DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception until September 2017; manual searches of reference lists of systematic reviews identified in the electronic search; and online trial registries for unpublished, ongoing, or planned trials. (PROSPERO CRD42016050028).
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized controlled trials in a nursing home setting that included participants of at least 60 years of age.
MEASURES: Falls, all-cause mortality, hospitalization, and potentially inappropriate medication were assessed in the meta-analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 41 randomized clinical studies (18,408 residents) that examined deprescribing (defined as either medication discontinuation, substitution, or reduction) in nursing were identified. Deprescribing interventions significantly reduced the number of residents with potentially inappropriate medications by 59% (odds ratio [OR] 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.89). In subgroup analysis, medication review-directed deprescribing interventions reduced all-cause mortality by 26% (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65-0.84), as well as the number of fallers by 24% (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62-0.93).
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to other deprescribing interventions, medication review-directed deprescribing had significant benefits on older residents in nursing homes. Further research is required to elicit other clinical benefits of medication review-directed deprescribing practice.
DESIGN: Pragmatic multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Residents across 4 nursing homes in Singapore were included if they were aged 65 years and above, and taking 5 or more medications.
METHODS: The intervention involved a 5-step deprescribing intervention, which involved a multidisciplinary team-care medication review with pharmacists, physicians, and nurses (in which pharmacists discussed with other team members the feasibility of deprescribing and implementation using the Beers and STOPP criteria) or to an active waitlist control for the first 3 months.
RESULTS: Two hundred ninety-five residents from 4 nursing homes participated in the study from February 2017 to March 2018. At 6 months, the deprescribing intervention did not reduce falls. Subgroup analysis showed that intervention reduced fall risk scores within the deprescribing-naïve group by 0.18 (P = .04). Intervention was associated with a reduction in mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 0.16, 95% confidence interval 0.07, 0.41; P
METHODS: An adapted Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach was used to develop the guidelines. This process involved detailed evaluation of the current scientific evidence paired with expert panel interpretation. Three categories of Clinical Practice Guidelines recommendations were developed: strong, conditional, and no recommendation.
RECOMMENDATIONS: Strong recommendations were (1) use a validated measurement tool to identify frailty; (2) prescribe physical activity with a resistance training component; and (3) address polypharmacy by reducing or deprescribing any inappropriate/superfluous medications. Conditional recommendations were (1) screen for, and address modifiable causes of fatigue; (2) for persons exhibiting unintentional weight loss, screen for reversible causes and consider food fortification and protein/caloric supplementation; and (3) prescribe vitamin D for individuals deficient in vitamin D. No recommendation was given regarding the provision of a patient support and education plan.
CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations provided herein are intended for use by healthcare providers in their management of older adults with frailty in the Asia Pacific region. It is proposed that regional guideline support committees be formed to help provide regular updates to these evidence-based guidelines.
OBJECTIVES: The current study aimed to assess the impact of medication reviews in aged care facilities, with additional focus on the types of medication reviews, using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies.
METHODS: A systematic searching of English articles that examined the medication reviews conducted in aged care facilities was performed using the following databases: PubMed, CINAHL, IPA, TRiP, and the Cochrane Library, with the last update in December 2015. Extraction of articles and quality assessment of included articles were performed independently by 2 authors. Data on interventions and outcomes were extracted from the included studies. The SIGN checklist for observational studies and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in RCTs were applied. Outcomes assessed were related to medications, reviews, and adverse events.
RESULTS: Because of the heterogeneity of the measurements, it was deemed inappropriate to conduct a meta-analysis and thus a narrative approach was employed. Twenty-two studies (10 observational studies and 12 controlled trials) were included from 1141 evaluated references. Of the 12 trials, 8 studies reported findings of pharmacist-led medication reviews and 4 reported findings of multidisciplinary team-based reviews. The medication reviews performed in the included trials were prescription reviews (n = 8) and clinical medication reviews (n = 4). In the case of the observational studies, the majority of the studies (8/12 studies) reported findings of pharmacist-led medication reviews, and only 2 studies reported findings of multidisciplinary team-based reviews. Similarly, 6 studies employed prescription reviews, whereas 4 studies employed clinical medication reviews. The majority of the recommendations put forward by the pharmacist or a multidisciplinary team were accepted by physicians. The number of prescribed medications, inappropriate medications, and adverse outcomes (eg, number of deaths, frequency of hospitalizations) were reduced in the intervention group.
CONCLUSION: Medication reviews conducted by pharmacists, either working independently or with other health care professionals, appear to improve the quality of medication use in aged care settings. However, robust conclusions cannot be drawn because of significant heterogeneity in measurements and potential risk for biases.
DESIGN: Mixed-methods systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42018091033).
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Asian adults (≥18 years old) living in the community globally.
METHODS: Medline (Ovid), Web of Science, CINAHL (EBSCO), Open Grey, and Google Scholar were searched from inception to June 30, 2022. Qualitative, quantitative, or mixed-methods studies reporting on the views of non-seriously ill community-dwelling Asian adults on ACP or the factors influencing their ACP uptake were included. Secondary research, studies not published in English, or studies not available as full text were excluded. Two independent teams of researchers extracted data, assessed methodologic quality, and performed the data analysis. Data analysis was conducted using the multistep convergent integrated approach based on Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for mixed-methods systematic review.
RESULTS: Fifty-eight studies were included. Non-seriously ill community-dwelling Asians were willing to engage in ACP (46.5%-84.4%) although their awareness (3.1%-42.9%) and uptake of ACP remained low (14.0%-53.4%). Background factors (sociodemographic factors, and health status, as well as experience and exposure to information) and underlying beliefs (attitude toward ACP, subjective norm, and perceived behavioral control) were found to affect their uptake of ACP. A conceptual framework was developed to facilitate a proper approach to ACP for this population.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: A flexible approach toward ACP is needed for non-seriously ill community-dwelling Asians. There is also a need to raise end-of-life and ACP literacy, and to explore ways to narrow the gap in the expectations and implementation of ACP so that trust in its effective execution can be built.