the gaps in knowledge that remain in our understanding of how large artery stiffness affects brain function and disease outcomes.

Impact of the Goal-directed Medication Review Electronic Decision Support System on Drug Burden Index: A cluster-randomised clinical trial in primary care.

AIMS: The Goal-directed Medication Review Electronic Decision Support System (G-MEDSS) assesses and reports a patient's goals, attitudes to deprescribing and Drug Burden Index (DBI) score, a measure of cumulative exposure to anticholinergic and sedative medications. This study evaluated the effect of implementing G-MEDSS in home medicines reviews (HMRs) on DBI exposure and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A cluster-randomised clinical trial was performed across Australia. Accredited clinical pharmacists were randomised into intervention (G-MEDSS with usual care HMR) or comparison groups (usual care HMR alone). Patients were recruited by pharmacists from those routinely referred by general practitioners for HMR. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with any reduction in DBI at 3-months follow-up. Secondary outcomes included change in DBI continuous score at 3-months, HMR recommendations to change DBI and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: There were 201 patient participants at baseline (n = 88 intervention, n = 113 comparison), with 159 followed-up at 3-months (n = 63 intervention, n = 96 comparison). The proportion of patients with a reduction in DBI was not significantly different at 3-months (intervention 17%, comparison 11%; adjusted odds ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 0.56-3.80). Regarding secondary outcomes, there was no difference in change in DBI score at 3-months. However, the HMR report made recommendations to reduce DBI for a significantly greater proportion of patients in the intervention than in the comparison group (intervention 37%, comparison 14%; adjusted odds ratio 3.20, 95% confidence interval 1.50-6.90). No changes were observed in clinical outcomes. CONCLUSION: Implementation of G-MEDSS within HMR did not reduce patients' DBI at 3 months compared with usual care HMR.

Development and dissemination of the national strategic action plan for reducing inappropriate polypharmacy in older Australians.

A cohesive, national approach is needed to address inappropriate polypharmacy in older adults and promote deprescribing. We describe the dissemination of the Quality Use of Medicines to Optimise Ageing in Older Australians: Recommendations for a National Strategic Action Plan to Reduce Inappropriate Polypharmacy, and the initiatives taken to date that align with, and assist in operationalising this plan.

General practitioners' deprescribing decisions in older adults with polypharmacy: a case vignette study in 31 countries.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) should regularly review patients' medications and, if necessary, deprescribe, as inappropriate polypharmacy may harm patients' health. However, deprescribing can be challenging for physicians. This study investigates GPs' deprescribing decisions in 31 countries. METHODS: In this case vignette study, GPs were invited to participate in an online survey containing three clinical cases of oldest-old multimorbid patients with potentially inappropriate polypharmacy. Patients differed in terms of dependency in activities of daily living (ADL) and were presented with and without history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). For each case, we asked GPs if they would deprescribe in their usual practice. We calculated proportions of GPs who reported they would deprescribe and performed a multilevel logistic regression to examine the association between history of CVD and level of dependency on GPs' deprescribing decisions. RESULTS: Of 3,175 invited GPs, 54% responded (N = 1,706). The mean age was 50 years and 60% of respondents were female. Despite differences across GP characteristics, such as age (with older GPs being more likely to take deprescribing decisions), and across countries, overall more than 80% of GPs reported they would deprescribe the dosage of at least one medication in oldest-old patients (> 80 years) with polypharmacy irrespective of history of CVD. The odds of deprescribing was higher in patients with a higher level of dependency in ADL (OR =1.5, 95%CI 1.25 to 1.80) and absence of CVD (OR =3.04, 95%CI 2.58 to 3.57). INTERPRETATION: The majority of GPs in this study were willing to deprescribe one or more medications in oldest-old multimorbid patients with polypharmacy. Willingness was higher in patients with increased dependency in ADL and lower in patients with CVD.

Baseline characteristics and comparability of older multimorbid patients with polypharmacy and general practitioners participating in a randomized controlled primary care trial.

OBJECTIVES: Recruiting general practitioners (GPs) and their multimorbid older patients for trials is challenging for multiple reasons (e.g., high workload, limited mobility). The comparability of study participants is important for interpreting study findings. This manuscript describes the baseline characteristics of GPs and patients participating in the 'Optimizing PharmacoTherapy in older multimorbid adults In primary CAre' (OPTICA) trial, a study of optimization of pharmacotherapy for multimorbid older adults. The overall aim of this study was to determine if the GPs and patients participating in the OPTICA trial are comparable to the real-world population in Swiss primary care. DESIGN: Analysis of baseline data from GPs and patients in the OPTICA trial and a reference cohort from the FIRE ('Family medicine ICPC Research using Electronic medical records') project. SETTING: Primary care, Switzerland. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred twenty-three multimorbid (≥ 3 chronic conditions) patients with polypharmacy (≥ 5 regular medications) aged ≥ 65 years and 43 GPs recruited for the OPTICA trial were compared to 22,907 older multimorbid patients with polypharmacy and 227 GPs from the FIRE database. METHODS: We compared the characteristics of GPs and patients participating in the OPTICA trial with other GPs and other older multimorbid adults with polypharmacy in the FIRE database. We described the baseline willingness to have medications deprescribed of the patients participating in the OPTICA trial using the revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire. RESULTS: The GPs in the FIRE project and OPTICA were similar in terms of sociodemographic characteristics and their work as a GP (e.g. aged in their fifties, ≥ 10 years of experience, ≥ 60% are self-employed, ≥ 80% work in a group practice). The median age of patients in the OPTICA trial was 77 years and 45% of trial participants were women. Patients participating in the OPTICA trial and patients in the FIRE database were comparable in terms of age, certain clinical characteristics (e.g. systolic blood pressure, body mass index) and health services use (e.g. selected lab and vital data measurements). More than 80% of older multimorbid patients reported to be willing to stop ≥ 1 of their medications if their doctor said that this would be possible. CONCLUSION: The characteristics of patients and GPs recruited into the OPTICA trial are relatively comparable to characteristics of a real-world Swiss population, which indicates that recruiting a generalizable patient sample is possible in the primary care setting. Multimorbid patients in the OPTICA trial reported a high willingness to have medications deprescribed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT03724539 ), KOFAM (Swiss national portal) ( SNCTP000003060 ), Universal Trial Number (U1111-1226-8013).

Designing a Primary Care-Based Deprescribing Intervention for Patients with Dementia and Multiple Chronic Conditions: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with dementia and multiple chronic conditions (MCC) frequently experience polypharmacy, increasing their risk of adverse drug events. OBJECTIVES: To elucidate patient, family, and physician perspectives on medication discontinuation and recommended language for deprescribing discussions in order to inform an intervention to increase awareness of deprescribing among individuals with dementia and MCC, family caregivers and primary care physicians. We also explored participant views on culturally competent approaches to deprescribing. DESIGN: Qualitative approach based on semi-structured interviews with patients, caregivers, and physicians. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥ 65 years with claims-based diagnosis of dementia, ≥ 1 additional chronic condition, and ≥ 5 chronic medications were recruited from an integrated delivery system in Colorado and an academic medical center in Maryland. We included caregivers when present or if patients were unable to participate due to severe cognitive impairment. Physicians were recruited within the same systems and through snowball sampling, targeting areas with large African American and Hispanic populations. APPROACH: We used constant comparison to identify and compare themes between patients, caregivers, and physicians. KEY RESULTS: We conducted interviews with 17 patients, 16 caregivers, and 16 physicians. All groups said it was important to earn trust before deprescribing, frame deprescribing as routine and positive, align deprescribing with goals of dementia care, and respect caregivers' expertise. As in other areas of medicine, racial, ethnic, and language concordance was important to patients and caregivers from minority cultural backgrounds. Participants favored direct-to-patient educational materials, support from pharmacists and other team members, and close follow-up during deprescribing. Patients and caregivers favored language that explained deprescribing in terms of altered physiology with aging. Physicians desired communication tips addressing specific clinical situations. CONCLUSIONS: Culturally sensitive communication within a trusted patient-physician relationship supplemented by pharmacists, and language tailored to specific clinical situations may support deprescribing in primary care for patients with dementia and MCC.

Withdrawal of antihypertensive drugs in older people.

BACKGROUND: Hypertension is an important risk factor for subsequent cardiovascular events, including ischaemic and haemorrhagic stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, chronic kidney disease, cognitive decline and premature death. Overall, the use of antihypertensive medications has led to reduction in cardiovascular disease, morbidity rates and mortality rates. However, the use of antihypertensive medications is also associated with harms, especially in older people, including the development of adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions and can contribute to increasing medication-related burden. As such, discontinuation of antihypertensives may be considered and appropriate in some older people. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether withdrawal of antihypertensive medications is feasible, and evaluate the effects of withdrawal of antihypertensive medications on mortality, cardiovascular outcomes, hypertension and quality of life in older people. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials up to April 2019: the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2019, Issue 3), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov. We also conducted reference checking, citation searches and, when appropriate, contacted study authors to identify any additional studies. The searches had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of withdrawal versus continuation of antihypertensive medications used for hypertension or primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older adults (defined as 50 years and over). Participants were eligible if they lived in the community, residential aged care facilities, or were based in hospital settings. We sought to include trials looking at the complete withdrawal of the antihypertensive medication, and those focusing on a dose reduction of the antihypertensive medicine. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We compared the intervention of discontinuing or reducing antihypertensive medication to usual treatment using mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for continuous variables and we used Peto odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CI for binary variables. Our primary outcomes included: mortality, myocardial infarction, development of adverse drug reactions or adverse drug withdrawal reactions. Secondary outcomes included: blood pressure, hospitalisation, stroke, success of withdrawing from antihypertensives, quality of life, and falls. Two authors independently, and in duplicate, conducted all stages of study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. MAIN RESULTS: Six RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review (1073 participants). Study duration and follow-up ranged from 4 weeks to 56 weeks. Meta-analysis of studies showed that, in the discontinuation group compared to continuation, the odds for all-cause mortality were 2.08 (95% CI 0.79 to 5.46; low certainty of evidence), for myocardial infarction 1.86 (95% CI 0.19 to 17.98; very low certainty of evidence) and for stroke 1.44 (95% CI 0.25 to 8.35; low certainty of evidence). Blood pressure was higher in the discontinuation group than the continuation group (systolic blood pressure: MD = 9.75 mmHg, 95% CI 7.33 to 12.18; and diastolic blood pressure: MD = 3.5 mmHg, 95% CI 1.82 to 5.18; low certainty of evidence). For the development of adverse events, meta-analysis was not possible; antihypertensive discontinuation did not appear to increase the risk of adverse events and may lead to resolution of adverse drug reactions, although eligible studies had limited reporting of adverse effects of drug withdrawal (very low certainty of evidence). One study reported hospitalisation with an odds ratio of 0.83 for discontinuation compared to continuation (95% CI 0.33 to 2.10; low certainty of evidence). No studies were identified which reported falls. Between 10.5% and 33.3% of participants in the discontinuation group compared to 9% to 15% in the continuation group experienced raised blood pressure or other clinical criteria (as pre-defined by the studies) that would require restarting of therapy/removal from the study. The sources of bias included selective reporting (reporting bias), lack of blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias), and lack of blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence of an effect of discontinuing compared with continuing antihypertensives used for hypertension or primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older adults on all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction. The evidence was low to very low certainty mainly due to small studies and low event rates. These limitations mean that we cannot make any firm conclusions about the effect of deprescribing antihypertensives on these outcomes. Future research should focus on populations with the greatest uncertainty of the benefit:risk ratio for use of antihypertensive medications, such as those with frailty, older age groups and those taking polypharmacy, and measure clinically important outcomes such as falls, quality of life and adverse drug events.

What do older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy think about deprescribing? The LESS study - a primary care-based survey.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are very common in older adults in primary care. Ideally, general practitioners (GPs), should regularly review medication lists to identify inappropriate medication(s) and, where appropriate, deprescribe. However, it remains challenging to deprescribe given time constraints and few recommendations from guidelines. Further, patient related barriers and enablers to deprescribing have to be accounted for. The aim of this study was to identify barriers and enablers to deprescribing as reported by older adults with polypharmacy and multimorbidity. METHODS: We conducted a survey among participants aged ≥70 years, with multimorbidity (≥3 chronic conditions) and polypharmacy (≥5 chronic medications). We invited Swiss GPs, to recruit eligible patients who then completed a paper-based survey on demographics, medications and chronic conditions. We used the revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire and added twelve additional Likert scale questions and two open-ended questions to assess barriers and enablers towards deprescribing, which we coded and categorized into meaningful themes. RESULT: Sixty four Swiss GPs consented to recruit 5-6 patients each and returned 300 participant responses. Participants were 79.1 years (SD 5.7), 47% female, 34% lived alone, and 86% managed their medications themselves. Sixty-seven percent of participants took 5-9 regular medicines and 24% took ≥10 medicines. The majority of participants (77%) were willing to deprescribe one or more of their medicines if their doctor said it was possible. There was no association with sex, age or the number of medicines and willingness to deprescribe. After adjustment for baseline characteristics, there was a strong positive association between willingness to deprescribe and saying that because they have a good relationship with their GP, they would feel that deprescribing was safe OR 11.3 (95% CI: 4.64-27.3) and agreeing that they would be willing to deprescribe if new studies showed an avoidable risk OR 8.0 (95% CI 3.79-16.9). From the open questions, the most mentioned barriers towards deprescribing were patients feeling well on their current medicines and being convinced that they need all their medicines. CONCLUSIONS: Most older adults with polypharmacy are willing to deprescribe. GPs may be able to increase deprescribing by building trust with their patients and communicating evidence about the risks of medication use.

Correction to: Implementation of the goal-directed medication review electronic decision support system (G-MEDSS)© into home medicines review: a protocol for a clusterrandomised clinical trial in older adults.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via the original article.

Implementation of the Goal-directed Medication review Electronic Decision Support System (G-MEDSS)© into home medicines review: a protocol for a cluster-randomised clinical trial in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Older people living in the community have a high prevalence of polypharmacy and are vulnerable to adverse drug events. Home Medicines Review (HMR) is a collaborative medication review service involving general practitioners (GPs), accredited clinical pharmacists (ACPs) and patients, which aims to prevent medication-related problems. This study aims to evaluate the implementation of a Computerised Clinical Decision Support System (CCDSS) called G-MEDSS© (Goal-directed Medication Review Electronic Decision Support System) in HMRs to deprescribe anticholinergic and sedative medications, and to assess the effect of deprescribing on clinical outcomes. METHODS: This study consists of 2 stages: Stage I - a two-arm parallel-group cluster-randomised clinical trial, and Stage II - process evaluation of the CCDSS intervention in HMR. Community-dwelling older adults living with and without dementia who are referred for HMR by their GP and recruited by ACPs will be included in this study. G-MEDSS is a CCDSS designed to provide clinical decision support for healthcare practitioners when completing a medication review, to tailor care to meet the patients' goals and preferences. The G-MEDSS contains three tools: The Goals of Care Management Tool, The Drug Burden Index (DBI) Calculator©, and The revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire. The G-MEDSS produces patient-specific deprescribing reports, to be included as part of the ACPs communication with the patient's GP, and patient-specific reports for the patient (or carer). ACPs randomised to the intervention arm of the study will use G-MEDSS to create deprescribing reports for the referring GP and for their patient (or carer) when submitting the HMR report. ACPs in the comparison arm will provide the usual care HMR service (without the G-MEDSS). OUTCOMES: The primary outcome is reduction in DBI exposure 3 months after HMR ± G-MEDSS intervention between comparison and intervention groups. The secondary outcomes include changes in clinical outcomes (physical and cognitive function, falls, institutionalisation, GP visits, medication adherence and mortality) 3-months after HMR. DISCUSSION: This study is expected to add to the evidence that the combination of CCDSS supporting medication review can improve prescribing and clinical outcomes in older adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617000895381 on 19th June 2017.

Deprescribing cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in dementia: guideline summary.

INTRODUCTION: Cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) and memantine are medications used to treat the symptoms of specific types of dementia. Their benefits and harms can change over time, particularly during long term use. Therefore, appropriate use of ChEIs and memantine involves both prescribing these medications to individuals who are likely to benefit, and deprescribing (withdrawing) them from individuals when the risks outweigh the benefits. We recently developed an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for deprescribing ChEIs and memantine, using robust international guideline development processes. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: Our recommendations aim to assist clinicians to: identify individuals who may be suitable for a trial of deprescribing ChEIs and memantine (such as those who do not have an appropriate indication, those who have never experienced a benefit, those who appear to be no longer benefitting, and those who have severe or end-stage dementia); and taper treatment and monitor individuals during the deprescribing process. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THE GUIDELINE: Deprescribing ChEIs and memantine through shared decision making with individuals and their caregivers by: ▶determining their treatment goals; ▶discussing benefits and harms of continuing and ceasing medication, from the start of therapy and throughout; and ▶engaging them in monitoring after discontinuation, while informing carers that the individual will continue to decline after discontinuation. This approach may reduce adverse drug reactions and medication burden, leading to improved quality of life in people with dementia.

How general practitioners would deprescribe in frail oldest-old with polypharmacy - the LESS study.

BACKGROUND: Many oldest-old (> 80-years) with multimorbidity and polypharmacy are at high risk of inappropriate use of medication, but we know little about whether and how GPs would deprescribe, especially in the frail oldest-old. We aimed to determine whether, how, and why Swiss GPs deprescribe for this population. METHODS: GPs took an online survey that presented case-vignettes of a frail oldest-old patient with and without history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and asked if they would deprescribe any of seven medications. We calculated percentages of GPs willing to deprescribe at least one medication in the case with CVD and compared these with the case without CVD using paired t-tests. We also included open-ended questions to capture reasons for deprescribing and asked which factors could influence their decision to deprescribe by asking for their agreement on a 5-point-Likert-scale. RESULTS: Of the 282 GPs we invited, 157 (56%) responded: 73% were men; mean age was 56. In the case-vignette without CVD, 98% of GPs deprescribed at least one medication (usually cardiovascular preventive medications) stating it had no indication nor benefit. They would lower the dose or prescribe pain medication as needed to reduce side effects. Their response was much the same when the patient had a history of CVD. GPs reported they were influenced by 'risk' and 'benefit' of medications, 'quality of life', and 'life expectancy', and prioritized the patient's wishes and priorities when deprescribing. CONCLUSION: Swiss GPs were willing to deprescribe cardiovascular preventive medication when it lacked indication but tended to retain pain medication. Developing tools for GPs to assist them in balancing the risks and benefits of medication in the context of patient values may improve deprescribing activities in practice.

Medicine information exchange networks among healthcare professionals and prescribing in geriatric medicine wards.

AIMS: Effective transfer of information is vital for rational drug therapy. This is particularly important for older patients, who have a high prevalence of polypharmacy and are managed by multidisciplinary teams. We aimed to assess medicine information exchange (MIE) networks in geriatric medicine wards and whether they are associated with prescribing patterns. METHODS: We conducted network analysis in acute geriatric medicine wards from four hospitals to characterize MIE networks among multidisciplinary team members. Corresponding patient data were collected to analyze high-risk prescribing in conjunction with network characteristics. RESULTS: We found that junior doctors, senior nurses and pharmacists were central to MIE across all four hospitals. Doctors were more likely than other professions to receive medicines information in three hospitals. Reciprocity and the tendency to communicate within one's own profession also influenced network formation. No difference was observed in prescribing practice between hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding MIE networks can identify gaps in multidisciplinary communication that can be addressed. Networks may identify targets for dissemination of interventions to improve prescribing.