Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
54
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The MedSafer Study—Electronic Decision Support for Deprescribing in Hospitalized Older Adults : A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

      research-article
      , MD, MSc 1 , 2 , 3 , , , MD, MSc 4 , , MD, MHI 5 , , MD, MPH 6 , , CPN 3 , , MDCM 7 , , RPh, PharmD 8 , , BPharm 9 , , BSc 2 , , PharmD 10 , , BPharm, MSc 11 , , MD, PhD 1 , 12 , , BPharm 8 , , MD 13 , , MSc 3 , 7 , , PharmD 14 , , PhD 12 , , RPh, MHSc 15 , , MD 16 , , MD, MPH 17 , , MD 18 , , MD 6 , , MD 6 , , MD 19 , , MD, MHSc 20 , , MDCM 21 , , MD, MSc 22 , , MD, MSc 22 , 23 , , MD, MPH 2 , 3 , 24
      JAMA Internal Medicine
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Does providing clinical decision support during an acute care hospitalization improve deprescribing of potentially inappropriate medications and 30-day postdischarge adverse drug events (ADEs) in older adults?

          Findings

          This cluster randomized multicenter trial of 5698 hospitalized participants found that providing electronically generated deprescribing reports did not have a significant impact on ADEs within 30 days despite increased deprescribing at discharge.

          Meaning

          The findings of this randomized clinical trial indicate that clinical decision support during hospitalization improves deprescribing but has little impact on medication harms in the short term.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Scalable deprescribing interventions may reduce polypharmacy and the use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs); however, few studies have been large enough to evaluate the impact that deprescribing may have on adverse drug events (ADEs).

          Objective

          To evaluate the effect of an electronic deprescribing decision support tool on ADEs after hospital discharge among older adults with polypharmacy.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This was a cluster randomized clinical trial of older (≥65 years) hospitalized patients with an expected survival of more than 3 months who were admitted to 1 of 11 acute care hospitals in Canada from August 22, 2017, to January 13, 2020. At admission, participants were taking 5 or more medications per day. Data analyses were performed from January 3, 2021, to September 23, 2021.

          Interventions

          Personalized reports of deprescribing opportunities generated by MedSafer software to address usual home medications and measures of prognosis and frailty. Deprescribing reports provided to the treating team were compared with usual care (medication reconciliation).

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The primary outcome was a reduction of ADEs within the first 30 days postdischarge (including adverse drug withdrawal events) captured through structured telephone surveys and adjudicated blinded to intervention status. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of patients with 1 or more PIMs deprescribed at discharge and the proportion of patients with an adverse drug withdrawal event (ADWE).

          Results

          A total of 5698 participants (median [range] age, 78 [72-85] years; 2858 [50.2%] women; race and ethnicity data were not collected) were enrolled in 3 clusters and were adjudicated for the primary outcome (control, 3204; intervention, 2494). Despite cluster randomization, there were group imbalances, eg, the participants in the intervention arm were older and had more PIMS prescribed at baseline. After hospital discharge, 4989 (87.6%) participants completed an ADE interview. There was no significant difference in ADEs within 30 days of discharge (138 [5.0%] of 2742 control vs 111 [4.9%] of 2247 intervention participants; adjusted risk difference [aRD] −0.8%; 95% CI, −2.9% to 1.3%). Deprescribing increased from 795 (29.8%) of 2667 control to 1249 (55.4%) of 2256 intervention participants [aRD, 22.2%; 95% CI, 16.9% to 27.4%]. There was no difference in ADWEs between groups. Several post hoc sensitivity analyses, including the use of a nonparametric test to address the low cluster number, group imbalances, and potential biases, did not alter study conclusions.

          Conclusions and Relevance

          This cluster randomized clinical trial showed that providing deprescribing clinical decision support during acute hospitalization had no demonstrable impact on ADEs, although the intervention was safe and led to improvements in deprescribing.

          Trial Registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03272607

          Abstract

          This randomized clinical trial examines the impact of electronic decision support on postdischarge adverse drug events and deprescribing among hospitalized patients 65 years or older at 11 hospitals in Canada.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2

          Purpose: screening tool of older people's prescriptions (STOPP) and screening tool to alert to right treatment (START) criteria were first published in 2008. Due to an expanding therapeutics evidence base, updating of the criteria was required. Methods: we reviewed the 2008 STOPP/START criteria to add new evidence-based criteria and remove any obsolete criteria. A thorough literature review was performed to reassess the evidence base of the 2008 criteria and the proposed new criteria. Nineteen experts from 13 European countries reviewed a new draft of STOPP & START criteria including proposed new criteria. These experts were also asked to propose additional criteria they considered important to include in the revised STOPP & START criteria and to highlight any criteria from the 2008 list they considered less important or lacking an evidence base. The revised list of criteria was then validated using the Delphi consensus methodology. Results: the expert panel agreed a final list of 114 criteria after two Delphi validation rounds, i.e. 80 STOPP criteria and 34 START criteria. This represents an overall 31% increase in STOPP/START criteria compared with version 1. Several new STOPP categories were created in version 2, namely antiplatelet/anticoagulant drugs, drugs affecting, or affected by, renal function and drugs that increase anticholinergic burden; new START categories include urogenital system drugs, analgesics and vaccines. Conclusion: STOPP/START version 2 criteria have been expanded and updated for the purpose of minimizing inappropriate prescribing in older people. These criteria are based on an up-to-date literature review and consensus validation among a European panel of experts.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Development of short forms from the PROMIS™ sleep disturbance and Sleep-Related Impairment item banks.

            This article reports on the development of short forms from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS™) Sleep Disturbance (SD) and Sleep-Related Impairment (SRI) item banks. Results from post-hoc computerized adaptive testing (CAT) simulations, item discrimination parameters, item means, and clinical judgments were used to select the best-performing 8 items for SD and SRI. The final 8-item short forms provided less test information than the corresponding full banks, but correlated strongly with the longer forms. The short forms had greater measurement precision than the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) and the Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS), as indicated by larger test information values across the continuum of severity, despite having fewer total items--a major advantage for both research and clinical settings.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Reducing inappropriate polypharmacy: the process of deprescribing.

              Inappropriate polypharmacy, especially in older people, imposes a substantial burden of adverse drug events, ill health, disability, hospitalization, and even death. The single most important predictor of inappropriate prescribing and risk of adverse drug events in older patients is the number of prescribed drugs. Deprescribing is the process of tapering or stopping drugs, aimed at minimizing polypharmacy and improving patient outcomes. Evidence of efficacy for deprescribing is emerging from randomized trials and observational studies. A deprescribing protocol is proposed comprising 5 steps: (1) ascertain all drugs the patient is currently taking and the reasons for each one; (2) consider overall risk of drug-induced harm in individual patients in determining the required intensity of deprescribing intervention; (3) assess each drug in regard to its current or future benefit potential compared with current or future harm or burden potential; (4) prioritize drugs for discontinuation that have the lowest benefit-harm ratio and lowest likelihood of adverse withdrawal reactions or disease rebound syndromes; and (5) implement a discontinuation regimen and monitor patients closely for improvement in outcomes or onset of adverse effects. Whereas patient and prescriber barriers to deprescribing exist, resources and strategies are available that facilitate deliberate yet judicious deprescribing and deserve wider application.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Intern Med
                JAMA Intern Med
                JAMA Internal Medicine
                American Medical Association
                2168-6106
                2168-6114
                18 January 2022
                March 2022
                18 January 2022
                : 182
                : 3
                : 1-10
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [2 ]Clinical Practice Assessment Unit, Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [3 ]Division of Experimental Medicine, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [4 ]Division of Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto; Division of General Internal Medicine and Geriatrics, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [5 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
                [6 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
                [7 ]Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [8 ]Department of Pharmacy, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [9 ]Department of Pharmacy, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [10 ]Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
                [11 ]Department of Pharmacy, Institut Universitaire de Geriatrie de Montreal, University of Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [12 ]Division of Epidemiology, Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Center, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                [13 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
                [14 ]Alberta Health Services, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
                [15 ]Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [16 ]Department of Medicine, The University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [17 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
                [18 ]Division of Geriatric Medicine, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
                [19 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
                [20 ]Division of Palliative Care, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [21 ]Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
                [22 ]Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [23 ]HoPingKong Centre for Excellence in Education and Practice, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
                [24 ]Division of infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: November 3, 2021.
                Published Online: January 18, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.7429
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 McDonald EG et al. JAMA Internal Medicine.
                Corresponding Author: Emily G. McDonald, MD, MSc, Clinical Practice Assessment Unit, Department of Medicine, McGill University Health Centre, 5252 De Maisonneuve Blvd, Office 3E.03, Montreal, Quebec H4A 3S5, Canada ( emily.mcdonald@ 123456mcgill.ca ).
                Author Contributions: Drs McDonald and Lee had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: McDonald, Wu, Battu, Porter, Shiu, Tamblyn, Whitty, Fabreau, Haddad, Palepu, Khan, Downar, Huang, Cavalcanti, Lee.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: McDonald, Wu, Rashidi, M. Goodwin Wilson, Bortolussi-Courval, Atique, Battu, Bonnici, Elsayed, A. Goodwin Wilson, Papillon-Ferland, Pilote, Murphy, Ross, Shiu, Whitty, Xu, Fabreau, Haddad, Palepu, Khan, McAlister, Downar, MacMillan, Cavalcanti, Lee.
                Drafting of the manuscript: McDonald, Wu, M. Goodwin Wilson, Bortolussi-Courval, Ross, Lee.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: McDonald, Wu, Rashidi, Bortolussi-Courval, Atique, Battu, Bonnici, Elsayed, A. Goodwin Wilson, Papillon-Ferland, Pilote, Porter, Murphy, Ross, Shiu, Tamblyn, Whitty, Xu, Fabreau, Haddad, Palepu, Khan, McAlister, Downar, Huang, MacMillan, Cavalcanti, Lee.
                Statistical analysis: Lee.
                Obtained funding: Wu, Fabreau, Khan, Lee.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: McDonald, Wu, Rashidi, M. Goodwin Wilson, Bortolussi-Courval, Battu, Bonnici, Elsayed, Ross, Shiu, Tamblyn, Whitty, Haddad, Palepu, Downar, Huang, MacMillan, Cavalcanti, Lee.
                Supervision: McDonald, Wu, Rashidi, Elsayed, Murphy, Shiu, Palepu, McAlister, Downar, Huang, MacMillan, Cavalcanti, Lee.
                Other−support/link with clinical pharmacists: Papillon-Ferland.
                Other−study site lead investigator: Fabreau.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Drs McDonald and Lee reported grants from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research, the Canadian Frailty Network, the Centre for Ageing and Brain Health Innovation; receiving a McGill University Innovation Award; holding the copyright for MedSafer (jointly with McGill University); and co-ownership of MedSafer, a for-profit business (No. 756156279RC0001), all during the conduct of this study. Dr Fabreau reported grants from the Canadian Institute for Health Research to support data collection during the conduct of the study. Dr Palepu reported grants from the Canadian Institute of Health Research during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: The MedSafer Study was funded by an operating grant from the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. Prior development of MedSafer was funded by grants from the Canadian Frailty Network and the Centre for Ageing and Brain Health Innovation.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Additional Contributions: The authors wish to thank Alek Lefebvre for software and database development and Lina Petrella, MSc, for study coordination (Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre). We also acknowledge the contributions of the following research assistants: Elizabeth Smyth, BSc, Louisa Smyth, Yejim Kim, BSc, Kristen Moran, BSc, Liliane Mefanche, MSc, and Manoja Chandralingam, BSc (McGill University); Akash Singer, MD, Sophie Collins, MSc, Eilidh McAlister, BSc, Jordan Kelly, BSc Pharm, and Miriam Fradette, BSc Pharm (University of Alberta Hospital); Andrew Janes, BSc, and Matthew Riley (Toronto Western Hospital); Alison Jennings, MSc, Kristin Dorrance, MSc, David Yachnin, BSc, Kira Slivitzky, BSc, and Moussa Meteb, BSc (The Ottawa Hospital and Civic Hospital); Kayla Atchison, BSc, and Ibrahim AlMasri, MD (Foothills Medical Centre); Anne Chisholm, (St Paul’s Hospital); and Ellen Koo, MSc, Natasha Saverimuttu, BSc, Riddhita De, MSc, and Anette Surmanski, MSc (University Health Network).
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 3.
                Article
                ioi210080
                10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.7429
                8767487
                35040926
                608ccab4-9f99-4165-9991-bc1a90b6608a
                Copyright 2022 McDonald EG et al. JAMA Internal Medicine.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 30 June 2021
                : 3 November 2021
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Less Is More
                Online First

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content566

                Cited by44

                Most referenced authors529