The effect of blood pressure lowering medications on the prevention of episodic migraine: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Currently, only a few specific blood pressure-lowering medications are recommended for migraine prevention. Whether benefits extend to other classes or drugs is uncertain. METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials were searched for randomized control trials on the effect of blood pressure-lowering medications compared with placebo in participants with episodic migraine. Data were collected on four outcomes - monthly headache or migraine days, and monthly headache or migraine attacks, with a standardised mean difference calculated for overall. Random effect meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: In total, 50 trials (70% of which were crossover) were included, comprising 60 comparisons. Overall mean age was 39 years, and 79% were female. Monthly headache days were fewer in all classes compared to placebo, and this was statistically significant for all but one class: alpha-blockers -0.7 (95% CI: -1.2, -0.1), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors -1.3 (95% CI: -2.9, 0.2), angiotensin II receptor blockers -0.9 (-1.6, -0.1), beta-blocker -0.4 (-0.8, -0.0) and calcium channel blockers -1.8 (-3.4, -0.2). Standardised mean difference was significantly reduced for all drug classes and was separately significant for numerous specific drugs: clonidine, candesartan, atenolol, bisoprolol, metoprolol, propranolol, timolol, nicardipine and verapamil. CONCLUSION: Among people with episodic migraine, a broader number of blood pressure-lowering medication classes and drugs reduce headache frequency than those currently included in treatment guidelines.Trial Registration: The study was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42017079176).

Availability and evaluation of medication management resources for carers of people with dementia: a scoping review with an environmental scan.

INTRODUCTION: There is a need for resources to guide informal carers in medication management for people with dementia. Availability of resources on medication management guidance has yet to be explored. AREAS COVERED: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO was performed in May 2022 to identify and evaluate resources for carers of people with dementia that provide guidance in medication management. Google and known repositories were also searched. Readability of text-based resources was examined using the Flesch-Kincaid reading level, the Flesch reading ease and the Gunning-Fog index. Resources were further evaluated using the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT or PEMAT-A/V). EXPERT OPINION: Fifteen resources were identified, which largely focused on medication administration with limited discussion of shared decision-making. Current resources do not appear to have included people living with dementia or their carers in their development and did not address high-risk care settings. Codesign of resources with carers and people with dementia would ensure that resources are comprehensive and target their needs. Future research should therefore focus on development of readily available and understandable resources that provide medication management guidance for carers across different health settings, to comprehensively address the multi-faceted nature of dementia.

The Prevalence and Characteristics of Psychotropic-Related Hospitalizations in Older People: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence and characteristics of psychotropic medication-related hospitalizations in older people. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Older adults (≥65 years of age) with psychotropic-related hospitalizations. METHODS: A search of published literature was performed in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus from 2010 to March 2020. Three authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts of relevant studies for relevance. Two authors independently extracted full text data, including characteristics, measures of causality, prevalence data, and performed quality assessment. A meta-analysis was conducted to estimate pooled prevalence and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of psychotropic-related hospitalizations using random effects models. Heterogeneity was explored using subgroup analyses. RESULTS: Of 815 potentially relevant studies, 11 were included in the final analysis. Five studies were cross-sectional studies, 5 were cohort studies, and 1 was a case control study. The majority of studies were rated as good quality. Psychotropic medications contributed to 2.1% (95% CI 1.2%-3.3%) of total hospitalizations and 11.3% (95% CI 8.2%-14.8%) of adverse drug event-related hospitalizations. The main psychotropic medications attributable to hospitalizations were antidepressants, hypnotics, sedatives, and antipsychotics. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Psychotropic medications are a significant contributor to hospitalizations in older adults. The risk of hospitalization was greatest for those taking antidepressants, antipsychotics, hypnotics, and sedatives. Future studies should aim to address specific medication subgroups and implement uniform adverse drug event-related classification systems to improve comparability across studies.

High-Risk Medication Use in Older Residents of Long-Term Care Facilities: Prevalence, Harms, and Strategies to Mitigate Risks and Enhance Use.

Older residents of long-term care facilities (LTCFs), also known as nursing homes, care homes, or residential aged care facilities, often have multiple health conditions and are exposed to polypharmacy. Use of high-risk medications such as opioids, glucose-lowering medications, antithrombotics, and antipsychotics is prevalent among residents of LTCFs. Ensuring appropriate use of high-risk medications is important to minimize the risk of medication-related harm in this vulnerable population. This paper provides an overview of the prevalence and factors associated with high-risk medication use among residents of LTCFs. Evidencebased strategies to optimize the use of high-risk medications and enhance resident outcomes are also discussed.

The Feasibility of Using N-Of-1 Trials to Investigate Deprescribing in Older Adults with Dementia: A Pilot Study.

N-of-1 trials may provide insights into the impact of deprescribing medications in populations where evidence is currently lacking, such as the effect of statins on cognition in people with dementia. For this pilot, N-of-1, double-blinded, deprescribing trial, adults over 80 years of age with dementia taking statins for at least 6-months were recruited from a hospital's geriatric medicine outpatient clinic in Sydney, Australia. Participants discontinued and restarted statins over the study period. At enrolment, the hospital pharmacy-using a random number generator, randomised recruited participants to their usual statin or placebo regimen, with assessment and switching of treatment every 5 weeks from baseline (0-weeks) until Visit 4 (15-weeks). Primary outcome was measured using the rate of change in Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Score-Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-CoG). Over 6-months, 81 participants were screened, 14 were eligible, and four were randomised. One participant (female, 88 years) completed all four assessments with no major harms reported. Cognitive impairment, as measured by ADAS-CoG score, was similar on placebo (15.5/70) compared to statin (15/70). This study suggests there are significant challenges in performing N-of-1 trials and recruiting people with dementia into deprescribing trials from outpatient settings.

Health professionals' and researchers' opinions on conducting clinical deprescribing trials.

While clinical deprescribing trials are increasingly being performed, there is no guidance on the optimum conduction of such studies. The aim of this survey was to explore the perspectives, attitudes, interests, barriers, and enablers of conducting clinical deprescribing trials among health professionals and researchers. An anonymous survey was developed, reviewed, and piloted by all investigators and informed by consultation with experts, as well as current deprescribing guidelines. The questions were formulated around current clinical trial frameworks and incorporated identified enablers and barriers of performing deprescribing studies. The survey was sent to members of Australian and international deprescribing, pharmacological, and pharmacy organizations, and other researchers published in deprescribing. A total of 96 respondents completed the survey (92.3% completion rate). Respondents indicated the main deprescribing trial rationale is to generate evidence to optimize patient-centered outcomes (79.2%). Common barriers identified included the time and effort required (18.2%), and apprehension of health professionals involved in trials (17.1%). Studies are enabled by positive attitudes toward deprescribing of treating prescribers (24.4%) and patients (20.9%). Classical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were deemed the most appropriate methodology (93.2%). Sixty percent of participants indicated a good clinical practice framework is required to guide the conduct of deprescribing trials. There were no significant differences in responses based on previous experience in conducting clinical deprescribing trials. In conclusion, clinical deprescribing trials should be conducted to investigate whether deprescribing medications improves patient care. A future deprescribing trial framework should use classical RCTs as a model, ensure participant safety, and target patient-centered outcomes.

N-of-1 trials for assessing the effects of deprescribing medications on short-term clinical outcomes in older adults: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to determine the applicability of utilizing the N-of-1 method for deprescribing trials in older adults. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of any human studies conducted in older adults (≥50 years), deprescribing any long-term treatment over less than a year using the N-of-1 trial method was performed. Two authors independently reviewed all articles for eligibility and extracted data. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Quality assessment of trials was carried out using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. RESULTS: Six studies were identified and extracted. Trials investigated the efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies for treating diseases. Four trials demonstrated non-significant benefits of treatment, with a significant number of patients discontinuing their medications in two trials where follow-up data was collected (N = 8/18, 9/14 [44.4--64.3%]). In two studies, where treatment was beneficial, all participants were found to be maintaining regimen at follow-up. CONCLUSION: The N-of-1 trial methodology can be used to generate patient-specific evidence of medication and inform prescribing decisions. Future studies are required to assess the feasibility of using the N-of-1 method to determine the effects of deprescribing medications on short-term outcomes.

Prevalence of Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Inpatients with and without Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Older people with cognitive impairment, including dementia and delirium, are high users of acute care services internationally. Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use may be associated with adverse outcomes, including hospital re-admission, functional disability, and mortality. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to quantify and compare the prevalence of PIMs in older inpatients with and without cognitive impairment. METHODS: A systematic search of observational studies was performed independently assessed by two reviewers in Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Scopus, and Informit. Articles published in English during the period January 2007-June 2017 that reported PIM prevalence in hospital inpatients ≥ 65 years were included. PIMs were defined as the presence of polypharmacy (multiple medication use) and using implicit or explicit tools, such as the Beers criteria, and 'Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions' (STOPP). RESULTS: 47 articles were included. In studies measuring polypharmacy (n = 15), the prevalence of PIMs ranged from 53.2% to 89.8% and 30.4% to 97.1% for inpatients with and without cognitive impairment, respectively, and 24.0% to 80.0% when cognitive status was unreported. In studies employing explicit and implicit tools (n = 35), the prevalence of PIMs when cognitive impairment was reported ranged from 20.6% to 80.5% using the Beers criteria, and 39.3% to 88.5% using STOPP. When cognitive status was unreported, the prevalence of PIMs ranged from 7.0% to 79.2% using the Beers criteria, and 20.0% to 63.4% using STOPP. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest a high prevalence of PIMs in older inpatients with and without cognitive impairment. Future studies should investigate the impact of PIM use on patient-centered outcomes, such as functional status and quality of life, to inform enhanced acute care services.