OBJECTIVE: Multimorbidity and polypharmacy in older adults converts the detection and adequacy of potentially inappropriate drug prescriptions (PIDP) in a healthcare priority. The objectives of this study are to describe the clinical decisions taken after the identification of PIDP by clinical pharmacists, using STOPP/START criteria, and to evaluate the degree of accomplishment of these decisions.
METHODS: Multicenter, prospective, non-comparative cohort study in patients aged 65 and older, hospitalized because of an exacerbation of their chronic conditions. Each possible PIDP was manually identified by the clinical pharmacist at admission and an initial decision was taken by a multidisciplinary clinical committee. At discharge, criteria were re-applied and final decisions recorded.
RESULTS: From all patients (n = 674), 493 (73.1%) presented at least one STOPP criteria at admission, significantly reduced up to 258 (38.3%) at discharge. A similar trend was observed for START criteria (36.7% vs. 15.7%). Regarding the top 10 most prevalent STOPP criteria, the clinical committee initially agreed to withdraw 257 (34.2%) prescriptions and to modify 93 (12.4%) prescriptions. However, the evaluation of final clinical decisions revealed that 503 (67.0%) of those STOPP criteria were ultimately amended. For the top 10 START criteria associated PIDP, the committee decided to initiate 149 (51.7%) prescriptions, while a total of 198 (68.8%) were finally introduced at discharge.
CONCLUSIONS: The clinical committee, through a pharmacotherapy review, succeeded in identifying and reducing the degree of prescription inadequacy, for both STOPP and START criteria, in older patients with high degree of multimorbidity and polypharmacy.
BACKGROUND: NCT02830425.

BACKGROUND: Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPI) are frequently prescribed. Long-term use is associated with side-effects and patients often lack a valid indication. Inappropriate PPI prescribing thus needs to be addressed. This review aims to scope 1) what determinants are studied as reasons for PPI prescribing, 2) what strategies are used for changing PPI (de)prescribing, and 3) whether important determinants are addressed in these interventions.
METHODS: We searched eight databases for papers on determinants of physician PPI prescribing. Studies were included if they were conducted in a Western country and focused on oral PPIs for an adult population. By following the Behaviour Change Wheel, we extracted information regarding PPI prescribing behavior, behavioral determinants and intervention strategies.
RESULTS: We included 74 papers. Most focused on the determinants knowledge and beliefs about consequences. The latter was consistently related to PPI prescribing. Results for knowledge were mixed. Most interventions used education or enablement (e.g., algorithms, quality check improvements, involvement of pharmacists) as strategies. Enablement consistently improved PPI prescribing, while results for education were mixed.
CONCLUSIONS: There is an overemphasis on reflective processes in studies on PPI prescribing. Future research should comprehensively identify behavioral determinants, focusing on reflective and impulsive processes, such that interventions can address the most important determinants.

This umbrella review examined systematic reviews of deprescribing studies by characteristics of intervention, population, medicine, and setting. Clinical and humanistic outcomes, barriers and facilitators, and tools for deprescribing are presented. The Medline database was used. The search was limited to systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in English up to April 2022. Reviews reporting deprescribing were included, while those where depre-scribing was not planned and supervised by a healthcare professional were excluded. A total of 94 systematic reviews (23 meta--analyses) were included. Most explored clinical or humanistic outcomes (70/94, 74 %); less explored attitudes, facilitators, or barriers to deprescribing (17/94, 18 %); few focused on tools (8/94, 8.5 %). Reviews assessing clinical or humanistic outcomes were divided into two groups: reviews with deprescribing intervention trials (39/70, 56 %; 16 reviewing specific deprescribing interventions and 23 broad medication optimisation interventions), and reviews with medication cessation trials (31/70, 44 %). Deprescribing was feasible and resulted in a reduction of inappropriate medications in reviews with deprescribing intervention trials. Complex broad medication optimisation interventions were shown to reduce hospitalisation, falls, and mortality rates. In reviews of medication cessation trials, a higher frequency of adverse drug withdrawal events underscores the importance of prioritizing patient safety and exercising caution when stopping medicines, particularly in patients with clear and appropriate indications.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is common among individuals with multimorbidity, often leading to inappropriate medication use and is associated with an increased risk of frailty, hospitalisation and mortality. Structured medication reviews (SMRs) have emerged as a promising method for optimising medication use. However, research examining their efficacy is limited. This review aims to evaluate the impact of SMRs on improving outcomes for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care settings. Additionally, this review seeks to identify prevailing patterns and trends in the mode of delivery of SMRs.
METHODS: A systematic review will be conducted using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Web of Science and CINAHL (1997-present). Primary outcomes will include medication-related measures such as dose, frequency and dosage form. Secondary outcomes under investigation will include physical, mental, functional and health service outcomes, as reported. Two independent reviewers will conduct the screening and data extraction, resolving disagreements through discussion. Once eligible studies are identified, the extracted data will be summarised in tabular format. The risk of bias in the articles will be assessed using either the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa scale, depending on the design of the studies retrieved. Subgroup analysis will be performed using demographic variables and modes of delivery where the data supports. If appropriate, a meta-analysis of the data extracted will be conducted to determine the impact of the SMRs on reported outcomes. If a meta-analysis is not possible due to heterogeneity, a narrative synthesis approach will be adopted.
BACKGROUND: This proposed review is exempt from ethical approval as it aims to collate and summarise peer-reviewed, published evidence. This protocol and the subsequent review will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals, conferences and patient-led lay summaries.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42023454965.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy and multimorbidity pose escalating challenges. Despite numerous attempts, interventions have yet to show consistent improvements in health outcomes. A key factor may be varied approaches to targeting patients for intervention.
OBJECTIVE: To explore how patients are targeted for intervention by examining the literature with respect to: understanding how polypharmacy is defined; identifying problematic polypharmacy in practice; and addressing problematic polypharmacy through interventions.
METHODS: We performed a scoping review as defined by the Joanna Briggs Institute.
METHODS: The focus was on primary care settings.
METHODS: Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Cochrane along with ClinicalTrials.gov, Science.gov and WorldCat.org were searched from January 2004 to February 2024.
METHODS: We included all articles that had a focus on problematic polypharmacy in multimorbidity and primary care, incorporating multiple types of evidence, such as reviews, quantitative trials, qualitative studies and policy documents. Articles focussing on a single index disease or not written in English were excluded.
UNASSIGNED: We performed a narrative synthesis, comparing themes and findings across the collective evidence to draw contextualised insights and conclusions.
RESULTS: In total, 157 articles were included. Case-finding methods often rely on basic medication counts (often five or more) without considering medical history or whether individual medications are clinically appropriate. Other approaches highlight specific drug indicators and interactions as potentially inappropriate prescribing, failing to capture a proportion of patients not fitting criteria. Different potentially inappropriate prescribing criteria also show significant inconsistencies in determining the appropriateness of medications, often neglecting to consider multimorbidity and underprescribing. This may hinder the identification of the precise population requiring intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: Improved strategies are needed to target patients with polypharmacy, which should consider patient perspectives, individual factors and clinical appropriateness. The development of a cross-cutting measure of problematic polypharmacy that consistently incorporates adjustment for multimorbidity may be a valuable next step to address frequent confounding.

This study is a systematic literature review of the association between lists of potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) in clinical practice and health outcomes of older adults followed up in primary health care. For this purpose, the PRISMA protocol was used to systematize the search for articles in the PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane Central, LIVIVO and LILACS databases, in addition to the gray literature. Studies with randomized clinical trials were selected, using explicit criteria (lists) for the identification and management of PIM in prescriptions of older patients in primary care. Of the 2,400 articles found, six were used for data extraction. The interventions resulted in significant reductions in the number of PIM and adverse drug events and, consequently, in potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP) in polymedicated older adults. However, there were no significant effects of the interventions on negative clinical outcomes, such as emergency room visits, hospitalizations and death, or on improving the health status of the older adults. The use of PIM lists promotes adequate medication prescriptions for older adults in primary health care, but further studies are needed to determine the impact of reducing PIM on primary clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The global older population is growing rapidly, and the rise in polypharmacy has increased potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) encounters. PIMs pose health risks, but detecting them automatically in large medical databases is complex. This review aimed to uncover PIM prevalence in individuals aged 65 years or older using health databases and emphasized the risk of underestimating PIM prevalence due to underutilization of detection tools.
METHODS: This study conducted a broad search on the Medline database to identify articles about the prevalence of PIMs in older adults using various databases. Articles published between January 2010 and June 2023 were included, and specific criteria were applied for study selection. Two literature reviews conducted before our study period were integrated to obtain a perspective from the 1990s to the present day. The selected papers were analysed for variables including database type, screening method, adaptations and PIM prevalence. The study categorized databases and original screening tools for clarity, examined adaptations and assessed concordance among different screening methods.
RESULTS: This study encompassed 48 manuscripts, covering 58 sample evaluations. The mean prevalence of PIMs within the general population aged over 65 years was 27.8%. Relevant heterogeneity emerged in both the utilized databases and the detection methods. Adaptation of original screening tools was observed in 86.2% (50/58) of cases. Half of the original screening tools used for assessing PIMs belonged to the simple category. About a third of the studies employed less than half of the original criteria after adaptation. Only three studies used over 75% of the original criteria and more than 50 criteria.
CONCLUSIONS: This extensive review highlights PIM prevalence among the older adults, emphasizing method intricacies and the potential for underestimation due to data limitations and algorithm adjustments. The findings call for enhanced methodologies, transparent algorithms and a deeper understanding of intricate rules\' impact on public health implications.

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a common occurrence in elderly patients, resulting in increased adverse drug reactions, nonadherence, and increased healthcare costs. Medication review and deprescribing are the primary strategies described in the literature for dealing with problematic polypharmacy. To effectively carry out the medication review, various tools have been developed. These tools can support medication review in a variety of ways. Some tools include a list of medications requiring detailed attention, while others guide medical professionals with principles and algorithms for reviewing and prescribing medicines. A third category of tools focuses on tracking and identifying symptoms that may be due to drug-related problems.

BACKGROUND: Electronic clinical decision support systems (eCDSS), such as the \'Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing\' Assistant (STRIPA), have become promising tools for assisting general practitioners (GPs) with conducting medication reviews in older adults. Little is known about how GPs perceive eCDSS-assisted recommendations for pharmacotherapy optimization. The aim of this study was to explore the implementation of a medication review intervention centered around STRIPA in the \'Optimising PharmacoTherapy In the multimorbid elderly in primary CAre\' (OPTICA) trial.
METHODS: We used an explanatory mixed methods design combining quantitative and qualitative data. First, quantitative data about the acceptance and implementation of eCDSS-generated recommendations from GPs (n = 21) and their patients (n = 160) in the OPTICA intervention group were collected. Then, semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with GPs from the OPTICA intervention group (n = 8), and interview data were analyzed through thematic analysis.
RESULTS: In quantitative findings, GPs reported averages of 13 min spent per patient preparing the eCDSS, 10 min performing medication reviews, and 5 min discussing prescribing recommendations with patients. On average, out of the mean generated 3.7 recommendations (SD=1.8). One recommendation to stop or start a medication was reported to be implemented per patient in the intervention group (SD=1.2). Overall, GPs found the STRIPA useful and acceptable. They particularly appreciated its ability to generate recommendations based on large amounts of patient information. During qualitative interviews, GPs reported the main reasons for limited implementation of STRIPA were related to problems with data sourcing (e.g., incomplete data imports), preparation of the eCDSS (e.g., time expenditure for updating and adapting information), its functionality (e.g., technical problems downloading PDF recommendation reports), and appropriateness of recommendations.
CONCLUSIONS: Qualitative findings help explain the relatively low implementation of recommendations demonstrated by quantitative findings, but also show GPs\' overall acceptance of STRIPA. Our results provide crucial insights for adapting STRIPA to make it more suitable for regular use in future primary care settings (e.g., necessity to improve data imports).
BACKGROUND: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03724539, date of first registration: 29/10/2018.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate antibiotic use contributes significantly to the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance. While government-initiated population-level interventions are fundamental in addressing this issue, their full potential remains to be explored. This systematic review aims to assess the effectiveness of such interventions in reducing inappropriate antibiotic use among antibiotic providers and users in healthcare and community settings.
METHODS: We will conduct a systematic literature search across multiple databases and grey literature sources. We will include studies which evaluate the effectiveness of population-level interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use in healthcare and community settings in both high-income and low- and middle-income countries. This includes government-initiated measures targeting antibiotic use through education, restriction, incentivization, coercion, training, persuasion, context modification, behavior modeling, or barrier reduction. Two reviewers will independently perform screening to select eligible studies, followed by data extraction. The outcomes of interest are various measures of antibiotic prescription and consumption, such as Defined Daily Dose (DDD) or number of prescriptions per year. We anticipate including a broad range of study designs and outcome measures. Therefore, we will narratively synthesize results using the categories of the population-level policy interventions of the Behavior Change Wheel Framework. We will organize outcome data by economic contexts, target populations, and implementation settings.
CONCLUSIONS: This review will strengthen the evidence base for the use of population-level interventions to address inappropriate antibiotic use. Drawing lessons from global experiences, the findings will provide valuable guidance to health policymakers, public health authorities, and researchers on tailoring interventions to specific economic contexts, populations, and settings, thereby enhancing their capacity to drive substantial improvement in appropriate antibiotic use.