Dataset Information

Outcomes of deprescribing interventions in older patients with life-limiting illness and limited life expectancy: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Older patients with life-limiting illness (LLI) and limited life expectancy (LLE) continue to receive potentially inappropriate medicines, consequently deprescribing is often necessary. However, deprescribing in this population can be complex and challenging. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the evidence for outcomes of deprescribing interventions in older patients with LLI and LLE.

Methods

Studies on deprescribing intervention and their outcomes in age ≥65 years with LLI and LLE were searched using PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO and Google Scholar. Medication appropriateness was primary outcome, while clinical and cost-related outcomes were secondary. Eligibility, data extraction and quality assessment were followed by a narrative synthesis of data.

Results

Of 9 studies (1375 participants), 3 reported on primary outcome. One study showed a significant reduction in medication inappropriateness by 34.9% (P < .001) from admission to close-out, the second achieved 29.4% (P < .001) and 15.1% (P = .003) reduction at 12 and 24 months, respectively. The third reported that their intervention stopped (17.2%) and altered the dose (2.6%) of high-risk medications. Commonly reported clinical outcomes were mortality (n = 3), quality of life (n = 2) and falls (n = 2). Outcomes in terms of cost were reported as overall cost (n = 2), medication cost (n = 1) and health care expenditure (n = 1).

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that deprescribing in older patients with LLI and LLE can improve medication appropriateness, and has potential for enhancement of several clinical outcomes and cost savings, but the evidence needs to be better established.

SUBMITTER: Shrestha S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7495295 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceDespite guidelines recommending against prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening in elderly men with limited life expectancy, PSA screening remains common.ObjectiveTo identify clinician characteristics associated with PSA screening rates in older veterans stratified by life expectancy.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study of 826 286 veterans 65 years or older eligible for PSA screening who had VA laboratory tests performed in 2011 in the VA health care system.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the percentage of men with a screening PSA test in 2011. Limited life expectancy was defined as age of at least 85 years with Charlson comorbidity score of 1 or greater or age of at least 65 years with Charlson comorbidity score of 4 or greater. Primary predictors were clinician characteristics including degree-training level, specialty, age, and sex. We performed log-linear Poisson regression models for the association between each clinician characteristic and PSA screening stratified by patient life expectancy and adjusted for patient demographics and clinician clustering.ResultsIn 2011, 466 017 (56%) of older veterans received PSA screening, including 39% of the 203 717 men with limited life expectancy. After adjusting for patient demographics, higher PSA screening rates in patients with limited life expectancy was associated with having a clinician who was an older man and was no longer in training. The PSA screening rates ranged from 27% for men with a physician trainee to 42% for men with an attending physician (P < .001); 22% for men with a geriatrician to 82% for men with a urologist as their clinician (P < .001); 29% for men with a clinician 35 years or younger to 41% for those with a clinician 56 years or older (P < .001); and 38% for men with a female clinician older than 55 years vs 43% for men with a male clinician older than 55 years (P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceMore than one-third of men with limited life expectancy received PSA screening. Men whose clinician was a physician trainee had substantially lower PSA screening rates than those with an attending physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant. Interventions to reduce PSA screening rates in older men with limited life expectancy should be designed and targeted to high-screening clinicians- older male, nontrainee clinicians-for greatest impact.

Project description:ImportanceDespite clinical practice guidelines recommending against routine cancer screening in older adults with limited life expectancy, older adults are still frequently screened for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers.ObjectiveTo examine primary care clinicians' decision-making on stopping breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer screening in older adults with limited life expectancy.Design, setting, and participantsIn qualitative interviews coupled with medical record-stimulated recall, clinicians from 17 academic and community clinics affiliated with a large health system were asked how they came to specific cancer screening decisions in 2 or 3 of their older patients with less than 10-year of estimated life expectancy, including patients with and without recent screening. Patients were surveyed by telephone. Data collection occurred between October 2018 and May 2019.Main outcomes and measuresClinician interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed with qualitative content analysis to identify major themes. Patient surveys assessed perception of cancer screening decisions, importance of clinician recommendation, and willingness to stop screening.ResultsTwenty-five primary care clinicians (mean [SD] age, 47.1 [9.7] years; 14 female [56%]) discussed 53 patients during medical record-stimulated recall, ranging from 2 to 3 patients per clinician; 46 patients and 1 caregiver (mean [SD] age 74.9 [5.4]; 31 female [66%]) participated in the survey. Clinician interviews revealed 5 major themes: (1) cancer screening decisions were not always conscious, deliberate decisions; (2) electronic medical record alerts were connected with less deliberate decision-making; (3) cancer screening was not binary and clinicians often considered other options to scale back screening without actually stopping; (4) in addition to patient characteristics, clinicians were influenced by patient request and anecdotal experiences; and (5) influences outside of the primary care clinician-patient dyad were important, such as from specialists and patients' family or friends. Patient surveys asked approximately 64 cancer screening decisions of 47 patients. Patients did not recall approximately half (31 of 64) of their cancer screening decisions. Among those with recent screening, the mean score for willingness to stop screening was 3.2 (95% CI 2.5-3.9) on a 5-point Likert scale (with 1 indicating "extremely unlikely" and 5 indicating "extremely likely"). In most screening decisions that involved specialists (13 of 16), patients valued specialists' recommendations over those of primary care clinicians.Conclusions and relevanceCancer screening decision-making is complex. Study findings suggest that strategies that facilitate more deliberate decision-making may be important in cancer screening of older adults with limited life expectancy.

Project description:BackgroundDeprescribing, a relatively recent concept, has been proposed as a promising solution to the growing issues of polypharmacy and use of medications of questionable benefit among older adults. However, little is known about the health outcomes of deprescribing interventions.ObjectiveThis paper presents the protocol of a study that aims to contribute to the knowledge on deprescribing by addressing two specific objectives: (1) describe the impact of deprescribing in adults ≥60 years on health outcomes or quality of life; and (2) determine the characteristics of effective interventions in deprescribing.MethodsPrimary studies targeting three concepts (older adults, deprescribing, and health or quality of life outcomes) will be included in the review. The search will be performed using key international databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Ageline, PsycInfo), and a special effort will be made to identify gray literature. Two reviewers will independently screen the articles, extract the information, and evaluate the quality of the selected studies. If methodologically feasible, meta-analyses will be performed for groups of intervention studies reporting on deprescribing interventions for similar medications, used for similar or identical indications, and reporting on similar outcomes (eg, benzodiazepines used against insomnia and studies reporting on quality of sleep or quality of life). Alternatively, the results will be presented in bottom-line statements (objective 1) and a matrix outlining effective interventions (objective 2).ResultsThe knowledge synthesis may be limited by the availability of high-quality clinical trials on deprescribing and their outcomes in older adults. Additionally, analyses will likely be affected by studies on the deprescribing of different types of molecules within the same indication (eg, different pharmacological classes and medications to treat hypertension) and different measures of health and quality of life outcomes for the same indication. Nevertheless, we expect the review to identify which deprescribing interventions lead to improved health outcomes among seniors and which of their characteristics contribute to these outcomes.ConclusionsThis systematic review will contribute to a better understanding of the health outcomes of deprescribing interventions among seniors.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42015020866; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42015020866.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/25200.

Project description:BackgroundPolypharmacy, and the associated adverse drug events such as non-adherence to prescriptions, is a common problem for elderly people living with multiple comorbidities. Deprescribing, i.e. the gradual withdrawal from medications with supervision by a healthcare professional, is regarded as a means of reducing adverse effects of multiple medications including non-adherence. This systematic review examines the evidence of deprescribing as an effective strategy for improving medication adherence amongst older, community dwelling adults.MethodsA mixed methods review was undertaken. Eight bibliographic database and two clinical trials registers were searched between May and December 2017. Results were double screened in accordance with pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria related to polypharmacy, deprescribing and adherence in older, community dwelling populations. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used for quality appraisal and an a priori data collection instrument was used. For the quantitative studies, a narrative synthesis approach was taken. The qualitative data was analysed using framework analysis. Findings were integrated using a mixed methods technique. The review was performed in accordance with the PRISMA reporting statement.ResultsA total of 22 original studies were included, of which 12 were RCTs. Deprescribing with adherence as an outcome measure was identified in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), observational and cohort studies from 13 countries between 1996 and 2017. There were 17 pharmacy-led interventions; others were led by General Practitioners (GP) and nurses. Four studies demonstrated an overall reduction in medications of which all studies corresponded with improved adherence. A total of thirteen studies reported improved adherence of which 5 were RCTs. Adherence was reported as a secondary outcome in all but one study.ConclusionsThere is insufficient evidence to show that deprescribing improves medication adherence. Only 13 studies (of 22) reported adherence of which only 5 were randomised controlled trials. Older people are particularly susceptible to non-adherence due to multi-morbidity associated with polypharmacy. Bio-psycho-social factors including health literacy and multi-disciplinary team interventions influence adherence. The authors recommend further study into the efficacy and outcomes of medicines management interventions. A consensus on priority outcome measurements for prescribed medications is indicated.Trial registrationPROSPERO number CRD42017075315.