Team approach to polypharmacy evaluation and reduction: feasibility randomized trial of a structured clinical pathway to reduce polypharmacy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Polypharmacy is associated with poorer health outcomes in older adults. Other than the associated multimorbidity, factors contributing to this association could include medication adverse effects and interactions, difficulties in managing complicated medication regimes, and reduced medication adherence. It is unknown how reversible these negative associations may be if polypharmacy is reduced. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of implementing an operationalized clinical pathway aimed to reduce polypharmacy in primary care and to pilot measurement tools suitable for assessing change in health outcomes in a larger randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS: We randomized consenting patients ≥ 70 years old on ≥ 5 long-term medications into intervention or control groups. We collected baseline demographic information and research outcome measures at baseline and 6 months. We assessed four categories of feasibility outcomes: process, resource, management, and scientific. The intervention group received TAPER (team approach to polypharmacy evaluation and reduction), a clinical pathway for reducing polypharmacy using "pause and monitor" drug holiday approach. TAPER integrates patients' goals, priorities, and preferences with an evidence-based "machine screen" to identify potentially problematic medications and support a tapering and monitoring process, all supported by a web-based system, TaperMD. Patients met with a clinical pharmacist and then with their family physician to finalize a plan for optimization of medications using TaperMD. The control group received usual care and were offered TAPER after follow-up at 6 months. RESULTS: All 9 criteria for feasibility were met across the 4 feasibility outcome domains. Of 85 patients screened for eligibility, 39 eligible patients were recruited and randomized; two were excluded post hoc for not meeting the age requirement. Withdrawals (2) and losses to follow-up (3) were small and evenly distributed between arms. Areas for intervention and research process improvement were identified. In general, outcome measures performed well and appeared suitable for assessing change in a larger RCT. CONCLUSIONS: Results from this feasibility study indicate that TAPER as a clinical pathway is feasible to implement in a primary care team setting and in an RCT research framework. Outcome trends suggest effectiveness. A large-scale RCT will be conducted to investigate the effectiveness of TAPER on reducing polypharmacy and improving health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT02562352 , Registered September 29, 2015.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".