Search

OBJECTIVES: Long-term benzodiazepine use is common despite known risks. In the original Eliminating Medications Through Patient Ownership of End Results (EMPOWER) Study set in Canada, patient education led to increased rates of benzodiazepine cessation. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of implementing an adapted EMPOWER quality improvement (QI) initiative in a US-based healthcare system. DESIGN: We used a pre-post design with a non-randomised control group. SETTING: A network of primary care clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with ≥60 days supply of benzodiazepines in 6 months and ≥1 risk factor (≥65 years of age, a concurrent high-risk medication prescribed or a diazepam equivalent daily dose ≥10) were eligible. INTERVENTION: In March 2022, we engaged 22 primary care physicians (PCPs), and 308 of their patients were mailed an educational brochure, physician letter and flyer detailing benzodiazepine risks; the control group included 4 PCPs and 291 of their patients. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY MEASURES: The primary measure was benzodiazepine cessation by 9 months. We used logistic regression and a generalised estimating equations approach to control for clustering by PCP, adjusting for demographics, frailty, number of risk factors, and diagnoses of arthritis, depression, diabetes, falls, and pain. RESULTS: Patients in the intervention and control groups were comparable across most covariates; however, a greater proportion of intervention patients had pain-related diagnoses and depression. By 9 months, 26% of intervention patients (81 of 308) had discontinued benzodiazepines, compared with 17% (49 of 291) of control patients. Intervention patients had 1.73 greater odds of benzodiazepine discontinuation compared with controls (95% CI: 1.09, 2.75, p=0.02). The unadjusted number needed to treat was 10.5 (95% CI: 6.30, 34.92) and the absolute risk reduction was 0.095 (95% CI: 0.03 to 0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Results from this non-randomised QI initiative indicate that patient education programmes using the EMPOWER brochures have the potential to promote cessation of benzodiazepines in primary care.

Introduction: The prevalent overprescribing of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) poses health risks from prolonged use. GPs play a key role in initiating deprescribing PPIs, so understanding their decision-making factors and strategies to improve feasibility is crucial. This study aimed to investigate the perspectives of GPs on deprescribing PPIs with a focus on identifying facilitators, barriers, and strategies to enhance feasibility in clinical settings. Methods: A qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews was conducted with nine GPs or trainees. The thematic analysis of the interviews was conducted using NVivo R1 (2020). Results: Four main categories were identified: 1) Inappropriate prescribing of PPIs, 2) Facilitators for deprescribing PPIs, 3) Barriers to deprescribing PPIs, 4) Feasibility of deprescribing PPIs. GPs acknowledged excessive and often inappropriate PPI prescribing, with a lack of deprescribing efforts mainly due to time constraints. Other key barriers included patient reluctance, fear of symptom recurrence, and unawareness of long-term risks. Patient-initiated request is key facilitator for deprescribing PPIs. GPs emphasized the need for collaboration with healthcare professionals, clear guidelines, improved digital support, increased physician availability, and raising awareness among providers and patients to enhance deprescribing feasibility. Discussion: GPs are calling for a multifaceted approach to improve the feasibility of deprescribing PPIs, involving patient-centered approaches, systemic optimizations, support from other healthcare professionals, and provider-centered strategies to emphasize the importance of deprescribing PPIs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractIntroductionAimMethodsResultsDiscussion and implicationsConclusionsThe prevalence of sleep disorders and use of sleep medication, particularly melatonin, are rising among adolescents and young adults (13–24 years). In Denmark, melatonin is approved for use in children with autism and ADHD up to 18 years of age, with other prescriptions being off-label in these age groups. The perspectives of medical practitioners on prescribing sleep medications to this age group remain largely unexplored.This study aims to investigate the considerations of general practitioners (GPs) and child and adolescent psychiatrists (psychiatrists) when prescribing and deprescribing sleep medications for 13–24-year-olds.We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 10 GPs and six psychiatrists. Data were analyzed using an inductive approach.Psychiatrists typically prescribed melatonin with the expectation that deprescription would occur in general practice. Despite the universal goal of deprescription, it was hindered by various challenges. GPs identified patient motivation and a clear focus on deprescription as facilitative factors and expressed a need for enhanced emphasis on these aspects in general practice.The findings align with existing prescription trends and literature on factors that promote and inhibit deprescription. The study underscores the complexities of deprescribing sleep medications for adolescents and young adults, suggesting the need for expanded guidelines and enhanced continuing education for GPs.The research highlights significant discrepancies among medical practitioners regarding the deprescription process of sleep medications for young individuals, complicated by multiple factors. This underscores the need for better guidelines and further studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prescribing medications involves complex cognitive processes, and mistakes in prescription can cause serious adverse events. Deprescribing is one of the last opportunities to prevent patient harm from the use of drugs that should be avoided, especially among older patients. This viewpoint article aims to discuss the prescription process and some essential concepts, such as polypharmacy, prescription of potentially inappropriate medications, and, particularly, the relevance of deprescribing and its relationship with the appropriate prescription of medications in older people.

Introduction The prevalence of sleep disorders and use of sleep medication, particularly melatonin, are rising among adolescents and young adults (13–24 years). In Denmark, melatonin is approved for use in children with autism and ADHD up to 18 years of age, with other prescriptions being off-label in these age groups. The perspectives of medical practitioners on prescribing sleep medications to this age group remain largely unexplored.Aim This study aims to investigate the considerations of general practitioners (GPs) and child and adolescent psychiatrists (psychiatrists) when prescribing and deprescribing sleep medications for 13–24-year-olds.Methods We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with 10 GPs and six psychiatrists. Data were analyzed using an inductive approach.Results Psychiatrists typically prescribed melatonin with the expectation that deprescription would occur in general practice. Despite the universal goal of deprescription, it was hindered by various challenges. GPs identified patient motivation and a clear focus on deprescription as facilitative factors and expressed a need for enhanced emphasis on these aspects in general practice.Discussion and implications The findings align with existing prescription trends and literature on factors that promote and inhibit deprescription. The study underscores the complexities of deprescribing sleep medications for adolescents and young adults, suggesting the need for expanded guidelines and enhanced continuing education for GPs.Conclusions The research highlights significant discrepancies among medical practitioners regarding the deprescription process of sleep medications for young individuals, complicated by multiple factors. This underscores the need for better guidelines and further studies.

OBJECTIVE: Psychiatric deprescribing is an intervention where psychiatric medications are reduced or discontinued with the goal to improve health and reduce unnecessary risks. The purpose of this study was to synthesize the literature related to psychiatric deprescribing to discuss practice and research implications. METHODS: A structured search of the literature was conducted from May to September 2022, yielding 29 articles meeting inclusion criteria. Articles were reviewed and synthesized. RESULTS: Psychiatric deprescribing is a complex process with many potential facilitators and barriers. The extant literature provides insight into current gaps in knowledge and implications for clinical practice and research. CONCLUSIONS: In current clinical practice, psychiatric deprescribing is a priority but there are significant barriers. Several areas of future research could be pursued to better support evidence-based practice in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Diabetes mellitus is a complex group of chronic metabolic conditions. The incidence of frailty, sarcopenia, geriatric syndrome, and multiple chronic conditions is high in older patients with diabetes, who often require multiple medications for optimal glucose control and treatment of associated chronic complications. Unfortunately, polypharmacy is associated with a high risk of adverse outcomes, such as hypoglycemia, drug-drug interactions, and an increased socioeconomic burden in older adults with diabetes. Current Concepts: Elderly patients with diabetes are at a high risk for polypharmacy and consequently, a high risk of adverse drug reactions. Polypharmacy is defined as the cumulative use of five or more medications. Comprehensive management and deprescribing are the most important approaches to reduce polypharmacy. Deprescription refers to reduction in or cessation of inappropriate medications. Discussion and Conclusion: Polypharmacy continues to increase the risk of morbidity and mortality among older adults with diabetes. A comprehensive polypharmacy management and deprescription plan is warranted for significant risk reduction in elderly patients with diabetes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Benzodiazepine receptor agonists are often used for insomnia in older adults contrary to current evidence. The harms outweigh the benefits, which are limited. Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia is the first‐line recommended treatment. Sleepwell was created as a repository of evidence‐based resources to promote cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia and limit benzodiazepine receptor agonist use. This qualitative study uses an interpretive description design and reflexive thematic analysis to explore older adults' perspectives on behavioural change techniques used in Sleepwell resources. It also explores challenges and opportunities towards benzodiazepine receptor agonist discontinuation and cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia use. Participants were recruited from the Sleepwell arm of a randomized controlled trial. Data were collected from 15 older adults using semi‐structured interviews. Two main themes were developed: (1) sleep should not be this difficult; and (2) whether you know it, or learn it, drugs are bad. Two sub‐themes were created within the first theme: (1) justification of benzodiazepine receptor agonist use to achieve sleep goals; (2) efforts of committing to cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia. Several behavioural change techniques (e.g. information about consequences, anticipated regret, salience of consequences) were enablers of benzodiazepine receptor agonist‐related behaviour change. For committing to cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia, several behavioural change techniques (e.g. self‐monitoring of behaviour, distraction, stimulus substitution) were beneficial, but social support, which was perceived as useful, was absent. Older adults experienced tension with benzodiazepine receptor agonist use and deprescribing, despite knowing or learning the potential consequences of benzodiazepine receptor agonists. Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia implementation was challenging. Embedded behavioural change techniques in the Sleepwell booklets were identified as helpful, but more (e.g. social support) are needed to optimize cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IntroductionThe prevalent overprescribing of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) poses health risks from prolonged use. GPs play a key role in initiating deprescribing PPIs, so understanding their decision-making factors and strategies to improve feasibility is crucial. This study aimed to investigate the perspectives of GPs on deprescribing PPIs with a focus on identifying facilitators, barriers, and strategies to enhance feasibility in clinical settings.MethodsA qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews was conducted with nine GPs or trainees. The thematic analysis of the interviews was conducted using NVivo R1 (2020).ResultsFour main categories were identified: 1) Inappropriate prescribing of PPIs, 2) Facilitators for deprescribing PPIs, 3) Barriers to deprescribing PPIs, 4) Feasibility of deprescribing PPIs. GPs acknowledged excessive and often inappropriate PPI prescribing, with a lack of deprescribing efforts mainly due to time constraints. Other key barriers included patient reluctance, fear of symptom recurrence, and unawareness of long-term risks. Patient-initiated request is key facilitator for deprescribing PPIs. GPs emphasized the need for collaboration with healthcare professionals, clear guidelines, improved digital support, increased physician availability, and raising awareness among providers and patients to enhance deprescribing feasibility.DiscussionGPs are calling for a multifaceted approach to improve the feasibility of deprescribing PPIs, involving patient-centered approaches, systemic optimizations, support from other healthcare professionals, and provider-centered strategies to emphasize the importance of deprescribing PPIs.

Objective: To describe the psychotropic drug deprescription process in older patients of a geriatric psychiatry outpatient clinic. Methods: We conducted a quasi-experimental study of people aged < 60 years who were treated at Hospital São Lucas` Geriatric Psychiatry Outpatient Clinic, which is affiliated with Pontifícia Universidade Católica doRio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Data on 150 older people were collected from March 2021 to August 2022 and were evaluated by the pharmacists. The inclusion criteria were age < 60 years, being a patient of the hospital`s Geriatric Psychiatry Outpatient Clinic, use of at least one psychotropic drug, and agreeing to participate in the study. Those unable to report their medicationsand those who only came to the first appointment were excluded. Results: Overall, deprescription of at least one psychotropic drug was indicated in 61.3% (n = 92) of the participants, andit was effectively implemented in 68.5% (n = 63) of this group. Deprescribing, which was more frequent in the youngest age group (60-69 years) (p = 0.049), was indicated for 37.4% (n = 136) of psychotropic drugs, 67.6% (n = 92) of which were effectively deprescribed. The main classes indicated for deprescription were hypnotics and sedatives (90.0% n = 18) and anxiolytics(73.3%; n = 11). Conclusions: At least 1 psychotropic drug was indicated for deprescription in the majority of the patients, and in most cases it was effectively implemented. One-third ofthe prescribed psychotropic drugs were indicated for deprescription, and more than half were successfully deprescribed.

ObjectivesGeriatric guidelines strongly recommend avoiding benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepine sedative hypnotics in older adults. Hospitalisation may provide an important opportunity to begin the process of deprescribing these medications, particularly as new contraindications arise. We used implementation science models and qualitative interviews to describe barriers and facilitators to deprescribing benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepine sedative hypnotics in the hospital and develop potential interventions to address identified barriers.DesignWe used two implementation science models, the Capability, Opportunity and Behaviour Model (COM-B) and the Theoretical Domains Framework, to code interviews with hospital staff, and an implementation process, the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW), to codevelop potential interventions with stakeholders from each clinician group.SettingInterviews took place in a tertiary, 886-bed hospital located in Los Angeles, California.ParticipantsInterview participants included physicians, pharmacists, pharmacist technicians, and nurses.ResultsWe interviewed 14 clinicians. We found barriers and facilitators across all COM-B model domains. Barriers included lack of knowledge about how to engage in complex conversations about deprescribing (capability), competing tasks in the inpatient setting (opportunity), high levels of resistance/anxiety among patients to deprescribe (motivation), concerns about lack of postdischarge follow-up (motivation). Facilitators included high levels of knowledge about the risks of these medications (capability), regular rounds and huddles to identify inappropriate medications (opportunity) and beliefs that patients may be more receptive to deprescribing if the medication is related to the reason for hospitalisation (motivation). Potential modes of delivery included a seminar aimed at addressing capability and motivation barriers in nurses, a pharmacist-led deprescribing initiative using risk stratification to identify and target patients at highest need for deprescribing, and the use of evidence-based deprescribing education materials provided to patients at discharge.ConclusionsWhile we identified numerous barriers and facilitators to initiating deprescribing conversations in the hospital, nurse- and pharmacist-led interventions may be an appropriate opportunity to initiate deprescribing.

Background: Guidelines recommend deintensifying hypoglycemia-causing medications for older adults with diabetes whose hemoglobin A1c is below their individualized target, but this rarely occurs in practice. Objective: To understand physicians' decision-making around deintensifying diabetes treatment. Design: National physician survey. Participants: US physicians in general medicine, geriatrics, or endocrinology providing outpatient diabetes care. Main Measures: Physicians rated the importance of deintensifying diabetes medications for older adults with type 2 diabetes, and of switching medication classes, on 5-point Likert scales. They reported the frequency of these actions for their patients, and listed important barriers and facilitators. We evaluated the independent association between physicians' professional and practice characteristics and the importance of deintensifying and switching diabetes medications using multivariable ordered logistic regression models. Key Results: There were 445 eligible respondents (response rate 37.5%). The majority of physicians viewed deintensifying (80%) and switching (92%) diabetes medications as important or very important to the care of older adults. Despite this, one-third of physicians reported deintensifying diabetes medications rarely or never. While most physicians recognized multiple reasons to deintensify, two-thirds of physicians reported barriers of short-term hyperglycemia and patient reluctance to change medications or allow higher glucose levels. In multivariable models, geriatricians rated deintensification as more important compared to other specialties (p=0.027), and endocrinologists rated switching as more important compared to other specialties (p<0.006). Physicians with fewer years in practice rated higher importance of deintensification (p<0.001) and switching (p=0.003). Conclusions: While most US physicians viewed deintensifying and switching diabetes medications as important for the care of older adults, they deintensified infrequently. Physicians had ambivalence about the relative benefits and harms of deintensification and viewed it as a potential source of conflict with their patients. These factors likely contribute to clinical inertia, and studies focused on improving shared decision-making around deintensifying diabetes medications are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over half of older adults experience polypharmacy, including medications that may be inappropriate or unnecessary. Deprescribing, which is the process of discontinuing or reducing inappropriate and/or unnecessary medications, is an effective way to reduce polypharmacy. This review summarizes (1) the process of deprescribing and conceptual models and tools that have been developed to facilitate deprescribing, (2) barriers, enablers, and factors associated with deprescribing, and (3) characteristics of deprescribing interventions in completed trials, as well as (4) implementation considerations for deprescribing in routine practice. In conceptual models of deprescribing, multilevel factors of the patient, clinician, and health‐care system are all related to the efficacy of deprescribing. Numerous tools have been developed for clinicians to facilitate deprescribing, yet most require substantial time and, thus, may be difficult to implement during routine health‐care encounters. Multiple deprescribing interventions have been evaluated, which mostly include one or more of the following components: patient education, medication review, identification of deprescribing targets, and patient and/or provider communication about high‐risk medications. Yet, there has been limited consideration of implementation factors in prior deprescribing interventions, especially with regard to the personnel and resources in existing health‐care systems and the feasibility of incorporating components of deprescribing interventions into the routine care processes of clinicians. Future trials require a more balanced consideration of both effectiveness and implementation when designing deprescribing interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To characterize sliding-scale insulin (SSI) use in US nursing homes (NHs) before and after the COVID-19 pandemic. Cross-sectional study. A total of 129,829 US NH residents on SSI (01/2018-06/2022) across 12 NH chains with a common electronic health record system. Among all residents with at least 1 administration of SSI documented in the electronic medication administration record, we described resident demographics, frequency of SSI monotherapy vs combination therapy with another diabetes medication, number of daily capillary blood glucose readings ("fingersticks"), and hypoglycemia (capillary blood glucose <70 mg/dL) and hyperglycemia after first SSI use. We used interrupted time series analysis (ITS) with segmented linear regression models to examine whether the monthly prevalence of SSI use changed at and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020). There were 129,829 unique NH residents with SSI use [51% women, average age 71.3 (SD 11.7) years]. Of these, 36% of residents received SSI monotherapy and 64% received SSI combination therapy. Residents on SSI received an average of 3.96 (SD 1.41) fingersticks per day. Overall, 26% of SSI users experienced a hypoglycemic event within 30 days of the first SSI dose. The ITS analysis identified a step decrease in the rate of SSI use following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (43 fewer SSI users per 1000 insulin users) but no change in overall trend over time from before the onset of the pandemic. SSI use and fingerstick burden are high in NH residents. Hypoglycemia occurred commonly among residents on SSI. Future research should compare the safety and effectiveness of SSI monotherapy vs other diabetes medication regimens to guide person-centered prescribing decisions in NHs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The number of homebound elders has risen dramatically in the past decade and was accelerated by the Sars-Cov-2 COVID-19 pandemic. These individuals generally have 5 or more chronic conditions, take 6 or more medications, and are at elevated risk for functional decline. Polypharmacy constitutes a major burden for these individuals, putting them at risk for medication nonadherence, medication errors, medication interactions, and reduced quality of life. A team-based approach may help these elders manage medications more effectively.

Deprescribing has emerged as an important aspect of patient-centred medication management but is vastly underutilized in clinical practice. The current narrative review will describe an innovative patient-centred approach to deprescribing-N-of-1 trials. N-of-1 trials involve multiple-period crossover design experiments conducted within individual patients. They enable patients to compare the effects of two or more treatments or, in the case of deprescribing N-of-1 trials, continuation with a current treatment versus no treatment or placebo. N-of-1 trials are distinct from traditional between-patient studies such as parallel-group or crossover designs which provide an average effect across a group of patients and obscure differences between individuals. By generating data on the effect of an intervention for the individual rather than the population, N-of-1 trials can promote therapeutic precision. N-of-1 trials are a particularly appealing strategy to inform deprescribing because they can generate individual-level evidence for deprescribing when evidence is uncertain, and can thus allay patient and physician concerns about discontinuing medications. To illustrate the use of deprescribing N-of-1 trials, we share a case example of an ongoing series of N-of-1 trials that compare maintenance versus deprescribing of beta-blockers in patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. By providing quantifiable data on patient-reported outcomes, promoting personalized pharmacotherapy, and facilitating shared decision making, N-of-1 trials represent a potentially transformative strategy to address polypharmacy.

Interpreting results from deprescribing interventions to generate actionable evidence is challenging owing to inconsistent and heterogeneous outcome definitions between studies. We sought to characterize deprescribing intervention outcomes and recommend approaches to measure outcomes for future studies. A scoping literature review focused on deprescribing interventions for polypharmacy and informed a series of expert panel discussions and recommendations. Twelve experts in deprescribing research, policy, and clinical practice interventions participating in the Measures Workgroup of the US Deprescribing Research Network sought to characterize deprescribing outcomes and recommend approaches to measure outcomes for future studies. The scoping review identified 125 papers reflecting 107 deprescribing studies. Common outcomes included medication discontinuation, medication appropriateness, and a broad range of clinical outcomes potentially resulting from medication reduction. Panel recommendations included clearly defining clinically meaningful medication outcomes (e.g., number of chronic medications, dose reductions), ensuring adequate sample size and follow-up time to capture clinical outcomes resulting from medication discontinuation (e.g., quality of life [QOL]), and selecting appropriate and feasible data sources. A new conceptual model illustrates how downstream clinical outcomes (e.g., reduction in falls) should be interpreted in the context of initial changes in medication measures (e.g., reduction in mean total medications). Areas needing further development include implementation outcomes specific to deprescribing interventions and measures of adverse drug withdrawal events. Generating evidence to guide deprescribing is essential to address patient, caregiver, and clinician concerns about the benefits and harms of medication discontinuation. This article provides recommendations and an initial conceptual framework for selecting and applying appropriate intervention outcomes to support deprescribing research.

BackgroundPeople with dementia (PWD) take medications that may be unnecessary or harmful. This problem can be addressed through deprescribing, but it is unclear if PWD would be willing to engage in deprescribing with their providers. Our goal was to investigate attitudes toward deprescribing among PWD.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study of 422 PWD aged ≥65 years who completed the medications attitudes module of the National Health and Aging Trends Study (NHATS) in 2016. Proxies provided responses when a participant was unable to respond due to health or cognitive problems. Attitudinal outcomes comprised responses to two statements from the patients' attitudes toward deprescribing questionnaire and its revised version (representing belief about the necessity of one's medications and willingness to deprescribe); another elicited the maximum number of pills that a respondent would be comfortable taking.ResultsThe weighted sample represented over 1.8 million PWD; 39% were 75 to 84 years old and 38% were 85 years or older, 60% were female, and 55% reported six or more regular medications. Proxies provided responses for 26% of PWD. Overall, 22% believed that they may be taking one or more medicines that they no longer needed, 87% were willing to stop one or more of their medications, and 50% were uncomfortable taking five or more medications. Attitudinal outcomes were similar across sociodemographic and clinical factors. PWD taking ≥6 medications were more likely to endorse a belief that at least one medication was no longer necessary compared to those taking

Aims: To increase our understanding of which factors contribute to long‐term benzodiazepine receptor agonist (BZRA) use for insomnia in primary care, from a patients', general practitioners' (GP) and pharmacists' perspective. Design: Qualitative research following a grounded theory approach. Setting: Primary care in Belgium. Participants: Twenty‐four participants were interviewed, including nine patients, six GPs and nine pharmacists. Measurements: In‐depth, semistructured interviews with iterative cycles of data collection and analysis. Transcripts were analysed using the framework method. Thematic findings were interpreted in the context of the Theoretical Domains Framework. Findings: A reflexive relation was identified between views about hypnotic use at the level of society, healthcare and patients. Behaviour change appeared to depend strongly on context and social influence, including a need for supporting relationships by all stakeholders. Six key messages captured factors that contribute to long‐term BZRA use for insomnia in primary care: societal beliefs as a game changer, the opportunity of nonpharmacological treatment, collaborative primary care, patient‐centred goals, informed consent and self‐management. Conclusions: Long‐term BZRA use for insomnia is a complex and multifaceted public health problem that is not adequately addressed in primary care at this time. Although primary care professionals in this study found discontinuation of long‐term BZRA use relevant to the patient's health, many organisational and personal barriers were reported. Moreover, the current social and healthcare context is not empowering patients and professionals to reduce long‐term BZRA use for insomnia. Specifically, for primary care, all stakeholders reported the need for a nonmedicalised relationship between the patient and GP to lower prescribing rates. Patient or Public Contribution: The Flemish Patient Platform, a patient representative organisation, assisted with recruitment by launching a call for participants in their newsletter and volunteered to disseminate the results. The call for recruitment was also published online in social media groups regarding insomnia and via posters in public pharmacies. Patients or public were not involved in designing or conducting the interview study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stopping long-term (>12 months) antidepressant use can be difficult due to unpleasant withdrawal symptoms. Many people do not recognise withdrawal symptoms or understand how to minimise them while safely discontinuing antidepressants. To address the gaps, the authors developed the 'Redressing long-term antidepressant use' (RELEASE) resources, comprising a medicines information brochure, a decision aid, and drug- specific hyperbolic tapering protocols. Aim: To explore patients' acceptability of the RELEASE resources to optimise their use and impact. Design and setting: A think-aloud interview study among adults with lived experience of long-term antidepressant use conducted in south-east Queensland, Australia, between November 2021 and June 2022. Method: Participants were purposively sampled from general practices and interviewed face-to-face or via videoconferencing. Participants verbalised their thoughts, impressions, and feelings while engaging with each resource. Interviews were analysed using a deductive coding framework, including codes related to acceptability and optimisation. Interviews were analysed in a series of four tranches, with iterative modifications made to resources after each tranche. Results: Participants (n = 14) reported the resources to be relevant, informative, motivational, and usable. Participants' comments informed modifications, including changes to wording, content order, and layout. Several participants expressed frustration that they had not had these resources earlier, with one reporting the information could have been 'life changing'. Many commented on the need for these resources to be widely available to both patients and doctors. Conclusion: The RELEASE resources were found to be acceptable, useful, and potentially life changing. The effectiveness of these consumer-informed resources in supporting safe cessation of long-term antidepressants is currently being tested in general practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key summary points: Aim: To identify barriers and enablers to deprescribing in community-dwelling older adults. Findings: Barriers to deprescribing included: favorable perceptions of medications, fear of medication discontinuation, the complexity of the healthcare system and discouragement from healthcare professionals. Enablers to deprescribing included: medication safety concerns, patient autonomy and confidence, education, follow-up, deprescribing strategies, relationships with physicians and patient-perceived benefits of deprescribing. Message: Older adults face multiple barriers and enablers to deprescribing. Healthcare professionals should address these barriers and leverage the enablers to increasing deprescribing success. Purpose: The primary objective of this study was to identify the barriers and enablers to deprescribing from the viewpoint of community-dwelling older adults and their caregivers. Methods: This meta-synthesis included a systematic review of the literature and an inductive thematic synthesis. Medline and EMBASE were searched for studies that qualitatively explored the perspectives of older adults or their caregivers on deprescribing. Studies had to use qualitative methodologies and include community-dwelling adults (or their caregivers) aged 60 years or older who were taking one or more chronic medications. The quality of studies was assessed using the CASP tool. Results: Fourteen studies were included in the meta-synthesis. All studies included older adults, and 3 included caregivers or companions. Four barriers were identified: favorable perceptions of medications, fear of medication discontinuation, the complexity of the healthcare system and discouragement from healthcare professionals; and seven enablers were identified: medication safety concerns, patient autonomy and confidence, education, follow-up, deprescribing strategies, relationships with physicians, and patient-perceived benefits of deprescribing. Conclusion: Multiple barriers and enablers to deprescribing exist within the older adult population. Health system complexity and direct discouragement from healthcare providers were barriers uniquely identified in the older adult population. This population would benefit from interventions to increase their medication literacy, confidence, and autonomy in the deprescribing journey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Deprescribing of medications such as benzodiazepines and benzodiazepine receptor agonists (z-drugs) can be a complex process that varies across practices, specialties, and health care systems. Care coordination among healthcare providers, patients, families, and other healthcare system components is critical to achieving high levels of deprescribing and person-centered care. We present a framework for promoting care coordination in the context of benzodiazepine/z-drug deprescribing. Future efforts are needed to study the impact of better care coordination on benzodiazepines/z-drug discontinuation and other outcomes that are important to stakeholders.

Abstract Background Potentially inappropriate medication use is prevalent among older adults in primary care, leading to increased morbidity, adverse drug reactions, hospitalizations, and mortality. This study aimed to develop and validate a tool for identifying PIMs in older adults within the primary care setting. The tool is composed of a list of criteria and was created based on consensus among experts from three Spanish-speaking countries, including two from Latin America. Methods A literature review was conducted to identify existing tools, and prescription patterns were evaluated in a cohort of 36,111 older adults. An electronic Delphi method, consisting of two rounds, was used to reach a formal expert consensus. The panel included 18 experts from Spain, Colombia, and Argentina. The content validity index, validity of each content item, and Kappa Fleiss statistical measure were used to establish reliability. Results Round one did not yield a consensus, but a definitive consensus was reached in round two. The resulting tool consisted of a list of 5 general recommendations per disease, along with 33 criteria related to potential problems, recommendations, and alternative therapeutic options. The overall content validity of the tool was 0.87, with a Kappa value of 0.69 (95% CI 0.64—0.73; Substantial). Conclusions The developed criteria provide a novel list that allows for a comprehensive approach to pharmacotherapy in older adults, intending to reduce inappropriate medication use, ineffective treatments, prophylactic therapies, and treatments with an unfavorable risk–benefit ratio for the given condition. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the impact of these criteria on health outcomes.

The landscape of deprescribing has been rapidly evolving and expanding globally with the formation of regional and national deprescribing networks. The work of these networks is primarily focused on older adults and high-risk medications. The purpose of the current qualitative study is to describe successes and challenges of deprescribing from thought-leaders across the world. Fourteen key informant interviews were conducted from various disciplines, levels of experiences, and regions around the globe. From the interviews, six major themes across two domains were identified: (a) network structure, (b) public perception, (c) policy implications, (d) implementation, (e) challenges, and (f) recommendations. These domains, themes, and insight provided by deprescribing leaders contribute to the advancement of deprescribing networks as global efforts continue to focus on optimizing medication management. Collaboration among interprofessional team members will be critical to the expansion as well as sustainability of this important work. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 48(1), 7-14.].

ObjectivesTo evaluate the incidence of deprescribing of antihypertensive medication among older adults residing in Veterans Affairs (VA) nursing homes for long-term care and rates of deprescribing after potentially triggering events.DesignRetrospective cohort study.Setting and participantsLong-term care residents aged 65 years and older admitted to a VA nursing home from 2006 to 2019 and using blood pressure medication at admission.MethodsData were extracted from the VA electronic health record, and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Minimum Data Set and Bar Code Medication Administration. Deprescribing was defined on a rolling basis as a reduction in the number or dose of antihypertensive medications, sustained for ≥2 weeks. We examined potentially triggering events for deprescribing, including low blood pressure (

Abstract Aims To increase our understanding of which factors contribute to long‐term benzodiazepine receptor agonist (BZRA) use for insomnia in primary care, from a patients', general practitioners' (GP) and pharmacists' perspective. Design Qualitative research following a grounded theory approach. Setting Primary care in Belgium. Participants Twenty‐four participants were interviewed, including nine patients, six GPs and nine pharmacists. Measurements In‐depth, semistructured interviews with iterative cycles of data collection and analysis. Transcripts were analysed using the framework method. Thematic findings were interpreted in the context of the Theoretical Domains Framework. Findings A reflexive relation was identified between views about hypnotic use at the level of society, healthcare and patients. Behaviour change appeared to depend strongly on context and social influence, including a need for supporting relationships by all stakeholders. Six key messages captured factors that contribute to long‐term BZRA use for insomnia in primary care: societal beliefs as a game changer, the opportunity of nonpharmacological treatment, collaborative primary care, patient‐centred goals, informed consent and self‐management. Conclusions Long‐term BZRA use for insomnia is a complex and multifaceted public health problem that is not adequately addressed in primary care at this time. Although primary care professionals in this study found discontinuation of long‐term BZRA use relevant to the patient's health, many organisational and personal barriers were reported. Moreover, the current social and healthcare context is not empowering patients and professionals to reduce long‐term BZRA use for insomnia. Specifically, for primary care, all stakeholders reported the need for a nonmedicalised relationship between the patient and GP to lower prescribing rates. Patient or Public Contribution The Flemish Patient Platform, a patient representative organisation, assisted with recruitment by launching a call for participants in their newsletter and volunteered to disseminate the results. The call for recruitment was also published online in social media groups regarding insomnia and via posters in public pharmacies. Patients or public were not involved in designing or conducting the interview study.

Summary: Background: Hypoglycaemia from diabetes treatment causes morbidity and lower quality of life, and prevention should be routinely addressed in clinical visits. Methods: This mixed methods study evaluated how primary care providers (PCPs) assess for and prevent hypoglycaemia by analyzing audio-recorded visits from five Veterans Affairs medical centres in the US. Two investigators independently coded visit dialogue to classify discussions of hypoglycaemia history, anticipatory guidance, and adjustments to hypoglycaemia-causing medications according to diabetes guidelines. Findings: There were 242 patients (one PCP visit per patient) and 49 PCPs. Two thirds of patients were treated with insulin and 40% with sulfonylureas. Hypoglycaemia history was discussed in 78/242 visits (32%). PCPs provided hypoglycaemia anticipatory guidance in 50 visits (21%) that focused on holding diabetes medications while fasting and carrying glucose tabs; avoiding driving and glucagon were not discussed. Hypoglycaemia-causing medications were de-intensified or adjusted more often (p

Background: Potentially inappropriate medication use is prevalent among older adults in primary care, leading to increased morbidity, adverse drug reactions, hospitalizations, and mortality. This study aimed to develop and validate a tool for identifying PIMs in older adults within the primary care setting. The tool is composed of a list of criteria and was created based on consensus among experts from three Spanish-speaking countries, including two from Latin America. Methods: A literature review was conducted to identify existing tools, and prescription patterns were evaluated in a cohort of 36,111 older adults. An electronic Delphi method, consisting of two rounds, was used to reach a formal expert consensus. The panel included 18 experts from Spain, Colombia, and Argentina. The content validity index, validity of each content item, and Kappa Fleiss statistical measure were used to establish reliability. Results: Round one did not yield a consensus, but a definitive consensus was reached in round two. The resulting tool consisted of a list of 5 general recommendations per disease, along with 33 criteria related to potential problems, recommendations, and alternative therapeutic options. The overall content validity of the tool was 0.87, with a Kappa value of 0.69 (95% CI 0.64—0.73; Substantial). Conclusions: The developed criteria provide a novel list that allows for a comprehensive approach to pharmacotherapy in older adults, intending to reduce inappropriate medication use, ineffective treatments, prophylactic therapies, and treatments with an unfavorable risk–benefit ratio for the given condition. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the impact of these criteria on health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Current literature and practice have demonstrated that pharmacists have an integral role in deprescribing. However, research regarding their impact on patients with chronic diseases is limited. Objective: To assess the impact of a pharmacist-led intervention on deprescribing inappropriate medication for patients with chronic diseases within a four-month study period compared to patients receiving usual care. Methods: This study was conducted at NYU Langone Health. Patients of the intervention group were referred by a provider and met the criteria of polypharmacy, required chronic disease states management, were nonadherent to medications, had poor health literacy, or required titration for heart failure (HF) guideline directed medical therapy. Results: A total of 142 patients were reviewed over a two-year period. At the end of the study period, the median number of medications for the two respective groups was similar (11 [4 – 30] vs 11 [2 – 23]). The pharmacist-led intervention had on average one medication deprescribed (m = −1.00, sd = 2.57), whereas the control group had on average.44 additional medications (m = 0.44, sd = 3.32) prescribed. Furthermore, the intervention group presented statistically significant differences (P = 0.046) regarding their diastolic blood pressure after the pharmacists' intervention (m = 72.69, sd = 11.64). Most importantly, patients with HF presented statistically significant improvement in their ejection fractions after the intervention (m = 41.46%, sd = 19.28%). Conclusion: The pharmacist-led intervention resulted in significant discontinuation of medications for patients in the intervention group compared to those in the usual care group within four-months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Over the past decades, opioid prescriptions have increased in the Netherlands. The Dutch general practitioners' guideline on pain was recently updated and now aims to reduce opioid prescriptions and high-risk opioid use for non-cancer pain. The guideline, however, lacks practical measures for implementation. Objective This study aims to determine practical components for a tool that should assist Dutch primary care prescribers and implements the recently updated guideline to reduce opioid prescriptions and high-risk use. Methods A modified Delphi approach was used. The practical components for the tool were identified based on systematic reviews, qualitative studies, and Dutch primary care guidelines. Suggested components were divided into Part A, containing components designed to reduce opioid initiation and stimulate short-term use, and Part B, containing components designed to reduce opioid use among patients on long-term opioid treatment. During three rounds, a multidisciplinary panel of 21 experts assessed the content, usability, and feasibility of these components by adding, deleting, and adapting components until consensus was reached on the outlines of an opioid reduction tool. Results The resulting Part A consisted of six components, namely education, opioid decision tree, risk assessment, agreements on dosage and duration of use, guidance and follow-up, and interdisciplinary collaboration. The resulting Part B consisted of five components, namely education, patient identification, risk assessment, motivation, and tapering. Conclusions In this pragmatic Delphi study, components for an opioid reduction tool for Dutch primary care-givers are identified. These components need further development, and the final tool should be tested in an implementation study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Z-drugs (zopiclone, zolpidem and zaleplon) are drugs with dependence forming characteristics licensed for the short-term management of insomnia. Patients regularly prescribed z-drugs are candidates for 'structured medication reviews', routinely delivered by pharmacists employed in general practice or primary care networks in England. Aim: To understand the factors that affect pharmacist decision-making when reviewing and prescribing z-drugs in primary care. Method: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with general practice based pharmacists were conducted using MS Teams®. Clinical vignettes to simulate real-world practice were sent to participants and then discussed at interview, followed by structured interview questions. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed to identify themes and sub-themes expressed by participants. Results: Three over-arching themes emerged over the course of qualitative interviews with 10 clinical pharmacists: the perceived role of the pharmacist in deprescribing, the decision-making process, and perceptions of best practice. Pharmacists highlighted that relationships with patients were an important foundation for medication reviews regarding z-drugs and that at times they felt pressure to continue prescribing z-drugs beyond their licensed use. Participants explored rule-based reasoning and compassionate care when rationalising their decision-making for reviewing and prescribing z-drugs. Conclusion: Patient factors, time pressures, 'rule-based' beliefs and pharmacist self-efficacy were key practice aspects which can influence the pharmacist decision-making process when reviewing or prescribing z-drugs. Pharmacists believed z-drugs should be short-term interventions for insomnia, with non-pharmacological, holistic treatment being more appropriate for long term management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resumen: El consumo de benzodiacepinas en nuestro medio ha aumentado en los últimos años debido al incremento en los trastornos de salud mental por motivo de la pandemia de COVID-19; sin embargo, los datos ya mostraban un incremento previo no solamente en España, sino a nivel mundial. Las causas detectadas son la falta de tiempo, las inercias del médico y el paciente, la falta de conocimiento en el manejo de su retirada, entre otras. La mayoría de las prescripciones se realizan en el contexto de la atención primaria. Por ello, también debería de ser el espacio en el que se deberían de realizar las deprescripciones. Este artículo analiza las causas del incremento en el consumo de benzodiacepinas, el momento en el que se deberían de retirar, las estrategias para poder llevar a cabo un correcta retirada y las estrategias comunitarias llevadas a cabo en España que han contribuido a disminuir su consumo. Abstract: The consumption of benzodiazepines in our environment has increased in recent years due to the increase in Mental Health disorders caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the data already showed a previous increase not only in Spain but worldwide. The causes detected are the lack of time, the inertia of the doctor and the patient or the lack of knowledge in the management of its withdrawal. Most prescriptions are made in the Primary Care context. For this reason, it should also be the space in which the deprescriptions should be carried out. This article analyzes the causes of the increase, the moment in which they should be withdrawn, the strategies to be able to carry out a correct withdrawal and community strategies carried out in Spain that have contributed to reducing their consumption.

Summary: Background: The optimal duration of anticoagulation in patients with active cancer and venous thromboembolism (VTE) is unknown. Current clinical guidelines advocate anticoagulant therapy for 3–6 months and to continue anticoagulant therapy for as long as the cancer is active. However, an adequate systematic review on the rate of recurrent VTE after discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy has not been performed. Methods: For this systemic review and meta-analysis, we searched Embase.com, Medline (Ovid), Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar, from database inception to February 16, 2023, for studies on anticoagulant therapy in patients with cancer and the recurrence of venous thromboembolism after discontinuation of this therapy. We included randomised controlled trials and cohort studies published in English that reported on patients who met the following: cancer and a first VTE, completed at least 3 months of anticoagulant therapy, were followed after discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy, and with symptomatic recurrent VTE as an outcome during follow-up. Study-level data were requested from study authors. The primary outcome was the rate of recurrent VTE after discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy. A Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the rate of recurrent VTE per 100 person-years for the pooled studies at different time intervals after discontinuation of anticoagulation therapy. We also calculated the cumulative VTE recurrence rate at different time intervals. Forest plots were mapped and the results were summarized by the median and 95% credible interval (CIs). This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021249060. Findings: Of 3856 studies identified in our search, 33 studies were identified for inclusion. After requesting study-level data, 14 studies involving 1922 patients with cancer-associated thrombosis were included. The pooled rate of recurrent VTE per 100 person-years after discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy was 14.6 events (95% credible interval 6.5–22.8) in the first three months, decreasing to 1.1 events (95% CI 0.3–2.1) in year 2–3, and 2.2 events (95% CI 0.0–4.4) in year 3–5 after discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy. The cumulative VTE recurrence rate was 28.3% (95% CI 15.6–39.6%) at 1 year; 31.1% (95% CI 16.5–43.8%) at 2 years; 31.9% (95% CI 16.8–45.0%) at 3 years; and 35.0% (95% CI 16.8–47.4%) at 5 years after discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy. Interpretation: This meta-analysis demonstrates a high rate of recurrent VTE over time after discontinuation of anticoagulant therapy in patients with cancer-associated thrombosis. Our results support the current clinical guidelines to continue anticoagulant therapy in patients with active cancer. Funding: Erasmus MC.

Even though antithrombotic therapy has probably little or even negative effects on the well-being of people with cancer during their last year of life, deprescribing antithrombotic therapy at the end of life is rare in practice. It is often continued until death, possibly resulting in excess bleeding, an increased disease burden and higher healthcare costs. The SERENITY consortium comprises researchers and clinicians from eight European countries with specialties in different clinical fields, epidemiology and psychology. SERENITY will use a comprehensive approach combining a realist review, flash mob research, epidemiological studies, and qualitative interviews. The results of these studies will be used in a Delphi process to reach a consensus on the optimal design of the shared decision support tool. Next, the shared decision support tool will be tested in a randomised controlled trial. A targeted implementation and dissemination plan will be developed to enable the use of the SERENITY tool across Europe, as well as its incorporation in clinical guidelines and policies. The entire project is funded by Horizon Europe. SERENITY will develop an information-driven shared decision support tool that will facilitate treatment decisions regarding the appropriate use of antithrombotic therapy in people with cancer at the end of life. We aim to develop an intervention that guides the appropriate use of antithrombotic therapy, prevents bleeding complications, and saves healthcare costs. Hopefully, usage of the tool leads to enhanced empowerment and improved quality of life and treatment satisfaction of people with advanced cancer and their care givers. • Antithrombotic therapy (ATT) is rarely discontinued in people with advanced cancer. • ATT can cause excess bleeding and an increased disease burden in people with cancer. • Evidence on deprescribing ATT in people with cancer is lacking. • SERENITY uses various research methods to evaluate ATT use in people with cancer. • A shared decision-making tool will be designed to optimise ATT at the end of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Long term opioids are commonly prescribed to manage pain. Dose reduction or discontinuation (deprescribing) can be challenging, even when the potential harms of continuation outweigh the perceived benefits. The Evidence‐based clinical practice guideline for deprescribing opioid analgesics was developed using robust guideline development processes and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and contains deprescribing recommendations for adults prescribed opioids for pain. Main recommendations: Eleven recommendations provide advice about when, how and for whom opioid deprescribing should be considered, while noting the need to consider each person's goals, values and preferences. The recommendations aim to achieve: implementation of a deprescribing plan at the point of opioid initiation;initiation of opioid deprescribing for persons with chronic non‐cancer or chronic cancer‐survivor pain if there is a lack of overall and clinically meaningful improvement in function, quality of life or pain, a lack of progress towards meeting agreed therapeutic goals, or the person is experiencing serious or intolerable opioid‐related adverse effects;gradual and individualised deprescribing, with regular monitoring and review;consideration of opioid deprescribing for individuals at high risk of opioid‐related harms;avoidance of opioid deprescribing for persons nearing the end of life unless clinically indicated;avoidance of opioid deprescribing for persons with a severe opioid use disorder, with the initiation of evidence‐based care, such as medication‐assisted treatment of opioid use disorder; anduse of evidence‐based co‐interventions to facilitate deprescribing, including interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary or multimodal care. Changes in management as a result of these guidelines: To our knowledge, these are the first evidence‐based guidelines for opioid deprescribing. The recommendations intend to facilitate safe and effective deprescribing to improve the quality of care for persons taking opioids for pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ongoing increase in the proportion of elderly people in society, sometimes referred to as the aging societies phenomenon, has numerous effects. Multimorbidity affects about every third person in the general population and, on average, the likelihood of chronic illness increases with age, so multimorbidity is more common in older age groups. This increases the demand for medication, leading to concurrent use of many drugs, which is referred to as polypharmacy. We carried out a literature review to identify the problems associated with the use of medications in people sixty years and older. Aging societies contain an increasing number of elderly people struggling with the burden of multimorbidity and the resulting polypharmacy. They require a systemic approach to prescription problems, which include potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) and overprescription, as well as potential prescribing omission (PPO), taking into account issues like lack of patient compliance and self-medication. Any attempt to solve these problems requires tools to objectively evaluate prescription practice, using the existing and emerging capabilities of electronic health records (EHR), actively encouraging all medical personnel who prescribe medications or evaluate their use (including physicians, nurses and pharmacists) to join rational deprescribing attempts, and convincing patients that more drugs are not always better. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: There is increasing recognition of the need for deprescribing of inappropriate medications in older adults. However, efforts to encourage implementation of deprescribing in clinical practice have resulted in mixed results across settings and countries.Area covered: Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar in June 2019. Reference lists, citation checking, and personal reference libraries were also utilized. Studies capturing the main challenges of, and opportunities for, implementing deprescribing into clinical practice across selected health-care settings internationally, and international deprescribing-orientated policies were included and summarized in this narrative review.Expert opinion: Deprescribing intervention studies are inherently heterogeneous because of the complexity of interventions employed and often do not reflect the real-world. Further research investigating enhanced implementation of deprescribing into clinical practice and across health-care settings is required. Process evaluations in deprescribing intervention studies are needed to determine the contextual factors that are important to the translation of the interventions in the real-world. Deprescribing interventions may need to be individually tailored to target the unique barriers and opportunities to deprescribing in different clinical settings. Introduction of national policies to encourage deprescribing may be beneficial, but need to be evaluated to determine if there are any unintended consequences.

Background/objectivesGuideline-based management of cardiovascular disease often involves prescribing multiple medications, which contributes to polypharmacy and risk for adverse drug events in older adults. Deprescribing is a potential strategy to mitigate these risks. We sought to characterize and compare clinician perspectives regarding deprescribing cardiovascular medications across three specialties.DesignNational cross-sectional survey.SettingAmbulatory.ParticipantsRandom sample of geriatricians, general internists, and cardiologists from the American College of Physicians.MeasurementsElectronic survey assessing clinical practice of deprescribing cardiovascular medications, reasons and barriers to deprescribing, and choice of medications to deprescribe in hypothetical clinical cases.ResultsIn each specialty, 750 physicians were surveyed, with a response rate of 26% for geriatricians, 26% for general internists, and 12% for cardiologists. Over 80% of respondents within each specialty reported that they had recently considered deprescribing a cardiovascular medication. Adverse drug reactions were the most common reason for deprescribing for all specialties. Geriatricians also commonly reported deprescribing in the setting of limited life expectancy. Barriers to deprescribing were shared across specialties and included concerns about interfering with other physicians' treatment plans and patient reluctance. In hypothetical cases, over 90% of physicians in each specialty chose to deprescribe when patients experienced adverse drug reactions. Geriatricians were most likely and cardiologists were least likely to consider deprescribing cardiovascular medications in cases of limited life expectancy (all P

Abstract Background Although antihypertensive drug therapy is commonly believed to be a life-long therapy, several recent guidelines have suggested that antihypertensive medications can be gradually reduced or discontinued for some patients whose blood pressure (BP) is well-controlled for an extended period. Thus, this pilot study aimed to describe the success rate of antihypertensive drug discontinuation over 6 months among young and middle-aged patients with hypertension. Methods This was a prospective, single-group, intervention study. Patients were eligible for inclusion if their cardiologist judged them to be appropriate candidates for this study, their BP had been controlled both in the office (

BackgroundOlder adults are particularly vulnerable to complications from proton pump inhibitor (PPI) drugs. We sought to characterize the prevalence of potentially low-value PPI prescriptions among older adults to inform a quality improvement (QI) intervention.MethodsWe created a cohort of patients, aged 65 years or older, receiving primary care at a large academic health system in 2018. We identified patients currently prescribed any PPI using the electronic health record (EHR) medication list (current defined as September 1, 2018). A geriatrician, a gastroenterologist, a QI expert, and two primary care physicians (PCPs) created multidisciplinary PPI appropriateness criteria based on evidenced-based guidelines. Supervised by a gastroenterologist and PCP, two internal medicine residents conducted manual chart reviews in a random sample of 399 patients prescribed PPIs. We considered prescriptions potentially low value if they lacked a guideline-based (1) short-term indication (gastroesophageal reflux disease [GERD]/peptic ulcer disease/Helicobacter pylori gastritis/dyspepsia) or (2) long-term (>8 weeks) indication (severe/refractory GERD/erosive esophagitis/Barrett esophagus/esophageal adenocarcinoma/esophageal stricture/high gastrointestinal bleeding risk/Zollinger-Ellison syndrome). We used the Wilson score method to calculate 95% confidence intervals (CIs) on low-value PPI prescription prevalence.ResultsAmong 69 352 older adults, 8729 (12.6%) were prescribed a PPI. In the sample of 399 patients prescribed PPIs, 63.9% were female; their mean age was 76.2 years, and they were seen by 169 PCPs. Of the 399 prescriptions, 143 (35.8%; 95% CI = 31.3%-40.7%) were potentially low value-of which 82% began appropriately (eg, GERD) but then continued long term without a guideline-based indication. Among 169 PCPs, 32 (18.9%) contributed to 59.2% of potentially low-value prescriptions.ConclusionOne in eight older adults were prescribed a PPI, and over one-third of prescriptions were potentially low-value. Most often, appropriate short-term prescriptions became potentially low value because they lacked long-term indications. With most potentially low-value prescribing concentrated among a small subset of PCPs, interventions targeting them and/or applying EHR-based automatic stopping rules may protect older adults from harm. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:2600-2604, 2019.

Abstract Introduction First-line treatment for behavioral and psychiatric symptoms of dementia is non-pharmacological. Still, psychotropic medication is widely used, despite its limited effect and harmful side-effects. More than half of all nursing home residents with dementia receive antidepressants, even though deprescribing is safe and feasible. Interventions to promote deprescribing of antidepressants in nursing homes are few and complex. To optimize the deprescribing process through an intervention, transparency for the development of the intervention is needed. We aim to describe the steps in the development and tailoring of an intervention targeting GPs, nursing home staff, and relatives to enhance collaboration on reducing the use of antidepressants in institutionalized older persons with dementia in Denmark. Method A step-wise process guided by the core elements in the Medical Research Council constituted the tailoring process. Five steps were included; 1) a literature search, 2) interviews with stakeholders, 3) drafting the intervention prototype, 4) professionals’ assessment of the intervention, and 5) refinement of the intervention. The steps were conducted from June 2020 to June 2022. Results Based on the literature search, interviews with stakeholders, and professionals’ assessment of the intervention, four main themes were identified; 1) focusing on antidepressants, 2) importance of professional qualifications, 3) collaboration and communication, and 4) patient and relative involvement. They guided intervention development and refinement of the final intervention, which included 1) a case-based training course and 2) a dialog tool including a symptom assessment scale to be used in a structured consultation at the nursing home. Conclusion This study presents a detailed account of the tailoring process for a complex intervention to optimize deprescribing of antidepressants for older persons with dementia at nursing homes. By presenting a thorough development process, we expect to achieve increased adherence to the intervention which is currently being tested in an ongoing cluster randomized controlled trial. The transparency of the process will also increase the future development of other similar complex interventions.

Trials of hospital deprescribing interventions have demonstrated limited changes in practitioner behaviour. Our previous research characterised four barriers and one enabler to geriatricians and pharmacists deprescribing in hospital that require addressing by a behaviour change intervention. Six behaviour change techniques (BCTs) have also been selected by the target audience using the hospital Deprescribing Implementation Framework (hDIF). This research aimed to co-design and operationalise the content, mode of delivery and duration/intensity of the six selected BCTs to develop the CompreHensive geriAtRician-led MEdication Review (CHARMER) deprescribing intervention. We established co-design panels at three hospitals representing contextual factors likely to influence CHARMER implementation. Panels comprised geriatricians, pharmacists and other hospital staff likely to be involved in implementation. We convened two rounds of co-design workshops with each hospital to design a prototype for each BCT, which went for feedback at a final workshop attended by all three hospital panels. The six BCTs were co-designed into an intervention comprising:(1&2) Pharmacists' workshop with pros and cons of deprescribing activities, and videos of salient patient cases3 Regular geriatrician and pharmacist deprescribing briefings4 Videos of geriatricians navigating challenging deprescribing consultations5 Hospital deprescribing action plan6 Dashboard to benchmark deprescribing activitiesAutomated prompts to flag high-risk patients for deprescribing and a primary and secondary care deprescribing forum were proposed as additional BCTs by stakeholders. These were later excluded as they were not fidelitous to the theoretical determinants of geriatricians' and pharmacists' deprescribing behaviours. This study illustrates the integration of theory and co-design methodology with the target audience and staff likely to be involved in implementation of a hospital deprescribing behaviour change intervention. The development of an intervention that remains faithful to the underpinning mechanisms of action of behaviour change is a strength of this approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: While many older adults with type 2 diabetes have tight glycemic control beyond guideline-recommended targets, deintensifying (stopping or dose-reducing) diabetes medications rarely occurs. Objective: To explore the perspectives of older adults with type 2 diabetes around deintensifying diabetes medications. Design: This qualitative study used individual semi-structured interviews, which included three clinical scenarios where deintensification may be indicated. Participants: Twenty-four adults aged ≥65 years with medication-treated type 2 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c <7.5% were included (to thematic saturation) using a maximal variation sampling strategy for diabetes treatment and physician specialty. Approach: Interviews were independently coded by two investigators and analyzed using a grounded theory approach. We identified major themes and subthemes and coded responses to the clinical scenarios as positive (in favor of deintensification), negative, or ambiguous. Key Results: Participants' mean age was 74 years, half were women, and 58% used a sulfonylurea or insulin. The first of four major themes was fear of losing control of diabetes, which participants weighed against the benefits of taking less medication (Theme 2). Few participants viewed glycemic control below target as a reason for deintensification and a majority would restart the medication if their home glucose increased. Some participants were anchored to their current diabetes treatment (Theme 3) driven by unrealistic views of medication benefits. A trusting patient-provider relationship (Theme 4) was a positive influence. In clinical scenarios, 8%, 4%, and 75% of participants viewed deintensification positively in the setting of poor health, limited life expectancy, and high hypoglycemia risk, respectively. Conclusions: Optimizing deintensification requires patient education that describes both individualized glycemic targets and how they will change over the lifespan. Deintensification is an opportunity for shared decision-making, but providers must understand patients' beliefs about their medications and address misconceptions. Hypoglycemia prevention may be a helpful framing for discussing deintensification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ObjectiveTo update evidence-based recommendations for the treatment of patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and nonradiographic axial spondyloarthritis (SpA).MethodsWe conducted updated systematic literature reviews for 20 clinical questions on pharmacologic treatment addressed in the 2015 guidelines, and for 26 new questions on pharmacologic treatment, treat-to-target strategy, and use of imaging. New questions addressed the use of secukinumab, ixekizumab, tofacitinib, tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) biosimilars, and biologic tapering/discontinuation, among others. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations and required at least 70% agreement among the voting panel.ResultsRecommendations for AS and nonradiographic axial SpA are similar. TNFi are recommended over secukinumab or ixekizumab as the first biologic to be used. Secukinumab or ixekizumab is recommended over the use of a second TNFi in patients with primary nonresponse to the first TNFi. TNFi, secukinumab, and ixekizumab are favored over tofacitinib. Co-administration of low-dose methotrexate with TNFi is not recommended, nor is a strict treat-to-target strategy or discontinuation or tapering of biologics in patients with stable disease. Sulfasalazine is recommended only for persistent peripheral arthritis when TNFi are contraindicated. For patients with unclear disease activity, spine or pelvis magnetic resonance imaging could aid assessment. Routine monitoring of radiographic changes with serial spine radiographs is not recommended.ConclusionThese recommendations provide updated guidance regarding use of new medications and imaging of the axial skeleton in the management of AS and nonradiographic axial SpA.

Background Long-term corticosteroid therapy is the standard of care for treatment of cardiac sarcoidosis (CS). The efficacy of long-term corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppression in CS is unknown. The goal of this study was to assess the efficacy of methotrexate with or without adalimumab for long-term disease suppression in CS, and to assess recurrence and adverse event rates after immunosuppression discontinuation. Methods and Results Retrospective chart review identified treatment-naive CS patients at a single academic medical center who received corticosteroid-sparing maintenance therapy. Demographics, cardiac uptake of 18-fluorodeoxyglucose, and adverse cardiac events were compared before and during treatment and between those with persistent or interrupted immunosuppression. Twenty-eight CS patients were followed for a mean 4.1 (SD 1.5) years. Twenty-five patients received 4 to 8 weeks of high-dose prednisone (>30 mg/day), followed by taper and maintenance therapy with methotrexate±low-dose prednisone (low-dose prednisone,

A World Café workshop was held at the Bruyère Evidence-Based Deprescribing Guidelines Symposium in March 2018 with 30 participants (researchers, clinicians, policy makers, stakeholders). This workshop explored priorities for future work in the field of deprescribing and deprescribing guidelines through group discussion. The discussions were guided by the following questions: (1) What are deprescribing research priorities (to inform guideline development), (2) What outcome measures are important for developing deprescribing guidelines, and (3) How do we evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of deprescribing guidelines? Discussion from all 3 questions identified 6 main priority areas: (1) conducting high-quality and long-term clinical trials that measure patient-important outcomes, (2) focusing on patient involvement and perspectives, (3) investigating the pharmacoeconomics of deprescribing interventions, (4) understanding deprescribing interventions in different populations, (5) generating evidence on clinical management during deprescribing (e.g. managing adverse drug withdrawal effects, subsequent re-prescribing), and (6) implementing interventions in clinical practice. These topics represent what a group of experienced researchers, clinicians, and stakeholders in the field collectively felt was important to consider for design and implementation of future deprescribing studies. The aim is for these findings to stimulate future discussions and be considered by granting agencies, policy makers, deprescribing research networks, and individual researchers planning future deprescribing studies.

Deprescribing, an integral component of a continuum of good prescribing practices, is the process of medication withdrawal or dose reduction to correct or prevent medication-related complications, improve outcomes, and reduce costs. Deprescribing is particularly applicable to the commonly encountered multimorbid older adult with cardiovascular disease and concomitant geriatric conditions such as polypharmacy, frailty, and cognitive dysfunction-a combination rarely addressed in current clinical practice guidelines. Triggers to deprescribe include present or expected adverse drug reactions, unnecessary polypharmacy, and the need to align medications with goals of care when life expectancy is reduced. Using a framework to deprescribe, this review addresses the rationale, evidence, and strategies for deprescribing cardiovascular and some noncardiovascular medications.

ObjectivesTo identify the top priority areas for research to optimize pharmacotherapy in older adults with cardiovascular disease (CVD).DesignConsensus meeting.SettingMultidisciplinary workshop supported by the National Institute on Aging, the American College of Cardiology, and the American Geriatrics Society, February 6-7, 2017.ParticipantsLeaders in the Cardiology and Geriatrics communities, (officers in professional societies, journal editors, clinical trialists, Division chiefs), representatives from the NIA; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; Food and Drug Administration; Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, pharmaceutical industry, and trainees and early career faculty with interests in geriatric cardiology.MeasurementsSummary of workshop proceedings and recommendations.ResultsTo better align older adults' healthcare preferences with their care, research is needed to improve skills in patient engagement and communication. Similarly, to coordinate and meet the needs of older adults with multiple comorbidities encountering multiple healthcare providers and systems, systems and disciplines must be integrated. The lack of data from efficacy trials of CVD medications relevant to the majority of older adults creates uncertainty in determining the risks and benefits of many CVD therapies; thus, developing evidence-based guidelines for older adults with CVD is a top research priority. Polypharmacy and medication nonadherence lead to poor outcomes in older people, making research on appropriate prescribing and deprescribing to reduce polypharmacy and methods to improve adherence to beneficial therapies a priority.ConclusionThe needs and circumstances of older adults with CVD differ from those that the current medical system has been designed to meet. Optimizing pharmacotherapy in older adults will require new data from traditional and pragmatic research to determine optimal CVD therapy, reduce polypharmacy, increase adherence, and meet person-centered goals. Better integration of the multiple systems and disciplines involved in the care of older adults will be essential to implement and disseminate best practices. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:371-380, 2019.

Patients with worsening heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) spend a large proportion of time in the hospital and other health care facilities. The benefits of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in the outpatient setting have been shown in large randomized controlled trials. However, the decision to initiate, continue, switch, or withdraw HFrEF medications in the inpatient setting is often based on multiple factors and subject to significant variability across providers. Based on available data, in well-selected, treatment-naïve patients who are hemodynamically stable and clinically euvolemic after stabilization during hospitalization for HF, elements of GDMT can be safely initiated. Inpatient continuation of GDMT for HFrEF appears safe and well-tolerated in most hemodynamically stable patients. Hospitalization is also a potential time for switching from an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor/angiotensin II receptor blocker to sacubitril/valsartan therapy in eligible patients, and is the subject of ongoing study. Therapy withdrawal or need for dose reduction is rarely required, but if needed identifies a particularly at-risk group of patients with progressive HF. If recurrent intolerance to neurohormonal blockers is observed, these patients should be evaluated for advanced HF therapies. There is an enduring need for using the teachable moment of HFrEF hospitalization for optimal initiation, continuation, and switching of GDMT to improve post-discharge patient outcomes and the quality of chronic HFrEF care.