Emily G McDonald1,2, Peter E Wu3, Babak Rashidi4, Alan J Forster4, Allen Huang5, Louise Pilote1, Louise Papillon-Ferland6, André Bonnici6, Robyn Tamblyn7, Rachel Whitty8, Sandra Porter8, Kiran Battu8, James Downar9, Todd C Lee1,2,7. 1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada. 2. Clinical Practice Assessment Unit, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Québec, Canada. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 5. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 6. Department of Pharmacy, McGill University Health Centre, Montréal, Québec, Canada. 7. Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, Montréal, Québec, Canada. 8. Leslie L. Dan Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 9. Division of Palliative Care, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Polypharmacy is common, costly, and harmful for hospitalized older adults. Scalable strategies to reduce the burden of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are needed. We sought to leverage medication reconciliation in hospitalized older adults by pairing with MedSafer, an electronic decision support tool for deprescribing. DESIGN: This was a nonrandomized controlled before-and-after study. SETTING: The study took place on four internal medicine clinical teaching units. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects were aged 65 years and older, had an expected prognosis of 3 or more months, and were taking five or more usual home medications. INTERVENTION: In the baseline phase, patients received usual care that was medication reconciliation. Patients in the intervention arm also had a "deprescribing opportunity report" generated by MedSafer and provided to their in-hospital treating team. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was ascertained at the time of hospital discharge and was the proportion of patients who had one or more PIMs deprescribed. RESULTS: A total of 1066 patients were enrolled, and deprescribing opportunities were present for 873 (82%; 418 during the control and 455 during the intervention phases, respectively). The proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed at discharge increased from 46.9% in the control period to 54.7% in the intervention period with an adjusted absolute risk difference of 8.3% (2.9%-13.9%). Not all classes of drugs in the intervention arm were associated with an increase in deprescribing, and new PIM starts were equally common in both arms of the study. CONCLUSION: Using an electronic decision support tool for deprescribing, we increased the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed at hospital discharge as compared with usual care. Although this type of intervention may help address medication overload in hospitalized patients, it also underscores the importance of powering future trials for a reduction in adverse drug events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02918058. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1843-1850, 2019.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: Polypharmacy is common, costly, and harmful for hospitalized older adults. Scalable strategies to reduce the burden of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are needed. We sought to leverage medication reconciliation in hospitalized older adults by pairing with MedSafer, an electronic decision support tool for deprescribing. DESIGN: This was a nonrandomized controlled before-and-after study. SETTING: The study took place on four internal medicine clinical teaching units. PARTICIPANTS: Subjects were aged 65 years and older, had an expected prognosis of 3 or more months, and were taking five or more usual home medications. INTERVENTION: In the baseline phase, patients received usual care that was medication reconciliation. Patients in the intervention arm also had a "deprescribing opportunity report" generated by MedSafer and provided to their in-hospital treating team. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was ascertained at the time of hospital discharge and was the proportion of patients who had one or more PIMs deprescribed. RESULTS: A total of 1066 patients were enrolled, and deprescribing opportunities were present for 873 (82%; 418 during the control and 455 during the intervention phases, respectively). The proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed at discharge increased from 46.9% in the control period to 54.7% in the intervention period with an adjusted absolute risk difference of 8.3% (2.9%-13.9%). Not all classes of drugs in the intervention arm were associated with an increase in deprescribing, and new PIM starts were equally common in both arms of the study. CONCLUSION: Using an electronic decision support tool for deprescribing, we increased the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs deprescribed at hospital discharge as compared with usual care. Although this type of intervention may help address medication overload in hospitalized patients, it also underscores the importance of powering future trials for a reduction in adverse drug events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02918058. J Am Geriatr Soc 67:1843-1850, 2019.
Authors: Joanne Reeve; Michelle Maden; Ruaraidh Hill; Amadea Turk; Kamal Mahtani; Geoff Wong; Dan Lasserson; Janet Krska; Dee Mangin; Richard Byng; Emma Wallace; Ed Ranson Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2022-07 Impact factor: 4.106
Authors: Noll L Campbell; Richard J Holden; Qing Tang; Malaz A Boustani; Evgenia Teal; Jennifer Hillstrom; Wanzhu Tu; Daniel O Clark; Christopher M Callahan Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-03-26 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Daniela A Rodrigues; Ana I Plácido; Ramona Mateos-Campos; Adolfo Figueiras; Maria Teresa Herdeiro; Fátima Roque Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 5.810
Authors: Nikesh Parekh; Khalid Ali; John Graham Davies; Jennifer M Stevenson; Winston Banya; Stephen Nyangoma; Rebekah Schiff; Tischa van der Cammen; Jatinder Harchowal; Chakravarthi Rajkumar Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2019-09-16 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Sydney B Ross; Marnie Goodwin Wilson; Louise Papillon-Ferland; Sarah Elsayed; Peter E Wu; Kiran Battu; Sandra Porter; Babak Rashidi; Robyn Tamblyn; Louise Pilote; James Downar; Andre Bonnici; Allen Huang; Todd C Lee; Emily G McDonald Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 7.538
Authors: Erin K Crowley; Bastiaan T G M Sallevelt; Corlina J A Huibers; Kevin D Murphy; Marco Spruit; Zhengru Shen; Benoît Boland; Anne Spinewine; Olivia Dalleur; Elisavet Moutzouri; Axel Löwe; Martin Feller; Nathalie Schwab; Luise Adam; Ingeborg Wilting; Wilma Knol; Nicolas Rodondi; Stephen Byrne; Denis O'Mahony Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-03-17 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Daniala L Weir; Todd C Lee; Emily G McDonald; Aude Motulsky; Michal Abrahamowicz; Steven Morgan; David Buckeridge; Robyn Tamblyn Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2020-03-31 Impact factor: 5.562