Deprescribing interventions in older adults: An overview of systematic reviews

Author:

Chua Shiyun,Todd Adam,Reeve EmilyORCID,Smith Susan M.,Fox Julia,Elsisi Zizi,Hughes StephenORCID,Husband Andrew,Langford AiliORCID,Merriman NiamhORCID,Harris Jeffrey R.,Devine Beth,Gray Shelly L.ORCID,

Abstract

Objective The growing deprescribing field is challenged by a lack of consensus around evidence and knowledge gaps. The objective of this overview of systematic reviews was to summarize the review evidence for deprescribing interventions in older adults. Methods 11 databases were searched from 1st January 2005 to 16th March 2023 to identify systematic reviews. We summarized and synthesized the results in two steps. Step 1 summarized results reported by the included reviews (including meta-analyses). Step 2 involved a narrative synthesis of review results by outcome. Outcomes included medication-related outcomes (e.g., medication reduction, medication appropriateness) or twelve other outcomes (e.g., mortality, adverse events). We summarized outcomes according to subgroups (patient characteristics, intervention type and setting) when direct comparisons were available within the reviews. The quality of included reviews was assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). Results We retrieved 3,228 unique citations and assessed 135 full-text articles for eligibility. Forty-eight reviews (encompassing 17 meta-analyses) were included. Thirty-one of the 48 reviews had a general deprescribing focus, 16 focused on specific medication classes or therapeutic categories and one included both. Twelve of 17 reviews meta-analyzed medication-related outcomes (33 outcomes: 25 favored the intervention, 7 found no difference, 1 favored the comparison). The narrative synthesis indicated that most interventions resulted in some evidence of medication reduction while for other outcomes we found primarily no evidence of an effect. Results were mixed for adverse events and few reviews reported adverse drug withdrawal events. Limited information was available for people with dementia, frailty and multimorbidity. All but one review scored low or critically low on quality assessment. Conclusion Deprescribing interventions likely resulted in medication reduction but evidence on other outcomes, in particular relating to adverse events, or in vulnerable subgroups or settings was limited. Future research should focus on designing studies powered to examine harms, patient-reported outcomes, and effects on vulnerable subgroups. Systematic Review Registration PROSPERO CRD42020178860.

Funder

National Institute on Aging

Publisher

Public Library of Science (PLoS)

Reference94 articles.

1. Health at a glance 2019: OECD indicators: Safe prescribing in older populations OECD iLibrary: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development,2019

2. Clinical consequences of polypharmacy in elderly.;RL Maher;Expert Opin Drug Saf,2014

3. Potentially inappropriate prescribing and vulnerability and hospitalization in older community-dwelling patients;C Cahir;Ann Pharmacother,2014

4. Deprescribing: A narrative review of the evidence and practical recommendations for recognizing opportunities and taking action;E Reeve;Eur J Intern Med,2017

5. Geriatric conditions and the risk of adverse drug reactions in older adults: A review.;F Lattanzio;Drug Saf,2012

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3