Anticholinergic deprescribing: A case report demonstrating improved cognition and function with minimal adverse withdrawal effects.

Anticholinergic-induced cognitive impairment may be partially reversible upon cessation. A barrier to deprescribing of anticholinergics is the unknown risk of anticholinergic adverse drug withdrawal events (ADWE), with only limited information available on the incidence, timing and severity of anticholinergic ADWE. We report the case of a 76-year-old woman who experienced significant cognitive improvement following deprescribing long-term use of a strong anticholinergic drug, doxepin, and dose reduction of another possible anticholinergic agent. The patient decided to abruptly stop taking doxepin, despite a planned careful taper with twice weekly monitoring, but did not experience any severe anticholinergic ADWE and subsequently had significantly improved cognitive function. Future research should focus on better understanding the risk of anticholinergic ADWE so that anticholinergic deprescribing decisions, including how often and by how much to taper, can be made confidently and safely.

Patient and provider perspectives on the development and resolution of prescribing cascades: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing cascades occur when the side effect of a medication is treated with a second medication. The aim of the study was to understand how prescribing cascades develop and persist and to identify strategies for their identification, prevention and management. METHOD: This qualitative study employed semi-structured interviews to explore the existence of prescribing cascades and to gather patients', caregivers' and clinicians' perspectives about how prescribing cascades start, persist and how they might be resolved. Participants were older adults (over age 65) at an outpatient Geriatric Day Hospital (GDH) with possible prescribing cascades (identified by a GDH team member), their caregivers, and healthcare providers. Data were analyzed using an inductive content analysis approach. RESULTS: Fourteen participants were interviewed (eight patients, one family caregiver, one GDH pharmacist, three GDH physicians and one family physician) providing a total of 22 interviews about patient-specific cases. The complexity and contextually situated nature of prescribing cascades created challenges for all of those involved with their identification. Three themes impacted how prescribing cascades developed and persisted: varying awareness of medications and cascades; varying feelings of accountability for making decisions about medication-related care; and accessibility to an ideal environment and relevant information. Actions to prevent, identify or resolve cascades were suggested. CONCLUSION: Patients and healthcare providers struggled to recognize prescribing cascades and identify when they had occurred; knowledge gaps contributed to this challenge and led to inaction. Strategies that equip patients and clinicians with resources to recognize prescribing cascades and environmental and social supports that would help with their identification are needed. Current conceptualizations of cascades warrant additional refinement by considering the nuances our work raises regarding their appropriateness and directionality.

Community pharmacists as catalysts for deprescribing: An exploratory study using quality improvement processes.

BACKGROUND: There is growing international emphasis on deprescribing, involving the monitored reduction or stopping of medications that are no longer needed or that cause more harm than benefits, especially for the elderly. Community pharmacists are well positioned to partner with patients and their other health care providers in facilitating deprescribing activities. OBJECTIVE: To build community pharmacists' capacity to integrate deprescribing into their daily practices through training and workflow strategies. METHODS: This study used an exploratory mixed-methods (primarily qualitative) design. Staff at 4 Ontario pharmacies were trained to use deprescribing guidelines. Qualitative data were collected through field observations, notes from advisory group meetings and documented Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) plans. Quantitative data were derived from process and output measures reported by the pharmacies. Iterative PDSA cycles allowed the project team to appraise and accelerate process improvements over time and to summarize findings on facilitators, barriers and the adaptation of processes. RESULTS: All 4 pharmacies identified individual and common goals related to deprescribing; however, drugs targeted and use of professional services to identify and address deprescribing opportunities varied. Each demonstrated that deprescribing activities could be integrated into daily practice and workflow. Common themes characterized approaches taken by each pharmacy: (1) processes used for capacity building among staff to identify patients for possible deprescribing, (2) approaches for preliminary interactions with patients, (3) in-depth medication reviews and (4) follow-up and monitoring. Approaches changed over time. CONCLUSION: Deprescribing appears to be feasible in community pharmacies. Data derived to populate a business model canvas informs the development of an in-depth business model for deprescribing. Can Pharm J (Ott) 2019;152:xx-xx.

Deprescribing cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in dementia: guideline summary.

INTRODUCTION: Cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) and memantine are medications used to treat the symptoms of specific types of dementia. Their benefits and harms can change over time, particularly during long term use. Therefore, appropriate use of ChEIs and memantine involves both prescribing these medications to individuals who are likely to benefit, and deprescribing (withdrawing) them from individuals when the risks outweigh the benefits. We recently developed an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for deprescribing ChEIs and memantine, using robust international guideline development processes. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: Our recommendations aim to assist clinicians to: identify individuals who may be suitable for a trial of deprescribing ChEIs and memantine (such as those who do not have an appropriate indication, those who have never experienced a benefit, those who appear to be no longer benefitting, and those who have severe or end-stage dementia); and taper treatment and monitor individuals during the deprescribing process. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THE GUIDELINE: Deprescribing ChEIs and memantine through shared decision making with individuals and their caregivers by: ▶determining their treatment goals; ▶discussing benefits and harms of continuing and ceasing medication, from the start of therapy and throughout; and ▶engaging them in monitoring after discontinuation, while informing carers that the individual will continue to decline after discontinuation. This approach may reduce adverse drug reactions and medication burden, leading to improved quality of life in people with dementia.

Deprescribing antipsychotics for behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia and insomnia: Evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an evidence-based guideline to help clinicians make decisions about when and how to safely taper and stop antipsychotics; to focus on the highest level of evidence available and seek input from primary care professionals in the guideline development, review, and endorsement processes. METHODS: The overall team comprised 9 clinicians (1 family physician, 1 family physician specializing in long-term care, 1 geriatric psychiatrist, 2 geriatricians, 4 pharmacists) and a methodologist; members disclosed conflicts of interest. For guideline development, a systematic process was used, including the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Evidence was generated from a Cochrane systematic review of antipsychotic deprescribing trials for the behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia, and a systematic review was conducted to assess the evidence behind the benefits of using antipsychotics for insomnia. A review of reviews of the harms of continued antipsychotic use was performed, as well as narrative syntheses of patient preferences and resource implications. This evidence and GRADE quality-of-evidence ratings were used to generate recommendations. The team refined guideline content and recommendation wording through consensus and synthesized clinical considerations to address common front-line clinician questions. The draft guideline was distributed to clinicians and stakeholders for review and revisions were made at each stage. RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend deprescribing antipsychotics for adults with behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia treated for at least 3 months (symptoms stabilized or no response to an adequate trial) and for adults with primary insomnia treated for any duration or secondary insomnia in which underlying comorbidities are managed. A decision-support algorithm was developed to accompany the guideline. CONCLUSION: Antipsychotics are associated with harms and can be safely tapered. Patients and caregivers might be more amenable to deprescribing if they understand the rationale (potential for harm), are involved in developing the tapering plan, and are offered behavioural advice or management. This guideline provides recommendations for making decisions about when and how to reduce the dose of or stop antipsychotics. Recommendations are meant to assist with, not dictate, decision making in conjunction with patients and families.

Deprescribing benzodiazepine receptor agonists: Evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an evidence-based guideline to help clinicians make decisions about when and how to safely taper and stop benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRAs); to focus on the highest level of evidence available and seek input from primary care professionals in the guideline development, review, and endorsement processes. METHODS: The overall team comprised 8 clinicians (1 family physician, 2 psychiatrists, 1 clinical psychologist, 1 clinical pharmacologist, 2 clinical pharmacists, and 1 geriatrician) and a methodologist; members disclosed conflicts of interest. For guideline development, a systematic process was used, including the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Evidence was generated by conducting a systematic review of BZRA deprescribing trials for insomnia, as well as performing a review of reviews of the harms of continued BZRA use and narrative syntheses of patient preferences and resource implications. This evidence and GRADE quality of evidence ratings were used to generate recommendations. The team refined guideline content and recommendations through consensus and synthesized clinical considerations to address front-line clinician questions. The draft guideline was reviewed by clinicians and stakeholders. RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend that deprescribing (tapering slowly) of BZRAs be offered to elderly adults (≥ 65 years) who take BZRAs, regardless of duration of use, and suggest that deprescribing (tapering slowly) be offered to adults aged 18 to 64 who have used BZRAs for more than 4 weeks. These recommendations apply to patients who use BZRAs to treat insomnia on its own (primary insomnia) or comorbid insomnia where potential underlying comorbidities are effectively managed. This guideline does not apply to those with other sleep disorders or untreated anxiety, depression, or other physical or mental health conditions that might be causing or aggravating insomnia. CONCLUSION: Benzodiazepine receptor agonists are associated with harms, and therapeutic effects might be short term. Tapering BZRAs improves cessation rates compared with usual care without serious harms. Patients might be more amenable to deprescribing conversations if they understand the rationale (potential for harm), are involved in developing the tapering plan, and are offered behavioural advice. This guideline provides recommendations for making decisions about when and how to reduce and stop BZRAs. Recommendations are meant to assist with, not dictate, decision making in conjunction with patients.

Health care providers' roles and responsibilities in management of polypharmacy: Results of a modified Delphi.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the roles that allow interprofessional teams to effectively manage older patients experiencing polypharmacy. OBJECTIVES: To identify and examine the consensus on salient interprofessional roles, responsibilities and competencies required in managing polypharmacy. METHODS: Four focus groups with 35 team members practising in geriatrics were generated to inform survey development. The sessions generated 63 competencies, roles or responsibilities, which were categorized into 4 domains defined by the Canadian Interprofessional Health Collaborative. The resulting survey was administered nationally to geriatric health care professionals who were asked to rate the importance of each item in managing polypharmacy; we sought agreement within and across professions using a confirmatory 2-round Delphi method. RESULTS: Round 1 was completed by 98 survey respondents and round 2 by 72. There was high intra-professional and interprofessional consensus regarding the importance of competencies among physicians, nurses and pharmacists; though pharmacists rated fewer competencies as important. Less consensus was observed among other health care professionals or they indicated the nonimportance of competencies despite focus group discussion to the contrary. DISCUSSION: Although there is a strong consensus of polypharmacy management competencies across team members who have been more traditionally involved in medication management, there continue to be health care providers with differing understandings of competencies that may contribute to reduced reliance on medication. Lower importance ratings suggest pharmacists may not acknowledge or recognize their own potential roles in interprofessional polypharmacy management. CONCLUSION: Further exploration to understand the underutilization of professional expertise in managing polypharmacy will contribute to refining role clarity and translating competencies in practical settings, as well as guiding educators regarding curricular content.

Deprescribing versus continuation of chronic proton pump inhibitor use in adults.

BACKGROUND: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are a class of medications that reduce acid secretion and are used for treating many conditions such as gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), dyspepsia, reflux esophagitis, peptic ulcer disease, and hypersecretory conditions (e.g. Zollinger-Ellison syndrome), and as part of the eradication therapy for Helicobacter pylori bacteria. However, approximately 25% to 70% of people are prescribed a PPI inappropriately. Chronic PPI use without reassessment contributes to polypharmacy and puts people at risk of experiencing drug interactions and adverse events (e.g. Clostridium difficile infection, pneumonia, hypomagnesaemia, and fractures). OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects (benefits and harms) associated with deprescribing long-term PPI therapy in adults, compared to chronic daily use (28 days or greater). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 10), MEDLINE, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP). The last date of search was November 2016. We handsearched the reference lists of relevant studies. We screened 2357 articles (2317 identified through search strategy, 40 through other resources). Of these articles, we assessed 89 for eligibility. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized trials comparing at least one deprescribing modality (e.g. stopping PPI or reducing PPI) with a control consisting of no change in continuous daily PPI use in adult chronic users. Outcomes of interest were: change in gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms, drug burden/PPI use, cost/resource use, negative and positive drug withdrawal events, and participant satisfaction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed and extracted data and completed the risk of bias assessment. A third review author independently confirmed risk of bias assessment. We used Review Manager 5 software for data analysis. We contacted study authors if there was missing information. MAIN RESULTS: The review included six trials (n = 1758). Trial participants were aged 48 to 57 years, except for one trial that had a mean age of 73 years. All participants were from the outpatient setting and had either nonerosive reflux disease or milder grades of esophagitis (LA grade A or B). Five trials investigated on-demand deprescribing and one trial examined abrupt discontinuation. There was low quality evidence that on-demand use of PPI may increase risk of 'lack of symptom control' compared with continuous PPI use (risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.31 to 2.21), thereby favoring continuous PPI use (five trials, n = 1653). There was a clinically significant reduction in 'drug burden', measured as PPI pill use per week with on-demand therapy (mean difference (MD) -3.79, 95% CI -4.73 to -2.84), favoring deprescribing based on moderate quality evidence (four trials, n = 1152). There was also low quality evidence that on-demand PPI use may be associated with reduced participant satisfaction compared with continuous PPI use. None of the included studies reported cost/resource use or positive drug withdrawal effects. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with mild GERD, on-demand deprescribing may lead to an increase in GI symptoms (e.g. dyspepsia, regurgitation) and probably a reduction in pill burden. There was a decline in participant satisfaction, although heterogeneity was high. There were insufficient data to make a conclusion regarding long-term benefits and harms of PPI discontinuation, although two trials (one on-demand trial and one abrupt discontinuation trial) reported endoscopic findings in their intervention groups at study end.

Deprescribing antihyperglycemic agents in older persons: Evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an evidence-based guideline to help clinicians make decisions about when and how to safely taper, stop, or switch antihyperglycemic agents in older adults. METHODS: We focused on the highest level of evidence available and sought input from primary care professionals in guideline development, review, and endorsement processes. Seven clinicians (2 family physicians, 3 pharmacists, 1 nurse practitioner, and 1 endocrinologist) and a methodologist comprised the overall team; members disclosed conflicts of interest. We used a rigorous process, including the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach, for guideline development. We conducted a systematic review to assess evidence for the benefits and harms of deprescribing antihyperglycemic agents. We performed a review of reviews of the harms of continued antihyperglycemic medication use, and narrative syntheses of patient preferences and resource implications. We used these syntheses and GRADE quality-of-evidence ratings to generate recommendations. The team refined guideline content and recommendation wording through consensus and synthesized clinical considerations to address common front-line clinician questions. The draft guideline was distributed to clinicians and stakeholders for review and revisions were made at each stage. A decision-support algorithm was developed to accompany the guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend deprescribing antihyperglycemic medications known to contribute to hypoglycemia in older adults at risk or in situations where antihyperglycemic medications might be causing other adverse effects, and individualizing targets and deprescribing accordingly for those who are frail, have dementia, or have a limited life expectancy. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides practical recommendations for making decisions about deprescribing antihyperglycemic agents. Recommendations are meant to assist with, not dictate, decision making in conjunction with patients.

Deprescribing proton pump inhibitors: Evidence-based clinical practice guideline.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an evidence-based guideline to help clinicians make decisions about when and how to safely taper or stop proton pump inhibitors (PPIs); to focus on the highest level of evidence available and seek input from primary care professionals in the guideline development, review, and endorsement processes. METHODS: Five health professionals (1 family physician, 3 pharmacists, and 1 gastroenterologist) and 5 nonvoting members comprised the overall team; members disclosed conflicts of interest. The guideline process included the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach, with a detailed evidence review in in-person, telephone, and online meetings. Uniquely, the guideline development process included a systematic review of PPI deprescribing trials and examination of reviews of the harm of continued PPI use. Narrative syntheses of patient preferences and resource-implication literature informed recommendations. The team refined guideline content and recommendation wording through consensus and synthesized clinical considerations to address common front-line clinician questions. The draft guideline was distributed to clinicians and then to health care professional associations for review and revisions made at each stage. A decision-support algorithm was developed in conjunction with the guideline. RECOMMENDATIONS: This guideline recommends deprescribing PPIs (reducing dose, stopping, or using "on-demand" dosing) in adults who have completed a minimum of 4 weeks of PPI treatment for heartburn or mild to moderate gastroesophageal reflux disease or esophagitis, and whose symptoms are resolved. The recommendations do not apply to those who have or have had Barrett esophagus, severe esophagitis grade C or D, or documented history of bleeding gastrointestinal ulcers. CONCLUSION: This guideline provides practical recommendations for making decisions about when and how to reduce the dose of or stop PPIs. Recommendations are meant to assist with, not dictate, decision making in conjunction with patients.

Treatment of neonatal sepsis with intravenous immune globulin.

BACKGROUND: Neonatal sepsis is a major cause of death and complications despite antibiotic treatment. Effective adjunctive treatments are needed. Newborn infants are relatively deficient in endogenous immunoglobulin. Meta-analyses of trials of intravenous immune globulin for suspected or proven neonatal sepsis suggest a reduced rate of death from any cause, but the trials have been small and have varied in quality. METHODS: At 113 hospitals in nine countries, we enrolled 3493 infants receiving antibiotics for suspected or proven serious infection and randomly assigned them to receive two infusions of either polyvalent IgG immune globulin (at a dose of 500 mg per kilogram of body weight) or matching placebo 48 hours apart. The primary outcome was death or major disability at the age of 2 years. RESULTS: There was no significant between-group difference in the rates of the primary outcome, which occurred in 686 of 1759 infants (39.0%) who received intravenous immune globulin and in 677 of 1734 infants (39.0%) who received placebo (relative risk, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.08). Similarly, there were no significant differences in the rates of secondary outcomes, including the incidence of subsequent sepsis episodes. In follow-up of 2-year-old infants, there were no significant differences in the rates of major or nonmajor disability or of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Therapy with intravenous immune globulin had no effect on the outcomes of suspected or proven neonatal sepsis.