Dataset Information

A Systematic Review of the Current Evidence from Randomised Controlled Trials on the Impact of Medication Optimisation or Pharmacological Interventions on Quantitative Measures of Cognitive Function in Geriatric Patients.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cognitive decline is common in older people. Numerous studies point to the detrimental impact of polypharmacy and inappropriate medication on older people's cognitive function. Here we aim to systematically review evidence on the impact of medication optimisation and drug interventions on cognitive function in older adults.

Methods

A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE and Web of Science on May 2021. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the impact of medication optimisation or pharmacological interventions on quantitative measures of cognitive function in older adults (aged > 65 years) were included. Single-drug interventions (e.g., on drugs for dementia) were excluded. The quality of the studies was assessed by using the Jadad score.

Results

Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. In five studies a positive impact of the intervention on metric measures of cognitive function was observed. Only one study showed a significant improvement of cognitive function by medication optimisation. The remaining four positive studies tested methylphenidate, selective oestrogen receptor modulators, folic acid and antipsychotics. The mean Jadad score was low (2.7).

Conclusion

This systematic review identified a small number of heterogenous RCTs investigating the impact of medication optimisation or pharmacological interventions on cognitive function. Five trials showed a positive impact on at least one aspect of cognitive function, with comprehensive medication optimisation not being more successful than focused drug interventions. More prospective trials are needed to specifically assess ways of limiting the negative impact of certain medication in particular and polypharmacy in general on cognitive function in older patients.

SUBMITTER: Pazan F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9626423 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Systematic Review of the Current Evidence from Randomised Controlled Trials on the Impact of Medication Optimisation or Pharmacological Interventions on Quantitative Measures of Cognitive Function in Geriatric Patients.

Pazan Farhad F Petrovic Mirko M Cherubini Antonio A Cruz-Jentoft Alfonso J AJ Denkinger Michael M van der Cammen Tischa J M TJM Stevenson Jennifer M JM Ibrahim Kinda K Rajkumar Chakravarthi C Bakken Marit Stordal MS Crome Peter P Guðmundsson Adalsteinn A Knol Wilma W Snijders Birgitta M G BMG O'Mahony Denis D Serra-Rexach José Antonio JA Soulis George G van Marum Rob J RJ Ziere Gijsbertus G Mair Alpana A Burkhardt Heinrich H Neumann-Podczaska Agnieszka A Wieczorowska-Tobis Katarzyna K Fernandes Marilia Andreia MA Gruner Heidi H van der Velde Nathalie N Wehling Martin M

Drugs & aging 20221026 11

<h4>Background</h4>Cognitive decline is common in older people. Numerous studies point to the detrimental impact of polypharmacy and inappropriate medication on older people's cognitive function. Here we aim to systematically review evidence on the impact of medication optimisation and drug interventions on cognitive function in older adults.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE and Web of Science on May 2021. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) addressing the impa ...[more]

PMID: 36284081

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionWhether medication optimisation improves clinical outcomes in elderly individuals remains unclear. The current study aims to evaluate the effect of multidisciplinary team-based medication optimisation on survival, rehospitalisation and unscheduled hospital visits in elderly patients.Methods and analysisWe report the protocol of a single-centre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. The enrolled subjects will be medical inpatients, aged 65 years or older, admitted to a community hospital and receiving five or more regular medications. The participants will be randomly assigned to receive either an intervention for medication optimisation or the usual care. The intervention will consist of a multidisciplinary team-based medication review, followed by a medication optimisation proposal based on the Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions/Screening Tool to Alert doctors to the Right Treatment criteria and an implicit medication optimisation protocol. Medication optimisation summaries will be sent to primary care physicians and community pharmacists on discharge. The primary outcome will be a composite of death, unscheduled hospital visits and rehospitalisation until 48 weeks after randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include each of the primary endpoints, the number of prescribed medications, quality of life score, level of long-term care required, drug-related adverse events, death during hospitalisation and falls. Participants will be followed up for 48 weeks with bimonthly telephone interviews to assess the primary and secondary outcomes. A log-rank test stratified by randomisation factors will be used to compare the incidence of the composite endpoint. The study was initiated in 2019 and a minimum of 500 patients will be enrolled.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol has been approved by the Institutional Ethical Committee of St. Marianna University School of Medicine (No. 4129). The results of the current study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberUMIN000035265.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the completeness of descriptions of non-pharmacological interventions in randomised trials, identify which elements are most frequently missing, and assess whether authors can provide missing details.DesignAnalysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials of non-pharmacological interventions.Data sources and study selectionAll reports of randomised trials of non-pharmacological interventions published in 2009 in six leading general medical journals; 133 trial reports, with 137 interventions, met the inclusion criteria.Data collectionUsing an eight item checklist, two raters assessed the primary full trial report, plus any reference materials, appendices, or websites. Questions about missing details were emailed to corresponding authors, and relevant items were then reassessed.ResultsOf 137 interventions, only 53 (39%) were adequately described; this was increased to 81 (59%) by using 63 responses from 88 contacted authors. The most frequently missing item was the "intervention materials" (47% complete), but it also improved the most after author response (92% complete). Whereas some authors (27/70) provided materials or further information, other authors (21/70) could not; their reasons included copyright or intellectual property concerns, not having the materials or intervention details, or being unaware of their importance. Although 46 (34%) trial interventions had further information or materials readily available on a website, many were not mentioned in the report, were not freely accessible, or the URL was no longer functioning.ConclusionsMissing essential information about interventions is a frequent, yet remediable, contributor to the worldwide waste in research funding. If trial reports do not have a sufficient description of interventions, other researchers cannot build on the findings, and clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement useful interventions. Improvement will require action by funders, researchers, and publishers, aided by long term repositories of materials linked to publications.

Project description:BackgroundOver the last 20 years, there have been marked improvements in the availability of effective medications for rheumatic conditions such as gout, osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis (RA), which have led to a reduction in disease flares and the risk of re-fracture in osteoporosis, and the slowing of disease progression in RA. However, medication adherence remains suboptimal, as treatment regimens can be complex and difficult to continue long term. Many trials have been conducted to improve adherence to medication. Core domains, which are the outcomes of most relevance to patients and clinicians, are a pivotal component of any trial. These core domains should be measured consistently, so that all relevant trials can be combined in systematic reviews and meta-analyses to reach conclusions that are more valid. Failure to do this severely limits the potential for trial-based evidence to inform decisions on how to support medication adherence. The Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) - Interventions for Medication Adherence study by the OMERACT-Adherence Group aims to develop a core domain set for interventions that aim to support medication adherence in rheumatology.Methods/designThis OMERACT-Adherence study has five phases: (1) a systematic review to identify outcome domains that have been reported in interventions focused on supporting medication adherence in rheumatology; (2) semi-structured stakeholder interviews with patients and caregivers to determine their views on the core domains; (3) focus groups using the nominal group technique with patients and caregivers to identify and rank domains that are relevant to them, including the reasons for their choices; (4) an international three-round modified Delphi survey involving patients with diverse rheumatic conditions, caregivers, health professionals, researchers and other stakeholders to develop a preliminary core domain set; and (5) a stakeholder workshop with OMERACT members to review, vote on and reach a consensus on the core domain set for interventions to support medication adherence in rheumatology.DiscussionEstablishing a core domain set to be reported in all intervention studies undertaken to support patients with medication adherence will enhance the relevance and the impact of these results and improve the lives of people with rheumatic conditions.

Project description:Introduction Therapeutic recommendations for hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) have recently shifted towards non-invasive pharmacological options. Recent evidence has shown promising efficacy for specific treatments. However, data regarding the comparative efficacy of these treatments in patients with HS are still limited. Therefore, we plan to conduct a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to summarise the benefits and harms of different pharmacological interventions for treating people living with HS. Methods and analysis We will search electronic databases, including Medline, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL and Cochrane Library beginning from their inception dates with no language restrictions. A grey literature search will be performed to supplement the electronic databases. Both randomised trials and non-randomised studies using validated measurement tools that investigated the benefits and harms of pharmacological interventions among people living with HS will be included. The predefined primary outcomes will include treatment responses that reflect the patient’s perspective and all-cause discontinuation. Screening, selection, extraction, assessment of the risk of bias and analysis of the strength of the evidence will be performed independently by a pair of reviewers. A two-step approach of traditional pairwise and NMA will be performed. Based on a random-effects model, standardised weighted mean differences and ORs with corresponding 95% CIs will be pooled as effect estimates for the continuous and categorical endpoints, respectively. Statistical and methodological heterogeneities will be assessed. Preplanned subgroup analyses and univariate meta-regression will be conducted to quantify the potential sources of heterogeneity. Evidence-based synthesis will be based on the magnitudes of effect size, evidence certainty and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve values. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required because this study is based on existing published data. These findings will be disseminated through scientific meetings and publications in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022302795.

Dataset Information

A Systematic Review of the Current Evidence from Randomised Controlled Trials on the Impact of Medication Optimisation or Pharmacological Interventions on Quantitative Measures of Cognitive Function in Geriatric Patients.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A Systematic Review of the Current Evidence from Randomised Controlled Trials on the Impact of Medication Optimisation or Pharmacological Interventions on Quantitative Measures of Cognitive Function in Geriatric Patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets