Continuity and coordination of care for childhood cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions: Results from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.

INTRODUCTION: Continuity and coordination-of-care for childhood cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions are understudied but critical for appropriate follow-up care. METHODS: From April through June 2022, 800 Childhood Cancer Survivor Study participants with two or more chronic conditions (one or more severe/life-threatening/disabling) were emailed the "Patient Perceived Continuity-of-Care from Multiple Clinicians" survey. The survey asked about survivors' main (takes care of most health care) and coordinating (ensures follow-up) provider, produced three care-coordination summary scores (main provider, across multiple providers, patient-provider partnership), and included six discontinuity indicators (e.g., having to organize own care). Discontinuity (yes/no) was defined as poor care on one or more discontinuity item. Chi-square tests assessed associations between discontinuity and sociodemographics. Modified Poisson regression models estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) for discontinuity risk associated with the specialty and number of years seeing the main and coordinating provider, and PRs associated with better scores on the three care-coordination summary measures. Inverse probability weights adjusted for survey non-participation. RESULTS: A total of 377 (47%) survivors responded (mean age 48 years, 68% female, 89% non-Hispanic White, 78% privately insured, 74% ≥college graduate); 147/373 (39%) reported discontinuity. Younger survivors were more likely to report discontinuity (chi-square p = .02). Seeing the main provider ≤3 years was associated with more prevalent discontinuity (PR; 95%CI) (1.17; 1.02-1.34 vs ≥ 10 years). Cancer specialist main providers were associated with less prevalent discontinuity (0.81; 0.66-0.99 vs. primary care). Better scores on all three care-coordination summary measures were associated with less prevalent discontinuity: main provider (0.73; 0.64-0.83), across multiple providers (0.81; 0.78-0.83), patient-provider partnership (0.85; 0.80-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Care discontinuity among childhood cancer survivors is prevalent and requires intervention.

Development and Evaluation of Messages for Reducing Overscreening of Breast Cancer in Older Women.

BACKGROUND: Many older women are screened for breast cancer beyond guideline-recommended thresholds. One contributor is pro-screening messaging from health care professionals, media, and family/friends. In this project, we developed and evaluated messages for reducing overscreening in older women. METHODS: We surveyed women ages 65+ who were members of a nationally representative online panel. We constructed 8 messages describing reasons to consider stopping mammograms, including guideline recommendations, false positives, overdiagnosis, and diminishing benefits from screening due to competing risks. Messages varied in their format; some presented statistical evidence, and some described short anecdotes. Each participant was randomized to read 4 of 8 messages. We also randomized participants to one of 3 message sources (clinician, family member, and news story). We assessed whether the message would make participants "want to find out more information" and "think carefully" about mammograms. RESULTS: Participants (N=790) had a mean age of 73.5 years; 25.8% were non-White. Across all messages, 73.0% of the time, participants agreed that the messages would make them seek more information (range among different messages=64.2%-78.2%); 46.5% of the time participants agreed that the messages would make them think carefully about getting mammograms (range =36.7%-50.7%). Top-rated messages mentioned false-positive anecdotes and overdiagnosis evidence. Ratings were similar for messages from clinicians and news sources, but lower from the family member source. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, participants positively evaluated messages designed to reduce breast cancer overscreening regarding perceived effects on information seeking and deliberation. Combining the top-rated messages into messaging interventions may be a novel approach to reduce overscreening.

Emergency Department Length of Stay for Older Adults With Dementia.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The emergency department (ED) poses unique challenges and risks to persons living with dementia. A longer ED length of stay is associated with the risk of death, delirium, and medication errors. We sought to determine whether ED length of stay differed by dementia status and trends in ED length of stay for persons living with dementia from 2014 to 2018 and whether persons living with dementia were at a higher risk for prolonged ED length of stay (defined as a length of stay > 90th percentile). METHODS: In this observational study, we used data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Emergency Department Database from Massachusetts, Arkansas, Arizona, and Florida. We included ED visits resulting in discharge for adults aged ≥65 years from 2014 to 2018. We used inverse probability weighting to create comparable groups of visits on the basis of dementia status. We used generalized linear models to estimate the mean difference in ED length of stay on the basis of dementia status and logistic regression to determine the odds of prolonged ED length of stay. RESULTS: We included 1,039,497 ED visits (mean age: 83.5 years; 64% women; 78% White, 12% Hispanic). Compared with visits by persons without dementia, ED length of stay was 3.1 hours longer (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.0 to 3.3 hours) for persons living with dementia. Among the visits resulting in transfer, ED length of stay was on average 4.1 hours longer (95% CI 3.6 to 4.5 hours) for persons living with dementia. Visits by persons living with dementia were more likely to have a prolonged length of stay (risk difference 4.1%, 95% CI 3.9 to 4.4). CONCLUSION: ED visits were more than 3 hours longer for persons living with versus without dementia. Initiatives focused on optimizing ED care for persons living with dementia are needed.

Incremental Health Care Costs of Self-Reported Functional Impairments and Phenotypic Frailty in Community-Dwelling Older Adults : A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Health care systems need better strategies to identify older adults at risk for costly care to select target populations for interventions to reduce health care burden. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether self-reported functional impairments and phenotypic frailty are associated with incremental health care costs after accounting for claims-based predictors. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Index examinations (2002 to 2011) of 4 prospective cohort studies linked with Medicare claims. PARTICIPANTS: 8165 community-dwelling fee-for-service beneficiaries (4318 women, 3847 men). MEASUREMENTS: Weighted (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Hierarchical Condition Category index) and unweighted (count of conditions) multimorbidity and frailty indicators derived from claims. Self-reported functional impairments (difficulty performing 4 activities of daily living) and frailty phenotype (operationalized using 5 components) derived from cohort data. Health care costs ascertained for 36 months after index examinations. RESULTS: Average annualized costs (2020 U.S. dollars) were $13 906 among women and $14 598 among men. After accounting for claims-based indicators, average incremental costs of functional impairments versus no impairment in women (men) were $3328 ($2354) for 1 impairment increasing to $7330 ($11 760) for 4 impairments; average incremental costs of phenotypic frailty versus robust in women (men) were $8532 ($6172). Mean predicted costs adjusted for claims-based indicators in women (men) varied by both functional impairments and the frailty phenotype ranging from $8124 ($11 831) among robust persons without impairments to $18 792 ($24 713) among frail persons with 4 impairments. Compared with the model with claims-derived indicators alone, this model resulted in more accurate cost prediction for persons with multiple impairments or phenotypic frailty. LIMITATION: Cost data limited to participants enrolled in the Medicare fee-for-service program. CONCLUSION: Self-reported functional impairments and phenotypic frailty are associated with higher subsequent health care expenditures in community-dwelling beneficiaries after accounting for several claims-based indicators of costs. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Sharing health care wishes among older adults with cognitive impairment in primary care: Results from a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Best practices for conducting advance care planning (ACP) among persons with cognitive impairment exist, but evidence-based models are lacking for the primary care setting. METHODS: We tested a remote multicomponent ACP model (SHARE) versus minimally enhanced usual care in 273 person-family dyads from eight primary care practices. RESULTS: Mean patient age was 88.0 years, 85 (31.1%) were Black/Latino; 189 (69.2%) had moderate-to-severe cognitive impairment. Most (101/145; 69.6%) intervention dyads engaged in ACP. At follow-up, no treatment effect was observed for care partner-reported quality of communication about end-of-life care at 6 or 12 months, but intervention patients reported better quality of communication about end-of-life care at 12 months. Intervention care partners and patients reported greater readiness to engage in ACP at 6 and 12 months, respectively, and increased completion of key aspects of ACP. DISCUSSION: SHARE supported key aspects of ACP processes and communication about end-of-life care. HIGHLIGHTS: Primary care-based models of ACP for persons with dementia are lacking. Involving persons with cognitive impairment in remote ACP is feasible with care partner involvement. Results indicate benefit for aspects of ACP processes and communication about end-of-life care.

Physician Decision-Making About Surveillance in Older Adults With Prior Adenomas: Results From a National Survey.

INTRODUCTION: There is no clear guidance on when surveillance colonoscopies should stop in older adults with prior adenomas. We aimed to examine physicians' decision-making regarding surveillance colonoscopies in older adults. METHODS: In a national mailed survey of 1,800 primary care physicians (PCP) and 600 gastroenterologists, we asked whether physicians would recommend surveillance colonoscopy in vignettes where we varied patient age (75 and 85 years), health (good, medium, and poor), and prior adenoma risk (low and high). We examined the association between surveillance recommendations and patient and physician characteristics using logistic regression. We also assessed decisional uncertainty, need for decision support, and decision-making roles. RESULTS: Of 1,040 respondents (response rate 54.8%), 874 were eligible and included. Recommendation for surveillance colonoscopies was lower if patient was older (adjusted proportions 20.6% vs 49.8% if younger), in poor health (adjusted proportions 7.1% vs 28.8% moderate health, 67.7% good health), and prior adenoma was of low risk (adjusted proportions 29.7% vs 41.6% if high risk). Family medicine physicians were most likely and gastroenterologists were least likely to recommend surveillance (adjusted proportions 40.0% vs 30.9%). Approximately 52.3% of PCP and 35.4% of gastroenterologists reported uncertainty regarding the benefit/harm balance of surveillance in older adults. Most (85.9% PCP and 77.0% gastroenterologists) would find a decision support tool helpful. Approximately 32.8% of PCP vs 71.5% of gastroenterologists perceived it as the gastroenterologist's role to decide about surveillance colonoscopies. DISCUSSION: Studies to better evaluate the benefits/harms of surveillance colonoscopy in older adults and decisional support tools that help physicians and patients incorporate such data are needed.

Patterns of Morbidity Across the Lifespan: A Population Segmentation Framework for Classifying Health Care Needs for All Ages.

BACKGROUND: Classification systems to segment such patients into subgroups for purposes of care management and population analytics should balance administrative simplicity with clinical meaning and measurement precision. OBJECTIVE: To describe and empirically apply a new clinically relevant population segmentation framework applicable to all payers and all ages across the lifespan. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Cross-sectional analyses using insurance claims database for 3.31 Million commercially insured and 1.05 Million Medicaid enrollees under 65 years old; and 5.27 Million Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries aged 65 and older. MEASURES: The "Patient Need Groups" (PNGs) framework, we developed, classifies each person within the entire 0-100+ aged population into one of 11 mutually exclusive need-based categories. For each PNG segment, we documented a range of clinical and resource endpoints, including health care resource use, avoidable emergency department visits, hospitalizations, behavioral health conditions, and social need factors. RESULTS: The PNG categories included: (1) nonuser, (2) low-need child, (3) low-need adult, (4) low-complexity multimorbidity, (5) medium-complexity multimorbidity, (6) low-complexity pregnancy, (7) high-complexity pregnancy, (8) dominant psychiatric/behavioral condition, (9) dominant major chronic condition, (10) high-complexity multimorbidity, and (11) frailty. Each PNG evidenced a characteristic age-related trajectory across the full lifespan. In addition to offering clinically cogent groupings, large percentages (29%-62%) of patients in two pregnancy and high-complexity multimorbidity and frailty PNGs were in a high-risk subgroup (upper 10%) of potential future health care utilization. CONCLUSIONS: The PNG population segmentation approach represents a comprehensive measurement framework that captures and categorizes available electronic health care data to characterize individuals of all ages based on their needs.

A Qualitative Study of Perspectives of Older Adults on Deintensifying Diabetes Medications.

BACKGROUND: While many older adults with type 2 diabetes have tight glycemic control beyond guideline-recommended targets, deintensifying (stopping or dose-reducing) diabetes medications rarely occurs. OBJECTIVE: To explore the perspectives of older adults with type 2 diabetes around deintensifying diabetes medications. DESIGN: This qualitative study used individual semi-structured interviews, which included three clinical scenarios where deintensification may be indicated. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-four adults aged ≥65 years with medication-treated type 2 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c <7.5% were included (to thematic saturation) using a maximal variation sampling strategy for diabetes treatment and physician specialty. APPROACH: Interviews were independently coded by two investigators and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. We identified major themes and subthemes and coded responses to the clinical scenarios as positive (in favor of deintensification), negative, or ambiguous. KEY RESULTS: Participants' mean age was 74 years, half were women, and 58% used a sulfonylurea or insulin. The first of four major themes was fear of losing control of diabetes, which participants weighed against the benefits of taking less medication (Theme 2). Few participants viewed glycemic control below target as a reason for deintensification and a majority would restart the medication if their home glucose increased. Some participants were anchored to their current diabetes treatment (Theme 3) driven by unrealistic views of medication benefits. A trusting patient-provider relationship (Theme 4) was a positive influence. In clinical scenarios, 8%, 4%, and 75% of participants viewed deintensification positively in the setting of poor health, limited life expectancy, and high hypoglycemia risk, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing deintensification requires patient education that describes both individualized glycemic targets and how they will change over the lifespan. Deintensification is an opportunity for shared decision-making, but providers must understand patients' beliefs about their medications and address misconceptions. Hypoglycemia prevention may be a helpful framing for discussing deintensification.

A National Survey of Physicians' Views on the Importance and Implementation of Deintensifying Diabetes Medications.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend deintensifying hypoglycemia-causing medications for older adults with diabetes whose hemoglobin A1c is below their individualized target, but this rarely occurs in practice. OBJECTIVE: To understand physicians' decision-making around deintensifying diabetes treatment. DESIGN: National physician survey. PARTICIPANTS: US physicians in general medicine, geriatrics, or endocrinology providing outpatient diabetes care. MAIN MEASURES: Physicians rated the importance of deintensifying diabetes medications for older adults with type 2 diabetes, and of switching medication classes, on 5-point Likert scales. They reported the frequency of these actions for their patients, and listed important barriers and facilitators. We evaluated the independent association between physicians' professional and practice characteristics and the importance of deintensifying and switching diabetes medications using multivariable ordered logistic regression models. KEY RESULTS: There were 445 eligible respondents (response rate 37.5%). The majority of physicians viewed deintensifying (80%) and switching (92%) diabetes medications as important or very important to the care of older adults. Despite this, one-third of physicians reported deintensifying diabetes medications rarely or never. While most physicians recognized multiple reasons to deintensify, two-thirds of physicians reported barriers of short-term hyperglycemia and patient reluctance to change medications or allow higher glucose levels. In multivariable models, geriatricians rated deintensification as more important compared to other specialties (p=0.027), and endocrinologists rated switching as more important compared to other specialties (p<0.006). Physicians with fewer years in practice rated higher importance of deintensification (p<0.001) and switching (p=0.003). CONCLUSIONS: While most US physicians viewed deintensifying and switching diabetes medications as important for the care of older adults, they deintensified infrequently. Physicians had ambivalence about the relative benefits and harms of deintensification and viewed it as a potential source of conflict with their patients. These factors likely contribute to clinical inertia, and studies focused on improving shared decision-making around deintensifying diabetes medications are needed.

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.

Barriers and facilitators to deprescribing before surgery: A qualitative study of providers and older adults.

INTRODUCTION: Deprescribing, the collaborative process between providers and patients to streamline medication regimen, may reduce the risk of adverse events following surgery among older adults with multimorbidity. However, barriers and facilitators to deprescribing for surgery has not been explored. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study of Primary Care Providers (PCP) and patients aged 65 and older who were scheduled for surgery. We used the Theoretical Domains Framework, which informed the interview guide and analysis. RESULTS: A total of 16 participants (n=8 providers, n=8 patients) were included. Themes were regarding: 1) attitudes towards deprescribing before surgery, 2) perceived benefits of deprescribing before surgery, 3) patient-provider relationship and shared decision-making, 4) hope for surgery, 5) barriers to deprescribing before surgery, and 6) preferences for deprescribing follow-up. CONCLUSION: Our study findings regarding provider- and patient-related barriers and facilitators for deprescribing and desired processes before surgery may inform future deprescribing intervention targets before surgery.

Discontinuing Cancer Screening for Older Adults: a Comparison of Clinician Decision-Making for Breast, Colorectal, and Prostate Cancer Screenings.

BACKGROUND: While guidelines recommend against routine screening for breast, prostate, and colorectal cancers in older adults (65+ years) with <10-year life expectancy, many of these patients continue to be screened. How clinicians consider screening cessation across multiple cancer screening types is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To compare and contrast clinicians' perspectives on discontinuing breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer screenings in older adults. DESIGN: Qualitative, semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Primary care clinicians in Maryland (N=30) APPROACH: We conducted semi-structured interviews with individual clinicians. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using standard techniques of qualitative content analysis to identify major themes. KEY RESULTS: Participants were mostly physicians (24/30) and women (16/30). Four major themes highlighted differences in decision-making across cancer screenings: (1) Clinicians reported more often screening beyond guideline-recommended ages for breast and prostate cancers than colorectal cancer; (2) clinicians had different priorities when considering the benefits/harms of each screening; for example, some prioritized continuing colorectal cancer screening due to the test's high efficacy while others prioritized stopping colorectal cancer screening due to high procedural risk; some prioritized continuing prostate cancer screening due to poor outcomes from advanced prostate cancer while others prioritized stopping prostate cancer screening due to high false positive test rates and harms from downstream tests; (3) clinicians discussed harms of prostate and colorectal cancer screening more readily than for breast cancer screening; (4) clinicians perceived more involvement with gastroenterologists in colonoscopy decisions and less involvement from specialists for prostate and breast cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the need for more explicit guidance on how to weigh competing considerations in cancer screening (such as test accuracy versus ease of cancer treatment after detection). Recognizing the complexity of the benefit/harms analysis as clinicians consider multiple cancer screenings, future decision support tools, and clinician education materials can specifically address the competing considerations.

Incidence of and predictors for antiseizure medication gaps in Medicare beneficiaries with epilepsy: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: For the two-thirds of patients with epilepsy who achieve seizure remission on antiseizure medications (ASMs), patients and clinicians must weigh the pros and cons of long-term ASM treatment. However, little work has evaluated how often ASM discontinuation occurs in practice. We describe the incidence of and predictors for sustained ASM fill gaps to measure discontinuation in individuals potentially eligible for ASM withdrawal. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort of Medicare beneficiaries. We included patients with epilepsy by requiring International Classification of Diseases codes for epilepsy/convulsions plus at least one ASM prescription each year 2014-2016, and no acute visit for epilepsy 2014-2015 (i.e., potentially eligible for ASM discontinuation). The main outcome was the first day of a gap in ASM supply (30, 90, 180, or 360 days with no pills) in 2016-2018. We displayed cumulative incidence functions and identified predictors using Cox regressions. RESULTS: Among 21,819 beneficiaries, 5191 (24%) had a 30-day gap, 1753 (8%) had a 90-day gap, 803 (4%) had a 180-day gap, and 381 (2%) had a 360-day gap. Predictors increasing the chance of a 180-day gap included number of unique medications in 2015 (hazard ratio [HR] 1.03 per medication, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.05) and epileptologist prescribing physician (≥25% of that physician's visits for epilepsy; HR 2.37, 95% CI 1.39-4.03). Predictors decreasing the chance of a 180-day gap included Medicaid dual eligibility (HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.60-0.95), number of unique ASMs in 2015 (e.g., 2 versus 1: HR 0.37, 95% CI 0.30-0.45), and greater baseline adherence (> 80% versus ≤80% of days in 2015 with ASM pill supply: HR 0.38, 95% CI 0.32-0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Sustained ASM gaps were rarer than current guidelines may suggest. Future work should further explore barriers and enablers of ASM discontinuation to understand the optimal discontinuation rate.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Oxygen in Patients Having Anesthesia for Advanced Esophagogastroduodenoscopy: HIFLOW-ENDO, a Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Over 6 million esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) procedures are performed in the United States each year. Patients having anesthesia for advanced EGD procedures, such as interventional procedures, are at high risk for hypoxemia. METHODS: Our primary study aim was to evaluate whether high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen reduces the incidence of hypoxemia during anesthesia for advanced EGD. Secondarily, we studied whether HFNC oxygen reduces hypercarbia or hypotension. After obtaining written informed consent, adults having anesthesia for advanced EGD, expected to last longer than 15 minutes, were randomly assigned to receive HFNC oxygen or standard nasal cannula (SNC) oxygen. The primary outcome was occurrence of one or more hypoxemia events during anesthesia, defined by arterial oxygen saturation <92% for at least 15 consecutive seconds. Secondary outcomes were occurrence of one or more hypercarbia or hypotension events. A hypercarbia event was defined by a transcutaneous CO2 measurement 20 mm Hg or more above baseline, and a hypotension event was defined by a mean arterial blood pressure measurement 25% or more below baseline. RESULTS: Two hundred seventy-one adult patients were enrolled and randomized, and 262 patients completed study procedures. Eight randomized patients did not complete study procedures due to changes in their anesthesia or endoscopy plan. One patient was excluded from analysis because their procedure was aborted after 1 minute. Patients who received HFNC oxygen (N = 132) had a significantly lower incidence of hypoxemia than those who received SNC oxygen (N = 130; 21.2% vs 33.1%; hazard ratio [HR] = 0.59 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.36-0.95]; P = .03). There was no difference in the incidence of hypercarbia or hypotension between the groups. The HR for hypercarbia with HFNC oxygen was 1.29 (95% CI, 0.89-1.88; P = .17), and the HR for hypotension was 1.25 (95% CI, 0.86-1.82; P = .25). CONCLUSIONS: HFNC oxygen reduces the incidence of hypoxemia during anesthesia for advanced EGD and may offer an opportunity to enhance patient safety during these procedures.

Pharmacologic Management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. An Official American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline.

Background: This document provides clinical recommendations for the pharmacologic treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It represents a collaborative effort on the part of a panel of expert COPD clinicians and researchers along with a team of methodologists under the guidance of the American Thoracic Society.Methods: Comprehensive evidence syntheses were performed on all relevant studies that addressed the clinical questions and critical patient-centered outcomes agreed upon by the panel of experts. The evidence was appraised, rated, and graded, and recommendations were formulated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.Results: After weighing the quality of evidence and balancing the desirable and undesirable effects, the guideline panel made the following recommendations: 1) a strong recommendation for the use of long-acting ß2-agonist (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) combination therapy over LABA or LAMA monotherapy in patients with COPD and dyspnea or exercise intolerance; 2) a conditional recommendation for the use of triple therapy with inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/LABA/LAMA over dual therapy with LABA/LAMA in patients with COPD and dyspnea or exercise intolerance who have experienced one or more exacerbations in the past year; 3) a conditional recommendation for ICS withdrawal for patients with COPD receiving triple therapy (ICS/LABA/LAMA) if the patient has had no exacerbations in the past year; 4) no recommendation for or against ICS as an additive therapy to long-acting bronchodilators in patients with COPD and blood eosinophilia, except for those patients with a history of one or more exacerbations in the past year requiring antibiotics or oral steroids or hospitalization, for whom ICS is conditionally recommended as an additive therapy; 5) a conditional recommendation against the use of maintenance oral corticosteroids in patients with COPD and a history of severe and frequent exacerbations; and 6) a conditional recommendation for opioid-based therapy in patients with COPD who experience advanced refractory dyspnea despite otherwise optimal therapy.Conclusions: The task force made recommendations regarding the pharmacologic treatment of COPD based on currently available evidence. Additional research in populations that are underrepresented in clinical trials is needed, including studies in patients with COPD 80 years of age and older, those with multiple chronic health conditions, and those with a codiagnosis of COPD and asthma.

How Clinicians Discuss Medications During Primary Care Encounters Among Older Adults with Cognitive Impairment.

BACKGROUND: People with cognitive impairment experience high rates of polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication use. How clinicians communicate about medications may affect to what extent patients and family companions understand and participate in decisions about medication use. OBJECTIVE: To characterize how primary care clinicians discuss medications during encounters with older adults with cognitive impairment and their companions. DESIGN: Qualitative content analysis of audio-recorded clinical encounters from SAME Page, a randomized controlled trial to examine the effects of a patient-family agenda setting checklist on primary care visit communication among patients with cognitive impairment. Visits occurred between August 2016 and August 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Patients were 65 or older, had > 1 incorrect answer on a cognitive screener, and attended visits with a relative or unpaid companion. Clinicians were physicians, nurse practitioners, or physician assistants at participating practices. APPROACH: The encounters were transcribed verbatim. We used qualitative content analysis to identify major themes. KEY RESULTS: Patients were on average 79.9 years of age. The average MMSE score was 21.6. About half of clinicians reported practicing for 15 or more years (n = 8). We identified three major themes. First, we found numerous instances in which primary care clinicians introduced patients and companions to key principles of optimal prescribing and deprescribing. Second, clinicians used a variety of approaches to foster shared decision-making about medication use. Third, several challenges prevented clinicians from working together with patients and companions to optimize prescribing and deprescribing. CONCLUSIONS: This study offers insight into key language clinicians can use to initiate discussions about optimizing prescribing, as well as barriers they face in doing so. Examples identified in these transcripts should be tested with patients and caregivers to examine how such communications are received and interpreted. Future research should develop and test interventions that seek to overcome obstacles to optimizing prescribing for older adults with cognitive impairment.

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.

Informing Patient-Centered Care Through Stakeholder Engagement and Highly Stratified Quantitative Benefit-Harm Assessments.

OBJECTIVES: In a previous project aimed at informing patient-centered care for people with multiple chronic conditions, we performed highly stratified quantitative benefit-harm assessments for 2 top priority questions. In this current work, our goal was to describe the process and approaches we developed and to qualitatively glean important elements from it that address patient-centered care. METHODS: We engaged patients, caregivers, clinicians, and guideline developers as stakeholder representatives throughout the process of the quantitative benefit-harm assessment and investigated whether the benefit-harm balance differed based on patient preferences and characteristics (stratification). We refined strategies to select the most applicable, valid, and precise evidence. RESULTS: Two processes were important when assessing the balance of benefits and harms of interventions: (1) engaging stakeholders and (2) stratification by patient preferences and characteristics. Engaging patients and caregivers through focus groups, preference surveys, and as co-investigators provided value in prioritizing research questions, identifying relevant clinical outcomes, and clarifying the relative importance of these outcomes. Our strategies to select evidence for stratified benefit-harm assessments considered consistency across outcomes and subgroups. By quantitatively estimating the range in the benefit-harm balance resulting from true variation in preferences, we clarified whether the benefit-harm balance is preference sensitive. CONCLUSIONS: Our approaches for engaging patients and caregivers at all phases of the stratified quantitative benefit-harm assessments were feasible and revealed how sensitive the benefit-harm balance is to patient characteristics and individual preferences. Accordingly, this sensitivity can suggest to guideline developers when to tailor recommendations for specific patient subgroups or when to explicitly leave decision making to individual patients and their providers.

Polypharmacy in patients with epilepsy: A nationally representative cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to characterize the prevalence of polypharmacy and central nervous system (CNS)-acting medications in patients with epilepsy, and particular types of medications. METHODS: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study using data from the nationally representative National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). We included patients who reported taking at least one prescription medication in order to treat seizures or epilepsy during NHANES survey years 2013-2016. We assessed the number and types of drugs and predictors of total number of medications using a negative binomial regression. We then assessed prevalence of polypharmacy (≥5 medications), CNS polypharmacy (≥3 CNS-acting medications) and additional CNS-acting medications, and drugs that lower the seizure threshold (i.e., bupropion and tramadol), and extrapolated prevalence to estimated affected US population. RESULTS: The NHANES contained 20,146 participants, of whom 135 reported taking ≥1 antiseizure medication (ASM) for seizures or epilepsy representing 2,399,520 US citizens using NHANES's sampling frame. Patients reported taking a mean 5.3 (95% confidence interval (CI): 4.3-6.3) prescription medications. Adjusting for race, sex, and uninsurance, both age and number of chronic conditions predicted increased number of medications (incident rate ratio (IRR) per decade: 1.16, 95% CI: 1.04-1.28; IRR per chronic condition: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.11-1.27). Polypharmacy was reported by 47% (95% CI: 38%-57%) of patients, CNS polypharmacy by 34% (23%-47%), benzodiazepine use by 21% (14%-30%), opioid use by 16% (11%-24%), benzodiazepine plus opioid use by 6% (3%-14%), and 6% (2%-15%) reported a drug that lowers the seizure threshold. Twelve percent (7%-20%) took an opioid with either a benzodiazepine or gabapentinoid. CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy is common in patients with epilepsy. Patients taking ASMs frequently reported also taking other CNS-acting medications (i.e., opioids, benzodiazepines, seizure threshold-lowering medications), and medication combinations with black box warnings. Central nervous system polypharmacy poses health risks. Future research is needed to explore drivers of polypharmacy and strategies to help mitigate potentially harmful prescription use in this high-risk population.

Correction to: Neighborhood socioeconomic disadvantage is associated with multimorbidity in a geographically-defined community.

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