Benzodiazepine receptor agonists are often used for insomnia in older adults contrary to current evidence. The harms outweigh the benefits, which are limited. Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia is the first-line recommended treatment. Sleepwell was created as a repository of evidence-based resources to promote cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia and limit benzodiazepine receptor agonist use. This qualitative study uses an interpretive description design and reflexive thematic analysis to explore older adults\' perspectives on behavioural change techniques used in Sleepwell resources. It also explores challenges and opportunities towards benzodiazepine receptor agonist discontinuation and cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia use. Participants were recruited from the Sleepwell arm of a randomized controlled trial. Data were collected from 15 older adults using semi-structured interviews. Two main themes were developed: (1) sleep should not be this difficult; and (2) whether you know it, or learn it, drugs are bad. Two sub-themes were created within the first theme: (1) justification of benzodiazepine receptor agonist use to achieve sleep goals; (2) efforts of committing to cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia. Several behavioural change techniques (e.g. information about consequences, anticipated regret, salience of consequences) were enablers of benzodiazepine receptor agonist-related behaviour change. For committing to cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia, several behavioural change techniques (e.g. self-monitoring of behaviour, distraction, stimulus substitution) were beneficial, but social support, which was perceived as useful, was absent. Older adults experienced tension with benzodiazepine receptor agonist use and deprescribing, despite knowing or learning the potential consequences of benzodiazepine receptor agonists. Cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia implementation was challenging. Embedded behavioural change techniques in the Sleepwell booklets were identified as helpful, but more (e.g. social support) are needed to optimize cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia use.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) have a central role to play on reduction of polypharmacy and deprescribing. This study aimed to assess beliefs and attitudes towards deprescribing in patients, aged 65 years or older in primary care, and to identify factors associated with deprescribing and their willingness to stop medication.
METHODS: A questionnaire study was performed between 23 May and 29 July 2022 on patients aged 65 years or older attending a GP\'s surgery in a French area. We used the French version of the revised Patients\' Attitudes Towards Deprescribing self-report questionnaire (rPATD), which measures four subscales (\"Burden\", \"Appropriateness\", \"Concerns about stopping\" and, \"Involvement\"), patients\' willingness to stop one of their regular medicines, and patients\' satisfaction with their current medicines.
RESULTS: The study enrolled 200 patients. Median age was 76 years old (IQR 71-81), 55% were women, and 42.5% took 5 or more medications per day. Although most patients (92.5%) were satisfied with their current medicines, 35% were reluctant to stop medications they had been taking for a long time, and 89.5% were willing to stop medication if asked to by their GP. Patients aged less than 75 years old reported more concerns about stopping. Women and patients with higher educational attainment showed significantly higher involvement in medication management.
CONCLUSIONS: The majority of older adults were willing to stop one or more of their regular medicines if asked to do so by their GP. GPs should address deprescribing into their current practice.

BACKGROUND: Long-term antidepressant (AD) use, much longer than recommended by guidelines, may cause harms and generate unnecessary costs. Community pharmacists have frequent contact with AD users and advise them on appropriate and safe medication use. GPs recognised pharmacists as potential sources of additional support for the AD discontinuation process, but there is a lack of knowledge about pharmacists\' views.
OBJECTIVE: To explore pharmacists\' perspectives on discontinuing long-term use of ADs and supporting patients during the discontinuation process and their barriers and facilitators.
METHODS: Qualitative study in Belgian pharmacists. The authors conducted 14 semi-structured face-to-face interviews. Interviews were analysed thematically.
RESULTS: The first theme \'Antidepressants at the pharmacy: a persistent taboo\' described the challenges pharmacists encounter in initiating discussions with patients about their ADs and mental health, and the persistent taboo around ADs at pharmacies. Second, pharmacists were concerned about the risks associated with AD discontinuation but recognise that harm from continuing ADs may outweigh concerns. Third, although pharmacists can be a starting point for discontinuation, they hesitate to do this and question if this is their role. They prefer that GPs have this responsibility.
CONCLUSIONS: Deprescribing long-term ADs is a challenging concept for pharmacists, especially when there is no patient request. The taboo around ADs and the fear of relapse of symptoms in a stable patient are important barriers for pharmacists when considering discontinuation. Pharmacist education and confidence-building is essential to involve the pharmacist in the discontinuation process. Findings also highlight a strong need for multidisciplinary collaboration and agreements with GPs to reduce unnecessary antidepressant treatment.

BACKGROUND: Long-term opioid prescription to manage chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is rapidly rising, despite the lacking evidence supporting their safety and efficacy. Co-prescribing opioids with other dependence-forming medications (DFMs) causes fatal side effects. Clinicians are advised to avoid combinations of DFMs and, where suitable, deprescribe to improve patient safety.
OBJECTIVE: To review the number of patients registered to the Grange Medical Centre (Nuneaton, Warwickshire) who are co-prescribed an opioid and either benzodiazepine/gabapentinoid for CNCP and to reduce usage of these DFMs.
METHODS: The \'Model for Improvement\' is used as a QIP framework. A database search was conducted on 5 October 2023 to identify the cohort of interest. The introduced changes included devising a resource pack outlining the up-to-date non-pharmacological pain management, support channels, and a medication review invitation sent to the identified patients. A pain management template has also been developed to be used by GPs and clinical pharmacists to support the medication review. Guided by the Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle, data will be re-measured to detect incremental changes in practice.
RESULTS: In total, 123 patients were receiving co-prescriptions of opioids along with either benzodiazepine/gabapentinoid for CNCP out of the enlisted 12 360 patients. The majority were in the 70-79 years age range. It was also noted that around 66% of patients were females. The QIP\'s first cycle is currently being implemented.
CONCLUSIONS: This QIP addresses a pressing need to reduce the usage of DFMs. The interim results will guide the change model in the Grange Medical Centre GP surgery and inform scoping of relevant clinical questions to improve patient safety.

OBJECTIVE: The growing deprescribing field is challenged by a lack of consensus around evidence and knowledge gaps. The objective of this overview of systematic reviews was to summarize the review evidence for deprescribing interventions in older adults.
METHODS: 11 databases were searched from 1st January 2005 to 16th March 2023 to identify systematic reviews. We summarized and synthesized the results in two steps. Step 1 summarized results reported by the included reviews (including meta-analyses). Step 2 involved a narrative synthesis of review results by outcome. Outcomes included medication-related outcomes (e.g., medication reduction, medication appropriateness) or twelve other outcomes (e.g., mortality, adverse events). We summarized outcomes according to subgroups (patient characteristics, intervention type and setting) when direct comparisons were available within the reviews. The quality of included reviews was assessed using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2).
RESULTS: We retrieved 3,228 unique citations and assessed 135 full-text articles for eligibility. Forty-eight reviews (encompassing 17 meta-analyses) were included. Thirty-one of the 48 reviews had a general deprescribing focus, 16 focused on specific medication classes or therapeutic categories and one included both. Twelve of 17 reviews meta-analyzed medication-related outcomes (33 outcomes: 25 favored the intervention, 7 found no difference, 1 favored the comparison). The narrative synthesis indicated that most interventions resulted in some evidence of medication reduction while for other outcomes we found primarily no evidence of an effect. Results were mixed for adverse events and few reviews reported adverse drug withdrawal events. Limited information was available for people with dementia, frailty and multimorbidity. All but one review scored low or critically low on quality assessment.
CONCLUSIONS: Deprescribing interventions likely resulted in medication reduction but evidence on other outcomes, in particular relating to adverse events, or in vulnerable subgroups or settings was limited. Future research should focus on designing studies powered to examine harms, patient-reported outcomes, and effects on vulnerable subgroups.
BACKGROUND: PROSPERO CRD42020178860.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing of medication for cardiovascular risk factors and diabetes has been incorporated in clinical guidelines but proves to be difficult to implement in primary care. Training of healthcare providers is needed to enhance deprescribing in eligible patients. This study will examine the effects of a blended training program aimed at initiating and conducting constructive deprescribing consultations with patients.
METHODS: A cluster-randomized trial will be conducted in which local pharmacy-general practice teams in the Netherlands will be randomized to conducting clinical medication reviews with patients as usual (control) or after receiving the CO-DEPRESCRIBE training program (intervention). People of 75 years and older using specific cardiometabolic medication (diabetes drugs, antihypertensives, statins) and eligible for a medication review will be included. The CO-DEPRESCRIBE intervention is based on previous work and applies models for patient-centered communication and shared decision making. It consists of 5 training modules with supportive tools. The primary outcome is the percentage of patients with at least 1 cardiometabolic medication deintensified. Secondary outcomes include patient involvement in decision making, healthcare provider communication skills, health/medication-related outcomes, attitudes towards deprescribing, medication regimen complexity and health-related quality of life. Additional safety and cost parameters will be collected. It is estimated that 167 patients per study arm are needed in the final intention-to-treat analysis using a mixed effects model. Taking loss to follow-up into account, 40 teams are asked to recruit 10 patients each. A baseline and 6-months follow-up assessment, a process evaluation, and a cost-effectiveness analysis will be conducted.
CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis is that the training program will lead to more proactive and patient-centered deprescribing of cardiometabolic medication. By a comprehensive evaluation, an increase in knowledge needed for sustainable implementation of deprescribing in primary care is expected.
BACKGROUND: The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT05507177).

BACKGROUND: Falls in older patients can lead to serious health complications and increased health care costs. Fall risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) are a group of drugs that may induce falls or increase the tendency to fall (ie, fall risk). Deprescribing is the process of withdrawal from an inappropriate medication, supervised by a health care professional, with the goal of managing polypharmacy and improving outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the effectiveness of a deprescribing intervention based on the Assess, Review, Minimize, Optimize, and Reassess (ARMOR) tool in reducing the risk of falls in older patients and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of deprescribing FRIDs.
METHODS: This is an open-label, parallel-group randomized controlled academic trial. Individuals aged 60-80 years who are currently taking 5 or more prescribed drugs, including at least 1 FRID, will be recruited. Demographic data, medical conditions, medication lists, orthostatic hypotension, and fall history details will be collected. Fall concern will be assessed using the Fall Efficacy Scale, and fall risk will be assessed by the Timed Up and Go test and Tinetti Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment tool. In this study, all treating physicians will be randomized using a stratified randomization method based on seniority. Randomized physicians will do deprescribing with the ARMOR tool for patients on FRIDs. Participants will maintain diaries, and monthly phone follow-ups will be undertaken to monitor falls and adverse events. Physical assessments will be performed to evaluate fall risk every 3 months for a year. The rationality of prescription drugs will be evaluated using the World Health Organization\'s core indicators.
RESULTS: The study received a grant from the Indian Council of Medical Research-Safe and Rational Use of Medicine in October 2023. The study is scheduled to commence in April 2024 and conclude by 2026. Efficacy will be measured by fall frequency and changes in fall risk scores. Cost-effectiveness analysis will also include the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio calculation. Adverse events related to deprescription will be recorded.
CONCLUSIONS: This trial will provide essential insights into the efficacy of the ARMOR tool in reducing falls among the geriatric population who are taking FRIDs. Additionally, it will provide valuable information on the cost-effectiveness of deprescribing practices, offering significant implications for improving the well-being of older patients and optimizing health care resource allocation. The findings from this study will be pertinent for health care professionals, policy makers, and researchers focused on geriatric care and fall prevention strategies.
BACKGROUND: Clinical Trials Registry - India CTRI/2023/12/060516; https://ctri.nic.in/Clinicaltrials/pubview2.php.
UNASSIGNED: PRR1-10.2196/55638.

An integral component of the practice of medicine is focused on the initiation of medications, based on clinical practice guidelines and underlying trial evidence, which usually test the addition of novel medications intended for life-long use in short-term clinical trials. Much less attention is given to the question of medication discontinuation, especially after a lengthy period of treatment, during which patients age gets older and diseases may either progress or new diseases may emerge. Given the paucity of data, clinical practice guidelines offer little to no guidance on when and how to deprescribe cardiovascular medications. Such decisions are often left to the discretion of clinicians, who, together with their patients, express concern of potential adverse effects of medication discontinuation. Even in the absence of adverse effects, the continuation of medications without any proven effect may cause harm due to drug-drug interactions, the emergence of polypharmacy, and additional preventable spending to already strained health systems. Herein, several cardiovascular medications or medication classes are discussed that in the opinion of this author group should generally be discontinued, either for the prevention of potential harm, for a lack of benefit, or for the availability of better alternatives.

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.