The complexity and heterogeneity of patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy renders traditional disease‐oriented guidelines often inadequate and complicates clinical decision making. To address this challenge, guidelines have been developed on multimorbidity or polypharmacy. To systematically analyse their recommendations, we conducted a systematic guideline review using the Ariadne principles for managing multimorbidity as analytical framework. The information synthesis included a multistep consensus process involving 18 multidisciplinary experts from seven countries. We included eight guidelines (four each on multimorbidity and polypharmacy) and extracted about 250 recommendations. The guideline addressed (i) the identification of the target population (risk factors); (ii) the assessment of interacting conditions and treatments: medical history, clinical and psychosocial assessment including physiological status and frailty, reviews of medication and encounters with healthcare providers highlighting informational continuity; (iii) the need to incorporate patient preferences and goal setting: eliciting preferences and expectations, the process of shared decision making in relation to treatment options and the level of involvement of patients and carers; (iv) individualized management: guiding principles on optimization of treatment benefits over possible harms, treatment communication and the information content of medication/care plans; (v) monitoring and follow‐up: strategies in care planning, self‐management and medication‐related aspects, communication with patients including safety instructions and adherence, coordination of care regarding referral and discharge management, medication appropriateness and safety concerns. The spectrum of clinical and self‐management issues varied from guiding principles to specific recommendations and tools providing actionable support. The limited availability of reliable risk prediction models, feasible interventions of proven effectiveness and decision aids, and limited consensus on appropriate outcomes of care highlight major research deficits. An integrated approach to both multimorbidity and polypharmacy should be considered in future guidelines.

Unpredictable disease trajectories make early clarification of end-of-life (EoL) care preferences in older patients with multimorbidity advisable. This mixed methods systematic review synthesizes studies and assesses such preferences. Two independent reviewers screened title/abstracts/full texts in seven databases, extracted data and used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess risk of bias (RoB). We synthesized findings from 22 studies (3243 patients) narratively and, where possible, quantitatively. Nineteen studies assessed willingness to receive life-sustaining treatments (LSTs), six, the preferred place of care, and eight, preferences regarding shared decision-making processes. When unspecified, 21% of patients in four studies preferred any LST option. In three studies, fewer patients chose LST when faced with death and deteriorating health, and more when treatment promised life extension. In 13 studies, 67% and 48% of patients respectively were willing to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation and mechanical ventilation, but willingness decreased with deteriorating health. Further, 52% of patients from three studies wished to die at home. Seven studies showed that unless incapacitated, most patients prefer to decide on their EoL care themselves. High non-response rates meant RoB was high in most studies. Knowledge of EoL care preferences of older patients with multimorbidity increases the chance such care will be provided.

ObjectivesTo systematically identify knowledge clusters and research gaps in the health-related preferences of older patients with multimorbidity by mapping current evidence.DesignEvidence map (systematic review variant).Data sourcesMEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX, CINAHL and Science Citation Index/Social Science Citation Index/-Expanded from inception to April 2018.Study selectionStudies reporting primary research on health-related preferences of older patients (mean age ≥60 years) with multimorbidity (≥2 chronic/acute conditions).Data extractionTwo independent reviewers assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and clustered the studies using MAXQDA-18 content analysis software.ResultsThe 152 included studies (62% from North America, 28% from Europe) comprised 57 093 patients overall (range 9–9105). All used an observational design except for one interventional study: 63 (41%) were qualitative (59 cross-sectional, 4 longitudinal), 85 (57%) quantitative (63 cross-sectional, 22 longitudinal) and 3 (2%) used mixed methods. The setting was specialised care in 85 (56%) and primary care in 54 (36%) studies. We identified seven clusters of studies on preferences: end-of-life care (n=51, 34%), self-management (n=34, 22%), treatment (n=32, 21%), involvement in shared decision making (n=25, 17%), health outcome prioritisation/goal setting (n=19, 13%), healthcare service (n=12, 8%) and screening/diagnostic testing (n=1, 1%). Terminology (eg, preferences, views and perspectives) and concepts (eg, trade-offs, decision regret, goal setting) used to describe health-related preferences varied substantially between studies.ConclusionOur study provides the first evidence map on the preferences of older patients with multimorbidity. Included studies were mostly conducted in developed countries and covered a broad range of issues. Evidence on patient preferences concerning decision-making on screening and diagnostic testing was scarce. Differences in employed terminology, decision-making components and concepts, as well as the sparsity of intervention studies, are challenges for future research into evidence-based decision support seeking to elicit the preferences of older patients with multimorbidity and help them construct preferences.Trial registration numberOpen Science Framework (OSF): DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/MCRWQ.

Background: Unwanted anticholinergic effects are both underestimated and frequently overlooked. Failure to identify adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can lead to prescribing cascades and the unnecessary use of over-thecounter products. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore and quantify the frequency and severity of ADRs associated with amitriptyline vs. placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with any indication, as well as healthy individuals. Methods: A systematic search in six electronic databases, forward/backward searches, manual searches, and searches for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval studies, will be performed. Placebo-controlled RCTs evaluating amitriptyline in any dosage, regardless of indication and without restrictions on the time and language of publication, will be included, as will healthy individuals. Studies of topical amitriptyline, combination therapies, or including < 100 participants, will be excluded. Two investigators will screen the studies independently, assess methodological quality, and extract data on design, population, intervention, and outcomes ((non-)anticholinergic ADRs, e.g., symptoms, test results, and adverse drug events (ADEs) such as falls). The primary outcome will be the frequency of anticholinergic ADRs as a binary outcome (absolute number of patients with/without anticholinergic ADRs) in amitriptyline vs. placebo groups. Anticholinergic ADRs will be defined by an experienced clinical pharmacologist, based on literature and data from Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference. Secondary outcomes will be frequency and severity of (non-)anticholinergic ADRs and ADEs. The information will be synthesized in meta-analyses and narratives. We intend to assess heterogeneity using metaregression (for indication, outcome, and time points) and I 2 statistics. Binary outcomes will be expressed as odds ratios, and continuous outcomes as standardized mean differences. Effect measures will be provided using 95% confidence intervals. We plan sensitivity analyses to assess methodological quality, outcome reporting etc., and subgroup analyses on age, dosage, and duration of treatment. Discussion: We will quantify the frequency of anticholinergic and other ADRs/ADEs in adults taking amitriptyline for any indication by comparing rates for amitriptyline vs. placebo, hence, preventing bias from disease symptoms and nocebo effects. As no standardized instrument exists to measure it, our overall estimate of anticholinergic ADRs may have limitations.

Background In the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous researchers postponed their patient and public involvement (PPI) activities. This was mainly due to assumptions on patients’ willingness and skills to participate digitally. In fact, digital PPI workshops differ from in-person meetings as some forms of non-verbal cues and body language may be missing and technical barriers may exist. Within our project HYPERION-TransCare we adapted our PPI workshop series for intervention development to a digital format and assessed whether these digital workshops were feasible for patients, health care professionals and researchers. Methods We used a digital meeting tool that included communication via audio, video and chat. Discussions were documented simultaneously on a digital white board. Technical support was provided via phone and chat during the workshops and with a technical introduction workshop in advance. The workshop evaluation encompassed observation protocols, participants’ feedback via chat after each workshop on their chance to speak and the usability of the digital tools, and telephone interviews on patients’ and health professionals’ experiences after the end of the workshop series. Results Observation protocols showed an active role of moderators in verbally encouraging every participant to get involved. Technical challenges occurred, but were in most cases immediately addressed and solved. Participants median rating of their chance to speak and the usability of the digital tool was “very good”. In the evaluation interviews participants reported a change of perspective and mutual understanding as a main benefit from the PPI workshops and described the atmosphere as inclusive and on equal footing. Benefits of the digital format such as overcoming geographical distance, saving time and combining workshop participation with professional or childcare obligations were reported. Technical support was stressed as a pre-condition for getting actively involved in digital PPI. Conclusions Digital formats using different didactic and documentation techniques, accompanied by technical support, can foster active patient and public involvement. The advantages of digital PPI formats such as geographical flexibility and saving time for participants as well as the opportunity to prepare and hold workshops in geographically stretched research teams persists beyond the pandemic and may in some cases outweigh the advantages of in-person communication. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40900-022-00387-1.