BACKGROUND: Deprescribing has been defined as the planned process of reducing or stopping medications that may no longer be beneficial or are causing harm, with the goal of reducing medication burden while improving patient quality of life. At present, little is known about the specific challenges of decision-making to support deprescribing for patients who are accessing palliative care. By exploring the perspectives of healthcare professionals, this qualitative study aimed to address this gap, and explore the challenges of, and potential solutions to, making decisions about deprescribing in a palliative care context.
METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals in-person or via video call, between August 2022 - January 2023. Perspectives on approaches to deprescribing in palliative care; when and how they might deprescribe; and the role of carers and family members within this process were discussed. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Reflexive thematic analysis enabled the development of themes. QSR NVivo (Version 12) facilitated data management. Ethical approval was obtained from the NHS Health Research Authority (ref 305394).
RESULTS: Twenty healthcare professionals were interviewed, including: medical consultants, nurses, specialist pharmacists, and general practitioners (GPs). Participants described the importance of deprescribing decision-making, and that it should be a considered, proactive, and planned process. Three themes were developed from the data, which centred on: (1) professional attitudes, competency and responsibility towards deprescribing; (2) changing the culture of deprescribing; and (3) involving the patient and family/caregivers in deprescribing decision-making.
CONCLUSIONS: This study sought to explore the perspectives of healthcare professionals with responsibility for making deprescribing decisions with people accessing palliative care services. A range of healthcare professionals identified the importance of supporting decision-making in deprescribing, so it becomes a proactive process within a patient\'s care journey, rather than a reactive consequence. Future work should explore how healthcare professionals, patients and their family can be supported in the shared decision-making processes of deprescribing.
BACKGROUND: Ethical approval was obtained from the NHS Health Research Authority (ref 305394).

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing of potentially inappropriate medications is recommended for older adults and may improve health outcomes and quality of life in persons living with Parkinson disease (PD). Patient attitudes, beliefs, and preferences play a crucial role in the success of deprescribing interventions. We aimed to examine the attitudes and beliefs about medication burden and deprescribing among persons living with PD.
METHODS: We administered a survey to participants of Fox Insight, a prospective longitudinal study of persons living with PD. The survey included the revised Patients\' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire and additional questions about adverse drug effects. We used logistic regression models to explore potential predictors of treatment dissatisfaction and willingness to deprescribe.
RESULTS: Of the 4945 rPATD respondents, 31.6% were dissatisfied with their current medications, and 87.1% would be willing to deprescribe medications. Male sex was associated with a greater willingness to deprescribe (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.37-1.93). A greater belief that the medication burden was high or that some medications were inappropriate was associated with treatment dissatisfaction (aORs 3.74, 95% CI 3.26-4.29 and 5.61, 95% CI 4.85-6.50), and more willingness to deprescribe (aORs 1.74, 95% CI 1.47-2.06 and 2.87, 95% CI 2.41-3.42). Cognitive impairment was the adverse drug effect participants were most concerned about when prescribed new medications to treat nonmotor symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: Persons with PD are often dissatisfied with their overall medication load and are open to deprescribing. Medications that are associated with cognitive impairment might be prioritized targets for deprescribing interventions in this population.

OBJECTIVE: Recent guidelines suggest that the overall quantity and duration of antidepressant prescriptions should be reduced. In this paper, we comment on the evidence both for and against this view.
METHODS: We critically review the arguments proposed by proponents of antidepressant deprescribing in the context of the evidence-base for the treatment of depression.
RESULTS: Proponents of deprescribing do not address the substantive issues of whether inappropriate prescribing has been demonstrated, and when prescribing is needed. Their arguments for deprescribing are rebutted in this context.
CONCLUSIONS: Whether or not to deprescribe antidepressant medication needs to take into consideration the risk-benefit profile of the decision, the responsibility for which needs to be shared and based on the context of the patient\'s depression, their preferences, experiences and perspectives.

In this pilot study, we explored current attitudes and deprescribing practices of clinicians in a large regional health service through a mixed methods approach. Respondents included doctors, pharmacists and nurse practitioners, who outlined three themes including professional and organisational contexts, disconnect between goals and practices and factors influencing deprescribing.

OBJECTIVE: Potentially harmful polypharmacy is a growing public health concern. This article aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a structured Team Approach to Polypharmacy Evaluation and Reduction (AusTAPER) framework.
METHODS: We recruited patients at metropolitan hospitals for a randomised controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up. The intervention included a comprehensive medicines history, multidisciplinary meeting and medicines review prior to discharge, with engagement with the participants\' general practitioner extending after discharge. The primary outcome was the change in the number of regular medicines used at 12 months from baseline. A cost consequence was performed to estimate costs per participant during the study period.
RESULTS: There were 98 participants enrolled in the study. The number of regular medicines was significantly reduced from baseline in both groups (-1.7 ± 4.3, t = 2.38, P = 0.02 in the control group vs -2.7 ± 3.6, t = 4.48, P = 0.0001 in the intervention group), although there was no statistical difference detected between the two groups (1.0 (SE 0.9), t = 1.03, P = 0.31). The intervention was estimated to cost AU$644.17 and was associated with cost savings of AU$552.53 per participant in sustained reduced medicines cost. Health outcomes and healthcare costs were similar in both groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Medicines were significantly reduced in both groups, with a trend to a larger reduction in medicines at 12 months in the intervention group. The intervention cost was approximately offset by sustained reduced medicines cost, although these results should be regarded cautiously because of the absence of significance in the differences in outcomes between groups.

Background: This study examines the implementation and perceptions of a pharmacist consultant deprescribing program aimed at reducing the risk of falls in older adults using opioids and benzodiazepines. Methods: This qualitative study conducted interviews with healthcare providers. The interviews were conducted from August to December 2021 and analyzed using inductive coding techniques. Results: Five participants, predominantly female MDs or PA-Cs from rural clinics, were interviewed. The participants adopted a pharmacist-led deprescribing program due to their heightened awareness of the opioid crisis, dedication to patient safety, and a desire for opioid deprescribing education. Initially, concerns included patient resistance and provider-driven barriers. However, over time, patient attitudes shifted toward greater openness to the program. The providers emphasized several critical needs for the success of the program: guaranteed access to pharmacists, tailored patient education, resources specific to providers, and financial support, including telehealth options. These factors were deemed essential to overcoming initial barriers and ensuring effective implementation. Conclusion: Integrating pharmacists into primary care settings shows promise for deprescribing opioids and benzodiazepines in older adults. Future research should explore telehealth options for patient-pharmacist consultations and expand the application of these findings to other healthcare settings. The study highlights the importance of awareness, patient education, access to resources (pharmacists), and provider support in addressing deprescribing among older adults.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are largely used for controlling various pain conditions and are widely available in community pharmacies, with and without prescription. Despite their effectiveness, NSAIDs can pose significant risks due to potential side effects and drug interactions, particularly in polypharmacy and comorbidity contexts and for vulnerable users. This study investigated whether and how NSAIDs deprescribing can be conducted at the community pharmacy level by assessing pharmacists\' confidence, attitudes, and potential barriers and facilitators. Additionally, we aimed to identify any deprescribing guidelines that pharmacists could use. A literature search and a cross-sectional digital questionnaire targeting community pharmacists in Norway were conducted. Results showed that study participants (N = 73) feel confident in identifying needs for deprescribing NSAIDs but barriers such as time constraints, lack of financial compensation, and communication challenges were noted. Participants reported positive attitudes toward deprescribing but highlighted a need for better guidelines and training. This study highlights a gap in specific guidelines for deprescribing NSAIDs and a potential for enhancing pharmacists\' roles in the deprescribing process, for example, through training and improved financial incentives. Further research is encouraged to develop concrete strategies for an effective implementation where community pharmacists can be involved in the deprescribing of NSAIDs.

BACKGROUND: Long-term use of opioids does not result in significant clinical improvement and has shown more adverse than beneficial effects in chronic pain conditions. When opioids cause more adverse effects than benefits for the patient, it may be necessary to initiate a process of deprescribing.
OBJECTIVE: To explore the perceptions of French pain physicians regarding the process of opioid deprescribing in patients experiencing chronic non-cancer and to generate an understanding of the barriers and levers to the deprescribing process.
METHODS: We conducted a multicentric observational study with qualitative approach. Individual semi-structured interviews exploring pain physicians\' perceptions, beliefs, and representations to assess the determinants of opioid deprescribing with an interview guide were used. After checking the transcripts, an inductive and independent thematic analysis of the interviews was to extract meaningful themes from the dataset.
RESULTS: Twelve pain physicians were interviewed. The main obstacles to deprescribing revolved around patient-specific attributes, characteristics of the opioids themselves, and limitations within the current healthcare system, that hinder optimal patient management. Conversely, patient motivation and education, recourse to hospitalization in a Pain Department with multidisciplinary care, follow-up by the general practitioner, and training and information dissemination among patients and clinicians emerged as facilitative elements for opioid deprescribing.
CONCLUSIONS: This study underscores the needs to improve the training of healthcare professionals, the effective communication of pertinent information to patients, and the establishment of a therapeutic partnership with the patient. It is therefore essential to carry out the deprescribing process in a collaborative and interprofessional manner, encompassing both pharmaceutical and non-pharmaceutical strategies.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the cost effectiveness of deprescribing in multimorbidity is limited.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the cost effectiveness of a general practitioner (GP) delivered, individualised medication review to reduce polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients with multimorbidity in Irish primary care.
METHODS: Within trial economic evaluation, from a healthcare perspective and based on a cluster randomised controlled trial with a 6 month follow up and 403 patients (208 Intervention and 195 Control) recruited between April 2017 and December 2019. Intervention GPs used the SPPiRE website which contained educational materials and a template to support a web-based individualised medication review. Control GPs delivered usual care. Incremental costs, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) generated using the EQ-5D-5L instrument, and expected cost effectiveness were estimated using multilevel modelling and multiple imputation techniques. Uncertainty was explored using parametric, deterministic and probabilistic methods.
RESULTS: On average, the SPPiRE intervention was dominant over usual care, with non-statistically significant mean cost savings of €410 (95% confidence interval (CI): - 2211, 1409) and mean health gains of 0.014 QALYs (95% CI - 0.011, 0.039). At cost effectiveness threshold values of €20,000 and €45,000 per QALY, the probability of SPPiRE being cost effective was 0.993 and 0.988. Results were sensitive to missing data and data collection period.
CONCLUSIONS: The study observed a pattern towards dominance for the SPPiRE intervention, with high expected cost effectiveness. Notably, observed differences in costs and outcomes were consistent with chance, and missing data and related uncertainty was non trivial. The cost effectiveness evidence may be considered promising but equivocal.
BACKGROUND: ISRCTN: 12752680, 20th October 2016.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) to identify drug-related problems (DRPs) during community pharmacist medication reviews.
METHODS: Pilot 3-phase (group), open-label study.
METHODS: Two community pharmacies in Sarnia, Ontario, with pharmacists providing medication reviews to patients.
UNASSIGNED: Five pharmacists participated in three phases (groups). During Phase 1, pharmacists conducted medication reviews in 25 adult patients using the usual approaches. In Phase 2, pharmacists were trained to use a CDSS to identify DRPs, and then conducted medication reviews using the tool in a different group of 25 adult patients. In Phase 3, pharmacists conducted medication reviews without the aid of the CDSS in 25 additional adult patients.
METHODS: The primary outcome was recommendation to the primary care physician to alter pharmacotherapy based on medication review, assessed using mean number and frequency (yes/no) of recommendations by patient. Secondary outcomes included number of potential DRPs, actual DRPs, medication review duration time, pharmacist\'s perceptions of the CDSS and patient satisfaction with medication review.
RESULTS: The mean number of recommendations to primary care physicians to alter pharmacotherapy per patient in Phases 1, 2 and 3 did not differ: 1.0 (SD = I.2) versus 1.5 (1.0) versus 1.5 (1.0), respectively; p = 0.223. The percentage of patients with a pharmacy recommendation sent to physicians across the phases, however, differed: 52% versus 80% versus 88%, respectively; p = 0.010, with more in Phases 2 and 3 compared to 1. There were more potential DRPs in group 2 compared to other groups. There were no differences in actual DRPs and medication review time. Pharmacists had positive attitudes about the CDSS. Patients were generally satisfied with their medication review.
CONCLUSIONS: This small pilot study provides some preliminary evidence for performance and feasibility of a CDSS to identify DRPs that pharmacists will act on. Future research is recommended to validate these findings in a larger sample.