暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: To describe the development and use of an Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework when formulating recommendations for the Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline for Deprescribing Opioid Analgesics.
METHODS: Evidence was derived from an overview of systematic reviews and qualitative studies conducted with healthcare professionals and people who take opioids for pain. A multidisciplinary guideline development group conducted extensive EtD framework review and iterative refinement to ensure that guideline recommendations captured contextual factors relevant to the guideline target setting and audience.
RESULTS: The guideline development group considered and accounted for the complexities of opioid deprescribing at the individual and health system level, shaping recommendations and practice points to facilitate point-of-care use. Stakeholders exhibited diverse preferences, beliefs, and values. This variability, low certainty of evidence, and system-level policies and funding models impacted the strength of the generated recommendations, resulting in the formulation of four \'conditional\' recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: The context within which evidence-based recommendations are considered, as well as the political and health system environment, can contribute to the success of recommendation implementation. Use of an EtD framework allowed for the development of implementable recommendations relevant at the point-of-care through consideration of limitations of the evidence and relevant contextual factors.

Potentially inappropriate medication use is prevalent among older adults in primary care, leading to increased morbidity, adverse drug reactions, hospitalizations, and mortality. This study aimed to develop and validate a tool for identifying PIMs in older adults within the primary care setting. The tool is composed of a list of criteria and was created based on consensus among experts from three Spanish-speaking countries, including two from Latin America.
A literature review was conducted to identify existing tools, and prescription patterns were evaluated in a cohort of 36,111 older adults. An electronic Delphi method, consisting of two rounds, was used to reach a formal expert consensus. The panel included 18 experts from Spain, Colombia, and Argentina. The content validity index, validity of each content item, and Kappa Fleiss statistical measure were used to establish reliability.
Round one did not yield a consensus, but a definitive consensus was reached in round two. The resulting tool consisted of a list of 5 general recommendations per disease, along with 33 criteria related to potential problems, recommendations, and alternative therapeutic options. The overall content validity of the tool was 0.87, with a Kappa value of 0.69 (95% CI 0.64-0.73; Substantial).
The developed criteria provide a novel list that allows for a comprehensive approach to pharmacotherapy in older adults, intending to reduce inappropriate medication use, ineffective treatments, prophylactic therapies, and treatments with an unfavorable risk-benefit ratio for the given condition. Further studies are necessary to evaluate the impact of these criteria on health outcomes.

In 2020, the fifth Canadian Consensus Conference on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia (CCCDTD5) published up-to-date recommendations for the clinical management of persons living with dementia (PLWD) and their caregivers. During the CCCDTD5 meetings, a list of recommendations for dementia care was compiled. With the aid of family physicians and the Canadian Consortium on Neurodegeneration in Aging, we selected the most relevant CCCDTD5 recommendations for primary care and tailored and summarized them in the present manuscript to facilitate their reference and use. These recommendations focus on (a) risk reduction, (b) screening and diagnosis, (c) deprescription of dementia medications, and (d) non-pharmacological interventions. The development of recommendations for the ongoing management of dementia is an iterative process as new evidence on interventions for dementia is published. These recommendations are important in the primary care setting as the entry point for PLWD into the health system.

暂无摘要。

The aim of this umbrella review was to identify tools and guidelines to aid the deprescribing process of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), evaluate development and validation methods, and describe evidence levels for medication inclusion.
Searches were conducted on MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase.com, Cochrane CDSR, CINAHL (EBSCO), Web of Science Core Collection and guideline databases from the date of inception to 7 July 2022. Following the initial search, an additional search was conducted to identify an updated versions of tools on 17 July 2023. We analysed the contents of tools and guidelines.
From 23 systematic reviews and guidelines, we identified 95 tools (72 explicit, 12 mixed and 11 implicit) and nine guidelines. Most tools (83.2%) were developed to use for older persons, including 14 for those with limited life expectancy. Seven tools were for children <18 years (7.37%). Most explicit/mixed tools (78.57%) and all guidelines were validated. We found 484 PIMs and 202 medications with different appropriateness independent of disease for older persons with normal and limited life expectancy, respectively. Only two tools and eight guidelines reported the evidence level, and a quarter of medications had high-quality evidence.
Tools are available for a diversity of populations. There were discrepancies, with the same medication being classified as inappropriate in some tools and appropriate in others, possibly due to low-quality evidence. In particular, tools for patients with limited life expectancy were developed based on very limited evidence, and research to generate this evidence is urgently needed. Our medication lists, along with the level of evidence, could facilitate efforts to strengthen the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are among the most commonly prescribed medications. The aim of this study was to assess the appropriateness of prescribing PPIs in the palliative care unit on admission and during hospitalisation to determine the applicability of deprescribing recommendations.
METHODS: A monocentric observational study was conducted over a 6-month period in 2020 in a university palliative care unit. Data on indication, starting date, dose and posology were collected at discharge from the medical record and by contacting the prescriber. A physician and a pharmacist evaluated PPI prescription appropriateness according to guidelines.
RESULTS: 131 patients (mean age: 69.5 years; 82% with cancer) were included. Prior to admission, 41% (54/131) of patients were already prescribed PPIs. During hospitalisation, 50% of prescriptions were discontinued, while 12% were initiated. The indication was known for 50% of patients on admission and 59% during their stay. Among patients with PPI prescriptions, 56% had a relevant indication on admission, and 63% during their stay. The prevalence of potential drug interactions was low (<1/10).
CONCLUSIONS: While PPIs remain essential for specific indications, this study highlights their excessive prescription even during palliative care. Implementing deprescribing recommendations in this population is crucial to optimise treatment plans.

Advancing age, declining health status, and a shift in benefit/risk balance warrant judicious use of preventive medications in older persons, including consideration of deprescribing. Lack of guidance on deprescribing is a major barrier for prescribers to consider deprescribing in daily practice. The aim of this review was to evaluate to what extent osteoporosis guidelines include bisphosphonate deprescribing recommendations.
We conducted a systematic review, searching PubMed, Embase, and grey literature. We included guidelines on treatment of osteoporosis with bisphosphonates. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full texts. Recommendations for deprescribing were extracted, and quality of guidelines were assessed.
Among 9345 references, 42 guidelines were included. A total of 32 (76%) guidelines included deprescribing recommendations: 29 (69%) guidelines included non-specific deprescribing recommendations framed as a drug holiday, of which 2 (5%) also included specific deprescribing recommendations based on individual health context (e.g. life expectancy, frailty, function, preferences/goals). Twenty-four (57%) guidelines included practical deprescribing recommendations, and 27 (64%) guidelines included recommendations for when deprescribing should not be considered.
Bisphosphonate deprescribing recommendations in osteoporosis guidelines were primarily framed as drug holidays, with limited guidance on how to make individualized deprescribing decisions based on individual health context. This suggests a need for additional focus on deprescribing in osteoporosis guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Policies, protocols and processes within organisations can facilitate or hinder guideline adoption. There is limited knowledge on the strategies used by organisations to disseminate and implement evidence-based deprescribing guidelines or their impact.
METHODS: We aimed to develop an online survey targeting key organisations involved in deprescribing guideline endorsement, dissemination, modification or translation internationally. Survey questions were drafted, mirroring the six components of the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance (RE-AIM) framework. Content validation was undertaken and established by a panel of clinicians, researchers and implementation experts.
RESULTS: A 52-item survey underwent two rounds of content validation. The minimum threshold (I-CVI > 0.78) for relevance and importance was met for 39 items (75%) in the first round and 44 of 48 items (92%) in the second round. The expert panel concluded that the adoption, implementation and effectiveness survey sections were largely relevant and important to this topic, whereas the reach and maintenance sections were harder to understand and may be less pertinent to the research question.
CONCLUSIONS: A 44-item survey investigating dissemination and implementation strategies for deprescribing guidelines has been developed and its content validated. Widespread survey distribution may identify effective strategies and inform dissemination and implementation planning for newly developed guidelines.

Long term opioids are commonly prescribed to manage pain. Dose reduction or discontinuation (deprescribing) can be challenging, even when the potential harms of continuation outweigh the perceived benefits. The Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for deprescribing opioid analgesics was developed using robust guideline development processes and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and contains deprescribing recommendations for adults prescribed opioids for pain.
Eleven recommendations provide advice about when, how and for whom opioid deprescribing should be considered, while noting the need to consider each person\'s goals, values and preferences. The recommendations aim to achieve: implementation of a deprescribing plan at the point of opioid initiation; initiation of opioid deprescribing for persons with chronic non-cancer or chronic cancer-survivor pain if there is a lack of overall and clinically meaningful improvement in function, quality of life or pain, a lack of progress towards meeting agreed therapeutic goals, or the person is experiencing serious or intolerable opioid-related adverse effects; gradual and individualised deprescribing, with regular monitoring and review; consideration of opioid deprescribing for individuals at high risk of opioid-related harms; avoidance of opioid deprescribing for persons nearing the end of life unless clinically indicated; avoidance of opioid deprescribing for persons with a severe opioid use disorder, with the initiation of evidence-based care, such as medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder; and use of evidence-based co-interventions to facilitate deprescribing, including interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary or multimodal care.
To our knowledge, these are the first evidence-based guidelines for opioid deprescribing. The recommendations intend to facilitate safe and effective deprescribing to improve the quality of care for persons taking opioids for pain.