What Is New and Objectives Older people from ethnic minorities experience the intersectionality of age and ethnicity in relation to complex medication management and polypharmacy. Minority ethnic groups in the United Kingdom are at risk of poor medication management because factors such as cultural beliefs, language barriers, lack of knowledge of how the healthcare system works may affect their ability to safely manage their medications. The aim of this systematic review was to review the literature focussing on medication management in the older population amongst ethnic minority communities in United Kingdom. Methods The review was conducted and reported according to methods in the Cochrane Handbook and in the PRISMA 2020 statement using databases such as EMBASE, ASSIA, MEDLINE, PsychINFO and others. Studies conducted in the United Kingdom on individuals over 60 years of age and from a minority ethnic background were included. A thematic analysis was used to synthesize the results. Results and Discussion Nine studies (eight from initial searches, one from a search update in 2021) met the inclusion criteria. Three main themes were identified: misbeliefs around medications, poor health literacy, communication and education as possible intervention to improve medication management. Misbeliefs around long‐term illnesses exert a negative impact on medication management. Poor health literacy around medications influences patients' adherence to treatments. Poor communication is perceived as barrier to successful medication management. Despite extensive searching, the team identified a limited number of studies and a lack of intersectional studies focussing on minority ethnic groups and the older population. What is New and Conclusion Our findings suggest tailored education as a possible intervention to improve medication management amongst these minority groups. Future research should look at recruiting participants from specific ethnic groups and from rural as well as urban areas to explore how medication management operates in different areas of the United Kingdom.

categories C, D and X have been considered. The degree of rigor and the reliability rating were also collected. Results A total of 69 men were interviewed. The mean age was 77 years, all older than 60 years. 31 patients were receiving treatment with apalutamide, 26 with abiraterone and 12 with enzalutamide. The patients had a mean of 12.6 ± 15.1 months of treatment. 88.5% took 5 or more medications.A total of 709 lines of treatment were analysed, finding that 66.6% of the patients presented an interaction in their treatments, 1.9 interactions per patient.According to the severity of the interactions, 76.2% (91) were C, 10.1% (12) D and 12.7% (15) category X. 63.5% of the interactions were with apalutamide, 26.2% with enzalutamide and 10.1% with abiraterone. 4 pharmacological groups are responsible for category D interactions and 1 is responsible for category X interactions (proton pump inhibitors). Conclusion and Relevance. The study has allowed us to detect a high number of interactions, although the proportion of patients with clinically relevant interactions is low. . The pharmacist plays a very important role in the prevention, detection and monitoring of interactions in this group of patients.

The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.

Background many medications possess anticholinergic activity. Their use is associated with a number of serious adverse effects including cognitive effects. The cumulative anticholinergic effect of medications as assessed by tools such as the anticholinergic burden scale (AchB) can identify people particularly at risk of anticholinergic side-effects. Currently, >20 tools are available for clinicians to use, but there is no consensus on the most appropriate tool. Methods a newly created online tool—International Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Tool (IACT)—based on natural language processing and chemical structure analysis, was developed and made available for clinicians to test its functions. We carried out a survey (between 8th of February and 31st of March 2021) to assess the overall need for an assessment tool as well as the usability of the IACT. Results a total of 110 responses were received from different countries and practitioners’ groups. The majority of the participants (86.11%) stated they would use a tool for AchB assessment if available and when they were asked to rate the IACT against other tools, amongst 34 responders, 20.59% rated it better and 8.82% rated it significantly better, 44.12% rated it neither better, nor worse, 14.71% rated it worse and 11.76% somewhat worse. Conclusion there is a need for an anticholinergic burden calculator to assess the anticholinergicity of medications. Tools such as the IACT potentially could meet this demand due to its ability to assign scores to current and new medications appearing on the market based both on their chemical structure and reported adverse pharmacological effects.