Evidence-Based Deprescribing: Reversing the Tide of Potentially Inappropriate Polypharmacy

Barriers to Deprescribing

The most effective strategy to reducing potentially inappropriate polypharmacy is for doctors to prescribe and patients to consume fewer medicines. Unfortunately, both doctors and patients often lack confidence about when and how to cease medicines [66–69]. In a recent systematic review comprised mostly of studies involving general practitioners in primary care [66], 4 themes emerged. First, prescribers may be unaware of their own instances of inappropriate prescribing in older people until this is pointed out to them. Poor insight may be attributable in part to insufficient education in geriatric pharmacology. Second, clinical inertia manifesting as failure to act despite an awareness of PIMs may arise from deprescribing being viewed as a risky affair [70], with doctors fearful of provoking withdrawal syndromes or disease complications, and damaging their reputation and relationships with patients or colleagues in the process. Continuing inappropriate medicines is reinforced by prescriber beliefs that to do so is a safer or kinder course of action for the patient. Third, self-perceptions of being ill-equipped, in terms of the necessary knowledge and skills, to deprescribe appropriately (lack of self-efficacy) may be a barrier, even if one accepts the need for deprescribing. Information deficits around benefit-harm trade-offs of particular drugs and alternative treatments (both drug and non-drug), especially for older, frail, multi-morbid patients, contribute to the problem. Confidence to deprescribe is further undermined by the lack of clear documentation regarding reasons drugs were originally prescribed by other doctors, outcomes of past trials of discontinuation, and current patient care goals. Fourth, several external or logistical constraints may hamper deprescribing efforts such as perceived patient unwillingness to deprescribe certain medicines, lack of prescriber time, poor remuneration, and community and professional attitudes toward more rather than less use of medicines.

Deprescribing in hospital settings led by specialists appears to be no better than in general practice, although it has been less well studied. While an episode of acute inpatient care may afford an opportunity to review and reduce medicine lists, studies suggest the opposite occurs. In a New Zealand audit of 424 patients of mean age 80 years admitted acutely to a medical unit, chronically administered medications increased during hospital stay from a mean of 6.6 to 7.7 [71]. Similarly, in an Australian study investigating medication changes for 1220 patients of mean age 81 years admitted to general medical units of 11 acute care hospitals, the mean number of regularly administered medications rose from 7.1 on admission to 7.6 at discharge [72]. It is likely the same drivers behind failure to deprescribe in primary care also operate in secondary and tertiary care settings. Part of the problem is under-recognition of medicine-related geriatric syndromes on the part of hospital physicians and pharmacists [73].

Patients in both the community and residential aged care facilities frequently express a desire to have their medicines reduced in number, especially if advised by their treating clinician [74,75]. Having said this, many remain wary of discontinuing specific medicines [67], sharing the same fears of evoking withdrawal syndromes or disease relapse as do prescribers, and recounting the strong advice of past specialists to never withhold any medicines without first seeking their advice.

A challenge for all involved in deprescribing is gaining agreement on what are the most important factors that determine when, how, and in whom deprescribing should be conducted. Recent qualitative studies suggest that doctors, pharmacists, nursing staff, and patients and their families, while in broad agreement that deprescribing is worthwhile, often differ in their perspectives on what takes priority in selecting medicines for deprescribing in individual patients, and how it should be done and by whom [76,77].

Strategies That May Facilitate Deprescribing

While deprescribing presents some challenges, there are several strategies that can facilitate it at both the level of individual clinical encounters and at the level of whole populations and systems of care.

Individual Clinical Encounters

Within individual clinician–patient encounters, patients should be empowered to ask their doctors and pharmacists the following questions:

• What are my treatment options (including non-medicine options) for my condition?
• What are the possible benefits and harms of each medicine?
• What might be reasonable grounds for stopping a medicine?

In turn, doctors and pharmacists should ask in a nonjudgmental fashion, at every encounter, whether patients are experiencing any side effects, administration and monitoring problems, or other barriers to adherence associated with any of their medicines.

The issue of deprescribing should be framed as an attempt to alleviate symptoms (of drug toxicity), improve quality of life (from drug-induced disability), and lessen the risk of morbid events (especially ADEs) in the future. Compelling evidence that identifies circumstances in which medicines can be safely withdrawn while reducing the risk of ADEs needs to be emphasized. Specialists must play a sentinel leadership role in advising and authorizing other health professionals to deprescribe in situations where benefits of medications they have prescribed are no longer outweighed by the harms [60,78].

In language they can understand, patients should be informed of the benefit–harm trade-offs specific to them of continuing or discontinuing a particular medicine, as far as these can be specified. Patients often overestimate the benefits and underestimate the harms of treatments [79]. Providing such personalised information can substantially alter perceptions of risk and change attitudes towards discontinuation [80]. Eliciting patients’ beliefs about the necessity for each individual medicine and spending time, using an empathic manner, to dispel or qualify those at odds with evidence and clinical judgement renders deprescribing more acceptable to patients.

In estimating treatment benefit–harm trade-offs in individual patients, disease risk prediction tools (https://www.medal.org/), evidence tables [81,82], and decision aids are increasingly available. Prognostication tools (https://eprognosis.ucsf.edu) combined with trial-based time-to-event data can be used to determine if medicine-specific time until benefit exceeds remaining life span.

Deprescribing is best performed by reducing medicines one at a time over several encounters with the same overseeing generalist clinician with whom patients have established a trusting and collaborative relationship. This provides repeated opportunities to discuss and assuage any fears of discontinuing a medicine, and to adjust the deprescribing plan according to changes in clinical circumstances and revised treatment goals. Practice-based pharmacists can review patients’ medicine lists and apply screening criteria to identify medicines more likely to be unnecessary or harmful, which then helps initiate and guide deprescribing. Integrating a structured deprescribing protocol—and reminders to use it—into electronic health records, and providing decision support and data collection for future reference, reduce the cognitive burden on prescribers [83]. Practical guidance in how to safely wean and cease particular classes of medicines in older people can be accessed from various sources [84,85]. Seeking input from clinical pharmacologists, pharmacists, nurses, and other salient care providers on a case-by-case basis in the form of interactive case conferences provides support, seeks consensus, and shares the risk and responsibility for deprescribing recommendations [86].

System of Care

The success of deprescribing efforts in realizing better population health will be compromised unless all key stakeholders involved in quality use of medicines commit to operationalizing deprescribing strategies at the system of care level. Position statements on deprescribing in multi-morbid populations should be formulated and promulgated by all professional societies of prescribers (primary care, specialists, pharmacists, dentists, nurse practitioners). Professional development programs as well as undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate courses in medicine, pharmacy, and nursing should include training in deprescribing as a core curricular element.

Researchers seeking funding and/or ethics approval for research projects involving medicines should be required to collect, analyze, and report data on the frequency of, and reasons for, withdrawal of drugs in trial subjects. This helps build the evidence base of medicine-related harm. In turn, government funders of research should require more researchers to design and conduct clinical trials that recruit multi-morbid patients, including specific subgroups (eg, patients with dementia), and aim to define medicine benefits and harms using patient risk stratification methods. Pharmaceutical companies should sponsor research on how to deprescribe their medicines within trials that also aim to assess efficacy and safety. Medicine regulatory authorities such as the Food and Drug Administration should mandate that this information be supplied at the time the company submits their application to have the medicine approved and listed for public subsidy. Trialists should adopt the word “deprescribing” in abstract titles for research on prescriber-initiated medicine discontinuation so that relevant articles can be more accurately indexed in, and retrieved from, bibliographic databases using recently formulated medical subject headings in Medline (“depresciptions”).

Editors of medical journals should promote a deprescribing agenda as a quality and safety issue for patient care, with the “Less is More” series in JAMA Internal Medicine and “Too much medicine” series in BMJ being good examples. Clinical guideline developers should formulate treatment recommendations specific to the needs of multi-morbid patients which acknowledge the limited evidence base for many medicines in such populations. These should take account of commonly encountered clinical scenarios where disease-specific medicines may engender greater risk of harm, and provide cautionary notes regarding initiation and discontinuation of medicines associated with high-risk.

Pharmacists need to instruct patients in how to identify medicine-induced harm and side effects, and how to collaborate with their prescribing clinicians in safely discontinuing high-risk medicines. Ideally, patients being admitted to residential aged care facilities should have their medicine lists reviewed by a pharmacist in flagging medicines eligible for deprescribing. Organizations and services responsible for providing quality use of medicines information (medicines handbooks, prescribing guidelines, drug safety bulletins) should describe when and how deprescribing should be performed in regards to specific medicines. This information should be cross-referenced to clinical guidelines and position statements dealing with the same medicine. Vendors of medicine prescribing software should be encouraged to incorporate flags and alerts which prompt prescribers to consider medicine cessation in high-risk patients.