Managing polypharmacy through medication review tools - pros and cons.

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a common occurrence in elderly patients, resulting in increased adverse drug reactions, nonadherence, and increased healthcare costs. Medication review and deprescribing are the primary strategies described in the literature for dealing with problematic polypharmacy. To effectively carry out the medication review, various tools have been developed. These tools can support medication review in a variety of ways. Some tools include a list of medications requiring detailed attention, while others guide medical professionals with principles and algorithms for reviewing and prescribing medicines. A third category of tools focuses on tracking and identifying symptoms that may be due to drug-related problems.

Measuring Quality of Life in Deprescribing Trials: A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QoL) is an important outcome to capture in clinical trials evaluating deprescribing interventions. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to conduct a scoping review to examine how QoL has been measured in deprescribing trials among older people and identify potentially relevant QoL scales, to better inform QoL measurement in future deprescribing trials. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, Epistemonikos, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists of eligible studies (from inception to October 2023). We included randomized and non-randomized comparative studies with a control group that evaluated deprescribing and polypharmacy reduction interventions in people ≥ 65 years of age and measured QoL as an outcome. We also included studies describing the development and validation of QoL scales related to deprescribing, polypharmacy, or medication burden in adults ≥ 18 years of age. Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, then full texts. Two independent reviewers extracted data from 25% of eligible studies in order to verify agreement, then a single reviewer extracted data from the remaining studies, which a second reviewer cross-checked. We critically appraised scales based on the COSMIN checklist. RESULTS: We retrieved 7290 articles, of which 52 were eligible for inclusion, including 44 deprescribing trials and eight scale development studies. From these studies, we found 21 scales that have been used in the context of deprescribing/polypharmacy (12 generic scales used in clinical trials and nine medication-specific scales). Variations of the generic EQ-5D were the most used scales. The measurement properties of scales for capturing changes in QoL from deprescribing were uncertain. Medication-specific QoL scales have not been employed in deprescribing clinical trials and thus, their performance in this context is also not clear. CONCLUSIONS: Several existing QoL scales have been applied to the context of deprescribing/polypharmacy clinical trials, and new scales specific to the problem have been proposed. If deprescribing does impact QoL, our findings suggest it is uncertain whether existing QoL scales can practically and reliably capture such a change or whether any scale is best. However, this review compares various aspects of the scales that researchers and clinicians can consider in decisions about measuring QoL in deprescribing trials, and in planning future research. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: osf.io/aez6w.

Deprescribing of antidepressants: development of indicators of high-risk and overprescribing using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are first-line medications for many psychiatric disorders. However, their widespread long-term use in some indications (e.g., mild depression and insomnia) is concerning. Particularly in older adults with comorbidities and polypharmacy, who are more susceptible to adverse drug reactions, the risks and benefits of treatment should be regularly reviewed. The aim of this consensus process was to identify explicit criteria of potentially inappropriate antidepressant use (indicators) in order to support primary care clinicians in identifying situations, where deprescribing of antidepressants should be considered. METHODS: We used the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method to identify the indicators of high-risk and overprescribing of antidepressants. We combined a structured literature review with a 3-round expert panel, with results discussed in moderated meetings in between rounds. Each of the 282 candidate indicators was scored on a 9-point Likert scale representing the necessity of a critical review of antidepressant continuation (1-3 = not necessary; 4-6 = uncertain; 7-9 = clearly necessary). Experts rated the indicators for the necessity of review, since decisions to deprescribe require considerations of patient risk/benefit balance and preferences. Indicators with a median necessity rating of ≥ 7 without disagreement after 3 rating rounds were accepted. RESULTS: The expert panel comprised 2 general practitioners, 2 clinical pharmacologists, 1 gerontopsychiatrist, 2 psychiatrists, and 3 internists/geriatricians (total N = 10). After 3 assessment rounds, there was consensus for 37 indicators of high-risk and 25 indicators of overprescribing, where critical reviews were felt to be necessary. High-risk prescribing indicators included settings posing risks of drug-drug, drug-disease, and drug-age interactions or the occurrence of adverse drug reactions. Indicators with the highest ratings included those suggesting the possibility of cardiovascular risks (QTc prolongation), delirium, gastrointestinal bleeding, and liver injury in specific patient subgroups with additional risk factors. Overprescribing indicators target patients with long treatment durations for depression, anxiety, and insomnia as well as high doses for pain and insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: Explicit indicators of antidepressant high-risk and overprescribing may be used directly by patients and health care providers, and integrated within clinical decision support tools, in order to improve the overall risk/benefit balance of this commonly prescribed class of prescription drugs.

Social media group support for antidepressant deprescribing: a mixed-methods survey of patient experiences.

Background Antidepressant use has continually increased in recent decades and although they are an effective treatment for moderate-to-severe depression, when there is no longer a clinical benefit, deprescribing should occur. Currently, routine deprescribing is not part of clinical practice and research shows that there has been an increase in antidepressant users seeking informal support online. This small scoping exercise used a mixed-methods online survey to investigate the motives antidepressant users have for joining social media deprescribing support groups, and what elements of the groups are most valuable to them. Methods Thirty members of two antidepressant deprescribing Facebook groups completed an online survey with quantitative and open-text response questions to determine participant characteristics and motivation for group membership. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, and open-text responses were analysed thematically through NVivo. Results Two overarching themes were evident: first, clinician expertise , where participants repeatedly reported a perceived lack of skills around deprescribing by their clinician, not being included in shared decision-making about their treatment, and symptoms of withdrawal during deprescribing going unaddressed. Motivated by the lack of clinical support, peer support developed as the second theme. Here, people sought help online where they received education, knowledge sharing and lived experience guidance for tapering. The Facebook groups also provided validation and peer support, which motivated people to continue engaging with the group. Conclusions Antidepressant users who wish to cease their medication are increasingly subscribing to specialised online support groups due to the lack of information and support from clinicians. This study highlights the ongoing need for such support groups. Improved clinician understanding about the complexities of antidepressant deprescribing is needed to enable them to effectively engage in shared decision-making with their patients.

Barriers, facilitators and needs to deprescribe benzodiazepines and other sedatives in older adults: a mixed methods study of primary care provider perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines and other sedative hypnotic drugs (BSHs) are frequently prescribed for sleep problems, but cause substantial adverse effects, particularly in older adults. Improving knowledge on barriers, facilitators and needs of primary care providers (PCPs) to BSH deprescribing could help reduce BSH use and thus negative effects. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study (February-May 2023) including a survey, semi-structured interviews and focus groups with PCPs in Switzerland. We assessed barriers, facilitators and needs of PCPs to BSH deprescribing. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, qualitative data deductively and inductively using the Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF). Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated using meta-interferences. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 126 PCPs (53% female) and 16 PCPs participated to a focus group or individual interview. The main barriers to BSH deprescribing included patient and PCP lack of knowledge on BSH effects and side effects, lack of PCP education on treatment of sleep problems and BSH deprescribing, patient lack of motivation, PCP lack of time, limited access to cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia and absence of public dialogue on BSHs. Facilitators included informing on side effects to motivate patients to discontinue BSHs and start of deprescribing during a hospitalization. Main PCP needs were practical recommendations for pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of sleep problems and deprescribing schemes. Patient brochures were wished by 69% of PCPs. PCPs suggested the brochures to contain explanations about risks and benefits of BSHs, sleep hygiene and sleep physiology, alternative treatments, discontinuation process and tapering schemes. CONCLUSION: The barriers and facilitators as well as PCP needs and opinions on patient material we identified can be used to develop PCP training and material on BSH deprescribing, which could help reduce the inappropriate use of BSHs for sleep problems.

Deprescribing in older adults with polypharmacy.

Polypharmacy is common in older adults and is associated with adverse drug events, cognitive and functional impairment, increased healthcare costs, and increased risk of frailty, falls, hospitalizations, and mortality. Many barriers exist to deprescribing, but increased efforts have been made to develop and implement deprescribing interventions that overcome them. This narrative review describes intervention components and summarizes findings from published randomized controlled trials that have tested deprescribing interventions in older adults with polypharmacy, as well as reports on ongoing trials, guidelines, and resources that can be used to facilitate deprescribing. Most interventions were medication reviews in primary care settings, and many contained components such as shared decision making and/or a focus on patient care priorities, training for healthcare professionals, patient facing education materials, and involvement of family members, representing great heterogeneity in interventions addressing polypharmacy in older adults. Just over half of study interventions were found to perform better than usual care in at least one of their primary outcomes, and most study interventions were assessed over 12 months or less.

Proactive Polypharmacy Management Using Large Language Models: Opportunities to Enhance Geriatric Care.

Polypharmacy remains an important challenge for patients with extensive medical complexity. Given the primary care shortage and the increasing aging population, effective polypharmacy management is crucial to manage the increasing burden of care. The capacity of large language model (LLM)-based artificial intelligence to aid in polypharmacy management has yet to be evaluated. Here, we evaluate ChatGPT's performance in polypharmacy management via its deprescribing decisions in standardized clinical vignettes. We inputted several clinical vignettes originally from a study of general practicioners' deprescribing decisions into ChatGPT 3.5, a publicly available LLM, and evaluated its capacity for yes/no binary deprescribing decisions as well as list-based prompts in which the model was prompted to choose which of several medications to deprescribe. We recorded ChatGPT responses to yes/no binary deprescribing prompts and the number and types of medications deprescribed. In yes/no binary deprescribing decisions, ChatGPT universally recommended deprescribing medications regardless of ADL status in patients with no overlying CVD history; in patients with CVD history, ChatGPT's answers varied by technical replicate. Total number of medications deprescribed ranged from 2.67 to 3.67 (out of 7) and did not vary with CVD status, but increased linearly with severity of ADL impairment. Among medication types, ChatGPT preferentially deprescribed pain medications. ChatGPT's deprescribing decisions vary along the axes of ADL status, CVD history, and medication type, indicating some concordance of internal logic between general practitioners and the model. These results indicate that specifically trained LLMs may provide useful clinical support in polypharmacy management for primary care physicians.

Implementation of an intervention aimed at deprescribing benzodiazepines in a large US healthcare system using patient education materials: a pre/post-observational study with a control group.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term benzodiazepine use is common despite known risks. In the original Eliminating Medications Through Patient Ownership of End Results (EMPOWER) Study set in Canada, patient education led to increased rates of benzodiazepine cessation. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of implementing an adapted EMPOWER quality improvement (QI) initiative in a US-based healthcare system. DESIGN: We used a pre-post design with a non-randomised control group. SETTING: A network of primary care clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with ≥60 days' supply of benzodiazepines in 6 months and ≥1 risk factor (≥65 years of age, a concurrent high-risk medication prescribed or a diazepam equivalent daily dose ≥10) were eligible. INTERVENTION: In March 2022, we engaged 22 primary care physicians (PCPs), and 308 of their patients were mailed an educational brochure, physician letter and flyer detailing benzodiazepine risks; the control group included 4 PCPs and 291 of their patients. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY MEASURES: The primary measure was benzodiazepine cessation by 9 months. We used logistic regression and a generalised estimating equations approach to control for clustering by PCP, adjusting for demographics, frailty, number of risk factors, and diagnoses of arthritis, depression, diabetes, falls, and pain. RESULTS: Patients in the intervention and control groups were comparable across most covariates; however, a greater proportion of intervention patients had pain-related diagnoses and depression. By 9 months, 26% of intervention patients (81 of 308) had discontinued benzodiazepines, compared with 17% (49 of 291) of control patients. Intervention patients had 1.73 greater odds of benzodiazepine discontinuation compared with controls (95% CI: 1.09, 2.75, p=0.02). The unadjusted number needed to treat was 10.5 (95% CI: 6.30, 34.92) and the absolute risk reduction was 0.095 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this non-randomised QI initiative indicate that patient education programmes using the EMPOWER brochures have the potential to promote cessation of benzodiazepines in primary care.

Clinician and Family Caregiver Perspectives on Deprescribing Chronic Disease Medications in Older Nursing Home Residents Near the End of Life.

INTRODUCTION: Nursing home (NH) residents with limited life expectancy (LLE) who are intensely treated for hyperlipidemia, hypertension, or diabetes may benefit from deprescribing. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to describe NH clinician and family caregiver perspectives on key influences on deprescribing decisions for chronic disease medications in NH residents near the end of life. METHODS: We recruited family caregivers of veterans who recently died in a Veterans Affairs (VA) NH, known as community living centers (CLCs), and CLC healthcare clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses). Respondents completed semi-structured interviews about their experiences with deprescribing statin, antihypertensive, and antidiabetic medications for residents near end of life. We conducted thematic analysis of interview transcripts to identify key themes regarding influences on deprescribing decisions. RESULTS: Thirteen family caregivers and 13 clinicians completed interviews. Key themes included (1) clinicians and caregivers both prefer to minimize drug burden; (2) clinical factors strongly influence deprescribing of chronic disease medications, with differences in how clinicians and caregivers weigh specific factors; (3) caregivers trust and rely on clinicians to make deprescribing decisions; (4) clinicians perceive caregiver involvement and buy-in as essential to deprescribing decisions, which requires time and effort to obtain; and (5) clinicians perceive conflicting care from other clinicians as a barrier to deprescribing. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest a need for efforts to encourage communication with and education for family caregivers of residents with LLE about deprescribing, and to foster better collaboration among clinicians in CLC and non-CLC settings.

Influence of chronic medical conditions on older patients' willingness to deprescribe medications: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Aging correlates with a heightened prevalence of chronic diseases, resulting in multimorbidity affecting 60% of those aged 65 or older. Multimorbidity often leads to polypharmacy, elevating the risk of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use and adverse health outcomes. To address these issues, deprescribing has emerged as a patient-centered approach that considers patients' beliefs and attitudes toward medication and reduces inappropriate polypharmacy in older adults. Our study aims to investigate whether certain chronic medical conditions are associated with older patients' willingness to deprescribe medications. METHODS: A cross-sectional study enrolled 192 community-dwelling individuals aged 65 or older taking at least one regular medication. Data included demographics, clinical characteristics, and responses to the Portuguese revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire. Descriptive statistics characterized participants, while multiple binary logistic regression identified associations between chronic medical conditions and willingness to deprescribe. RESULTS: Among the participants (median age: 72 years, 65.6% female), 91.6% had multimorbidity. The analysis revealed that willingness to deprescribe significantly increased with the presence of gastric disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 4.123; 95% CI 1.221, 13.915) and age (aOR = 1.121; 95% CI 1.009, 1.246). Conversely, prostatic pathology (aOR = 0.266; 95% CI 0.077, 0.916), higher scores in the rPATD appropriateness factor (aOR = 0.384; 95% CI 0.190, 0.773), and rPATD concerns about stopping factor (aOR = 0.450; 95% CI 0.229, 0.883) diminished patients' willingness to deprescribe. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the intricate relationship between older patients' attitudes toward deprescribing and chronic medical conditions. We found that gastric disease was associated with an increased willingness to deprescribe medications, while prostate disease was associated with the opposite effect. Future research should explore how patients with specific diseases or groups of diseases perceive deprescribing of medications general and for specific medications, aiding in the development of targeted interventions.

Validating claims-based definitions for deprescribing: Bridging the gap between clinical and administrative data.

BACKGROUND: Limited research has evaluated the validity of claims-based definitions for deprescribing. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the validity of claims-based definitions of deprescribing against electronic health records (EHRs) for deprescribing of benzodiazepines (BZDs) after a fall-related hospitalization. METHODS: We used a novel data linkage between Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) and Part D with our health system's EHR. We identified patients aged ≥66 years with a fall-related hospitalization, continuous enrollment in Medicare FFS and Part D for 6 months pre- and post-hospitalization, and ≥2 BZD fills in the 6 months pre-hospitalization. Using a standardized EHR abstraction tool, we adjudicated deprescribing for a sub-sample with a fall-related hospitalization at UNC. We evaluated the validity of claims-based deprescribing definitions (e.g., gaps in supply, dosage reductions) versus chart review using sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Among 257 patients in the overall sample, 44% were aged 66-74 years, 35% had Medicare low-income subsidy, 79% were female. Among claims-based definitions using gaps in supply, the prevalence of BZD deprescribing ranged from 8.2% (no refills) to 36.6% (30-day gap). When incorporating dosage, the prevalence ranged from 55.3% to 65.8%. Among the validation sub-sample (n = 47), approximately one-third had BZDs deprescribed in the EHR. Compared to EHR, gaps in supply from claims had good sensitivity, but poor specificity. Incorporating dosage increased sensitivity, but worsened specificity. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of claims-based definitions for deprescribing of BZDs was low; however, the specificity of a 90-day gap was >90%. Replication in other EHRs and for other low-value medications is needed to guide future deprescribing research.

Validated medication deprescribing instruments for patients with palliative care needs: a systematic review / Instrumentos validados de desprescripción de medicamentos para los pacientes que reciben cuidados paliativos: una revisión sistemática

Objectives: Patients with life-limiting illnesses are prone to unnecessary polypharmacy. Deprescribing tools may contribute to minimizing negative outcomes. Thus, the aims of the study were to identify validated instruments for deprescribing inappropriate medications for patients with palliative care needs and to assess the impact on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases (until May 2021). A manual search was performed in the references of enrolled articles. The screening, eligibility, extraction, and bias risk assessment were carried out by 2 independent researchers. Experimental and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Results: Out of the 5791 studies retrieved, after excluding duplicates (n = 1050), conducting title/abstract screening (n = 4741), and full reading (n = 41), only 1 study met the inclusion criteria. In this included study, a randomized controlled trial was conducted, which showed a high level of bias risk overall. Adults 75 years or older (n = 130) with limited life expectancy and polypharmacy were allocated to 2 groups [intervention arm (deprescribing); and control arm (usual care)]. Deprescribing was performed with the aid of the STOPPFrail tool. The mean number of inappropriate medications and monthly medication costs were significantly lower in the intervention arm. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of unscheduled hospital presentations, falls, fractures, mortality, and quality of life. Conclusions: Despite the availability of several instruments to support deprescribing in patients with palliative care needs, only 1 of them has undergone validation and robust assessment for effectiveness in clinical practice. The STOPPFrail tool appears to reduce the number of inappropriate medications for older people with limited life expectancy (and probably palliative care needs)...(AU)

Objetivo: Los pacientes con enfermedades terminales son propensos a la polifarmacia innecesaria. Las herramientas de desprescripción pueden contribuir a minimizar los resultados negativos. Por lo tanto, los objetivos del estudio fueron identificar instrumentos validados para la desprescripción de medicamentos inapropiados en pacientes con necesidades de cuidados paliativos y evaluar el impacto en los resultados clínicos, humanísticos y económicos. Métodos: Se realizó una revisión sistemática en las bases de datos LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE y WEB OF SCIENCE (hasta mayo de 2021). Se realizó una búsqueda manual en las referencias de los artículos incluidos. La selección, elegibilidad, extracción y evaluación del riesgo de sesgo se llevaron a cabo por dos investigadores independientes. Se aceptó la inclusión de estudios observacionales y experimentales. Resultados: De los 5791 estudios recuperados, después de excluir duplicados (n = 1050), realizar la selección de títulos/resúmenes (n = 4741) y la lectura completa (n = 41), solo un estudio cumplió con los criterios de inclusión. En este estudio incluido, se realizó un ensayo controlado aleatorizado, que mostró un alto nivel de riesgo de sesgo en general. A los adultos de 75 años o más (n = 130) con esperanza de vida limitada y polifarmacia se les asignaron dos grupos [grupo de intervención (desprescripción) y grupo de control (atención habitual)]. Se realizó la desprescripción con la ayuda de la herramienta STOPPFrail. El número promedio de medicamentos inapropiados y los costos mensuales de los medicamentos fueron significativamente más bajos en el grupo de intervención. No se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en términos de presentaciones hospitalarias no programadas, caídas, fracturas, mortalidad y calidad de vida. Conclusiones: A pesar de la disponibilidad de varias herramientas para apoyar la deprescripción en pacientes con necesidades de cuidados paliativos...(AU)

Instrumentos validados de desprescripción de medicamentos para los pacientes que reciben cuidados paliativos: una revisión sistemática / Validated medication deprescribing instruments for patients with palliative care needs: a systematic review

Objectives: Patients with life-limiting illnesses are prone to unnecessary polypharmacy. Deprescribing tools may contribute to minimizing negative outcomes. Thus, the aims of the study were to identify validated instruments for deprescribing inappropriate medications for patients with palliative care needs and to assess the impact on clinical, humanistic, and economic outcomes. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE, and WEB OF SCIENCE databases (until May 2021). A manual search was performed in the references of enrolled articles. The screening, eligibility, extraction, and bias risk assessment were carried out by 2 independent researchers. Experimental and observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Results: Out of the 5791 studies retrieved, after excluding duplicates (n = 1050), conducting title/abstract screening (n = 4741), and full reading (n = 41), only 1 study met the inclusion criteria. In this included study, a randomized controlled trial was conducted, which showed a high level of bias risk overall. Adults 75 years or older (n = 130) with limited life expectancy and polypharmacy were allocated to 2 groups [intervention arm (deprescribing); and control arm (usual care)]. Deprescribing was performed with the aid of the STOPPFrail tool. The mean number of inappropriate medications and monthly medication costs were significantly lower in the intervention arm. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of unscheduled hospital presentations, falls, fractures, mortality, and quality of life. Conclusions: Despite the availability of several instruments to support deprescribing in patients with palliative care needs, only 1 of them has undergone validation and robust assessment for effectiveness in clinical practice. The STOPPFrail tool appears to reduce the number of inappropriate medications for older people with limited life expectancy (and probably palliative care needs)...(AU)

Objetivo: Los pacientes con enfermedades terminales son propensos a la polifarmacia innecesaria. Las herramientas de desprescripción pueden contribuir a minimizar los resultados negativos. Por lo tanto, los objetivos del estudio fueron identificar instrumentos validados para la desprescripción de medicamentos inapropiados en pacientes con necesidades de cuidados paliativos y evaluar el impacto en los resultados clínicos, humanísticos y económicos. Métodos: Se realizó una revisión sistemática en las bases de datos LILACS, PUBMED, EMBASE, COCHRANE y WEB OF SCIENCE (hasta mayo de 2021). Se realizó una búsqueda manual en las referencias de los artículos incluidos. La selección, elegibilidad, extracción y evaluación del riesgo de sesgo se llevaron a cabo por dos investigadores independientes. Se aceptó la inclusión de estudios observacionales y experimentales. Resultados: De los 5791 estudios recuperados, después de excluir duplicados (n = 1050), realizar la selección de títulos/resúmenes (n = 4741) y la lectura completa (n = 41), solo un estudio cumplió con los criterios de inclusión. En este estudio incluido, se realizó un ensayo controlado aleatorizado, que mostró un alto nivel de riesgo de sesgo en general. A los adultos de 75 años o más (n = 130) con esperanza de vida limitada y polifarmacia se les asignaron dos grupos [grupo de intervención (desprescripción) y grupo de control (atención habitual)]. Se realizó la desprescripción con la ayuda de la herramienta STOPPFrail. El número promedio de medicamentos inapropiados y los costos mensuales de los medicamentos fueron significativamente más bajos en el grupo de intervención. No se encontraron diferencias estadísticamente significativas en términos de presentaciones hospitalarias no programadas, caídas, fracturas, mortalidad y calidad de vida. Conclusiones: A pesar de la disponibilidad de varias herramientas para apoyar la deprescripción en pacientes con necesidades de cuidados paliativos...(AU)

Deprescribing potential of commonly used medications among community-dwelling older adults: insights from a pharmacist's geriatric assessment.

Pharmacist's geriatric assessment can provide valuable insights into potential deprescribing targets, while including important information on various health-related domains. Data collected from a geriatric assessment questionnaire, for 388 patients, from the Croatian cohort of the EuroAgeism H2020 ESR 7 international project, along with guideline-based deprescribing criteria, were used to analyse potentially inappropriate prescribing of four medication groups (benzodiazepines (BZN), proton pump inhibitors (PPI), opioids, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID)), and to assess the deprescribing potential. Binary logistic regression was used to explore the effects of age, gender, number of medicines and diagnoses, self-reported health, frailty score, and healthcare utilization on the likelihood of needing deprescribing. More than half of participants (n = 216, 55.2%) are candidates for deprescribing, with 31.1% of PPI, 74.8% of NSAID, 75% of opioid, and 96.1% of BZN users meeting at least one criterion. Most common criteria for deprescribing were inappropriately long use and safety concerns. Women (aOR = 2.58; p < 0.001), those reporting poor self-reported health (aOR = 5.14; p < 0.001), and those exposed to polypharmacy (aOR = 1.29; p < 0.001) had higher odds of needing to have medicines deprescribed. The high rate of deprescribing potential warrants prompt action to increase patient safety and decrease polypharmacy. Pharmacist's geriatric assessment and deprescribing-focused medication review could be used to lead a personalised approach.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a collaborative deprescribing intervention of proton-pump-inhibitors on community-dwelling older adults: Protocol for the C-SENIoR, a pragmatic non-randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Worldwide, demographic ageing is a major social, economic and health challenge. Despite the increase in life expectancy, elderly often live with multiple chronic conditions, exposing them to multiple medications. Concerns have been raised about the growing issue of inappropriate long-term usage of proton-pump inhibitors (PPI), which have been associated with adverse outcomes and increased healthcare costs. Deprescribing is a recommended intervention to reduce or withdraw medicines that might be causing harm or might no longer be of benefit. This protocol details a trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a collaborative deprescribing intervention of PPI among community-dwelling elderly, involving community pharmacists and general practitioners. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, non-randomised controlled trial of a structured PPI collaborative deprescribing intervention in the primary care setting with a 6-month follow-up will be conducted. Patients must be 65 years old or older, live in the community and have been using PPI for more than 8 weeks. We hypothesize that the intervention will reduce the PPI usage in the intervention group compared to the control group. The primary outcome is the successful discontinuation or dose decrease of any PPI, defined as a statistically significant absolute 20% reduction in medication use between the intervention and control groups at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. An economic evaluation will be conducted alongside the trial. This study was approved by the Ethics Research Committee of Nova Medical School, NOVA University of Lisbon and by the Ethics Committee from the Local Health Unit Alto Minho, Portugal. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred collaborative deprescribing intervention in the community setting in Portugal. It will also inform improvements for the development of future multi-faceted interventions that aim to optimise medication for the community-dwelling elderly. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 49637686.

Older Adult and Primary Care Practitioner Perspectives on Using, Prescribing, and Deprescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain.

Importance: Guidelines recommend deprescribing opioids in older adults due to risk of adverse effects, yet little is known about patient-clinician opioid deprescribing conversations. Objective: To understand the experiences of older adults and primary care practitioners (PCPs) with using opioids for chronic pain and discussing opioid deprescribing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study conducted semistructured individual qualitative interviews with 18 PCPs and 29 adults 65 years or older prescribed opioids between September 15, 2022, and April 26, 2023, at a Boston-based academic medical center. The PCPs were asked about their experiences prescribing and deprescribing opioids to older adults. Patients were asked about their experiences using and discussing opioid medications with PCPs. Main Outcome and Measures: Shared and conflicting themes between patients and PCPs regarding perceptions of opioid prescribing and barriers to deprescribing. Results: In total, 18 PCPs (12 [67%] younger that 50 years; 10 [56%] female; and 14 [78%] based at an academic practice) and 29 patients (mean [SD] age, 72 [5] years; 19 [66%] female) participated. Participants conveyed that conversations between PCPs and patients on opioid use for chronic pain were typically challenging and that conversations regarding opioid risks and deprescribing were uncommon. Three common themes related to experiences with opioids for chronic pain emerged in both patient and PCP interviews: opioids were used as a last resort, opioids were used to improve function and quality of life, and trust was vital in a clinician-patient relationship. Patients and PCPs expressed conflicting views on risks of opioids, with patients focusing on addiction and PCPs focusing on adverse drug events. Both groups felt deprescribing conversations were often unsuccessful but had conflicting views on barriers to successful conversations. Patients felt deprescribing was often unnecessary unless an adverse event occurred, and many patients had prior negative experiences tapering. The PCPs described gaps in knowledge on how to taper, a lack of clinical access to monitor patients during tapering, and concerns about patient resistance. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, PCPs and older adults receiving long-term opioid therapy viewed the use of opioids as a beneficial last resort for treating chronic pain but expressed dissonant views on the risks associated with opioids, which made deprescribing conversations challenging. Interventions, such as conversation aids, are needed to support collaborative discussion about deprescribing opioids.

Evaluation of deprescription by general practitioners in elderly people with different levels of dependence: cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is easily achieved in elderly patients with multimorbidity and it is associated with a higher risk of potentially inappropriate medication use and worse health outcomes. Studies have shown that deprescription is safe, however, some barriers have been identified. The aim of this study was to analyse Portuguese General Practitioners (GP) deprescription's attitudes using clinical vignettes. METHODS: Cross-sectional study using an online survey with 3 sections: demographic and professional characterization; two clinical vignettes with an elderly patient with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in which the dependency level varies; barriers and factors influencing deprescription. Frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated to describe the GPs. Analysis of the deprescription attitude, globally and for each drug, for each clinical vignette applying the McNeemar's test. RESULTS: A sample of 396 GP was obtained with a mean age of 38 years, most of them female. A statistically significant difference (p < 0.01) was observed in deprescribing according to the patient dependency level, with more GPs (80.4% versus 75.3%) deprescribing in the most dependent patient. A statistically significant difference was found for all drugs except for antihypertensive drugs. All medications were deprescribed more often in dependent patients except for anti-dementia drugs. More than 70% of the participants considered life expectancy and quality of life as "very important" factors for deprescription and more than 90% classified the existence of guidelines and the risks and benefits of medication as "very important" or "important". In the open question, the factors most reported by the GP were those related to the patient (52,9%). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study on this topic carried out in Portugal using clinical vignettes, with a representative sample of Portuguese GP. The level of dependence significatively influenced the deprescription attitude of Portuguese GPs. The majority of the GPs classified the quality of life, life expectancies, potential negative effects and the existence of guidelines as "very important" or "important" while deprescribing. It is important to develop and test deprescribing in real life studies to analyze if these attitudes are the same in daily practice.