TY - JOUR
T1 - Use of an electronic decision support tool to reduce polypharmacy in elderly people with chronic diseases: cluster randomised controlled trial
AU - Rieckert, Anja
AU - Reeves, David
AU - Altiner, Attila
AU - Drewelow, Eva
AU - Esmail, Aneez
AU - Flamm, Maria
AU - Hann, Mark
AU - Johansson, Tim
AU - Klaassen-mielke, Renate
AU - Kunnamo, Ilkka
AU - Löffler, Christin
AU - Piccoliori, Giuliano
AU - Sommerauer, Christina
AU - Trampisch, Ulrike S
AU - Vögele, Anna
AU - Woodham, Adrine
AU - Sönnichsen, Andreas
PY - 2020/6/18
Y1 - 2020/6/18
N2 - Objective To evaluate the effects of a computerised decision support tool for comprehensive drug review in elderly people with polypharmacy.
Design Pragmatic, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial.
Setting 359 general practices in Austria, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom.
Participants 3904 adults aged 75 years and older using eight or more drugs on a regular basis, recruited by their general practitioner.
Intervention A newly developed electronic decision support tool comprising a comprehensive drug review to support general practitioners in deprescribing potentially inappropriate and non-evidence based drugs. Doctors were randomly allocated to either the electronic decision support tool or to provide treatment as usual.
Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months. The key secondary outcome was reduction in the number of drugs.
Results 3904 adults were enrolled between January and October 2015. 181 practices and 1953 participants were assigned to electronic decision support (intervention group) and 178 practices and 1951 participants to treatment as usual (control group). The primary outcome (composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months) occurred in 871 (44.6%) participants in the intervention group and 944 (48.4%) in the control group. In an intention-to-treat analysis the odds ratio of the composite outcome was 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.07; P=0.19, 997 of 1953 v 1055 of 1951). In an analysis restricted to participants attending practice according to protocol, a difference was found favouring the intervention (odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98; 774 of 1682 v 873 of 1712, P=0.03). By 24 months the number of prescribed drugs had decreased in the intervention group compared with control group (uncontrolled mean change −0.42 v 0.06: adjusted mean difference −0.45, 95% confidence interval −0.63 to −0.26; P<0.001).
Conclusions In intention-to-treat analysis, a computerised decision support tool for comprehensive drug review of elderly people with polypharmacy showed no conclusive effects on the composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months. Nonetheless, a reduction in drugs was achieved without detriment to patient outcomes.
AB - Objective To evaluate the effects of a computerised decision support tool for comprehensive drug review in elderly people with polypharmacy.
Design Pragmatic, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial.
Setting 359 general practices in Austria, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom.
Participants 3904 adults aged 75 years and older using eight or more drugs on a regular basis, recruited by their general practitioner.
Intervention A newly developed electronic decision support tool comprising a comprehensive drug review to support general practitioners in deprescribing potentially inappropriate and non-evidence based drugs. Doctors were randomly allocated to either the electronic decision support tool or to provide treatment as usual.
Main outcome measures The primary outcome was the composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months. The key secondary outcome was reduction in the number of drugs.
Results 3904 adults were enrolled between January and October 2015. 181 practices and 1953 participants were assigned to electronic decision support (intervention group) and 178 practices and 1951 participants to treatment as usual (control group). The primary outcome (composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months) occurred in 871 (44.6%) participants in the intervention group and 944 (48.4%) in the control group. In an intention-to-treat analysis the odds ratio of the composite outcome was 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.07; P=0.19, 997 of 1953 v 1055 of 1951). In an analysis restricted to participants attending practice according to protocol, a difference was found favouring the intervention (odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98; 774 of 1682 v 873 of 1712, P=0.03). By 24 months the number of prescribed drugs had decreased in the intervention group compared with control group (uncontrolled mean change −0.42 v 0.06: adjusted mean difference −0.45, 95% confidence interval −0.63 to −0.26; P<0.001).
Conclusions In intention-to-treat analysis, a computerised decision support tool for comprehensive drug review of elderly people with polypharmacy showed no conclusive effects on the composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months. Nonetheless, a reduction in drugs was achieved without detriment to patient outcomes.
KW - Aged, 80 and over
KW - Austria/epidemiology
KW - Chronic Disease/drug therapy
KW - Cluster Analysis
KW - Decision Support Systems, Clinical
KW - Deprescriptions
KW - Drug Utilization Review
KW - Female
KW - Geriatric Assessment
KW - Germany/epidemiology
KW - Humans
KW - Inappropriate Prescribing/prevention & control
KW - Italy/epidemiology
KW - Male
KW - Polypharmacy
KW - United Kingdom/epidemiology
U2 - 10.1136/bmj.m1822
DO - 10.1136/bmj.m1822
M3 - Article
C2 - 32554566
SN - 0959-535X
VL - 369
JO - BMJ: British Medical Journal
JF - BMJ: British Medical Journal
M1 - m1822
ER -