Globally, the number of drug prescriptions is increasing causing more adverse drug events, which is now a significant cause of mortality, morbidity, and disability that has reached epidemic proportions. The risk of adverse drug events is correlated to very old age, multiple co-morbidities, dementia, frailty, and limited life expectancy, with the major contributor being polypharmacy. Each characteristic alters the risk–benefit balance of medications, typically reducing anticipated benefits and amplifying risk. Current clinical guidelines are based on evidence proven in younger/healthier adult populations using a single disease model and their application to older adults with multimorbidity, in whom testing has not been conducted, yields a different risk–benefit prospect and makes inappropriate medication use and polypharmacy inevitable. Applying inappropriate clinical practice guidelines to older adults is antithetical to good healthcare, is likely to increase health inequity, and is associated with substantial negative clinical, economic, and social implications for health systems. The casualties are on the scale of a war or epidemic, yet are usually invisible in measures of healthcare quality and formal recommendations. Radical and rapid action is required to achieve a better quality of life for older populations and to remain true to the principles of medical professionalism and evidence-based medicine that place patients’ interests and autonomy at the fore. This first International Group for Reducing Inappropriate Medication Use & Polypharmacy position statement briefly details the causes, consequences, and extent of inappropriate medication use and polypharmacy. This article outlines current strategies to reduce inappropriate medication use, provides evidence for their effect, and then proposes recommendations for moving forward with 10 recommendations for action and 12 recommendations for research. We conclude that an urgent integrated effort to reduce inappropriate medication use and polypharmacy should be a leading global target of the highest priority. The cornerstone of this position statement from the International Group for Reducing Inappropriate Medication Use & Polypharmacy is the understanding that without evidence of definite relevant benefit, when it comes to prescribing, for many older patients ‘less is more’. This approach differs from most other current recommendations and guidance in medical care, as the focus is on what, when, and how to stop, rather than on when to start medications/interventions. Disrupting the framework that indiscriminately applies standard guidelines to older adults requires a new approach that better serves patients with multimorbidity. This transition requires a shift in medical education, research, and diagnostic frameworks, and re-examination of the measures used as quality indicators. In achieving this objective, we promote a return to some of the original concepts of evidence-based medicine: which considers scientific data (where it exists), clinical judgment, pati...
Frail older adults face increasingly complex decisions regarding medical care. The Palliative and Therapeutic Harmonization (PATH) model provides a structured approach that places frailty at the forefront of medical and surgical decision-making in older adults. Preliminary data from the first 150 individuals completing the PATH program shows that the population served is frail (mean Clinical Frailty Score = 6.3), has multiple comorbidities (mean 8), and takes many medications (mean = 9). Ninety-two percent of participants were able to complete decision-making for an average of three current or projected health issues, most often (76.7%) with the help of a substitute decision-maker (SDM). Decisions to proceed with scheduled medical or surgical interventions correlated with baseline frailty level and dementia stage, with participants with a greater degree of frailty (odds ratio (OR) = 3.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.39-8.38) or more-advanced stage of dementia (OR = 1.66, 95% CI = 1.06-2.65) being more likely to choose less-aggressive treatment options. Although the PATH model is in the development stage, further evaluation is ongoing, including a qualitative analysis of the SDM experience of PATH and an assessment of the effectiveness of PATH in long-term care. The results of these studies will inform the design of a larger randomized controlled trial.
We report data on the validity and responsiveness (i.e. sensitivity to change) of assessment instruments including Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS), at a single site in a multicentre trial of the experimental therapeutic agent linopirdine. Fifteen people (11 women) were evaluated. GAS yielded a mean 3.7 goals per patient (range 2–6). The mean gain in the GAS scores, 2.7 ± 16.4, was compared to changes in the Alzheimer''s Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive Section, the Global Deterioration Scale, Clinical Global Impression and the Mini-Mental State Exam. GAS had the largest relative efficiency (0.47) when compared to the standard. GAS also had the largest effect size (0.61). The data suggest that an individualized approach may have merit as an outcome measure and as a means to better understanding treatment effects. Qualitative analysis revealed consistent goal setting in self-care, behaviour, cognition and leisure, suggesting that these areas should routinely be evaluated.
BackgroundFrail older adults are commonly prescribed antidepressants. Yet, there is little evidence to determine the efficacy and safety of antidepressants to treat depression with concomitant frailty. To better understand this issue, we examined the efficacy and safety of second-generation antidepressants for the treatment of older adults with depression and then considered implications for frailty.MethodsDue to the absence of therapeutic studies of frail older adults with depression, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of double-blind, randomized controlled trials that compared antidepressants versus placebo for adults with depression, age 65 years or older. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, reference lists from meta-analyses/studies, hand searches of publication lists, and related articles on PubMed. Outcomes included rates of response, remission, and adverse events. After evaluating the data, we applied a frailty-informed framework to consider how the evidence could be applied to frailty.ResultsNine trials were included in the meta-analysis (n = 2704). Subjects had moderate to severe depression. For older adults with depression, there was no statistically significant difference in response or remission to second-generation antidepressants compared to placebo. Response occurred in 45.3% of subjects receiving an antidepressant compared to 40.5% receiving placebo (RR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.96 – 1.37, p = 0.12, I2 = 71%). Remission occurred in 33.1% with antidepressant versus 31.3% with placebo (RR 1.10, 95% CI: 0.92 – 1.31, p = 0.30, I2 = 56%) (Figure 2 and 3). There were more withdrawals due to adverse events with antidepressants, 13% versus 5.8% (RR 2.30, 95% CI: 1.45–3.63; p < 0.001; I2 = 61%; NNH 14, 95% CI:10–28).Implications for frailtySubjects in the meta-analysis did not have obvious characteristics of frailty. Using framework questions to consider the implications of frailty, we hypothesize that, like older adults, frail individuals with depression may not respond to antidepressants. Further, observational studies suggest that those who are frail may be less responsive to antidepressants compared to the non-frail. Given the vulnerability of frailty, adverse events may be more burdensome.ConclusionsSecond-generation antidepressants have uncertain benefit for older adults with depression and cause more adverse events compared to placebo. Until further research clarifies benefit, careful consideration of antidepressant prescribing with frailty is warranted.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.