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: Potentially inappropriate polypharmacy (PIP) is among the major factors leading to adverse drug reactions, increased healthcare costs, reduced medication adherence, and worsened patient conditions. This study aims to identify existing interventions implemented to monitor and manage polypharmacy in the Italian setting. Methods: A systematic literature review (PROSPERO: CRD42023457049) was carried out according to the PRISMA statement guidelines. PubMed, Embase, ProQuest, and Web of Science were queried without temporal constraints, encompassing all published papers until October 2023. Inclusion criteria followed the PICO model: patients with polypharmacy; interventions to monitor/manage polypharmacy regimen versus no/any intervention; outcomes in terms of intervention effectiveness and cost variation. Results: After duplicate deletion, 153 potentially relevant publications were extracted. Following abstract and full-text screenings, nine articles met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 78% (n = 7) were observational studies, 11% (n = 1) were experimental studies, and 11% (n = 1) were two-phase studies. A total of 44% (n = 4) of the studies involved patients aged ≥ 65 years, while 56% (n = 5) were disease-specific. Monitoring was the most prevalent choice of intervention (67%; n = 6). Outcomes were mainly related to levels of polypharmacy (29%; n = 6) and comorbidities (29%; n = 6), effectiveness rates (14%; n = 3), and avoidable costs (9%; n = 2). Conclusions: This review outlines that Italy is still lacking in interventions to monitor/manage PIP, addressing an unmet need in developing patient-tailored strategies for reducing health-system burden.

Polypharmacy is common among patients with antithrombotic medication, giving rise to concerns about Drug-Related Problems (DRPs). Therefore, these patients would benefit from a Medication Review (MR) along with pharmacist counselling to reduce the risks accompanying polymedication. This prospective study presents a concept for MRs that are applicable in German community pharmacies and can efficiently support pharmacist counselling and improve the safety of drug therapy. As this is a major challenge in everyday pharmacy practice, we used a Decision Support System (DSS) to evaluate its ability to support the process of pharmacist-led MRs. The primary endpoint was the impact of a community pharmacist on the reduction of DRPs. We investigated the impact of the interventions resulting from MRs on patients taking at least one antithrombotic drug as part of their polymedication regimen. Secondary endpoints were the reduction in the number of patients with bleeding risks and the improvement of patients\' Quality of Life (QoL) and therapy adherence. Furthermore, the DSS used in the study was controlled for correct data assessment and plausibility of data. We selected adult patients who were taking no less than three different medications for long-term treatment, at least one of which had to be an antithrombotic drug, and who were customers in one of eight selected pharmacies over a period of 6 months. Data from 87 patients were analyzed with DSS-support. A total of 234 DRPs were identified by the pharmacist (2.7 DRPs per patient). MR reduced DRPs by 43.2% which, resulting to a reduction of 1.2 DRPs per patient. The intervention also led to a significant improvement in the patients\' QoL (assessed via EQ-5D-5L questionnaire; p < 0.001) and enhanced therapy adherence (assessed via A14 questionnaire; p < 0.001). The control of correct data assessment (with 93.8% concordance) and plausibility of data (with 91.7% concordance) of the DSS software were conducted by an external auditor. No significant effect was found for overall bleeding risk. The results of this study indicate that DSS-supported and structured MR conducted by pharmacists can contribute to a reduction in DRPs and significantly improve patient\'s QoL and adherence to treatment.

BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is a primary risk factor for the prescription of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), drug-drug interactions (DDIs), and ultimately, adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Medication review and deprescribing represent effective strategies to simplify therapeutic regimens, minimize risks, and reduce PIM prescriptions. This systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental and observational studies aimed to evaluate the impact of different medication review and deprescribing interventions in hospitalized older patients.
METHODS: Experimental and observational prospective cohort studies evaluating the clinical effects of medication review and deprescribing strategies in older hospitalized patients were searched in the bibliographic databases, PubMed, Embase, and Scopus, from inception until January 8, 2024. A narrative synthesis of the results was provided, along with a meta-analysis of dichotomous data (i.e., re-hospitalizations and mortality).
RESULTS: Overall, 21 randomized controlled trials, 7 non-randomized interventional studies, and 2 prospective cohort studies were included in the systematic review. Of these, 14 (46.7%) assessed medication appropriateness as the primary outcome, while the remaining evaluated clinical outcomes (e.g., length of hospital stay, hospital readmissions, emergency department visits, and incidence of ADRs) and/or quality of life. The meta-analysis revealed a slight but statistically significant 8% reduction in hospital readmissions (HR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.85-0.99) following medication review and deprescribing, but no significant impact on mortality (HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.96-1.00). Of the 30 included studies, 21 were considered at high risk of bias, mostly due to potential deviations from intended interventions and randomization processes. The remaining nine studies had \"some concerns\" (eight studies) or were considered at \"low\" risk of bias (one study).
CONCLUSIONS: Medication review and deprescribing are associated with potential benefits in reducing hospital readmission rates among hospitalized older patients, particularly through the reduction of PIM prescriptions. The integration of thorough medication review and deprescribing protocols in hospital settings may improve post-discharge outcomes and reduce overall healthcare costs.

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.

OBJECTIVE: Limited comprehensive evidence exists on the global prevalence of polypharmacy. This knowledge gap contributes to increased healthcare system costs and related public health concerns. Thus, we aimed to synthesize the current evidence on polypharmacy prevalence and associated factors in the general and older populations using an umbrella review.
METHODS: Our primary outcomes were global prevalence and related indicators of polypharmacy. We systematically searched Google Scholar, PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL for studies published between the inception of each database until April 30, 2023.
RESULTS: Eleven meta-analyses incorporating 295 studies and 59,552,762 participants from 41 countries across six continents were identified. The global prevalence of polypharmacy in the general population is 37 %, with higher rates in older individuals (45 %), outpatients (48 %), and inpatients (52 %). North America showed a higher prevalence (52 %) than Asia (36 %) and Europe (36 %). Among frail elderly individuals, the prevalence of polypharmacy is 59 %, with the highest rates in Europe (68 %) and hospital settings (71 %).
CONCLUSIONS: The global prevalence of polypharmacy and its associated factors in older adults present a complex, multifaceted, and conflicting picture. Understanding the prevalence of polypharmacy and its associated factors may help reduce the number of multidrug prescriptions.