Anticholinergic deprescribing: A case report demonstrating improved cognition and function with minimal adverse withdrawal effects.

Anticholinergic-induced cognitive impairment may be partially reversible upon cessation. A barrier to deprescribing of anticholinergics is the unknown risk of anticholinergic adverse drug withdrawal events (ADWE), with only limited information available on the incidence, timing and severity of anticholinergic ADWE. We report the case of a 76-year-old woman who experienced significant cognitive improvement following deprescribing long-term use of a strong anticholinergic drug, doxepin, and dose reduction of another possible anticholinergic agent. The patient decided to abruptly stop taking doxepin, despite a planned careful taper with twice weekly monitoring, but did not experience any severe anticholinergic ADWE and subsequently had significantly improved cognitive function. Future research should focus on better understanding the risk of anticholinergic ADWE so that anticholinergic deprescribing decisions, including how often and by how much to taper, can be made confidently and safely.

What do clinical practice guidelines say about deprescribing? A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Deprescribing (medication dose reduction or cessation) is an integral component of appropriate prescribing. The extent to which deprescribing recommendations are included in clinical practice guidelines is unclear. This scoping review aimed to identify guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations, qualitatively explore the content and format of deprescribing recommendations and estimate the proportion of guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations. METHODS: Bibliographic databases and Google were searched for guidelines published in English from January 2012 to November 2022. Guideline registries were searched from January 2017 to February 2023. Two reviewers independently screened records from databases and Google for guidelines containing one or more deprescribing recommendations. A 10% sample of the guideline registries was screened to identify eligible guidelines and estimate the proportion of guidelines containing a deprescribing recommendation. Guideline and recommendation characteristics were extracted and language features of deprescribing recommendations including content, form, complexity and readability were examined using a conventional content analysis and the SHeLL Health Literacy Editor tool. RESULTS: 80 guidelines containing 316 deprescribing recommendations were included. Deprescribing recommendations had substantial variability in their format and terminology. Most guidelines contained recommendations regarding for who (75%, n=60), what (99%, n=89) and when or why (91%, n=73) to deprescribe, however, fewer guidelines (58%, n=46) contained detailed guidance on how to deprescribe. Approximately 29% of guidelines identified from the registries sample (n=14/49) contained one or more deprescribing recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Deprescribing recommendations are increasingly being incorporated into guidelines, however, many guidelines do not contain clear and actionable recommendations on how to deprescribe which may limit effective implementation in clinical practice. A co-designed template or best practice guide, containing information on aspects of deprescribing recommendations that are essential or preferred by end-users should be developed and employed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf.io/fbex4.

Reducing potentially inappropriate polypharmacy at a national and international level: the impact of deprescribing networks.

INTRODUCTION: Over the past decade, polypharmacy has increased dramatically. Measurable harms include falls, fractures, cognitive impairment, and death. The associated costs are massive and contribute substantially to low-value health care. Deprescribing is a promising solution, but there are barriers. Establishing a network to address polypharmacy can help overcome barriers by connecting individuals with an interest and expertise in deprescribing and can act as an important source of motivation and resources. AREAS COVERED: Over the past decade, several deprescribing networks were launched to help tackle polypharmacy, with evidence of individual and collective impact. A network approach has several advantages; it can spark interest, ideas and enthusiasm through information sharing, meetings and conversations with the public, providers, and other key stakeholders. In this special report, the details of how four deprescribing networks were established across the globe are detailed. EXPERT OPINION: Networks create links between people who lead existing and/or budding deprescribing practices and policy initiatives, can influence people with a shared passion for deprescribing, and facilitate sharing of intellectual capital and tools to take initiatives further and strengthen impact.This report should inspire others to establish their own deprescribing networks, a critical step in accelerating a global deprescribing movement.

Survey content validation evaluating the dissemination and implementation of deprescribing guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Policies, protocols and processes within organisations can facilitate or hinder guideline adoption. There is limited knowledge on the strategies used by organisations to disseminate and implement evidence-based deprescribing guidelines or their impact. METHODS: We aimed to develop an online survey targeting key organisations involved in deprescribing guideline endorsement, dissemination, modification or translation internationally. Survey questions were drafted, mirroring the six components of the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Content validation was undertaken and established by a panel of clinicians, researchers and implementation experts. RESULTS: A 52-item survey underwent two rounds of content validation. The minimum threshold (I-CVI > 0.78) for relevance and importance was met for 39 items (75%) in the first round and 44 of 48 items (92%) in the second round. The expert panel concluded that the adoption, implementation and effectiveness survey sections were largely relevant and important to this topic, whereas the reach and maintenance sections were harder to understand and may be less pertinent to the research question. CONCLUSIONS: A 44-item survey investigating dissemination and implementation strategies for deprescribing guidelines has been developed and its content validated. Widespread survey distribution may identify effective strategies and inform dissemination and implementation planning for newly developed guidelines.

A Proposed Curricular Framework for an Interprofessional Approach to Deprescribing.

Deprescribing involves reducing or stopping medications that are causing more harm than good or are no longer needed. It is an important approach to managing polypharmacy, yet healthcare professionals identify many barriers. We present a proposed pre-licensure competency framework that describes essential knowledge, teaching strategies, and assessment protocols to promote interprofessional deprescribing skills. The framework considers how to involve patients and care partners in deprescribing decisions. An action plan and example curriculum mapping exercise are included to help educators assess their curricula, and select and implement these concepts and strategies within their programs to ensure learners graduate with competencies to manage increasingly complex medication regimens as people age. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40670-022-01704-9.

Using Shared Decision-Making Resources in Long-Term Care: a Qualitative Study.

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) incorporates people's individual preferences and context into individualized, person-centred decisions. Persons living in long-term care (LTC) should only take medications that are a good fit for them as individuals. Methods: We conducted a pilot study to understand experiences of two LTC homes in Ontario as they tested implementing SDM resources to support medication decisions. LTC homes conducted two Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles supported by an Advisory Group composed of LTC home representatives and stakeholders involved in resource design. Rapid qualitative analysis of transcripts and field notes from Advisory Group meetings elucidated how SDM resources were used. Results: Each site was positively engaged but implemented resources differently. The pharmacist and physicians at Site 1 introduced proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) deprescribing as their primary intervention, identifying suitable residents, informing residents and families of the deprescribing process, and providing selected SDM resources to residents, caregivers and staff. Representatives reported limited engagement with SDM resources and difficulty measuring the impact of PPI deprescribing. Representatives from Site 2 disseminated the SDM resources to residents and caregivers for use at care conferences and focused on front-line staff education and involvement. This site reported that some residents/caregivers were interested in participating in SDM and using the resources, while others were not. The impact of the resources on SDM at this site was unclear. Conclusions: Within the context of LTC, further research is needed to clarify the meaning and importance of SDM in medication decision-making. Implementation of SDM will likely require a multi-faceted approach.

Team approach to polypharmacy evaluation and reduction: feasibility randomized trial of a structured clinical pathway to reduce polypharmacy.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is associated with poorer health outcomes in older adults. Other than the associated multimorbidity, factors contributing to this association could include medication adverse effects and interactions, difficulties in managing complicated medication regimes, and reduced medication adherence. It is unknown how reversible these negative associations may be if polypharmacy is reduced. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of implementing an operationalized clinical pathway aimed to reduce polypharmacy in primary care and to pilot measurement tools suitable for assessing change in health outcomes in a larger randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: We randomized consenting patients ≥ 70 years old on ≥ 5 long-term medications into intervention or control groups. We collected baseline demographic information and research outcome measures at baseline and 6 months. We assessed four categories of feasibility outcomes: process, resource, management, and scientific. The intervention group received TAPER (team approach to polypharmacy evaluation and reduction), a clinical pathway for reducing polypharmacy using "pause and monitor" drug holiday approach. TAPER integrates patients' goals, priorities, and preferences with an evidence-based "machine screen" to identify potentially problematic medications and support a tapering and monitoring process, all supported by a web-based system, TaperMD. Patients met with a clinical pharmacist and then with their family physician to finalize a plan for optimization of medications using TaperMD. The control group received usual care and were offered TAPER after follow-up at 6 months. RESULTS: All 9 criteria for feasibility were met across the 4 feasibility outcome domains. Of 85 patients screened for eligibility, 39 eligible patients were recruited and randomized; two were excluded post hoc for not meeting the age requirement. Withdrawals (2) and losses to follow-up (3) were small and evenly distributed between arms. Areas for intervention and research process improvement were identified. In general, outcome measures performed well and appeared suitable for assessing change in a larger RCT. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this feasibility study indicate that TAPER as a clinical pathway is feasible to implement in a primary care team setting and in an RCT research framework. Outcome trends suggest effectiveness. A large-scale RCT will be conducted to investigate the effectiveness of TAPER on reducing polypharmacy and improving health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT02562352 , Registered September 29, 2015.

Linking Patients' Goals and Priorities to Recommendations for Medication Changes in a Polypharmacy-Focused Structured Clinical Pathway.

Polypharmacy is associated with poorer health outcomes in older adults. It is challenging to minimize the harmful effects of medications while maximizing benefits of single-disease-focused recommendations. Integrating patient input can balance these factors. The objectives are to describe the goals, priorities, and preferences of participants asked about these in a structured process to polypharmacy, and to describe the extent that decision-making within the process mapped onto these, signaling a patient-centered approach. This is a single-group quasi-experimental study, nested within a feasibility randomized controlled trial. Patient goals and priorities were mapped to medication recommendations made during the intervention. Overall, there were 33 participants who reported 55 functional goals and 66 symptom priorities, and 16 participants reported unwanted medications. Overall, 154 recommendations for medication alterations occurred. Of those, 68 (44%) recommendations mapped to the individual's goals and priorities, whereas the rest were based on clinical judgment where no priorities were expressed. Our results signal this process supports a patient-centered approach: allowing conversations around goals and priorities in a structured process to polypharmacy should be integrated into subsequent medication decisions.

Applying the Behaviour Change Wheel to support deprescribing in long-term care: Qualitative interviews with stakeholder participants.

Background: Implementation and behavioural science are increasingly being used to support development and translation of evidence-based interventions into practice. We used the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) approach in two stakeholder forums to identify target behaviours and supporting actions to inform the development of a framework to support deprescribing in long-term care homes. During our planning for these forums, we found many applications of the BCW approach used in healthcare. However, we found no accounts of stakeholders' experiences when the BCW approach was used with large groups of people who were mostly unfamiliar with behavioural science. Objective: The goal of this research was to gain insight into the use of the BCW approach in the context of developing a framework to support deprescribing in long-term care. Methods: This descriptive qualitative study employed one-on-one semi-structured interviews with Ontario long-term care stakeholders who had participated in one or both of two in-person forums that we hosted. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and an inductive content-analysis approach was used to code data and determine themes. Results: Fifteen interviews were conducted. Four themes were identified. First, the BCW was new and made sense, but people found it hard to identify target behaviours before planning solutions. Second, participants varied in their opinions as to whether the 'right' people were participating. Third, participants found that the forum activities, worksheets and facilitators helped people use the approach. Fourth, stakeholder perspectives about potential implementation challenges and strategies to maximize success were identified. Conclusions: Overall, participants were positive about the use of the BCW approach, however, its usefulness could be optimized by enhancing explanations, facilitation and logistics to ensure an initial focus on targeting behaviours. Making stakeholder perspectives transparent and ensuring mechanisms are present to ensure all views are sought and considered are also important to optimizing participant experience.

Supporting deprescribing in long-term care: An approach using stakeholder engagement, behavioural science and implementation planning.

Approaches for optimizing medication use and enhancing medication experiences, including deprescribing, for older people living in long-term care homes are urgently needed. Through a multiphase initiative involving an environmental scan (2018) and two stakeholder forums (2019, 2020), we created a framework for developing and implementing sustainable deprescribing practices in this sector. Representatives from public advocacy, health care professionals, long-term care, pharmacy service providers, and regional health and public policy organizations in Ontario, Canada were consulted. We used behavioural science and implementation planning strategies to develop four target behaviours and 14 supporting actions; five of these actions were prioritized for further work. Throughout the phases, stakeholders committed to participation at various levels including ongoing implementation teams working to develop resources for the prioritized actions. A key element of success was attracting and sustaining engagement of a wide variety of relevant stakeholders from across the health system by leveraging best practices in stakeholder engagement. The approach used is described in detail so that it can be adapted and applied by others to plan large behaviour change initiatives.

"Kind of blurry": Deciphering clues to prevent, investigate and manage prescribing cascades.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing cascades, where a medication is used to treat the side effect of another medication, contribute to polypharmacy and related morbidity. Little is known about clinicians' and patients' experiences with prescribing cascades. In this study, we explored why and how prescribing cascades occur across a variety of care settings and how they are managed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This descriptive qualitative study employed semi-structured interviews with older adults who may have experienced a prescribing cascade(s), their caregivers, and healthcare providers. Interviewees were recruited through physician referral from a Geriatric Day Hospital, two long-term care homes in Ottawa, Ontario, and through self-referral across Ontario, Canada. An inductive approach was used to code data and determine themes. Thirty-one interviews were conducted for ten unique patient cases. Some interviewees were involved in more than one case, resulting in 22 unique interviewees. Three themes were identified. First, recognition of prescribing cascades is linked to awareness of medication side effects. Second, investigation and management of prescribing cascades is simultaneous and iterative (rather than linear and sequential). Third, prevention of prescribing cascades requires intentional strategies to help people anticipate and recognize medication side effects. Difficulty with recruitment from both long-term care homes and through self-referral was the central limitation. This exemplifies challenges associated with studying a poorly recognized and underexplored phenomenon. CONCLUSIONS: In order to better recognize, investigate and manage prescribing cascades, clinicians and patients need to know more about medication side effects; they need to ask 'can this be caused by a drug?' when signs and symptoms arise or worsen; and they need access to information about medication experiences to have benefit-risk discussions and make decisions about deprescribing. Approaches for raising public awareness of prescribing cascades should be trialed to raise the profile of this issue and facilitate continued exploration of the phenomenon.