Appropriate Polypharmacy and Medicine Safety: When Many is not Too Many

The use of multiple medicines (polypharmacy) is increasingly common in middle-aged and older populations. Ensuring the correct balance between the prescribing of ‘many’ drugs and ‘too many’ drugs is a significant challenge. Clinicians are tasked with ensuring that patients receive the most appropriate combinations of medications based on the best available evidence, and that medication use is optimised according to patients’ clinical needs (appropriate polypharmacy). Historically, polypharmacy has been viewed negatively because of the associated medication safety risks, such as drug interactions and adverse drug events. More recently, polypharmacy has been identified as a risk factor for under-prescribing, such that patients do not receive necessary medications and this can also pose risks to patients’ safety and well-being. The negative connotations that have long been associated with the term polypharmacy could potentially be acting as a driving factor for under-prescribing, whereby clinicians are reluctant to prescribe necessary medicines for patients who are already receiving ‘many’ medicines. It is now recognised that the prescribing of ‘many’ medicines can be entirely appropriate in patients with several chronic conditions and that the risks of adverse drug events that have been associated with polypharmacy may be greatly reduced when patients’ clinical context is taken into consideration. In this article, we outline the current perspectives on polypharmacy and make the case for adopting the term ‘appropriate polypharmacy’ in differentiating between the prescribing of ‘many’ drugs and ‘too many’ drugs. We also outline the inherent challenges in doing so and provide recommendations for future clinical practice and research.

GPs’ and community pharmacists’ opinions on medication management at transitions of care in Ireland

Objective. The aim of this study was to survey GPs and community pharmacists (CPs) in Ireland regarding current practices of medication management, specifically medication reconciliation, communication between health care providers and medication errors as patients transition in care.
Methods. A national cross-sectional survey was distributed electronically to 2364 GPs, 311 GP Registrars and 2382 CPs. Multivariable associations comparing GPs to CPs were generated and content analysis of free text responses was undertaken.
Results. There was an overall response rate of 17.7% (897 respondents—554 GPs/Registrars and 343 CPs). More than 90% of GPs and CPs were positive about the effects of medication reconciliation on medication safety and adherence. Sixty per cent of GPs reported having no formal system of medication reconciliation. Communication between GPs and CPs was identified as good/very good by >90% of GPs and CPs. The majority (>80%) of both groups could clearly recall prescribing errors, following a transition of care, they had witnessed in the previous 6 months. Free text content analysis corroborated the positive relationship between GPs and CPs, a frustration with secondary care communication, with many examples given of prescribing errors.
Conclusions. While there is enthusiasm for the benefits of medication reconciliation there are limited formal structures in primary care to support it. Challenges in relation to systems that support inter-professional communication and reduce medication errors are features of the primary/secondary care transition. There is a need for an improved medication management system. Future research should focus on the identified barriers in implementing medication reconciliation and systems that can improve it.

The association between anticholinergic medication burden and health related outcomes in the ‘oldest old’: A systematic review of the literature

Background: Increased exposure to anticholinergic medication is problematic, particularly in those aged 80 years and older.

Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to identify tools used to quantify anticholinergic medication burden and determine the most appropriate tool for use in longitudinal research, conducted in those aged 80 years and older.

Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted across six electronic databases to identify existing tools. Data extraction was conducted independently by two researchers; studies describing the development of each tool were also retrieved and relevant data extracted. An assessment of quality was completed for all studies. Tools were assessed in terms of their measurement of the association between anticholinergic medication burden and a defined set of clinical outcomes, their development and their suitability for use in longitudinal research; the latter was evaluated on the basis of criteria defined as the key attributes of an ideal anticholinergic risk tool.

Results: In total, 807 papers were retrieved, 13 studies were eligible for inclusion and eight tools were identified. Included studies were classed as ‘very good’ or ‘good’ following the quality assessment analysis; one study was unclassified. Anticholinergic medication burden as measured in studies was associated with impaired cognitive and physical function, as well as an increased frequency of falls. The Drug Burden Index (DBI) exhibited most of the key attributes of an ideal anticholinergic risk tool.

Conclusion: This review identified the DBI as the most appropriate tool for use in longitudinal research focused on older people and their exposure to anticholinergic medication burden.

Polypharmacy and inappropriate medication use in patients with dementia: an underresearched problem

Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are increasingly prevalent across healthcare systems and settings as global demographic trends shift towards increased proportions of older people in populations. Numerous studies have demonstrated an association between polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP), and have reported high prevalence of PIP across settings of care in Europe and North America and, as a consequence, increased risk of adverse drug reactions, healthcare utilisation, morbidity and mortality. These studies have not focused specifically on people with dementia, despite the high risk of adverse drug reactions and PIP in this patient cohort. This narrative review considers the evidence currently available in the area, including studies examining prevalence of PIP in older people with dementia, how appropriateness of prescribing is assessed, the medications most commonly implicated, the clinical consequences, and research priorities to optimise prescribing for this vulnerable patient group. Although there has been considerable research effort to develop criteria to assess medication appropriateness in older people in recent years, the majority of tools do not focus on people with dementia. Of the limited number of tools available, most focus on the advanced stages of dementia in which life-expectancy is limited. The development of tools to assess medication appropriateness in people with mild-to-moderate dementia or across the full spectrum of disease severity represents an important gap in the research literature and is beginning to attract research interest, with recent studies considering the medication regimen as a whole, or misprescribing, overprescribing or underprescribing of certain medications/medication classes including anticholinergics, psychotropics, antibiotics and analgesics. Further work is required in development and validation of criteria to assess prescribing appropriateness in this vulnerable patient population, to determine prevalence of PIP in large cohorts of people with the full spectrum of dementia variants and severities and to examine the impact of PIP on health outcomes.

Lifestyle Risk Factors for Serrated Colorectal Polyps: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background & Aims: Certain subsets of colorectal serrated polyps (SP) have malignant potential. Weperformed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the association between modifiablelifestyle factors and risk for SPs. 
Methods: We conducted a systematic search of Medline, Embase, and Web of Science, forobservational or interventional studies that contained the terms risk or risk factor, and serrated orhyperplastic, and polyps or adenomas, and colorectal (or synonymous terms), published by March2016. Titles and abstracts of identified articles were independently reviewed by at least 2 reviewers.Adjusted relative risks (RR) and 95% CIs were combined using random effects meta-analyses toassess the risk of SP, when possible. 
Results: We identified 43 studies of SP risk associated with 7 different lifestyle factors: smoking,alcohol, body fatness, diet, physical activity, medication and/or hormone replacement therapy.When we compared the highest and lowest categories of exposure, factors we found to significantlyincrease risk for SP included tobacco smoking (RR, 2.47; 95% CI, 2.12–2.87), alcohol intake (RR, 1.33;95% CI, 1.17–1.52), body mass index (RR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.22–1.61), and high intake of fat or meat.Direct associations for smoking and alcohol, but not body fat, tended to be stronger for sessileserrated adenomas/polyps than hyperplastic polyps. In contrast, factors we found to significantlydecrease risks for SP included use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.65–0.92) or aspirin (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67–0.99), as well as high intake of folate, calcium, or fiber. Nosignificant associations were detected between SP risk and physical activity or hormone replacementtherapy. 
Conclusions: Several lifestyle factors, most notably smoking and alcohol, are associated with SP risk.These findings enhance our understanding of mechanisms of SP development and indicate that riskof serrated pathway colorectal neoplasms could be reduced with lifestyle changes.

Non-pharmacological interventions for cognitive impairment due to systemic cancer treatment (Review)

Background

It is estimated that up to 75% of cancer survivors may experience cognitive impairment as a result of cancer treatment and given the increasing size of the cancer survivor population, the number of affected people is set to rise considerably in coming years. There is a need, therefore, to identify effective, non-pharmacological interventions for maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment among people with a previous cancer diagnosis.
Objectives

To evaluate the cognitive effects, non-cognitive effects, duration and safety of non-pharmacological interventions among cancer patients targeted at maintaining cognitive function or ameliorating cognitive impairment as a result of cancer or receipt of systemic cancer treatment (i.e. chemotherapy or hormonal therapies in isolation or combination with other treatments).
Search methods

We searched the Cochrane Centre Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PUBMED, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO databases. We also searched registries of ongoing trials and grey literature including theses, dissertations and conference proceedings. Searches were conducted for articles published from 1980 to 29 September 2015.
Selection criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of non-pharmacological interventions to improve cognitive impairment or to maintain cognitive functioning among survivors of adult-onset cancers who have completed systemic cancer therapy (in isolation or combination with other treatments) were eligible. Studies among individuals continuing to receive hormonal therapy were included. We excluded interventions targeted at cancer survivors with central nervous system (CNS) tumours or metastases, non-melanoma skin cancer or those who had received cranial radiation or, were from nursing or care home settings. Language restrictions were not applied.
Data collection and analysis

Author pairs independently screened, selected, extracted data and rated the risk of bias of studies. We were unable to conduct planned meta-analyses due to heterogeneity in the type of interventions and outcomes, with the exception of compensatory strategy training interventions for which we pooled data for mental and physical well-being outcomes. We report a narrative synthesis of intervention effectiveness for other outcomes.
Main results

Five RCTs describing six interventions (comprising a total of 235 participants) met the eligibility criteria for the review. Two trials of computer-assisted cognitive training interventions (n = 100), two of compensatory strategy training interventions (n = 95), one of meditation (n = 47) and one of physical activity intervention (n = 19) were identified. Each study focused on breast cancer survivors. All five studies were rated as having a high risk of bias. Data for our primary outcome of interest, cognitive function were not amenable to being pooled statistically. Cognitive training demonstrated beneficial effects on objectively assessed cognitive function (including processing speed, executive functions, cognitive flexibility, language, delayed- and immediate- memory), subjectively reported cognitive function and mental well-being. Compensatory strategy training demonstrated improvements on objectively assessed delayed-, immediate- and verbal-memory, self-reported cognitive function and spiritual quality of life (QoL). The meta-analyses of two RCTs (95 participants) did not show a beneficial effect from compensatory strategy training on physical well-being immediately (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59 to 0.83; I2= 67%) or two months post-intervention (SMD - 0.21, 95% CI -0.89 to 0.47; I2 = 63%) or on mental well-being two months post-intervention (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.34; I2 = 67%). Lower mental well-being immediately post-intervention appeared to be observed in patients who received compensatory strategy training compared to wait-list controls (SMD -0.57, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.16; I2 = 0%). We assessed the assembled studies using GRADE for physical and mental health outcomes and this evidence was rated to be low quality and, therefore findings should be interpreted with caution. Evidence for physical activity and meditation interventions on cognitive outcomes is unclear.
Authors' conclusions

Overall, the, albeit low-quality evidence may be interpreted to suggest that non-pharmacological interventions may have the potential to reduce the risk of, or ameliorate, cognitive impairment following systemic cancer treatment. Larger, multi-site studies including an appropriate, active attentional control group, as well as consideration of functional outcomes (e.g. activities of daily living) are required in order to come to firmer conclusions about the benefits or otherwise of this intervention approach. There is also a need to conduct research into cognitive impairment among cancer patient groups other than women with breast cancer.

Conservative fluid management or deresuscitation for patients with sepsis or acute respiratory distress syndrome following the resuscitation phase of critical illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

It is unknown whether a conservative approach to fluid administration or deresuscitation (active removal of fluid using diuretics or renal replacement therapy) is beneficial following haemodynamic stabilisation of critically ill patients.

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of conservative or deresuscitative fluid strategies in adults and children with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), sepsis or systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) in the post-resuscitation phase of critical illness.

Methods

We searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane central register of controlled trials from 1980 to June 2016, and manually reviewed relevant conference proceedings from 2009 to the present. Two reviewers independently assessed search results for inclusion and undertook data extraction and quality appraisal. We included randomised trials comparing fluid regimens with differing fluid balances between groups, and observational studies investigating the relationship between fluid balance and clinical outcomes.

Results

Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Marked clinical heterogeneity was evident. In a meta-analysis of 11 randomised trials (2051 patients) using a random-effects model, we found no significant difference in mortality with conservative or deresuscitative strategies compared with a liberal strategy or usual care [pooled risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.82–1.02, I2 = 0 %]. A conservative or deresuscitative strategy resulted in increased ventilator-free days (mean difference 1.82 days, 95 % CI 0.53–3.10, I2 = 9 %) and reduced length of ICU stay (mean difference −1.88 days, 95 % CI −0.12 to −3.64, I2 = 75 %) compared with a liberal strategy or standard care.

Conclusions

In adults and children with ARDS, sepsis or SIRS, a conservative or deresuscitative fluid strategy results in an increased number of ventilator-free days and a decreased length of ICU stay compared with a liberal strategy or standard care. The effect on mortality remains uncertain. Large randomised trials are needed to determine optimal fluid strategies in critical illness.