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

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

Surgically generated aerosol and mitigation strategies: combined use of irrigation, respirators and suction massively reduces particulate matter aerosol.

BACKGROUND: Aerosol is a health risk to theatre staff. This laboratory study quantifies the reduction in particulate matter aerosol concentrations produced by electrocautery and drilling when using mitigation strategies such as irrigation, respirator filtration and suction in a lab environment to prepare for future work under live OR conditions. METHODS: We combined one aerosol-generating procedure (monopolar cutting or coagulating diathermy or high-speed diamond- or steel-tipped drilling of cadaveric porcine tissue) with one or multiple mitigation strategies (instrument irrigation, plume suction and filtration using an FFP3 respirator filter) and using an optical particle counter to measure particulate matter aerosol size and concentrations. RESULTS: Significant aerosol concentrations were observed during all aerosol-generating procedures with concentrations exceeding 3 × 106 particles per 100 ml. Considerable reductions in concentrations were observed with mitigation. In drilling, suction, FFP3 filtration and wash alone respectively reduced aerosol by 19.3-31.6%, 65.1-70.8% and 97.2 to > 99.9%. The greatest reduction (97.38 to > 99.9%) was observed when combining irrigation and filtration. Coagulating diathermy reduced concentrations by 88.0-96.6% relative to cutting, but produced larger particles. Suction alone, and suction with filtration reduced aerosol concentration by 41.0-49.6% and 88.9-97.4% respectively. No tested mitigation strategies returned aerosol concentrations to baseline. CONCLUSION: Aerosol concentrations are significantly reduced through the combined use of filtration, suction and irrigation. Further research is required to characterise aerosol concentrations in the live OR and to find acceptable exposure limits, and in their absence, to find methods to further reduce exposure to theatre staff.

The MedSafer Study: A Controlled Trial of an Electronic Decision Support Tool for Deprescribing in Acute Care.

OBJECTIVES: Polypharmacy is common, costly, and harmful for hospitalized older adults. Scalable strategies to reduce the burden of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are needed. We sought to leverage medication reconciliation in hospitalized older adults by pairing with MedSafer, an electronic decision support tool for deprescribing. DESIGN: This was a nonrandomized controlled before-and-after study. SETTING: The study took place on four internal medicine clinical teaching units. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects were aged 65 years and older, had an expected prognosis of 3 or more months, and were taking five or more usual home medications. INTERVENTION: In the baseline phase, patients received usual care that was medication reconciliation. Patients in the intervention arm also had a "deprescribing opportunity report" generated by MedSafer and provided to their in-hospital treating team. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was ascertained at the time of hospital discharge and was the proportion of patients who had one or more PIMs deprescribed. RESULTS: A total of 1066 patients were enrolled, and deprescribing opportunities were present for 873 (82%; 418 during the control and 455 during the intervention phases, respectively). The proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed at discharge increased from 46.9% in the control period to 54.7% in the intervention period with an adjusted absolute risk difference of 8.3% (2.9%-13.9%). Not all classes of drugs in the intervention arm were associated with an increase in deprescribing, and new PIM starts were equally common in both arms of the study. CONCLUSION: Using an electronic decision support tool for deprescribing, we increased the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed at hospital discharge as compared with usual care. Although this type of intervention may help address medication overload in hospitalized patients, it also underscores the importance of powering future trials for a reduction in adverse drug events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02918058. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1843-1850, 2019.

A pilot study of a Medication Rationalization (MERA) intervention.

BACKGROUND: Many seriously ill and frail inpatients receive potentially inappropriate or harmful medications and do not receive medications for symptoms of advanced illness. We developed and piloted an interprofessional Medication Rationalization (MERA) approach to deprescribing inappropriate medications and prescribing appropriate comfort medications. METHODS: We conducted a single-centre pilot study of inpatients at risk of 6-month mortality from advanced age or morbidity. The MERA team reviewed the patients' medications and made recommendations on the basis of guidelines. We measured end points for feasibility, acceptability, efficiency and effectiveness. RESULTS: We enrolled 61 of 115 (53%) eligible patients with a mean age of 79.6 years (standard deviation [SD] 11.7 yr). Patients were taking an average of 11.5 (SD 5.2) medications before admission and had an average of 2.1 symptoms with greater than 6/10 severity on the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. The MERA team recommended 263 medication changes, of which 223 (85%) were accepted by both the medical team and the patient. MERA team's recommendations resulted in the discontinuation of 162 medications (mean 3.1 per patient), dose changes for 48 medications (mean 0.9 per patient) and the addition of 13 medications (mean 0.2 per patient). Patients who received the MERA intervention stopped significantly more inappropriate medications than similar non-MERA comparison patients for whom data were collected retrospectively (3.1 v. 0.9 medications per patient, p < 0.01). The MERA approach was highly acceptable to patients and medical team members. INTERPRETATION: The MERA intervention is feasible, acceptable, efficient and possibly effective for changing medication use among seriously ill and frail elderly inpatients. Scalability and effectiveness may be improved through automation and integration with medication reconciliation programs.

Residual Kidney Function and Peritoneal Dialysis-Associated Peritonitis Treatment Outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Residual kidney function contributes to the clearance of antibiotics excreted by the kidneys, lowering the antibiotic concentration, which may adversely affect the treatment of peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis. The objective of our study was to examine the relationship between residual kidneyfunction and peritonitis treatment outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Our study included 181 participants who experienced 339 episodes of Gram-positive, Gram-negative, and culture-negative peritoneal dialysis-associated peritonitis at a single centerfrom 2003 to 2010. Episodes were categorized according to participants' urinary creatinine clearance (0, >0-5, and >5 ml/min). The data were analyzed using generalized estimating equation models to determine the covariate-adjusted association between urinary creatinine clearance and treatment failure (defined as relapse or recurrent peritonitis episodes, peritoneal catheter removal, or death from any cause during peritonitis treatment). RESULTS: Among episodes of peritonitis due to Gram-positive organisms or culture-negative infections, those experienced by participants with urinary creatinine clearance >5 ml/min had significantly higher odds of treatment failure than episodes experienced by anuric participants (27 of 80 versus 20 of 119 episodes resulting in treatment failure for creatinine clearance >5 versus 0 ml/min; odds ratio, 6.80; 95% confidence interval, 2.37 to 19.6). Episodes experienced by participants with creatinine clearance >0-5 ml/min also had significantly higher odds of treatment failure than episodes experienced by anuric participants (14 of 64 episodes resulting in treatment failure for creatinine clearance >0-5 ml/min; odds ratio, 2.87; 95% confidence interval, 1.12 to 7.35). The odds of relapse and recurrent peritonitis among participants with creatinine clearance >5 ml/min was also significantly higher compared with in anuric participants (17 of 80 versus 12 of 119 episodes resulting in relapse and recurrence for creatinine clearance >5 versus 0 ml/min; odds ratio, 6.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.90 to 23.8). Among participants with Gram-negative peritonitis, creatinine clearance was significantly associated with neither treatment failure nor relapse and recurrent peritonitis. CONCLUSIONS: Residual kidney function as measured by greater urinary creatinine clearance was associated with treatment failure among participants with Gram-positive and culture-negative peritonitis.