Development of a Core Outcome Set for effectiveness trials aimed at optimising prescribing in older adults in care homes

Background: Prescribing medicines for older adults in care homes is known to be sub-optimal. Whilst trials testing interventions to optimise prescribing in this setting have been published, heterogeneity in outcome reporting has hindered comparison of interventions, thus limiting evidence synthesis. The aim of this study was to develop a core outcome set (COS), a list of outcomes which should be measured and reported, as a minimum, for all effectiveness trials involving optimising prescribing in care homes. The COS was developed as part of the Care Homes Independent Pharmacist Prescribing Study (CHIPPS). Methods: A long-list of outcomes was identified through a review of published literature and stakeholder input. Outcomes were reviewed and refined prior to entering a two-round online Delphi exercise and then distributed via a web link to the CHIPPS Management Team, a multidisciplinary team including pharmacists, doctors and Patient Public Involvement representatives (amongst others), who comprised the Delphi panel. The Delphi panellists (n = 19) rated the importance of outcomes on a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (critically important). Consensus for an outcome being included in the COS was defined as ≥70% participants scoring 7–9 and <15% scoring 1–3. Exclusion was defined as ≥70% scoring 1–3 and <15% 7–9. Individual and group scores were fed back to participants alongside the second questionnaire round, which included outcomes for which no consensus had been achieved. Results: A long-list of 63 potential outcomes was identified. Refinement of this long-list of outcomes resulted in 29 outcomes, which were included in the Delphi questionnaire (round 1). Following both rounds of the Delphi exercise, 13 outcomes (organised into seven overarching domains: medication appropriateness, adverse drug events, prescribing errors, falls, quality of life, all-cause mortality and admissions to hospital (and associated costs)) met the criteria for inclusion in the final COS. Conclusions: We have developed a COS for effectiveness trials aimed at optimising prescribing in older adults in care homes using robust methodology. Widespread adoption of this COS will facilitate evidence synthesis between trials. Future work should focus on evaluating appropriate tools for these key outcomes to further reduce heterogeneity in outcome measurement in this context

Anticholinergic drug burden tools/scales and adverse outcomes in different clinical settings: a systematic review of reviews

Background: Cumulative anticholinergic exposure (anticholinergic burden) has been linked to a number of adverse outcomes. To conduct research in this area, an agreed approach to describing anticholinergic burden is needed. Objective: This review set out to identify anticholinergic burden scales, to describe their rationale, the settings in which they have been used and the outcomes associated with them. Methods: A search was performed using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to October 2016 to identify systematic reviews describing anticholinergic burden scales or tools. Abstracts and titles were reviewed to determine eligibility for review with eligible articles read in full. The final selection of reviews was critically appraised using the ROBIS tool and pre-defined data were extracted; the primary data of interest were the anticholinergic burden scales or tools used. Results: Five reviews were identified for analysis containing a total of 62 original articles. Eighteen anticholinergic burden scales or tools were identified with variation in their derivation, content and how they quantified the anticholinergic activity of medications. The Drug Burden Index was the most commonly used scale or tool in community and database studies, while the Anticholinergic Risk Scale was used more frequently in care homes and hospital settings. The association between anticholinergic burden and clinical outcomes varied by index and study. Falls and hospitalisation were consistently found to be associated with anticholinergic burden. Mortality, delirium, physical function and cognition were not consistently associated. Conclusions: Anticholinergic burden scales vary in their rationale, use and association with outcomes. This review showed that the concept of anticholinergic burden has been variably defined and inconsistently described using a number of indices with different content and scoring. The association between adverse outcomes and anticholinergic burden varies between scores and has not been conclusively established