Search

The number of people living with dementia, such as Alzheimer’s disease, is increasing worldwide. Persons with dementia often have a high risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and they are therefore theoretically eligible for treatment of hypertension and hyperlipidemia. However, in this population, beneficial and harmful effects of cardiovascular risk management (CVRM) may be different compared to older persons without cognitive impairment. Current CVRM guidelines are based on trials from which persons with dementia were excluded. In this narrative review, we will discuss how current guidelines can be translated to persons with dementia and which aspects should be taken into account when treating hypertension and hyperlipidemia to prevent major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Survival time is significantly shorter in persons with dementia. We therefore suggest that since the main goal of CVRM is prevention of MACE, first of all, the patient’s life expectancy and treatment wishes should be evaluated. Risk assessment tools are to be used with care, as they tend to overestimate the 5- and 10-year risk of MACE and benefit from CVRM in the prevention of MACE in persons with dementia. When the clinician and patient have decided that treatment is initiated or intensified, patients should be closely monitored since they are at high risk for adverse drugs events and overtreatment due to the natural course of blood pressure in persons with dementia. In the event of intolerance or side effects, medication should be switched or withdrawn. For persons with dementia and limited life expectancy, deprescribing should be part of usual care.

Background our aim was to assess the effectiveness of medication review and deprescribing interventions as a single intervention in falls prevention. Methods Design systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO until 28 March 2022. Eligibility criteria randomised controlled trials of older participants comparing any medication review or deprescribing intervention with usual care and reporting falls as an outcome. Study records title/abstract and full-text screening by two reviewers. Risk of bias Cochrane Collaboration revised tool. Data synthesis results reported separately for different settings and sufficiently comparable studies meta-analysed. Results forty-nine heterogeneous studies were included. Community meta-analyses of medication reviews resulted in a risk ratio (RR) of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.85–1.29, I2 = 0%, 3 studies(s)) for number of fallers, in an RR = 0.95 (0.70–1.27, I2 = 37%, 3 s) for number of injurious fallers and in a rate ratio (RaR) of 0.89 (0.69–1.14, I2 = 0%, 2 s) for injurious falls. Hospital meta-analyses assessing medication reviews resulted in an RR = 0.97 (0.74–1.28, I2 = 15%, 2 s) and in an RR = 0.50 (0.07–3.50, I2 = 72% %, 2 s) for number of fallers after and during admission, respectively. Long-term care meta-analyses investigating medication reviews or deprescribing plans resulted in an RR = 0.86 (0.72–1.02, I2 = 0%, 5 s) for number of fallers and in an RaR = 0.93 (0.64–1.35, I2 = 92%, 7 s) for number of falls. Conclusions the heterogeneity of the interventions precluded us to estimate the exact effect of medication review and deprescribing as a single intervention. For future studies, more comparability is warranted. These interventions should not be implemented as a stand-alone strategy in falls prevention but included in multimodal strategies due to the multifactorial nature of falls. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020218231

CASE DESCRIPTION: A frail 85-year-old woman with chronic neuropathic pain after hip surgery, not responding to treatment with acetaminophen and morphine patches. Should she be prescribed a gabapentinoid?DISCUSSION: Gabapentinoids and antidepressants are considered first-line therapies. They achieve clinically relevant (i.e. ≥ 50%) pain reduction in approximately one-third of patients with postherpetic neuralgia and peripheral diabetic neuropathy. Evidence for other types of neuropathic pain is limited. Adverse events occur frequently and are mostly mild in nature; serious adverse effects are rare. Prescription of gabapentinoids in specific patient groups (e.g. elderly patients and patients with a history of depression or substance abuse) deserves careful consideration, because the risk/benefit ratio in those groups may be altered. In order to reduce the risk of withdrawal symptoms, slow tapering is recommended.CONCLUSION: Chronic neuropathic pain often has a negative impact on the quality of life and is difficult to treat. In general, treatment with a gabapentinoid is a possible first-line treatment option. However, they may be relatively contraindicated in vulnerable patients.