GP-delivered medication review of polypharmacy, deprescribing, and patient priorities in older people with multimorbidity in Irish primary care (SPPiRE Study): A cluster randomised controlled trial.

IF 10.5 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
PLoS Medicine Pub Date : 2022-01-05 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003862
Caroline McCarthy, Barbara Clyne, Fiona Boland, Frank Moriarty, Michelle Flood, Emma Wallace, Susan M Smith
{"title":"GP-delivered medication review of polypharmacy, deprescribing, and patient priorities in older people with multimorbidity in Irish primary care (SPPiRE Study): A cluster randomised controlled trial.","authors":"Caroline McCarthy, Barbara Clyne, Fiona Boland, Frank Moriarty, Michelle Flood, Emma Wallace, Susan M Smith","doi":"10.1371/journal.pmed.1003862","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a rising prevalence of multimorbidity, particularly in older patients, and a need for evidence-based medicines management interventions for this population. The Supporting Prescribing in Older Adults with Multimorbidity in Irish Primary Care (SPPiRE) trial aimed to investigate the effect of a general practitioner (GP)-delivered, individualised medication review in reducing polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) in community-dwelling older patients with multimorbidity in primary care.</p><p><strong>Methods and findings: </strong>We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) set in 51 GP practices throughout the Republic of Ireland. A total of 404 patients, aged ≥65 years with complex multimorbidity, defined as being prescribed ≥15 regular medicines, were recruited from April 2017 and followed up until October 2020. Furthermore, 26 intervention GP practices received access to the SPPiRE website where they completed an educational module and used a template for an individualised patient medication review that identified PIP, opportunities for deprescribing, and patient priorities for care. A total of 25 control GP practices delivered usual care. An independent blinded pharmacist assessed primary outcome measures that were the number of medicines and the proportion of patients with any PIP (from a predefined list of 34 indicators based predominantly on the STOPP/START version 2 criteria). We performed an intention-to-treat analysis using multilevel modelling. Recruited participants had substantial disease and treatment burden at baseline with a mean of 17.37 (standard deviation [SD] 3.50) medicines. At 6-month follow-up, both intervention and control groups had reductions in the numbers of medicines with a small but significantly greater reduction in the intervention group (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.899 to 0.999, p = 0.045). There was no significant effect on the odds of having at least 1 PIP in the intervention versus control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.39, 95% CI: 0.140 to 1.064, p = 0.066). Adverse events recorded included mortality, emergency department (ED) presentations, and adverse drug withdrawal events (ADWEs), and there was no evidence of harm. Less than 2% of drug withdrawals in the intervention group led to a reported ADWE. Due to the inability to electronically extract data, primary outcomes were measured at just 2 time points, and this is the main limitation of this work.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The SPPiRE intervention resulted in a small but significant reduction in the number of medicines but no evidence of a clear effect on PIP. This reduction in significant polypharmacy may have more of an impact at a population rather than individual patient level.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN12752680.</p>","PeriodicalId":20368,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Medicine","volume":"19 1","pages":"e1003862"},"PeriodicalIF":10.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8730438/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003862","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: There is a rising prevalence of multimorbidity, particularly in older patients, and a need for evidence-based medicines management interventions for this population. The Supporting Prescribing in Older Adults with Multimorbidity in Irish Primary Care (SPPiRE) trial aimed to investigate the effect of a general practitioner (GP)-delivered, individualised medication review in reducing polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) in community-dwelling older patients with multimorbidity in primary care.

Methods and findings: We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) set in 51 GP practices throughout the Republic of Ireland. A total of 404 patients, aged ≥65 years with complex multimorbidity, defined as being prescribed ≥15 regular medicines, were recruited from April 2017 and followed up until October 2020. Furthermore, 26 intervention GP practices received access to the SPPiRE website where they completed an educational module and used a template for an individualised patient medication review that identified PIP, opportunities for deprescribing, and patient priorities for care. A total of 25 control GP practices delivered usual care. An independent blinded pharmacist assessed primary outcome measures that were the number of medicines and the proportion of patients with any PIP (from a predefined list of 34 indicators based predominantly on the STOPP/START version 2 criteria). We performed an intention-to-treat analysis using multilevel modelling. Recruited participants had substantial disease and treatment burden at baseline with a mean of 17.37 (standard deviation [SD] 3.50) medicines. At 6-month follow-up, both intervention and control groups had reductions in the numbers of medicines with a small but significantly greater reduction in the intervention group (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.899 to 0.999, p = 0.045). There was no significant effect on the odds of having at least 1 PIP in the intervention versus control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.39, 95% CI: 0.140 to 1.064, p = 0.066). Adverse events recorded included mortality, emergency department (ED) presentations, and adverse drug withdrawal events (ADWEs), and there was no evidence of harm. Less than 2% of drug withdrawals in the intervention group led to a reported ADWE. Due to the inability to electronically extract data, primary outcomes were measured at just 2 time points, and this is the main limitation of this work.

Conclusions: The SPPiRE intervention resulted in a small but significant reduction in the number of medicines but no evidence of a clear effect on PIP. This reduction in significant polypharmacy may have more of an impact at a population rather than individual patient level.

Trial registration: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN12752680.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

由全科医生对爱尔兰基层医疗机构中身患多种疾病的老年人的多药治疗、取消处方和患者优先权进行药物审查(SPPiRE 研究):分组随机对照试验。
背景:多病并发症的发病率不断上升,尤其是在老年患者中,因此需要针对这一人群采取循证药物管理干预措施。爱尔兰初级医疗机构支持多病老年患者处方(SPPiRE)试验旨在研究由全科医生(GP)提供的个性化药物审查对减少社区居住的初级医疗机构多病老年患者的多药和潜在不当处方(PIPs)的影响:我们在爱尔兰共和国的 51 家全科医生诊所开展了一项分组随机对照试验(RCT)。自 2017 年 4 月起,共招募了 404 名年龄≥65 岁、患有复杂的多病症(定义为处方≥15 种常规药物)的患者,并随访至 2020 年 10 月。此外,26 家干预组全科医生诊所访问了 SPPiRE 网站,在网站上完成了一个教育模块,并使用模板进行了个性化患者用药审查,确定了 PIP、去处方化机会和患者护理优先事项。共有 25 家对照全科医生诊所提供常规护理服务。一名独立的盲人药剂师对主要结果指标进行了评估,即药物数量和有任何 PIP 的患者比例(根据 STOPP/START 第 2 版标准预定义的 34 项指标)。我们采用多层次模型进行了意向治疗分析。受试者基线时的疾病和治疗负担较重,平均用药量为 17.37(标准差 [SD] 3.50)。在 6 个月的随访中,干预组和对照组的药物数量都有所减少,干预组的减少幅度较小,但明显更大(发病率比 [IRR] 0.95,95% 置信区间 [CI]:0.899 至 0.999):0.95,95% 置信区间 [CI]:0.899 至 0.999,p = 0.045)。干预组与对照组相比,对至少发生一次 PIP 的几率没有明显影响(几率比 [OR] 0.39,95% 置信区间 [CI]:0.140 至 1.064,P = 0.066)。记录的不良事件包括死亡率、急诊科就诊率和不良停药事件(ADWEs),没有证据表明存在危害。在干预组中,不到 2% 的停药事件导致了 ADWE 报告。由于无法以电子方式提取数据,主要结果仅在两个时间点进行了测量,这也是这项工作的主要局限性:SPPiRE 干预措施导致药物数量少量但显著减少,但没有证据表明对 PIP 有明显影响。显著减少多重用药可能更多的是对群体而非个体患者产生影响:ISRCTN 注册号:ISRCTN12752680。
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
PLoS Medicine
PLoS Medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
21.60
自引率
0.60%
发文量
227
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: PLOS Medicine aims to be a leading platform for research and analysis on the global health challenges faced by humanity. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including biomedicine, the environment, society, and politics, that affect the well-being of individuals worldwide. It particularly highlights studies that contribute to clinical practice, health policy, or our understanding of disease mechanisms, with the ultimate goal of improving health outcomes in diverse settings. Unwavering in its commitment to ethical standards, PLOS Medicine ensures integrity in medical publishing. This includes actively managing and transparently disclosing any conflicts of interest during the reporting, peer review, and publication processes. The journal promotes transparency by providing visibility into the review and publication procedures. It also encourages data sharing and the reuse of published work. Author rights are upheld, allowing them to retain copyright. Furthermore, PLOS Medicine strongly supports Open Access publishing, making research articles freely available to all without restrictions, facilitating widespread dissemination of knowledge. The journal does not endorse drug or medical device advertising and refrains from exclusive sales of reprints to avoid conflicts of interest.
×
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