What Should I Know About Medication Deprescribing?

This JAMA Internal Medicine Patient Page describes the process of slowly and carefully cutting down on unnecessary medications with the guidance of a health care professional.

Supine headache and papilledema: A case and review of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis.

Key clinical message: Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) should be on the differential for intracranial hypertension, and the preferred diagnostic tests are CT venogram or MR venography. Abstract: Cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) is a rare cause of stroke and is on the differential for intracranial hypertension. Non-contrast head CT is often normal. CT venogram or MR venography are the preferred diagnostic tests, as was required in our patient. We review the presentation, diagnosis, and management of CVST.

Support for health care workers and psychological distress: thinking about now and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. / Soutien aux travailleurs de la santé et détresse psychologique : réflexion sur la situation actuelle et la période suivant la pandémie de COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: This study explores the relationship between emotional support, perceived risk and mental health outcomes among health care workers, who face high rates of burnout and mental distress since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional, multicentred online survey of health care workers in the Greater Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic evaluated coping strategies, confidence in infection control, impact of previous work during the 2003 SARS outbreak and emotional support. Mental health outcomes were assessed using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale, the Impact of Event Scale - Revised and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). RESULTS: Of 3852 participants, 8.2% sought professional mental health services while 77.3% received emotional support from family, 74.0% from friends and 70.3% from colleagues. Those who felt unsupported in their work had higher odds ratios of experiencing moderate and severe symptoms of anxiety (odds ratio [OR] = 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.84-2.69), PTSD (OR = 1.88; 95% CI: 1.58-2.25) and depression (OR = 1.88; 95% CI: 1.57-2.25). Nearly 40% were afraid of telling family about the risks they were exposed to at work. Those who were able to share this information demonstrated lower risk of anxiety (OR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.48-0.69), PTSD (OR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.41-0.56) and depression (OR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.47-0.65). CONCLUSION: Informal sources of support, including family, friends and colleagues, play an important role in mitigating distress and should be encouraged and utilized more by health care workers.

Loperamide Cardiac Toxicity: Pathophysiology, Presentation, and Management.

Loperamide is a nonprescription medication commonly used to treat diarrhea. Although it is an opioid, it is very poorly absorbed and well tolerated, with no systemic toxicity at standard doses. In recent years, however, loperamide has been ingested in very large quantities, sometimes with concomitant medications intended to enhance absorption and/or passage across the blood-brain barrier. Most people who misuse loperamide do so for its euphoric effects or to treat symptoms of opioid withdrawal. In addition to the risks of central opioid toxicity, this practice can result in potentially fatal cardiac dysrhythmias, because very high concentrations of loperamide alter the cardiac action potential. Patients will often present with recurrent, unexplained syncope accompanied with marked electrocardiographic abnormalities including QT-interval prolongation, widening of the QRS complex, and dysrhythmias such as torsades de pointes. Treatment involves early identification and discontinuation of loperamide, reversal of central opioid effects if present, and interventions aimed at addressing any cardiac conduction abnormalities. In addition, if there is an underlying opioid use disorder, efforts should be made to refer to specialised addictions care and initiate opioid agonist therapy when appropriate. We review the pharmacology of loperamide and the clinical presentation, pathophysiology, and suggested management of loperamide cardiac toxicity.

Reversible neurological and brain MRI changes following COVID-19 vaccination: A case report.

BACKGROUND: Various neurological sequalae have been described following COVID-19 vaccination. Here we describe the first case of untreated post COVID-19 vaccine encephalitis with spontaneous resolution of contrast enhancing hyperintensities on MRI concomitant with clinical improvement. CASE PRESENTATION: A 59-year-old woman presented with a two-day history of unsteady gait, incoordination, visual symptoms, and lethargy. She had received AZD1222 (AstraZeneca) and mRNA-1273 (Moderna) COVID-19 vaccines at 3 months and 12 days, respectively, before presentation. Brain MRI showed no abnormality on the non-enhanced sequences, but numerous enhancing lesions in the cerebral cortex, deep grey matter, brainstem, and cerebellum. Treatment was expectant, the patient improved clinically over 10 days, and repeat MRI showed near complete resolution of the imaging abnormality. CONCLUSIONS: We describe neurological deterioration 12 days after a second dose of COVID-19 vaccine. There was no evidence of edema or demyelinating lesions in the brain on MRI, but there was extensive contrast-enhancement indicating loss of blood-brain barrier (BBB) integrity. This provides a potential in vivo, clinical-imaging correlate of the post-mortem evidence that SARS-CoV-2 spike protein may induce loss of BBB permeability. While this adds to the list of rare adverse neurological reactions to COVID-19 vaccination, the benefits of receiving the vaccine far outweigh these risks.

Understanding the Influence of the Junior Attending Role on Transition to Practice: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: The Junior Attending (JA) role is an educational model, commonly implemented in the final years of training, wherein a very senior resident assumes the responsibilities of an attending physician under supervision. However, there is heterogeneity in the model's structure, and data are lacking on how it facilitates transition to independent practice. OBJECTIVE: The authors sought to determine the value of the JA role and factors that enabled a successful experience. METHODS: The authors performed a collective case study informed by a constructivist grounded theory analytical approach. Twenty semi-structured interviews from 2017 to 2020 were conducted across 2 cases: (1) Most Responsible Physician JA role (general internal medicine), and (2) Consultant JA role (infectious diseases and rheumatology). Participants included recent graduates who experienced the JA role, supervising attendings, and resident and faculty physicians who had not experienced or supervised the role. RESULTS: Experiencing the JA role builds resident confidence and may support the transition to independent practice, mainly in non-medical expert domains, as well as comfort in dealing with clinical uncertainty. The relationship between the supervising attending and the JA is an essential success factor, with more productive experiences reported when there is an establishment of clear goals and role definition that preserves the autonomy of the JA and legitimizes the JA's status as a team leader. CONCLUSIONS: The JA model offers promise in supporting the transition to independent practice when key success factors are present.

The MedSafer Study-Electronic Decision Support for Deprescribing in Hospitalized Older Adults: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Scalable deprescribing interventions may reduce polypharmacy and the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs); however, few studies have been large enough to evaluate the impact that deprescribing may have on adverse drug events (ADEs). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of an electronic deprescribing decision support tool on ADEs after hospital discharge among older adults with polypharmacy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This was a cluster randomized clinical trial of older (≥65 years) hospitalized patients with an expected survival of more than 3 months who were admitted to 1 of 11 acute care hospitals in Canada from August 22, 2017, to January 13, 2020. At admission, participants were taking 5 or more medications per day. Data analyses were performed from January 3, 2021, to September 23, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Personalized reports of deprescribing opportunities generated by MedSafer software to address usual home medications and measures of prognosis and frailty. Deprescribing reports provided to the treating team were compared with usual care (medication reconciliation). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was a reduction of ADEs within the first 30 days postdischarge (including adverse drug withdrawal events) captured through structured telephone surveys and adjudicated blinded to intervention status. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients with 1 or more PIMs deprescribed at discharge and the proportion of patients with an adverse drug withdrawal event (ADWE). RESULTS: A total of 5698 participants (median [range] age, 78 [72-85] years; 2858 [50.2%] women; race and ethnicity data were not collected) were enrolled in 3 clusters and were adjudicated for the primary outcome (control, 3204; intervention, 2494). Despite cluster randomization, there were group imbalances, eg, the participants in the intervention arm were older and had more PIMS prescribed at baseline. After hospital discharge, 4989 (87.6%) participants completed an ADE interview. There was no significant difference in ADEs within 30 days of discharge (138 [5.0%] of 2742 control vs 111 [4.9%] of 2247 intervention participants; adjusted risk difference [aRD] -0.8%; 95% CI, -2.9% to 1.3%). Deprescribing increased from 795 (29.8%) of 2667 control to 1249 (55.4%) of 2256 intervention participants [aRD, 22.2%; 95% CI, 16.9% to 27.4%]. There was no difference in ADWEs between groups. Several post hoc sensitivity analyses, including the use of a nonparametric test to address the low cluster number, group imbalances, and potential biases, did not alter study conclusions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: This cluster randomized clinical trial showed that providing deprescribing clinical decision support during acute hospitalization had no demonstrable impact on ADEs, although the intervention was safe and led to improvements in deprescribing. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03272607.

Reducing Sedative-Hypnotics Among Hospitalized Patients: a Multi-centered Study.

BACKGROUND: Sedative-hypnotics are frequently prescribed for insomnia in hospital but are associated with preventable harms. OBJECTIVE, DESIGN, AND PARTICIPANTS: We aimed to examine whether a sedative-hypnotic reduction quality improvement bundle decreases the rate of sedative-hypnotic use among hospitalized patients, who were previously naïve to sedative-hypnotics. This interrupted time series study occurred between May 2016 and January 2019. Control data for 1 year prior to implementation and intervention data for at least 16 months were collected. The study occurred on 7 inpatient wards (general medicine, cardiology, nephrology, general surgery, and cardiovascular surgery wards) across 5 teaching hospitals in Toronto, Canada. INTERVENTION: Participating wards implemented a sedative-hypnotic reduction bundle (i.e., order set changes, audit-feedback, pharmacist-enabled medication reviews, sleep hygiene, daily sleep huddles, and staff/patient/family education) aimed to reduce in-hospital sedative-hypnotic initiation for insomnia in patients who were previously naïve to sedative-hypnotics. Each inpatient ward adapted the bundle prior to sustaining the intervention for a minimum of 16 months. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of sedative-hypnotic-naïve inpatients newly prescribed a sedative-hypnotic for sleep in hospital. Secondary measures include prescribing rates of other sedating medications, fall rates, length of stay, and mortality. KEY RESULTS: We included 8,970 patient discharges in the control period and 10,120 in the intervention period. Adjusted sedative-hypnotic prescriptions among naïve patients decreased from 15.48% (95% CI: 6.09-19.42) to 9.08% (p<0.001) (adjusted OR 0.814; 95% CI: 0.667-0.993, p=0.042). Unchanged secondary outcomes included mortality (adjusted OR 1.089; 95% CI: 0.786-1.508, p=0.608), falls (adjusted rate ratio 0.819; 95% CI: 0.625-1.073, p=0.148), or other sedating drug prescriptions (adjusted OR 1.046; 95% CI: 0.873-1.252, p=0.627). CONCLUSIONS: A sedative-hypnotic reduction quality improvement bundle implemented across 5 hospitals was associated with a sustained reduction in sedative-hypnotic prescriptions.

Melatonin for Insomnia in Medical Inpatients: A Narrative Review.

In this narrative review, we describe what is known about non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments for insomnia in medical inpatients, with a focus on melatonin. Hospital-acquired insomnia is common, resulting in shortened total sleep time and more nighttime awakenings. Sleep disturbance has been shown to increase systemic inflammation, pain, and the likelihood of developing delirium in hospital. Treatment for insomnia includes both non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions, the latter of which requires careful consideration of risks and benefits given the known adverse effects. Though benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepine benzodiazepine receptor agonists are commonly prescribed (i.e., sedative-hypnotics), they are relatively contraindicated for patients over the age of 65 due to the risk of increased falls, cognitive decline, and potential for withdrawal symptoms after long-term use. Exogenous melatonin has a comparatively low likelihood of adverse effects and drug-drug interactions and is at least as effective as other sedative-hypnotics. Though more research is needed on both its effectiveness and relative safety for inpatients, small doses of melatonin before bedtime may be an appropriate choice for inpatients when insomnia persists despite non-pharmacological interventions.

Prolonged ketosis and glycosuria secondary to SGLT2 inhibitor therapy.

Clinicians should be aware of the potential for the pharmacologic activity of SGLT2 inhibitors to persist long after the standard drug clearance period of five half-lives, the typical duration used to guide pre-operative medication recommendations.

Surviving SARS and living through COVID-19: Healthcare worker mental health outcomes and insights for coping.

OBJECTIVE: Explore how previous work during the 2003 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak affects the psychological response of clinical and non-clinical healthcare workers (HCWs) to the current COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional, multi-centered hospital online survey of HCWs in the Greater Toronto Area, Canada. Mental health outcomes of HCWs who worked during the COVID-19 pandemic and the SARS outbreak were assessed using Impact of Events-Revised scale (IES-R), Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale (GAD-7), and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). RESULTS: Among 3852 participants, moderate/severe scores for symptoms of post- traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (50.2%), anxiety (24.6%), and depression (31.5%) were observed among HCWs. Work during the 2003 SARS outbreak was reported by 1116 respondents (29.1%), who had lower scores for symptoms of PTSD (P = .002), anxiety (P < .001), and depression (P < .001) compared to those who had not worked during the SARS outbreak. Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed non-clinical HCWs during this pandemic were at higher risk of anxiety (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.19-2.15, P = .01) and depressive symptoms (OR, 2.03; 95% CI, 1.34-3.07, P < .001). HCWs using sedatives (OR, 2.55; 95% CI, 1.61-4.03, P < .001), those who cared for only 2-5 patients with COVID-19 (OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.06-2.38, P = .01), and those who had been in isolation for COVID-19 (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.96-1.93, P = .05), were at higher risk of moderate/severe symptoms of PTSD. In addition, deterioration in sleep was associated with symptoms of PTSD (OR, 4.68, 95% CI, 3.74-6.30, P < .001), anxiety (OR, 3.09, 95% CI, 2.11-4.53, P < .001), and depression (OR 5.07, 95% CI, 3.48-7.39, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Psychological distress was observed in both clinical and non-clinical HCWs, with no impact from previous SARS work experience. As the pandemic continues, increasing psychological and team support may decrease the mental health impacts.