Introduction Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are important risk factors for drug-related hospital admissions (DRAs). DRAs are often linked to prescribing problems (overprescribing and underprescribing), as well as non-adherence with drug regimens for different reasons. In this trial, we aim to assess whether a structured medication review compared with standard care can reduce DRAs in multimorbid older patients with polypharmacy. Methods and analysis OPtimising thERapy to prevent Avoidable hospital admissions in Multimorbid older people is a European multicentre, cluster randomised, controlled trial. Hospitalised patients ≥70 years with ≥3 chronic medical conditions and concurrent use of ≥5 chronic medications are included in the four participating study centres of Bern (Switzerland), Utrecht (The Netherlands), Brussels (Belgium) and Cork (Ireland). Patients treated by the same prescribing physician constitute a cluster, and clusters are randomised 1:1 to either standard care or Systematic Tool to Reduce Inappropriate Prescribing (STRIP) intervention with the help of a clinical decision support system, the STRIP Assistant. STRIP is a structured method performing customised medication reviews, based on Screening Tool of Older People’s Prescriptions/Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment criteria to detect potentially inappropriate prescribing. The primary endpoint is any DRA where the main reason or a contributory reason for the patient’s admission is caused by overtreatment or undertreatment, and/or inappropriate treatment. Secondary endpoints include number of any hospitalisations, all-cause mortality, number of falls, quality of life, degree of polypharmacy, activities of daily living, patient’s drug compliance, the number of significant drug–drug interactions, drug overuse and underuse and potentially inappropriate medication. Ethics and dissemination The local Ethics Committees in Switzerland, Ireland, The Netherlands and Belgium approved this trial protocol. We will publish the results of this trial in a peer-reviewed journal. Main funding European Union’s Horizon 2020 programme. Trial registration number NCT02986425 , SNCTP000002183 , NTR6012, U1111-1181-9400.

Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are current challenges when caring for the older population. Both have led to an increase of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM), illustrating the need to assess patients’ attitudes towards deprescribing. We aimed to assess the prevalence of PIM use and whether this was associated with patient factors and willingness to deprescribe. We analysed data from the LESS Study, a cross-sectional study on self-reported medication and on barriers and enablers towards the willingness to deprescribe (rPATD questionnaire). The survey was conducted among multimorbid (≥3 chronic conditions) participants ≥70 years with polypharmacy (≥5 long-term medications). A subset of the Beers 2019 criteria was applied for the assessment of medication appropriateness. Data from 300 patients were analysed. The mean age was 79.1 years (SD 5.7). 53% had at least one PIM (men: 47.8%%, women: 60.4%%; p = 0.007). A higher number of medications was associated with PIM use (p = 0.002). We found high willingness to deprescribe in both participants with and without PIM. Willingness to deprescribe was not associated with PIM use (p = 0.25), nor number of PIMs (p = 0.81). The willingness of older adults with polypharmacy towards deprescribing was not associated with PIM use in this study. These results suggest that patients may not be aware if they are taking PIMs. This implies the need for raising patients’ awareness about PIMs through education, especially in females, in order to implement deprescribing in daily practice.

Objective To study the effects of a primary care medication review intervention centred around an electronic clinical decision support system (eCDSS) on appropriateness of medication and the number of prescribing omissions in older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy compared with a discussion about medication in line with usual care. Design Cluster randomised clinical trial. Setting Swiss primary care, between December 2018 and February 2021. Participants Eligible patients were ≥65 years of age with three or more chronic conditions and five or more long term medications. Intervention The intervention to optimise pharmacotherapy centred around an eCDSS was conducted by general practitioners, followed by shared decision making between general practitioners and patients, and was compared with a discussion about medication in line with usual care between patients and general practitioners. Main outcome measures Primary outcomes were improvement in the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) and the Assessment of Underutilisation (AOU) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included number of medications, falls, fractures, and quality of life. Results In 43 general practitioner clusters, 323 patients were recruited (median age 77 (interquartile range 73-83) years; 45% (n=146) women). Twenty one general practitioners with 160 patients were assigned to the intervention group and 22 general practitioners with 163 patients to the control group. On average, one recommendation to stop or start a medication was reported to be implemented per patient. At 12 months, the results of the intention-to-treat analysis of the improvement in appropriateness of medication (odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.87) and the number of prescribing omissions (0.90, 0.41 to 1.96) were inconclusive. The same was the case for the per protocol analysis. No clear evidence was found for a difference in safety outcomes at the 12 month follow-up, but fewer safety events were reported in the intervention group than in the control group at six and 12 months. Conclusions In this randomised trial of general practitioners and older adults, the results were inconclusive as to whether the medication review intervention centred around the use of an eCDSS led to an improvement in appropriateness of medication or a reduction in prescribing omissions at 12 months compared with a discussion about medication in line with usual care. Nevertheless, the intervention could be safely delivered without causing any harm to patients. Trial registration NCT03724539Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03724539

Objectives: Professional paediatrics associations play an important role in promoting the highest standard of care for women and children. Education and guidelines must be made in the best interests of patients. Given the importance of breastfeeding for the health, development and survival of infants, children and mothers, paediatric associations have a particular responsibility to avoid conflicts of interest with companies that manufacture breast-milk substitutes (BMSs). The objective of this study was to investigate the extent to which national and regional paediatric associations are sponsored by BMS companies. Methods: Data were collected on national paediatric associations based on online searches of websites and Facebook pages. Sites were examined for evidence of financial sponsorship by the BMS industry, including funding of journals, newsletters or other publications, conferences and events, scholarships, fellowship, grants and awards. Payment for services, such as exhibitor space at conferences or events and paid advertisements in publications, was also noted. Results: Overall, 68 (60%) of the 114 paediatric associations with a website or Facebook account documented receiving financial support from BMS companies. Sponsorship, particularly of conferences or other events, was the most common type of financial support. The prevalence of conference sponsorship is highest in Europe and the Americas, where about half of the associations have BMS company-sponsored conferences. Thirty-one associations (27%) indicated that they received funding from BMS companies as payment for advertisements or exhibitor space. Only 18 associations (16%) have conflict of interest policies, guidelines, or criteria posted online. Conclusion: Despite the well-documented importance of breastfeeding and the widespread recognition that commercial influences can shape the behaviours of healthcare professionals, national and regional paediatric associations commonly accept funding from companies that manufacture and distribute BMS. Paediatric associations should function without the influence of commercial interests.

The utilization of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in older adults can lead to adverse events and increased healthcare costs. Polypharmacy, the concurrent utilization of multiple medications, is common in older adults with multiple chronic conditions. To investigate the utilization and costs of PIMs in multimorbid older adults with polypharmacy over time. This retrospective cross-sectional study used linked Medicare claims and electronic health records from seven hospitals/medical centers in Massachusetts (2007-2014). Participants were ≥65 years old, had ≥2 chronic conditions (to define multimorbidity), and used drugs from ≥5 pharmaceutical classes for ≥90 days (to define polypharmacy). Chronic conditions were defined using the Chronic Conditions Indicator from the Agency for Health Research and Quality. PIMs were defined using the American Geriatrics Society 2019 version of the Beers criteria. We calculated the percentage of patients with ≥1 PIMs and the percentages of patients using different types of PIMs. We used logistic regression analyses to test the odds of taking ≥1 PIMs. We calculated mean costs spent on PIMs by dividing the costs spent on PIMs by the total medication cost. ≥69% of patients used ≥1 PIM. After adjusting for healthcare utilization, chronic conditions, medication intake, and demographic factors, female sex (2014: Odds ratio (OR)=1.27, 95%CI 1.25-1.30), age (2014: OR=0.92, 95%CI 0.90-0.93), and Hispanic ethnicity (2014: OR=1.41, 95%CI 1.27-1.56) were associated with PIM use. Gastrointestinal drugs and central nervous system drugs were the most commonly-used PIMs. In patients using ≥1 PIM, >10% of medication costs were spent on PIMs. The utilization of PIMs in US older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy is high.

Many oldest-old (> 80-years) with multimorbidity and polypharmacy are at high risk of inappropriate use of medication, but we know little about whether and how GPs would deprescribe, especially in the frail oldest-old. We aimed to determine whether, how, and why Swiss GPs deprescribe for this population. GPs took an online survey that presented case-vignettes of a frail oldest-old patient with and without history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and asked if they would deprescribe any of seven medications. We calculated percentages of GPs willing to deprescribe at least one medication in the case with CVD and compared these with the case without CVD using paired t-tests. We also included open-ended questions to capture reasons for deprescribing and asked which factors could influence their decision to deprescribe by asking for their agreement on a 5-point-Likert-scale. Of the 282 GPs we invited, 157 (56%) responded: 73% were men; mean age was 56. In the case-vignette without CVD, 98% of GPs deprescribed at least one medication (usually cardiovascular preventive medications) stating it had no indication nor benefit. They would lower the dose or prescribe pain medication as needed to reduce side effects. Their response was much the same when the patient had a history of CVD. GPs reported they were influenced by ‘risk’ and ‘benefit’ of medications, ‘quality of life’, and ‘life expectancy’, and prioritized the patient’s wishes and priorities when deprescribing. Swiss GPs were willing to deprescribe cardiovascular preventive medication when it lacked indication but tended to retain pain medication. Developing tools for GPs to assist them in balancing the risks and benefits of medication in the context of patient values may improve deprescribing activities in practice.