Search

Objective We sought to investigate the experiences of general practitioners (GPs) with an electronic decision support tool to reduce inappropriate polypharmacy in older patients (the PRIMA-eDS [Polypharmacy in chronic diseases: Reduction of Inappropriate Medication and Adverse drug events in older populations by electronic Decision Support] tool) in a multinational sample of GPs and to quantify the findings from a prior qualitative study on the PRIMA-eDS-tool. Materials and Methods Alongside the cluster randomized controlled PRIMA-eDS trial, a survey was conducted in all 5 participating study centers (Bolzano, Italy; Manchester, United Kingdom; Salzburg, Austria; Rostock, Germany; and Witten, Germany) between October 2016 and July 2017. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests. Results Ninety-one (n = 160) percent of the 176 questionnaires were returned. Thirty-two percent of the respondents reported that they did not cease drugs because of the medication check. The 68% who had discontinued drugs comprise 57% who had stopped on average 1 drug and 11% who had stopped 2 drugs or more per patient. The PRIMA-eDS tool was found to be useful (69%) and the recommendations were found to help to increase awareness (86%). The greatest barrier to implementing deprescribing recommendations was the perceived necessity of the medication (69%). The majority of respondents (65%) would use the electronic medication check in routine practice if it was part of the electronic health record. Conclusions GPs generally viewed the PRIMA-eDS medication check as useful and as informative. Recommendations were not always followed due to various reasons. Many GPs would use the medication check if integrated into the electronic health record.

BACKGROUND: The benefit from a blood pressure lowering therapy with beta blockers may not outweigh its risks, especially in older populations. The aim of this study was to look for evidence on risks and benefits of beta blockers in older adults and to use this evidence to develop recommendations for the electronic decision support tool of the PRIMA-eDS project. METHODS: Systematic review of the literature using a stage approach with searches for systematic reviews and meta-analyses first, and individual studies only if the previous searches are inconclusive. The target population were older adults (≥65 years old) with hypertension. We included studies reporting on the effectiveness and/or safety of beta blockers on clinically relevant endpoints (e.g. mortality, cardiovascular events, and stroke) in the management of hypertension. The recommendations were developed according to the GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included, comprising one meta-analysis, four randomized controlled trials, six secondary analyses of randomized controlled trials and four observational studies. Seven studies involved only older adults and eight studies reported subgroup analyses by age. With regard to a composite endpoint (death, stroke or myocardial infarction) beta blockers were associated with a higher risk of events then were other antihypertensive agents. Further, beta blockers showed no benefit compared to other antihypertensive agents or placebo regarding mortality. They appear to be less effective than other antihypertensive agents in reducing cardiovascular events. Contradictory results were found regarding the effect of beta blockers on stroke. None of the studies explored the effect on quality of life, hospitalisation, functional impairment/status, safety endpoints or renal failure. CONCLUSION: The quality of current evidence to interpret the benefits of beta blockers in hypertension is rather weak. It cannot be recommended to use beta blockers in older adults as first line agent for hypertension. The PRIMA-eDS study was supported by a grant from the European Commission within the 7th Framework Programme (Grant No. 305388–2). The work of YVM was also supported by a grant from the NIHR Greater Manchester Primary Care Patient Safety Translational Research Centre. The publication charge was funded by the University of Witten/Herdecke.

Risk of bias â Clinical trials. (DOCX 71 kb)

Search strings used in the literature database search. (DOC 1066 kb)

Risk of bias â Clinical trials. (DOCX 71 kb)

Search strings used in the literature database search. (DOC 1066 kb)

Additional evidence for recommendations. (DOCX 19 kb)

Additional evidence for recommendations. (DOCX 19 kb)