Dataset Information

The health impacts of preventive cardiovascular medication reduction on older populations: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Polypharmacy is inevitable and appropriate for many conditions, but in some cases, it can be problematic resulting in an increased risk of harm and reduced quality of life. There has been an increasing interest to reduce cardioprotective medications in older adults to potentially reduce the risk of harm due to treatment; however, there is no evidence on safety and efficacy to support this practice currently. This paper describes a protocol for a systematic review on the safety and efficacy of reducing cardioprotective medication in older populations.

Methods

MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), and CENTRAL (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) will be searched from their inception onwards for relevant studies. Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies on interventions (prospective, retrospective cohort, case-control) conducted in older adults (75 years or older) examining reduction of cardioprotective medications will be included. The primary outcome of this study will be all-cause hospitalisation. Secondary outcome variables of interest are all-cause hospitalisation, mortality, quality of life, serious adverse events, major adverse cardiovascular events, falls, fractures, cognitive functioning, bleeding events, renal functioning, medication burden, drug reinstatement, time-in-hospital, and frailty status. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and extract data. Confidence in cumulative evidence will be assessed using the GRADE approach; the risk of bias will be assessed by the RoB-II tool for randomised controlled studies and ROBINS-I for non-randomised studies. Where sufficient data are available, we will conduct a random effects meta-analysis by combining the outcomes of the included studies. Sub-group analysis and meta-regression are planned to assess the potential harms and risks of different drug classes and the impacts in different patient populations (e.g. sex, cognitive status, renal status, and age).

Discussion

The study will be a comprehensive review on all published articles identified using our search strategy on the safety and efficacy of cardioprotective medication reduction in the older population. The findings will be crucial to inform clinicians on potential health outcomes of reducing cardiovascular medication in the elderly.

Systematic review registration

PROSPERO CRD42020208223.

SUBMITTER: van der Veen RS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8229162 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:BACKGROUND:Patients with low cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk potentially use preventive cardiovascular medication unnecessarily. Our aim was to identify various viewpoints and beliefs concerning the preventive CVD management of patients with low CVD risk using preventive cardiovascular medication. Furthermore, we investigated whether certain viewpoints were related to a preference for deprescription or the continuation of preventive cardiovascular medication. METHODS:In 2015, we purposively sampled patients from the intervention arm of the Evaluating Cessation of STatins and Antihypertensive Treatment In primary Care (ECSTATIC) trial in the Netherlands for this study. Participants made Q-sorts by ranking 43 statements concerning preventive CVD management from "totally disagree" to "totally agree". These Q-sorts were analyzed using PQMethod 2.35 software. A varimax procedure presented the distinguishing viewpoints that were favored by our participants. We used group discussion quotations to underline our findings. For validation purposes, we asked participants how well each viewpoint fitted them. RESULTS:Of 291 invited patients, 33 participated. Thirty-one Q-sorts were analyzed. The following three viewpoints were found: 1) a controlling viewpoint, in which patients held the belief that monitoring blood pressure and cholesterol levels is important (n=13, of which seven had their medication deprescribed and six continued their medication); 2) an autonomous viewpoint, in which patients showed a dislike of medication (n=8, of which seven had their medication deprescribed and one had it continued); and 3) an afraid viewpoint, in which patients were fearful of developing CVD (n=8, of which two had their medication deprescribed and six had it continued). Seventy-four percent of the participants believed that the viewpoint to which they were assigned was a good fit. CONCLUSION:Three well-discriminating viewpoints about preventive CVD management were determined. Knowing and recognizing these viewpoints is effective for general practitioners when discussing the deprescribing of preventive cardiovascular medications with patients and may be used to promote implementation of deprescription.

Project description:BackgroundAdherence rates of preventative medication for cardiovascular disease (CVD) have been reported as 57%, and approximately 9% of all CVD events in Europe are attributable to poor medication adherence. Mobile health technologies, particularly mobile apps, have the potential to improve medication adherence and clinical outcomes.ObjectiveThe objective of this study is to assess the effects of mobile health care apps on medication adherence and health-related outcomes in patients with CVD. This study also evaluates apps' functionality and usability and the involvement of health care professionals in their use.MethodsElectronic databases (MEDLINE [Ovid], PubMed Central, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO [Ovid], Embase [Ovid], and Google Scholar) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate app-based interventions aimed at improving medication adherence in patients with CVD. RCTs published in English from inception to January 2020 were reviewed. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed for clinical outcomes and medication adherence, with meta-regression analysis used to evaluate the impact of app intervention duration on medication adherence.ResultsThis study included 16 RCTs published within the last 6 years. In total, 12 RCTs reported medication adherence as the primary outcome, which is the most commonly self-reported adherence. The duration of the interventions ranged from 1 to 12 months, and sample sizes ranged from 24 to 412. Medication adherence rates showed statistically significant improvements in 9 RCTs when compared with the control, and meta-analysis of the 6 RCTs reporting continuous data showed a significant overall effect in favor of the app intervention (mean difference 0.90, 95% CI 0.03-1.78) with a high statistical heterogeneity (I2=93.32%). Moreover, 9 RCTs assessed clinical outcomes and reported an improvement in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in the intervention arm. Meta-analysis of these clinical outcomes from 6 RCTs favored app interventions, but none were significant. In the 7 trials evaluating app usability, all were found to be acceptable. There was a great variation in the app characteristics. A total of 10 RCTs involved health care professionals, mainly physicians and nurses, in the app-based interventions. The apps had mixed functionality: 2 used education, 7 delivered reminders, and 7 provided reminders in combination with educational support.ConclusionsApps tended to increase medication adherence, but interventions varied widely in design, content, and delivery. Apps have an acceptable degree of usability; yet the app characteristics conferring usability and effectiveness are ill-defined. Future large-scale studies should focus on identifying the essential active components of successful apps.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019121385; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=121385.

Project description:Background Sex differences in the management of cardiovascular disease have been reported in secondary care. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis of systematically investigated sex differences in cardiovascular medication prescription among patients at high risk or with established cardiovascular disease in primary care. Methods and Results PubMed and Embase were searched between 2000 and 2019 for observational studies reporting on the sex-specific prevalence of aspirin, statins, and antihypertensive medication prescription, including beta blockers, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and diuretics, in primary care. Random effects meta-analysis was used to obtain pooled women-to-men prevalence ratios for each cardiovascular medication prescription. Metaregression models assessed the impact of age and year on the findings. A total of 43 studies were included, involving 2 264 600 participants (28% women) worldwide. Participants' mean age ranged from 51 to 76 years. The pooled prevalence of cardiovascular medication prescription for women was 41% for aspirin, 60% for statins, and 68% for any antihypertensive medications. Corresponding rates for men were 56%, 63%, and 69% respectively. The pooled women-to-men prevalence ratios were 0.81 (95% CI, 0.72-0.92) for aspirin, 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.95) for statins, and 1.01 (95% CI, 0.95-1.08) for any antihypertensive medications. Women were less likely to be prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (0.85; 95% CI, 0.81-0.89) but more likely with diuretics (1.27; 95% CI, 1.17-1.37). Mean age, mean age difference between the sexes, and year of study had no significant impact on findings. Conclusions Sex differences in the prescription of cardiovascular medication exist among patients at high risk or with established cardiovascular disease in primary care, with a lower prevalence of aspirin, statins, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors prescription in women and a lower prevalence of diuretics prescription in men.

Project description:BackgroundHome visits for older adults aim to prevent cognitive and functional impairment, thus reducing institutionalization and mortality. Visitors may provide information, investigate untreated problems, encourage medication compliance, and provide referrals to services.Methods and findingsData sourcesTen databases including CENTRAL and Medline searched through December 2012.Study selectionRandomized controlled trials enrolling community-dwelling persons without dementia aged over 65 years. Interventions included visits at home by a health or social care professional that were not related to hospital discharge.Data extraction and synthesisTwo authors independently extracted data. Outcomes were pooled using random effects.Main outcomes and measuresMortality, institutionalization, hospitalization, falls, injuries, physical functioning, cognitive functioning, quality of life, and psychiatric illness.ResultsSixty-four studies with 28642 participants were included. Home visits were not associated with absolute reductions in mortality at longest follow-up, but some programs may have small relative effects (relative risk?=?0.93 [0.87 to 0.99]; absolute risk?=?0.00 [-0.01 to 0.00]). There was moderate quality evidence of no overall effect on the number of people institutionalized (RR?=?1.02 [0.88 to 1.18]) or hospitalized (RR?=?0.96 [0.91 to 1.01]). There was high quality evidence for number of people who fell, which is consistent with no effect or a small effect (odds ratio?=?0.86 [0.73 to 1.01]), but there was no evidence that these interventions increased independent living. There was low and very low quality evidence of effects for quality of life (standardised mean difference?=?-0.06 [-0.11 to -0.01]) and physical functioning (SMD?=?-0.10 [-0.17 to -0.03]) respectively, but these may not be clinically important.ConclusionsHome visiting is not consistently associated with differences in mortality or independent living, and investigations of heterogeneity did not identify any programs that are associated with consistent benefits. Due to poor reporting of intervention components and delivery, we cannot exclude the possibility that some programs may be effective.