Background Overtreatment with cardiometabolic medication in older patients can lead to major adverse events. Timely deprescribing of these medications is therefore essential. Self-reported willingness to stop medication is usually high among older people, still overtreatment with cardiometabolic medication is common and deprescribing is rarely initiated. An important barrier for deprescribing reported by general practitioners is the patients’ unwillingness to stop the medication. More insights are needed into the influence of patients’ characteristics on their attitudes towards deprescribing and differences in these attitudes between cardiometabolic medication groups. Methods A survey in older people using cardiometabolic medication using the revised Patients’ Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire was performed. Participants completed the general rPATD and an adapted version for four medication groups. Linear and ordinal logistic regression were used to assess the influence of age, sex, therapeutic area and number of medications used on the patients’ general attitudes towards deprescribing. Univariate analysis was used to compare differences in deprescribing attitudes towards sulfonylureas, insulins, antihypertensive medication and statins. Results Overall, 314 out of 1143 invited participants completed the survey (median age 76 years, 54% female). Most participants (80%) were satisfied with their medication and willing to stop medications if their doctor said it was possible (88%). Age, sex and therapeutic area had no influence on the general attitudes towards deprescribing. Taking more than ten medicines was significantly associated with a higher perceived medication burden. Antihypertensive medication and insulin were considered more appropriate than statins, and insulin was considered more appropriate than sulfonylureas not favouring deprescribing. Conclusions The majority of older people using cardiometabolic medication are willing to stop one of their medicines if their doctor said it was possible. Health care providers should take into account that patients perceive some of their medication as more appropriate than other medication when discussing deprescribing.

Background: A quasi-experimental study investigated a pharmacist-led intervention aimed at deprescribing among patients with type 2 diabetes at risk of hypoglycaemia. Objective: To evaluate the process of implementing the intervention in primary care in order to understand variations in implementation and outcomes. Methods: Mixed-methods study based on the Grant-framework, with 10 domains, including recruitment of patients, delivery of the intervention, and response of pharmacists and patients. Data collected were: administrative logs, semi-structured observations of patient consultations (n=8), interviews with pharmacists (n=16), and patient-reported experience measure (PREM) questionnaires (n=66; response 73%). Results: Ninety patients from 14 pharmacies were included. Although the selection of patients based on high hypoglycaemia-risk was considered useful, pharmacists experienced barriers to proposing deprescribing in patients with recent medication changes, patients without current health problems or hypoglycaemic events, and patients treated in secondary care. The consultation aid and deprescribing tool provided were evaluated positively by the pharmacists. The majority of patients were satisfied with the service and information that the pharmacists provided. Conclusion: Pharmacists and patients were positive about the intervention. Both groups valued the consultation on deprescribing, supported by tools. To optimise the effect, improvements can be made to patient selection and local agreements on proactive deprescribing.

BackgroundA quasi‐experimental study investigated a pharmacist‐led intervention aimed at deprescribing and medication management among adult patients with type 2 diabetes at risk of hypoglycaemia.ObjectiveTo evaluate the process of implementing the intervention consisting of a tailored clinical medication review (CMR) supported by a training and a toolbox.MethodsMixed‐methods study based on the Grant‐framework, including the domains ‘recruitment’, ‘delivery of intervention’, and ‘response’ of pharmacists and patients. Data collected were: administrative logs, semi‐structured observations of patient consultations (n=8), interviews with pharmacists (n=16), and patient‐reported experience measure (PREM) questionnaires (n=66).ResultsTailored CMRs were conducted largely as intended for 90 patients from 14 pharmacies. Although patient selection based on a medication‐derived hypoglycaemia risk score was considered useful, pharmacists experienced barriers to proposing deprescribing in patients with recent medication changes, without current hypoglycaemic events, or treated by medical specialists. The training and toolbox were evaluated positively by the pharmacists. Overall, patients were satisfied with the CMR.ConclusionPharmacists and patients valued the CMR focusing on deprescribing and medication management. To optimise implementation and effectiveness of the intervention, improvements can be made to the patient selection, pharmacist training and the collaboration between healthcare professionals.