Background Older people living with frailty are often exposed to polypharmacy and potential harm from medications. Targeted deprescribing in this population represents an important component of optimizing medication. This systematic review aims to summarise the current evidence for deprescribing among older people living with frailty. Methods The literature was searched using Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library up to May 2020. Interventional studies with any design or setting were included if they reported deprescribing interventions among people aged 65+ who live with frailty identified using reliable measures. The primary outcome was safety of deprescribing; whereas secondary outcomes included clinical outcomes, medication-related outcomes, feasibility, acceptability and cost-related outcomes. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise findings and study quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklists. Results Two thousand three hundred twenty-two articles were identified and six (two randomised controlled trials) were included with 657 participants in total (mean age range 79–87 years). Studies were heterogeneous in their designs, settings and outcomes. Deprescribing interventions were pharmacist-led (n = 3) or multidisciplinary team-led (n = 3). Frailty was identified using several measures and deprescribing was implemented using either explicit or implicit tools or both. Three studies reported safety outcomes and showed no significant changes in adverse events, hospitalisation or mortality rates. Three studies reported positive impact on clinical outcomes including depression, mental health status, function and frailty; with mixed findings on falls and cognition; and no significant impact on quality of life. All studies described medication-related outcomes and reported a reduction in potentially inappropriate medications and total number of medications per-patient. Feasibility of deprescribing was reported in four studies which showed that 72–91% of recommendations made were implemented. Two studies evaluated and reported the acceptability of their interventions and further two described cost saving. Conclusion There is a paucity of research about the impact of deprescribing in older people living with frailty. However, included studies suggest that deprescribing could be safe, feasible, well tolerated and can lead to important benefits. Research should now focus on understanding the impact of deprescribing on frailty status in high risk populations. Trial registration The review was registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) ID number: CRD42019153367.
(1) Background: Appetite loss in older people, the ‘Anorexia of Aging’ (AA), is common, associated with under-nutrition, sarcopenia, and frailty and yet receives little attention. This review had two aims: describe interventions for AA and their effectiveness, and identify the methods of appetite assessment. (2) Methods: Study inclusion: participants aged ≥65, intervention for AA, and appetite assessment, any design, and comparator. Exclusion: studies on specific health cohorts. Searches in four databases with hand searching of references and citing works. Two researchers independently assessed eligibility and quality. (3) Results: Authors screened 8729 titles, 46 full texts. Eighteen articles were included describing nine intervention types: education (n = 1), exercise (n = 1), flavor enhancement (n = 2), increased meal variety (n = 1), mealtime assistance (n = 1), fortified food (n = 1), oral nutritional supplement (ONS) (n = 8), amino acids (n = 1), and medication (n = 2). Three studies evaluated combinations: education + exercise, ONS + exercise, and ONS + medication. Five intervention types exhibited favorable effects on appetite but in single datasets or not replicated. Appetite was assessed predominantly by Likert (n = 9), or visual analogue scales (n = 7). (4) Conclusions: A variety of interventions and methods of appetite assessments were used. There was a lack of clarity about whether AA or undernutrition was the intervention target. AA is important for future research but needs standardized assessment so that effectiveness of a range of interventions can be fully explored.
BackgroundHandgrip strength is a non-invasive marker of muscle strength, and low grip strength in hospital inpatients is associated with poor healthcare outcomes including longer length of stay, increased functional limitations, and mortality. Measuring grip strength is simple and inexpensive. However, grip strength measurement is not routinely used in clinical practice. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of implementing grip strength measurement into routine clinical practice.Methods/designThis feasibility study is a mixed methods design combining qualitative, quantitative, and economic elements and is based on the acute medical wards for older people in one hospital. The study consists of three phases: phase 1 will define current baseline practice for the identification of inpatients at high risk of poor healthcare outcomes, their nutrition, and mobility care through interviews and focus groups with staff as well as a review of patients’ clinical records. Phase 2 will focus on the feasibility of developing and implementing a training programme using Normalisation Process Theory to enable nursing and medical staff to measure and interpret grip strength values. Following the training, grip strength will be measured routinely for older patients as part of admission procedures with the use of a care plan for those with low grip strength. Finally, phase 3 will evaluate the acceptability of grip strength measurement, its adoption, coverage, and basic costs using interviews and focus groups with staff and patients, and re-examination of clinical records.DiscussionThe results of this study will inform the translation of grip strength measurement from a research tool into clinical practice to improve the identification of older inpatients at risk of poor healthcare outcomes.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCTO2447445 Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40814-016-0067-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.