Shrestha Shakti, Poudel Arjun, Cardona Magnolia, Steadman Kathryn J, Nissen Lisa M
School of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, Pharmacy Australia Centre of Excellence, Level 4, 20 Cornwall Street, Woolloongabba, Brisbane, QLD 4102, Australia.
School of Clinical Sciences, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2021 Oct 22;12:20420986211052343. doi: 10.1177/20420986211052343. eCollection 2021.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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. 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. 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. 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.
对于临床医生而言,停用用于疾病预防和症状控制的药物(双重用途药物或DPM)往往具有挑战性。我们旨在确定停用DPM对临终(EOL)老年患者相关结局的影响。
本系统评价按照PRISMA(系统评价和Meta分析的首选报告项目)指南进行。在PubMed、EMBASE、CINAHL、PsycINFO和谷歌学术上检索文献,直至2019年12月,以查找有对照组(有或无随机分组)的停用干预研究;目标人群为年龄≥65岁、处于临终阶段、患有至少一种危及生命的疾病且至少使用一种潜在不适当DPM的患者。我们关注任何与患者相关的结局。具有相似结局评估标准的研究进行Meta分析,否则进行叙述性综合分析。分别使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具和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。
纳入了5项研究,共689名参与者,平均年龄为81.6 - 85.7岁,大多数(74.6 - 100%)患有痴呆症。偏倚风险为中度至低度。停用DPM可降低死亡风险(风险比(RR)= 0.59,95%置信区间(CI)= 0.44 - 0.79)和转诊至急性护理机构的风险(RR = 0.40,95% CI = 0.22 - 0.73),但对跌倒、非椎体骨折、急诊就诊、非计划住院或全科医生就诊风险没有显著影响。干预组和对照组在生活质量、身体和认知功能方面未观察到显著差异。
有一些证据表明,为临终老年患者停用DPM可降低死亡风险和转诊至急性护理机构的风险,但高质量研究数量不足,无法证实其在生活质量、身体或认知功能、医疗服务利用和不良事件方面的益处。
患有癌症、痴呆症和器官衰竭等晚期疾病的老年人(年龄≥65岁)预期寿命往往有限。随着这些疾病走向临终阶段,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,用于长期疾病预防的药物可能变得无关紧要,并且由于与年龄和虚弱相关的生理和药理学改变可能变得有害。这就需要停用或减少不适当药物的使用,这个过程称为撤药。对于这一人群,停用用于疾病预防和症状控制的药物(DPM)的决定对临床医生来说往往具有挑战性。在此背景下,停用DPM是否能改善患者相关的健康结局尚不清楚。对文献证据进行了审查和分析,并评估了研究质量。确定了5项研究,共有689名参与者,平均年龄超过80岁,大多数患有痴呆症。对这些研究的分析表明,停用DPM可降低12个月时的死亡风险和转诊至急性护理机构的风险,但对跌倒、非椎体骨折、急诊就诊、非计划住院、全科医生就诊、生活质量、身体和心理功能没有显著影响。总之,高质量研究数量不足,无法证实停用DPM是否能减少不良事件、医疗服务使用,或改善临终老年患者的生活质量或功能。