Deprescribing Anticholinergic and Sedative Drugs to Reduce Polypharmacy in Frail Older Adults Living in the Community: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is associated with poor outcomes in older adults. Targeted deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative medications may improve health outcomes for frail older adults. Our pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention was a pragmatic 2-arm randomized controlled trial stratified by frailty. We compared usual care (control) with the intervention of pharmacists providing deprescribing recommendations to general practitioners. METHODS: Community-based older adults (≥65 years) from 2 New Zealand district health boards were recruited following a standardized interRAI needs assessment. The Drug Burden Index (DBI) was used to quantify the use of sedative and anticholinergic medications for each participant. The trial was stratified into low, medium, and high-frailty. We hypothesized that the intervention would increase the proportion of participants with a reduction in DBI ≥ 0.5 within 6 months. RESULTS: Of 363 participants, 21 (12.7%) in the control group and 21 (12.2%) in the intervention group had a reduction in DBI ≥ 0.5. The difference in the proportion of -0.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: -7.9% to 7.0%) provided no evidence of efficacy for the intervention. Similarly, there was no evidence to suggest the effectiveness of this intervention for participants of any frailty level. CONCLUSION: Our pharmacist-led medication review of frail older participants did not reduce the anticholinergic/sedative load within 6 months. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown measures required modification of the intervention. Subgroup analyses pre- and post-lockdown showed no impact on outcomes. Reviewing this and other deprescribing trials through the lens of implementation science may aid an understanding of the contextual determinants preventing or enabling successful deprescribing implementation strategies.

Considerations for systematic reviews of quantitative surveys: Learnings from a systematic review of the Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing questionnaire.

This commentary looks at the process of conducting a systematic review of surveys and validated questionnaires. Surveys and other questionnaire style tools are often used in the field of social and administrative pharmacy, to capture beliefs, attitudes and experiences of patients and healthcare professionals (including pharmacists). Currently, there is little guidance available on how to conduct a systematic review of these types of studies. Considerations related to the process of a systematic review are highlighted, including identification of articles, data extraction, assessing quality of articles and synthesis and analysis of data.

Consumer Attitudes Towards Deprescribing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Harmful and/or unnecessary medication use in older adults is common. This indicates deprescribing (supervised withdrawal of inappropriate medicines) is not happening as often as it should. This study aimed to synthesize the results of the Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (PATD) questionnaire (and revised versions). METHODS: Databases were searched from January 2013 to March 2020. Google Scholar was used for citation searching of the development and validation manuscripts to identify original research using the validated PATD, revised PATD (older adult and caregiver versions), and the version for people with cognitive impairment (rPATDcog). Two authors extracted data independently. A meta-analysis of proportions (random-effects model) was conducted with subgroup meta-analyses for setting and population. The primary outcome was the question: "If my doctor said it was possible, I would be willing to stop one or more of my medicines." Secondary outcomes were associations between participant characteristics and primary outcome and other (r)PATD results. RESULTS: We included 46 articles describing 40 studies (n = 10,816 participants). The meta-analysis found the proportion of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with this statement was 84% (95% CI 81%-88%) and 80% (95% CI 74%-86%) in patients and caregivers, respectively, with significant heterogeneity (I2 = 95% and 77%). CONCLUSION: Consumers reported willingness to have a medication deprescribed although results should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity. The findings from this study moves toward understanding attitudes toward deprescribing, which could increase the discussion and uptake of deprescribing recommendations in clinical practice.

Barriers and enablers of older adults initiating a deprescribing conversation.

OBJECTIVE: To examine older adults' perceptions and identify barriers and enablers to initiating a conversation about stopping medication(s) with their healthcare provider. METHODS: We conducted one focus group (n = 3) and in-depth, face-to-face, individual interviews (n = 6) using an interview guide. Older adults aged ≥65 years in a retirement community who were taking ≥5 medications were recruited. Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Both a deductive analysis, informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework, and an inductive analysis were conducted. RESULTS: Five themes and fourteen sub-themes were identified. Theme 1, 'older adult-related barriers', discusses limited or varying self-efficacy, past unsuccessful deprescribing experiences and limited familiarity with medications/deprescribing. Theme 2, 'provider-related barriers', discusses trust, short office visits, lack of communication and multiple providers. Theme 3, 'environmental/social-related barriers', involves limited availability of resources and access to telehealth/internet. The remaining themes (Themes 4-5) identified enablers including strategies to promote older adults' self-efficacy and improved healthcare communication. CONCLUSION: Consumer-centric tools could improve older adults' self-efficacy to initiate deprescribing conversations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Removing barriers and implementing enablers may empower older adults to initiate deprescribing conversations with providers to take fewer medications. Ultimately, this could be a catalyst for increased translation of deprescribing in practice.

Leveraging implementation science to increase the translation of deprescribing evidence into practice.

Implementation science may address some of the limitations that impede the translation of deprescribing recommendations into practice and policy. Application of principles and standard terminologies from implementation science could improve understanding and interpretation of deprescribing research findings. As such, in this commentary we propose three main avenues to help achieve this. These include: The application of these concepts derived from implementation science could help inform future deprescribing needs for clinicians and researchers. Ultimately, this could help ensure the quality use of medications and examination of meaningful outcomes in deprescribing studies. This could result in more consistent and widespread translation of deprescribing evidence into practice and policy across various healthcare settings.

Deprescribing to reduce polypharmacy: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial assessing deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative drugs in a cohort of frail older people living in the community.

BACKGROUND: Targeted deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative medications in older people may improve their health outcomes. This trial will determine if pharmacist-led reviews lead to general practitioners deprescribing anticholinergic and sedative medications in older people living in the community. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The standard protocol items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist was used to develop and report the protocol. The trial will involve older adults stratified by frailty (low, medium, and high). This will be a pragmatic two-arm randomized controlled trial to test general practitioner uptake of pharmacist recommendations to deprescribe anticholinergic and sedative medications that are causing adverse side effects in patients. STUDY POPULATION: Community-dwelling frail adults, 65 years or older, living in the Canterbury region of New Zealand, seeking publicly funded home support services or admission to aged residential care and taking at least one anticholinergic or sedative medication regularly. INTERVENTION: New Zealand registered pharmacists using peer-reviewed deprescribing guidelines will visit participants at home in the community, review their medications, and recommend anticholinergic and sedative medications that could be deprescribed to the participant's general practitioner. The total use of anticholinergic and sedative medications will be quantified using the Drug Burden Index (DBI). OUTCOMES: The primary outcome will be the change in total DBI between baseline and 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include entry into aged residential care, prolonged hospitalization, and death. DATA COLLECTION POINTS: Data will be collected at the time of interRAI assessments (T0), at the time of the baseline review (T1), at 6 months following the baseline review (T2), and at the end of the study period, or end of study participation for participants admitted into aged residential care, or who died (T3). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the Human, Disability and Ethics Committee: ethical number (17CEN265). TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ACTRN12618000729224 . Registered on May 2, 2018, with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

Medication Use Quality and Safety in Older Adults: 2019 Update.

Improving the quality of medication use and medication safety are important priorities for prescribers who care for older adults. The objective of this article was to identify four exemplary articles with this focus in 2019. We selected high-quality studies that moved the field of research forward and were not merely replication studies. The chosen articles cover domains related to aspects of suboptimal prescribing and medication safety. The first study used a nationally representative sample of Medicare beneficiaries to examine the continuation of medications with limited benefit in patients admitted for cancer and non-cancer diagnoses in hospice (domain: potentially inappropriate medications). The second study, a retrospective cohort study of older adults in Ontario, Canada, assessed the association between prescribing oral anticoagulants in an emergency department relative to not prescribing anticoagulants in the emergency department and their persistence at 6 months (domain: underuse of medications). The third study, a cluster randomized trial in Quebec, Canada, evaluated the effect of conducting electronic medication reconciliation on several outcomes including adverse drug events and medication discrepancies (domain: medication safety). Lastly, the fourth study, a retrospective study using national inpatient and outpatient Veteran Health Administration combined with clinical and Medicare Claims data, examined the effects of intensification of antihypertensive medications on older adults' likelihood for hospital re-admission and other important clinical outcomes (domain: medication safety). Collectively, this review succinctly highlights pertinent topics related to promoting safe use of medications and promotes awareness of optimizing older adults' medication regimens.

Medication Use Quality and Safety in Older Adults: 2018 Update.

Improving the quality of medication use and medication safety is an important priority for prescribers who care for older adults. The objective of this article was to identify key articles from 2018 that address these issues. In addition, we selected four of these articles to annotate, critique, and discuss their broader implications for clinical practice. The first study highlights a cluster-randomized trial that utilized a pharmacist-led education-based intervention delivered to both patients and physicians to deprescribe four types of inappropriate medications (sedative-hypnotics, first-generation antihistamines, selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and glyburide). The second study, a nested case-control study using data from within the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, examined the association between anticholinergic exposure, overall and by anticholinergic medication class, and dementia risk in 40 770 older adults. The third study, a longitudinal cohort study of 1028 Swedish older adults, examined the association between antihypertensive medications and incident dementia. The last study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that investigated the effect of daily low-dose aspirin (100 mg) for primary prevention on cardiovascular events and major hemorrhage in 19 144 community-dwelling older adults. Collectively, this current article provides insight into the pertinent topics of medication use quality and safety in older adults and helps raise awareness about optimal prescribing in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2458-2462, 2019.

Improvements in the prescribing of antipsychotics in dementia and psychogeriatric units in New Zealand.

UNLABELLED: Background Despite warnings of possible serious events, and reports of little benefit, antipsychotic agents are commonly prescribed in residential care for older people with dementia. A residential care provider (RCP) in New Zealand sought to examine and improve prescribing in some of their facilities. Objective To examine changes following a range of interventions implemented by a RCP to improve the prescribing of antipsychotics. Setting Thirteen dementia and psychogeriatric units in New Zealand managed by a RCP. Method An audit (n = 228 residents) was undertaken in thirteen dementia and psychogeriatric units in New Zealand in July-September 2011. A modified Best Practice Advocacy Centre (bpac(nz)) tool was used to examine antipsychotic prescribing, the administration of "when required" (PRN) antipsychotic doses and antipsychotic-related documentation (e.g. documenting of "target behaviour identified" and "need to monitor for adverse effects"). Prescribing for some central nervous system agents and fractures and fall rates were also examined. Some educational, managerial, environmental, recreational and resident-specific interventions were implemented post-audit. The audit (n = 233) was repeated in July-September 2013. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: (1) Number of residents prescribed and administered antipsychotics (2) Documentation of antipsychotic-related information in residents' notes. Results The administration of antipsychotics and prescribing of regular doses (±PRN) decreased about a quarter from 2011 to 2013: 50.4-38.2, and 49.1-36.5 % (ORs 0.60, 0.57 respectively, both p < 0.001), and prescribing for any antipsychotic dose (including PRN only) decreased: 60.5-50.6 % (OR 0.67, p = 0.003). Documenting of "target behaviour identified" significantly increased from 54.3 to 71.2 %, (OR 1.99, p = 0.017) and documenting of the "need to monitor for adverse effects" increased non-significantly (30.4-46.6 %, p = 0.098); both falling short of the 90 % goal set by bpac(nz). Benzodiazepine prescribing significantly decreased [39.0-25.8 %, (OR 0.59, p < 0.001)]. Conclusions Following a range of interventions, antipsychotic prescribing, administration and some related documentation improved in dementia and psychogeriatric units in New Zealand. Future studies should aim to identify the most effective of these interventions so they can be considered for implementing in similar settings.

Challenges and Enablers of Deprescribing: A General Practitioner Perspective.

AIMS: Deprescribing is the process of reducing or discontinuing medicines that are unnecessary or deemed to be harmful. We aimed to investigate general practitioner (GP) perceived challenges to deprescribing in residential care and the possible enablers that support GPs to implement deprescribing. METHODS: A qualitative study was undertaken using semi-structured, face-to-face interviews from two cities in New Zealand and a purpose-developed pilot-tested interview schedule. Interviews were recorded with permission and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were read and re-read and themes were identified with iterative building of a coding list until all data was accounted for. Interviews continued until saturation of ideas occurred. Analysis was carried out with the assistance of a Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and constant comparison techniques. Several themes were identified. Challenges and enablers of deprescribing were determined based on participants' answers. RESULTS: Ten GPs agreed to participate. Four themes were identified to define the issues around prescribing for older people, from the GPs' perspectives. Theme 1, the 'recognition of the problem', discusses the difficulties involved with prescribing for older people. Theme 2 outlines the identified behaviour change factors relevant to the problem. Deprescribing challenges were drawn from these factors and summarised in Theme 3 under three major headings; 'prescribing factors', 'social influences' and 'policy and processes'. Deprescribing enablers, based on the opinions and professional experience of GPs, were retrieved and summarised in Theme 4. CONCLUSION: The process of deprescribing is laced with many challenges for GPs. The uncertainty of research evidence in older people and social factors such as specialists' and nurses' influences were among the major challenges identified. Deprescribing enablers encompassed support for GPs' awareness and knowledge, improvement of communication between multiple prescribers, adequate reimbursement and pharmacists being involved in the multidisciplinary team.