Clinical impact of medication review and deprescribing in older inpatients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

IF 4.3 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Journal of the American Geriatrics Society Pub Date : 2024-06-01 DOI:10.1111/jgs.19035
Massimo Carollo MD, Salvatore Crisafulli MSc, Giacomo Vitturi MSc, Matilde Besco MD, Damiano Hinek MSc, Andrea Sartorio MD, Valentina Tanara MSc, Giulia Spadacini MD, Margherita Selleri MSc, Valentina Zanconato MD, Cristiano Fava PhD, Pietro Minuz MD, Mauro Zamboni MD, Gianluca Trifirò PhD
{"title":"Clinical impact of medication review and deprescribing in older inpatients: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Massimo Carollo MD,&nbsp;Salvatore Crisafulli MSc,&nbsp;Giacomo Vitturi MSc,&nbsp;Matilde Besco MD,&nbsp;Damiano Hinek MSc,&nbsp;Andrea Sartorio MD,&nbsp;Valentina Tanara MSc,&nbsp;Giulia Spadacini MD,&nbsp;Margherita Selleri MSc,&nbsp;Valentina Zanconato MD,&nbsp;Cristiano Fava PhD,&nbsp;Pietro Minuz MD,&nbsp;Mauro Zamboni MD,&nbsp;Gianluca Trifirò PhD","doi":"10.1111/jgs.19035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>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).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>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).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>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.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":17240,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/jgs.19035","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Geriatrics Society","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jgs.19035","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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).

Conclusion

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.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
老年住院患者用药回顾和取消处方的临床影响:系统回顾与荟萃分析。
背景:多重用药是处方潜在不当药物(PIMs)、药物间相互作用(DDIs)以及最终导致药物不良反应(ADRs)的主要风险因素。药物审查和取消处方是简化治疗方案、最大限度降低风险和减少 PIM 处方的有效策略。本研究对实验性和观察性研究进行了系统回顾和荟萃分析,旨在评估不同的用药回顾和停药干预措施对住院老年患者的影响:方法:在PubMed、Embase和Scopus等文献数据库中检索了从开始到2024年1月8日期间评估老年住院患者用药检查和停药策略临床效果的实验性和观察性前瞻性队列研究。对结果进行了叙述性综述,并对二分法数据(即再次住院和死亡率)进行了荟萃分析:系统综述共纳入了 21 项随机对照试验、7 项非随机干预研究和 2 项前瞻性队列研究。其中,14 项(46.7%)将用药适当性作为主要评估结果,其余研究则对临床结果(如住院时间、再入院率、急诊就诊率和 ADR 发生率)和/或生活质量进行了评估。荟萃分析表明,在进行药物审查和取消处方后,再入院率略有下降,降幅为 8%(HR:0.92;95% CI:0.85-0.99),但对死亡率无显著影响(HR:0.98;95% CI:0.96-1.00)。在纳入的 30 项研究中,有 21 项被认为存在较高的偏倚风险,主要原因是可能偏离了预期的干预和随机化过程。其余 9 项研究存在 "一些问题"(8 项研究)或被认为存在 "低 "偏倚风险(1 项研究):结论:药物审查和取消处方与降低住院老年患者再入院率的潜在益处相关,尤其是通过减少 PIM 处方。在医院环境中整合全面的药物审查和处方协议可改善出院后的治疗效果并降低总体医疗成本。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
10.00
自引率
6.30%
发文量
504
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS) is the go-to journal for clinical aging research. We provide a diverse, interprofessional community of healthcare professionals with the latest insights on geriatrics education, clinical practice, and public policy—all supporting the high-quality, person-centered care essential to our well-being as we age. Since the publication of our first edition in 1953, JAGS has remained one of the oldest and most impactful journals dedicated exclusively to gerontology and geriatrics.
期刊最新文献
Reflections on Lonely, Single and Over 50? China has a Game Show for That. Issue Information Author Index Introduction for the 2024 Chinese Congress on Gerontology and Health Industry (CCGI) Abstracts Abstracts for JGS Chinese Supplement
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1