[Polypharmacy in older people].

After the publication of the guidelines about the safe drug therapy for older people in 2015 by the Japan Geriatrics Society, the risk of polypharmacy has become popular. Older people are likely to have multimorbidity, resulting in the use of multiple drugs. This not only increases the frequency of side effects, but also increase confusion and difficulty in medication management and adherence. Polypharmacy is the problem related to these complicated drug therapies and will increase by age. It is necessary to review drugs and resolve polypharmacy without making comorbid conditions worth. To carry out effective medication reviews, the guidance established by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare introduced that geriatric assessment is essential for those with polypharmacy, since not only all medical conditions, but also physical and cognitive functions, medications, living environment, and caregivers should be taken into consideration when discontinuing drugs. When tapering, potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) should be always the targets, and PIMs drug lists such as the Beers criteria and STOPP/START became very popular in overseas. Even after the reductions, careful attention should be paid to changes in the patient's condition. For drugs that are continued, continuous checks are required to ensure compliance with patients' medication adherence. There are many possible reasons for poor medication adherence, and it will be difficult to improve unless we identify what the cause is in each patient, and making the prescriptions simple may be necessary.

Pharmacoeconomics of medicines used for geriatric individuals in a tertiary care hospital in Delhi.

BACKGROUND OBJECTIVES: Expenditure on healthcare is a major concern in the geriatric age group. The current study was carried out to assess the expenditure patterns on medicines utilized in geriatric inpatients. METHODS: An observational study was conducted on 1000 geriatric inpatients, aged ≥60 yr, admitted to the medicine unit. Data were collected regarding demographic characteristics, prescribed medicines, expenditure incurred on medicines, appropriateness of medicines prescribed and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Appropriateness of the prescribed medicines was determined using the American Geriatrics Society 2015 Updated Beers Criteria. RESULTS: Geriatric inpatients comprised 41.3 per cent of the total individuals admitted in the ward during the study period. A total of 8366 medicines were prescribed in 127 formulations. The total expenditure on prescribed medicines was INR 1,087,175 with a per capita expenditure of INR 1087.17. Parenteral medicines accounted for 91 per cent of the expenditure on medicines. Maximum expenditure (70%) was incurred on 11.9 per cent of the medicines prescribed. The per capita expenditure was significantly higher in individuals with comorbidities (P=0.03) and those who had a longer duration of hospital stay (P<0.0001). About 28.1 per cent prescriptions were inappropriate. ADRs (140) were observed in 139 (13.9%) inpatients. Individuals with inappropriate medicines prescriptions and ADRs had a longer duration of hospital stay and more number of medicines prescribed. INTERPRETATION CONCLUSIONS: Comorbidities, prolonged hospitalization, polypharmacy, inappropriate medicines and parenteral medicines being prescribed contribute to increased expenditure on medicines in geriatric inpatients. In view of the rising number of geriatric inpatients, there is a need to frame a drug policy for them along with surveillance of expenditure on prescribed medicines. This needs to be treated as a priority.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing for people with dementia in ambulatory care: a cross-sectional observational study.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is highly prevalent among people with dementia (PwD) and linked to negative outcomes, such as hospitalisation and mortality. However, there are limited data on prescribing appropriateness for PwD in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the prevalence of PIP and investigate associations between PIP and other patient characteristics among PwD in an ambulatory care setting. METHODS: A cross-sectional, retrospective analysis was conducted at a tertiary hospital in Saudi Arabia. Patients who were ≥ 65 years old, had dementia, and visited ambulatory care clinics between 01/01/2019 and 31/12/2021 were included. Prescribing appropriateness was evaluated by applying the Screening Tool of Older Persons Potentially Inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria. Descriptive analyses were used to describe the study population. Prevalence of PIP and the prevalence per each STOPP criterion were calculated as a percentage of all eligible patients. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate associations between PIP, polypharmacy, age and sex; odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Analyses were conducted using SPSS v27. RESULTS: A total of 287 PwD were identified; 56.0% (n = 161) were female. The mean number of medications prescribed was 9.0 [standard deviation (SD) ± 4.2]. The prevalence of PIP was 61.0% (n = 175). Common instances of PIP were drugs prescribed beyond the recommended duration (n = 90, 31.4%), drugs prescribed without an evidence-based clinical indication (n = 78, 27.2%), proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) for > 8 weeks (n = 75, 26.0%), and acetylcholinesterase inhibitors with concurrent drugs that reduce heart rate (n = 60, 21.0%). Polypharmacy was observed in 82.6% (n = 237) of patients and was strongly associated with PIP (adjusted OR 24.1, 95% CI 9.0-64.5). CONCLUSIONS: Findings have revealed a high prevalence of PIP among PwD in Saudi Arabia that is strongly associated with polypharmacy. Future research should aim to explore key stakeholders' experiences and perspectives of medicines management to optimise medication use for this vulnerable patient population.

Improving Antibiotic Overuse in Primary Care: A Multimodal Quality Improvement Project.

PURPOSE: Antibiotic overuse has increased over time related to provider knowledge gaps about best practices, provider perception of patient expectations on receiving an antibiotic, possible pressure to see patients in a timely fashion, and concerns about decreased patient satisfaction when an antibiotic is not prescribed. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that up to 30% of antibiotics are inappropriately prescribed in the outpatient setting. APPROACH: This quality improvement project consisted of a multimodal approach to decrease inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for viral upper respiratory infections (URIs) by using provider education, passive patient education, and clinical decision support tools based on Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommendations and the Be Antibiotic Aware tool. OUTCOMES: Following implementation, there was an 11% decrease in viral URI antibiotic prescribing, from a rate of 29.33% to 18.33% following the multimodal implementation. CONCLUSION: The use of evidence-based education and treatment guidelines was found to decrease inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for patients diagnosed with viral URIs.

Staffing and Antipsychotic Medication Use in Nursing Homes and Neighborhood Deprivation.

Importance: Inappropriate use of antipsychotic medications in nursing homes is a growing public health concern. Residents exposed to higher levels of socioeconomic deprivation in the area around a nursing home may be currently exposed, or have a long history of exposure, to more noise pollution, higher crime rates, and have less opportunities to safely go outside the facility, which may contribute to psychological stress and increased risk of receiving antipsychotic medications inappropriately. However, it is unclear whether neighborhood deprivation is associated with use of inappropriate antipsychotic medications and whether this outcome is different by facility staffing levels. Objective: To evaluate whether reported inappropriate antipsychotic medication use differs in severely and less severely deprived neighborhoods, and whether these differences are modified by higher levels of total nurse staffing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cross-sectional analysis of a national sample of nursing homes that linked across 3 national large-scale data sets for the year 2019. Analyses were conducted between April and June 2023. Exposure: Neighborhood deprivation status (severe vs less severe) and total staffing hours (registered nurse, licensed practical nurse, certified nursing assistant). Main Outcome and Measures: This study estimated the association between neighborhood deprivation and the percentage of long-stay residents who received an antipsychotic medication inappropriately in the nursing home at least once in the past week and how this varied by nursing home staffing through generalized estimating equations. Analyses were conducted on the facility level and adjusted for state fixed effects. Results: This study included 10 966 nursing homes (1867 [17.0%] in severely deprived neighborhoods and 9099 [83.0%] in less deprived neighborhoods). Unadjusted inappropriate antipsychotic medication use was greater in nursing homes located in severely deprived neighborhoods (mean [SD], 15.9% [10.7%] of residents) than in those in less deprived neighborhoods (mean [SD], 14.2% [8.8%] of residents). In adjusted models, inappropriate antipsychotic medication use was higher in severely deprived neighborhoods vs less deprived neighborhoods (19.2% vs 17.1%; adjusted mean difference, 2.0 [95% CI, 0.35 to 3.71] percentage points) in nursing homes that fell below critical levels of staffing (less than 3 hours of nurse staffing per resident-day). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that levels of staffing modify disparities seen in inappropriate antipsychotic medication use among nursing homes located in severely deprived neighborhoods compared with nursing homes in less deprived neighborhoods. These findings may have important implications for improving staffing in more severely deprived neighborhoods.

Physician Antipsychotic Overprescribing Letters and Cognitive, Behavioral, and Physical Health Outcomes Among People With Dementia: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Antipsychotics, such as quetiapine, are frequently prescribed to people with dementia to address behavioral symptoms but can also cause harm in this population. Objective: To determine whether warning letters to high prescribers of quetiapine can successfully reduce its use among patients with dementia and to investigate the impacts on patients' health outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial of overprescribing letters that began in April 2015 and included the highest-volume primary care physician (PCP) prescribers of quetiapine in original Medicare. Outcomes of patients with dementia were analyzed in repeated 90-day cross-sections through December 2018. Analyses were conducted from September 2021 to February 2024. Interventions: PCPs were randomized to a placebo letter or 3 overprescribing warning letters stating that their prescribing of quetiapine was high and under review by Medicare. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome of this analysis was patients' total quetiapine use in days per 90-day period (the original trial primary outcome was total quetiapine prescribing by study PCPs). Prespecified secondary outcomes included measures of cognitive function and behavioral symptoms from nursing home assessments, indicators of depression from screening questionnaires in assessments and diagnoses in claims, metabolic diagnoses derived from assessments and claims, indicators of use of the hospital and other health care services, and death. Outcomes were analyzed separately for patients living in nursing homes and in the community. Results: Of the 5055 study PCPs, 2528 were randomized to the placebo letter, and 2527 were randomized to the 3 warning letters. A total of 84 881 patients with dementia living in nursing homes and 261 288 community-dwelling patients with dementia were attributed to these PCPs. There were 92 874 baseline patients (mean [SD] age, 81.5 [10.5] years; 64 242 female [69.2%]). The intervention reduced quetiapine use among both nursing home patients (adjusted difference, -0.7 days; 95% CI, -1.3 to -0.1 days; P = .02) and community-dwelling patients (adjusted difference, -1.5 days; 95% CI, -1.8 to -1.1 days; P < .001). There were no detected adverse effects on cognitive function (cognitive function scale adjusted difference, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.01 to 0.03; P = .19), behavioral symptoms (agitated or reactive behavior adjusted difference, -0.2%; 95% CI -1.2% to 0.8% percentage points; P = .72), depression, metabolic diagnoses, or more severe outcomes, including hospitalization and death. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that overprescribing warning letters to PCPs safely reduced quetiapine prescribing to their patients with dementia. This intervention and others like it may be useful for future efforts to promote guideline-concordant care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05172687.

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)

A mixed methods analysis of the medication review intervention centered around the use of the 'Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing' Assistant (STRIPA) in Swiss primary care practices.

BACKGROUND: Electronic clinical decision support systems (eCDSS), such as the 'Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing' Assistant (STRIPA), have become promising tools for assisting general practitioners (GPs) with conducting medication reviews in older adults. Little is known about how GPs perceive eCDSS-assisted recommendations for pharmacotherapy optimization. The aim of this study was to explore the implementation of a medication review intervention centered around STRIPA in the 'Optimising PharmacoTherapy In the multimorbid elderly in primary CAre' (OPTICA) trial. METHODS: We used an explanatory mixed methods design combining quantitative and qualitative data. First, quantitative data about the acceptance and implementation of eCDSS-generated recommendations from GPs (n = 21) and their patients (n = 160) in the OPTICA intervention group were collected. Then, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with GPs from the OPTICA intervention group (n = 8), and interview data were analyzed through thematic analysis. RESULTS: In quantitative findings, GPs reported averages of 13 min spent per patient preparing the eCDSS, 10 min performing medication reviews, and 5 min discussing prescribing recommendations with patients. On average, out of the mean generated 3.7 recommendations (SD=1.8). One recommendation to stop or start a medication was reported to be implemented per patient in the intervention group (SD=1.2). Overall, GPs found the STRIPA useful and acceptable. They particularly appreciated its ability to generate recommendations based on large amounts of patient information. During qualitative interviews, GPs reported the main reasons for limited implementation of STRIPA were related to problems with data sourcing (e.g., incomplete data imports), preparation of the eCDSS (e.g., time expenditure for updating and adapting information), its functionality (e.g., technical problems downloading PDF recommendation reports), and appropriateness of recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative findings help explain the relatively low implementation of recommendations demonstrated by quantitative findings, but also show GPs' overall acceptance of STRIPA. Our results provide crucial insights for adapting STRIPA to make it more suitable for regular use in future primary care settings (e.g., necessity to improve data imports). TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03724539, date of first registration: 29/10/2018.

Evaluating population-level interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use in healthcare and community settings: A systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate antibiotic use contributes significantly to the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance. While government-initiated population-level interventions are fundamental in addressing this issue, their full potential remains to be explored. This systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness of such interventions in reducing inappropriate antibiotic use among antibiotic providers and users in healthcare and community settings. METHODS: We will conduct a systematic literature search across multiple databases and grey literature sources. We will include studies which evaluate the effectiveness of population-level interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use in healthcare and community settings in both high-income and low- and middle-income countries. This includes government-initiated measures targeting antibiotic use through education, restriction, incentivization, coercion, training, persuasion, context modification, behavior modeling, or barrier reduction. Two reviewers will independently perform screening to select eligible studies, followed by data extraction. The outcomes of interest are various measures of antibiotic prescription and consumption, such as Defined Daily Dose (DDD) or number of prescriptions per year. We anticipate including a broad range of study designs and outcome measures. Therefore, we will narratively synthesize results using the categories of the population-level policy interventions of the Behavior Change Wheel Framework. We will organize outcome data by economic contexts, target populations, and implementation settings. DISCUSSION: This review will strengthen the evidence base for the use of population-level interventions to address inappropriate antibiotic use. Drawing lessons from global experiences, the findings will provide valuable guidance to health policymakers, public health authorities, and researchers on tailoring interventions to specific economic contexts, populations, and settings, thereby enhancing their capacity to drive substantial improvement in appropriate antibiotic use.

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.

Medication review and deprescribing in different healthcare settings: a position statement from an Italian scientific consortium.

Recent medical advancements have increased life expectancy, leading to a surge in patients affected by multiple chronic diseases and consequent polypharmacy, especially among older adults. This scenario increases the risk of drug interactions and adverse drug reactions, highlighting the need for medication review and deprescribing to reduce inappropriate medications and optimize therapeutic regimens, with the ultimate goal to improving patients' health and quality of life. This position statement from the Italian Scientific Consortium on medication review and deprescribing aims to describe key elements, strategies, tools, timing, and healthcare professionals to be involved, for the implementation of medication review and deprescribing in different healthcare settings (i.e., primary care, hospital, long-term care facilities, and palliative care). Challenges and potential solutions for the implementation of medication review and deprescribing are also discussed.

Potentially inappropriate medication use among older adults with lower-limb loss.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of, and explore factors related to, prescription of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) among older adults with lower-limb loss (LLL). METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional dataset collected through an interdisciplinary limb loss clinic between September 2013 and November 2022. Self-report medication lists were reviewed during in-clinic face-to-face interviews and compared to the American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria corresponding to the patient's evaluation year. RESULTS: Of 82 participants (72.9 ± 6.6 years-old; 78.0 % male), n = 41 (50.0 %) reported using one or more PIM. PIM prescription was significantly associated with presence of phantom limb pain, history of upper gastrointestinal issues, and a greater number of medications. DISCUSSION: Polypharmacy and PIM use are common among older adults with LLL. Greater attention should be paid to medications post-amputation, especially pain management medications, to minimize potential adverse side-effects.

Developing a PRogram to Educate and Sensitize Caregivers to Reduce the Inappropriate Prescription Burden in the Elderly with Alzheimer's Disease (D-PRESCRIBE-AD): Trial protocol and rationale of an open-label pragmatic, prospective randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Potentially inappropriate prescribing of medications in older adults, particular those with dementia, can lead to adverse drug events including falls and fractures, worsening cognitive impairment, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. Educational mailings from health plans to patients and their providers to encourage deprescribing conversations may represent an effective, low-cost, "light touch", approach to reducing the burden of potentially inappropriate prescription use in older adults with dementia. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the Developing a PRogram to Educate and Sensitize Caregivers to Reduce the Inappropriate Prescription Burden in Elderly with Alzheimer's Disease (D-PRESCRIBE-AD) trial is to evaluate the effect of a health plan based multi-faceted educational outreach intervention to community dwelling patients with dementia who are currently prescribed sedative/hypnotics, antipsychotics, or strong anticholinergics. METHODS: The D-PRESCRIBE-AD is an open-label pragmatic, prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing three arms: 1) educational mailing to both the health plan patient and their prescribing physician (patient plus physician arm, n = 4814); 2) educational mailing to prescribing physician only (physician only arm, n = 4814); and 3) usual care (n = 4814) among patients with dementia enrolled in two large United States based health plans. The primary outcome is the absence of any dispensing of the targeted potentially inappropriate prescription during the 6-month study observation period after a 3-month black out period following the mailing. Secondary outcomes include dose-reduction, polypharmacy, healthcare utilization, mortality and therapeutic switching within targeted drug classes. CONCLUSION: This large pragmatic RCT will contribute to the evidence base on promoting deprescribing of potentially inappropriate medications among older adults with dementia. If successful, such light touch, inexpensive and highly scalable interventions have the potential to reduce the burden of potentially inappropriate prescribing for patients with dementia. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05147428.

The Association Between Short-Acting ß2-Agonist Over-Prescription, and Patient-Reported Acquisition and Use on Asthma Control and Exacerbations: Data from Australia.

INTRODUCTION: In Australia, short-acting ß2-agonists (SABA) are available both over the counter (OTC) and on prescription. This ease of access may impact SABA use in the Australian population. Our aim was to assess patterns and outcome associations of prescribed, acquired OTC and reported use of SABA by Australians with asthma. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study, using data derived from primary care electronic medical records (EMRs) and patient completed questionnaires within Optimum Patient Care Research Database Australia (OPCRDA). A total of 720 individuals aged ≥ 12 years with an asthma diagnosis in their EMRs and receiving asthma therapy were included. The annual number of SABA inhalers authorised on prescription, acquired OTC and reported, and the association with self-reported exacerbations and asthma control were investigated. RESULTS: 92.9% (n = 380/409) of individuals issued with SABA prescription were authorised ≥ 3 inhalers annually, although this differed from self-reported usage. Of individuals reporting SABA use (n = 546) in the last 12 months, 37.0% reported using ≥ 3 inhalers. These patients who reported SABA overuse experienced 2.52 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.73-3.70) times more severe exacerbations and were 4.51 times (95% CI 3.13-6.55) more likely to have poor asthma control than those who reported using 1-2 SABA inhalers. Patients who did not receive SABA on prescription (43.2%; n = 311/720) also experienced 2.71 (95% CI 1.07-7.26) times more severe exacerbations than those prescribed 1-2 inhalers. Of these patients, 38.9% reported using OTC SABA and other prescription medications, 26.4% reported using SABA OTC as their only asthma medication, 13.2% were prescribed other therapies but not SABA OTC and 14.5% were not using any medication. CONCLUSION: Both self-reported SABA overuse and zero SABA prescriptions were associated with poor asthma outcomes. The disconnect between prescribing authorisation, OTC availability and actual use, make it difficult for clinicians to quantify SABA use.

Comparing AGS Beers 2019, STOPP version 2, and EU(7)-PIM list in Portuguese older adults in primary health care.

PURPOSE: This study aims to identify PIM prevalence in older adults according to the 2019 Beers criteria, Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions version 2 (STOPP v2) criteria, and the Portuguese EU(7)-PIM list and also to analyze the concordance between these criteria. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted among 1200 Portuguese older adults (≥ 65 years old), users of primary health care. Demographic, clinical, and pharmacological data were collected concerning the period between April 2021 and August 2022. A comparative analysis was performed between the three PIM identification criteria, and the concordance was determined according to the Lin concordance correlation coefficient. RESULTS: The mean age was 76.3 (SD 7.7) years old and 57.6% of the older adults were females. Our findings indicate varying prevalence rates among these criteria with 63.8% (95% CI 61.0-66.6%), 66.8% (95% CI 64.1-69.5%), and 50.1% (95% CI 47.2-53.0%) of the older adults take at least one PIM according to the EU(7)-PIM list, Beers 2019, and STOPP v2 criteria, respectively. The highest prevalence observed was for proton pump inhibitors according to EU(7)-PIM list (30.1%, 95% CI 27.6-32.9) and Beers criteria (30.1%, 95% CI 27.6-32.9) and alprazolam according to STOPP v2 criteria (10.1%, 95% CI 8.4-11.9%). A poor concordance between criteria was observed (< 0.834). The highest concordance coefficient was found between the EU(7)-PIM list and the Beers criteria (0.833), and the lowest between the EU(7)-PIM list and STOPP criteria (0.735). CONCLUSION: This study reveals varying prevalence rates of PIM in older adults, as assessed by different criteria, and highlights the need for targeted interventions and improved prescribing practices. In the future, studies should focus on the occurrence of negative outcomes in older adults associated with PIM consumption.

Decreasing polypharmacy in older adults with cancer: A pilot cluster-randomized trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Polypharmacy is prevalent in older adults with cancer and associated with multiple adverse outcomes. A single-site, cluster-randomized clinical trial will enroll older adults with cancer and polypharmacy starting chemotherapy and will assess the effectiveness and feasibility of deprescribing interventions by comparing two arms: a pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention and a patient educational brochure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study will be conducted in two phases. In phase I, focus groups and semi-structured individual interviews will guide adaptation of deprescribing interventions for the oncology clinic (phase Ia), and eight patients will undergo the pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention with iterative adaptations (phase Ib). In phase II, a pilot cluster-randomized trial (n = 72) will compare a pharmacist-led deprescribing intervention with a patient education brochure, with treating oncologists as the cluster. Both efficacy (relative dose intensity of planned chemotherapy, potentially inappropriate medications successfully deprescribed, chemotherapy toxicity, functional status, hospitalizations, falls, and symptoms) and implementation outcomes (barriers and facilitators) will be assessed. DISCUSSION: This study is anticipated to provide pilot data to inform a nationwide randomized clinical trial of deprescribing in older adults starting cancer treatment. The cluster randomization is intended to provide an initial estimate for the intervention effect as well as oncologists' intra-class correlation coefficient. Deprescribing interventions may improve outcomes in older adults starting cancer treatment, but these interventions are understudied in this population, and it is unknown how best to implement them into oncology practice. The results of this trial will inform the design of large, randomized phase III trials of deprescribing. CLINICALTRIALS: gov Identifier:NCT05046171. Date of registration: September 16, 2021.