L. J. Seppala
Please Note
4 records found
1
Methods:
Design: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Data sources: Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO until 28 March 2022.
Eligibility criteria: randomised controlled trials of older participants comparing any medication review or deprescribing intervention with usual care and reporting falls as an outcome.
Study records: title/abstract and full-text screening by two reviewers.
Risk of bias: Cochrane Collaboration revised tool.
Data synthesis: results reported separately for different settings and sufficiently comparable studies meta-analysed.
Results forty-nine heterogeneous studies were included.
Community: 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, I 2 = 37%, 3 s) for number of injurious fallers and in a rate ratio (RaR) of 0.89 (0.69–1.14, I 2 = 0%, 2 s) for injurious falls.
Hospital: meta-analyses assessing medication reviews resulted in an RR = 0.97 (0.74–1.28, I 2 = 15%, 2 s) and in an RR = 0.50 (0.07–3.50, I 2 = 72% %, 2 s) for number of fallers after and during admission, respectively.
Long-term care: 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, I 2 = 92%, 7 s) for number of falls.
Conclusions: 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 ...
Methods:
Design: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Data sources: Medline, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsycINFO until 28 March 2022.
Eligibility criteria: randomised controlled trials of older participants comparing any medication review or deprescribing intervention with usual care and reporting falls as an outcome.
Study records: title/abstract and full-text screening by two reviewers.
Risk of bias: Cochrane Collaboration revised tool.
Data synthesis: results reported separately for different settings and sufficiently comparable studies meta-analysed.
Results forty-nine heterogeneous studies were included.
Community: 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, I 2 = 37%, 3 s) for number of injurious fallers and in a rate ratio (RaR) of 0.89 (0.69–1.14, I 2 = 0%, 2 s) for injurious falls.
Hospital: meta-analyses assessing medication reviews resulted in an RR = 0.97 (0.74–1.28, I 2 = 15%, 2 s) and in an RR = 0.50 (0.07–3.50, I 2 = 72% %, 2 s) for number of fallers after and during admission, respectively.
Long-term care: 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, I 2 = 92%, 7 s) for number of falls.
Conclusions: 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
STOPPFall (Screening Tool of Older Persons Prescriptions in older adults with high fall risk)
a Delphi study by the EuGMS Task and Finish Group on Fall-Risk-Increasing Drugs
BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals are often reluctant to deprescribe fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs). Lack of knowledge and skills form a significant barrier and furthermore, there is no consensus on which medications are considered as FRIDs despite several systematic reviews. To support clinicians in the management of FRIDs and to facilitate the deprescribing process, STOPPFall (Screening Tool of Older Persons Prescriptions in older adults with high fall risk) and a deprescribing tool were developed by a European expert group. METHODS: STOPPFall was created by two facilitators based on evidence from recent meta-analyses and national fall prevention guidelines in Europe. Twenty-four panellists chose their level of agreement on a Likert scale with the items in the STOPPFall in three Delphi panel rounds. A threshold of 70% was selected for consensus a priori. The panellists were asked whether some agents are more fall-risk-increasing than others within the same pharmacological class. In an additional questionnaire, panellists were asked in which cases deprescribing of FRIDs should be considered and how it should be performed. RESULTS: The panellists agreed on 14 medication classes to be included in the STOPPFall. They were mostly psychotropic medications. The panellists indicated 18 differences between pharmacological subclasses with regard to fall-risk-increasing properties. Practical deprescribing guidance was developed for STOPPFall medication classes. CONCLUSION: STOPPFall was created using an expert Delphi consensus process and combined with a practical deprescribing tool designed to optimise medication review. The effectiveness of these tools in falls prevention should be further evaluated in intervention studies.
EuGMS Task and Finish group on Fall-Risk-Increasing Drugs (FRIDs)
Position on Knowledge Dissemination, Management, and Future Research
Falls are under-recognized as adverse drug events. Healthcare professionals are reluctant to withdraw fall-risk-increasing medications. The EuGMS Task and Finish group on fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) proposes in this paper its recommendations on dissemination of knowledge about, management of, and future research on FRIDs. Falls are a major public health concern in the older population, and certain medication classes are a significant risk factor for falls. However, knowledge is lacking among both physicians and older people, including caregivers, concerning the role of medication as a risk factor. In the present statement, the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS) Task and Finish group on fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs), in collaboration with the EuGMS Special Interest group on Pharmacology and the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) Geriatric Medicine Section, outlines its position regarding knowledge dissemination on medication-related falls in older people across Europe. The EuGMS Task and Finish group is developing educational materials to facilitate knowledge dissemination for healthcare professionals and older people. In addition, steps in primary prevention through judicious prescribing, deprescribing of FRIDs (withdrawal and dose reduction), and gaps in current research are outlined in this position paper.
EuGMS Task and Finish group on Fall-Risk-Increasing Drugs (FRIDs)
Position on Knowledge Dissemination, Management, and Future Research
Falls are a major public health concern in the older population, and certain medication classes are a significant risk factor for falls. However, knowledge is lacking among both physicians and older people, including caregivers, concerning the role of medication as a risk factor. In the present statement, the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS) Task and Finish group on fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs), in collaboration with the EuGMS Special Interest group on Pharmacology and the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) Geriatric Medicine Section, outlines its position regarding knowledge dissemination on medication-related falls in older people across Europe. The EuGMS Task and Finish group is developing educational materials to facilitate knowledge dissemination for healthcare professionals and older people. In addition, steps in primary prevention through judicious prescribing, deprescribing of FRIDs (withdrawal and dose reduction), and gaps in current research are outlined in this position paper.