Medications in long-term care: when less is more

Attention has been drawn to the potential risks of several medications in the long-term care setting. Most of these medications deemed as inappropriate affect the central nervous system and are indicated only for select populations with specific conditions. Many of these drugs are prescribed without clear indications and continued indefinitely without critical decision-making about the potentially salutary effects of discontinuing medications. This article describes the increasing awareness of potentially inappropriate prescribing in the long-term care setting and reviews the rationale for why various types of medications are deemed inappropriate, with a focus on agents that affect central nervous system functioning.     

Prescribing practices in psychiatric hospitals in Eastern Europe

Background

There has been no evidence about the prescribing practices in psychiatric care in Eastern Europe.

Aims

To examine the patterns of psychotropic prescribing in five countries of Eastern Europe.

Method

We conducted a one-day census of psychiatric treatments used in eight psychiatric hospitals in Albania, Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia and Romania. We examined clinical records and medication charts of 1304 patients.

Results

The use of polypharmacy was frequent across all diagnostic groups. Only 6.8% of patients were on monotherapy. The mean number of prescribed drugs was 2.8 (SD 0.97) with 26.5% receiving two drugs, 42.1% receiving three drugs and 22.1% being prescribed four or more psychotropic drugs. Typical antipsychotics were prescribed to 63% and atypical antipsychotics to 40% of patients with psychosis. Older generations of antidepressants were prescribed to 29% of patients with depression. Anxiolitic drugs were prescribed to 20.4% and benzodiazepines to 68.5% of patients. One third of patients received an anticholinergic drug on a regular basis.

Conclusions

Older generation antipsychotics and antidepressants were used more frequently than in the countries of Western Europe. Psychotropic polypharmacy is a common practice. There is a need for adopting more evidence-based practice in psychiatric care in these countries.     

An update on the clinical consequences of polypharmacy in older adults: a narrative review

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Polypharmacy, the use of multiple medications by one individual, is increasingly common among older adults. Caring for the growing number of older people with complex drug regimens and multimorbidity presents an important challenge in the coming years.

Areas covered: This article reviews the international trends in the prevalence of polypharmacy, summarizes the results from previous reviews on polypharmacy and negative health outcomes, and updates a previous review on the clinical consequences of polypharmacy by focusing on studies published after 2013. This narrative review, which is based on a literature search in MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 1990 to June 2018, was undertaken to identify relevant articles. Search terms included variations of polypharmacy and multiple medications.

Expert opinion: The prevalence of polypharmacy is increasing worldwide. More than half of the older population is exposed to polypharmacy in some settings. Polypharmacy is associated with a broad range of clinical consequences. However, methods to assess the dangers of polypharmacy should be refined. In our opinion, the issue of ‘confounding by multimorbidity’ has been underestimated and should be better accounted for in future studies. Moreover, researchers should develop more clinically relevant definitions of polypharmacy, including measures of inappropriate or problematic polypharmacy.     

Complex and Potentially Harmful Medication Patterns in Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction

BackgroundComplex medication regimens, often present in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction, may increase the risk of adverse drug effects and harm. We sought to characterize this complexity by determining the prevalence of polypharmacy, potentially inappropriate medications, and therapeutic competition (where a medication for 1 condition may worsen another condition) in 1 of the few dedicated heart failure with preserved ejection fraction programs in the United States.MethodsWe conducted chart review on 231 patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction seen in the University of Michigan's Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction Clinic between July 2016 and September 2019. We recorded: 1) standing medications to determine the presence of polypharmacy, defined as ≥10 medications; 2) potentially inappropriate medications based on the 2016 American Heart Association Scientific Statement on drugs that pose a major risk of causing or exacerbating heart failure, the 2019 Beers Criteria update, or a previously described list of medications associated with geriatric syndromes; and 3) competing conditions and subsequent medications that could create therapeutic competition.ResultsThe prevalence of polypharmacy was 74%, and the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications was 100%. Competing conditions were present in 81% of patients, of whom 49% took a medication that created therapeutic competition.ConclusionIn addition to confirming that polypharmacy was highly prevalent, we found that potentially inappropriate medications and therapeutic competition were also frequently present. This supports the urgent need to develop patient-centered approaches to mitigate the negative effects of complex medication regimens endemic to adults with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.     

Tools to reduce polypharmacy

The reduction in polypharmacy and avoidance of inappropriate medications is a common goal in the care of older persons, regardless of setting. While multidisciplinary teams and regular medication reconciliation and review can identify and reduce medication-related problems, tools to decrease the use of high-risk/low benefit medications can help the individual clinician to improve prescribing. Numerous criteria, tools, algorithms, and scoring systems have been developed for use in a wide range of areas from long-term care to the outpatient setting, and some may not be applicable to individual situations. Not all medication review instruments have been adequately validated, and the tools we have presented have varying levels of evidence to support their use. Clinicians also need to be aware of regulatory, policy, and guideline issues that may impact the use of certain criteria for optimum prescribing. Ultimately, optimizing prescribing by reducing polypharmacy and avoiding inappropriate medications is a highly individualized process for each patient, and clinicians will have to use extensive clinical judgment in using the tools presented here.     

Factors leading to excessive polypharmacy

There are numerous risk factors for patients to develop excessive polypharmacy. The most prominent risk factors are associated with sociodemographics and the patients’ conditions. Risk factors associated with patient behavior, such as patient’s self medication with all types of medications, have not been observed to the same extent but might be at the same level of importance for patients developing excessive polypharmacy. Risk factors related to physicians, and the interaction between patient and physician, are studied to a much lesser extent. The few studies conducted regarding the large variation in physicians’ individual prescribing practices, in terms of polypharmacy, add another perspective to the complexity of the area. Interventions aiming to improve communication between GP and hospital specialist, to create support systems for medical reviews that include all patients’ medications, and to improve the knowledge of multiple prescribing might have the largest potential to better manage excessive polypharmacy.     

The impact of combined use of fall-risk medications and antithrombotics on injury severity and intracranial hemorrhage among older trauma patients

Purpose

Use of fall-risk medications (medications that increase risk of falling in the elderly as defined by Beers criteria, STOPP/START criteria, and other literature) or antithrombotics is common in the elderly, and the impact of their concomitant use should be assessed in regards to fall injuries. The primary objective of this study is to assess the simultaneous outpatient use of fall-risk medications and antithrombotics in elderly fall-patients, and secondarily to analyze the injury severity score and occurrence of intracranial hemorrhage.

Methods

Consecutive chart review at a level 2 trauma center in California, USA from August 01, 2009 to October 31, 2010. Records included 112 patients at least 65 years of age admitted with an outpatient fall. Fisher's exact and Student's t-tests were used (alpha 0.05, two-tailed) to examine prescribing patterns, intracranial hemorrhage occurrence, and injury severity score. Regression adjusted for antithrombotic and fall-risk medication type and number, opiate use, co-morbidities, age, and gender.

Results

Thirty-nine percent (44/112) of outpatients were prescribed antithrombotics plus fall-risk medications. The mean injury severity score (ISS) was 13.3 (range 1–26, standard deviation 7.2) for patients taking both medication classes versus 9.7 (range 1–25, standard deviation 7.5) for patients taking antithrombotics alone (p = 0.027). Additionally, in patients over 80 years of age, intracranial hemorrhage occurred more frequently with the use of antithrombotics plus fall-risk medications versus antithrombotics alone (18/29 = 62.1% versus 7/24 = 29.2%, p = 0.027, odds ratio = 3.974, 95% confidence interval = 1.094–15.010). Multivariate analyses showed an independent relationship between intracranial hemorrhage occurrence and type of therapy, as well as injury severity score and simultaneous therapy with fall-risk medications and antithrombotics.

Conclusion

Simultaneous prescribing of antithrombotics and fall-risk medications is common. For outpatients over 80 years of age, the odds of experiencing a post-fall intracranial hemorrhage are 4 times higher when prescribed antithrombotics plus fall-risk medications compared to antithrombotics alone, and injury severity is higher with combined use of these medication classes.     

Deprescribing recommendations: An essential consideration for clinical guideline developers

One area of focus of the Bruyère Evidence-Based Deprescribing Guidelines Symposium held in March 2018 was encouraging the routine inclusion of deprescribing recommendations in clinical guidelines. Clinical guidelines often do not accommodate frailty or patients with multiple comorbid conditions. This can give rise to complex medication regimens and risk of medication harm. Despite monitoring and stopping treatment being a key part of rational prescribing, deprescribing is often overlooked in general and in the context of guidelines. There are several challenges to increasing deprescribing recommendations in clinical guidelines. These include limited evidence on the effects of deprescribing, lack of awareness among guideline developers, potential conflicts of interest, and lack of incentives for deprescribing research. To date, medicines regulators, payers, governments, and journals have not encouraged the inclusion of deprescribing recommendations in guidelines. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system could address some of these challenges through its focus on values and preferences, distinct rating of quality of evidence and strength of recommendations, downgrading quality due to indirect evidence, and an explicit approach to conflicts of interest. Further work to adapt GRADE methods to deprescribing could be of benefit. Establishing deprescribing recommendations as a routine part of clinical guidelines is an important opportunity to improve evidence-based clinical practice, and ultimately, patient care.