James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States.
James Wilmot Cancer Center, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, United States.
J Geriatr Oncol. 2018 Sep;9(5):534-539. doi: 10.1016/j.jgo.2018.02.007. Epub 2018 Mar 9.
Polypharmacy (PP) and potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) are common in older adults with cancer, increasing the risk of adverse outcomes. Approaches to identifying and addressing PP/PIM are needed.
Patients ≥70 years with advanced cancer were enrolled in this cluster-randomized study. All underwent geriatric assessment (GA), and oncologists randomized to the intervention arm received GA-driven recommendations; no information was provided to oncologists at usual care sites. For patients with PP (≥5 medications or ≥1 high-risk medication), clinic visits with treating oncologists were audiorecorded and transcribed, and discussions regarding PP/PIM identified. Quality of provider response was coded as dismissed, mentioned, acknowledged, or addressed.
Forty patient transcripts were analyzed (20 per arm). More discussions occurred in the intervention group (n = 81) versus the usual care group (n = 51). More concerns per patient were brought up in the intervention group (4.1 vs. 2.6, p = 0.07). Physician-initiated discussions were higher in the intervention group (73% vs. 49%, p = 0.006). More PP concerns were "addressed" in the intervention group (59% vs. 45%, p = 0.1). Oncology supportive care medication concerns were more often addressed in the usual care group (58% vs. 18%, p = 0.008), but medication management concerns were addressed more commonly in the intervention group (38% vs. 79%, p = 0.003).
In this secondary analysis, a GA-driven intervention increased PP discussions, particularly about total number of medications and medication management. PP/PIM concerns were more commonly addressed in the intervention group, except for the subset of conversations about supportive care medications.
在患有癌症的老年患者中,同时使用多种药物(PP)和潜在不适当药物(PIM)很常见,这会增加不良后果的风险。因此需要寻找识别和处理 PP/PIM 的方法。
本研究纳入了年龄≥70 岁的晚期癌症患者。所有患者均接受老年综合评估(GA),接受干预的肿瘤医生根据 GA 结果提供建议;而在常规护理点则不向肿瘤医生提供任何信息。对于存在 PP(≥5 种药物或≥1 种高风险药物)的患者,其与治疗肿瘤医生的就诊会被录音和转录,并记录关于 PP/PIM 的讨论。医生的回应质量编码为否认、提及、承认或处理。
分析了 40 份患者记录(每组 20 份)。干预组(n=81)的讨论比常规护理组(n=51)更多。干预组每位患者提出的问题更多(4.1 比 2.6,p=0.07)。干预组医生发起的讨论更多(73%比 49%,p=0.006)。干预组更多的 PP 问题被“处理”(59%比 45%,p=0.1)。常规护理组更多地处理肿瘤支持性护理药物的问题(58%比 18%,p=0.008),但干预组更多地处理药物管理问题(38%比 79%,p=0.003)。
在这项二次分析中,GA 驱动的干预增加了 PP 的讨论,尤其是关于药物的总数和药物管理。干预组更常处理 PP/PIM 的问题,但在支持性护理药物的讨论中则不然。