4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Deprescribing Education vs Usual Care for Patients With Cognitive Impairment and Primary Care Clinicians : The OPTIMIZE Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial

      research-article

      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

          Can increasing awareness about deprescribing prior to primary care visits reduce the use of potentially inappropriate long-term medications for individuals with cognitive impairment?

          Findings

          In this pragmatic cluster randomized clinical trial of deprescribing education for 3012 older adults with cognitive impairment taking 5 or more medications and their primary care clinicians, patients from intervention clinics and control clinics were taking a similar mean number of medications (6.4 vs 6.5) at 6 months, and similar proportions of patients were taking 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications after 6 months.

          Meaning

          Educating patients and clinicians about deprescribing in primary care did not have an effect on the number of long-term medications or percentage of potentially inappropriate medications for older adults taking 5 or more long-term medications; findings suggest such interventions should target older adults taking relatively more medications.

          Abstract

          Background

          Individuals with dementia or mild cognitive impairment frequently have multiple chronic conditions (defined as ≥2 chronic medical conditions) and take multiple medications, increasing their risk for adverse outcomes. Deprescribing (reducing or stopping medications for which potential harms outweigh potential benefits) may decrease their risk of adverse outcomes.

          Objective

          To examine the effectiveness of increasing patient and clinician awareness about the potential to deprescribe unnecessary or risky medications among patients with dementia or mild cognitive impairment.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This pragmatic, patient-centered, 12-month cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, at 18 primary care clinics in a not-for-profit integrated health care delivery system. The study included 3012 adults aged 65 years or older with dementia or mild cognitive impairment who had 1 or more additional chronic medical conditions and were taking 5 or more long-term medications.

          Interventions

          An educational brochure and a questionnaire on attitudes toward deprescribing were mailed to patients prior to a primary care visit, clinicians were notified about the mailing, and deprescribing tip sheets were distributed to clinicians at monthly clinic meetings.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          The number of prescribed long-term medications and the percentage of individuals prescribed 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.

          Results

          This study comprised 1433 individuals (806 women [56.2%]; mean [SD] age, 80.1 [7.2] years) in 9 intervention clinics and 1579 individuals (874 women [55.4%]; mean [SD] age, 79.9 [7.5] years) in 9 control clinics who met the eligibility criteria. At baseline, both groups were prescribed a similar mean (SD) number of long-term medications (7.0 [2.1] in the intervention group and 7.0 [2.2] in the control group), and a similar proportion of individuals in both groups were taking 1 or more PIMs (437 of 1433 individuals [30.5%] in the intervention group and 467 of 1579 individuals [29.6%] in the control group). At 6 months, the adjusted mean number of long-term medications was similar in the intervention and control groups (6.4 [95% CI, 6.3-6.5] vs 6.5 [95% CI, 6.4-6.6]; P = .14). The estimated percentages of patients in the intervention and control groups taking 1 or more PIMs were similar (17.8% [95% CI, 15.4%-20.5%] vs 20.9% [95% CI, 18.4%-23.6%]; P = .08). In preplanned subgroup analyses, adjusted differences between the intervention and control groups were –0.16 (95% CI, –0.34 to 0.01) for individuals prescribed 7 or more long-term medications at baseline (n = 1434) and –0.03 (95% CI, –0.20 to 0.13) for those prescribed 5 to 6 medications (n = 1578) ( P = .28 for interaction; P = .19 for subgroup interaction for PIMs).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          This large-scale educational deprescribing intervention for older adults with cognitive impairment taking 5 or more long-term medications and their primary care clinicians demonstrated small effect sizes and did not significantly reduce the number of long-term medications and PIMs. Such interventions should target older adults taking relatively more medications.

          Trial Registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03984396

          Abstract

          This cluster randomized clinical trial examines the effectiveness of educating patients and clinicians about the potential to deprescribe unnecessary or risky medications among patients with dementia or mild cognitive impairment.

          Related collections

          Most cited references56

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Clinical consequences of polypharmacy in elderly.

          Polypharmacy, defined as the use of multiple drugs or more than are medically necessary, is a growing concern for older adults. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from January 1, 1986 to June 30, 2013) to identify relevant articles in people aged > 65 years. We present information about: i) prevalence of polypharmacy and unnecessary medication use; ii) negative consequences of polypharmacy; and iii) interventions to improve polypharmacy. International research shows that polypharmacy is common in older adults with the highest number of drugs taken by those residing in nursing homes. Nearly 50% of older adults take one or more medications that are not medically necessary. Research has clearly established a strong relationship between polypharmacy and negative clinical consequences. Moreover, well-designed interprofessional (often including clinical pharmacist) intervention studies that focus on enrolling high-risk older patients with polypharmacy have shown that they can be effective in reducing aspects of unnecessary prescribing with mixed results on distal health outcomes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            American Geriatrics Society 2015 Updated Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults.

            (2015)
            The 2015 American Geriatrics Society (AGS) Beers Criteria are presented. Like the 2012 AGS Beers Criteria, they include lists of potentially inappropriate medications to be avoided in older adults. New to the criteria are lists of select drugs that should be avoided or have their dose adjusted based on the individual's kidney function and select drug-drug interactions documented to be associated with harms in older adults. The specific aim was to have a 13-member interdisciplinary panel of experts in geriatric care and pharmacotherapy update the 2012 AGS Beers Criteria using a modified Delphi method to systematically review and grade the evidence and reach a consensus on each existing and new criterion. The process followed an evidence-based approach using Institute of Medicine standards. The 2015 AGS Beers Criteria are applicable to all older adults with the exclusion of those in palliative and hospice care. Careful application of the criteria by health professionals, consumers, payors, and health systems should lead to closer monitoring of drug use in older adults.
              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
                28 March 2022
                May 2022
                28 March 2022
                : 182
                : 5
                : 534-542
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora
                [2 ]Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora
                [3 ]Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
                [4 ]Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, Aurora
                [5 ]Quality Use of Medicines and Pharmacy Research Centre, School of Pharmacy and Medical Science, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
                [6 ]Durham Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (ADAPT), Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
                [7 ]Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
                [8 ]School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: February 6, 2022.
                Published Online: March 28, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.0502
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 Bayliss EA et al. JAMA Internal Medicine.
                Corresponding Author: Elizabeth A. Bayliss, MD, MSPH, Institute for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, 2550 S Parker Rd, Ste 200, Aurora, CO 80014 ( elizabeth.bayliss@ 123456kp.org ).
                Author Contributions: Dr Bayliss had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Drs Bayliss and Boyd are coprincipal investigators of the OPTIMIZE trial.
                Concept and design: Bayliss, Norton, Weffald, Green, Reeve, Sheehan, Wolff, Kraus, Boyd.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Bayliss, Shetterly, Drace, Norton, Maiyani, Gleason, Sawyer, Weffald, Reeve, Maciejewski, Sheehan, Boyd.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Bayliss, Shetterly, Drace, Gleason, Weffald.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Bayliss, Shetterly, Norton, Maiyani, Sawyer, Green, Reeve, Maciejewski, Sheehan, Wolff, Kraus, Boyd.
                Statistical analysis: Shetterly, Maciejewski.
                Obtained funding: Bayliss, Reeve, Boyd.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Norton, Gleason, Sawyer, Weffald, Maciejewski, Sheehan, Wolff, Kraus, Boyd.
                Supervision: Bayliss, Drace, Sheehan, Boyd.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Drs Bayliss, Gleason, Green, Maciejewski, Sheehan, Wolff, and Boyd; Mss Shetterly, Sawyer, and Kraus; and Messrs Norton and Maiyani reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging during the conduct of the study. Dr Green reported receiving grants from the National Institute on Aging Impact Collaboratory during the conduct of the study. Dr Reeve reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health (subaward to Dr Reeve’s institution) during the conduct of the study and royalties from UpToDate for writing a chapter on deprescribing. Dr Maciejewski reported receiving Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development funding and owning Amgen stock due to his spouse’s employment. Dr Boyd reported receiving royalties from UpToDate for writing a chapter on multimorbidity and honoraria from Dynamed for reviewing a chapter on falls outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was supported by grant R33-AG057289 from the National Institute on Aging. Dr Maciejewski was also supported by Research Career Scientist award RCS 10-391 from the Department of Veterans Affairs and by the Center of Innovation to Accelerate Discovery and Practice Transformation (CIN 13-410) at the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System. Dr Green was supported by grant K23 AG054742 from the National Institute on Aging. Dr Boyd was supported by grant K24 AG 05657 from the National Institute on Aging. Dr Reeve is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council–Australian Research Council Dementia Research Development Fellowship (APP1105777).
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The sponsor (National Institute on Aging) funded the OPTIMIZE project and contracted with the Data Safety Monitoring Board. The sponsor 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.
                Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 3.
                Additional Contributions: We appreciate the careful work of our Data Safety Monitoring Board that contracted with the National Institute on Aging, Elizabeth Phelan, MD, MS, University of Washington, Eduard Vasilevskis, MD, MPH, Vanderbilt University, and Warren Bilker, PhD, University of Pennsylvania. We appreciate the input of our National Advisory Board, including Katie Maslow, MSW, Gerontological Society of America, Jerry Gurwitz, MD, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Mary Barton, MD, MPP, National Committee for Quality Assurance, Kurt Stange, MD, PhD, Case Western Reserve University, Nicole Brandt, PharmD, MBA, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Holly Holmes, MD, MS University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Bruce Leff, MD, Johns Hopkins University, and Susan Smith, MD, Trinity College, Dublin. The OPTIMIZE National Advisory Board members were offered gift cards in appreciation of their consultations.
                Article
                ioi220011
                10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.0502
                8961395
                35343999
                6bd750e5-2fb1-4944-a426-98ff2fd6e43a
                Copyright 2022 Bayliss EA et al. JAMA Internal Medicine.

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

                History
                : 1 November 2021
                : 6 February 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online First

                Comments

                Comment on this article