Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Trial Review
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Download to PDF
Trial registered on ANZCTR
Registration number
ACTRN12619000727145
Ethics application status
Approved
Date submitted
1/05/2019
Date registered
14/05/2019
Date last updated
14/05/2019
Date data sharing statement initially provided
14/05/2019
Date results information initially provided
14/05/2019
Type of registration
Retrospectively registered
Titles & IDs
Public title
GP-led deprescribing in community living older Australians: A pragmatic, mixed methods, exploratory controlled trial
Query!
Scientific title
GP-led deprescribing in community living older Australians: A pragmatic, mixed methods, exploratory controlled trial
Query!
Secondary ID [1]
298115
0
None.
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
U1111-1231-3273
Query!
Trial acronym
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Potentially inappropriate polypharmacy
312645
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Public Health
311139
311139
0
0
Query!
Health service research
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
The intervention consisted of:
1) one five-hour face-to-face interactive deprescribing training workshop for GPs and accredited pharmacists (i.e. pharmacists accredited to undertake Home Medicines Reviews [HMRs]);
2) a 30-minute face-to-face deprescribing consultation between GPs and their usual patients to undertake a comprehensive review of their medicines (CMR) using a standardised software template co-designed by GPs; (1)
3) Option for GPs to refer patients for an HMR by one of the participating pharmacists with full access to the patient’s medical record.
The interactive training workshop was facilitated by a consultant general physician with expertise in deprescribing and an accredited pharmacist experienced in CMR. The workshop involved:
1) one-hour didactic presentation of the evidence around potentially inappropriate polypharmacy (PIP) and deprescribing;
2) three-hour interactive session applying principles of the CEASE deprescribing framework (see below) to two case studies, during which evidence summaries and support resources were presented and barriers and enablers to deprescribing in practice were discussed; and
3) one-hour session to co-design a software template for use in deprescribing appointments which reminded GPs when to consider deprescribing a medicine and served as a tool for collecting data on changes to medicines, including their rationales (as per reference 1).
CEASE PRINCIPLES(2)
• Obtain a best possible medication history
• Reconcile medication and diagnosis list & verify indications
• Estimate patient risk of adverse drug events
• Review utility of each medication
• Prioritise targets for deprescribing & formulate agreed plan
• Implement and monitor the deprescribing plan
The intervention was targeted at the clinician level, with quantitative and qualitative measures gathered at the clinician and patient level. The aspects of the intervention were informed by principles of behaviour change and an awareness of barriers and enablers to deprescribing in primary care which the investigators had identified in previous studies. (3, 4) At all times the patients remained under the care of their usual GP.
1. Anderson K, Foster MM, Freeman CR, Scott IA. A multifaceted intervention to reduce inappropriate polypharmacy in primary care: research co-creation opportunities in a pilot study. Med J Aust. 2016;204(7 Suppl):S41-4.
2. Scott IA, Hilmer SN, Reeve E, et al. Reducing inappropriate polypharmacy: The process of deprescribing. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(5):827-34.
3. Anderson K, Stowasser D, Freeman C, Scott I. Prescriber barriers and enablers to minimising potentially inappropriate medications in adults: a systematic review and thematic synthesis. BMJ open. 2014;4(12):e006544.
4. Anderson K, Foster M, Freeman C, Luetsch K, Scott I. Negotiating “Unmeasurable Harm and Benefit”. Qual Health Res. 2017:1049732316687732.
Query!
Intervention code [1]
314339
0
Treatment: Other
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
Care normally provided by GPs to patients with polypharmacy continued, including referral to specialists, allied health professionals and pharmacists for HMR. The study was described as a quality use of medicines activity for community living older patients with polypharmacy to avoid using the term deprescribing which, while used in the intervention sites, did not apply to the usual care sites.
Query!
Control group
Active
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
319917
0
Change in the number of ‘agreed’ regular medicines deprescribed (ceased or dose reduced) per patient.
Regular medicines comprised both prescribed medicines and supplements or over the counter medicines not necessarily requiring a prescription. Short course therapies (e.g. antibiotics, high-dose steroids, pain relievers for self-limiting acute complaints) were excluded. ‘Agreed’ medicines were those where the GP record and patient self-report were in total agreement.
Query!
Assessment method [1]
319917
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
319917
0
Baseline and 4 months post intervention (defined as four months after the deprescribing appointment for intervention patients or the time of baseline data extraction from the practice for usual care patients).
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
370190
0
Medication-specific outcome: Change in the number of agreed regular medicines ceased per patient from data collected from GP records and patient self-report.
Query!
Assessment method [1]
370190
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
370190
0
Baseline and 4 months post intervention (defined as four months after the deprescribing appointment for intervention patients or the time of baseline data extraction from the practice for usual care patients).
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
370191
0
Medication-specific outcome: Change in the number of agreed regular medicines dose-reduced per patient from data collected from GP records and patient self-report.
Query!
Assessment method [2]
370191
0
Query!
Timepoint [2]
370191
0
Baseline and 4 months post intervention (defined as four months after the deprescribing appointment for intervention patients or the time of baseline data extraction from the practice for usual care patients).
Query!
Secondary outcome [3]
370192
0
Medication-specific outcome: Change in the number of agreed regular medicines commenced per patient from data collected from GP records and patient self-report.
Query!
Assessment method [3]
370192
0
Query!
Timepoint [3]
370192
0
Baseline and 4 months post intervention (defined as four months after the deprescribing appointment for intervention patients or the time of baseline data extraction from the practice for usual care patients).
Query!
Secondary outcome [4]
370193
0
Medication-specific outcome: Change in the number of agreed regular medicines dose-increased per patient from data collected from GP records and patient self-report.
Query!
Assessment method [4]
370193
0
Query!
Timepoint [4]
370193
0
Baseline and 4 months post intervention (defined as four months after the deprescribing appointment for intervention patients or the time of baseline data extraction from the practice for usual care patients).
Query!
Secondary outcome [5]
370194
0
Medication-specific outcome: Change in the number of agreed as-required (prn) medicines commenced per patient from data collected from GP records and patient self-report.
Query!
Assessment method [5]
370194
0
Query!
Timepoint [5]
370194
0
Baseline and 4 months post intervention (defined as four months after the deprescribing appointment for intervention patients or the time of baseline data extraction from the practice for usual care patients).
Query!
Secondary outcome [6]
370195
0
Medication-specific outcome: The proportion of regular medicines deprescribed as a proportion of all regular medicines based on data collected from GP records and patient self-report.
Query!
Assessment method [6]
370195
0
Query!
Timepoint [6]
370195
0
Baseline and 4 months post intervention (defined as four months after the deprescribing appointment for intervention patients or the time of baseline data extraction from the practice for usual care patients).
Query!
Secondary outcome [7]
370196
0
Medication-specific outcome: Classes of medicines deprescribed (using the Australian Medicines Handbook as a guide for therapeutic classification) based on data collected from GP records and patient self-report.
Query!
Assessment method [7]
370196
0
Query!
Timepoint [7]
370196
0
4 months post intervention (defined as four months after the deprescribing appointment for intervention patients or the time of baseline data extraction from the practice for usual care patients).
Query!
Secondary outcome [8]
370197
0
Patient-reported outcome: Change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) as measured by the EQ-5D-5L between the intervention and usual care group.
Query!
Assessment method [8]
370197
0
Query!
Timepoint [8]
370197
0
Baseline and 4 months post intervention (defined as four months after the deprescribing appointment for intervention patients or the time of baseline data extraction from the practice for usual care patients).
Query!
Secondary outcome [9]
370198
0
Patient-reported outcome: Changes in intervention Patients’ Attitudes Towards Deprescribing (PATD) as measured by the PATD questionnaire.
Query!
Assessment method [9]
370198
0
Query!
Timepoint [9]
370198
0
Baseline and 4 months post intervention (i.e. after the deprescribing appointment).
Query!
Secondary outcome [10]
370199
0
Patient-reported outcome: Difference in the mean number of self-reported unplanned hospital presentations/admissions between the intervention and usual care group during the study period.
Query!
Assessment method [10]
370199
0
Query!
Timepoint [10]
370199
0
4 months post intervention (defined as four months after the deprescribing appointment for intervention patients or the time of baseline data extraction from the practice for usual care patients).
Query!
Secondary outcome [11]
370200
0
Process-measures: Proportion of patients in the intervention arm who had a deprescribing appointment based on data collected from GP records and patient self-report.
Query!
Assessment method [11]
370200
0
Query!
Timepoint [11]
370200
0
Approximately two months from the date of GP attendance at the deprescribing training workshop and at study completion.
Query!
Secondary outcome [12]
370201
0
Process-measures: Difference between the proportion of patients who had a Home Medicines Review (HMR) by a pharmacist since recruitment to the study based on data collected from GP records and patient self-report.
Query!
Assessment method [12]
370201
0
Query!
Timepoint [12]
370201
0
Baseline and 4 months post intervention (defined as four months after the deprescribing appointment for intervention patients or the time of baseline data extraction from the practice for usual care patients).
Query!
Secondary outcome [13]
370202
0
Process-measures: Difference between the mean number GP visits per patient during the study period between the intervention and usual care group based on data collected from GP records.
Query!
Assessment method [13]
370202
0
Query!
Timepoint [13]
370202
0
4 months post intervention (defined as four months after the deprescribing appointment for intervention patients or the time of baseline data extraction from the practice for usual care patients).
Query!
Secondary outcome [14]
370203
0
Safety-protocol: The completion and submission of reports of suspected/actual adverse outcome (e.g. unplanned hospitalisation, deterioration in clinical status) or experience (e.g. dissatisfaction with deprescribing process/outcome) as reported by study participants. A standardised form (attached) was provided to participating GPs (who remained responsible for patient care at all times) for their completion and submission to the research team.
Query!
Assessment method [14]
370203
0
Query!
Timepoint [14]
370203
0
Any time throughout the study period.
Query!
Secondary outcome [15]
370204
0
Qualitative measures (intervention group only): GPs’ and patients’ experiences of implementing the deprescribing intervention, specifically an exploration of views regarding adoption of the interventions’ elements (GPs), acceptability (GPs and patients) and sustainability (GPs).
Query!
Assessment method [15]
370204
0
Query!
Timepoint [15]
370204
0
4-month follow-up phone interview for intervention patients and face-to-face in-depth interviews at study conclusion for each intervention GP.
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
There were three participant groups.
1. General practitioners: Working in primary health care and caring for community living older people with polypharmacy; available to attend a deprescribing training workshop in August or September 2015 (intervention arm only); and working the equivalent of four or more, three-hour sessions per week (to ensure adequate access for patients to their usual GP).
While it was intended to recruit a diverse sample of GPs based on age, years of experience and gender balance, it was anticipated that GPs who had been in practice for a longer period may see a higher proportion of older patients compared to more recently qualified GPs. It was therefore accepted that the eligibility criteria may naturally lead to the recruitment of more experienced GPs and this was accepted as a limitation of the study.
2. Pharmacists: Experienced in and/or actively conducting Home Medicines Reviews (HMRs) (5 or more years since attaining accreditation preferred); available to attend a deprescribing training workshop in August or September 2015; willing to travel to provide HMR services to patients of recruited intervention practices.
3. Patients: Active patient of the practice as defined by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioner (RACGP) standards (i.e. had attended the practice three or more times in the past two years) and a regular patient of one of the GPs recruited to the study; aged 65 years or older and living in the community (and not in a Residential Aged Care Facility); taking eight or more regular medicines as listed in the GPs' electronic medical records; capacity to give consent; proficient in speaking and reading English; and contactable by telephone.
Query!
Minimum age
18
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
No limit
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
No
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
1. General practitioners: Primarily caring for people aged 65 years or older with polypharmacy residing in aged care facilities (as this was not the care setting of interest).
2. Pharmacists: Conducting medicine reviews primarily for residents in aged care facilities (as this was not the population of interest).
3. Patients: Confusion, cognitive impairment, mental health disorders with psychosis and/or communication difficulties (as documented or confirmed by the patient’s GP) that would preclude informed consent; terminal illness (life expectancy less than six months); a Home Medicines Review (HMR) in the 12 months prior to recruitment.
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Treatment
Query!
Allocation to intervention
Non-randomised trial
Query!
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Allocation was not concealed.
Query!
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Non-randomised trial
Query!
Masking / blinding
Open (masking not used)
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Other
Query!
Other design features
A non-randomised, controlled pre-post mixed methods design was used for this pragmatic, exploratory study. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analysed to assess the feasibility and impact of the intervention in primary care. The study involved a convenience sample of five general practices and 20 GPs in south east Queensland across two study arms: an intervention arm comprising 10 GPs working at three sites who were exposed to the intervention, and a control (herein referred to as ‘usual care’) arm of 10 GPs at two sites who delivered usual care. Two pharmacists were recruited to ensure timely provision of HMR if intervention GPs chose to refer patients for this service.
Allocation to intervention or usual care was made at a general practice level according to the willingness of the GPs in those practices to participate in either the intervention or usual care arm. The small numbers of practices involved precluded conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT). It was inappropriate for the unit of allocation to be the GP or patient given the potential for contamination effects within practices. That is, patients could not be the unit of randomisation, as the premise of the study was to have the deprescribing appointment with the patient’s usual GP and intervention GPs could not ‘unknow’ what had been learned at the deprescribing workshop. Furthermore, randomisation of GPs within a practice was equally deemed inappropriate, acknowledging that learnings may be shared between colleagues throughout a practice. A consecutive sample of patients for each GP was generated using a written procedure.
Query!
Phase
Not Applicable
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Safety/efficacy
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
Sample size –
Arbitrary minimum recruitment targets were set to test the feasibility of the intervention including: Three GPs per site (so the number of practices with whom to liaise was manageable); ten GPs each in the intervention and usual care arms; and five patients per GP.
In total, a provisional sample size of 150 patients (approximately 75 each in the intervention and usual care arms of the study) was determined for this exploratory study. There was limited data available on which to base the sample size. A feasibility study in which the CEASE deprescribing guide was applied to acute hospitalised older patients with polypharmacy (defined as eight or more regular medications in this study) in the inpatient setting demonstrated a statistically and clinically significant effect in a sample of 50 patients. (1) The primary care cohort in this study, however, would be potentially healthier and more robust, and deprescribing would be more likely to be anticipatory, rather than reactive (i.e. in response to a hospital admission), making the process of deprescribing, and its benefits, potentially more difficult to achieve. For this reason, it was speculated a larger sample would be required. It was also reasoned that the larger sample size would deliver a suitably diverse patient group with respect to age, gender, comorbidity burden, chronic prescription medication load and usual GP, whilst also allowing for patient drop-outs.
Statistical methods–
Quantitative data were analysed and reported in accordance with usual statistical convention.
Analyses were conducted on the intent-to-treat (ITT) basis. Post-hoc sensitivity analyses were also conducted to account for patients of two GPs who breached the documented patient screening protocol and those of a single GP who left the practice mid-study.
In assessing relative likelihood of medicine changes per patient according to group assignment, negative binomial or Poisson regression models were used, adjusting for age, gender and number of baseline medicines.
Health-related quality of life was measured using EQ-5D-5L domain data converted to dichotomous ‘worse or not worse’ outcomes and analysed using paired Chi-squared tests.
A qualitative descriptive approach was used with thematic analysis conducted in accordance with the Framework method.
(1) McKean M, Pillans P, Scott IA. A medication review and deprescribing method for hospitalised older patients receiving multiple medications. Internal medicine journal. 2016;46(1):35-42.
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Completed
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
29/07/2015
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
13/01/2016
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
29/06/2016
Query!
Sample size
Target
150
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
145
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
QLD
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Funding source category [1]
302646
0
Government body
Query!
Name [1]
302646
0
National Health and Medical Research Council (Grant ID GNT1001157.)
Query!
Address [1]
302646
0
16 Marcus Clarke St
Canberra
ACT 2601, Australia
Query!
Country [1]
302646
0
Australia
Query!
Funding source category [2]
302647
0
Other Collaborative groups
Query!
Name [2]
302647
0
Brisbane South Health Primary Health Network
Query!
Address [2]
302647
0
Level 1
Building 20/2404 Logan Rd
Eight Mile Plains
QLD 4113, Australia
Query!
Country [2]
302647
0
Australia
Query!
Primary sponsor type
University
Query!
Name
University of Queensland
Query!
Address
Faculty of Medicine
The University of Queensland,
Level 8, Health Sciences Building
Building 16/901, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital
Herston Qld 4029, Australia
Query!
Country
Australia
Query!
Secondary sponsor category [1]
302564
0
None
Query!
Name [1]
302564
0
None
Query!
Address [1]
302564
0
Query!
Country [1]
302564
0
Query!
Other collaborator category [1]
280660
0
Individual
Query!
Name [1]
280660
0
Dr Kristen Anderson
Query!
Address [1]
280660
0
Faculty of Medicine
The University of Queensland
Level 8, Health Sciences Building
Building 16/901, Royal Brisbane & Women's Hospital
Herston
QLD 4029, Australia
Query!
Country [1]
280660
0
Australia
Query!
Other collaborator category [2]
280661
0
Individual
Query!
Name [2]
280661
0
A/Prof Ian Scott
Query!
Address [2]
280661
0
Department of Internal Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology
Princess Alexandra Hospital
199 Ipswich Rd
Woolloongabba
QLD 4102, Australia
Query!
Country [2]
280661
0
Australia
Query!
Other collaborator category [3]
280662
0
Individual
Query!
Name [3]
280662
0
Dr Christopher Freeman
Query!
Address [3]
280662
0
School of Pharmacy
The University of Queensland
20 Cornwall St,
Woolloongabba
QLD 4102, Australia
Query!
Country [3]
280662
0
Australia
Query!
Other collaborator category [4]
280663
0
Individual
Query!
Name [4]
280663
0
Prof Michele Foster
Query!
Address [4]
280663
0
The Hopkins Centre, Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Griffith University
Division of Rehabilitation
Princess Alexandra Hospital
199 Ipswich Road
Woolloongabba
QLD 4102, Australia
Query!
Country [4]
280663
0
Australia
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Approved
Query!
Ethics committee name [1]
303272
0
University of Queensland’s Human Research Ethics Committee,
Query!
Ethics committee address [1]
303272
0
The University of Queensland
Cumbrae-Stewart Building
Research Road
Brisbane
QLD 4072
Australia
Query!
Ethics committee country [1]
303272
0
Australia
Query!
Date submitted for ethics approval [1]
303272
0
09/01/2015
Query!
Approval date [1]
303272
0
04/05/2015
Query!
Ethics approval number [1]
303272
0
2015000044.
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
There is an urgent and growing need to minimise iatrogenic harm from potentially inappropriate polypharmacy (PIP) in ageing populations with multimorbidity. ‘Deprescribing’ aims to minimise PIP. It is the process of clinician-supervised identification and withdrawal (or dose reduction) of medicines where the harms exceed the benefits in the context of an individual patient’s care goals, current function, life expectancy, values and preferences.
General practitioners (GPs), with tacit knowledge of, and an ongoing relationship with, their patients, play a central role in coordinating and delivering healthcare to older patients who are prescribed medicines for multiple health conditions. Research suggests that patients are receptive to discontinuing medicines if their general practitioner feels it is appropriate and worthwhile.
This study aimed to assess the feasibility, effectiveness and safety of a multi-faceted GP-led intervention to minimise PIP in community-living older Australians. Unlike most other deprescribing studies, this intervention leveraged the existing therapeutic relationship between GPs and their usual patients and used an individually-tailored versus a drug class-specific approach to deprescribing. Recognising the time constraints for GPs in routine care and the potential facilitative role of pharmacists in deprescribing, GPs had the option of referring patients to one of the participating pharmacists for a Home Medicines Review to augment the deprescribing process in this study.
Query!
Trial website
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Query!
Public notes
Please note that publication of this study is forthcoming, after which more detailed results will be provided.
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
93086
0
Dr Kristen Anderson
Query!
Address
93086
0
School of Pharmacy
University of Queensland
20 Cornwall St
Woolloongabba
QLD 4102 Australia
Query!
Country
93086
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
93086
0
+61 07 3346 1900
Query!
Fax
93086
0
Query!
Email
93086
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
93087
0
Dr Kristen Anderson
Query!
Address
93087
0
School of Pharmacy
University of Queensland
20 Cornwall St
Woolloongabba
QLD 4102 Australia
Query!
Country
93087
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
93087
0
+61 07 3346 1900
Query!
Fax
93087
0
Query!
Email
93087
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
Name
93088
0
Dr Kristen Anderson
Query!
Address
93088
0
School of Pharmacy
University of Queensland
20 Cornwall St
Woolloongabba
QLD 4102 Australia
Query!
Country
93088
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
93088
0
+61 07 3346 1900
Query!
Fax
93088
0
Query!
Email
93088
0
[email protected]
Query!
Data sharing statement
Will individual participant data (IPD) for this trial be available (including data dictionaries)?
No
Query!
No/undecided IPD sharing reason/comment
The ethics application for this study was silent on the issue of sharing individual patient data (IPD) for other research projects. Data may be able to be provided, pending submission and approval of an amendment to the existing ethics application, but IPD is not available to be shared presently.
Query!
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Doc. No.
Type
Citation
Link
Email
Other Details
Attachment
2033
Other
Form for reporting actual/suspected adverse event ...
[
More Details
]
377507-(Uploaded-09-05-2019-07-15-57)-Study-related document.docx
Results publications and other study-related documents
Documents added manually
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.
Documents added automatically
Source
Title
Year of Publication
DOI
Embase
GP-Led Deprescribing in Community-Living Older Australians: An Exploratory Controlled Trial.
2020
https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jgs.16273
N.B. These documents automatically identified may not have been verified by the study sponsor.
Download to PDF