The association of degree of polypharmacy before and after among hospitalised internal medicine patients and clinical outcomes: a retrospective, population-based cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence and incidence of polypharmacy/hyperpolypharmacy and which medications are most prescribed to patients with varying burden of polypharmacy. DESIGN: Retrospective, population-based cohort study. SETTING: Iceland. PARTICIPANTS: Including patients (≥18 years) admitted to internal medicine services at Landspitali - The National University Hospital of Iceland, between 1 January 2010 with a follow-up of clinical outcomes through 17 March 2022. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Participants were categorised into medication use categories of non-polypharmacy (<5), polypharmacy (5-10) and hyperpolypharmacy (>10) based on the number of medications filled in the year predischarge and postdischarge. The primary outcome was prevalence and incidence of new polypharmacy. Secondary outcomes were mortality, length of hospital stay and re-admission. RESULTS: Among 85 942 admissions (51% male), the median (IQR) age was 73 (60-83) years. The prevalence of preadmission non-polypharmacy was 15.1% (95% CI 14.9 to 15.3), polypharmacy was 22.9% (95% CI 22.6 to 23.2) and hyperpolypharmacy was 62.5% (95% CI 62.2 to 62.9). The incidence of new postdischarge polypharmacy was 33.4% (95% CI 32.9 to 33.9), and for hyperpolypharmacy was 28.9% (95% CI 28.3 to 29.5) for patients with preadmission polypharmacy. Patients with a higher level of medication use were more likely to use multidose drug dispensing and have a diagnosis of adverse drug reaction. Other comorbidities, including responsible subspeciality and estimates of comorbidity and frailty burden, were identical between groups of varying polypharmacy. There was no difference in length of stay, re-admission rate and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Preadmission polypharmacy/hyperpolypharmacy and postdischarge new polypharmacy/hyperpolypharmacy is common amongst patients admitted to internal medicine. A higher level of medication use category was not found to be associated with demographic, comorbidity and clinical outcomes. Medications that are frequently inappropriately prescribed were among the most prescribed medications in the group. An increased focus on optimising medication usage is needed after hospital admission. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05756400.

Diabetes mellitus increases risk of adverse drug reactions and death in hospitalised older people: the SENATOR trial.

PURPOSE: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are a major cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in older people. Older people with diabetes mellitus may be at especially high risk of ADRs but this risk has not been well studied. This study aimed to compare severity and type of ADRs in hospitalised, multimorbid older people with and without diabetes and secondly to assess the impact of ADRs on mortality, rehospitalisation and length of stay. METHODS: Participants in the SENATOR (Software Engine for the Assessment and optimization of drug and non-drug Therapy in Older peRsons) trial were assessed for 12 common and 'other' prevalent and incident adverse drug reactions using a blinded end-point adjudication process. Descriptive analyses, logistic regression and mediation analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: Of 1537 people in the SENATOR trial, 540 (35.1%) had diabetes mellitus (mean age 77.4 ± 7.3 years, 58.5% male). In the total population, 773 prevalent and 828 incident ADRs were reported. Both prevalent and incident symptomatic hypoglycaemia and incident acute kidney injury (AKI) were significantly more common in people with diabetes (p < 0.05). Patients with diabetes had higher all-cause mortality at 12 weeks than those without (9.1% vs 6.3%, p = 0.04). Mediation analysis revealed that mortality was significantly higher (OR = 1.43, Sobel test p = 0.048) in people with diabetes and ADRs causing AKI. CONCLUSIONS: Older multimorbid people with diabetes presenting to hospital with acute illness have significantly more ADRs than those without, and a significantly higher mortality that is mediated by medication-associated AKI and poorer renal function.

Optimizing pharmacotherapy and deprescribing strategies in older adults living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: EuGMS SIG on pharmacology position paper.

Inappropriate polypharmacy is highly prevalent among older adults and presents a significant healthcare concern. Conducting medication reviews and implementing deprescribing strategies in multimorbid older adults with polypharmacy are an inherently complex and challenging task. Recognizing this, the Special Interest Group on Pharmacology of the European Geriatric Medicine Society has compiled evidence on medication review and deprescribing in older adults and has formulated recommendations to enhance appropriate prescribing practices. The current evidence supports the need for a comprehensive and widespread transformation in education, guidelines, research, advocacy, and policy to improve the management of polypharmacy in older individuals. Furthermore, incorporating deprescribing as a routine aspect of care for the ageing population is crucial. We emphasize the importance of involving geriatricians and experts in geriatric pharmacology in driving, and actively participating in this transformative process. By doing so, we can work towards achieving optimal medication use and enhancing the well-being of older adults in the generations to come.

STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 3.

PURPOSE: STOPP/START is a physiological systems-based explicit set of criteria that attempts to define the clinically important prescribing problems relating to potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs-STOPP criteria) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs-START criteria). The previous two versions of STOPP/START criteria were published in 2008 and 2015. The present study describes the revised and updated third version of the criteria. METHODS: A detailed system-by-system review of the published literature from April 2014 to March 2022 was undertaken with the aim of including clinically important new explicit PIM and PPO criteria and removing any criteria considered to be no longer correct or outdated. A panel of 11 academic physicians with recognized expertise in geriatric pharmacotherapy from 8 European countries participated in a Delphi panel with the task of validating the draft criteria. The panel was presented with the draft new criteria using the SurveyMonkey® on-line platform in which panelists were asked to indicate their level of agreement on a five-point Likert scale. RESULTS: Two hundred and four evidence-based draft criteria (one hundred and forty-five STOPP criteria, fifty-nine START criteria) were presented to panelists for assessment using the Delphi validation method. Over the course of four rounds of Delphi validation, the panel achieved consensus on 133 STOPP criteria and 57 START criteria, i.e., 190 STOPP/START criteria in total representing a 66.7% increase in the number of criteria compared to STOPP/START version 2 published in 2015. CONCLUSION: A fully revised and updated version of STOPP/START criteria has been validated by a European expert panel using the Delphi consensus process.

Epidemiology and association with outcomes of polypharmacy in patients undergoing surgery: retrospective, population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of preoperative polypharmacy and the incidence of postoperative polypharmacy/hyper-polypharmacy in surgical patients and their association with adverse outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective, population-based cohort study among patients older than or equal to 18 years undergoing surgery at a university hospital between 2005 and 2018. Patients were categorized based on the number of medications: non-polypharmacy (fewer than 5); polypharmacy (5-9); and hyper-polypharmacy (greater than or equal to 10). The 30-day mortality, prolonged hospitalization (greater than or equal to 10 days), and incidence of readmission were compared between medication-use categories. RESULTS: Among 55 997 patients, the prevalence of preoperative polypharmacy was 32.3 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 33.5 to 34.3) and the prevalence of hyper-polypharmacy was 25.5 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 25.2 to 25.9). Thirty-day mortality was higher for patients exposed to preoperative hyper-polypharmacy (2.3 per cent) and preoperative polypharmacy (0.8 per cent) compared with those exposed to non-polypharmacy (0.6 per cent) (P < 0.001). The hazards ratio (HR) of long-term mortality was higher for patients exposed to hyper-polypharmacy (HR 1.32 (95 per cent c.i. 1.25 to 1.40)) and polypharmacy (HR 1.07 (95 per cent c.i. 1.01 to 1.14)) after adjustment for patient and procedural variables. The incidence of longer hospitalization (greater than or equal to 10 days) was higher for hyper-polypharmacy (11.3 per cent) and polypharmacy (6.3 per cent) compared with non-polypharmacy (4.1 per cent) (P < 0.001). The 30-day incidence of readmission was higher for patients exposed to hyper-polypharmacy (10.2 per cent) compared with polypharmacy (6.1 per cent) and non-polypharmacy (4.8 per cent) (P < 0.001). Among patients not exposed to polypharmacy, the incidence of new postoperative polypharmacy/hyper-polypharmacy was 33.4 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 32.8 to 34.1), and, for patients exposed to preoperative polypharmacy, the incidence of postoperative hyper-polypharmacy was 16.3 per cent (95 per cent c.i. 16.0 to 16.7). CONCLUSION: Preoperative polypharmacy and new postoperative polypharmacy/hyper-polypharmacy are common and associated with adverse outcomes. This highlights the need for increased emphasis on optimizing medication usage throughout the perioperative interval. REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04805151 (http://clinicaltrials.gov).

Adults with symptoms of pneumonia: a prospective comparison of patients with and without infiltrates on chest radiography.

OBJECTIVE: Most studies on patients hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) require confirmation of an infiltrate by chest radiography, but in practice admissions are common among patients with symptoms of pneumonia without an infiltrate (SPWI). The aim of this research was to compare clinical characteristics, microbial etiology, and outcomes among patients with CAP and SPWI. METHODS: Adults suspected of CAP were prospectively recruited at Landspitali University Hospital over a 1-year period, 2018 to 2019. The study was population based. Those admitted with two or more of the following symptoms were invited to participate: temperature ≥38°C or ≤36°C, sweating, shaking/chills, chest pain, a new cough, or new onset of dyspnea. Primary outcome was mortality at 30 days and one year. RESULTS: Six hundred twenty-five cases were included, 409 with CAP and 216 with SPWI; median age was 75 (interquartile range [IQR] 64-84) and 315 (50.4%) were females. Patients with CAP were more likely to have fever (≥38.0°C) (66.9% [273/408]) vs. 49.3% (106/215), p < 0.001), a higher CRP (median 103 [IQR 34-205] vs. 55 (IQR 17-103), p < 0.001), identification of Streptococcus pneumoniae (18.0% [64/355]) vs. 6.3% (10/159) of tested, p = 0.002) and to receive antibacterial treatment (99.5% [407/409]) vs. 87.5% (189/216), p < 0.001) but less likely to have a respiratory virus detected (25.4% [33/130]) vs. 51.2% (43/84) of tested, p < 0.001). The adjusted odds ratios for 30-day and 1 year mortality of SPWI compared to CAP were 0.86 (95% CI 0.40-1.86) and 1.46 (95% CI 0.92-2.32), respectively. DISCUSSION: SPWI is a common cause of hospitalization and despite having fever less frequently, lower inflammatory markers, and lower detection rate of pneumococci than patients with CAP, mortality is not significantly different.

Deprescribing practices, habits and attitudes of geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training across Europe: a large web-based survey.

PURPOSE: To provide an overview of the current deprescribing attitudes, practices, and approaches of geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training across Europe. METHODS: An online survey was disseminated among European geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training. The survey comprised Likert scale and multiple-choice questions on deprescribing approaches and practices, deprescribing education and knowledge, and facilitators/barriers of deprescribing. Responses to the survey questions and participant characteristics were quantified and differences evaluated between geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training and between European regions. RESULTS: The 964 respondents (median age 42 years old; 64% female; 21% geriatricians-in-training) were generally willing to deprescribe (98%) and felt confident about deprescribing (85%). Despite differences across European regions, the most commonly reported reasons for deprescribing were functional impairment and occurrence of adverse drug reactions. The most important barriers for deprescribing were patients' unwillingness, fear of negative consequences, lack of time, and poor communication between multiple prescribers. Perceived risk of adverse drug reactions was highest for psychotropic drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, cardiovascular drugs, and opioid analgesics. Only one in four respondents (23% of geriatricians and 37% of geriatricians-in-training) think education in medical school had sufficiently prepared them for deprescribing in clinical practice. They reported that their future deprescribing activities would probably increase with improved information sharing between various prescribers, deprescribing recommendations in guidelines, and increased education and training. Approximately 90% think that a paradigm shift is required for prescribers and patients, increasing focus on the possible benefits of deprescribing (potentially) inappropriate medications. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the outcomes of this survey, we recommend investing in improved inter-professional communication, better education and evidence-based recommendations to improve future patient-centered deprescribing practices.

A Systematic Review of the Current Evidence from Randomised Controlled Trials on the Impact of Medication Optimisation or Pharmacological Interventions on Quantitative Measures of Cognitive Function in Geriatric Patients.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive decline is common in older people. Numerous studies point to the detrimental impact of polypharmacy and inappropriate medication on older people's cognitive function. Here we aim to systematically review evidence on the impact of medication optimisation and drug interventions on cognitive function in older adults. METHODS: A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE and Web of Science on May 2021. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the impact of medication optimisation or pharmacological interventions on quantitative measures of cognitive function in older adults (aged > 65 years) were included. Single-drug interventions (e.g., on drugs for dementia) were excluded. The quality of the studies was assessed by using the Jadad score. RESULTS: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. In five studies a positive impact of the intervention on metric measures of cognitive function was observed. Only one study showed a significant improvement of cognitive function by medication optimisation. The remaining four positive studies tested methylphenidate, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, folic acid and antipsychotics. The mean Jadad score was low (2.7). CONCLUSION: This systematic review identified a small number of heterogenous RCTs investigating the impact of medication optimisation or pharmacological interventions on cognitive function. Five trials showed a positive impact on at least one aspect of cognitive function, with comprehensive medication optimisation not being more successful than focused drug interventions. More prospective trials are needed to specifically assess ways of limiting the negative impact of certain medication in particular and polypharmacy in general on cognitive function in older patients.

Underrepresentation of older adults in clinical trials on COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review.

During the COVID-19 pandemic older subjects have been disproportionately affected by the disease. Vaccination is a fundamental intervention to prevent the negative consequences of COVID-19, but it is not known if the needs and vulnerabilities of older people are adequately addressed by their inclusion in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of vaccines for COVID-19. Given this background, we aimed to evaluate if current and ongoing phase II-III RCTs evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines included a representative sample of older people. A systematic literature search in PubMed and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed until May 01st, 2021. Among 474 abstracts initially retrieved, 20 RCTs (ten already published, ten ongoing) were included. In the ten studies already published, the mean age of participants was 45.2 ± 11.9 years and only 9.83% of the participants were more than 65 years, 1.66% more than 75 years and less than 1% (0.55%) more than 85 years. In the ten ongoing RCTs, many of the studies aimed at including participants older than 18 years, with one study including participants between 18 and 84 years, and two between 21 and 100 years. In conclusion, our systematic review demonstrates that in published and ongoing phase II-III randomized clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines only a tiny fraction of the most vulnerable group of older people was included, although they clearly were the first population that had to be vaccinated.

An International Consensus List of Potentially Clinically Significant Drug-Drug Interactions in Older People.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to establish an explicit list of potentially clinically significant drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in people aged ≥65 years. DESIGN: A preliminary list of potentially clinically significant DDIs was compiled, based on 154 DDIs identified from literature review. Subsequently, a 2-round online Delphi survey was undertaken with a multidisciplinary expert panel. A consensus meeting and a final round were conducted to validate the final DDI list and the scope of information provided. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty nine experts, including geriatricians and clinical pharmacists from 8 European countries. MEASURES: For each DDI, in the first 2 rounds, experts were asked to score the severity of potential harm on a 5-point Likert-type scale. DDIs were directly included on the final list if the median score was 4 (major) or 5 (catastrophic). DDIs with a median score of 3 (moderate) were discussed at a consensus meeting and included if ≥75% of participants voted for inclusion in the final round. RESULTS: Consensus was achieved on 66 potentially clinically significant DDIs (28 had a median score of 4/5 and 48 of 3 in the Delphi survey). Most concerned cardiovascular, antithrombotic, and central nervous system drugs. The final list includes information on the mechanism of interaction, harm, and management. Treatment modification is recommended for three-quarters of DDIs. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: We validated a list of potentially clinically significant DDIs in older people, which can be used in clinical practice and education to support identification and management of DDIs or to assess prevalence in epidemiologic and intervention studies.

STOPPFall (Screening Tool of Older Persons Prescriptions in older adults with high fall risk): a Delphi study by the EuGMS Task and Finish Group on Fall-Risk-Increasing Drugs.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals are often reluctant to deprescribe fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs). Lack of knowledge and skills form a significant barrier and furthermore, there is no consensus on which medications are considered as FRIDs despite several systematic reviews. To support clinicians in the management of FRIDs and to facilitate the deprescribing process, STOPPFall (Screening Tool of Older Persons Prescriptions in older adults with high fall risk) and a deprescribing tool were developed by a European expert group. METHODS: STOPPFall was created by two facilitators based on evidence from recent meta-analyses and national fall prevention guidelines in Europe. Twenty-four panellists chose their level of agreement on a Likert scale with the items in the STOPPFall in three Delphi panel rounds. A threshold of 70% was selected for consensus a priori. The panellists were asked whether some agents are more fall-risk-increasing than others within the same pharmacological class. In an additional questionnaire, panellists were asked in which cases deprescribing of FRIDs should be considered and how it should be performed. RESULTS: The panellists agreed on 14 medication classes to be included in the STOPPFall. They were mostly psychotropic medications. The panellists indicated 18 differences between pharmacological subclasses with regard to fall-risk-increasing properties. Practical deprescribing guidance was developed for STOPPFall medication classes. CONCLUSION: STOPPFall was created using an expert Delphi consensus process and combined with a practical deprescribing tool designed to optimise medication review. The effectiveness of these tools in falls prevention should be further evaluated in intervention studies.

Current evidence on the impact of medication optimization or pharmacological interventions on frailty or aspects of frailty: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Frailty and adverse drug effects are linked in the fact that polypharmacy is correlated with the severity of frailty; however, a causal relation has not been proven in older people with clinically manifest frailty. METHODS: A literature search was performed in Medline to detect prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the effects of pharmacological interventions or medication optimization in older frail adults on comprehensive frailty scores or partial aspects of frailty that were published from January 1998 to October 2019. RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were identified, 4 on comprehensive frailty scores and 21 on aspects of frailty. Two trials on comprehensive frailty scores showed positive results on frailty although the contribution of medication review in a multidimensional approach was unclear. In the studies on aspects related to frailty, ten individual drug interventions showed improvement in physical performance, muscle strength or body composition utilizing alfacalcidol, teriparatide, piroxicam, testosterone, recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin, or capromorelin. There were no studies examining negative effects of drugs on frailty. CONCLUSION: So far, data on a causal relationship between drugs and frailty are inconclusive or related to single-drug interventions on partial aspects of frailty. There is a clear need for RCTs on this topic that should be based on a comprehensive, internationally consistent and thus reproducible concept of frailty assessment.