Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Older people consume medicines in large quantities and many initiatives aim at reducing this drug load often called polypharmacy in this population. Given the fact that polypharmacy often leads to inappropriate prescribing and drug-related problems, various instruments have been developed to identify potentially inappropriate medications (PIM), such as the well-known and frequently updated Beers list [1] or other negative lists (e.g., STOPP, Hong Kong-specific criteria [2, 3]). They indicate what an older person should NOT be prescribed or should be stopped if already prescribed. Consequently, such PIM lists should support the approach that became famous as “deprescribing” [4]. This term has gained such popularity that it appears as a fashionable catchword to mark one of the most important areas of geriatric medicine. The recent Athens EuGMS congress (October 11–13 2021) addressed deprescribing in several lectures [3, 4].
Deprescribing studies do not really show what is the ultimate goal of patient studies, a robust improvement of clinical end points that seems highly desirable, as outcomes are quite negatively associated with polypharmacy, including functional assessments and mortality [5, 6]. This does not come as a surprise, as randomized controlled trials (RCT) on PIM lists largely failed regarding clinical outcomes [7]. In the systematic review of listing tools to improve medication in older people, another approach was also investigated, namely listing approaches that do not only identify overtreatment by PIM, but also positively label drugs or actions on drugs that may have been omitted (potentially omitted drugs POM). The two main lists—FORTA and START/STOPP—showed clinical benefits in RCTs and therefore clearly showed that deprescribing by itself is not always sufficient to improve an older patient’s clinical status. To mark the main difference between these and PIM lists, a crucial property of FORTA and START/STOPP was used for differentiation: PIM lists may be applied without knowing the patients’ characteristics, medical needs and personal preferences, but the medication scheme is all you need for their application. These lists were given the acronym DOLA (drug-oriented listing approach), as opposed to those POM/PIM positive–negative lists that may only be meaningfully applied if all this information is available, named PILA (patient-initiated listing approach).
The only PILA that is a mere drug list is FORTA, whereas START/STOPP addressed both action points (short excerpts from guideline actions) and drugs.
Such lists thus do not only lead to deprescribing of PIM, but also address the treatable needs of a patient and thus lead to new prescriptions if POM are identified. In the main RCT on FORTA, the VALFORTA-trial [8], the numbers of PIM and POM were almost equal at about three per patient; thus, the total number of eight drugs per patient and therefore the status of polypharmacy did not change. What a disappointment—no reduction of total drug load, but patients experienced clinical improvements, and less side effects, better Barthel index and more. At the 2016 EuGMS meeting, one of the authors of this editorial (MW) therefore coined the term represcribing as being more appropriate to address medication problems in older patients; they do have chances to receive positively labelled drugs for certain diseases (the FORTA list contains about 40% of positive labels), and they have all ethical and legal rights to have such treatments prescribed. Even a computer algorithm could identify undertreatment of pain as the most prevalent POM problem [9]. Furthermore, undertreatment (POM) has been linked to increased mortality rather than overtreatment [10]; though this association study should be corroborated by a RCT in the future, undertreatment at least appears to be an equally important issue compared to overtreatment (PIM).
However, these POM/PIM recommendations have to be implemented and realized in practice to gain positive clinical impact. Even the START/STOPP criteria failed in two larger trials (SENATOR, OPERAM [11, 12]) as PIM/POM recommendations were ineffectively transformed into clinical practice: in the latter study only 0.93 STOPP and—even worse—only 0.22 START recommendations per patient were realized in the end. No wonder that even a preferable PILA did not work, given this insufficient impact on prescription, in particular on starting POM prescriptions.
The older and also these very recent findings on clinical impact of listing approaches underline that deprescribing is only half the story—we should really start thinking a more appropriate novel term to cover the entire story, namely represcribing—appropriate drugs in, inappropriate drugs out. Clearly, in a patient on 25 medications, detoxification (inappropriate drugs out) would presumably be prevalent, but in average older people seem to have as many inappropriate drugs as they are missing the appropriate ones.
To better cope with these two sides of the coin, represcribing might be considered as the new catchword, that is “desprescribing 2.0” if you wish. The new catchword should facilitate ambitions to scientifically and clinically address both the main aspects of drug treatment for the sake of older patients—over- and undertreatment.
References
American Geriatrics Society (2019) Updated AGS Beers Criteria® for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2019(67):674–694
O’Mahony D, O’Sullivan D, Byrne S et al (2015) STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2. Age Ageing 44:213–218
Zhang H, Wong ELY, Wong SYS, Chau PYK, Yip BHK, Chung RYN, Lee EKP, Lai FTT, Yeoh EK (2021) Comparison of adaptive versions of the Hong Kong-specific criteria and 2015 Beers criteria for assessing potentially inappropriate medication use in Hong Kong older patients. BMC Geriatr 21(1):379
Barnett N, Garfinkel D (2018) Deprescribing one year on: challenging the first iatrogenic epidemic. Eur J Hosp Pharm 25(2):63–64
Morley JE (2014) Inappropriate drug prescribing and polypharmacy are major causes of poor outcomes in long-term care. J Am Med Dir Assoc 15:780–782
Leelakanok N, Holcombe AL, Lund BC et al (2017) Association between polypharmacy and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Pharm Assoc 57:729–738
Pazan F, Kather J, Wehling M (2019) A systematic review and novel classification of listing tools to improve medication in older people. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 75(5):619–625
Wehling M, Burkhardt H, Kuhn-Thiel A et al (2016) VALFORTA: a randomised trial to validate the FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged) classification. Age Ageing 45:262–267
Rabenberg A, Schulte T, Hildebrandt H, Wehling M (2019) The FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged)-EPI (epidemiological) algorithm: application of an information technology tool for the epidemiological assessment of drug treatment in older people. Drugs Aging 36(10):969–978
Wauters M, Elseviers M, Vaes B, Degryse J, Dalleur O, Vander Stichele R, Christiaens T, Azermai M (2016) Too many, too few, or too unsafe? Impact of inappropriate prescribing on mortality, and hospitalization in a cohort of community-dwelling oldest old. Br J Clin Pharmacol 82(5):1382–1392
O’Mahony D, Gudmundsson A, Soiza RL, Petrovic M, Jose-Cruz-Jentoft A, Cherubini A, Fordham R, Byrne S, Dahly D, Gallagher P, Lavan A, Curtin D, Dalton K, Cullinan S, Flanagan E, Shiely F, Samuelsson O, Sverrisdottir A, Subbarayan S, Vandaele L, Meireson E, Montero-Errasquin B, Rexach-Cano A, Correa Perez A, Lozano-Montoya I, Vélez-Díaz-Pallarés M, Cerenzia A, Corradi S, Soledad-Cotorruelo-Ferreiro M, Dimitri F, Marinelli P, Martelli G, Fong-Soe-Khioe R, Eustace J (2020) Prevention of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized older patients with multi-morbidity and polypharmacy: the SENATOR randomized controlled clinical trial. Age Ageing 49(4):605–614
Blum MR, Sallevelt BTGM, Spinewine A, Omahony D, Moutzouri E, Feller M, Baumgartner C, Roumet M, Jungo KT, Schwab N, Bretagne L, Beglinger S, Aubert CE, Wilting I, Thevelin S, Murphy K, Huibers CJA, Drenth-van-Maanen AC, Boland B, Crowley E, Eichenberger A, Meulendijk M, Jennings E, Adam L, Roos MJ, Gleeson L, Shen Z, Marien S, Meinders AJ, Baretella O, Netzer S, de Montmollin M, Fournier A, Mouzon A, Omahony C, Aujesky D, Mavridis D, Byrne S, Jansen PAF, Schwenkglenks M, Spruit M, Dalleur O, Knol W, Trelle S, Rodondi N (2021) Optimizing therapy to prevent avoidable hospital admissions in multimorbid older adults (OPERAM): cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ 374:n1585
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
MW was employed by AstraZeneca R&D, Mölndal, as director of discovery medicine (translational medicine) from 2003 to 2006, while on sabbatical leave from his professorship at the University of Heidelberg. Since returning to this position in January 2007, he has received lecturing and consulting fees from Sanofi-Aventis, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Aspen, Novartis, Takeda, Roche, Pfizer, Heel, Bristol-Myers, Daichii-Sankyo, Santhera, Lilly, Otsuka, Novo-Nordisk, Shire and LEO Pharma. MP has no conflicts of interest to declare.
Ethical approval
Not applicable, no study.
Informed consent
Not applicable, no study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Wehling, M., Petrovic, M. Deprescribing or represcribing: not just a semantic dilemma. Eur Geriatr Med 13, 529–530 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-021-00583-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41999-021-00583-4