Defining, identifying and addressing problematic polypharmacy within multimorbidity in primary care: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Polypharmacy and multimorbidity pose escalating challenges. Despite numerous attempts, interventions have yet to show consistent improvements in health outcomes. A key factor may be varied approaches to targeting patients for intervention. OBJECTIVES: To explore how patients are targeted for intervention by examining the literature with respect to: understanding how polypharmacy is defined; identifying problematic polypharmacy in practice; and addressing problematic polypharmacy through interventions. DESIGN: We performed a scoping review as defined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. SETTING: The focus was on primary care settings. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Cochrane along with ClinicalTrials.gov, Science.gov and WorldCat.org were searched from January 2004 to February 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all articles that had a focus on problematic polypharmacy in multimorbidity and primary care, incorporating multiple types of evidence, such as reviews, quantitative trials, qualitative studies and policy documents. Articles focussing on a single index disease or not written in English were excluded. EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed a narrative synthesis, comparing themes and findings across the collective evidence to draw contextualised insights and conclusions. RESULTS: In total, 157 articles were included. Case-finding methods often rely on basic medication counts (often five or more) without considering medical history or whether individual medications are clinically appropriate. Other approaches highlight specific drug indicators and interactions as potentially inappropriate prescribing, failing to capture a proportion of patients not fitting criteria. Different potentially inappropriate prescribing criteria also show significant inconsistencies in determining the appropriateness of medications, often neglecting to consider multimorbidity and underprescribing. This may hinder the identification of the precise population requiring intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Improved strategies are needed to target patients with polypharmacy, which should consider patient perspectives, individual factors and clinical appropriateness. The development of a cross-cutting measure of problematic polypharmacy that consistently incorporates adjustment for multimorbidity may be a valuable next step to address frequent confounding.

Protocol for the development and validation of a Polypharmacy Assessment Score.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of people are using multiple medications each day, named polypharmacy. This is driven by an ageing population, increasing multimorbidity, and single disease-focussed guidelines. Medications carry obvious benefits, yet polypharmacy is also linked to adverse consequences including adverse drug events, drug-drug and drug-disease interactions, poor patient experience and wasted resources. Problematic polypharmacy is 'the prescribing of multiple medicines inappropriately, or where the intended benefits are not realised'. Identifying people with problematic polypharmacy is complex, as multiple medicines can be suitable for people with several chronic conditions requiring more treatment. Hence, polypharmacy is often potentially problematic, rather than always inappropriate, dependent on clinical context and individual benefit vs risk. There is a need to improve how we identify and evaluate these patients by extending beyond simple counts of medicines to include individual factors and long-term conditions. AIM: To produce a Polypharmacy Assessment Score to identify a population with unusual levels of prescribing who may be at risk of potentially problematic polypharmacy. METHODS: Analyses will be performed in three parts: 1. A prediction model will be constructed using observed medications count as the dependent variable, with age, gender and long-term conditions as independent variables. A 'Polypharmacy Assessment Score' will then be constructed through calculating the differences between the observed and expected count of prescribed medications, thereby highlighting people that have unexpected levels of prescribing. Parts 2 and 3 will examine different aspects of validity of the Polypharmacy Assessment Score: 2. To assess 'construct validity', cross-sectional analyses will evaluate high-risk prescribing within populations defined by a range of Polypharmacy Assessment Scores, using both explicit (STOPP/START criteria) and implicit (Medication Appropriateness Index) measures of inappropriate prescribing. 3. To assess 'predictive validity', a retrospective cohort study will explore differences in clinical outcomes (adverse drug reactions, unplanned hospitalisation and all-cause mortality) between differing scores. DISCUSSION: Developing a cross-cutting measure of polypharmacy may allow healthcare professionals to prioritise and risk stratify patients with polypharmacy using unusual levels of prescribing. This would be an improvement from current approaches of either using simple cutoffs or narrow prescribing criteria.

Safety-netting advice documentation out-of-hours: a retrospective cohort from 2013 to 2020.

BACKGROUND: Providing safety-netting advice (SNA) in out-of-hours primary care is a recognised standard of safe care but it is not known how frequently this occurs in practice. AIM: Assess the frequency and type of SNA documented in out-of-hours primary care and explore factors associated with its presence. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort using the Birmingham Out-of-hours General Practice Research Database. METHOD: A stratified sample of 30 adult consultation records per month from July 2013 to February 2020 were assessed using a safety-netting coding tool. Associations were tested using linear and logistic regression. RESULTS: The overall frequency of SNA per consultation was 78.0%, increasing from 75.7% (2014) to 81.5% (2019). The proportion of specific SNA and the average number of symptoms patients were told to look out for increased with time. The most common symptom to look out for was if the patients' condition worsened followed by if their symptoms persisted, but only one in five consultations included a time-frame to reconsult for persistent symptoms. SNA was more frequently documented in face-to-face treatment-centre encounters compared to telephone-consultations (Odds Ratio [OR]=1.77, p=0.02), for possible infections (OR=1.53, p=0.006), and less frequently for mental (vs. physical) health consultations (OR=0.33, p=0.002) and where follow-up was planned (OR=0.34, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The frequency of SNA documented in OOH was higher than previously reported during in-hours care. Over time, the frequency of SNA and proportion that contained specific advice increased, however this study highlights potential consultations where SNA could be improved, such as mental health and telephone consultations.

Collaborative discussions between pharmacists and general practitioners to optimise patient medication: a qualitative study within a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: There has been significant investment in pharmacists working in UK general practice to improve the effective and safe use of medicines. However, evidence of how to optimise collaboration between GPs and pharmacists in the context of polypharmacy (multiple medication) is lacking. AIM: To explore GP and pharmacist views and experiences of in-person, inter-professional collaborative discussions (IPCDs) as part of a complex intervention to optimise medication use for patients with polypharmacy in general practice. DESIGN AND SETTING: A mixed-method process evaluation embedded within the Improving Medicines use in People with Polypharmacy in Primary Care (IMPPP) trial conducted in Bristol and the West Midlands. METHOD: Audio-recordings of IPCDs between GPs and pharmacists, and individual semi-structured interviews exploring their reflections on these discussions. All recordings were transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically. RESULTS: Fourteen practices took part in the process evaluation (Feb 2021- Sept 2023). Seventeen IPCD meetings were audio recorded discussing 30 patients (range of 1-6 patients per meeting). Six GPs and 13 pharmacists were interviewed. The IPCD was highly valued by GPs and pharmacists who described benefits including: strengthening their working relationship; learning from each other; and gaining in confidence to manage more complex patients. It was often challenging, however, to find time for the IPCDs. CONCLUSION: The model of IPCD studied provided protected time for GPs and pharmacists to work together to deliver whole-patient care, with both professions finding this beneficial. Protected time for inter-professional liaison and collaboration, and structured interventions may facilitate improved patient care.

Effect of antihypertensive deprescribing on hospitalisation and mortality: long-term follow-up of the OPTiMISE randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing of antihypertensive medications is recommended for some older patients with low blood pressure and frailty. The OPTiMISE trial showed that this deprescribing can be achieved with no differences in blood pressure control at 3 months compared with usual care. We aimed to examine effects of deprescribing on longer-term hospitalisation and mortality. METHODS: This randomised controlled trial enrolled participants from 69 general practices across central and southern England. Participants aged 80 years or older, with systolic blood pressure less than 150 mm Hg and who were receiving two or more antihypertensive medications, were randomly assigned (1:1) to antihypertensive medication reduction (removal of one antihypertensive) or usual care. General practitioners and participants were aware of the treatment allocation following randomisation but individuals responsible for analysing the data were masked to the treatment allocation throughout the study. Participants were followed up via their primary and secondary care electronic health records at least 3 years after randomisation. The primary outcome was time to all-cause hospitalisation or mortality. Intention-to-treat analyses were done using Cox regression modelling. A per-protocol analysis of the primary outcome was also done, excluding participants from the intervention group who did not reduce treatment or who had medication reinstated during the initial trial 12-week follow-up period. This study is registered with the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT2016-004236-38) and the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN97503221). FINDINGS: Between March 20, 2017, and Sept 30, 2018, a total of 569 participants were randomly assigned. Of these, 564 (99%; intervention=280; control=284) were followed up for a median of 4·0 years (IQR 3·7-4·3). Participants had a mean age of 84·8 years (SD 3·4) at baseline and 273 (48%) were women. Medication reduction was sustained in 109 participants at follow-up (51% of the 213 participants alive in the intervention group). Participants in the intervention group had a larger reduction in antihypertensives than the control group (adjusted mean difference -0·35 drugs [95% CI -0·52 to -0·18]). Overall, 202 (72%) participants in the intervention group and 218 (77%) participants in the control group experienced hospitalisation or mortality during follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0·93 [95% CI 0·76 to 1·12]). There was some evidence that the proportion of participants experiencing the primary outcome in the per-protocol population was lower in the intervention group (aHR 0·80 [0·64 to 1·00]). INTERPRETATION: Half of participants sustained medication reduction with no evidence of an increase in all-cause hospitalisation or mortality. These findings suggest that an antihypertensive deprescribing intervention might be safe for people aged 80 years or older with controlled blood pressure taking two or more antihypertensives. FUNDING: British Heart Foundation and National Institute for Health and Care Research.