30
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Tools for Deprescribing in Frail Older Persons and Those with Limited Life Expectancy: A Systematic Review : Deprescribing tools

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      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.

          Abstract

          To summarize available tools that can assist clinicians in identifying and reducing or stopping (deprescribing) potentially inappropriate medications and that specifically consider frailty or limited life expectancy.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

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

          Eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials published in high-impact general medical journals: a systematic sampling review.

          Selective eligibility criteria of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are vital to trial feasibility and internal validity. However, the exclusion of certain patient populations may lead to impaired generalizability of results. To determine the nature and extent of exclusion criteria among RCTs published in major medical journals and the contribution of exclusion criteria to the representation of certain patient populations. The MEDLINE database was searched for RCTs published between 1994 and 2006 in certain general medical journals with a high impact factor. Of 4827 articles, 283 were selected using a series technique. Trial characteristics and the details regarding exclusions were extracted independently. All exclusion criteria were graded independently and in duplicate as either strongly justified, potentially justified, or poorly justified according to previously developed and pilot-tested guidelines. Common medical conditions formed the basis for exclusion in 81.3% of trials. Patients were excluded due to age in 72.1% of all trials (60.1% in pediatric populations and 38.5% in older adults). Individuals receiving commonly prescribed medications were excluded in 54.1% of trials. Conditions related to female sex were grounds for exclusion in 39.2% of trials. Of all exclusion criteria, only 47.2% were graded as strongly justified in the context of the specific RCT. Exclusion criteria were not reported in 12.0% of trials. Multivariable analyses revealed independent associations between the total number of exclusion criteria and drug intervention trials (risk ratio, 1.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.65; P = .003) and between the total number of exclusion criteria and multicenter trials (risk ratio, 1.26; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.52; P = .009). Industry-sponsored trials were more likely to exclude individuals due to concomitant medication use, medical comorbidities, and age. Drug intervention trials were more likely to exclude individuals due to concomitant medication use, medical comorbidities, female sex, and socioeconomic status. Among such trials, justification for exclusions related to concomitant medication use and comorbidities were more likely to be poorly justified. The RCTs published in major medical journals do not always clearly report exclusion criteria. Women, children, the elderly, and those with common medical conditions are frequently excluded from RCTs. Trials with multiple centers and those involving drug interventions are most likely to have extensive exclusions. Such exclusions may impair the generalizability of RCT results. These findings highlight a need for careful consideration and transparent reporting and justification of exclusion criteria in clinical trials.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The rising tide of polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions: population database analysis 1995–2010

            Background The escalating use of prescribed drugs has increasingly raised concerns about polypharmacy. This study aims to examine changes in rates of polypharmacy and potentially serious drug-drug interactions in a stable geographical population between 1995 and 2010. Methods This is a repeated cross-sectional analysis of community-dispensed prescribing data for all 310,000 adults resident in the Tayside region of Scotland in 1995 and 2010. The number of drug classes dispensed and the number of potentially serious drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in the previous 84 days were calculated, and age-sex standardised rates in 1995 and 2010 compared. Patient characteristics associated with receipt of ≥10 drugs and with the presence of one or more DDIs were examined using multilevel logistic regression to account for clustering of patients within primary care practices. Results Between 1995 and 2010, the proportion of adults dispensed ≥5 drugs doubled to 20.8%, and the proportion dispensed ≥10 tripled to 5.8%. Receipt of ≥10 drugs was strongly associated with increasing age (20–29 years, 0.3%; ≥80 years, 24.0%; adjusted OR, 118.3; 95% CI, 99.5–140.7) but was also independently more common in people living in more deprived areas (adjusted OR most vs. least deprived quintile, 2.36; 95% CI, 2.22–2.51), and in people resident in a care home (adjusted OR, 2.88; 95% CI, 2.65–3.13). The proportion with potentially serious drug-drug interactions more than doubled to 13% of adults in 2010, and the number of drugs dispensed was the characteristic most strongly associated with this (10.9% if dispensed 2–4 drugs vs. 80.8% if dispensed ≥15 drugs; adjusted OR, 26.8; 95% CI 24.5–29.3). Conclusions Drug regimens are increasingly complex and potentially harmful, and people with polypharmacy need regular review and prescribing optimisation. Research is needed to better understand the impact of multiple interacting drugs as used in real-world practice and to evaluate the effect of medicine optimisation interventions on quality of life and mortality. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0322-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Prescriber barriers and enablers to minimising potentially inappropriate medications in adults: a systematic review and thematic synthesis

              Objective To synthesise qualitative studies that explore prescribers’ perceived barriers and enablers to minimising potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) chronically prescribed in adults. Design A qualitative systematic review was undertaken by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL and INFORMIT from inception to March 2014, combined with an extensive manual search of reference lists and related citations. A quality checklist was used to assess the transparency of the reporting of included studies and the potential for bias. Thematic synthesis identified common subthemes and descriptive themes across studies from which an analytical construct was developed. Study characteristics were examined to explain differences in findings. Setting All healthcare settings. Participants Medical and non-medical prescribers of medicines to adults. Outcomes Prescribers’ perspectives on factors which shape their behaviour towards continuing or discontinuing PIMs in adults. Results 21 studies were included; most explored primary care physicians’ perspectives on managing older, community-based adults. Barriers and enablers to minimising PIMs emerged within four analytical themes: problem awareness; inertia secondary to lower perceived value proposition for ceasing versus continuing PIMs; self-efficacy in regard to personal ability to alter prescribing; and feasibility of altering prescribing in routine care environments given external constraints. The first three themes are intrinsic to the prescriber (eg, beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, skills, behaviour) and the fourth is extrinsic (eg, patient, work setting, health system and cultural factors). The PIMs examined and practice setting influenced the themes reported. Conclusions A multitude of highly interdependent factors shape prescribers’ behaviour towards continuing or discontinuing PIMs. A full understanding of prescriber barriers and enablers to changing prescribing behaviour is critical to the development of targeted interventions aimed at deprescribing PIMs and reducing the risk of iatrogenic harm.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
                J Am Geriatr Soc
                Wiley
                00028614
                October 13 2018
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Research Unit of General Practice, Department of Public Health; University of Southern Denmark; Odense Denmark
                [2 ]Hospital Pharmacy Funen, Odense University Hospital; Odense Denmark
                [3 ]Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacy, Department of Public Health; University of Southern Denmark; Odense Denmark
                [4 ]Migrant Health Clinic; Odense University Hospital; Odense Denmark
                [5 ]Centre for Global Health; University of Southern Denmark; Odense Denmark
                [6 ]Health Sciences Research Center; University College Lillebaelt; Odense Denmark
                [7 ]Department of Geriatric Medicine; Odense University Hospital; Odense Denmark
                [8 ]Geriatric Research Unit, Department of Clinical Research; University of Southern Denmark; Odense Denmark
                Article
                10.1111/jgs.15616
                30315745
                7ac797ea-4bc0-4fce-b52d-71c0e1a513f8
                © 2018

                http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1

                http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article