Holly M. Holmes

Discontinuing medications: a novel approach for revising the prescribing stage of the medication-use process.

Thousands of Americans are injured or die each year from adverse drug reactions, many of which are preventable. The burden of harm conveyed by the use of medications is a significant public health problem, and therefore, improving the medication‐use process is a priority. Recent and ongoing efforts to improve the medication‐use process have focused primarily on improving medication prescribing, and not much emphasis has been put on improving medication discontinuation. A formalized approach for rationally discontinuing medications is a necessary antecedent to improving medication safety and improving the nations quality of care. This article proposes a conceptual framework for revising the prescribing stage of the medication‐use process to include discontinuing medications. This framework has substantial practice and research implications, especially for the clinical care of older persons, who are particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of medications.

Integrating Palliative Medicine into the Care of Persons with Advanced Dementia: Identifying Appropriate Medication Use

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of developing consensus recommendations for appropriate prescribing for patients with advanced dementia using a new conceptual framework and to determine the frequency of inappropriate medication use based on these recommendations in a small sample of patients with advanced dementia.

Daily Medication Use in Nursing Home Residents with Advanced Dementia

OBJECTIVES: To describe the pattern and factors associated with daily medication use in nursing home (NH) residents with advanced dementia.

Rationalizing prescribing for older patients with multimorbidity: Considering time to benefit

Given the growing number of older adults with multimorbidity who are prescribed multiple medications, clinicians need to prioritize which medications are most likely to benefit and least likely to harm an individual patient. The concept of time to benefit (TTB) is increasingly discussed in addition to other measures of drug effectiveness in order to understand and contextualize the benefits and harms of a therapy to an individual patient. However, how to glean this information from available evidence is not well established. The lack of such information for clinicians highlights a critical need in the design and reporting of clinical trials to provide information most relevant to decision making for older adults with multimorbidity. We define TTB as the time until a statistically significant benefit is observed in trials of people taking a therapy compared to a control group not taking the therapy. Similarly, time to harm (TTH) is the time until a statistically significant adverse effect is seen in a trial for the treatment group compared to the control group. To determine both TTB and TTH, it is critical that we also clearly define the benefit or harm under consideration. Well-defined benefits or harms are clinically meaningful, measurable outcomes that are desired (or shunned) by patients. In this conceptual review, we illustrate concepts of TTB in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Using published results, we estimate probable TTB for statins with the future goal of using such information to improve prescribing decisions for individual patients. Knowing the relative TTBs and TTHs associated with a patient’s medications could be immensely useful to a clinician in decision making for their older patients with multimorbidity. We describe the challenges in defining and determining TTB and TTH, and discuss possible ways of analyzing and reporting trial results that would add more information about this aspect of drug effectiveness to the clinician’s evidence base.

Ethnic disparities in adherence to antihypertensive medications of medicare part D beneficiaries.

To determine the level of adherence to medications and characteristics of Part D beneficiaries associated with higher levels of antihypertensive medication adherence.

Tools to Reduce Polypharmacy

The reduction in polypharmacy and avoidance of inappropriate medications is a common goal in the care of older persons, regardless of setting. While multidisciplinary teams and regular medication reconciliation and review can identify and reduce medication-related problems, tools to decrease the use of high-risk/low benefit medications can help the individual clinician to improve prescribing. Numerous criteria, tools, algorithms, and scoring systems have been developed for use in a wide range of areas from long-term care to the outpatient setting, and some may not be applicable to individual situations. Not all medication review instruments have been adequately validated, and the tools we have presented have varying levels of evidence to support their use. Clinicians also need to be aware of regulatory, policy, and guideline issues that may impact the use of certain criteria for optimum prescribing. Ultimately, optimizing prescribing by reducing polypharmacy and avoiding inappropriate medications is a highly individualized process for each patient, and clinicians will have to use extensive clinical judgment in using the tools presented here.

A Randomized, Double-blind, 2-Period, Placebo-Controlled Crossover Trial of a Sustained-Release Methylphenidate in the Treatment of Fatigue in Cancer Patients

PurposeThis study assessed the efficacy of methylphenidate versus placebo for cancer-related fatigue reduction. Other objectives were to analyze cytokine levels and to determine the effects of methylphenidate on other symptoms, cognitive function, work yield, and patients’ perceptions and preferences. MethodsPatients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive methylphenidate-placebo or placebo-methylphenidate for 4 weeks. Patients crossed over after 2 weeks. Wilcoxon signed rank tests and McNemar tests were used to assess continuous and categorical variables. The primary efficacy endpoint was change in the level of worst fatigue on the Brief Fatigue Inventory (BFI) at the end of each 2-week period. ResultsThe mean baseline BFI score was moderate (5.7). Methylphenidate treatment did not affect patients’ worst level of fatigue or other symptoms. Results from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale Digit Symbol Test and the Hopkins Verbal Learning Test with BFI interference questions and BFI activity questions showed significant improvement in the methylphenidate-treated patients’ verbal learning, memory, visual perception, analysis, and scanning speed. Patients treated with methylphenidate missed significantly fewer work hours owing to health reasons and worked significantly more hours. After 4 weeks, 64% of patients reported that methylphenidate improved their cancer-related fatigue, and 58% wanted to continue treatment. Significant difference in interleukin 6R (positive), interleukin 10 (negative), and tumor necrosis factor &agr; (positive) was noted between the methylphenidate and the placebo group. ConclusionsLow-dose methylphenidate did not improve cancer-related fatigue. Patients taking methylphenidate had better cognition and were able to work more hours. Patients tolerated methylphenidate well, and the majority felt better and wanted to continue treatment.

Association of potentially inappropriate medication use with patient and prescriber characteristics in Medicare Part D

The use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in older people is associated with increased risk of adverse drug events and hospitalization. This study aimed to determine the contribution of primary prescribers to variation in PIM use.

Inappropriate prescribing of preventative medication in patients with life-limiting illness: a systematic review

Objectives To systematically review the literature to examine the methods used to identify inappropriate prescribing of preventative medication in patients with life-limiting illness and to detail the nature of medications prescribed. Methods A systematic literature search of 4 databases was undertaken (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO) from inception to April 2015 to identify peer-reviewed, observational studies assessing inappropriate prescribing of preventative medication in patients with life-limiting illness. Inclusion criteria were: participants had a life-limiting illness; prescribed/dispensed/using preventative medication; medication appropriateness assessed as a specific study aim or outcome. Results We found 19 studies meeting our eligibility criteria. The methods used to assess medication appropriateness included criteria developed for the elderly such as the Beers Criteria, and Screening Tool of Older Persons’ potentially inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) criteria, Delphi consensus and expert clinical opinion. Lipid-regulating drugs (12 studies), antihypertensive (11 studies) and antidiabetic medications (9 studies) were the most common classes of inappropriate medication identified. Conclusions Patients with life-limiting illnesses are prescribed preventative medications considered inappropriate in the context of diminished life expectancy. The way in which preventative medication appropriateness is assessed in patients with life-limiting illness varies considerably—with some methodologies utilising criteria previously developed for elderly populations. Given this lack of standardisation, improving the prescribing in this context requires an approach that is specifically designed and validated for populations with life-limiting illness.

Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication use in geriatric oncology.

Polypharmacy is a highly prevalent problem in older persons, and is challenging to assess and improve due to variations in definitions of the problem and the heterogeneous methods of medication review and reduction. The purpose of this review is to summarize evidence regarding the prevalence and impact of polypharmacy in geriatric oncology patients and to provide recommendations for assessment and management. Polypharmacy has somewhat variably been incorporated into geriatric assessment studies in geriatric oncology, and polypharmacy has not been consistently evaluated as a predictor of negative outcomes in patients with cancer. Once screened, interventions for polypharmacy are even more uncertain. There is a great need to create standardized interventions to improve polypharmacy in geriatrics, and particularly in geriatric oncology. The process of deprescribing is aimed at reducing medications for which real or potential harm outweighs benefit, and there are numerous methods to determine which medications are candidates for deprescribing. However, deprescribing approaches have not been evaluated in older patients with cancer. Ultimately, methods to identify polypharmacy will need to be clearly defined and validated, and interventions to improve medication use will need to be based on clearly defined and standardized methods.