The Impact of Deprescribing Interventions on the Drug Burden Index and Other Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: The Drug Burden Index (DBI) calculates a person's exposure to anticholinergic and sedative medications. We aimed to review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of deprescribing interventions that reported the DBI as an outcome, their characteristics, effectiveness in reducing the DBI, and impact on other outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: RCTs of deprescribing interventions where the DBI was measured as a primary or secondary outcome in humans within any setting were included. METHODS: Electronic databases, citation indexes, and gray literature were searched from April 1, 2007, to September 1, 2023. Quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. RESULTS: Of 1721 records identified, 9 met the inclusion criteria. Six interventions were delivered by pharmacists and 3 were delivered by pharmacists/nurses or pharmacists/geriatricians. All interventions required at least intermediate-level skills and involved multiple components and target groups. Studies were conducted in the community (n = 5), nursing homes (n = 2), and hospitals (n = 2). The mean or median age was ≥75 years and most participants were women in all studies. Most (n = 6) studies were underpowered. The follow-up period ranged from 3 to 12 months. Three studies reported a lower DBI in the intervention group compared with control: 1 pharmacist independent prescriber-delivered in nursing homes (adjusted rate ratio, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.92), 1 pharmacist/nurse practitioner-delivered in hospital (adjusted mean difference (MD), -0.28; 95% CI, -0.51 to -0.04), and 1 geriatrician/pharmacist-delivered in hospital (MD, -0.28; 95% CI, -0.52 to -0.04). Meta-analysis showed no difference in the change in DBI between control and intervention groups in the community including nursing homes (MD, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.01) or hospital setting (MD, -0.19; 95% CI, -0.45 to 0.06). Interventions had inconsistent effects on cognition and no effect on other reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: RCTs of deprescribing interventions had no significant impact on reducing DBI or improving outcomes. Further suitably powered studies are required.

Association of the Drug Burden Index (DBI) exposure with outcomes: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The Drug Burden Index (DBI) measures an individual's total exposure to anticholinergic and sedative medications. This systematic review aimed to investigate the association of the DBI with clinical and prescribing outcomes in observational pharmaco-epidemiological studies, and the effect of DBI exposure on functional outcomes in pre-clinical models. METHODS: A systematic search of nine electronic databases, citation indexes and gray literature was performed (April 1, 2007-December 31, 2022). Studies that reported primary data on the association of the DBI with clinical or prescribing outcomes conducted in any setting in humans aged ≥18 years or animals were included. Quality assessment was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools and the Systematic Review Centre for Laboratory animal Experimentation risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Of 2382 studies screened, 70 met the inclusion criteria (65 in humans, five in animals). In humans, outcomes reported included function (n = 56), cognition (n = 20), falls (n = 14), frailty (n = 7), mortality (n = 9), quality of life (n = 8), hospitalization (n = 7), length of stay (n = 5), readmission (n = 1), other clinical outcomes (n = 15) and prescribing outcomes (n = 2). A higher DBI was significantly associated with increased falls (11/14, 71%), poorer function (31/56, 55%), and cognition (11/20, 55%) related outcomes. Narrative synthesis was used due to significant heterogeneity in the study population, setting, study type, definition of DBI, and outcome measures. Results could not be pooled due to heterogeneity. In animals, outcomes reported included function (n = 18), frailty (n = 2), and mortality (n = 1). In pre-clinical studies, a higher DBI caused poorer function and frailty. CONCLUSIONS: A higher DBI may be associated with an increased risk of falls and decreased function and cognition. Higher DBI was inconsistently associated with increased mortality, length of stay, frailty, hospitalization or reduced quality of life. Human observational findings with respect to functional outcomes are supported by preclinical interventional studies. The DBI may be used as a tool to identify older adults at higher risk of harm.

The Prevalence of Frailty Among Older Adults Living With Dementia: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence of frailty in older adults living with dementia and explore the differences in medication use according to frailty status. DESIGN: Systematic review of published literature from inception to August 20, 2020. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adults age ≥65 years living with dementia in acute-care, community and residential care settings. METHODS: A systematic search was performed in Embase, Medline, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, APA PscyInfo, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened records and conducted quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Sixteen articles met the inclusion criteria, with 7 studies conducted in acute care setting and 9 studies in community-dwelling adults. Five studies recruited people with dementia exclusively, and 11 studies were conducted in older populations that included individuals with dementia diagnosis. Among studies conducted in acute care setting, the prevalence of frailty ranged from 50.8% to 91.8% compared with studies in community-dwelling setting, which reported a prevalence of 24.3% to 98.9%. With respect to medication exposure, 3 studies documented medication use according to frailty status but not dementia status. Higher medications use, measured as total number of medications was reported in frail [7.0 ± 4.0 (SD) -12.0 ± 9.0 (SD)] compared with nonfrail participants [6.1 ± 3.1(SD) -10.4 ± 3.8 (SD)]. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Current data suggests a wide range of frailty prevalence in individuals with dementia. Future studies should systematically document frailty in adults living with dementia and its impact on medication use.

Development and validation of a frailty index based on data routinely collected across multiple domains in NSW hospitals.

OBJECTIVE(S): To develop and validate a frailty index (FI) that covers multiple domains, using routine hospital data. To investigate the FI's validity, after excluding medication-related items (FI-ExMeds), for studies of frailty and polypharmacy. METHODS: A FI was derived from routine NSW hospital data following standard published guidance. In a development cohort (151 inpatients ≥ 70 years), the FI was correlated with the Reported Edmonton Frail Scale (REFS) using Pearson's R. Validity and distribution of FI and FI-ExMeds, and correlation with each other, were evaluated in a validation cohort (999 inpatients ≥ 75 years). RESULTS: The mean FI for the development cohort was 0.27 (SD 0.09). The FI showed moderate linear correlation with the REFS (n = 148, R = 0.52, P < .001). In the validation cohort, mean FI (n = 993) and FI-ExMeds (n = 990) were both 0.28 (SD 0.11). FI-ExMeds showed high linear correlation with the FI (n = 990, R = 0.99, P < .001). CONCLUSION: This multi-domain FI is comparable to REFS, with adequate redundancy to exclude deficits for specific analyses.

Prevalence of Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Inpatients with and without Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Older people with cognitive impairment, including dementia and delirium, are high users of acute care services internationally. Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use may be associated with adverse outcomes, including hospital re-admission, functional disability, and mortality. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to quantify and compare the prevalence of PIMs in older inpatients with and without cognitive impairment. METHODS: A systematic search of observational studies was performed independently assessed by two reviewers in Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Scopus, and Informit. Articles published in English during the period January 2007-June 2017 that reported PIM prevalence in hospital inpatients ≥ 65 years were included. PIMs were defined as the presence of polypharmacy (multiple medication use) and using implicit or explicit tools, such as the Beers criteria, and 'Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions' (STOPP). RESULTS: 47 articles were included. In studies measuring polypharmacy (n = 15), the prevalence of PIMs ranged from 53.2% to 89.8% and 30.4% to 97.1% for inpatients with and without cognitive impairment, respectively, and 24.0% to 80.0% when cognitive status was unreported. In studies employing explicit and implicit tools (n = 35), the prevalence of PIMs when cognitive impairment was reported ranged from 20.6% to 80.5% using the Beers criteria, and 39.3% to 88.5% using STOPP. When cognitive status was unreported, the prevalence of PIMs ranged from 7.0% to 79.2% using the Beers criteria, and 20.0% to 63.4% using STOPP. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest a high prevalence of PIMs in older inpatients with and without cognitive impairment. Future studies should investigate the impact of PIM use on patient-centered outcomes, such as functional status and quality of life, to inform enhanced acute care services.