Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Wiley Open Access Collection logoLink to Wiley Open Access Collection
. 2025 May 7;73(9):2905–2913. doi: 10.1111/jgs.19512

Deprescribing Benzodiazepine Receptor Agonists in Older Adults and People With Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review

Aisling M McEvoy 1,✉, Aili V Langford 1,2, Shin J Liau 1, Darshna Goordeen 1, Emily Reeve 1,3, Justin P Turner 1,4,✉
PMCID: PMC12460949  PMID: 40342014

ABSTRACT

Background

Benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRAs) (benzodiazepines and z‐drugs) may provide limited benefits in the management of insomnia when used short‐term. However, they increase the risk of harms including falls, fractures, hospitalizations, and cognitive impairment. Deprescribing (cessation) of BZRAs may be beneficial for older adults and people living with cognitive impairment as they are at heightened risk of adverse events. This review investigated the effects of patient‐directed, non‐pharmacological interventions to support deprescribing of BZRAs used for insomnia in older adults and people living with cognitive impairment.

Methods

Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Medline were searched in January 2024 with no publication date restrictions. Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments (ROB2 for randomized studies, ROBINS‐I for non‐randomized studies) were conducted independently by two authors. Outcomes of interest included the proportion of participants who ceased BZRAs, reduction in BZRAs, switching to another medication, sleep outcomes, and clinical outcomes. Studies were included if they investigated BZRA deprescribing in older adults (≥ 65 years) or people living with cognitive impairment.

Results

Seventeen reports analyzing 16 studies in hospital, community, and aged care settings were included. BZRA cessation rates ranged between 23% to 72% for written education (n = 6); 14% to 57% for combined written and verbal education (n = 5); and 9% to 100% for multi‐component interventions (n = 6). One report investigated a BZRA deprescribing educational intervention in people with cognitive impairment and found comparable effectiveness to participants without cognitive impairment. Most studies were at a high risk of bias.

Conclusions

Patient‐directed interventions led to BZRA cessation, although there was significant variability between studies. It is unknown if all interventions examined are similarly effective for people living with cognitive impairment. Further research investigating approaches to deprescribing BZRAs in older adults or people with cognitive impairment is required.

Keywords: aged, benzodiazepines, cognitive dysfunction, deprescriptions, sleep disorders

Summary.

  • Key points
    • ○
      Most non‐pharmacological interventions to encourage patients to deprescribe BZRAs were centered around education, with cessation rates ranging from 14% to 72%.
    • ○
      Multi‐component interventions were the second‐most common intervention, with deprescribing success ranging from 9% to 100%.
    • ○
      One post hoc analysis found similar deprescribing rates following the provision of written education to people with and without cognitive impairment.
  • Why does this paper matter?
    • ○
      Benzodiazepine receptor agonists have an unfavorable balance of benefit to risk, placing older adults and people living with cognitive impairment at a higher risk of adverse events.
    • ○
      Non‐pharmacological interventions, including education alone and multi‐component interventions, can support patients to deprescribe benzodiazepine receptor agonists in practice.
    • ○
      Written education appears to be equally effective in people with cognitive impairment as in older adults; however, intervention success can vary depending on the setting.

1. Introduction

Benzodiazepine receptor agonists (BZRAs), a class of medications comprising benzodiazepines and z‐drugs, are commonly used to manage insomnia and anxiety. Although BZRAs can provide benefits in insomnia management for some individuals in the short term, their use is associated with adverse events including falls, fractures, and hospitalizations [1, 2]. These adverse effects can be especially pronounced in older adults, with potential harms outweighing the benefit, resulting in their classification as “potentially inappropriate medications” by the American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria 2023 [2]. Despite this, approximately 7%–17% of older adults in the USA and Australia are reported to receive at least one BZRA within a year [3].

Sleep disturbances are common in older adults, with 30%–48% reporting insomnia each year [4]. Furthermore, sleep disturbance is a common symptom of dementia that can cause distress to both the person living with dementia and their carer(s) [5]. A 2023 systematic review and meta‐analysis found 26% of community‐dwelling people living with dementia experienced symptoms of sleep disturbance [6]. BZRA use has been associated with cognitive impairment, especially processing speed [7, 8, 9]. The association between BZRA use and dementia remains unclear and is a subject of ongoing debate [10]. Yet, the prevalence of BZRA use in people living with dementia is higher than that in those without. An estimated 12%–45% of people living with dementia in the community, and 40% in nursing homes are prescribed BZRAs [11, 12].

Providing safe and effective methods for promoting sleep in older adults and people with cognitive impairment may reduce the need for BZRAs. Two recent reviews found that non‐pharmacological interventions such as meditation, exercise, aromatherapy, and acupuncture were effective at improving sleep in people with and without cognitive impairment [13, 14]. However, while these interventions improved sleep outcomes, the reviews did not assess if the non‐pharmacological interventions produced reductions in BZRA use.

Deprescribing is “the process of withdrawal of an inappropriate medication, supervised by a health professional with the goal of managing polypharmacy and improving outcomes.” [15] Benefits of deprescribing may include reduced pill burden, reduction in adverse events, and reduced cost to both the patient and healthcare system [16, 17, 18]. Given the high prevalence of BZRA use in older adults and people living with dementia, there is a need for safe and effective BZRA deprescribing interventions in clinical practice. However, key barriers to deprescribing BZRAs is the concern from both clinicians and patients that conditions may be left untreated or symptoms may re‐emerge [19, 20, 21]. Evidence‐based, non‐pharmacological interventions to assist with sleep in lieu of BZRA use are required [22]. Most previous systematic reviews focused on deprescribing BZRAs in older adults are now out of date, and included a variety of different intervention types (reducing the ability to identify the success of patient‐directed interventions specifically). No previous systematic reviews have focused on people living with cognitive impairment or dementia. This is an important gap because people living with dementia are often an understudied population. Establishing the effectiveness of non‐pharmacological interventions in older adults may inform future research and implementation of targeted strategies to reduce BZRA use in this priority population. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to investigate the effectiveness of patient‐directed, non‐pharmacological interventions to support deprescribing of BZRAs for insomnia in older adults and people with cognitive impairment.

2. Methods

The reporting of this systematic review was guided by the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) statement [23]. The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024508673). Deviations from the protocol are reported and justified in Supporting Information S1.

2.1. Search Strategy

Searches were executed in Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Scopus, and Medline from inception to January 4th, 2024. Key terms associated with older adults, cognitive impairment and dementia, deprescribing, and BZRAs were used. The full search strategies are available in Supporting Information S2. Backward citation searching of reference lists was conducted to identify additional articles [24]. A health sciences librarian supported the search strategy.

This systematic review included studies that investigated patient‐directed, non‐pharmacological interventions to deprescribe BZRAs in two different populations: older adults and people living with dementia or mild cognitive impairment. For this review, deprescribing was defined as the complete cessation of BZRAs. Patient‐directed interventions were defined as interventions delivered specifically to patients (e.g., provision of written educational information to patients or carers). Multi‐component interventions that targeted other individuals (e.g., health care provider education, alerts) were also included if one or more patient‐directed intervention components could be identified.

2.2. Study Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were included if they were original, full‐text research articles (including randomized controlled trials and non‐randomized studies) published in English that evaluated interventions to support BZRA deprescribing. Studies were excluded if they stated BZRAs were not used for insomnia (e.g., epilepsy, alcohol withdrawal), and included if BZRAs could be used for insomnia and co‐morbid conditions (e.g., anxiety). Eligible studies comprised populations where the majority of participants were aged 65 years or over, or at least 50% of the population (of any age) had dementia or cognitive impairment.

The included deviations from the protocol can be seen in Supporting Information S1.

2.3. Study Selection and Data Extraction

All records were imported into Covidence and duplicates were automatically removed. Titles and abstracts, followed by full texts, were screened independently by two researchers (A.M.M. and A.V.L. or D.G.). Conflicts were discussed in person and resolved by a senior author (J.P.T. or E.R.) when needed. Two researchers (A.M.M. and S.J.L.) completed data extraction independently, and any conflicts were resolved via discussion with a third author (J.P.T.). Data extracted included: study details; descriptions of intervention(s) and comparator(s); BZRA classes targeted (benzodiazepines or Z‐drugs); proportion of participants ceasing BZRAs at follow‐up; and other changes in medications (dose reductions and substitute medications used to replace BZRAs), sleep, and clinical outcomes.

2.4. Quality Assessment

Risk of bias assessments were conducted for each of the included studies by two authors (A.M.M. and S.J.L. or A.V.L.). The Cochrane risk‐of‐bias tool for randomized trials (ROB2) was used for randomized controlled trials, and risk of bias in non‐randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS‐I) was used for non‐randomized studies [25, 26].

2.5. Analysis

Reports were grouped according to the type of non‐pharmacological intervention that was delivered and the population (older adults or people with dementia/cognitive impairment/mild cognitive impairment). A narrative synthesis was conducted.

3. Results

A total of 9803 records were retrieved, and 603 progressed to full‐text screening (Figure 1). Seventeen reports on 16 studies were included; 16 reports examined BZRA deprescribing in older adults, and one investigated the impact of mild cognitive impairment (this was a post hoc analysis of one of the 16 included studies). No studies examined people living with dementia.

FIGURE 1.

FIGURE 1

Open in a new tab

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram of literature search and study selection.

The majority of included studies were conducted in North America (n = 8, 47%), Europe (n = 3, 18%), and Australia (n = 3, 18%). Across all studies, 1245 participants received a patient‐directed BZRA deprescribing intervention, with intervention group sample sizes ranging from 10 to 209; and mean ages of the intervention groups ranging from 65 to 83 years old. Ten (59%) studies investigated deprescribing benzodiazepines only [27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36]; one (6%) z‐drugs [37]; and six (35%) both [38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43]. The average number of total medications taken by participants was reported in seven studies ranging from 5 to 10 per day [29, 30, 33, 35, 38, 40, 41]. Common co‐morbidities were type‐2 diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic kidney disease, and congestive heart failure [29, 31, 37, 39]. Three studies reported on participants who restarted BZRAs; this ranged from 19% to 47% [29, 33, 39]. In 12 studies, the intervention involved multiple follow‐ups with the participants, while five studies were one‐off interventions (such as a mailed letter). Interventions were grouped into two categories: education or multi‐component (when multiple interventional strategies were employed). The definitions for each category, study characteristics, and findings are presented in Supporting Information S3.

3.1. Educational Interventions

Eleven studies examined educational interventions, which were further divided into the following sub‐groups: written education or a combination of written and verbal information.

Four studies and one post hoc analysis used EMPOWER (Eliminating Medicines Through Patient Ownership of End Results) brochures, all of which led to significant reductions in BZRA use in participants in the intervention (13%–72%) compared to the comparator groups (5%–21%) between 1‐ and 6‐month follow‐up [28, 29, 30, 38, 39]. The original EMPOWER trial resulted in a 27% absolute cessation rate, and an additional 11% reduced their BZRA dose at 6‐month follow‐up [29]. A post hoc analysis of this study investigated the efficacy of the intervention in people with mild cognitive impairment compared to people without cognitive impairment [28]. This was the only eligible study to have investigated this population. The analysis found there was no significant difference between BZRA cessation rates in people with cognitive impairment and those without at 6‐month follow‐up (32% vs. 27%, respectively; multivariable odds ratio was 0.79 [95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0.45–1.38]) [28]. Two studies provided EMPOWER brochures in hospitals and followed up after 1 month. One reported a 72% cessation rate and the other 47%, both at 1‐month follow‐up [30, 39]. In another study where pharmacists provided patients with the EMPOWER brochure and faxed deprescribing information to the patient's GP, the 6‐month cessation rate was 43% [38]. Only one study using the EMPOWER brochure reported on sleep outcomes, which noted that self‐reported sleep disturbance was no worse at 30‐day follow‐up than it was pre‐hospitalization in the intervention group [39]. No other clinical outcomes were reported in these studies.

One study used a letter written by the patients' GP with and without additional information sheets as the intervention [27]. This study reported a 23% cessation rate at 6 months for arm 1 (received a letter from their GP asking that BZRA use be gradually reduced and stopped) and 14% for arm 2 (received the same letter, and four information sheets at monthly intervals). The cessation rate was 6% for the comparator (arm 3, usual care). The study was implemented in general practices in the UK [27]. In addition to cessation rates, it was noted that 37%–49% of the intervention arms in this study were able to reduce their BZRA consumption by ≥ 50%.

Written and verbal information was provided together in five studies. Two studies compared differences in effectiveness between two different intervention arms: mailed written education alone, compared to mailed written education with verbal education provided by a pharmacist phone call [31, 37]. Both intervention arms generated significant reductions in BZRA use compared to usual care (Kuntz et al. written education only = 56%, written and verbal education = 55%, usual care = 26% [37]; Navy et al. written education only = 14%, written and verbal education = 17%, usual care = 8% [31]). There was no significant difference in cessation rate between the two active arms (adjusted odds ratio = 4.02, 95% CI = 1.66–9.77 [37] and P < 0.001 [31]). Another study compared receipt of verbal information to hospitalized patients from the study investigators and a letter to the patient's GP (sent by the study investigators) requesting cessation of BZRAs (arm one), with the same education plus additional written information to the patient about sleep hygiene and instructions for tapering (arm two) [40]. The latter arm was more successful, with 27% ceasing BZRAs at the 3‐month follow‐up compared to 15% of those in the first intervention arm. Two additional studies provided both verbal and written information to patients advising them to cease their BZRAs along with further deprescribing instructions [32, 41]. These studies found that 22% and 57% of the intervention groups achieved cessation at follow‐up at 2.5 and 2 months, respectively. Two studies noted an improvement in sleep quality in the intervention group following BZRA cessation [32, 40].

3.2. Multi‐Component

Six studies investigated the results of using multiple synergistic patient‐directed interventions. In addition to written and/or verbal education, the multi‐component interventions in three studies involved a patient‐directed psychological element. Examples include a counseling session or relaxation training [34, 35, 36]. Deprescribing success in these three studies ranged from 35% to 100% at different follow‐up intervals, ranging from 2 weeks to 12 months. Two other multi‐component studies included patient education with medication reviews and resulted in 9% and 30% cessation rates at 12‐ and 9‐month follow‐up, respectively [42, 43]. These multicomponent interventions had mixed clinical outcomes. One study conducted in a hospital reported that 45% of the participants in the intervention group reported experiencing worsening anxiety [34]. Conversely, a study in aged care facilities noted an improvement in emotional responsiveness in those that were able to cease their BZRA [35].

One study of the six investigated the impact of adding exercise to a structured BZRA tapering intervention in community‐dwelling older adults [33]. Participants were expected to exercise for 30 min three times a week (with a focus on muscle building and balance training) and to walk twice a week (duration not noted). More participants in the exercise and tapering group achieved cessation at 1‐month follow‐up (38%) compared to those who received tapering alone (33%). The sample size was small (n = 24), and the difference was not statistically significant.

3.3. Quality Assessment

Most randomized control trials (n = 5, 50%) were at high risk of bias. The selective reporting of the reported results (domain five) contributed most to this high risk of bias (Figure 2). The remaining seven studies evaluated using ROBINS‐I were also deemed to be at a high risk of bias due to confounding bias and bias in the measurement of outcomes (Figure 3).

FIGURE 2.

FIGURE 2

Open in a new tab

Risk of bias 2 (ROB2) analysis.

FIGURE 3.

FIGURE 3

Open in a new tab

Risk of bias in non‐randomized studies of interventions (ROBINS‐I) analysis.

4. Discussion

Sixteen studies that aimed to deprescribe BZRAs in older adults were identified, and one additional report (a post hoc analysis of one of the included studies) investigated deprescribing BZRAs in people with cognitive impairment. A range of patient‐directed interventions were tested, primarily written, and verbal education. All studies reported BZRA cessation following the intervention; however, the proportion of participants who stopped their BZRA varied widely. Some studies reported a significant difference between the intervention and control groups, and others did not. This may be due to the high levels of heterogeneity in study designs, interventions, settings, sample sizes, and participant demographics.

Earlier systematic reviews of BZRA deprescribing in older adults without cognitive impairment found similar results, with education forming a large portion of trialed interventions [44, 45, 46, 47]. Our systematic review builds on the work of previous systematic reviews by investigating differences in success between written and verbal interventions, with both showing similar effectiveness. Written education alone had a deprescribing success rate of 13%–72%, while combined written and verbal education achieved deprescribing rates of 14%–57%. Furthermore, this review found that the provision of written patient education was equally effective in people with and without mild cognitive impairment. A 2022 review noted that melatonin or paroxetine had been used as pharmacological replacements to support BZRA deprescribing [46]. Switching from one pharmacological therapy to another may not address the original problem that older adults are at increased risk of adverse events from pharmacological treatments. Additionally, the results of switching to other medications to assist with deprescribing were inconclusive, with non‐pharmacological approaches returning more consistent results [46].

Education was the sole intervention in most of the included studies. Studies investigating patients' and carers' attitudes towards deprescribing have noted a potential barrier is a perception of health professionals' abandonment, in addition to fears that symptoms will return [21, 48]. The EMPOWER brochure was designed to address this fear by providing participants with education about non‐pharmacological alternatives to BZRAs; this may be one reason for its success [29].

Clinical and sleep outcomes were not consistently reported in included studies, and for those that did include these outcomes, results varied. Some noted improvement, such as increased sleep satisfaction score and emotional responsiveness at follow‐up in the groups that deprescribed their BZRAs [32, 35, 40]. Other studies reported reduced sleep compared to control (less total sleep time) and the need to restart BZRAs due to withdrawal symptoms and increased anxiety [34, 36]. It is possible that deprescribing interventions may lead to short‐term discomfort (e.g., anxiety and worsened sleep) in some participants, but can produce long‐term benefits (e.g., reduced risk of adverse events). While some of the written information cautioned about the potential for adverse drug withdrawal events, little is known about how that information is understood by patients. Therefore, it is likely to be important for health professionals to discuss the possibility of sleep disturbance during BZRA deprescribing and ensure that there are supports to minimize these effects [49, 50]. Additionally, the language used by health professionals will likely influence the success of deprescribing attempts [51, 52]. For example, older adults have expressed a preference for knowing that they will be working with their health professional to deprescribe a medication and to be informed about the risk–benefit profiles of their medications [53]. Future deprescribing studies should examine clinical outcomes of importance (e.g., quality of life, reduced falls, changes in sleep quality, duration, and latency) beyond reduced medication use to enable shared decision‐making about BZRA continuation or discontinuation.

We only found one report investigating deprescribing in people with cognitive impairment, despite our research question and search strategy purposively targeting this population and people living with dementia [28]. This report included people with mild cognitive impairment, not people living with dementia. Equivalent rates of cessation between people with and without mild cognitive impairment were observed when provided with the EMPOWER brochure, demonstrating that people with mild cognitive impairment can successfully deprescribe BZRAs with the assistance of written education [29]. While there are ethical and logistical concerns when conducting research with people living with dementia, approaches to this research may include placing people living with dementia at the center of the consent process, involving the whole care team, personalized deprescribing approaches, and having a flexible consent approach [54]. There is currently insufficient evidence to determine if other interventions are effective in populations with mild cognitive impairment or people living with dementia. A 2024 study considered deprescribing of BZRAs, antipsychotics, and anticholinergic agents in people living with dementia using mailed education [55]. The findings indicated that the provided education did not result in statistically significant deprescribing results (cessation or dose reduction) of the target medications. Commentary on this trial has highlighted the need to involve patients, carers, and clinicians in shared decision‐making to ensure the acceptability of deprescribing interventions [56]. To identify best practice in deprescribing BZRAs in people living with dementia, further research should be conducted investigating how interventions could best be implemented with the assistance of the whole care team. Additionally, the role of technology in supporting patient‐directed deprescribing interventions should be explored (e.g., delivering the intervention via a mobile application, which has become increasingly common [57]).

Future research should consider the effect that context (i.e., settings such as hospitals or community pharmacies, or method of delivering the education) has on the success of deprescribing interventions. Additionally, the most effective content, language, and format of standardized information need to be explored to optimize shared decision‐making and informed consent across a spectrum of health literacy and cultural backgrounds.

4.1. Strengths and Limitations

This is the first review to focus on patient‐directed interventions for BZRAs and to consider BZRA deprescribing in people living with cognitive impairment or dementia. Strengths of this review included a comprehensive search that did not limit by country of publication or date and included all older adults and people living with cognitive impairment, with no exclusions based on residential status.

This review sought to identify standardized patient‐directed non‐pharmacological interventions written in English. Therefore, the receipt of information for individuals who do not speak English or come from different cultural backgrounds could not be synthesized in our study. The definition of patient‐directed interventions may have limited included studies. For example, studies that used medication reviews as the primary intervention were excluded because the patient was not the recipient of the primary intervention. While education may be provided to patients during medication reviews, it is not necessarily standardized or easily compared due to the individualization of advice. Therefore, where the study did not explicitly detail the patient‐directed component, they were excluded in this review. Seven studies (41%) included in this review were non‐randomized. This may have increased the risk of publication bias [26]. Some of the included studies may have a high risk of bias due to recruiting participants who were interested in changing their BZRA use. Methods used to identify BZRA reductions may introduce bias, with some studies using self‐reported measures while others measured prescription refill data. Gray literature was not searched for this systematic review, meaning some relevant studies may have been missed. Due to the heterogeneity in contexts and delivery of interventions, we did not conduct a meta‐analysis because it would likely have a wide confidence interval and would not provide support for clinical decision‐making.

5. Conclusion

This systematic review investigated the effectiveness of non‐pharmacological interventions to support deprescribing of BZRAs for insomnia in older adults and people with cognitive impairment. Educational and multi‐component interventions were used to encourage BZRA cessation. Providing education led to increased cessation rates compared to usual care. Safety (including withdrawal reactions and adverse events), sleep measures, and clinical results were not consistently reported. Limited studies have investigated patient‐centered approaches to deprescribing BZRAs in people with cognitive impairment. Research examining people living with dementia was lacking, and future research should investigate if interventions used to deprescribe BZRAs in older adults are also effective in people living with dementia.

Author Contributions

A.M.M., E.R., A.V.L., and J.P.T. contributed to the study concept and design. A.M.M., A.V.L., D.G., and S.J.L. completed data extraction. A.M.M. and S.J.L. completed data analysis and interpretation with assistance from J.P.T. and E.R. All authors contributed to the preparation of the manuscript. A Monash University health sciences librarian assisted in clarifying search terms and strategies.

Conflicts of Interest

Dr. Emily Reeve receives royalties from UpToDate for co‐authoring a chapter on deprescribing.

Linked Article

This publication is linked to a related editorial by Linsky and Zimmerman. To view this article, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19604. And it is also linked to a related Editor’s note by Joseph G. Ouslander. To view this article, visit https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.19588.

Supporting information

Supporting Information S1: Deviations from the protocol.

Supporting Information S2: Search strategy.

Supporting Information S3: Outcomes of interventions to deprescribe benzodiazepine receptor agonists.

JGS-73-2905-s001.pdf (276.3KB, pdf)

Acknowledgments

Open access publishing facilitated by Monash University, as part of the Wiley ‐ Monash University agreement via the Council of Australian University Librarians.

McEvoy A. M., Langford A. V., Liau S. J., Goordeen D., Reeve E., and Turner J. P., “Deprescribing Benzodiazepine Receptor Agonists in Older Adults and People With Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 73, no. 9 (2025): 2905–2913, 10.1111/jgs.19512.

Funding: There was no specific funding to conduct this review; however, Dr. Aili V. Langford and Dr. Emily Reeve are supported by National Health and Medical Research Council Investigator Grants (2025289, 1195460). Aisling M. McEvoy is supported by the Australian Rotary Health/Bartolina Peluso PhD Scholarship, funded by Rotary Club of Strathmore and Rotary Club of Camden.

Emily Reeve and Justin P. Turner are equal senior authors.

This work was accepted through a competitive process for presentation as a poster at the following international conference: Australasian Society of Clinical and Experimental Pharmacologists and Toxicologists (ASCEPT), Australian Pacific Federation of Pharmacologists (APFP), and Australasian Pharmaceutical Science Association (APSA) Joint Congress, December 1st to 4th, 2024, and Australian conferences: Australian Deprescribing Network (ADeN) Annual Meeting, December 6th, 2024 and the Parkville Postgraduate Association's Annual Higher Degree and Research Symposium, November 6th, 2024. These poster presentations have not been published.

Contributor Information

Aisling M. McEvoy, Email: ash.mcevoy@monash.edu.

Justin P. Turner, Email: justin.turner@monash.edu.

References

  • 1. Weymann D., Gladstone E. J., Smolina K., and Morgan S. G., “Long‐Term Sedative Use Among Community‐Dwelling Adults: A Population‐Based Analysis,” CMAJ Open 5, no. 1 (2017): E52–E60, 10.9778/cmajo.20160056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. 2023 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel , “American Geriatrics Society 2023 Updated Ags Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 71, no. 7 (2023): 2052–2081, 10.1111/jgs.18372. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Brett J., Maust D. T., Bouck Z., et al., “Benzodiazepine Use in Older Adults in the United States, Ontario, and Australia From 2010 to 2016,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 66, no. 6 (2018): 1180–1185, 10.1111/jgs.15292. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Patel D., Steinberg J., and Patel P., “Insomnia in the Elderly: A Review,” Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine 14, no. 6 (2018): 1017–1024, 10.5664/jcsm.7172. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Lee D. R. and Thomas A. J., “Sleep in Dementia and Caregiving – Assessment and Treatment Implications: A Review,” International Psychogeriatrics 23, no. 2 (2011): 190–201, 10.1017/S1041610210001894. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Koren T., Fisher E., Webster L., Livingston G., and Rapaport P., “Prevalence of Sleep Disturbances in People With Dementia Living in the Community: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis,” Ageing Research Reviews 83 (2023): 101782, 10.1016/j.arr.2022.101782. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Dujardin S., Pijpers A., and Pevernagie D., “Prescription Drugs Used in Insomnia,” Sleep Medicine Clinics 15, no. 2 (2020): 133–145, 10.1016/j.jsmc.2020.02.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Barker M. J., Greenwood K. M., Jackson M., and Crowe S. F., “Persistence of Cognitive Effects After Withdrawal From Long‐Term Benzodiazepine Use: A Meta‐Analysis,” Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology: The Official Journal of the National Academy of Neuropsychologists 19, no. 3 (2004): 437–454. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Zetsen S. P. G., Schellekens A. F. A., Paling E. P., Kan C. C., and Kessels R. P. C., “Cognitive Functioning in Long‐Term Benzodiazepine Users,” European Addiction Research 28, no. 5 (2022): 377–381, 10.1159/000525988. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Wu C. C., Liao M. H., Su C. H., Poly T. N., and Lin M. C., “Benzodiazepine Use and the Risk of Dementia in the Elderly Population: An Umbrella Review of Meta‐Analyses,” Journal of Personalized Medicine 13, no. 10 (2023): 1485, 10.3390/jpm13101485. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Rochon P. A., Vozoris N., and Gill S. S., “The Harms of Benzodiazepines for Patients With Dementia,” CMAJ 189, no. 14 (2017): E517–e518, 10.1503/cmaj.170193. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Rijksen D. O. C., Zuidema S. U., and de Haas E. C., “Use of Benzodiazepines and Z‐Drugs in Nursing Home Residents With Dementia: Prevalence and Appropriateness,” Journal of Alzheimer's Disease Reports 5, no. 1 (2021): 871–879, 10.3233/ADR-210041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Gu H. J. and Lee O. S., “Effects of Non‐Pharmacological Sleep Interventions in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 4 (2023): 3101, 10.3390/ijerph20043101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Wilfling D., Calo S., Dichter M. N., Meyer G., Möhler R., and Köpke S., “Non‐Pharmacological Interventions for Sleep Disturbances in People With Dementia,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 1, no. 1 (2023): CD011881, 10.1002/14651858.CD011881.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Reeve E., Gnjidic D., Long J., and Hilmer S., “A Systematic Review of the Emerging de Fi Nition of ‘Deprescribing’ With Network Analysis: Implications for Future Research and Clinical Practice,” British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 80, no. 6 (2015): 1254–1268, 10.1111/bcp.12732. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Reeve E., Shakib S., Hendrix I., Roberts M. S., and Wiese M. D., “The Benefits and Harms of Deprescribing,” Medical Journal of Australia 201, no. 7 (2014): 386–389, 10.5694/mja13.00200. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Turner J. P., Sanyal C., Martin P., and Tannenbaum C., “Economic Evaluation of Sedative Deprescribing in Older Adults by Community Pharmacists,” Journals of Gerontology Series A, Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 76, no. 6 (2021): 1061–1067, 10.1093/gerona/glaa180. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Sanyal C., Turner J. P., Martin P., and Tannenbaum C., “Cost‐Effectiveness of Pharmacist‐Led Deprescribing of Nsaids in Community‐Dwelling Older Adults,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 68, no. 5 (2020): 1090–1097, 10.1111/jgs.16388. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Kelley C. J., Niznik J. D., Ferreri S. P., et al., “Patient Perceptions of Opioids and Benzodiazepines and Attitudes Toward Deprescribing,” Drugs & Aging 40, no. 12 (2023): 1113–1122, 10.1007/s40266-023-01071-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Keller M. S., Carrascoza‐Bolanos J., Breda K., et al., “Identifying Barriers and Facilitators to Deprescribing Benzodiazepines and Sedative Hypnotics in the Hospital Setting Using the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour (Com‐B) Model: A Qualitative Study,” BMJ Open 13, no. 2 (2023): e066234, 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066234. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Evrard P., Damiaens A., Patey A. M., Grimshaw J. M., and Spinewine A., “Barriers and Enablers Towards Benzodiazepine‐Receptor Agonists Deprescribing in Nursing Homes: A Qualitative Study of Stakeholder Groups,” Exploratory Research in Clinical and Social Pharmacy 9 (2023): 9100258, 10.1016/j.rcsop.2023.100258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Riemann D., Baglioni C., Bassetti C., et al., “European Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Insomnia,” Journal of Sleep Research 26, no. 6 (2017): 675–700, 10.1111/jsr.12594. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. PRISMA , “Prisma 2020 Statement,” https://www.prisma‐statement.org/prisma‐2020‐statement.
  • 24. Hirt J., Nordhausen T., Fuerst T., Ewald H., and Appenzeller‐Herzog C., “Guidance on Terminology, Application, and Reporting of Citation Searching: The Tarcis Statement,” BMJ 385 (2024): e078384, 10.1136/bmj-2023-078384. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Sterne J. A. C., Hernán M. A., Reeves B. C., et al., “Robins‐I: A Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Non‐Randomised Studies of Interventions,” BMJ 355 (2016): i4919, 10.1136/bmj.i4919. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Sterne J. A. C., Savović J., Page M. J., et al., “Rob 2: A Revised Tool for Assessing Risk of Bias in Randomised Trials,” BMJ 366 (2019): l4898, 10.1136/bmj.l4898. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Cormack M. A., Sweeney K. G., Hughes‐Jones H., and Foot G. A., “Evaluation of an Easy, Cost‐Effective Strategy for Cutting Benzodiazepine Use in General Practice,” British Journal of General Practice 44, no. 378 (1994): 5–8. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Martin P. and Tannenbaum C., “Use of the Empower Brochure to Deprescribe Sedative‐Hypnotic Drugs in Older Adults With Mild Cognitive Impairment,” BMC Geriatrics 17, no. 1 (2017): 37, 10.1186/s12877-017-0432-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Tannenbaum C., Martin P., Tamblyn R., Benedetti A., and Ahmed S., “Reduction of Inappropriate Benzodiazepine Prescriptions Among Older Adults Through Direct Patient Education: The Empower Cluster Randomized Trial,” JAMA Internal Medicine 174, no. 6 (2014): 890–898, 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.949. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Gnjidic D., Ong H. M. M., Leung C., Jansen J., and Reeve E., “The Impact of in Hospital Patient‐Education Intervention on Older People's Attitudes and Intention to Have Their Benzodiazepines Deprescribed: A Feasibility Study,” Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety 10 (2019): 2042098618816562, 10.1177/2042098618816562. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Navy H. J., Weffald L., Delate T., Patel R. J., and Dugan J. P., “Clinical Pharmacist Intervention to Engage Older Adults in Reducing Use of Alprazolam,” Consultant Pharmacist 33, no. 12 (2018): 711–722, 10.4140/TCP.n.2018.711. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. da Silva L. G. R., da Silva Pinto A. W., de Queiroz W. E., et al., “Deprescribing Clonazepam in Primary Care Older Patients: A Feasibility Study,” International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy 44, no. 2 (2022): 489–498, 10.1007/s11096-021-01371-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Campbell A. J., Robertson M. C., Gardner M. M., Norton R. N., and Buchner D. M., “Psychotropic Medication Withdrawal and a Home‐Based Exercise Program to Prevent Falls: A Randomized, Controlled Trial,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 47, no. 7 (1999): 850–853. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Carr F., Tian P., Chow J., et al., “Deprescribing Benzodiazepines Among Hospitalised Older Adults: Quality Improvement Initiative,” BMJ Open Quality 8, no. 3 (2019): e000539, 10.1136/bmjoq-2018-000539. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Gilbert A., Owen N., Innes J. M., and Sansom L., “Trial of an Intervention to Reduce Chronic Benzodiazepine Use Among Residents of Aged‐Care Accommodation,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine 23, no. 4 (1993): 343–347. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Tabloski P. A., Cooke K. M., and Thoman E. B., “A Procedure for Withdrawal of Sleep Medication in Elderly Women Who Have Been Long‐Term Users,” Journal of Gerontological Nursing 24, no. 9 (1998): 20–21. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Kuntz J. L., Kouch L., Christian D., Hu W., and Peterson P. L., “Patient Education and Pharmacist Consultation Influence on Nonbenzodiazepine Sedative Medication Deprescribing Success for Older Adults,” Permanente Journal 23 (2019): 18–161, 10.7812/TPP/18-161. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. Martin P., Tamblyn R., Benedetti A., Ahmed S., and Tannenbaum C., “Effect of a Pharmacist‐Led Educational Intervention on Inappropriate Medication Prescriptions in Older Adults: The D‐Prescribe Randomized Clinical Trial,” Journal of the American Medical Association 320, no. 18 (2018): 1889–1898, 10.1001/jama.2018.16131. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Wilson M. G., Lee T. C., Hass A., Tannenbaum C., and McDonald E. G., “Empowering Hospitalized Older Adults to Deprescribe Sedative Hypnotics: A Pilot Study,” Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 66, no. 6 (2018): 1186–1189, 10.1111/jgs.15300. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Kosto A., Lev D., Reiss N., Meged‐Book T., and Press Y., “Discontinuation of Benzodiazepines and Z‐Drugs in Hospitalised Population at the Age of 60 and Above. An Open‐Label Randomized Controlled Trial,” International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry 38, no. 10 (2023): e6012, 10.1002/gps.6012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Joester J., Vogler C. M., Chang K., and Hilmer S. N., “Hypnosedative Use and Predictors of Successful Withdrawal in New Patients Attending a Falls Clinic: A Retrospective, Cohort Study,” Drugs & Aging 27, no. 11 (2010): 915–924, 10.2165/11584480-000000000-00000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Reyes J. D., Sharkey A. T., Morrison L., et al., “Effectiveness of a Multifaceted Intervention to Reduce Night‐Time Sedative Use in a Rehabilitation Unit: A Pre‐Post Intervention Study,” Age and Ageing 47, no. 5 (2018): 745–748, 10.1093/ageing/afy075. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Salonoja M., Salminen M., Vahlberg T., Aarnio P., and Kivelä S. L., “Withdrawal of Psychotropic Drugs Decreases the Risk of Falls Requiring Treatment,” Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics 54, no. 1 (2012): 160–167, 10.1016/j.archger.2011.02.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Dou C., Rebane J., and Bardal S., “Interventions to Improve Benzodiazepine Tapering Success in the Elderly: A Systematic Review,” Aging & Mental Health 23, no. 4 (2019): 411–416, 10.1080/13607863.2017.1423030. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. De Souza Ribeiro P. R. and Schlindwein A. D., “Benzodiazepine Deprescription Strategies in Chronic Users: A Systematic Review,” Family Practice 38, no. 5 (2021): 684–693, 10.1093/fampra/cmab017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Soni A., Thiyagarajan A., and Reeve J., “Feasibility and Effectiveness of Deprescribing Benzodiazepines and Z‐Drugs: Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis,” Addiction 118, no. 1 (2023): 7–16, 10.1111/add.15997. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Reeve E., Ong M., Wu A., Jansen J., Petrovic M., and Gnjidic D., “A Systematic Review of Interventions to Deprescribe Benzodiazepines and Other Hypnotics Among Older People,” European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 73, no. 8 (2017): 927–935, 10.1007/s00228-017-2257-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Robinson M., Mokrzecki S., and Mallett A. J., “Attitudes and Barriers Towards Deprescribing in Older Patients Experiencing Polypharmacy: A Narrative Review,” NPJ Aging 10, no. 1 (2024): 6, 10.1038/s41514-023-00132-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Duncan P., Duerden M., and Payne R. A., “Deprescribing: A Primary Care Perspective,” European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy 24, no. 1 (2017): 37–42, 10.1136/ejhpharm-2016-000967. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Le Bosquet K., Barnett N., and Minshull J., “Deprescribing: Practical Ways to Support Person‐Centred, Evidence‐Based Deprescribing,” Pharmacy (Basel) 7, no. 3 (2019): 129, 10.3390/pharmacy7030129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Turner J. P., Richard C., Lussier M.‐T., et al., “Deprescribing Conversations: A Closer Look at Prescriber‐Patient Communication,” Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety 9, no. 12 (2018): 687–698, 10.1177/2042098618804490. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Green A. R., Wolff J. L., Echavarria D. M., et al., “How Clinicians Discuss Medications During Primary Care Encounters Among Older Adults With Cognitive Impairment,” Journal of General Internal Medicine 35, no. 1 (2020): 237–246, 10.1007/s11606-019-05424-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Green A. R., Aschmann H., Boyd C. M., and Schoenborn N., “Assessment of Patient‐Preferred Language to Achieve Goal‐Aligned Deprescribing in Older Adults,” JAMA Network Open 4, no. 4 (2021): e212633, 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.2633. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Pyer M. and Ward A., “Developing a Dementia Friendly Approach to Consent in Dementia Research,” Aging & Mental Health 28, no. 2 (2024): 294–301, 10.1080/13607863.2023.2264216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Singh S., Li X., Cocoros N. M., et al., “High‐Risk Medications in Persons Living With Dementia: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA Internal Medicine 184 (2024): 1426–1433, 10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.5632. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Green A. R., “Start Upstream, Leverage the Team—Deprescribing in Patients With Dementia,” JAMA Internal Medicine 184 (2024): 1433–1435, 10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.5642. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Okati L., Lo S., Gnjidic D., Li S. J., and Thillainadesan J., “Mobile Applications on App Stores for Deprescribing: A Scoping Review,” British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 91, no. 1 (2025): 55–65, 10.1111/bcp.16191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supporting Information S1: Deviations from the protocol.

Supporting Information S2: Search strategy.

Supporting Information S3: Outcomes of interventions to deprescribe benzodiazepine receptor agonists.

JGS-73-2905-s001.pdf (276.3KB, pdf)

Articles from Journal of the American Geriatrics Society are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES