双重用途药物处方对接近生命末期老年人患者相关结果的影响:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety Pub Date : 2021-10-22 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1177/20420986211052343
Shakti Shrestha, Arjun Poudel, Magnolia Cardona, Kathryn J Steadman, Lisa M Nissen
{"title":"双重用途药物处方对接近生命末期老年人患者相关结果的影响:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Shakti Shrestha,&nbsp;Arjun Poudel,&nbsp;Magnolia Cardona,&nbsp;Kathryn J Steadman,&nbsp;Lisa M Nissen","doi":"10.1177/20420986211052343","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The decision to deprescribe medications used for both disease prevention and symptom control (dual-purpose medications or DPMs) is often challenging for clinicians. We aim to establish the impact of deprescribing DPMs on patient-related outcomes for older adults near end-of-life (EOL).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guideline. Literature was searched on PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Google Scholar until December 2019 for studies on deprescribing intervention with a control group (with or without randomisation); targeting ⩾65-year olds, at EOL, with at least one life-limiting illness and at least one potentially inappropriate DPM. We were interested in any patient-related outcomes. Studies with similar outcome assessment criteria were subjected to meta-analysis and narrative synthesis otherwise. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias and ROBINS-I tools for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental non-randomised controlled studies, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five studies covering 689 participants with mean age 81.6-85.7 years, the majority (74.6-100%) with dementia were included. The risk of bias was moderate to low. The deprescribing of DPMs lowered the risk of mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.44-0.79) and referral to acute care facilities (RR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.22-0.73), but did not have a significant impact on the risk of falls, non-vertebral fracture, emergency presentation, unplanned hospital admission, or general practitioner visits. No significant difference was observed in the quality of life, physical and cognitive functions between the intervention and control groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is some evidence that deprescribing of DPMs for older adults near the EOL can lower the risk of mortality and referral to acute care facilities, but there are insufficient good-quality studies powered to confirm a benefit in terms of quality of life, physical or cognitive function, health service utilisation and adverse events.</p><p><strong>Plain language summary: </strong><b>What is the health impact of withdrawal or dose reduction of medication used for disease prevention and symptom control in older adults near end-of-life?</b> <b>Introduction:</b> Older adults (aged ⩾ 65 years) with advanced diseases such as cancer, dementia, and organ failure tend to have a limited life expectancy. With the progression of these diseases towards the end-of-life, the intensity for day-to-day supportive care becomes increasingly necessary. The use of medications for symptom management is a critical part of such care, but the use of medications for long-term disease prevention can become irrelevant due to the already shortened life expectancy and may become harmful due to alterations in physiology and pharmacology associated with age and frailty. This necessitates the withdrawal or dose reduction of inappropriate medications, the process called deprescribing. The decision to deprescribe medications used for both disease prevention and symptom control (DPMs) in this population is often challenging for clinicians. In this context, whether deprescribing of DPMs can improve patient-related health outcomes is unknown.<b>Methods:</b> Evidence from the literature was reviewed and analysed, and the quality of studies was assessed. Five studies were identified, which had 689 participants with an average age above 80 years and mostly suffering from dementia.<b>Results:</b> The analysis of these studies showed deprescribing of DPMs lowered the risk of death and referral to acute care facilities at 12 months but had no significant impact on falls, non-vertebral fractures, emergency presentations, unplanned hospital admission, general practitioner visits, quality of life, physical and mental functions.<b>Conclusion:</b> In conclusion, there were insufficient numbers of high-quality studies powered to confirm whether deprescribing of DPMs reduces adverse events, health service use, or improves the quality of life or functioning in older adults near the end of life.</p>","PeriodicalId":23012,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/8b/df/10.1177_20420986211052343.PMC8543710.pdf","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of deprescribing dual-purpose medications on patient-related outcomes for older adults near end-of-life: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Shakti Shrestha,&nbsp;Arjun Poudel,&nbsp;Magnolia Cardona,&nbsp;Kathryn J Steadman,&nbsp;Lisa M Nissen\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20420986211052343\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The decision to deprescribe medications used for both disease prevention and symptom control (dual-purpose medications or DPMs) is often challenging for clinicians. We aim to establish the impact of deprescribing DPMs on patient-related outcomes for older adults near end-of-life (EOL).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guideline. Literature was searched on PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Google Scholar until December 2019 for studies on deprescribing intervention with a control group (with or without randomisation); targeting ⩾65-year olds, at EOL, with at least one life-limiting illness and at least one potentially inappropriate DPM. We were interested in any patient-related outcomes. Studies with similar outcome assessment criteria were subjected to meta-analysis and narrative synthesis otherwise. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias and ROBINS-I tools for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental non-randomised controlled studies, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five studies covering 689 participants with mean age 81.6-85.7 years, the majority (74.6-100%) with dementia were included. The risk of bias was moderate to low. The deprescribing of DPMs lowered the risk of mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.44-0.79) and referral to acute care facilities (RR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.22-0.73), but did not have a significant impact on the risk of falls, non-vertebral fracture, emergency presentation, unplanned hospital admission, or general practitioner visits. No significant difference was observed in the quality of life, physical and cognitive functions between the intervention and control groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is some evidence that deprescribing of DPMs for older adults near the EOL can lower the risk of mortality and referral to acute care facilities, but there are insufficient good-quality studies powered to confirm a benefit in terms of quality of life, physical or cognitive function, health service utilisation and adverse events.</p><p><strong>Plain language summary: </strong><b>What is the health impact of withdrawal or dose reduction of medication used for disease prevention and symptom control in older adults near end-of-life?</b> <b>Introduction:</b> Older adults (aged ⩾ 65 years) with advanced diseases such as cancer, dementia, and organ failure tend to have a limited life expectancy. With the progression of these diseases towards the end-of-life, the intensity for day-to-day supportive care becomes increasingly necessary. The use of medications for symptom management is a critical part of such care, but the use of medications for long-term disease prevention can become irrelevant due to the already shortened life expectancy and may become harmful due to alterations in physiology and pharmacology associated with age and frailty. This necessitates the withdrawal or dose reduction of inappropriate medications, the process called deprescribing. The decision to deprescribe medications used for both disease prevention and symptom control (DPMs) in this population is often challenging for clinicians. In this context, whether deprescribing of DPMs can improve patient-related health outcomes is unknown.<b>Methods:</b> Evidence from the literature was reviewed and analysed, and the quality of studies was assessed. Five studies were identified, which had 689 participants with an average age above 80 years and mostly suffering from dementia.<b>Results:</b> The analysis of these studies showed deprescribing of DPMs lowered the risk of death and referral to acute care facilities at 12 months but had no significant impact on falls, non-vertebral fractures, emergency presentations, unplanned hospital admission, general practitioner visits, quality of life, physical and mental functions.<b>Conclusion:</b> In conclusion, there were insufficient numbers of high-quality studies powered to confirm whether deprescribing of DPMs reduces adverse events, health service use, or improves the quality of life or functioning in older adults near the end of life.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23012,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/8b/df/10.1177_20420986211052343.PMC8543710.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20420986211052343\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20420986211052343","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

对临床医生来说,决定取消既用于疾病预防又用于症状控制的药物(双重用途药物或dpm)通常是具有挑战性的。我们的目标是确定处方dpm对接近生命末期(EOL)的老年人患者相关结果的影响。方法:本系统评价按照PRISMA(系统评价和荟萃分析首选报告项目)指南进行。截至2019年12月,在PubMed、EMBASE、CINAHL、PsycINFO和Google Scholar上检索有关对照组(随机化或不随机化)的处方性干预研究的文献;针对小于或等于65岁的人,在EOL,至少有一种限制生命的疾病和至少一种可能不适当的DPM。我们对任何与患者相关的结果都感兴趣。具有类似结果评估标准的研究进行meta分析和叙事综合。分别使用Cochrane risk of bias和ROBINS-I工具对随机对照试验(rct)和准实验非随机对照研究进行偏倚风险评估。结果:5项研究纳入689名参与者,平均年龄81.6-85.7岁,其中大多数(74.6-100%)为痴呆患者。偏倚风险为中到低。dpm的处方降低了死亡风险(风险比(RR) = 0.59, 95%可信区间(CI) = 0.44-0.79)和转诊到急症护理机构的风险(RR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.22-0.73),但对跌倒、非椎体骨折、急诊、计划外住院或全科医生就诊的风险没有显著影响。干预组和对照组在生活质量、身体和认知功能方面没有观察到显著差异。结论:有一些证据表明,对接近EOL的老年人开dpm处方可以降低死亡率和转诊到急性护理机构的风险,但没有足够的高质量研究来证实在生活质量、身体或认知功能、卫生服务利用和不良事件方面的益处。简单的语言总结:在接近生命末期的老年人中,用于疾病预防和症状控制的药物停药或剂量减少对健康的影响是什么?引言:患有癌症、痴呆和器官衰竭等晚期疾病的老年人(年龄大于或等于65岁)的预期寿命往往有限。随着这些疾病向生命末期发展,日常支持性护理的强度变得越来越必要。使用药物进行症状管理是此类护理的关键部分,但由于预期寿命已经缩短,使用药物进行长期疾病预防可能变得无关紧要,并且可能由于与年龄和虚弱相关的生理和药理学改变而变得有害。这就需要停药或减少不适当药物的剂量,这一过程被称为去处方化。在这一人群中,决定取消用于疾病预防和症状控制(DPMs)的药物通常对临床医生具有挑战性。在这种情况下,dpm的处方是否可以改善患者相关的健康结果是未知的。方法:对文献证据进行回顾和分析,并对研究质量进行评价。五项研究确定了689名参与者,他们的平均年龄在80岁以上,大多数患有痴呆症。结果:对这些研究的分析表明,在12个月时,减少dpm的处方降低了死亡和转诊到急性护理机构的风险,但对跌倒、非椎体骨折、急诊表现、计划外住院、全科医生就诊、生活质量、身心功能没有显著影响。结论:总而言之,目前没有足够的高质量研究来证实处方dpm是否能减少不良事件、减少医疗服务的使用,或改善接近生命终点的老年人的生活质量或功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Impact of deprescribing dual-purpose medications on patient-related outcomes for older adults near end-of-life: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Impact of deprescribing dual-purpose medications on patient-related outcomes for older adults near end-of-life: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Impact of deprescribing dual-purpose medications on patient-related outcomes for older adults near end-of-life: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Impact of deprescribing dual-purpose medications on patient-related outcomes for older adults near end-of-life: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Introduction: The decision to deprescribe medications used for both disease prevention and symptom control (dual-purpose medications or DPMs) is often challenging for clinicians. We aim to establish the impact of deprescribing DPMs on patient-related outcomes for older adults near end-of-life (EOL).

Methods: This systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guideline. Literature was searched on PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Google Scholar until December 2019 for studies on deprescribing intervention with a control group (with or without randomisation); targeting ⩾65-year olds, at EOL, with at least one life-limiting illness and at least one potentially inappropriate DPM. We were interested in any patient-related outcomes. Studies with similar outcome assessment criteria were subjected to meta-analysis and narrative synthesis otherwise. The risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias and ROBINS-I tools for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental non-randomised controlled studies, respectively.

Results: Five studies covering 689 participants with mean age 81.6-85.7 years, the majority (74.6-100%) with dementia were included. The risk of bias was moderate to low. The deprescribing of DPMs lowered the risk of mortality (risk ratio (RR) = 0.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.44-0.79) and referral to acute care facilities (RR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.22-0.73), but did not have a significant impact on the risk of falls, non-vertebral fracture, emergency presentation, unplanned hospital admission, or general practitioner visits. No significant difference was observed in the quality of life, physical and cognitive functions between the intervention and control groups.

Conclusion: There is some evidence that deprescribing of DPMs for older adults near the EOL can lower the risk of mortality and referral to acute care facilities, but there are insufficient good-quality studies powered to confirm a benefit in terms of quality of life, physical or cognitive function, health service utilisation and adverse events.

Plain language summary: What is the health impact of withdrawal or dose reduction of medication used for disease prevention and symptom control in older adults near end-of-life? Introduction: Older adults (aged ⩾ 65 years) with advanced diseases such as cancer, dementia, and organ failure tend to have a limited life expectancy. With the progression of these diseases towards the end-of-life, the intensity for day-to-day supportive care becomes increasingly necessary. The use of medications for symptom management is a critical part of such care, but the use of medications for long-term disease prevention can become irrelevant due to the already shortened life expectancy and may become harmful due to alterations in physiology and pharmacology associated with age and frailty. This necessitates the withdrawal or dose reduction of inappropriate medications, the process called deprescribing. The decision to deprescribe medications used for both disease prevention and symptom control (DPMs) in this population is often challenging for clinicians. In this context, whether deprescribing of DPMs can improve patient-related health outcomes is unknown.Methods: Evidence from the literature was reviewed and analysed, and the quality of studies was assessed. Five studies were identified, which had 689 participants with an average age above 80 years and mostly suffering from dementia.Results: The analysis of these studies showed deprescribing of DPMs lowered the risk of death and referral to acute care facilities at 12 months but had no significant impact on falls, non-vertebral fractures, emergency presentations, unplanned hospital admission, general practitioner visits, quality of life, physical and mental functions.Conclusion: In conclusion, there were insufficient numbers of high-quality studies powered to confirm whether deprescribing of DPMs reduces adverse events, health service use, or improves the quality of life or functioning in older adults near the end of life.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety
Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety Medicine-Pharmacology (medical)
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
4.50%
发文量
31
审稿时长
9 weeks
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety delivers the highest quality peer-reviewed articles, reviews, and scholarly comment on pioneering efforts and innovative studies pertaining to the safe use of drugs in patients. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at clinicians and researchers in drug safety, providing a forum in print and online for publishing the highest quality articles in this area. The editors welcome articles of current interest on research across all areas of drug safety, including therapeutic drug monitoring, pharmacoepidemiology, adverse drug reactions, drug interactions, pharmacokinetics, pharmacovigilance, medication/prescribing errors, risk management, ethics and regulation.
×
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