Purpose: The aim of this clinical review was to summarize the existing knowledge on fall risk associated with antidepressant use in older adults, describe underlying mechanisms, and assist clinicians in decision-making with regard to (de-) prescribing antidepressants in older persons. Methodology: We comprehensively examined the literature based on a literature search in Pubmed and Google Scholar, and identified additional relevant articles from reference lists, with an emphasis on the most commonly prescribed drugs in depression in geriatric patients. We discuss use of antidepressants, potential fall-related side effects, and deprescribing of antidepressants in older persons. Results: Untreated depression and antidepressant use both contribute to fall risk. Antidepressants are equally effective, but differ in fall-related side effect profile. They contribute to (or cause) falling through orthostatic hypotension, sedation/impaired attention, hyponatremia, movement disorder and cardiac toxicity. Falling is an important driver of morbidity and mortality and, therefore, requires prevention. If clinical condition allows, withdrawal of antidepressants is recommended in fall-prone elderly persons. An important barrier is reluctance of prescribers to deprescribe antidepressants resulting from fear of withdrawal symptoms or disease relapse/recurrence, and the level of complexity of deprescribing antidepressants in older persons with multiple comorbidities and medications. Practical resources and algorithms are available that guide and assist clinicians in deprescribing antidepressants. Conclusions: (De-) prescribing antidepressants in fall-prone older adults is often challenging, but detailed insight in fall-related side effect profile of the different antidepressants and a recently developed expert-based decision aid STOPPFalls assists prescribers in clinical decision-making.

Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of medication review and deprescribing interventions as a single intervention in falls prevention. systematic review and meta-analysis. Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO until 28 March 2022. randomised controlled trials of older participants comparing any medication review or deprescribing intervention with usual care and reporting falls as an outcome. title/abstract and full-text screening by two reviewers. Cochrane Collaboration revised tool. results reported separately for different settings and sufficiently comparable studies meta-analysed. forty-nine heterogeneous studies were included. meta-analyses of medication reviews resulted in a risk ratio (RR) of 1.05 (95% confidence interval, 0.85–1.29, I² = 0%, 3 studies(s)) for number of fallers, in an RR = 0.95 (0.70–1.27, I² = 37%, 3 s) for number of injurious fallers and in a rate ratio (RaR) of 0.89 (0.69–1.14, I² = 0%, 2 s) for injurious falls. meta-analyses assessing medication reviews resulted in an RR = 0.97 (0.74–1.28, I² = 15%, 2 s) and in an RR = 0.50 (0.07–3.50, I² = 72% %, 2 s) for number of fallers after and during admission, respectively. meta-analyses investigating medication reviews or deprescribing plans resulted in an RR = 0.86 (0.72–1.02, I² = 0%, 5 s) for number of fallers and in an RaR = 0.93 (0.64–1.35, I² = 92%, 7 s) for number of falls. the heterogeneity of the interventions precluded us to estimate the exact effect of medication review and deprescribing as a single intervention. For future studies, more comparability is warranted. These interventions should not be implemented as a stand-alone strategy in falls prevention but included in multimodal strategies due to the multifactorial nature of falls. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020218231

Inappropriate polypharmacy is highly prevalent among older adults and presents a significant healthcare concern. Conducting medication reviews and implementing deprescribing strategies in multimorbid older adults with polypharmacy are an inherently complex and challenging task. Recognizing this, the Special Interest Group on Pharmacology of the European Geriatric Medicine Society has compiled evidence on medication review and deprescribing in older adults and has formulated recommendations to enhance appropriate prescribing practices. The current evidence supports the need for a comprehensive and widespread transformation in education, guidelines, research, advocacy, and policy to improve the management of polypharmacy in older individuals. Furthermore, incorporating deprescribing as a routine aspect of care for the ageing population is crucial. We emphasize the importance of involving geriatricians and experts in geriatric pharmacology in driving, and actively participating in this transformative process. By doing so, we can work towards achieving optimal medication use and enhancing the well-being of older adults in the generations to come.

Purpose: Both heart failure and its treatment with diuretics or SGLT2 inhibitors increase fall risk in older adults. Therefore, decisions to continue or deprescribe diuretics or SGLT2 inhibitors in older heart failure patients who have fallen are generally highly complex and challenging for clinicians. However, a comprehensive overview of information required for rationale and safe decision-making is lacking. The aim of this clinical review was to assist clinicians in safe (de)prescribing of these drug classes in older heart failure patients. Methods: We comprehensively searched and summarized published literature and international guidelines on the efficacy, fall-related safety issues, and deprescribing of the commonly prescribed diuretics and SGLT2 inhibitors in older adults. Results: Both diuretics and SGLT2 inhibitors potentially cause various fall-related adverse effects. Their fall-related side effect profiles partly overlap (e.g., tendency to cause hypotension), but there are also important differences; based on the currently available evidence of this relatively new drug class, SGLT2 inhibitors seem to have a favorable fall-related adverse effect profile compared to diuretics (e.g., low/absent tendency to cause hyperglycemia or electrolyte abnormalities, low risk of worsening chronic kidney disease). In addition, SGLT2 inhibitors have potential beneficial effects (e.g., disease-modifying effects in heart failure, renoprotective effects), whereas diuretic effects are merely symptomatic. Conclusion: (De)prescribing diuretics and SGLT2 inhibitors in older heart failure patients who have fallen is often highly challenging, but this clinical review paper assists clinicians in individualized and patient-centered rational clinical decision-making: we provide a summary of available literature on efficacy and (subclass-specific) safety profiles of diuretics and SGLT2 inhibitors, and practical guidance on safe (de)prescribing of these drugs (e.g. a clinical decision tree for deprescribing diuretics in older adults who have fallen).

Purpose: The aim of this clinical narrative review was to summarise the existing knowledge on the use of anticoagulants and potential adverse events in older people at risk of falls with a history of atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism. The review also offers practical steps prescribers can take when (de-)prescribing anticoagulants to maximise safety. Methods: Literature searches were conducted using PubMed, Embase and Scopus. Additional articles were identified by searching reference lists. Results: Anticoagulants are often underused in older people due to concerns about the risk of falls and intracranial haemorrhage. However, evidence suggests that the absolute risk is low and outweighed by the reduction in stroke risk. DOACs are now recommended first line for most patients due to their favourable safety profile. Off-label dose reduction of DOACs is not recommended due to reduced efficacy with limited reduction in bleeding risk. Medication review and falls prevention strategies should be implemented before prescribing anticoagulation. Deprescribing should be considered in severe frailty, limited life expectancy and increased bleeding risk (e.g., cerebral microbleeds). Conclusion: When considering whether to (de-)prescribe anticoagulants, it is important to consider the risks associated with stopping therapy in addition to potential adverse events. Shared decision-making with the patient and their carers is crucial as patient and prescriber views often differ.

Purpose: To provide an overview of the current deprescribing attitudes, practices, and approaches of geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training across Europe. Methods: An online survey was disseminated among European geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training. The survey comprised Likert scale and multiple-choice questions on deprescribing approaches and practices, deprescribing education and knowledge, and facilitators/barriers of deprescribing. Responses to the survey questions and participant characteristics were quantified and differences evaluated between geriatricians and geriatricians-in-training and between European regions. Results: The 964 respondents (median age 42 years old; 64% female; 21% geriatricians-in-training) were generally willing to deprescribe (98%) and felt confident about deprescribing (85%). Despite differences across European regions, the most commonly reported reasons for deprescribing were functional impairment and occurrence of adverse drug reactions. The most important barriers for deprescribing were patients’ unwillingness, fear of negative consequences, lack of time, and poor communication between multiple prescribers. Perceived risk of adverse drug reactions was highest for psychotropic drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, cardiovascular drugs, and opioid analgesics. Only one in four respondents (23% of geriatricians and 37% of geriatricians-in-training) think education in medical school had sufficiently prepared them for deprescribing in clinical practice. They reported that their future deprescribing activities would probably increase with improved information sharing between various prescribers, deprescribing recommendations in guidelines, and increased education and training. Approximately 90% think that a paradigm shift is required for prescribers and patients, increasing focus on the possible benefits of deprescribing (potentially) inappropriate medications. Conclusions: Based on the outcomes of this survey, we recommend investing in improved inter-professional communication, better education and evidence-based recommendations to improve future patient-centered deprescribing practices.