Natali Jokanovic

Prevalence and Factors Associated With Polypharmacy in Long-Term Care Facilities: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE The objective of the study was to investigate the prevalence of, and factors associated with, polypharmacy in long-term care facilities (LTCFs). METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2000 to September 2014. Primary research studies in English were eligible for inclusion if they fulfilled the following criteria: (1) polypharmacy was quantitatively defined, (2) the prevalence of polypharmacy was reported or could be extracted from tables or figures, and (3) the study was conducted in a LTCF. Methodological quality was assessed using an adapted version of the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist. RESULTS Forty-four studies met the inclusion criteria and were included. Polypharmacy was most often defined as 5 or more (n = 11 studies), 9 (n = 13), or 10 (n = 11) medications. Prevalence varied widely between studies, with up to 91%, 74%, and 65% of residents taking more than 5, 9, and 10 medications, respectively. Seven studies performed multivariate analyses for factors associated with polypharmacy. Positive associations were found for recent hospital discharge (n = 2 studies), number of prescribers (n = 2), and comorbidity including circulatory diseases (n = 3), endocrine and metabolic disorders (n = 3), and neurological motor dysfunctioning (n = 3). Older age (n = 5), cognitive impairment (n = 3), disability in activities of daily living (n = 3), and length of stay in the LTCF (n = 3) were inversely associated with polypharmacy. CONCLUSIONS The prevalence of polypharmacy in LTCFs is high, varying widely between facilities, geographical locations and the definitions used. Greater use of multivariate analysis to investigate factors associated with polypharmacy across a range of settings is required. Longitudinal research is needed to explore how polypharmacy has evolved over time.

Clinical medication review in Australia: a systematic review

BACKGROUND Clinical medication review (CMR) is a structured and collaborative service aimed at identifying and resolving medication-related problems (MRPs). This is the first systematic review of CMR research in Australia. OBJECTIVE To systematically review the processes and outcomes of CMR in community-settings in Australia. METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Cochrane Library and the grey literature were searched from 2000 to February 2015. All study designs were considered. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed independently by two investigators. RESULTS Nine controlled studies, 34 observational and uncontrolled studies, 11 qualitative studies (focus groups and interviews) and nine survey studies were included. The CMRs resulted in identification of MRPs (n = 15 studies, mean 3.6 MPRs per CMR) and improved adherence (n = 3). Reductions in numbers of medications prescribed (n = 3 studies), hospitalizations (n = 3), potentially inappropriate prescribing (n = 3) and costs (n = 6) were demonstrated. Comparisons to a control group, predominately non-recipients of CMR, were made in eleven of 43 studies. Evidence supports additional models that promote interprofessional collaboration and timely referral following hospital discharge. Qualitative research identified low awareness of CMR among eligible non-recipients, while benefits were perceived to outweigh barriers to implementation. Underserved populations include indigenous and culturally and linguistically diverse people, recipients of palliative care, those recently discharged from hospital, people with poor medication adherence, those in rural and remote areas, older males, and younger people with long-term, persistent or serious health problems. CONCLUSION The available evidence suggests CMR is beneficial in improving the quality use of medications and health outcomes. However, lack of comparator groups in many observational studies limited the strength of conclusions in relation to the impact on clinical outcomes. Addressing access gaps for underserved populations, implementing additional referral pathways, and facilitating greater collaboration between the health professionals represent opportunities for further improvement.

Alcohol Consumption, Dementia and Cognitive Decline: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

There is uncertainty in relation to the effect of alcohol consumption on the incidence of dementia and cognitive decline. This review critically evaluated published systematic reviews on the epidemiology of alcohol consumption and the risk of dementia or cognitive decline. MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO were searched from inception to February 2014. Systematic reviews of longitudinal observational studies were considered. Two reviewers independently completed the 11-item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool to assess the quality. We identified three moderate quality systematic reviews (AMSTAR score 4-6) that included a total of 45 unique studies. Two of the systematic reviews encompassed a meta-analysis. Light to moderate drinking may decrease the risk of Alzheimers disease (AD) (pooled risk ratio [RR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.86) and dementia (RR 0.74; 95%CI 0.61-0.91) whereas heavy to excessive drinking does not affect the risk (RR 0.92; 95%CI 0.59-1.45 and RR 1.04; 95%CI 0.69-1.56, respectively). One systematic review identified two studies that reported a link between alcohol consumption and the development of AD. No systematic review categorised former drinkers separately from lifetime abstainers in their analysis. Definitions of alcohol consumption, light to moderate drinking and heavy-excessive drinking varied and drinking patterns were not considered. Moderate quality (AMSTAR score 4-6) systematic reviews indicate that light to moderate alcohol consumption may protect against AD and dementia. However, the importance of drinking patterns and specific beverages remain unknown. There is insufficient evidence to suggest abstainers should initiate alcohol consumption to protect against dementia.

Prevalence of Analgesic Use and Pain in People with and without Dementia or Cognitive Impairment in Aged Care Facilities: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Pain is a frequent cause of discomfort and distress in residents in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). Despite the benefits of adequate pain management, there is inconsistency in the literature regarding analgesic use and pain in residents with dementia. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the prevalence of analgesic drug use among residents with and without dementia or cognitive impairment in RACFs. A systematic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE (inception to January 2014) was conducted using Medical Subject Headings and Emtree terms, respectively. Studies were included if they reported prevalence of analgesic use for residents both with and without dementia within the same study. Data extraction and quality assessment was performed independently by two investigators. Data on the prevalence of analgesic use, pain and painful conditions were extracted. Meta-analyses were performed using random effect models. The 7 included studies were of high quality (≥ 5 out of 7 on the adapted Newcastle-Ottawa Scale). Analgesic use in residents with and without dementia or cognitive impairment ranged from 20.2% to 61.2% and 38.8% to 79.6%, respectively. Paracetamol was the most prevalent analgesic in people with and without dementia. Residents with dementia or cognitive impairment had a significantly lower prevalence of analgesic use (odds ratio [OR] 0.576, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.406-0.816) and of self-reported and clinician-observed pain (OR 0.355, 95% CI = 0.278-0.454) than residents without cognitive impairment, despite a comparable prevalence of painful conditions. These findings may indicate under-reporting and under-detection of pain in persons with dementia, and subsequent suboptimal treatment.

Pharmacist-led medication review in community settings: An overview of systematic reviews

Background: Pharmacist‐led medication review is a collaborative service which aims to identify and resolve medication‐related problems. Objective: To critically evaluate published systematic reviews relevant to pharmacist‐led medication reviews in community settings. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were searched from 1995 to December 2015. Systematic reviews of all study designs and outcomes were considered. Methodological quality was assessed using the 11‐item Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Systematic reviews of moderate or high quality (AMSTAR ≥ 4) were included in the data synthesis. Data extraction and quality assessment was performed independently by two investigators. Results: Of the 35 relevant systematic reviews identified, 24 were of moderate and seven of high quality and were included in the data synthesis. The largest overall numbers of unique primary research studies with favorable outcomes were for diabetes control (78% of studies reporting the outcome), blood pressure control (74%), cholesterol (63%), medication adherence (56%) and medication management (47%). Significant reductions in medication and/or healthcare costs were reported in 35% of primary research studies. Meta‐analysis was performed in 12 systematic reviews. Results from the meta‐analyses suggested positive impacts on glycosylated hemoglobin, blood pressure, cholesterol, and number and appropriateness of medications. Conflicting findings were reported in relation to hospitalization. No meta‐analyses reported reduced mortality. Conclusion: Moderate and high quality systematic reviews support the value of pharmacist‐led medication review for a range of clinical outcomes. Further research including more rigorous cost analyses are required to determine the impact of pharmacist‐led medication reviews on humanistic and economic outcomes. Future systematic reviews should consider the inclusion of both qualitative and quantitative studies to comprehensively evaluate medication review.

Clinical Outcomes Associated with Medication Regimen Complexity in Older People: A Systematic Review

To systematically review clinical outcomes associated with medication regimen complexity in older people.

Why is polypharmacy increasing in aged care facilities? The views of Australian health care professionals

Rationale, aims and objectives The prevalence of polypharmacy in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) is high and increasing. Although not necessarily inappropriate, polypharmacy has been associated with drug interactions, adverse drug events, geriatric syndromes and hospital admissions. The aim of this study was to identify and prioritize factors contributing to the increasing prevalence of polypharmacy in RACFs. Methods Seventeen health care professionals from metropolitan and regional Victoria and South Australia identified and prioritized factors using a modified nominal group technique. Results The top five factors ranked from most important to fifth most important were ‘changes in resident mix’, ‘increasing numbers of prescribers and the reluctance of one prescriber to discontinue a medicine commenced by another prescriber’, ‘better adherence to clinical practice guidelines’, ‘increasing reliance on locums’ and ‘greater recognition and pharmacological management of pain’. Conclusions Reasons for the increase in polypharmacy are multifactorial. Understanding the factors contributing to polypharmacy may help to guide future research and develop interventions to manage polypharmacy in RACFs.

Prioritizing interventions to manage polypharmacy in Australian aged care facilities

Background: Polypharmacy is highly prevalent in residential aged care facilities (RACFs). Although polypharmacy is sometimes unavoidable, polypharmacy has been associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Objective: To identify and prioritize a range of potential interventions to manage polypharmacy in RACFs from the perspectives of health care professionals, health policy and consumer representatives. Methods: Two nominal group technique (NGT) sessions were convened in August 2015. A purposive sample (n = 19) of clinicians, researchers, managers and representatives of consumer, professional and health policy organizations were asked to nominate interventions to address the prevalence and appropriateness of medication use. Participants were then asked to prioritize five interventions suitable for possible implementation at the system level. Results: Six of 16 potential interventions were prioritized highest for possible implementation in clinical practice, with two interventions prioritized as second highest. The top interventions in rank order were ‘implementation of a pharmacist‐led medication reconciliation service for new residents,’ ‘conduct facility‐level audits and feedback to staff and health care professionals,’ ‘develop deprescribing scripts to assist clinician‐resident discussion,’ ‘develop or revise prescribing guidelines specific to older people with multimorbidity in RACFs,’ ‘implement electronic medication charts and records’ and ‘better support Medication Advisory Committees (MACs) to address medication appropriateness.’ Conclusion: This study prioritized a range of potential interventions that may be used to assist clinicians and policy makers develop a comprehensive strategy to manage polypharmacy in RACFs.

A systematic review of medication exposure assessment in prospective cohort studies of community dwelling older Australians

Introduction It is not known to what extent medication use has been comprehensively assessed in prospective cohort studies of older Australians. Understanding the varying methods to assess medication use is necessary to establish comparability and to understand the opportunities for pharmacoepidemiological analysis. The objective of this review was to compare and contrast how medication-related data have been collected in prospective cohorts of community-dwelling older Australians. Methods MEDLINE and EMBASE (1990–2014) were systematically searched to identify prospective cohorts of ≥1000 older participants that commenced recruitment after 1990. The data collection tools used to assess medication use in each cohort were independently examined by two investigators using a structured approach. Results Thirteen eligible cohorts were included. Baseline medication use was assessed in participant self-completed surveys (n = 3), by an investigator inspecting medications brought to a clinic interview (n = 7), and by interviewing participants in their home (n = 3). Five cohorts sought participant consent to access administrative claims data. Six cohorts used multiple methods to assess medication use across one or more study waves. All cohorts assessed medication use at baseline and 12 cohorts in follow-up waves. Twelve cohorts recorded prescription medications by trade or generic name; 12 cohorts recorded medication strength; and 9 recorded the daily medication dose in at least one wave of the cohort. Seven cohorts asked participants about their “current” medication use without providing a definition of “current”; and nine cohorts asked participants to report medication use over recall periods ranging from 1-week to 3-months in at least one wave of the cohort. Sixty-five original publications, that reported the prevalence or outcomes of medication use, in the 13 cohorts were identified (median = 3, range 1–21). Conclusion There has been considerable variability in the assessment of medication use within and between cohorts. This may limit the comparability of medication data collected in these cohorts.

A systematic review of the statistical methods in prospective cohort studies investigating the effect of medications on cognition in older people.

BACKGROUND There is increasing awareness that medications can contribute to cognitive decline. Prospective cohort studies are rich sources of clinical data. However, investigating the contribution of medications to cognitive decline is challenging because both medication exposure and cognitive impairment can be associated with attrition of study participants, and medication exposure status may change over time. The objective of this review was to investigate the statistical methods in prospective cohort studies assessing the effect of medications on cognition in older people. METHODS A systematic literature search was conducted to identify prospective cohort studies of at least 12 months duration that investigated the effect of common medications or medication classes (anticholinergics, antihistamines, hypnotics, sedatives, opioids, statins, estrogens, testosterone, antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, anxiolytics, antiparkinson agents and bronchodilators) on cognition in people aged 65 years and older. Data extraction was performed independently by two investigators. A descriptive analysis of the statistical methods was performed. RESULTS A total of 44 articles were included in the review. The most common statistical methods were logistic regression (24.6% of all reported methods), Cox proportional hazards regression (22.8%), linear mixed-effects models (21.1%) and multiple linear regression (14.0%). The use of advanced techniques, most notably linear mixed-effects models, increased over time. Only 6 articles (13.6%) reported methods for addressing missing data. CONCLUSIONS A variety of statistical methods have been used for investigating the effect of medications on cognition in older people. While advanced techniques that are appropriate for the analysis of longitudinal data, most notably linear mixed-effects models, have increasingly been employed in recent years, there is an opportunity to implement alternative techniques in future studies that could address key research questions.