BACKGROUND: falls and fall-related injuries are common in older adults, have negative effects on functional independence and quality of life and are associated with increased morbidity, mortality and health related costs. Current guidelines are inconsistent, with no up-to-date, globally applicable ones present. OBJECTIVES: to create a set of evidence- and expert consensus-based falls prevention and management recommendations applicable to older adults for use by healthcare and other professionals that consider: (i) a person-centred approach that includes the perspectives of older adults with lived experience, caregivers and other stakeholders; (ii) gaps in previous guidelines; (iii) recent developments in e-health and (iv) implementation across locations with limited access to resources such as low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: a steering committee and a worldwide multidisciplinary group of experts and stakeholders, including older adults, were assembled. Geriatrics and gerontological societies were represented. Using a modified Delphi process, recommendations from 11 topic-specific working groups (WGs), 10 ad-hoc WGs and a WG dealing with the perspectives of older adults were reviewed and refined. The final recommendations were determined by voting. RECOMMENDATIONS: all older adults should be advised on falls prevention and physical activity. Opportunistic case finding for falls risk is recommended for community-dwelling older adults. Those considered at high risk should be offered a comprehensive multifactorial falls risk assessment with a view to co-design and implement personalised multidomain interventions. Other recommendations cover details of assessment and intervention components and combinations, and recommendations for specific settings and populations. CONCLUSIONS: the core set of recommendations provided will require flexible implementation strategies that consider both local context and resources.

The article Current evidence on the impact of medication optimization or pharmacological interventions on frailty or aspects of frailty: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials, written by Farhad Pazan, Mirko Petrovic, Antonio Cherubini, Graziano Onder, Alfonso J. Cruz-Jentoft, Michael Denkinger, Tischa J. M. van der Cammen, Jennifer M. Stevenson, Kinda Ibrahim, Chakravarthi Rajkumar, Marit Stordal Bakken, Jean-Pierre Baeyens, Peter Crome, Thomas Frühwald, Paul Gallaghar, Adalsteinn Guðmundsson, Wilma Knol, Denis O’Mahony, Alberto Pilotto, Elina Rönnemaa, José Antonio Serra-Rexach, George Soulis, Rob J. van Marum, Gijsbertus Ziere, Alpana Mair, Heinrich Burkhardt, Agnieszka Neumann-Podczaska, Katarzyna Wieczorowska- Tobis, Marilia Andreia Fernandes, Heidi Gruner, Dhayana Dallmeier, Jean-Baptiste Beuscart, Nathalie van der Velde and Martin Wehling, was originally published electronically on the publisher’s internet portal on 07 August 2020 without open access. With the author(s)’ decision to opt for Open Choice the copyright of the article changed on 14 May 2021 to

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.

Background: Frailty and adverse drug effects are linked in the fact that polypharmacy is correlated with the severity of frailty; however, a causal relation has not been proven in older people with clinically manifest frailty. Methods: A literature search was performed in Medline to detect prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) testing the effects of pharmacological interventions or medication optimization in older frail adults on comprehensive frailty scores or partial aspects of frailty that were published from January 1998 to October 2019. Results: Twenty-five studies were identified, 4 on comprehensive frailty scores and 21 on aspects of frailty. Two trials on comprehensive frailty scores showed positive results on frailty although the contribution of medication review in a multidimensional approach was unclear. In the studies on aspects related to frailty, ten individual drug interventions showed improvement in physical performance, muscle strength or body composition utilizing alfacalcidol, teriparatide, piroxicam, testosterone, recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin, or capromorelin. There were no studies examining negative effects of drugs on frailty. Conclusion: So far, data on a causal relationship between drugs and frailty are inconclusive or related to single-drug interventions on partial aspects of frailty. There is a clear need for RCTs on this topic that should be based on a comprehensive, internationally consistent and thus reproducible concept of frailty assessment.

Background: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in older people are often preventable, indicating that screening and prevention programs aimed at reducing their rate are needed in this population.Objective: The aim of this study was to externally validate the GerontoNet ADR risk score and to assess its validity in specific subpopulations of older inpatients. Methods: Data from the prospective CRIteria to assess appropriate Medication use among Elderly complex patients (CRIME) cohort were used. Dose-dependent and predictable ADRs were classified as type A, probable or definite ADRs were defined according to the Naranjo algorithm, and diagnostic accuracy was tested using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for a cut-off point of 4. Results: The mean age of the 1075 patients was 81.4 years (standard deviation 7.4) and the median number of drugs was 10 (range 7–13). At least one ADR was observed in 70 patients (6.5%); ADRs were classified as type A in 50 patients (4.7%) and defined as probable or definite in 41 patients (3.8%). Fair diagnostic accuracy to predict both type A and probable or definite ADRs was found in subpopulations aged <70 or ≥80 years with heart failure, diabetes, or a previous ADR. Good accuracy to predict type A ADRs was found in patients with a low body mass index (BMI; >18.5 kg/m2) and a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of >24/30 points, as well as in patients with osteoarthritis. The cut-off point of 4 points yielded very good sensitivity but poor specificity results in these subpopulations. Conclusion: This study suggests that the GerontoNet ADR risk score might represent a pragmatic approach to identifying specific subpopulations of older inpatients at increased risk of an ADR with a fair to good diagnostic accuracy.

This article presents a list of potentially delirogenic properties of drugs that are currently of relevance to drug therapy in Europe, which was created through a Delphi process including experts from professions relevant to diagnosis and treatment of delirium. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5 (DSM 5) defines delirium as a disturbance in attention, awareness and cognition that develops over a short period of time and fluctuates. Possible causes of delirium are manifold: usually delirium is considered to develop in a multifactorial way, caused by inalterable parameters, such as advanced age and pre-existing cognitive impairment and precipitated by modifiable parameters, such as the use of certain drugs or substance withdrawal. Delirium is a serious condition with a pronounced impact on morbidity, mortality and costs to the healthcare system. Circumstances and drugs that might precipitate or worsen delirium should therefore be avoided whenever possible. A list of drugs that might have a detrimental influence on the emergence and duration of delirium has been created using the terms “delirogenity” and “delirogenic” to describe the potential of a drug or withdrawal to cause or worsen delirium. The results are novel and noteworthy, as their focus is on substances relevant to European pharmacotherapy. Furthermore, they represent a methodical consensus from a group of experts of a wide variety of professions relevant to the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of delirium, such as nursing, pharmacy, pharmacology, surgical and internal medicine, neurology, psychiatry, intensive care and medicine, with working, teaching and scientific experience in several European countries practicing both in primary and secondary care.