Factors associated to potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients according to STOPP/START criteria: MoPIM multicentre cohort study

Objectives The objectives of the present analyses are to estimate the frequency of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) at admission according to STOPP/START criteria version 2 in older patients hospitalised due to chronic disease exacerbation as well as to identify risk factors associated to the most frequent active principles as potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Methods A multicentre, prospective cohort study including older patients (≥65) hospitalized due to chronic disease exacerbation at the internal medicine or geriatric services of 5 hospitals in Spain between September 2016 and December 2018 was conducted. Demographic and clinical data was collected, and a medication review process using STOPP/START criteria version 2 was performed, considering both PIMs and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs). Primary outcome was defined as the presence of any most frequent principles as PIMs, and secondary outcomes were the frequency of any PIM and PPO. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted on all outcomes and multilevel logistic regression analysis, stratified by participating centre, was performed on the primary outcome. Results A total of 740 patients were included (mean age 84.1, 53.2% females), 93.8% of them presenting polypharmacy, with a median of 10 chronic prescriptions. Among all, 603 (81.5%) patients presented at least one PIP, 542 (73.2%) any PIM and 263 (35.5%) any PPO. Drugs prescribed without an evidence-based clinical indication were the most frequent PIM (33.8% of patients); vitamin D supplement in older people who are housebound or experiencing falls or with osteopenia was the most frequent PPO (10.3%). The most frequent active principles as PIMs were proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and benzodiazepines (BZDs), present in 345 (46.6%) patients. This outcome was found significantly associated with age, polypharmacy and essential tremor in an explanatory model with 71% AUC. Conclusions PIMs at admission are highly prevalent in these patients, especially those involving PPIs or BZDs, which affected almost half of the patients. Therefore, these drugs may be considered as the starting point for medication review and deprescription. Trial registration number NCT02830425

GP-delivered medication review of polypharmacy, deprescribing, and patient priorities in older people with multimorbidity in Irish primary care (SPPiRE Study): A cluster randomised controlled trial

Background There is a rising prevalence of multimorbidity, particularly in older patients, and a need for evidence-based medicines management interventions for this population. The Supporting Prescribing in Older Adults with Multimorbidity in Irish Primary Care (SPPiRE) trial aimed to investigate the effect of a general practitioner (GP)-delivered, individualised medication review in reducing polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) in community-dwelling older patients with multimorbidity in primary care. Methods and findings We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) set in 51 GP practices throughout the Republic of Ireland. A total of 404 patients, aged ≥65 years with complex multimorbidity, defined as being prescribed ≥15 regular medicines, were recruited from April 2017 and followed up until October 2020. Furthermore, 26 intervention GP practices received access to the SPPiRE website where they completed an educational module and used a template for an individualised patient medication review that identified PIP, opportunities for deprescribing, and patient priorities for care. A total of 25 control GP practices delivered usual care. An independent blinded pharmacist assessed primary outcome measures that were the number of medicines and the proportion of patients with any PIP (from a predefined list of 34 indicators based predominantly on the STOPP/START version 2 criteria). We performed an intention-to-treat analysis using multilevel modelling. Recruited participants had substantial disease and treatment burden at baseline with a mean of 17.37 (standard deviation [SD] 3.50) medicines. At 6-month follow-up, both intervention and control groups had reductions in the numbers of medicines with a small but significantly greater reduction in the intervention group (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.899 to 0.999, p = 0.045). There was no significant effect on the odds of having at least 1 PIP in the intervention versus control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.39, 95% CI: 0.140 to 1.064, p = 0.066). Adverse events recorded included mortality, emergency department (ED) presentations, and adverse drug withdrawal events (ADWEs), and there was no evidence of harm. Less than 2% of drug withdrawals in the intervention group led to a reported ADWE. Due to the inability to electronically extract data, primary outcomes were measured at just 2 time points, and this is the main limitation of this work. Conclusions The SPPiRE intervention resulted in a small but significant reduction in the number of medicines but no evidence of a clear effect on PIP. This reduction in significant polypharmacy may have more of an impact at a population rather than individual patient level. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN12752680.

The impact of medication reconciliation and review in patients using oral chemotherapy

Background and aim Verifying and reviewing a patients medication list can detect and reduce drug related problems (DRPs). However little is known about its effects in patients using oral chemotherapy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of these interventions and the adapted Medication Appropriateness Index (aMAI) as a tool to carry out a medication review. Methods A case-control study was carried out. The hospital pharmacist performed a medication reconciliation and medication review, using the aMAI tool, in 54 patients starting oral chemotherapy. Discrepancies, DRP's and associated pharmaceutical interventions were reported via the electronic patient record (EPR). After one month, the acceptance rate was measured and the aMAI score recalculated. Kappa statistics were used to test intra- and interrater reliability. Results The medication list in the EPR was incomplete in 74,1% of patients with an average of 2.4 errors per patient. After medication review, the aMAI score decreased significantly from 7.2 to 5.4 (SD = 4,7; p <0.001), indicating an improvement in the appropriateness of the drugs patients were taking. Acceptance rates were 41,4% and 53,2% for advices resulting from medication reconciliation and medication review respectively. Kappa values of 0.90 and 0.70 respectively indicate good intra- and interrater reliability. Discussion and conclusion The study shows that medication reconciliation can identify and address discrepancies. Furthermore, medication review seems to ensure that drug treatment better meets patient needs. The aMAI was a reliable tool. Future research will have to determine the clinical relevance of these interventions.

The impact of including a medication review in an integrated care pathway: a pilot study

Objective: Our hypothesis was that the intervention would decrease (or at least not increase) the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and the number of hospital readmissions within 30 days of discharge per hospital stay. Methods: A cohort of hospitalized older adults enrolled in the PAERPA integrated care pathway (the exposed cohort) was matched retrospectively with hospitalized older adults not enrolled in the pathway (unexposed cohort) between January 1st, 2015, and December 31st, 2018. It was an analysis of French health administrative database. The inclusion criteria for exposed patients were admission to an acute care department in general hospital, age 75 or over, at least three comorbidities or the prescription of diuretics or oral anticoagulants, discharge alive, and performance of a medication review. Results: For the study population (n=582), the mean ± standard deviation age was 82.9 ± 4.9, and 190 (65.3%) were women. Depending on the definition used, the overall median number of PIMs ranged from 2 [0;3] upon admission to 3 [0;3] at discharge. The intervention was not associated with a significant difference in the mean number of PIMs. Patients in the exposed cohort were half as likely to be readmitted to hospital within 30 days of discharge, relative to patients in the unexposed cohort. Conclusion: Our results show that a medication review was not associated with a decrease in the mean number of PIMs. However, the integrated care intervention including the medication review was associated with a reduction in the number of hospital readmissions at 30 days.

Evaluation of medication changes following severe COVID-19 infection: a multicentre evaluation

BackgroundCritically ill patients often experience several transitions of care following critical illness. Research has explored the challenges which patients have with medication management across these transitions. It is unclear whether patients admitted to critical care due to COVID-19 will have similar challenges. The aim of this study was to explore medication management in critical care survivors following severe COVID-19.MethodsBetween 3 and 7 months post hospital discharge, patients who had been admitted to critical care due to severe COVID-19 were invited to an established recovery service. During the clinic consultation a medication review was performed by a pharmacist. This included medicines reconciliation, assessing the appropriateness of each of the prescribed medications and identification of medication changes. We also assessed changes to pain management in the discharge period.ResultsIn total, 78 patients had a full medication review available. Over 70% of patients were taking an increased dose of medicine or a new medicine at clinic. There was a significant overall increase in new medication during the clinic consultation, across different British National Formulary classifications (OR: 1.73 (95% CI: 1.28 to 2.34), p<0.001). Compared with pre critical care admission, there was a significant increase in the number of patients taking regular analgesia following severe COVID-19 infection (23 (29.5%) vs 39 (50%), p<0.001).ConclusionFollowing severe COVID-19, patients may require new or increasing doses of medicines. Ongoing review of these patients is crucial to ensure optimal outcomes.