Abstract
Background
Previous research has examined prescribing amongst 85-year-olds in English primary care, but less is known about prescribing amongst 95-year-olds in spite of population ageing.
Aim
We describe the most commonly prescribed medicines in a cohort of 95-year-olds, using 10-year follow-up data from the Newcastle 85+ Study (n = 90).
Method
A total of 1040 participants were recruited to the Newcastle 85+ Study through general practices at 85-years of age, and 90 surviving participants were re-contacted and assessed at 95-years of age. Prescribed medications from general practice medical records were examined through cross-tabulations and classified as preventative or for symptom control based on their customary usage.
Results
Preventative medications with unclear evidence of benefit such as statins (36.7%), aspirin (21.1%) and bisphosphonates (18.9%) were frequently prescribed.
Conclusion
Future research in a larger clinical dataset could investigate this preliminary trend, which suggests that benefit/risk information for preventive medication, and evidence for deprescribing, is needed in the very old.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11096-022-01454-z.
Keywords: Aged 80 and over, Drug prescription, Primary care
Impact statements
Among people aged 95 years old, our findings suggest that regular medication reviews may be important to ensure appropriate and safe prescribing.
As populations continue to age, clear practical guidelines are needed on prescribing preventative medications in the very old.
Introduction
The very old (aged ≥ 85) are the fastest growing age group of many developed countries [1]. Previous research has examined prescribing amongst 85-year-olds in English primary care [2], but less is known about prescribing amongst 95-year-olds [3–5] in spite of population ageing. Often frail, living with multimorbidity, functionally and/or cognitively impaired [6–9], nonagenarians are vulnerable to adverse medication outcomes. With advanced age and such conditions, the remaining life expectancy of this patient group is also limited [10, 11]. The Newcastle 85+ Study is now in the 10th year of follow-up, and according to prescribing models, one would expect prescriptions for 95-year-olds to appreciate the diminishing benefits or rising risks of medications in late life [10, 11].
Aim
To inform future investigation of clinical data sets to better understand how we can optimise medicines intervention in the very old, we aimed to describe the most commonly prescribed medicines amongst a cohort of 95-year-olds, using data from the Newcastle 85+ Study.
Ethics approval
The Newcastle and North Tyneside Local Research Committee One approved the Newcastle 85+ Study (Ref: 06/Q0905/2). Written informed consent was obtained from participants, and where people lacked capacity to consent—for example, because of dementia—an opinion was sought from a relative or carer (a “consultee”) [12].
Method
Design and setting
The Newcastle 85+ study is a longitudinal population-based cohort study of people born in 1921, aged 85 in 2006 (when the study began) and permanently registered with one of 53 participating general practices in Newcastle upon Tyne or North Tyneside Primary Care Trusts in the United Kingdom [13]. Of the 1040 85-year-olds recruited to the study (2006), 90 surviving participants were re-contacted and assessed at 95 years of age (2016) through multidimensional health assessment in their usual place of residence, inclusive of care homes, and review of general practice medical records. Details of the study have been reported elsewhere [12–14]. The interview schedule and general practice record review proforma can be found on the Newcastle 85+ Study website: https://research.ncl.ac.uk/85plus/, whilst an overview of study recruitment and retention is presented in Online Resource 1.
Medication data
Data on prescribed medications were obtained from general practice medical records. Over-the-counter medications and prescribed items such as vaccines, wound management products and catheter/stoma products were excluded from this analysis (Online Resource 2) [2]. Medications were coded according to the British National Formulary (70th edition).
Analysis
Prescribed medications were examined through cross-tabulations and classified as preventative or symptomatic based on customary usage. Preventative medicines describe those customarily used to avert the onset of disease or halt or slow the progression of disease, such as statins, antiplatelets and bisphosphonates. Medication combinations were described through intersecting set plots, and the health and sociodemographic characteristics of participants were examined through cross-tabulations. Frailty was measured using the Fried phenotype [15], and cognitive impairment with the Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination [16].
Results
At 95-years of age, the Newcastle 85+ Study comprised 90 participants (27 men and 63 women). Of whom, 57.8% (n = 52/90) lived in standard (non-supported) housing, 77.0% (n = 67/87) had four or more diseases, 64.2% (n = 52/81) were pre-frail (whilst 24.7% (n = 20/81) were frail), and 49.4% (n = 43/87) were cognitively intact (whilst 21.8% (n = 19/87) had severe cognitive impairment). The majority were dependent (requiring care less than daily (42.7%, n = 35/82), regularly each day (25.6%, n = 21/82) or 24-hourly (20.7%, n = 17/82) (Table 1).
Table 1.
Health and sociodemographic characteristics of Newcastle 85+ study participants surviving to 95 years of age
| Variable | % (n) |
|---|---|
| Sex | |
| Male | 30.0 (27) |
| Female | 70.0 (63) |
| Housing | |
| Standard (non-supported) | 57.8 (52) |
| Sheltered | 7.8 (7) |
| Care home | 34.4 (31) |
| Education (years) | |
| 0–9 years | 65.6 (59) |
| 10–11 years | 21.1 (19) |
| ≥ 12 years | 13.3 (12) |
| Deprivation (IMD) | |
| < 25th centile | 33.3 (30) |
| 25th-75th centile | 45.6 (41) |
| > 75th centile | 21.1 (19) |
| Number of prescribed medications | |
| 0 | 4.4 (4) |
| 1 | 1.1 (1) |
| 2–4 | 15.6 (14) |
| 5–9 | 51.1 (46) |
| ≥ 10 | 27.8 (25) |
| Dependency (Isaacs’ and Neville’s interval measure) | |
| Independent (free from care) | 11.0 (9) |
| Low (needs help less than daily) | 42.7 (35) |
| Medium (needs help at regular times daily) | 25.6 (21) |
| High (needs 24-h care) | 20.7 (17) |
| Frailty (Fried phenotype) | |
| Robust | 11.1 (9) |
| Pre-frail | 64.2 (52) |
| Frail | 24.7 (20) |
| Cognitive impairment (SMMSE) | |
| Normal (26–30) | 49.4 (43) |
| Mild (22–25) | 19.5 (17) |
| Moderate (18–21) | 9.2 (8) |
| Severe (0–17) | 21.8 (19) |
| Disease groups | |
| 0 | 0 (0.0) |
| 1 | 4.6 (4) |
| 2–3 | 18.4 (16) |
| ≥ 4 | 77.0 (67) |
Where numbers (n) do not sum to 90 data are missing
IMD = Index of Multiple Deprivation; SMMSE = Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination
Participants were prescribed a mean of 7.4 medications (sd = 3.8). Statins were the most commonly prescribed customarily preventative medication (36.7%, n = 33/90) (Table 2). A variety of medication combinations were prescribed (Fig. 1).
Table 2.
Most commonly prescribed medicines amongst Newcastle 85+ study participants at 95 years of age
| Medication | % (n) |
|---|---|
| Non-opioid analgesics | 51.1 (46)a |
| Statins | 36.7 (33)b |
| Proton pump inhibitors | 32.2 (29)a |
| Osmotic laxatives | 31.1 (28)c |
| Vitamin D with calcium | 25.6 (23)b |
| Loop diuretics | 23.3 (21)a |
| Thyroid hormones | 22.2 (20)a |
| Calcium-channel blockers | 21.1 (19)b |
| Aspirin | 21.1 (19)b |
| Beta-blockers | 20.0 (18)b |
| Bisphosphonates | 18.9 (17)b |
| Vitamin D without calcium | 18.9 (17)b |
| Oral anti-coagulants | 17.8 (16)b |
| Stimulant laxatives | 16.7 (15)c |
| Tricyclic and related antidepressants | 15.6 (14)a |
| Opioid analgesics | 15.6 (14)a |
| Oral iron | 15.6 (14)c |
| Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors | 14.4 (13)b |
| Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) | 13.3 (12)a |
| Prostaglandin analogues without timolol | 13.3 (12)a |
a‘Symptom control’
b‘Preventative’ or
c‘Both’, based on customary usage
Fig. 1.
Most common medication combinations amongst Newcastle 85+ study participants surviving to 95 years of age. The upset plot is a graphical representation of the various medication combinations, consisting of three panels: (i) The left-hand panel represents the number of people prescribed that medication; (ii) the bottom-right panel highlights the medication combinations by connected nodes, and (iii) the top-right panel shows the number of people with those medication combinations. For example, over 40 people were prescribed non-opioid analgesics, and of these, 3 people were prescribed non-opioid analgesics with statins, loop diuretics and beta-blockers
Discussion
Statement of key findings
In a cohort of 95-year-olds (n = 90), preventative medications such as statins (36.7%), aspirin (21.1%) and bisphosphonates (18.9%) were commonly prescribed.
Strengths and weaknesses
Our study extends the limited research on prescribing amongst 95-year-olds [3–5], inclusive of those with cognitive impairment and in care homes, using medication data from general practice medical records as opposed to the less reliable method of self-report [12]. Our data source (the Newcastle 85+ Study) also provides rich contextual information unavailable in other primary care or prescribing datasets, for example, on dependency and care received at home. However our work has limitations. We could not assess the appropriateness of the medications we outline (e.g. statins) according to individual patient circumstances, but there is a lack of clinical trial data in the very old, and in late life a proposal to consider potential medication benefits in relation to estimated remaining life expectancy and (more palliative) care goals [11]. As data were collected in 2016, some of the medication prescribed (for example aspirin over clopidogrel) may relate to out-of-date prescribing practices rather than deprescribing barriers [17]. Whilst 95-year-olds from this study in North-East England are likely to be representative in terms of sex, residential status, ethnicity and multimorbidity, we cannot confirm whether our results apply to other regions of the United Kingdom, for example affluent areas in the south or areas with greater ethnic diversity. The final limitation is the small sample size of the surviving Newcastle 85+ Study participants (n = 90), though the preliminary trends we identify could be investigated in a larger clinical dataset as was our intention.
Interpretation
Statins are poorly evidence-based in the very old particularly for primary prevention [18]. In this circumstance they take several years to benefit so may be unsuitable at 95 years of age, particularly in those with frailty, cognitive impairment or complex multimorbidity whose remaining life expectancy may be less than one year [11]. Long-term daily aspirin carriers a heightened risk of bleeding in older people [19]. Bisphosphonates too may be unsuitable at age 95, as deprescribing discussions are recommended after three-years of continuous treatment, for example [20].
The prescription of customarily preventative medicines of unclear benefit in late life is widely reported [21] and potential reasons for this include the multitude of deprescribing barriers, such as the lack of evidence for this task, the association with patient-perceived withdrawal of care, fragmented care and fear of negative consequences [22, 23]. There is a danger that withholding preventative medicines from older people, because of limited life-expectancy, can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. For instance withholding anticoagulation may lead to deterioration, given that the risk of stroke from atrial fibrillation significantly increases with age [24].
Several other medication classes most frequently prescribed in this study (Table 2) are considered ‘high risk’ as is often the case in primary care [25]. Loop diuretics (23.3%) have been linked to unplanned hospital admissions in younger populations, for example [26]. But so too has their under-prescription. Their absence can cause breathlessness in heart failure, and under-prescribing is an important problem [27]. Yet it receives less attention, as the harms of inaction are often not as visible in healthcare. It seems we feel more responsible for acts of commission than acts of omission [28], and place more weight on things that come to mind more easily [29] – i.e. an adverse drug reaction-induced hospital admission. Customarily ‘preventative medicines’ such as beta-blockers (for angina or rate control in atrial fibrillation), ACE inhibitors (for heart failure) and calcium channel blockers (for angina) could also be prescribed for symptom control. In which case, the deprescribing of these medications may not be warranted. The variety of medication combinations prescribed to the 95-year-old participants (Fig. 1) further illustrates that ‘one size does not fit all’ when it comes to polypharmacy [2, 30].
Preventative medication prescription in late life is the focus of much research, but symptom control medications such as opioids are notorious as a source of adverse events, often implicated in falls for example. Proton pump inhibitors are also believed to be overprescribed [31], and might in the very least contribute to the burden of medication management often affecting older people [32].
All this considered, our findings suggest that individually-tailored prescribing is needed in the very old, along with evidence of risk-benefit from clinical trials that include older people with multiple conditions and polypharmacy. As to whether deprescribing is the right thing to do in older people, a limited evidence base suggests that it is not harmful in the main and might be beneficial [33, 34]. In the absence of a recent acute coronary syndrome or cerebrovascular event, the discontinuation of a statin toward the end of life may be reasonable [10], and Kutner and colleagues recently concluded that statins can be deprescribed safely and potentially with improved quality of life [35]. Given the risk of medication errors with multiple medications, a wider consideration is that the availability of formal and informal caregivers (who may help with medicines management tasks) is projected to decline [36]. For deprescribing to become mainstream in the very old, we need to know more about its long-term outcomes (and patient-orientated outcomes at that), how best to go about it and what the patients’ viewpoints are. With the COVID-19 pandemic now forcing the development of emergency care plans for older patients, such deprescribing conversations (including within the context of advanced care plans) have never been more important.
Further research
If preventative medicines of uncertain benefit such as statins were continued in the wider 95-year-old population, future research could investigate: (1) what are patients’ views of stopping preventative medicines at 95—and if there are views on this—do certain patient groups have more concerns about stopping preventative medicines than others, and why? (2) Which medicines do 95-year-olds perceive as most important? (3) In which patient groups are preventative medicines of questionable benefit continued, and in which are they stopped? Understanding these issues may help to focus the deprescribing agenda in the very old and make it more patient-centred.
Conclusion
In summary, this study examined medication prescription in a cohort of 95-year-olds and found that preventative medications with unclear evidence of benefit were frequently prescribed. Future research in a larger clinical dataset could investigate this preliminary trend, which suggests that evidence to inform preventative medication prescription might be helpful in the very old.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Acknowledgements
Newcastle 85+ Study: Mortality data were obtained from NHS Digital. We acknowledge the operational support of the North of England Commissioning Support Unit, the National Institute of Health Research Clinical Research Network North East and North Cumbria, local general practitioners and their staff. We thank the research nurses, laboratory technicians, data management and clerical team for their work throughout, as well as many colleagues for their expert advice. Thanks are due especially to the study participants and, where appropriate, their families and carers.
Funding
This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research (NIHR SPCR) (SPCR-2014-10043). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. The Newcastle 85+ Study has been funded by the Medical Research Council, Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (Grant Reference G0500997), the Dunhill Medical Trust (Grant Reference R124/0509) and the National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care. Parts of the work have also been funded by the British Heart Foundation, Unilever Corporate Research, Newcastle University, NHS North of Tyne (Newcastle Primary Care Trust).
Conflicts of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Footnotes
The original online version of this article was revised: The article was published without the keywords “Drug prescription, aged 80 and over, primary care”. In “Abstract” section, “Conclusions” is corrected as “Conclusion”. The heading sizes for “Aim” and “Ethics approval” are corrected. The sentence “In summary, this study examined medication…” till “… prescription might be helpful in the very old.” should be placed under the “Conclusion” section. The section “Conflict of interest” is corrected as “Conflicts of interest”.
The original online version of this article was revised: The article was published without the keywords “Drug prescription, aged 80 and over, primary care”. In “Abstract” section, “Conclusions” is corrected as “Conclusion”. The heading sizes for “Aim” and “Ethics approval” are corrected. The sentence “In summary, this study examined medication…” till “… prescription might be helpful in the very old.” should be placed under the “Conclusion” section. The section “Conflict of interest” is corrected as “Conflicts of interest
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Change history
10/31/2022
A Correction to this paper has been published: 10.1007/s11096-022-01500-w
References
- 1.Tomassini C. The demographic characteristics of the oldest old in the United Kingdom. Popul Trends. 2005;120:15–22. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Davies LE, Kingston A, Todd A, et al. Characterising polypharmacy in the very old: Findings from the Newcastle 85+ Study. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(1):e0245648. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0245648. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Tsoi CS, Chow JY, Choi KS, et al. Medical characteristics of the oldest old: retrospective chart review of patients aged 85+ in an academic primary care centre. BMC Res Notes. 2014;7:340. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-7-340. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Wågert PvH, Gustavsson JMC, Lundin-Olsson L, et al. Health status in the oldest old. Age and sex differences in the Umeå 85+ Study. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2006;18(2):116–26. doi: 10.1007/BF03327426. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Onder G, Marengoni A, Russo P, et al. Advanced Age and Medication Prescription: More Years, Less Medications? A Nationwide Report From the Italian Medicines Agency. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2016;17(2):168–72. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2015.08.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Nosraty L, Sarkeala T, Hervonen A, et al. Is There Successful Aging for Nonagenarians? The Vitality 90 + Study. J Aging Res. 2012;2012:868797. doi: 10.1155/2012/868797. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Lee DR, Kawas CH, Gibbs L, et al. Prevalence of Frailty and Factors Associated with Frailty in Individuals Aged 90 and Older: The 90 + Study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64(11):2257–62. doi: 10.1111/jgs.14317. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Corrada MM, Brookmeyer R, Paganini-Hill A, et al. Dementia incidence continues to increase with age in the oldest old: the 90 + study. Ann Neurol. 2010;67(1):114–21. doi: 10.1002/ana.21915. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Berlau DJ, Corrada MM, Kawas C. The prevalence of disability in the oldest-old is high and continues to increase with age: findings from The 90 + Study. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2009;24(11):1217–25. doi: 10.1002/gps.2248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Holmes HM. Rational Prescribing for Patients With a Reduced Life Expectancy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;85(1):103–7. doi: 10.1038/clpt.2008.211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Holmes HM, Hayley DC, Alexander GC, et al. Reconsidering Medication Appropriateness for Patients Late in Life. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(6):605–9. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.6.605. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Collerton J, Davies K, Jagger C, et al. Health and disease in 85 year olds: baseline findings from the Newcastle 85+ cohort study. BMJ. 2009;339:b4904. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b4904. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Davies K, Collerton JC, Jagger C, et al. Engaging the oldest old in research: lessons from the Newcastle 85+ study. BMC Geriatr. 2010;10(1):64. doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-10-64. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Collerton J, Barrass K, Bond J, et al. The Newcastle 85+ study: biological, clinical and psychosocial factors associated with healthy ageing: study protocol. BMC Geriatr. 2007;7:14. doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-7-14. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Mendonça N, Kingston A, Yadegarfar M, et al. Transitions between frailty states in the very old: the influence of socioeconomic status and multi-morbidity in the Newcastle 85+ cohort study. Age Ageing. 2020;49(6):974–81. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afaa054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Molloy D, Standish T. A guide to the Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination. Int Psychogeriatr. 1997;9:87–94. doi: 10.1017/S1041610297004754. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Royal College of Physicians Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. National clinical guideline for stroke, 2016.
- 18.Gulliford M, Ravindrarajah R, Hamada S, et al. Inception and deprescribing of statins in people aged over 80 years: cohort study. Age Ageing. 2017;46(6):1001–5. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afx100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Li L, Geraghty OC, Mehta Z, et al. Age-specific risks, severity, time course, and outcome of bleeding on long-term antiplatelet treatment after vascular events: a population-based cohort study. Lancet. 2017;390(10093):490–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30770-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Multimorbidity: clinical assessment and management, 2016.
- 21.Maddison AR, Fisher J, Johnston G. Preventive medication use among persons with limited life expectancy. Prog Palliat Care. 2011;19(1):15–21. doi: 10.1179/174329111X576698. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Anderson K, Stowasser D, Freeman C, et al. Prescriber barriers and enablers to minimising potentially inappropriate medications in adults: a systematic review and thematic synthesis. BMJ Open. 2014;4(12):e006544. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006544. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Bain KT, Holmes HM, Beers MH, et al. Discontinuing medications: a novel approach for revising the prescribing stage of the medication-use process. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2008;56(10):1946–52. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.01916.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Wolf PA, Abbott RD, Kannel WB. Atrial fibrillation as an independent risk factor for stroke: the Framingham Study. Stroke. 1991;22(8):983–8. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.22.8.983. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Guthrie B, McCowan C, Davey P, et al. High risk prescribing in primary care patients particularly vulnerable to adverse drug events: cross sectional population database analysis in Scottish general practice. BMJ. 2011;342:d3514. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d3514. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, et al. Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ. 2004;329(7456):15. doi: 10.1136/bmj.329.7456.15. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Cherubini A, Corsonello A, Lattanzio F. Underprescription of Beneficial Medicines in Older People. Drugs Aging. 2012;29(6):463–75. doi: 10.2165/11631750-000000000-00000. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Jones NR, Hobbs FDR, Taylor CJ. Underuse of anticoagulation therapy for atrial fibrillation: Are we failing our patients? Can Fam Physician. 2017;63(12):943–4. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science. 1974;185(4157):1124–31. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Johnell K. The controversies surrounding polypharmacy in old age—where are we? Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2018;11(9):825–7. doi: 10.1080/17512433.2018.1510313. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Forgacs I, Loganayagam A. Overprescribing proton pump inhibitors. BMJ (Clinical research ed) 2008;336(7634):2–3. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39406.449456.BE. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Maidment I, Lawson S, Wong G, et al. Towards an understanding of the burdens of medication management affecting older people: the MEMORABLE realist synthesis. BMC Geriatr. 2020;20(1):183. doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-01568-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Alldred DP. Deprescribing: a brave new word? Int J Pharm Pract. 2014;22(1):2–3. doi: 10.1111/ijpp.12093. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Reeve E, Thompson W, Farrell B, Deprescribing A narrative review of the evidence and practical recommendations for recognizing opportunities and taking action. Eur J Intern Med. 2017;38:3–11. doi: 10.1016/j.ejim.2016.12.021. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Kutner JS, Blatchford PJ, Taylor DH, Jr, et al. Safety and benefit of discontinuing statin therapy in the setting of advanced, life-limiting illness: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(5):691–700. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.0289. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Jagger C, Collerton JC, Davies K, et al. Capability and dependency in the Newcastle 85+ cohort study. Projections of future care needs. BMC Geriatr. 2011;11(1):21. doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-11-21. [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.