Deprescribing: An umbrella review.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Acta Pharmaceutica Pub Date : 2024-05-30 Print Date: 2024-06-01 DOI:10.2478/acph-2024-0011
Nuša Japelj, Nejc Horvat, Lea Knez, Mitja Kos
{"title":"Deprescribing: An umbrella review.","authors":"Nuša Japelj, Nejc Horvat, Lea Knez, Mitja Kos","doi":"10.2478/acph-2024-0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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 <i>deprescribing intervention trials</i> (39/70, 56 %; 16 reviewing specific deprescribing interventions and 23 broad medication optimisation interventions), and reviews with <i>medication cessation trials</i> (31/70, 44 %). Deprescribing was feasible and resulted in a reduction of inappropriate medications in reviews with <i>deprescribing intervention trials</i>. Complex broad medication optimisation interventions were shown to reduce hospitalisation, falls, and mortality rates. In reviews of <i>medication cessation trials,</i> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":7034,"journal":{"name":"Acta Pharmaceutica","volume":"74 2","pages":"249-267"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Pharmaceutica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/acph-2024-0011","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

去处方化:综述。
本综述按照干预、人群、药物和环境的特点,对去处方化研究的系统性综述进行了研究。文中介绍了临床和人文结果、障碍和促进因素以及去处方化工具。使用了 Medline 数据库。检索仅限于截至 2022 年 4 月以英文发表的系统综述和荟萃分析。纳入了报告去处方化的综述,但排除了那些去处方化并非由医护人员计划和监督的综述。共纳入94篇系统综述(23篇荟萃分析)。大多数综述探讨了临床或人文结果(70/94,74%);较少综述探讨了去处方化的态度、促进因素或障碍(17/94,18%);很少综述关注工具(8/94,8.5%)。评估临床或人文成果的综述分为两组:包含去处方化干预试验的综述(39/70,56%;16 篇综述特定的去处方化干预措施,23 篇综述广泛的药物优化干预措施),以及包含戒药试验的综述(31/70,44%)。在对取消处方干预试验的回顾中,取消处方是可行的,并能减少不恰当用药。复杂而广泛的药物优化干预措施可降低住院率、跌倒率和死亡率。在对停药试验的回顾中,不良停药事件的发生频率较高,这突出表明了将患者安全放在首位以及在停药时谨慎行事的重要性,尤其是对适应症明确且适当的患者。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta Pharmaceutica
Acta Pharmaceutica PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
3.60%
发文量
20
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: AP is an international, multidisciplinary journal devoted to pharmaceutical and allied sciences and contains articles predominantly on core biomedical and health subjects. The aim of AP is to increase the impact of pharmaceutical research in academia, industry and laboratories. With strong emphasis on quality and originality, AP publishes reports from the discovery of a drug up to clinical practice. Topics covered are: analytics, biochemistry, biopharmaceutics, biotechnology, cell biology, cell cultures, clinical pharmacy, drug design, drug delivery, drug disposition, drug stability, gene technology, medicine (including diagnostics and therapy), medicinal chemistry, metabolism, molecular modeling, pharmacology (clinical and animal), peptide and protein chemistry, pharmacognosy, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacoeconomics, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, protein design, radiopharmaceuticals, and toxicology.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信