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.

Comparison of polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults with and without dementia receiving residential medication management reviews.

OBJECTIVES: Among residents who had a residential medication management review (RMMR), there is a lack of studies assessing exposure to polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in people with dementia. This study compared the exposure to polypharmacy and PIMs in residents with dementia and without dementia receiving RMMR. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed using data of 16,261 residents living in 343 Australian residential aged care facilities who had an RMMR in 2019. Medication use was assessed as polypharmacy (defined as ≥9 medications) and use of ≥1 PIMs using the 2019 updated Beers criteria. Dementia diagnosis was determined with ICD-10 coding from medical records. Descriptive analyses reported resident demographics and patterns of medication use. Pearson's χ2 tests and logistic regression analysis were conducted to compare medication exposure between residents with and without dementia. RESULTS: Among 16,261 residents, 6781 (42%) had dementia. Residents with dementia were significantly more likely to be exposed to polypharmacy and PIMs, compared to those without dementia (74% vs. 70% and 83% vs. 73%, p < .001 respectively). Residents with dementia had 1.31 times the odds of exposure to polypharmacy (adjusted OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.22-1.41, p < .001) and 1.88 times the odds of being prescribed ≥1 PIMs than people without dementia (adjusted OR: 1.88, 95% CI: 1.73-2.04, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: In a study of residents receiving RMMR, polypharmacy and PIMs were highly common, and those with dementia were more likely to be exposed to inappropriate polypharmacy. There is a need for targeted deprescribing strategies to immediately address inappropriate prescribing in residents, particularly those living with dementia.

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)

Evidence-based Medication knowledge Brokers in Residential Aged CarE (EMBRACE): protocol for a helix-counterbalanced randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice guidelines recommend against the routine use of psychotropic medications in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). Knowledge brokers are individuals or groups who facilitate the transfer of knowledge into practice. The objective of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using knowledge brokers to translate Australia's new Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Appropriate Use of Psychotropic Medications in People Living with Dementia and in Residential Aged Care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Evidence-based Medication knowledge Brokers in Residential Aged CarE (EMBRACE) trial is a helix-counterbalanced randomised controlled trial. The 12-month trial will be conducted in up to 19 RACFs operated by four Australian aged care provider organisations in Victoria, New South Wales, Western Australia and Queensland. RACFs will be randomised to receive three levels of implementation strategies (knowledge broker service, pharmacist-led quality use of medications education activities and distribution of the Guidelines and supporting materials) across three medication contexts (antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and antidepressants). Implementation strategies will be delivered by an embedded on-site aged care pharmacist working at a system level across each participating RACF. All RACFs will receive all implementation strategies simultaneously but for different medication contexts. The primary outcome will be a composite dichotomous measure of 6-month RACF-level concordance with Guideline recommendations and good practice statements among people using antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and antidepressants for changed behaviours. Secondary outcomes will include proportion of residents with Guideline concordant use of antipsychotics, benzodiazepines and antidepressants measured at the RACF-level and proportion of residents with psychotropic medication use, hospitalisation, falls, falls with injury, polypharmacy, quality of life, activities of daily living, medication incidents and behavioural incidents measured at the RACF-level. DISCUSSION: The EMBRACE trial investigates a novel guideline implementation strategy to improve the safe and effective use of psychotropic medications in RACFs. We anticipate that the findings will provide new information on the potential role of knowledge brokers for successful and cost-effective guideline implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR): ACTRN12623001141639. Registered 6 November 2023 - retrospectively registered, https://www.anzctr.org.au/TrialSearch.aspx .

Clinical decision support system supported interventions in hospitalized older patients: a matter of natural course and adequate timing.

BACKGROUND: Drug-related problems (DRPs) and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) are associated with adverse patient and health care outcomes. In the setting of hospitalized older patients, Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) could reduce PIP and therefore improve clinical outcomes. However, prior research showed a low proportion of adherence to CDSS recommendations by clinicians with possible explanatory factors such as little clinical relevance and alert fatigue. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of a CDSS in a real-life setting of hospitalized older patients. We aim to (I) report the natural course and interventions based on the top 20 rule alerts (the 20 most frequently generated alerts per clinical rule) of generated red CDSS alerts (those requiring action) over time from day 1 to 7 of hospitalization; and (II) to explore whether an optimal timing can be defined (in terms of day per rule). METHODS: All hospitalized patients aged ≥ 60 years, admitted to Zuyderland Medical Centre (the Netherlands) were included. The evaluation of the CDSS was investigated using a database used for standard care. Our CDSS was run daily and was evaluated on day 1 to 7 of hospitalization. We collected demographic and clinical data, and moreover the total number of CDSS alerts; the total number of top 20 rule alerts; those that resulted in an action by the pharmacist and the course of outcome of the alerts on days 1 to 7 of hospitalization. RESULTS: In total 3574 unique hospitalized patients, mean age 76.7 (SD 8.3) years and 53% female, were included. From these patients, in total 8073 alerts were generated; with the top 20 of rule alerts we covered roughly 90% of the total. For most rules in the top 20 the highest percentage of resolved alerts lies somewhere between day 4 and 5 of hospitalization, after which there is equalization or a decrease. Although for some rules, there is a gradual increase in resolved alerts until day 7. The level of resolved rule alerts varied between the different clinical rules; varying from > 50-70% (potassium levels, anticoagulation, renal function) to less than 25%. CONCLUSION: This study reports the course of the 20 most frequently generated alerts of a CDSS in a setting of hospitalized older patients. We have shown that for most rules, irrespective of an intervention by the pharmacist, the highest percentage of resolved rules is between day 4 and 5 of hospitalization. The difference in level of resolved alerts between the different rules, could point to more or less clinical relevance and advocates further research to explore ways of optimizing CDSSs by adjustment in timing and number of alerts to prevent alert fatigue.

Appropriate Prescribing for older adults with Multimorbidity (Pro-M): protocol for a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Potentially inappropriate prescribing is common among older adults with multimorbidity due to various reasons, from concurrent application of multiple single-disease clinical guidelines to fragmentation of care. Interventions such as medication review have been implemented worldwide to reduce inappropriate prescribing for older adults. However, the implementability of such interventions are underexplored in the outpatient clinics in Singapore's public hospitals. Hence, the Pro-M study aims to assess the feasibility of implementing a physician-pharmacist collaborative care intervention in geriatric medicine outpatient clinics to facilitate appropriate prescribing for older adults in Singapore. METHODS: This is a single-arm, non-randomised feasibility study using a pre-post evaluation design. This study consists of two parts: (1) implementation phase of the intervention (6 months) and an (2) evaluation phase (3 months). Eligible patients will be recruited from geriatric medicine outpatient clinics at two public hospitals in Singapore through convenience sampling. The main components of the Pro-M intervention are: (1) pharmacist-facilitated medication reviews with feedback on any medication issues and potential recommendations to physicians, and (2) physicians communicating changes to other relevant prescribers. The evaluation phase will involve surveying and interviewing physicians and pharmacists involved in the implementation of the intervention. A mixed-method approach will be employed for data collection and analysis. The quantitative and qualitative findings will be triangulated and reported using Proctor's implementation outcomes: appropriateness, penetration, acceptability, fidelity, feasibility, and sustainability. A basic cost analysis will be conducted alongside the study. DISCUSSION: This is a phase 2 study to test the feasibility of implementing an intervention that was co-created with stakeholders during phase 1 development of an intervention to optimise prescribing for older adults with multimorbidity. The implementation will be assessed using Proctor's implementation outcomes to provide insights on the process and the feasibility of implementing medication reviews for older adults with multimorbidity as a routine practice in outpatient clinics. Data collected from this study will inform a subsequent scale-up study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05756478. Registered on 06 March 2023.

Exploring determinants of antimicrobial prescribing behaviour using the Theoretical Domains Framework.

BACKGROUND: Few theoretically-based, qualitative studies have explored determinants of antimicrobial prescribing behaviour in hospitals. Understanding these can promote successful development and implementation of behaviour change interventions (BCIs). OBJECTIVE: (s): To use the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to explore determinants of clinicians' antimicrobial prescribing behaviour, identifying barriers (i.e., impediments) and facilitators to appropriate antimicrobial practice. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with purposively-sampled doctors and pharmacists with a wide range of specialties and expertise in Hamad Medical Corporation hospitals in Qatar. Interviews based on previous quantitative research and the TDF were audio-recorded, transcribed and independently analysed by two researchers using the TDF as an initial coding framework. RESULTS: Data saturation was achieved after interviewing eight doctors and eight pharmacists. Inter-related determinants of antimicrobial prescribing behaviour linked to ten TDF domains were identified as barriers and facilitators that may contribute to inappropriate or appropriate antimicrobial prescribing. The main barriers identified were around hospital guidelines and electronic system deficiencies (environmental context and resources); knowledge gaps relating to guidelines and appropriate prescribing (knowledge); restricted roles/responsibilities of microbiologists and pharmacists (professional role and identity); challenging antimicrobial prescribing decisions (memory, attention and decision processes); and professional hierarchies and poor multidisciplinary teamworking (social influences). Key facilitators included guidelines compliance (goals and intentions), and participants' beliefs about the consequences of appropriate or inappropriate prescribing. Further education and training, and some changes to guidelines including their accessibility were also considered essential. CONCLUSIONS: Antimicrobial prescribing behaviour in hospitals is a complex process influenced by a broad range of determinants including specific barriers and facilitators. The in-depth understanding of this complexity provided by this work may support the development of an effective BCI to promote appropriate antimicrobial stewardship.

Prediction of general practice licensure/certification examination performance by a measure of 'questionable' activities in clinical practice: a retrospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: 'Low-value' clinical care and medical services are 'questionable' activities, being more likely to cause harm than good or with disproportionately low benefit relative to cost. This study examined the predictive ability of the QUestionable In Training Clinical Activities Index (QUIT-CAI) for general practice (GP) registrars' (trainees') performance in Australian GP Fellowship examinations (licensure/certification examinations for independent GP). METHODS: The study was nested in ReCEnT, an ongoing cohort study in which Australian GP registrars document their in-consultation clinical practice. Outcome factors in analyses were individual registrars' scores on the three Fellowship examinations ('AKT', 'KFP', and 'OSCE' examinations) and pass/fail rates during 2012-21. Analyses used univariable and multivariable regression (linear or logistic, as appropriate). The study factor in each analysis was 'QUIT-CAI score percentage'-the percentage of times a registrar performed a QUIT-CAI clinical activity when 'at risk' (i.e. when managing a problem where performing a QUIT-CAI activity was a plausible option). RESULTS: A total of 1265, 1145, and 553 registrars sat Applied Knowledge Test, Key Features Problem, and Objective Structured Clinical Exam examinations, respectively. On multivariable analysis, higher QUIT-CAI score percentages (more questionable activities) were significantly associated with poorer Applied Knowledge Test scores (P = .001), poorer Key Features Problem scores (P = .003), and poorer Objective Structured Clinical Exam scores (P = .005). QUIT-CAI score percentages predicted Royal Australian College of General Practitioner exam failure [odds ratio 1.06 (95% CI 1.00, 1.12) per 1% increase in QUIT-CAI, P = .043]. CONCLUSION: Performing questionable clinical activities predicted poorer performance in the summative Fellowship examinations, thereby validating these examinations as measures of actual clinical performance (by our measure of clinical performance, which is relevant for a licensure/certification examination).

Clostridium butyricum Bacteremia Associated with Probiotic Use, Japan.

Clostridium butyricum, a probiotic commonly prescribed in Asia, most notably as MIYA-BM (Miyarisan Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; https://www.miyarisan.com), occasionally leads to bacteremia. The prevalence and characteristics of C. butyricum bacteremia and its bacteriologic and genetic underpinnings remain unknown. We retrospectively investigated patients admitted to Osaka University Hospital during September 2011-February 2023. Whole-genome sequencing revealed 5 (0.08%) cases of C. butyricum bacteremia among 6,576 case-patients who had blood cultures positive for any bacteria. Four patients consumed MIYA-BM, and 1 patient consumed a different C. butyricum-containing probiotic. Most patients had compromised immune systems, and common symptoms included fever and abdominal distress. One patient died of nonocclusive mesenteric ischemia. Sequencing results confirmed that all identified C. butyricum bacteremia strains were probiotic derivatives. Our findings underscore the risk for bacteremia resulting from probiotic use, especially in hospitalized patients, necessitating judicious prescription practices.

Characterizing Trends in Diagnosis and Management of Sinusitis in a Large Health Care System: From Primary Care to Otolaryngology.

OBJECTIVES: Variations in management of sinusitis in primary care settings can be associated with inappropriate antibiotic prescriptions and delays in treatment. The objective of this study was to identify patient and provider characteristics associated with possible inaccurate diagnosis and management of sinusitis. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional retrospective analysis using an established regional healthcare database of patients who received a diagnosis of sinusitis between 2011 and 2022 from a non-otolaryngologist provider. Patient's comorbidities, insurance status, chronicity of sinusitis, and prescriptions were included. We noted if patients were referred to an otolaryngology practice and if they received a diagnosis of sinusitis from an otolaryngologist. RESULTS: We analyzed 99 581 unique patients and 168 137 unique encounters. The mean age was 41.5 (±20.4 years) and 35.7% were male. Most patients had private insurance (88.5%), acute sinusitis (81.2%), and were seen at a primary care office (97.8%). Approximately 30% of patients were referred to an otolaryngology practice for sinusitis. Of referred patients, 50.6% did not receive a diagnosis of sinusitis from an otolaryngology practice. Patients without a sinusitis diagnosis by an otolaryngology practice received significantly more mean courses of antibiotics (5.04 vs 2.39, P < .0001) and oral steroids (3.53 vs 2.08, P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: Over half of the patients referred to an otolaryngology practice from primary care for sinusitis did not receive a diagnosis of sinusitis from an otolaryngology practice. Further research should investigate implications for increased healthcare costs and inappropriate prescription trends associated with the management of sinusitis.

Pharmacists working in residential aged care: a survey of pharmacist interest and perceived preparedness.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacists involvement in residential aged care facilities has traditionally been limited to that of an external contractor providing medication reviews, or medication supply. AIM: To explore Australian pharmacists' interest and perceived preparedness to work as on-site pharmacists in residential aged care. METHOD: National cross-sectional anonymous online survey open for two weeks (September 17th to October 1st 2022) consisting of Likert-type, multiple choice and multiple selection questions. Australian pharmacists were recruited using a broad advertising strategy which included social and traditional media platforms, and snowball sampling. Data were collected on pharmacist self-reported interest and perceived preparedness to work as on-site aged care pharmacists in residential aged care. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Responses were received from 720 participants, 643 were eligible. Most participants were female (n = 466, 73%) and mean (SD) age was 43.5 (SD 12.5) years. Over half the participants were interested or extremely interested in working as an on-site aged care pharmacist (56%, n = 360), and agreed or strongly agreed (n = 475, 76%) that they felt prepared to work as an on-site aged care pharmacist. Most pharmacists felt prepared to engage in a variety of roles within the facilities (> 73% for each role), including resident and system level roles, and the majority agreed they felt prepared to engage with stakeholders, including general practitioners (93%) and medical specialists (86%). CONCLUSION: Pharmacists reported they are interested and feel prepared to work as on-site aged care pharmacists. These findings will inform the roll-out of this new model of care to enhance multidisciplinary collaboration in residential aged care.

Inappropriate prescribing in patients with kidney disease: A rapid review of prevalence, associated clinical outcomes and impact of interventions.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and polypharmacy is increasing and has amplified the importance of examining inappropriate prescribing (IP) in CKD. This review focuses on the latest research regarding the prevalence of IP in CKD and the related adverse clinical effects and explores new interventions against IP. METHOD: A literature search was performed using PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library searching articles published between June 2016 and March 2022. RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies were included. An IP prevalence of 12.6% to 96% and 0.3% to 66% was reported in hospital and outpatient settings, respectively. In nonhospital settings, the prevalence of IP varied between 3.9% and 60%. IP was associated with higher risk of hospitalisation (HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.17-1.81), higher bleeding rate (HR 2.34, 95% CI 1.32 to 3.37) and higher risk of all-cause mortality (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.13). Three studies reported the impact of interventions on IP. CONCLUSION: This review highlights widespread IP in CKD patients across healthcare settings, with varying prevalence rates. IP is substantially linked to adverse outcomes in patients. While limited interventions show promise, urgent research is needed to develop effective strategies addressing IP and improving CKD patient care.

Development of a list of Australian potentially inappropriate medicines using the Delphi technique.

BACKGROUND: Older people are at high risk of medicines-related harms. otentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs) list has been developed to assist clinicians and researchers to identify medicines with risks that may potentially outweigh their benefits in order to improve medication management and safety. AIM: To develop a list of PIMs for older people specific to Australia. METHODS: The study obtained expert consensus through the utilisation of the Delphi technique in Australia. A total of 33 experts partook in the initial round, while 32 experts engaged in the subsequent round. The primary outcomes encompass medicines assessed as potentially inappropriate, the specific contexts in which their inappropriateness arises and potentially safer alternatives. RESULTS: A total of 16 medicines or medicine classes had one or more medicines deemed as potentially inappropriate in older people. Up to 19 medicines or medicine classes had specific conditions that make them more potentially inappropriate, while alternatives were suggested for 16 medicines or classes. CONCLUSION: An explicit PIMs list for older people living in Australia has been developed containing 19 drugs/drug classes. The PIMs list is intended to be used as a guide for clinicians when assessing medication appropriateness in older people in Australian clinical settings and does not substitute individualised treatment advice from clinicians.

Prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications among newly treated patients with type 2 diabetes in UK primary care.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) in patients starting their first noninsulin antidiabetic treatment (NIAD) using two explicit process measures of the appropriateness of prescribing in UK primary care, stratified by age and polypharmacy status. METHODS: A descriptive cohort study between 2016 and 2019 was conducted to assess PIPs in patients aged ≥45 years at the start of their first NIAD, stratified by age and polypharmacy status. The American Geriatrics Society Beers criteria 2015 was used for older (≥65 years) patients and the Prescribing Optimally in Middle-age People's Treatments criteria was used for middle-aged (45-64 years) patients. Prevalence of overall PIPs and individual PIPs criteria was reported using the IQVIA Medical Research Data incorporating THIN, a Cegedim Database of anonymized electronic health records in the UK. RESULTS: Among 28 604 patients initiating NIADs, 18 494 (64.7%) received polypharmacy. In older and middle-aged patients with polypharmacy, 39.6% and 22.7%, respectively, received ≥1 PIP. At the individual PIP level, long-term proton pump inhibitors (PPI) use was the most frequent PIP among older adults, and strong opioid without laxatives was the most frequent PIP in middle-aged patients with polypharmacy (11.1% and 4.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that patients starting NIAD treatment receiving polypharmacy have the potential for pharmacotherapy optimization.

Patterns of inappropriate prescribing and clinical characteristics in patients at admission to an acute care of the elderly unit.

PURPOSE: Inappropriate prescribing (IP) is common among the elderly and is associated with adverse health outcomes. The role of different patterns of IP in clinical practice remains unclear. The aim of this study is to analyse the characteristics of different patterns of IP in hospitalized older adults. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study conducted in the acute care of elderly (ACE) unit of an acute hospital in Barcelona between June and August 2021. Epidemiological and demographic data were collected, and a comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) was performed on admitted patients. Four patterns of inappropriate prescribing were identified: extreme polypharmacy (10 or more drugs), potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) and anticholinergic burden. RESULTS: Among 93 admitted patients (51.6% male, mean age of 82.83), the main diagnosis was heart failure (36.6%). Overprescribing patterns (extreme polypharmacy, PIMs, PPOs and anticholinergic burden) were associated with higher comorbidity, increased dependence on instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) and greater prevalence of dementia. Underprescribing (omissions) was associated with important comorbidity, residence in nursing homes, an increased risk of malnutrition, higher social risk and greater frailty. Comparing different patterns of IP, patients with high anticholinergic burden exhibited more extreme polypharmacy and PIMs. In the case of omissions, no association was identified with other IP patterns. CONCLUSIONS: We found statistically significant association between patterns of inappropriate prescribing and clinical and CGA variables such as comorbidity, dependency, dementia or frailty. There is a statistically significant association between patterns of overprescribing among patients admitted to the ACE unit.

Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing and Potential Prescribing Omissions and Their Association with Adverse Drug Reaction-Related Hospital Admissions.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) and their association with ADR-related hospital admissions in patients aged ≥ 65 years admitted acutely to the hospital. METHODS: Information on medications and morbidities was extracted from the Adverse Drug Reactions in an Ageing Population (ADAPT) cohort (N = 798: N = 361 ADR-related admissions; 437 non-ADR-related admissions). PIP and PPOs were assessed using Beers Criteria 2019 and STOPP/START version 2. Multivariable logistic regression (adjusted odds ratios (aOR), 95%CI) was used to examine the association between PIP, PPOs and ADR-related admissions, adjusting for covariates (age, gender, comorbidity, polypharmacy). RESULTS: In total, 715 (90%; 95% CI 87-92%) patients had ≥1 Beers Criteria, 555 (70%; 95% CI 66-73%) had ≥ 1 STOPP criteria and 666 patients (83%; 95% CI 81-86%) had ≥ 1 START criteria. Being prescribed at least one Beers (aOR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.00-2.77), or meeting STOPP (aOR = 1.07, 95% CI = 0.79-1.45) or START (aOR = 0.72; 95%CI = 0.50-1.06) criteria or the number of PIP/PPO criteria met was not significantly associated with ADR-related admissions. Patients prescribed certain drug classes (e.g., antiplatelet agents, diuretics) per individual PIP criteria were more likely to have an ADR-related admission. CONCLUSION: There was a high prevalence of PIP and PPOs in this cohort but no association with ADR-related admissions.

Primary care pharmacist-led medication review in older adult patients in coordination with general practitioners: an observational retrospective cohorts study.

Background: Polypharmacy and risk of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in older adult are being continuously increased. Including a primary care pharmacist (PCP) in the healthcare team is associated with lower rates of medication-related problems (MRPs). Objectives: To determine the impact (in terms of variation of PIP, MRPs and polymedication) of treatment reviews (TR) carried out by the PCP by comparing two cohorts: standard TR vs coordinated TR with prescribing General Practitioners (GP). To assess possible health outcomes in both groups 6 months post-TR. Methods: This is an observational study of two retrospective cohorts (2018 to 2020). All patients who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were analyzed. Patients ≥65 years, who underwent complete TR by the PCP were included. Patients in a situation of exitus at the time of TR and those who underwent a partial TR were excluded. Control group cohort consisted of patients who underwent standard TR, and intervention group cohort consisted of those who underwent TR coordinated with GP. Sociodemographic, clinical and pharmacological variables were analyzed. Results: 181 patients were enrolled. Mean age 84.4 ± 7.2 years, 78.5% women. Variables (GP-coordinated vs standard TRs) pre-post: decrease in drugs/patient 1.9 (95%CI: 1.4-2.4) vs 0.6 (95%CI: 0.2-1.3), p < 0.05; decrease in MRPs/patient 3.1 (95%CI: 2.8-3.4) vs 1.0 (95%CI: 0.6-1.4), p < 0.05; decrease in PIP/patient 2.0 (95% CI: 1.6-2.2) vs 0.6 (95% CI: 0.2-0.9), p < 0.05. Health outcomes: there was significant difference in average primary-care visits/patient 1.3 ± 0.5 vs 2.2 ± 1.8, p < 0.05. Conclusions: Multidisciplinary interventions between PCP and GP, together with a systematic approach to TR can improve the quality of pharmacotherapy in the elderly. Prospective large follow-up studies are needed to demonstrate a positive trend in health outcomes.

Potentially inappropriate prescriptions and potential prescription omissions in older people living with HIV.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) and potential prescription omissions (PPOs) in a Spanish cohort of people living with HIV (PLWH) aged ≥65 years and to identify risk factors for the presence of PIPs and PPOs. METHODS: This retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted across 10 public hospitals in the Autonomous Community of Madrid, Spain. Clinical and demographic data were cross-checked against hospital and community pharmacy dispensation registries. PIPs and PPOs were assessed using the American Geriatrics Society (AGS)/Beers and Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions (STOPP)/Screening Tool to Alert Doctors to Right Treatment (START) criteria. Risk factors for PIPs and PPOs and agreement between AGS/Beers and STOPP/START criteria were statistically analysed. RESULTS: This study included 313 PLWH (median age 72 years), of whom 80.5% were men. PIP prevalence rates were 29.4% and 44.4% based on the AGS/Beers and STOPP criteria, respectively. The concordance between AGS/Beers and STOPP criteria was moderate. Benzodiazepines and proton pump inhibitors were the chronic comedications most commonly involved in PIPs. PPOs were observed in 61.4% of the patients. The leading omissions were insufficient influenza and pneumococcal vaccine coverage and inadequate bone health-related treatments. The number of chronic comedications, female sex, neuropsychiatric disorders, and cancer diagnosis were risk factors for PIPs, whereas osteopenia and osteoporosis were risk factors for PPOs. CONCLUSIONS: A high prevalence of PIPs and PPOs was observed in our cohort of older PLWH. These findings emphasize the importance of comprehensive medication reviews in this population to reduce inappropriate medication use and address their specific and underserved therapeutic needs.