Validating claims-based definitions for deprescribing: Bridging the gap between clinical and administrative data.

BACKGROUND: Limited research has evaluated the validity of claims-based definitions for deprescribing. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the validity of claims-based definitions of deprescribing against electronic health records (EHRs) for deprescribing of benzodiazepines (BZDs) after a fall-related hospitalization. METHODS: We used a novel data linkage between Medicare fee-for-service (FFS) and Part D with our health system's EHR. We identified patients aged ≥66 years with a fall-related hospitalization, continuous enrollment in Medicare FFS and Part D for 6 months pre- and post-hospitalization, and ≥2 BZD fills in the 6 months pre-hospitalization. Using a standardized EHR abstraction tool, we adjudicated deprescribing for a sub-sample with a fall-related hospitalization at UNC. We evaluated the validity of claims-based deprescribing definitions (e.g., gaps in supply, dosage reductions) versus chart review using sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: Among 257 patients in the overall sample, 44% were aged 66-74 years, 35% had Medicare low-income subsidy, 79% were female. Among claims-based definitions using gaps in supply, the prevalence of BZD deprescribing ranged from 8.2% (no refills) to 36.6% (30-day gap). When incorporating dosage, the prevalence ranged from 55.3% to 65.8%. Among the validation sub-sample (n = 47), approximately one-third had BZDs deprescribed in the EHR. Compared to EHR, gaps in supply from claims had good sensitivity, but poor specificity. Incorporating dosage increased sensitivity, but worsened specificity. CONCLUSIONS: The sensitivity of claims-based definitions for deprescribing of BZDs was low; however, the specificity of a 90-day gap was >90%. Replication in other EHRs and for other low-value medications is needed to guide future deprescribing research.

Influence of chronic medical conditions on older patients' willingness to deprescribe medications: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Aging correlates with a heightened prevalence of chronic diseases, resulting in multimorbidity affecting 60% of those aged 65 or older. Multimorbidity often leads to polypharmacy, elevating the risk of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use and adverse health outcomes. To address these issues, deprescribing has emerged as a patient-centered approach that considers patients' beliefs and attitudes toward medication and reduces inappropriate polypharmacy in older adults. Our study aims to investigate whether certain chronic medical conditions are associated with older patients' willingness to deprescribe medications. METHODS: A cross-sectional study enrolled 192 community-dwelling individuals aged 65 or older taking at least one regular medication. Data included demographics, clinical characteristics, and responses to the Portuguese revised Patients' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire. Descriptive statistics characterized participants, while multiple binary logistic regression identified associations between chronic medical conditions and willingness to deprescribe. RESULTS: Among the participants (median age: 72 years, 65.6% female), 91.6% had multimorbidity. The analysis revealed that willingness to deprescribe significantly increased with the presence of gastric disease (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 4.123; 95% CI 1.221, 13.915) and age (aOR = 1.121; 95% CI 1.009, 1.246). Conversely, prostatic pathology (aOR = 0.266; 95% CI 0.077, 0.916), higher scores in the rPATD appropriateness factor (aOR = 0.384; 95% CI 0.190, 0.773), and rPATD concerns about stopping factor (aOR = 0.450; 95% CI 0.229, 0.883) diminished patients' willingness to deprescribe. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the intricate relationship between older patients' attitudes toward deprescribing and chronic medical conditions. We found that gastric disease was associated with an increased willingness to deprescribe medications, while prostate disease was associated with the opposite effect. Future research should explore how patients with specific diseases or groups of diseases perceive deprescribing of medications general and for specific medications, aiding in the development of targeted interventions.

Implementation of an intervention aimed at deprescribing benzodiazepines in a large US healthcare system using patient education materials: a pre/post-observational study with a control group.

OBJECTIVES: Long-term benzodiazepine use is common despite known risks. In the original Eliminating Medications Through Patient Ownership of End Results (EMPOWER) Study set in Canada, patient education led to increased rates of benzodiazepine cessation. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of implementing an adapted EMPOWER quality improvement (QI) initiative in a US-based healthcare system. DESIGN: We used a pre-post design with a non-randomised control group. SETTING: A network of primary care clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with ≥60 days' supply of benzodiazepines in 6 months and ≥1 risk factor (≥65 years of age, a concurrent high-risk medication prescribed or a diazepam equivalent daily dose ≥10) were eligible. INTERVENTION: In March 2022, we engaged 22 primary care physicians (PCPs), and 308 of their patients were mailed an educational brochure, physician letter and flyer detailing benzodiazepine risks; the control group included 4 PCPs and 291 of their patients. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY MEASURES: The primary measure was benzodiazepine cessation by 9 months. We used logistic regression and a generalised estimating equations approach to control for clustering by PCP, adjusting for demographics, frailty, number of risk factors, and diagnoses of arthritis, depression, diabetes, falls, and pain. RESULTS: Patients in the intervention and control groups were comparable across most covariates; however, a greater proportion of intervention patients had pain-related diagnoses and depression. By 9 months, 26% of intervention patients (81 of 308) had discontinued benzodiazepines, compared with 17% (49 of 291) of control patients. Intervention patients had 1.73 greater odds of benzodiazepine discontinuation compared with controls (95% CI: 1.09, 2.75, p=0.02). The unadjusted number needed to treat was 10.5 (95% CI: 6.30, 34.92) and the absolute risk reduction was 0.095 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this non-randomised QI initiative indicate that patient education programmes using the EMPOWER brochures have the potential to promote cessation of benzodiazepines in primary care.

Clinician and Family Caregiver Perspectives on Deprescribing Chronic Disease Medications in Older Nursing Home Residents Near the End of Life.

INTRODUCTION: Nursing home (NH) residents with limited life expectancy (LLE) who are intensely treated for hyperlipidemia, hypertension, or diabetes may benefit from deprescribing. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to describe NH clinician and family caregiver perspectives on key influences on deprescribing decisions for chronic disease medications in NH residents near the end of life. METHODS: We recruited family caregivers of veterans who recently died in a Veterans Affairs (VA) NH, known as community living centers (CLCs), and CLC healthcare clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, pharmacists, registered nurses). Respondents completed semi-structured interviews about their experiences with deprescribing statin, antihypertensive, and antidiabetic medications for residents near end of life. We conducted thematic analysis of interview transcripts to identify key themes regarding influences on deprescribing decisions. RESULTS: Thirteen family caregivers and 13 clinicians completed interviews. Key themes included (1) clinicians and caregivers both prefer to minimize drug burden; (2) clinical factors strongly influence deprescribing of chronic disease medications, with differences in how clinicians and caregivers weigh specific factors; (3) caregivers trust and rely on clinicians to make deprescribing decisions; (4) clinicians perceive caregiver involvement and buy-in as essential to deprescribing decisions, which requires time and effort to obtain; and (5) clinicians perceive conflicting care from other clinicians as a barrier to deprescribing. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest a need for efforts to encourage communication with and education for family caregivers of residents with LLE about deprescribing, and to foster better collaboration among clinicians in CLC and non-CLC settings.

Proactive Polypharmacy Management Using Large Language Models: Opportunities to Enhance Geriatric Care.

Polypharmacy remains an important challenge for patients with extensive medical complexity. Given the primary care shortage and the increasing aging population, effective polypharmacy management is crucial to manage the increasing burden of care. The capacity of large language model (LLM)-based artificial intelligence to aid in polypharmacy management has yet to be evaluated. Here, we evaluate ChatGPT's performance in polypharmacy management via its deprescribing decisions in standardized clinical vignettes. We inputted several clinical vignettes originally from a study of general practicioners' deprescribing decisions into ChatGPT 3.5, a publicly available LLM, and evaluated its capacity for yes/no binary deprescribing decisions as well as list-based prompts in which the model was prompted to choose which of several medications to deprescribe. We recorded ChatGPT responses to yes/no binary deprescribing prompts and the number and types of medications deprescribed. In yes/no binary deprescribing decisions, ChatGPT universally recommended deprescribing medications regardless of ADL status in patients with no overlying CVD history; in patients with CVD history, ChatGPT's answers varied by technical replicate. Total number of medications deprescribed ranged from 2.67 to 3.67 (out of 7) and did not vary with CVD status, but increased linearly with severity of ADL impairment. Among medication types, ChatGPT preferentially deprescribed pain medications. ChatGPT's deprescribing decisions vary along the axes of ADL status, CVD history, and medication type, indicating some concordance of internal logic between general practitioners and the model. These results indicate that specifically trained LLMs may provide useful clinical support in polypharmacy management for primary care physicians.

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)

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a collaborative deprescribing intervention of proton-pump-inhibitors on community-dwelling older adults: Protocol for the C-SENIoR, a pragmatic non-randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Worldwide, demographic ageing is a major social, economic and health challenge. Despite the increase in life expectancy, elderly often live with multiple chronic conditions, exposing them to multiple medications. Concerns have been raised about the growing issue of inappropriate long-term usage of proton-pump inhibitors (PPI), which have been associated with adverse outcomes and increased healthcare costs. Deprescribing is a recommended intervention to reduce or withdraw medicines that might be causing harm or might no longer be of benefit. This protocol details a trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a collaborative deprescribing intervention of PPI among community-dwelling elderly, involving community pharmacists and general practitioners. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, non-randomised controlled trial of a structured PPI collaborative deprescribing intervention in the primary care setting with a 6-month follow-up will be conducted. Patients must be 65 years old or older, live in the community and have been using PPI for more than 8 weeks. We hypothesize that the intervention will reduce the PPI usage in the intervention group compared to the control group. The primary outcome is the successful discontinuation or dose decrease of any PPI, defined as a statistically significant absolute 20% reduction in medication use between the intervention and control groups at 3- and 6-month follow-ups. An economic evaluation will be conducted alongside the trial. This study was approved by the Ethics Research Committee of Nova Medical School, NOVA University of Lisbon and by the Ethics Committee from the Local Health Unit Alto Minho, Portugal. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a patient-centred collaborative deprescribing intervention in the community setting in Portugal. It will also inform improvements for the development of future multi-faceted interventions that aim to optimise medication for the community-dwelling elderly. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 49637686.

Older Adult and Primary Care Practitioner Perspectives on Using, Prescribing, and Deprescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain.

Importance: Guidelines recommend deprescribing opioids in older adults due to risk of adverse effects, yet little is known about patient-clinician opioid deprescribing conversations. Objective: To understand the experiences of older adults and primary care practitioners (PCPs) with using opioids for chronic pain and discussing opioid deprescribing. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study conducted semistructured individual qualitative interviews with 18 PCPs and 29 adults 65 years or older prescribed opioids between September 15, 2022, and April 26, 2023, at a Boston-based academic medical center. The PCPs were asked about their experiences prescribing and deprescribing opioids to older adults. Patients were asked about their experiences using and discussing opioid medications with PCPs. Main Outcome and Measures: Shared and conflicting themes between patients and PCPs regarding perceptions of opioid prescribing and barriers to deprescribing. Results: In total, 18 PCPs (12 [67%] younger that 50 years; 10 [56%] female; and 14 [78%] based at an academic practice) and 29 patients (mean [SD] age, 72 [5] years; 19 [66%] female) participated. Participants conveyed that conversations between PCPs and patients on opioid use for chronic pain were typically challenging and that conversations regarding opioid risks and deprescribing were uncommon. Three common themes related to experiences with opioids for chronic pain emerged in both patient and PCP interviews: opioids were used as a last resort, opioids were used to improve function and quality of life, and trust was vital in a clinician-patient relationship. Patients and PCPs expressed conflicting views on risks of opioids, with patients focusing on addiction and PCPs focusing on adverse drug events. Both groups felt deprescribing conversations were often unsuccessful but had conflicting views on barriers to successful conversations. Patients felt deprescribing was often unnecessary unless an adverse event occurred, and many patients had prior negative experiences tapering. The PCPs described gaps in knowledge on how to taper, a lack of clinical access to monitor patients during tapering, and concerns about patient resistance. Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, PCPs and older adults receiving long-term opioid therapy viewed the use of opioids as a beneficial last resort for treating chronic pain but expressed dissonant views on the risks associated with opioids, which made deprescribing conversations challenging. Interventions, such as conversation aids, are needed to support collaborative discussion about deprescribing opioids.

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.

Evaluation of deprescription by general practitioners in elderly people with different levels of dependence: cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is easily achieved in elderly patients with multimorbidity and it is associated with a higher risk of potentially inappropriate medication use and worse health outcomes. Studies have shown that deprescription is safe, however, some barriers have been identified. The aim of this study was to analyse Portuguese General Practitioners (GP) deprescription's attitudes using clinical vignettes. METHODS: Cross-sectional study using an online survey with 3 sections: demographic and professional characterization; two clinical vignettes with an elderly patient with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in which the dependency level varies; barriers and factors influencing deprescription. Frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated to describe the GPs. Analysis of the deprescription attitude, globally and for each drug, for each clinical vignette applying the McNeemar's test. RESULTS: A sample of 396 GP was obtained with a mean age of 38 years, most of them female. A statistically significant difference (p < 0.01) was observed in deprescribing according to the patient dependency level, with more GPs (80.4% versus 75.3%) deprescribing in the most dependent patient. A statistically significant difference was found for all drugs except for antihypertensive drugs. All medications were deprescribed more often in dependent patients except for anti-dementia drugs. More than 70% of the participants considered life expectancy and quality of life as "very important" factors for deprescription and more than 90% classified the existence of guidelines and the risks and benefits of medication as "very important" or "important". In the open question, the factors most reported by the GP were those related to the patient (52,9%). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study on this topic carried out in Portugal using clinical vignettes, with a representative sample of Portuguese GP. The level of dependence significatively influenced the deprescription attitude of Portuguese GPs. The majority of the GPs classified the quality of life, life expectancies, potential negative effects and the existence of guidelines as "very important" or "important" while deprescribing. It is important to develop and test deprescribing in real life studies to analyze if these attitudes are the same in daily practice.

[Deprescribing statinsand other cardiovascular medications Barriers and facilitators]. / Déprescription des statines et autres médicaments cardiovasculaires. Obstacles et facilitateurs.

Considering the growing problematic of polypharmacy, this article summarizes barriers and facilitators to deprescribing cardiovascular medications, from the point of view of physicians and patients. Patients seem to be more open to discontinue cardiovascular medications when their physician suggests to do so, or if they dislike the medication. Physicians tend to consider deprescribing more if they had positive experiences with deprescribing in the past, or if their patients ask them to. The most common barrier for patients is the fear of health deterioration. Patient desire to continue with their usual medication or past negative experiences with depresecribing are frequently reported as barriers by physicians.

Vu le problème croissant de la polypharmacie, cet article résume les différents obstacles et facilitateurs à la déprescription des médicaments cardiovasculaires, du point de vue des médecins et des patients. Ces derniers sont plus enclins à stopper des médicaments cardiovasculaires lorsque cela leur est proposé par leur médecin traitant ou s'ils n'aiment pas le médicament. Les médecins arrêtent plus facilement les traitements s'ils ont déjà eu des expériences positives de déprescription et si leurs patients le leur demandent. L'obstacle le plus fréquent pour les patients est la peur d'une détérioration de leur état de santé. Pour les médecins, la volonté du patient de poursuivre le traitement, ou une expérience passée négative avec la déprescription, sont des obstacles fréquents.

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.

Cost-Consequence Analysis of Deprescribing to Optimize Health Outcomes for Frail Older People: A Within-Trial Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The structured, clinically supervised withdrawal of medicines, known as deprescribing, is one strategy to address inappropriate polypharmacy. This study aimed to evaluate the costs and consequences of deprescribing in frail older people living in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) in Australia. DESIGN: A within-trial cost-consequence analysis of a deprescribing intervention-Opti-Med. The Opti-Med double-blind randomized controlled trial of deprescribing included 3 groups: blinded control, blinded intervention, and an open intervention group. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen RACFs in Western Australia and New South Wales. Participants were 303 older people living in participating RACFs from March 2014 to February 2019. METHODS: Analysis was conducted from the health sector perspective. Health economic outcomes assessed include cost saved from deprescribed medicines and the incremental quality-adjusted life-years. Costs were presented in 2022 Australian dollars. RESULTS: The total cost of the Opti-Med intervention was $239.13 per participant. The costs saved through deprescribed medicines over 12 months after adjusting for mortality within the trial period was $328.90 per participant in the blinded intervention group and $164.00 per participant in the open intervention group. On average, the cost of the intervention was more than offset by the cost saved from deprescribed medicines. Extrapolating these findings to the Australian population suggests a potential net cost saving of about $1 to $16 million per annum for the health system nationally. The incremental quality-adjusted life-years were very similar across the 3 groups within the trial period. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Deprescribing for frail older people living in RACFs can be a cost-saving intervention without reducing the quality of life. Systemwide implementation of deprescribing across RACFs in Australia has the potential to improve health care delivery through the cost savings, which could be reapplied to further optimize care within RACFs.

Predictors and Outcomes of Oral Anticoagulant Deprescribing in Geriatric Inpatients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Retrospective Multicenter Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate prevalence and predictors of oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) deprescribing in older inpatients with atrial fibrillation (AF), and its association with 1-year incidence of major clinical outcomes. DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Inpatients aged ≥75 years with known AF on OAT at admission discharged from 3 Italian acute geriatric wards between January 2014 and July 2018. METHODS: Data from a routine Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA), along with OAT status at discharge were recorded. One-year incidence of all-cause death, stroke or systemic embolism (SSE), and major and clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding (MB/CRNMB) were retrieved from administrative databases. Associations were explored through multilevel analysis. RESULTS: Among 1578 patients (median age 86 years, 56.3% female), OAT deprescription (341 patients, 21.6%) was associated with bleeding risk, functional dependence and cognitive impairment, and inversely, with previous SSE and chronic AF. Incidences of death, SSE, and MB/CRNMB were 56.6%, 1.5%, and 4.1%, respectively, in OAT-deprescribed patients, and 37.6%, 2.9%, and 4.9%, respectively, in OAT-continued patients, without significant differences between groups. OAT deprescription was associated with all-cause mortality [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.41, 95% CI 1.68-1.85], along with older age, comorbidity burden, cognitive impairment, and functional dependence, but with neither SSE nor MB/CRNMB incidence, as opposed to being alive and free from SSE and MB/CNRMB, respectively (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.25-1.82, and aOR 0.95 95% CI 0.49-1.85, respectively). Conversely, OAT deprescription was associated with higher odds of being dead than alive both in patients free from SSE and in those free from MB/CRNMB. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: CGA-based OAT deprescribing is common in acute geriatric wards and is not associated with increased SSE. The net clinical benefit of OAT in geriatric patients is strongly related with the competing risk of death, suggesting that functional and cognitive status, as well as residual life expectancy, should be considered in clinical decision making in this population.

Development and Pilot Testing of an Algorithm-Based Approach to Anticholinergic Deprescribing in Older Patients.

BACKGROUND: Adverse anticholinergic drug reactions are common, yet evidence on how to reduce exposure to anticholinergic activity and reliably measure successful deprescribing is still scant. This study proposes an algorithm-based approach to evaluate and reduce anticholinergic load, and reports the results of its pilot testing. METHODS: Based on published evidence and expert opinion, a list of 85 anticholinergic drugs and 21 algorithms for reducing anticholinergic load, e.g., by recommending alternative drugs with lower risk, were developed. An accompanying test battery was assembled by focusing on instruments that sensitively reflect anticholinergic load and may be sensitive to depict changes (Neuropsychological Assessment Battery to measure memory and attention, validated assessments for constipation, urinary symptoms, and xerostomia, as well as blood biomarkers). The approach was pilot-tested in a geriatric rehabilitation unit, with clinician feedback as the primary outcome and characterization of anticholinergic symptoms as the secondary outcome. The intervention was delivered by a pharmacist and a clinical pharmacologist who used the algorithms to generate personalized recommendation letters. RESULTS: We included a total of 20 patients, 13 with anticholinergic drugs and 7 without. Recommendations were made for 22 drugs in nine patients from the intervention group, of which seven letters (78%) were considered helpful and 8/22 (36%) anticholinergic drugs were discontinued, reducing anticholinergic load in seven patients. In contrast to patients without drug change, memory assessment in patients with reduced anticholinergic load improved significantly after 2 weeks (6 ± 3 vs. -1 ± 6 points). CONCLUSIONS: The approach was well received by the participating physicians and might support standardized anticholinergic deprescribing.

Understanding Australian general practice patients' decisions to deprescribe antidepressants in the WiserAD trial: a realist informed approach.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how an approach to antidepressant deprescribing works, for whom, and in what contexts by (1) examining the experiences and perceptions of the approach for antidepressant users, (2) identifying the mechanisms of the approach and (3) describing what contexts are associated with antidepressant tapering. DESIGN: This mixed methods study was informed by the principles of realist evaluation and was conducted in the first 3 months of participation in the WiserAD randomised control trial. SETTING: General practice, Victoria, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 13 antidepressant users from general practice participating in the WiserAD trial for antidepressant deprescribing. INTERVENTION: A patient-facing, web-based structured support tool that consists of a personalised tapering schedule, an action plan for managing withdrawal symptoms, a daily mood, sleep and activity tracker and mental health nurse support. PRIMARY/SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcomes of the study were revealed on data analysis as per a realist evaluation approach which tests and refines an initial programme theory. RESULTS: The contexts of learnt coping skills, knowledge and perceptions of antidepressants and feeling well were evident. Outcomes were intention to commence, initiation of deprescribing and successful completion of deprescribing. Key mechanisms for antidepressant deprescribing were (1) initiation of the deprescribing discussion; (2) patient self-efficacy; (3) provision of structured guidance; (4) coaching; (5) mood, sleep and activity tracking and (6) feelings of safety during the tapering period. CONCLUSIONS: The WiserAD approach to antidepressant deprescribing supported participants to commence and/or complete tapering. The refined programme theory presents the WiserAD pragmatic framework for the application of antidepressant deprescribing in clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05355025; ACTRN12622000567729; ISRCTN11562922; Pre-results.

Efficacy of deprescribing on health outcomes: An umbrella review of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing is an important intervention across different settings in medicine, but the literature supporting such a practice is still conflicting. Therefore, we aimed to capture the breadth of outcomes reported and assess the strength of evidence of the use of deprescribing for health outcomes. METHODS: Umbrella review of systematic reviews of the use of deprescribing searching in Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science until 01 November 2023. The grading of evidence was carried out using the GRADE for intervention studies, whilst data regarding systematic reviews were reported as narrative findings. RESULTS: Among 456 papers, 12 systematic reviews (six with meta-analysis) for a total of 231 RCTs and 44,193 patients were included. In any setting, deprescribing was able to significantly reduce the number of total and of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in older patients (low certainty of evidence) and to reduce the proportion of participants potentially having several or PIMs (moderate certainty of evidence). In community, supported by a high certainty of evidence, deprescribing was not more effective than standard care in decreasing injurious falls, any falls or number of fallers. In nursing home, deprescribing was associated with a significantly lower PIMs than standard care (very low certainty of evidence). In end-of-life situations, deprescribing significantly reduced mortality rate of approximately 41% (high certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Deprescribing is a promising intervention across different settings and situations, but a notable gap in the literature concerning its effects on substantial outcomes still exists.