Symptomatic and Preventive Medication Use before and after Alzheimer's Disease Diagnosis: A 10-Year Matched Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate longitudinal changes in symptomatic and preventive medication use among community-dwelling people with and without Alzheimer's disease (AD) 5 years pre- and post-AD diagnosis. DESIGN: Retrospective matched cohort study. SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS: The sample comprised 58,496 people with a geriatrician/neurologist-verified AD diagnosis matched 1:1 for age, sex, and region to people without AD in Finland. METHODS: Medication dispensing data were obtained from the Finnish Prescription Register. Prevalence of symptomatic and preventive medication use was evaluated every 6 months from 5 years pre- to post-AD diagnosis. Longitudinal changes in medication use between people with and without AD were compared using ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: During the 5 years pre- and post-diagnosis, there were differences in symptomatic (P < .001) and preventive (P = .006) medication use between people with and without AD. Over the 5 years pre-diagnosis, prevalence of symptomatic and preventive medications increased in both people with and without AD. During the 1 year pre-diagnosis, people with AD had a higher increase in use of ≥3 symptomatic medications (+4.4% vs +2.2%) and ≥3 preventive medications (+6.4% vs +2.9%) compared to people without AD. Over the 5 years post-diagnosis, symptomatic medication use plateaued in both people with and without AD. Meanwhile, people using ≥3 preventive medications decreased (-6.0%) in those with AD, but increased (+6.1%) in those without AD. During the follow-up period, people with AD had a larger absolute percentage increase in prevalence of antipsychotics (+22.7% vs +1.8%) and antidepressants (+19.1% vs +5.0%) than people without AD. During the same period, paracetamol and calcium supplement use increased by 31.1% and 20.4%, respectively, among people with AD. The largest absolute percentage decrease in prevalence of preventive medications over the 5 years post-diagnosis were beta-blockers (-9.8%) and statins (-7.0%) in people with AD. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: At the point of and following diagnosis, there were population-level changes in medication use among people with AD. Medication assessments during this period appear to coincide with discontinuation of preventive medications whereas minimal changes were observed in symptomatic medication use.

Deprescribing Opportunities for Frail Residents of Nursing Homes: A Multicenter Study in Australia, China, Japan, and Spain.

OBJECTIVE: Deprescribing opportunities may differ across health care systems, nursing home settings, and prescribing cultures. The objective of this study was to compare the prevalence of STOPPFrail medications according to frailty status among residents of nursing homes in Australia, China, Japan, and Spain. DESIGN: Secondary cross-sectional analyses of data from 4 cohort studies. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 1142 residents in 31 nursing homes. METHODS: Medication data were extracted from resident records. Frailty was assessed using the FRAIL-NH scale (non-frail 0-2; frail 3-6; most-frail 7-14). Chi-square tests and prevalence ratios (PRs) were used to compare STOPPFrail medication use across cohorts. RESULTS: In total, 84.7% of non-frail, 95.6% of frail, and 90.6% of most-frail residents received ≥1 STOPPFrail medication. Overall, the most prevalent STOPPFrail medications were antihypertensives (53.0% in China to 73.3% in Australia, P < .001), vitamin D (nil in China to 52.7% in Australia, P < .001), lipid-lowering therapies (11.1% in Japan to 38.9% in Australia, P < .001), aspirin (13.5% in Japan to 26.2% in China, P < .001), proton pump inhibitors (2.1% in Japan to 32.0% in Australia, P < .001), and antidiabetic medications (12.3% in Japan to 23.5% in China, P = .010). Overall use of antihypertensives (PR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.25), lipid-lowering therapies (PR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.45-2.18), aspirin (PR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.04-1.64), and antidiabetic medications (PR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.00-1.72) were more prevalent among non-frail and frail residents compared with most-frail residents. Antihypertensive use was more prevalent with increasing frailty in China and Japan, but less prevalent with increasing frailty in Australia. Antidiabetic medication use was less prevalent with increasing frailty in China and Spain but was consistent across frailty groups in Australia and Japan. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: There were overall and frailty-specific variations in prevalence of different STOPPFrail medications across cohorts. This may reflect differences in prescribing cultures, application of clinical practice guidelines in the nursing home setting, and clinician or resident attitudes toward deprescribing.

The effect of frailty on post-discharge management and outcomes of acute glycaemic crises: Analysis of admissions for hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To describe changes in glucose-lowering drug (GLD) dispensing by frailty status for people with diabetes following admission for hypoglycaemia or hyperglycaemia. METHODS: This study included all people with probable type 2 diabetes in the state of Victoria, Australia, admitted to hospital for hypoglycaemia (n = 2,506 admissions) or hyperglycaemia (n = 1,693) between 1 July 2013 and 29 June 2017. Frailty was defined via the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS). We examined differences in dispensing of GLDs in the year before and after admission using linear regression models adjusted for age, sex, comorbidities, and socioeconomic status. RESULTS: Dispensing of GLDs decreased following hypoglycaemia admission. Decreased dispensing was strongly associated with frailty status, with a change in mean annual GLD dispensing count of -4.11 (-5.05, -3.17) for an HFRS of 15 vs. -0.99 (-1.47, -0.50) for an HFRS of 0. Changes were greatest for metformin and sulfonylureas. Following hyperglycaemia admission, the mean number of annual GLD dispensings increased, with a smaller increase with increasing frailty: 2.44 (1.32, 3.56) for an HFRS of 0 vs. 1.16 (0.18, 2.14) for an HFRS of 15. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty was associated with more conservative diabetes medication management following hypoglycaemia and hyperglycaemia admissions.

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.

Symptomatic and preventive medication use according to age and frailty in Australian and Japanese nursing homes.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate symptomatic and preventive medication use according to age and frailty in Australian and Japanese nursing homes (NHs). METHODS: Secondary cross-sectional analyses of two prospective cohort studies involving 12 Australian NHs and four Japanese NHs. Frailty was measured using the FRAIL-NH scale (non-frail 0-2; frail 3-6; most-frail 7-14). Regular medications were classified as symptomatic or preventive based on published lists and expert consensus. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the prevalence and ratio of symptomatic to preventive medications. RESULTS: Overall, 550 Australian residents (87.7 ± 7.3 years; 73.3% females) and 333 Japanese residents (86.5 ± 7.0 years; 73.3% females) were included. Australian residents used a higher mean number of medications than Japanese residents (9.8 ± 4.0 vs 7.7 ± 3.7, p < 0.0001). Australian residents used more preventive than symptomatic medications (5.5 ± 2.5 vs 4.3 ± 2.6, p < 0.0001), while Japanese residents used more symptomatic than preventive medications (4.7 ± 2.6 vs 3.0 ± 2.2, p < 0.0001). In Australia, symptomatic medications were more prevalent with increasing frailty (non-frail 3.4 ± 2.6; frail 4.0 ± 2.6; most-frail 4.8 ± 2.6, p < 0.0001) but less prevalent with age (< 80 years 5.0 ± 2.9; 80-89 years 4.4 ± 2.6; ≥ 90 years 3.9 ± 2.5, p = 0.0042); while preventive medications remained similar across age and frailty groups. In Japan, there was no significant difference in the mean number of symptomatic and preventive medications irrespective of age and frailty. CONCLUSIONS: The ratio of symptomatic to preventive medications was higher with increasing frailty but lower with age in Australia; whereas in Japan, the ratio remained consistent across age and frailty groups. Preventive medications remained prevalent in most-frail residents in both cohorts, albeit at lower levels in Japan.

Identifying Residents Who May Benefit from an Analgesic Review: Applying Analgesic Indicators in Residential Aged Care Services.

BACKGROUND: Ensuring safe and effective analgesic use in residential aged care services is important because older adults are susceptible to analgesic-related adverse drug events (ADEs). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify the proportion and characteristics of residents of aged care services who may benefit from analgesic review based on indicators in the 2021 Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine (AMDA) Pain Management Guideline. METHODS: Cross-sectional analyses of baseline data from the Frailty in Residential Sector over Time (FIRST) study (N = 550 residents) across 12 South Australian residential aged care services in 2019 were conducted. Indicators included the proportion of residents who received > 3000 mg/day of acetaminophen (paracetamol), regular opioids without a documented clinical rationale, opioid doses > 60 mg morphine equivalents (MME)/day, more than one long-acting opioid concurrently, and a pro re nata (PRN) opioid on more than two occasions in the previous 7 days. Logistic regression was performed to investigate factors associated with residents who may benefit from analgesic review. RESULTS: Of 381 (69.3%) residents charted regular acetaminophen, 176 (46.2%) were charted > 3000 mg/day. Of 165 (30%) residents charted regular opioids, only 2 (1.2%) had no prespecified potentially painful conditions in their medical record and 31 (18.8%) received > 60 MME/day. Of 153 (27.8%) residents charted long-acting opioids, 8 (5.2%) received more than one long-acting opioid concurrently. Of 212 (38.5%) residents charted PRN opioids, 10 (4.7%) received more than two administrations in the previous 7 days. Overall, 196 (35.6%) of 550 residents were identified as potentially benefiting from analgesic review. Females (odds ratio [OR] 1.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20-2.91) and residents with prior fracture (OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.12-2.33) were more likely to be identified. Observed pain (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.29-0.88) was associated with a lower likelihood of being identified compared with residents with no observed pain. Overall, 43 (7.8%) residents were identified based on opioid-related indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Up to one in three residents may benefit from a review of their analgesic regimen, including 1 in 13 who may benefit from a specific review of their opioid regimen. Analgesic indicators represent a new approach to target analgesic stewardship interventions.

Experiences of hospitalized smokers initiated on varenicline as part of a pragmatic smoking cessation trial.

Varenicline is an effective monotherapy for smoking cessation, but adherence is often suboptimal. This qualitative study explored the experiences of varenicline treatment among participants enrolled in a randomized controlled trial, who self-reported being adherent or nonadherent to varenicline treatment (n = 15). Individual interviews were conducted using a semi-structured interview guide. Data were analyzed using thematic framework approach. An environment of forced abstinence played a key role in motivating quit attempts. The main barriers to varenicline adherence were medicine-related side effects, relapse to smoking, and a belief that the medication was not working if abstinence was not achieved by the target quit date. Participants adherent to treatment adopted a reduce-to-quit approach and noticed a gradual reduction in cigarette cravings. When asked about their preferences for support while on varenicline treatment, participants expressed the need for proactive follow-up by health professionals and more active behavioral support to assist them in adhering to treatment. Prescribers should encourage varenicline users to persist with treatment, even if abstinence is not achieved by the target quit date. Further research is needed to explore the awareness and acceptability of the reduce-to-quit method among prescribers and patients and its impact on varenicline adherence and in term long-term abstinence.

Frailty Status and Cognitive Function Should Guide Prescribing in Long-term Care Facilities.

Frailty, dementia and complex multimorbidity are highly prevalent among residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs). Prescribing for residents of LTCFs is often informed by disease-specific clinical practice guidelines based on research conducted among younger and more robust adults. However, frailty and cognitive impairment may modify medication benefits and risks. Residents with frailty and advanced dementia may be at increased susceptibility to adverse drug events (ADEs) and often have a lower likelihood of achieving long-term therapeutic benefit from chronic preventative medications. For this reason, there is a strong rationale for deprescribing, particularlyamong residents with high medication burdens, swallowing difficulties or limited dexterity. Conversely, frailty and dementia have also been associated with under-prescribing of clinically indicated medications. Unnecessarily withholding treatment based on assumed risk may deprive vulnerable population groups from receiving evidence-based care. There is a need for specific evidence regarding medication benefits and risks in LTCF residents with frailty and dementia. Observational studies conducted using routinely collected health data may complement evidence from randomized controlled trials that often exclude people living with dementia, frailty and in LTCFs. Balancing over- and under-prescribing requires consideration of each resident's frailty and cognitive status, therapeutic goals, time-to-benefit, potential ADEs, and individual values or preferences. Incorporating frailty screening into medication review may also provide better alignment of medication regimens to changing goals of care. Timely identification of frail residents as part of treatment decision-making may assist with targeting interventions to minimize and monitor for ADEs. Shifting away from rigid application of conventional disease-specific clinical practice guidelines may provide an individualized and more holistic assessment of medication benefits and risks in the LTCF setting.

Medication Management in Frail Older People: Consensus Principles for Clinical Practice, Research, and Education.

Frailty is a geriatric condition associated with increased vulnerability to adverse drug events and medication-related harm. Existing clinical practice guidelines rarely provide medication management recommendations specific to frail older people. This report presents international consensus principles, generated by the Optimizing Geriatric Pharmacotherapy through Pharmacoepidemiology Network, related to medication management in frail older people. This consensus comprises 7 principles for clinical practice, 6 principles for research, and 4 principles for education. Principles for clinical practice include (1) perform medication reconciliation and maintain an up-to-date medication list; (2) assess and plan based on individual's capacity to self-manage medications; (3) ensure appropriate prescribing and deprescribing; (4) simplify medication regimens when appropriate to reduce unnecessary burden; (5) be alert to the contribution of medications to geriatric syndromes; (6) regularly review medication regimens to align with changing goals of care; and (7) facilitate multidisciplinary communication among patients, caregivers, and healthcare teams. Principles for research include (1) include frail older people in randomized controlled trials; (2) consider frailty status as an effect modifier; (3) ensure collection and reporting of outcome measures important in frailty; (4) assess impact of frailty on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics; (5) encourage frailty research in under-researched settings; and (6) utilize routinely collected linked health data. Principles for education include (1) provide undergraduate and postgraduate education on frailty; (2) minimize low-value care related to medication management; (3) improve health and medication literacy; and (4) incorporate evidence in relation to frailty into clinical practice guidelines. These principles for clinical practice, research and education highlight different considerations for optimizing medication management in frail older people. These principles can be used in conjunction with existing best practice guidelines to help achieve optimal health outcomes for this vulnerable population. Implementation of the principles will require multidisciplinary collaboration between healthcare professionals, researchers, educators, organizational leaders, and policymakers.