-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Use of an electronic decision support tool to reduce polypharmacy in elderly people with chronic diseases: cluster randomised controlled trial.
- Anja Rieckert, David Reeves, Attila Altiner, Eva Drewelow, Aneez Esmail, Maria Flamm, Mark Hann, Tim Johansson, Renate Klaassen-Mielke, Ilkka Kunnamo, Christin Löffler, Giuliano Piccoliori, Christina Sommerauer, Ulrike S Trampisch, Anna Vögele, Adrine Woodham, and Andreas Sönnichsen.
- Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Alfred-Herrhausen-Strasse 50, 58448 Witten, Germany Anja.Rieckert@uni-wh.de.
- BMJ. 2020 Jun 18; 369: m1822.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of a computerised decision support tool for comprehensive drug review in elderly people with polypharmacy.DesignPragmatic, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting359 general practices in Austria, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom.Participants3904 adults aged 75 years and older using eight or more drugs on a regular basis, recruited by their general practitioner.InterventionA newly developed electronic decision support tool comprising a comprehensive drug review to support general practitioners in deprescribing potentially inappropriate and non-evidence based drugs. Doctors were randomly allocated to either the electronic decision support tool or to provide treatment as usual.Main Outcome MeasuresThe primary outcome was the composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months. The key secondary outcome was reduction in the number of drugs.Results3904 adults were enrolled between January and October 2015. 181 practices and 1953 participants were assigned to electronic decision support (intervention group) and 178 practices and 1951 participants to treatment as usual (control group). The primary outcome (composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months) occurred in 871 (44.6%) participants in the intervention group and 944 (48.4%) in the control group. In an intention-to-treat analysis the odds ratio of the composite outcome was 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.07; P=0.19, 997 of 1953 v 1055 of 1951). In an analysis restricted to participants attending practice according to protocol, a difference was found favouring the intervention (odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98; 774 of 1682 v 873 of 1712, P=0.03). By 24 months the number of prescribed drugs had decreased in the intervention group compared with control group (uncontrolled mean change -0.42 v 0.06: adjusted mean difference -0.45, 95% confidence interval -0.63 to -0.26; P<0.001).ConclusionsIn intention-to-treat analysis, a computerised decision support tool for comprehensive drug review of elderly people with polypharmacy showed no conclusive effects on the composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months. Nonetheless, a reduction in drugs was achieved without detriment to patient outcomes.Trial RegistrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN10137559.© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Notes
Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
- Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as
*italics*
,_underline_
or**bold**
. - Superscript can be denoted by
<sup>text</sup>
and subscript<sub>text</sub>
. - Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines
1. 2. 3.
, hyphens-
or asterisks*
. - Links can be included with:
[my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
- Images can be included with:
![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
- For footnotes use
[^1](This is a footnote.)
inline. - Or use an inline reference
[^1]
to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document[^1]: This is a long footnote.
.