Search

Introduction: There is increasing recognition of the need for deprescribing of inappropriate medications in older adults. However, efforts to encourage implementation of deprescribing in clinical practice have resulted in mixed results across settings and countries.Area covered: Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar in June 2019. Reference lists, citation checking, and personal reference libraries were also utilized. Studies capturing the main challenges of, and opportunities for, implementing deprescribing into clinical practice across selected health-care settings internationally, and international deprescribing-orientated policies were included and summarized in this narrative review.Expert opinion: Deprescribing intervention studies are inherently heterogeneous because of the complexity of interventions employed and often do not reflect the real-world. Further research investigating enhanced implementation of deprescribing into clinical practice and across health-care settings is required. Process evaluations in deprescribing intervention studies are needed to determine the contextual factors that are important to the translation of the interventions in the real-world. Deprescribing interventions may need to be individually tailored to target the unique barriers and opportunities to deprescribing in different clinical settings. Introduction of national policies to encourage deprescribing may be beneficial, but need to be evaluated to determine if there are any unintended consequences.

Antihypertensive drugs are commonly used by older adults because of the high prevalence of cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, and the increased absolute benefit of blood pressure reduction with increasing age. Clinical trials of blood pressure reduction in older adults have generally excluded older adults with multimorbidity, frailty and limited life expectancy. In this population, the benefit-harm ratio of aggressive blood pressure lowering may become unfavourable; a more relaxed blood pressure target may be appropriate; and deprescribing (cessation or dose reduction) of one or more antihypertensive drugs can be considered. Before deprescribing an antihypertensive drug, it is important to consider other indications for which it may have been prescribed (e.g. heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, diabetic nephropathy, atrial fibrillation). Evidence from randomised controlled deprescribing trials indicates that it is possible to deprescribe antihypertensives in frail older people. However, some patients may experience an increase in blood pressure that warrants restarting the drug. There are limited data on long-term outcomes (follow-up in deprescribing trials ranged from 4 to 56 weeks). The risk of adverse outcomes associated with deprescribing, such as withdrawal effects, can be minimised through appropriate planning, patient engagement, dose tapering and monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Potentially inappropriate medication (PIMs) use is common in older inpatients and it may lead to increased risk of adverse drug events. Objectives: To examine prevalence of PIMs at hospital discharge and its contribution to health care utilization and mortality within 30-days of hospital discharge. Methods: This was a prospective cohort of 117 570 veterans aged ≥65 years and hospitalized in 2013. PIMs at discharge were categorized into central nervous system acting (CNS) and non-CNS. Outcomes within 30-days of hospital discharge were: (1) time to first acute care hospital readmission, and all-cause mortality, (2) an emergency room visit, and (3) ≥3 primary care clinic visits. Results: The cohort's mean age was 74.3 years (SD 8.1), with 51.3% exposed to CNS and 62.8% to non-CNS PIMs. Use of CNS and non-CNS PIMs, respectively, was associated with a reduced risk of readmission, with an adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of 0.93 (95% CI = 0.89-0.96) for ≥2 (vs 0) CNS PIMs and an aHR of 0.85 (95% CI = 0.82-0.88) for ≥2 (vs 0) non-CNS PIMs. Use of CNS PIMs (≥2 vs 0) was associated with increased risk of mortality (aHR = 1.37 [95% CI = 1.25-1.51]), whereas non-CNS PIMs use was associated with a reduced risk of mortality (aHR = 0.75 [95% CI = 0.69-0.82]). Conclusion and Relevance: PIMs were highly common in this veteran cohort, and the association with outcomes differed by PIMs. Thus, it is important to consider whether PIMs are CNS acting to optimize short-term posthospitalization outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background High risk prescribing can compromise independent wellbeing and quality of life in older adults. The aims of this project are to determine the prevalence, risk factors, clinical consequences, and costs of high risk prescribing, and to assess the impact of interventions on high risk prescribing in older people. Methods The proposed project will utilise data from the 45 and Up Study, a large scale cohort of 267,153 men and women aged 45 and over recruited during 2006–2009 from the state of New South Wales, Australia linked to a range of administrative health datasets. High risk prescribing will be assessed using three indicators: polypharmacy (use of five or more medicines); Beers Criteria (an explicit measure of potentially inappropriate medication use); and Drug Burden Index (a pharmacologic dose-dependent measure of cumulative exposure to anticholinergic and sedative medicines). Individual risk factors from the 45 and Up Study questionnaire, and health system characteristics from health datasets that are associated with the likelihood of high risk prescribing will be identified. The main outcome measures will include hospitalisation (first admission to hospital, total days in hospital, cause-specific hospitalisation); admission to institutionalised care; all-cause mortality, and, where possible, cause-specific mortality. Economic costs to the health care system and implications of high risk prescribing will be also investigated. In addition, changes in high risk prescribing will be evaluated in relation to certain routine medicines-related interventions. The statistical analysis will be conducted using standard pharmaco-epidemiological methods including descriptive analysis, univariate and multivariate regression analysis, controlling for relevant confounding factors, using a number of different approaches. Discussion The availability of large-scale data is useful to identify opportunities for improving prescribing, and health in older adults. The size of the 45 and Up Study, along with linkage to health databases provides an important opportunity to investigate the relationship between high risk prescribing and adverse outcomes in a real-world population of older adults.

Introduction:Mitigating the burden of unnecessary polypharmacy or multiple medication use in people living with dementia has been recognized as a key priority internationally. One approach to reducing inappropriate polypharmacy is through medication withdrawal or deprescribing. Area covered:Non-systematic searches of key databases including PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were conducted from inception to 28 February 2021 for articles that assessed the safety and/or efficacy of deprescribing in older adults living with dementia. Personal reference libraries were also utilized. Information on current clinical trials was found in clinicaltrial.gov. Expert Opinion: There is limited direct evidence to inform deprescribing in older adults with dementia specifically. This review identified nineteen studies that have assessed the impact of deprescribing interventions to reduce inappropriate polypharmacy or direct deprescribing of specific medications. However, the current evidence is limited in scope as most studies focused on medication-related outcomes (e.g. discontinuation of high-risk medications) rather than patient-centered outcomes in individuals living with dementia. Furthermore, most studies focused on addressing inappropriate polypharmacy in older adults with dementia living in long-term care facilities, and interventions did not involve the person and their carer. Further evidence on the impact of deprescribing in this population across clinical settings is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Use of high-risk medications is common and associated with adverse effects in older adults, including those living with dementia. A Computerised Clinical Decision Support System (CCDSS) called G-MEDSS© (Goal-directed Medication Review Electronic Decision Support System) contains tools that identify medications with anticholinergic and sedative effects and align older adult's health and medication goals of care with medication management strategies.Objectives: To describe the utility of a CCDSS called G-MEDSS in Home Medicines Review (HMR) by an accredited clinical pharmacist (ACP) using a mixed-methods process evaluation method.Methods: A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted as part of a nation-wide cluster-randomised clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of implementing G-MEDSS in HMR. Data were collected from ACPs and HMR recipients (the patient) using a feedback survey (ACPs and HMR recipients) and one-on-one telephone interviews (HMR recipients). Quantitative and qualitative data were combined at the start of analysis. Content analysis of the qualitative data was conducted, and emerging categories were linked to quantitative data.Results: Feedback surveys were completed by eight ACPs and 26 HMR recipients; 11 HMR recipients completed one-on-one telephone interviews. Overall, ACPs and HMR recipients who received the intervention reported a positive attitude towards the utility of G-MEDSS in HMR. ACPs reported that G-MEDSS enhanced their ability to make evidence-based recommendations about anticholinergic and sedative medications, and to better align HMR recommendations with HMR recipients' goals of care. However, ACPs described that it was difficult to obtain goals of care from HMR recipients. HMR recipients gave mixed reports about the ACPs consultations: some HMR recipients reported that they were engaged in discussions about their views on medications, whilst other participants reported that discussions about their concerns towards medications and goals was limited.Conclusions: This study suggests that a CCDSS, such as G-MEDSS, demonstrates good utility to assist ACPs to identify and assess anticholinergic and sedative medications. Given the mixed feedback from the ACPs on the different components of the G-MEDSS, further refinement of these tools and their use in combination in practice may be needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study explored hospital pharmacists' perspectives about optimising statin therapy in older inpatients in Australia. An anonymous questionnaire using standardised questions in the form of five-point Likert scales to capture pharmacists' attitudes toward their role in statin optimisation, compliance of statin therapy with existing guidelines, knowledge of statin-related side effects and clinical recommendations such as starting and ceasing or deprescribing therapy, was administered. A total of 108 hospital pharmacists across Australia completed the questionnaire. Over 90% of hospital pharmacists agreed that they had an important role in managing statin therapy in older inpatients (95% CI: 90.5-98.8%). Less than 40% agreed that statin therapy in older adults was prescribed in accordance with Australian clinical guidelines (95% CI: 27.4-47.6%), and over 90% agreed that there was a need for statin deprescribing guidelines for older adults (95% CI: 85.7-97.6%). Hospital pharmacists believe that they have an important role in optimising statin therapy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anticholinergic medications are frequently used in older adults to manage a wide range of chronic diseases. Anticholinergic burden associated with the use of multiple medications with anticholinergic effects is cumulative within an individual, and older adults are particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of these medications. These include dry mouth resulting in poor oral health, constipation, urinary retention and confusion. Use of anticholinergic medications has been associated with impaired cognitive and physical function, increased risk of falls, vascular events and hospitalisation. Consideration of anticholinergic burden is an important component of medication management for older adults. Several measures have been developed and validated to quantify anticholinergic burden, such as the Anticholinergic Drug Scale, Anticholinergic Risk Scale and the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden scale. However, the evidence for translation of these measures into clinical practice is limited. This narrative review provides a brief clinical overview of the pharmacology of anticholinergic medications in the context of older adults, summarises approaches to measure anticholinergic burden, reviews recent evidence of the clinical impact of anticholinergic medications and discusses deprescribing strategies to manage anticholinergic burden for older adults in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anticholinergic and sedative medications are commonly used in older adults and are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. The Drug Burden Index was developed to measure the cumulative exposure to these medications in older adults and its impact on physical and cognitive function. This narrative review discusses the research and clinical applications of the Drug Burden Index, and its advantages and limitations, compared with other pharmacologically developed measures of high-risk prescribing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Objective: This study aimed to determine an optimal discriminating number of concomitant medications associated with geriatric syndromes, functional outcomes, and mortality in community-dwelling older men. Study Design and Setting: Older men aged ≥70 years (n =1,705), enrolled in the Concord Health and Aging in Men Project were studied. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis using the Youden Index and the area under the curve was performed to determine discriminating number of medications in relation to each outcome. Results: The highest value of the Youden Index for frailty was obtained for a cutoff point of 6.5 medications compared with a cutoff of 5.5 for disability and 3.5 for cognitive impairment. For mortality and incident falls, the highest value of Youden Index was obtained for a cutoff of 4.5 medications. For every one increase in number of medications, the adjusted odds ratios were 1.13 (95% confidence interval [CI]=1.06–1.21) for frailty, 1.08 (95% CI=1.00–1.15) for disability, 1.09 (95% CI=1.04–1.15) for mortality, and 1.07 (95% CI=1.03–1.12) for incident falls. There was no association between increasing number of medications and cognitive impairment. Conclusion: The study supports the use of five or more medications in the current definition of polypharmacy to estimate the medication-related adverse effects for frailty, disability, mortality, and falls. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background. This cross-sectional study aimed to investigate the relationship between exposure to anticholinergic and sedative medications, measured with the Drug Burden Index (DBI), and functional outcomes in community-dwelling older people living in Finland. Methods. The study population consisted of community-dwelling older people ( n = 700) enrolled in the Geriatric Multidisciplinary Strategy for the Good Care of the Elderly (GeMS) study. Outcomes included walking speed, chair stands test, grip strength, timed up and go (TUG) test, instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), and Barthel Index. Results. Exposure to DBI drugs was identified in 37% of participants: 24% had a DBI range between >0 <1, and 13% DBI ≥1. After adjusting for confounders, exposure to DBI drugs was associated with slower walking speed ( P < 0.0001), poorer performance on chair stands ( P = 0.0001) and TUG ( P < 0.0001), difficulties in IADL ( P < 0.0001), and Barthel Index ( P < 0.0001). The mean adjusted walking speed, time to complete chair stands and TUG, IADL, and Barthel scores were significantly poorer among participants with higher DBI ranges. Conclusion. In older adults living in Finland, DBI was associated with impaired function on previously tested and new outcomes. This finding supports the use of the DBI as tool, in combination with other assessments, to identify older people at risk of functional impairment. The findings highlight the need for revision of current guidelines to improve the quality of drug use in older people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much of the information on safety and efficacy of drugs in older people is obtained after marketing. Pharmacoepidemiologic studies play an increasing role in obtaining this information. Pharmacoepidemiologic studies contribute significantly to knowledge of risks associated with medicines in older people and less so to that of benefits. Recent improvements in methodology in both pharmacoepidemiology and geriatric medicine have improved the validity and reduced the bias of these studies. Pharmacoepidemiologic studies are a critical component of assessing the risks of medicines in older people. Where possible, findings of pharmacoepidemiologic studies should be tested with well-conducted interventional randomized trials in relevant populations of older people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To investigate the prevalence of frailty in older adults living with dementia and explore the differences in medication use according to frailty status. Systematic review of published literature from inception to August 20, 2020. Adults age ≥65 years living with dementia in acute-care, community and residential care settings. 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. 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)]. 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Objectives To investigate if polypharmacy modifies the association between frailty and health outcomes in older adults. Design Ongoing cohort study. Setting Albacete City, Spain. Participants A total for 773 participants, 457 women (59.1%), over age 70 years from the FRADEA Study. Measurements Frailty phenotype, polypharmacy considered as the chronic use of 5 or more drugs, and comorbidity were collected at the baseline visit. Participants were categorized in 6 groups according to frailty and polypharmacy, and were followed up for 5.5 years (mean 1057 days, range 1-2007). Mortality or incident disability in basic activities of daily living was considered the main outcome variable. Hospitalization and visits to the emergency department were also recorded. The adjusted association between combined frailty status and polypharmacy with outcome variables was analyzed. Results The mean age of study population was 78.5 years. In this population, we identified a 15.3% (n = 118) of frail with polypharmacy, 3.4% (n = 26) of frail without polypharmacy, 35.3% (n = 273) of prefrail with polypharmacy, 20.3% (n = 157) of prefrail without polypharmacy, 10.3% (n = 80) of nonfrail with polypharmacy, and 15.4% (n = 119) of nonfrail participants without polypharmacy. Participants with frailty and polypharmacy had a higher adjusted risk of mortality or incident disability [odds ratio (OR) 5.3; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.3–12.5] and hospitalization (OR 2.3; 95% CI 1.2–4.4), compared with those without frailty and polypharmacy. Frail and prefrail participants with polypharmacy had a higher adjusted mortality risk compared with the nonfrail without polypharmacy, hazard ratio 5.8 (95% CI 1.9–17.5) and hazard ratio 3.1 (95% CI 1.1–9.1), respectively. Conclusions Polypharmacy is associated with mortality, incident disability, hospitalization, and emergency department visits in frail and prefrail older adults, but not in nonfrail adults. Polypharmacy should be monitored in these patient subgroups to optimize health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to apply Association Rule and Frequent-Set analysis, and novel means of data visualisation to ascertain patterns of medication use and medication combinations contributing to medication group clusters according to geriatric syndrome status in older adults. Participants were community-dwelling men (aged ≥70 years, n = 1686), Sydney, Australia. Medication exposure was categorised at medication class level and data were analysed according to geriatric syndrome status (presence of at least one syndrome including frailty, falls, cognitive impairment and urinary incontinence). Association Rule and Frequent-Set analysis were performed to identify “interesting” patterns of medication combinations that occur together. This analysis involves advanced computer algorithms that investigated all possible combinations of medications in the dataset in order to identify those which are observed more or much less frequently than expected. Frequent-Set Analysis demonstrated one unexpected medication combination, antiulcer and antidiabetic medications (3.5% of participants) in the overall population (n = 1687). Frequency of medication combinations was similar in participants with (n = 666) and without (n = 1020) geriatric syndromes. Among participants with geriatric syndromes, the most frequent combinations included antigout with lipid-lowering agents (5.7%) followed by angiotensin II and diuretics combination (22%). This novel methodology can be used to detect common medication combinations overall by data visualisation, and against specific adverse drug reactions such as geriatric syndromes. This methodology may be a valuable pharmacovigilance approach to monitor large databases for the safety of medications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]