PolypharmacyNCT04762303
Spread and Scale of a Polypharmacy App
A study testing MedReviewRx in people with Polypharmacy and Deprescribing, run by Centre for Innovation and Research in Aging, Canada at 5 sites in Canada.
Trial summary
Medication overload is an epidemic causing widespread harm, particularly to older Canadians. While most prescriptions are intended to help people live longer and healthier lives, taking multiple medications can increase frailty, and lead to dangerous side effects.This is a mixed-methods study to determine the impact… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 65 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Polypharmacy, Deprescribing, Adverse Drug Event
- What is being tested?
- MedReviewRx
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 1,000 participants
- Where
- 5 sitesCanada
- Study dates
- 1 Aug 2021to 31 Oct 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 65 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Older adult
Who may be able to join
- All residents of the participating New Brunswick nursing homes (NBNHs)
- All residents who are 65 years of age or older
- All residents who are taking a potentially inappropriate medication (as identified by MedSafer)
Who cannot join
- If both the patient and proxy are unable to complete the survey, the patient will be excluded from the survey component of the study.
Trial locations and contacts
5 sites in 1 country.
5 sites in 1 country
Canada5 sites
York Care Centre
Fredericton, New Brunswick, E3A 1A3
Faubourg du Mascaret
Moncton, New Brunswick, E1E 3R8
Spencer Nursing Home
Moncton, New Brunswick, E1E 4N3
Shannex Embassy Hall
Quispamsis, New Brunswick, E2E 0M4
Loch Lomond Villa
Saint John, New Brunswick, E2J 3S3
About this study
Official title: Spread and Scale of a Polypharmacy App to Improve Health Outcomes of Older Adults Living in New Brunswick Nursing Homes: an Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Type 2 Study Design for a Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial
Medication overload is an epidemic causing widespread harm, particularly to older Canadians. While most prescriptions are intended to help people live longer and healthier lives, taking multiple medications can increase frailty, and lead to dangerous side effects.This is a mixed-methods study to determine the impact of MedReviewRx on prescribing in New Brunswick Nursing Homes (NBNHs). MedReviewRx is an application which allows MedSafer to analyze a person's medications and medical conditions and produce a report with suggestions for how to simplify medications and make them safer. MedSafer reports will be used to assist physicians and pharmacists identify potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and conduct medication reviews in NBNHs. The prevalence of PIMs in NBNHs before MedReviewRx will be measured and the change in PIM use after implementation will be calculated. User experience with MedSafer reports and MedReviewRx will be explored. Patient and Family attitudes towards deprescribing will also be studied. Investigators hypothesize that implementing MedReviewRx in New Brunswick Nursing Homes (NBNHs) will promote deprescribing which will lead to a decrease in the number of PIMs and a decrease in medication costs for older adults living in NBNHs.
Read the detailed description
Medication overload is an epidemic causing widespread harm, particularly to older Canadians. While most prescriptions are intended to help people live longer and healthier lives, taking multiple medications can increase frailty, and lead to dangerous side effects. As people age, the way medicines work may change and certain medicines are more likely cause problems with memory, thinking and balance. To minimize these risks, it is important to regularly review all medicines an older adult is taking. A medication review can be complicated, and it takes time. MedSafer is a computer program that helps physicians and pharmacists identify medicines that may no longer be needed or are dangerous. The software runs an analysis of a person's medications and medical conditions and produces a report with suggestions for how to simplify combinations of medications and make them safer. The process of safely reducing medications is called deprescribing. A computer application powered by MedSafer was built for nursing homes. This Polypharmacy App was piloted at a large urban nursing home. Initial impression of the system was positive. Improvements were made and it was rebranded as MedReviewRx. The current study will test MedReviewRx in other nursing homes in New Brunswick. MedReviewRx allows health care providers (prescribers, pharmacists and nurses) in nursing homes to access MedSafer analysis on a tablet or laptop. The investigators expect that access to this information will promote deprescribing in nursing homes, reduce potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and result in cost savings.
This study is a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation design for quality improvement research that will make use of mixed methods of evaluation. Implementation consists of using MedReviewRx. Effectiveness analysis consists of measuring the impact of the MedReviewRx on PIMs. Exploratory surveys (the mixed methods component of the study) which look at qualitative and quantitative user feedback and patient and caregiver attitudes about deprescribing will be used to explain study findings. Informal feedback, surveys and semi-structured interviews will be used to examine user experience with MedReviewRx. The Revised Patient Attitude Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire "older adult" version for the patients and a "caregiver" version for family members/substitute decision makers will be used to describe patient and family member attitudes about deprescribing medications.
Estimated study duration is 18 months. Deployment will approximate a Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial Design (SW-CRT). This type of study design allows us to approximate a randomized clinical trial. It has many advantages and is considered the most robust type of study design for a pragmatic quality improvement intervention. All clusters act as an internal control (before and after) as well as a control for the other clusters (external control). This novel study design addresses issues with seasonality and allows all clusters to participate in the intervention, which is an advantage when the intervention is related to quality improvement. It also allows us to measure for within and between cluster comparisons. Moreover, stepped-wedge trials are claimed by many researchers to have a statistical advantage over parallel cluster randomized trials. In the same direction, more researchers state that on one hand, for cluster randomized trials (CRTs), the stepped wedge design is far more efficient than the parallel group and ANCOVA design in terms of sample size. On the other hand, these researchers also state that the stepped wedge design requires a substantially smaller sample size than a parallel group and ANCOVA design.
The study will have three clusters with a combined total of approximately 750 nursing home beds. Nursing home resident turnover rates may be as high as 30% per year therefore the researchers anticipate that up to 1000 residents will be screened by MedSafer at least once and 300 of them, or more, will have a potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) identified. A random generator was used to place participating nursing homes into the following three clusters:
Cluster 1: 3 months control + 9 months intervention
Cluster 2: 6 months control + 6 months intervention
Cluster 3: 9 months control + 3 months intervention
As illustrated, the study will begin with a minimum three-month control phase. During the control phase, MedReviewRx will not be accessible to health care professionals at the nursing homes. This serves to obtain baseline deprescribing levels for each nursing home. Every three to four months thereafter, a cluster of nursing homes will enter intervention mode.
During the control phase, nursing home residents and their families or substitute decision makers will be recruited to complete a survey to explore patient attitudes about deprescribing in this NB study population. The rPATD questionnaire "older adult" version will be provided to nursing home residents and the "caregiver" version will be provided to family members and substitute decision makers. Survey questions will be entered in Lime survey to promote electronic completion whenever possible. A recruitment poster will be displayed at study sites and a recruitment communication will be sent to family members and substitute decision makers identified in the resident's admission package. Paper copies will also be available from the study site contact. Residents and family members who ask nursing home staff about the survey will have their contact information forwarded to the Centre for Innovation and Research in Aging (CIRA) research manager to answer questions and obtain verbal consent to have a survey e-mailed to them. If e-mail is not available, a research assistant will contact the participant to administer the survey over the phone. Study site contacts may also distribute paper copies of the surveys if requested and permitted by the study site. Stamped envelopes addressed to the CIRA research manager will be provided with each paper survey distributed.
Also during the control phase, health care providers and study site staff will be recruited to register for MedReviewRx. A recruitment communication will be sent by e-mail and placed in study site mailboxes. Study recruitment will also be encouraged at interdisciplinary nursing home meetings such as Pharmacy and Therapeutics and Medical Advisory Committee meetings. User training will be provided by the study site contact or designate(s) as determined by the site-specific implementation plan. Nursing home site contacts will participate in an interview to evaluate MedReviewRx implementation. Implementation interviews will be conducted within the first 3 months of the site intervention phase videoconference by the CIRA research manager or designate via telephone or Zoom.
During the intervention phase, MedReviewRx will be made available to nursing homes with the understanding that it will be used to facilitate medication reviews and prescription check-ups. MedReviewRx provides clinicians with access to individualized and prioritized deprescribing information from MedSafer which: a) identifies PIMs, b) explains why the medication is potentially inappropriate and c) provides instructions on how to safely stop/taper the medication. Nursing homes will also have the option to print MedSafer deprescribing reports from MedReviewRx for clinicians who do not have computer access or who choose not to register to use MedReviewRx. If reports are printed, they will be placed in a binder for the prescriber to sign and date indicating that they have read the report. Prescribers and nursing home staff will be encouraged to write feedback directly on the report if they wish too. To assess the proportion of reports that were read, and feedback provided on the reports, signed reports will be kept in a locked cabinet for research assistants to collect.
Clinicians will review deprescribing opportunities (electronically or via a paper report) and determine if medications can be tapered or stopped. Medication changes are discussed with the resident or substitute decision maker as part of usual care. This process will not change with the implementation of MedReviewRx. If the prescriber decides to alter a medication based on the deprescribing opportunities provided by MedSafer and their expert knowledge, the prescriber will do so in the same manner as they did prior to implementation of MedReviewRx, and discussion with the resident and/or substitute decision maker will occur according to the process in place at each nursing home. During the intervention phase, an analysis of deprescribing opportunities will be conducted by MedSafer once every 3 months for each resident in the nursing home. Results will be stored in the MedReviewRx system to be accessed at any time.
User feedback on MedReviewRx and MedSafer deprescribing information will be solicited from prescribers, pharmacists and nursing home staff throughout the study using surveys. Surveys may be completed via Lime Survey, on paper or by telephone (depending on the preference of the person). Three surveys will be distributed by e-mail to registered MedReviewRx users as well as other study site prescribers, pharmacists and nurses who may have access to printed reports from MedReviewRx. A MedReviewRx user feedback survey will be distributed at the end of the first and third quarter of the intervention and an acceptability and feasibility survey will be distributed at the end of the study. Informal feedback received by e-mail from users will be reviewed and actioned by the CIRA research manager or designate. E-mail feedback will be documented anonymously in an excel spreadsheet and reported to the study principle investigators within 1 week of receipt to determine if tasks need to be submitted to the technical team for software updates. Rapid cycle improvements in usability of the system and MedSafer output will be made based on survey results and informal feedback.
Informal feedback written on printed MedSafer reports will be documented in an excel spreadsheet and included in the analysis of qualitative feedback provided by survey and interview. Frequency of MedReviewRx use will be measured electronically by counting the number of times a user accesses their account. Overall experience with the research project will be evaluated using semi-structured interview conducted at the end of the intervention period.
- Conditions
- Polypharmacy, Deprescribing, Adverse Drug Event
- Being tested
- MedReviewRx
- Keywords
- Polypharmacy, Deprescribing, Adverse Drug Event, Older Adults, Long-Term Care, Medication Use, Medication Review, Nursing Home, Prescription Check-Up
- Medical subject headings
- Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
MedReviewRxOther
During the intervention phase, MedReviewRx will be made available to nursing homes with the understanding that it will be used to facilitate medication reviews and prescription check-ups. MedReviewRx provides clinicians with access to individualized and prioritized deprescribing information from MedSafer which: a) identifies potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), b) explains why the medication is potentially inappropriate and c) provides instructions on how to safely stop/taper the medication.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| MedReviewRx | Experimental | During the intervention phase, MedReviewRx will be made available to nursing homes with the understanding that it will be used to facilitate medication reviews and prescription check-ups. MedReviewRx provides clinicians with access to individualized and prioritized deprescribing information from MedSafer which: a) identifies potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), b) explains why the medication is potentially inappropriate and c) provides instructions on how to safely stop/taper the medication. Receives: Other: MedReviewRx |
| No MedReviewRx | No intervention | During the control phase, MedReviewRx will not be accessible to health care professionals at the nursing homes. This serves to obtain baseline deprescribing levels for each nursing home. |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Impact of MedReviewRx on the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in New Brunswick nursing homes (NBNHs).
The impact on PIMs will be determined by the proportion of nursing home residents who have one or more PIMs reduced or stopped after the treating physician receives a MedSafer report
Measured: Baseline to 3 months
Secondary outcomes (39)
Proportion of patients with one or more PIM reduced or stopped following each cycle.
Sustainability
Measured: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
Proportion of patients with one or more PIM reduced or stopped following each cycle.
Sustainability
Measured: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
Proportion of patients with one or more PIM reduced or stopped following each cycle.
Sustainability
Measured: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
Number of deaths
Safety data
Measured: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
Number of deaths
Safety data
Measured: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
Number of deaths
Safety data
Measured: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
Number of fractures
Safety data
Measured: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
Number of fractures
Safety data
Measured: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
Number of fractures
Safety data
Measured: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
Number of falls
Safety data
Measured: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
Number of falls
Safety data
Measured: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
Number of falls
Safety data
Measured: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
Number of restraints
Safety data
Measured: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
Number of restraints
Safety data
Measured: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
Number of restraints
Safety data
Measured: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
Number of transfers to the hospital
Safety data
Measured: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
Number of transfers to the hospital
Safety data
Measured: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
Number of transfers to the hospital
Safety data
Measured: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
Change in functional status based on interRAI activities of daily living (ADL) scores.
The ADL Hierarchy ranges from 0 (no impairment) to 6 (total dependence)
Measured: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
Change in functional status based on interRAI activities of daily living (ADL) scores.
The ADL Hierarchy ranges from 0 (no impairment) to 6 (total dependence)
Measured: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
Change in functional status based on interRAI activities of daily living (ADL) scores.
The ADL Hierarchy ranges from 0 (no impairment) to 6 (total dependence)
Measured: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
Number of participants with transfers out of the institution (return to independent living)
Safety data
Measured: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
Number of participants with transfers out of the institution (return to independent living)
Safety data
Measured: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
Number of participants with transfers out of the institution (return to independent living)
Safety data
Measured: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
Number of participants with episodes of delirium based on responses to questions in Section C of the interRAI LTCF assessment form
0 (Behavior not present), 1 (Behavior present, consistent with usual functioning), 2 (Behavior present, appears different from usual functioning)
Measured: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
Number of participants with episodes of delirium based on responses to questions in Section C of the interRAI LTCF assessment form
0 (Behavior not present), 1 (Behavior present, consistent with usual functioning), 2 (Behavior present, appears different from usual functioning)
Measured: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
Number of participants with episodes of delirium based on responses to questions in Section C of the interRAI LTCF assessment form
0 (Behavior not present), 1 (Behavior present, consistent with usual functioning), 2 (Behavior present, appears different from usual functioning)
Measured: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
Number of changes from baseline in composite safety data
Deaths, fractures, falls, use of restraints, transfers to hospital, pressure ulcers and stage, in-dwelling catheter use, change in functional status, transfers out of the institution, episodes of delirium.
Measured: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
Number of changes from baseline in composite safety data
Deaths, fractures, falls, use of restraints, transfers to hospital, pressure ulcers and stage, in-dwelling catheter use, change in functional status, transfers out of the institution, episodes of delirium.
Measured: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
Number of changes from baseline in composite safety data
Deaths, fractures, falls, use of restraints, transfers to hospital, pressure ulcers and stage, in-dwelling catheter use, change in functional status, transfers out of the institution, episodes of delirium.
Measured: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
User experience with MedSafer reports and MedReviewRx. Measured by survey responses.
Open ended questions, multiple choice questions and Likert scales: 1 (not at all) to 10 (very much), strongly disagree to strongly agree, very unlikely to very likely.
Measured: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
User experience with MedSafer reports and MedReviewRx. Measured by survey responses.
Open ended questions, multiple choice questions and Likert scales: 1 (not at all) to 10 (very much), strongly disagree to strongly agree, very unlikely to very likely.
Measured: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
User experience with MedSafer reports and MedReviewRx. Measured by survey responses.
Open ended questions, multiple choice questions and Likert scales: 1 (not at all) to 10 (very much), strongly disagree to strongly agree, very unlikely to very likely.
Measured: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
User experience with MedSafer reports and MedReviewRx. Measured through interview data.
Open ended questions
Measured: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
User experience with MedSafer reports and MedReviewRx. Measured through interview data.
Open ended questions
Measured: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
User experience with MedSafer reports and MedReviewRx. Measured through interview data.
Open ended questions
Measured: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
User experience with MedSafer reports and MedReviewRx. Measured through informal feedback received by the study team.
Operationalizing testing
Measured: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
User experience with MedSafer reports and MedReviewRx. Measured through informal feedback received by the study team.
Operationalizing testing
Measured: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
User experience with MedSafer reports and MedReviewRx. Measured through informal feedback received by the study team.
Operationalizing testing
Measured: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted21 Feb 2021
- Study start1 Aug 2021 (estimated)
- Primary completion31 Jul 2022 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Oct 2022 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (23)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for PolypharmacyStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Sequential
- Masking
- Double blind
- Who is masked
- Investigator, Outcomes assessor
- Enrolment
- 1,000 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Centre for Innovation and Research in Aging, Canada
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- McGill University Health Centre/Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Horizon Health Network, Missing Link Technologies, New Brunswick Community College
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Carole Goodine, Pharm D, Principal investigator, Horizon Health NetworkEmily McDonald, MD, Principal investigator, McGill University Health Centre/Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04762303
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- C0061
- Status last verified
- Feb 2021
- First submitted
- 9 Feb 2021
- Last updated
- 16 Jun 2021
- Results posted
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Non-pharma academic researchers may contact the principal investigator by email one year following the primary publication for access to data which will be shared via password-protected excel document.
Publications
AlRasheed MM, Alhawassi TM, Alanazi A, Aloudah N, Khurshid F, Alsultan M. Knowledge and willingness of physicians about deprescribing among older patients: a qualitative study. Clin Interv Aging. 2018 Aug 6;13:1401-1408. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S165588. eCollection 2018.
PubMed 30122912Caputo A. Trends of psychology-related research on euthanasia: a qualitative software-based thematic analysis of journal abstracts. Psychol Health Med. 2015;20(7):858-69. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2014.993405. Epub 2014 Dec 20.
PubMed 25530297Brath H, Mehta N, Savage RD, Gill SS, Wu W, Bronskill SE, Zhu L, Gurwitz JH, Rochon PA. What Is Known About Preventing, Detecting, and Reversing Prescribing Cascades: A Scoping Review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018 Nov;66(11):2079-2085. doi: 10.1111/jgs.15543. Epub 2018 Oct 18.
PubMed 30335185Conklin J, Farrell B, Suleman S. Implementing deprescribing guidelines into frontline practice: Barriers and facilitators. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019 Jun;15(6):796-800. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.08.012. Epub 2018 Sep 18.
PubMed 30241874Dills H, Shah K, Messinger-Rapport B, Bradford K, Syed Q. Deprescribing Medications for Chronic Diseases Management in Primary Care Settings: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018 Nov;19(11):923-935.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2018.06.021. Epub 2018 Aug 11.
PubMed 30108032Djatche L, Lee S, Singer D, Hegarty SE, Lombardi M, Maio V. How confident are physicians in deprescribing for the elderly and what barriers prevent deprescribing? J Clin Pharm Ther. 2018 Aug;43(4):550-555. doi: 10.1111/jcpt.12688. Epub 2018 Apr 22.
PubMed 29682764McDonald EG, Wu PE, Rashidi B, Forster AJ, Huang A, Pilote L, Papillon-Ferland L, Bonnici A, Tamblyn R, Whitty R, Porter S, Battu K, Downar J, Lee TC. The MedSafer Study: A Controlled Trial of an Electronic Decision Support Tool for Deprescribing in Acute Care. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019 Sep;67(9):1843-1850. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16040. Epub 2019 Jun 27.
PubMed 31250427Sirois C, Ouellet N, Reeve E. Community-dwelling older people's attitudes towards deprescribing in Canada. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2017 Jul-Aug;13(4):864-870. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2016.08.006. Epub 2016 Aug 31.
PubMed 27663392Thillainadesan J, Gnjidic D, Green S, Hilmer SN. Impact of Deprescribing Interventions in Older Hospitalised Patients on Prescribing and Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Randomised Trials. Drugs Aging. 2018 Apr;35(4):303-319. doi: 10.1007/s40266-018-0536-4.
PubMed 29541966van der Sluijs R, Fiddelers AAA, Waalwijk JF, Reitsma JB, Dirx MJ, den Hartog D, Evers SMAA, Goslings JC, Hoogeveen WM, Lansink KW, Leenen LPH, van Heijl M, Poeze M. The impact of the Trauma Triage App on pre-hospital trauma triage: design and protocol of the stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized TESLA trial. Diagn Progn Res. 2020 Jun 18;4:10. doi: 10.1186/s41512-020-00076-1. eCollection 2020.
PubMed 32566758Barker D, D'Este C, Campbell MJ, McElduff P. Minimum number of clusters and comparison of analysis methods for cross sectional stepped wedge cluster randomised trials with binary outcomes: A simulation study. Trials. 2017 Mar 9;18(1):119. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-1862-2.
PubMed 28279222Woertman W, de Hoop E, Moerbeek M, Zuidema SU, Gerritsen DL, Teerenstra S. Stepped wedge designs could reduce the required sample size in cluster randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Jul;66(7):752-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.009. Epub 2013 Mar 22.
PubMed 23523551Kim J, Parish AL. Polypharmacy and Medication Management in Older Adults. Nurs Clin North Am. 2017 Sep;52(3):457-468. doi: 10.1016/j.cnur.2017.04.007.
PubMed 28779826Lavan AH, Gallagher P. Predicting risk of adverse drug reactions in older adults. Ther Adv Drug Saf. 2016 Feb;7(1):11-22. doi: 10.1177/2042098615615472.
PubMed 26834959By the American Geriatrics Society 2015 Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel. American Geriatrics Society 2015 Updated Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015 Nov;63(11):2227-46. doi: 10.1111/jgs.13702. Epub 2015 Oct 8.
PubMed 26446832
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 16 Jun 2021. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Spread and Scale of a Polypharmacy App to Improve Health Outcomes of Older Adults Living in New Brunswick Nursing Homes: an Effectiveness-Implementation Hybrid Type 2 Study Design for a Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04762303
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- C0061
- Conditions
- Polypharmacy, Deprescribing, Adverse Drug Event
- Keywords
- Polypharmacy, Deprescribing, Adverse Drug Event, Older Adults, Long-Term Care, Medication Use, Medication Review, Nursing Home
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 1,000 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Centre for Innovation and Research in Aging, CanadaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- McGill University Health Centre/Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, Horizon Health Network, Missing Link Technologies, New Brunswick Community College
- Study start
- 1 Aug 2021 (estimated)
- Primary completion
- 31 Jul 2022 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Oct 2022 (estimated)
- First posted
- 21 Feb 2021 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Medication overload is an epidemic causing widespread harm, particularly to older Canadians. While most prescriptions are intended to help people live longer and healthier lives, taking multiple medications can increase frailty, and lead to dangerous side effects.This is a mixed-methods study to determine the impact of MedReviewRx on prescribing in New Brunswick Nursing Homes (NBNHs). MedReviewRx is an application which allows MedSafer to analyze a person's medications and medical conditions and produce a report with suggestions for how to simplify medications and make them safer. MedSafer reports will be used to assist physicians and pharmacists identify potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and conduct medication reviews in NBNHs. The prevalence of PIMs in NBNHs before MedReviewRx will be measured and the change in PIM use after implementation will be calculated. User experience with MedSafer reports and MedReviewRx will be explored. Patient and Family attitudes towards deprescribing will also be studied. Investigators hypothesize that implementing MedReviewRx in New Brunswick Nursing Homes (NBNHs) will promote deprescribing which will lead to a decrease in the number of PIMs and a decrease in medication costs for older adults living in NBNHs.
Detailed description
Medication overload is an epidemic causing widespread harm, particularly to older Canadians. While most prescriptions are intended to help people live longer and healthier lives, taking multiple medications can increase frailty, and lead to dangerous side effects. As people age, the way medicines work may change and certain medicines are more likely cause problems with memory, thinking and balance. To minimize these risks, it is important to regularly review all medicines an older adult is taking. A medication review can be complicated, and it takes time. MedSafer is a computer program that helps physicians and pharmacists identify medicines that may no longer be needed or are dangerous. The software runs an analysis of a person's medications and medical conditions and produces a report with suggestions for how to simplify combinations of medications and make them safer. The process of safely reducing medications is called deprescribing. A computer application powered by MedSafer was built for nursing homes. This Polypharmacy App was piloted at a large urban nursing home. Initial impression of the system was positive. Improvements were made and it was rebranded as MedReviewRx. The current study will test MedReviewRx in other nursing homes in New Brunswick. MedReviewRx allows health care providers (prescribers, pharmacists and nurses) in nursing homes to access MedSafer analysis on a tablet or laptop. The investigators expect that access to this information will promote deprescribing in nursing homes, reduce potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and result in cost savings.
This study is a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation design for quality improvement research that will make use of mixed methods of evaluation. Implementation consists of using MedReviewRx. Effectiveness analysis consists of measuring the impact of the MedReviewRx on PIMs. Exploratory surveys (the mixed methods component of the study) which look at qualitative and quantitative user feedback and patient and caregiver attitudes about deprescribing will be used to explain study findings. Informal feedback, surveys and semi-structured interviews will be used to examine user experience with MedReviewRx. The Revised Patient Attitude Towards Deprescribing (rPATD) questionnaire "older adult" version for the patients and a "caregiver" version for family members/substitute decision makers will be used to describe patient and family member attitudes about deprescribing medications.
Estimated study duration is 18 months. Deployment will approximate a Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial Design (SW-CRT). This type of study design allows us to approximate a randomized clinical trial. It has many advantages and is considered the most robust type of study design for a pragmatic quality improvement intervention. All clusters act as an internal control (before and after) as well as a control for the other clusters (external control). This novel study design addresses issues with seasonality and allows all clusters to participate in the intervention, which is an advantage when the intervention is related to quality improvement. It also allows us to measure for within and between cluster comparisons. Moreover, stepped-wedge trials are claimed by many researchers to have a statistical advantage over parallel cluster randomized trials. In the same direction, more researchers state that on one hand, for cluster randomized trials (CRTs), the stepped wedge design is far more efficient than the parallel group and ANCOVA design in terms of sample size. On the other hand, these researchers also state that the stepped wedge design requires a substantially smaller sample size than a parallel group and ANCOVA design.
The study will have three clusters with a combined total of approximately 750 nursing home beds. Nursing home resident turnover rates may be as high as 30% per year therefore the researchers anticipate that up to 1000 residents will be screened by MedSafer at least once and 300 of them, or more, will have a potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) identified. A random generator was used to place participating nursing homes into the following three clusters:
Cluster 1: 3 months control + 9 months intervention
Cluster 2: 6 months control + 6 months intervention
Cluster 3: 9 months control + 3 months intervention
As illustrated, the study will begin with a minimum three-month control phase. During the control phase, MedReviewRx will not be accessible to health care professionals at the nursing homes. This serves to obtain baseline deprescribing levels for each nursing home. Every three to four months thereafter, a cluster of nursing homes will enter intervention mode.
During the control phase, nursing home residents and their families or substitute decision makers will be recruited to complete a survey to explore patient attitudes about deprescribing in this NB study population. The rPATD questionnaire "older adult" version will be provided to nursing home residents and the "caregiver" version will be provided to family members and substitute decision makers. Survey questions will be entered in Lime survey to promote electronic completion whenever possible. A recruitment poster will be displayed at study sites and a recruitment communication will be sent to family members and substitute decision makers identified in the resident's admission package. Paper copies will also be available from the study site contact. Residents and family members who ask nursing home staff about the survey will have their contact information forwarded to the Centre for Innovation and Research in Aging (CIRA) research manager to answer questions and obtain verbal consent to have a survey e-mailed to them. If e-mail is not available, a research assistant will contact the participant to administer the survey over the phone. Study site contacts may also distribute paper copies of the surveys if requested and permitted by the study site. Stamped envelopes addressed to the CIRA research manager will be provided with each paper survey distributed.
Also during the control phase, health care providers and study site staff will be recruited to register for MedReviewRx. A recruitment communication will be sent by e-mail and placed in study site mailboxes. Study recruitment will also be encouraged at interdisciplinary nursing home meetings such as Pharmacy and Therapeutics and Medical Advisory Committee meetings. User training will be provided by the study site contact or designate(s) as determined by the site-specific implementation plan. Nursing home site contacts will participate in an interview to evaluate MedReviewRx implementation. Implementation interviews will be conducted within the first 3 months of the site intervention phase videoconference by the CIRA research manager or designate via telephone or Zoom.
During the intervention phase, MedReviewRx will be made available to nursing homes with the understanding that it will be used to facilitate medication reviews and prescription check-ups. MedReviewRx provides clinicians with access to individualized and prioritized deprescribing information from MedSafer which: a) identifies PIMs, b) explains why the medication is potentially inappropriate and c) provides instructions on how to safely stop/taper the medication. Nursing homes will also have the option to print MedSafer deprescribing reports from MedReviewRx for clinicians who do not have computer access or who choose not to register to use MedReviewRx. If reports are printed, they will be placed in a binder for the prescriber to sign and date indicating that they have read the report. Prescribers and nursing home staff will be encouraged to write feedback directly on the report if they wish too. To assess the proportion of reports that were read, and feedback provided on the reports, signed reports will be kept in a locked cabinet for research assistants to collect.
Clinicians will review deprescribing opportunities (electronically or via a paper report) and determine if medications can be tapered or stopped. Medication changes are discussed with the resident or substitute decision maker as part of usual care. This process will not change with the implementation of MedReviewRx. If the prescriber decides to alter a medication based on the deprescribing opportunities provided by MedSafer and their expert knowledge, the prescriber will do so in the same manner as they did prior to implementation of MedReviewRx, and discussion with the resident and/or substitute decision maker will occur according to the process in place at each nursing home. During the intervention phase, an analysis of deprescribing opportunities will be conducted by MedSafer once every 3 months for each resident in the nursing home. Results will be stored in the MedReviewRx system to be accessed at any time.
User feedback on MedReviewRx and MedSafer deprescribing information will be solicited from prescribers, pharmacists and nursing home staff throughout the study using surveys. Surveys may be completed via Lime Survey, on paper or by telephone (depending on the preference of the person). Three surveys will be distributed by e-mail to registered MedReviewRx users as well as other study site prescribers, pharmacists and nurses who may have access to printed reports from MedReviewRx. A MedReviewRx user feedback survey will be distributed at the end of the first and third quarter of the intervention and an acceptability and feasibility survey will be distributed at the end of the study. Informal feedback received by e-mail from users will be reviewed and actioned by the CIRA research manager or designate. E-mail feedback will be documented anonymously in an excel spreadsheet and reported to the study principle investigators within 1 week of receipt to determine if tasks need to be submitted to the technical team for software updates. Rapid cycle improvements in usability of the system and MedSafer output will be made based on survey results and informal feedback.
Informal feedback written on printed MedSafer reports will be documented in an excel spreadsheet and included in the analysis of qualitative feedback provided by survey and interview. Frequency of MedReviewRx use will be measured electronically by counting the number of times a user accesses their account. Overall experience with the research project will be evaluated using semi-structured interview conducted at the end of the intervention period.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Supportive care
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Sequential
- Masking
- Double blind (investigator, outcomes assessor)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| MedReviewRx | Experimental | Other: MedReviewRxDuring the intervention phase, MedReviewRx will be made available to nursing homes with the understanding that it will be used to facilitate medication reviews and prescription check-ups. MedReviewRx provides clinicians with access to individualized and prioritized deprescribing information from MedSafer which: a) identifies potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), b) explains why the medication is potentially inappropriate and c) provides instructions on how to safely stop/taper the medication. |
| No MedReviewRx | No intervention | –During the control phase, MedReviewRx will not be accessible to health care professionals at the nursing homes. This serves to obtain baseline deprescribing levels for each nursing home. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 65 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- All residents of the participating New Brunswick nursing homes (NBNHs)
- All residents who are 65 years of age or older
- All residents who are taking a potentially inappropriate medication (as identified by MedSafer)
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- If both the patient and proxy are unable to complete the survey, the patient will be excluded from the survey component of the study.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| MedReviewRxDuring the intervention phase, MedReviewRx will be made available to nursing homes with the understanding that it will be used to facilitate medication reviews and prescription check-ups. MedReviewRx provides clinicians with access to individualized and prioritized deprescribing information from MedSafer which: a) identifies potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), b) explains why the medication is potentially inappropriate and c) provides instructions on how to safely stop/taper the medication. | Other | MedReviewRx |
Primary outcome
Impact of MedReviewRx on the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in New Brunswick nursing homes (NBNHs).
Time frame: Baseline to 3 months
The impact on PIMs will be determined by the proportion of nursing home residents who have one or more PIMs reduced or stopped after the treating physician receives a MedSafer report
39 secondary outcomes
Proportion of patients with one or more PIM reduced or stopped following each cycle.
Time frame: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
Proportion of patients with one or more PIM reduced or stopped following each cycle.
Time frame: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
Proportion of patients with one or more PIM reduced or stopped following each cycle.
Time frame: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
Number of deaths
Time frame: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
Number of deaths
Time frame: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
Number of deaths
Time frame: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
Number of fractures
Time frame: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
Number of fractures
Time frame: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
Number of fractures
Time frame: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
Number of falls
Time frame: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
Number of falls
Time frame: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
Number of falls
Time frame: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
Number of restraints
Time frame: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
Number of restraints
Time frame: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
Number of restraints
Time frame: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
Number of transfers to the hospital
Time frame: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
Number of transfers to the hospital
Time frame: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
Number of transfers to the hospital
Time frame: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
Change in functional status based on interRAI activities of daily living (ADL) scores.
Time frame: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
Change in functional status based on interRAI activities of daily living (ADL) scores.
Time frame: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
Change in functional status based on interRAI activities of daily living (ADL) scores.
Time frame: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
Number of participants with transfers out of the institution (return to independent living)
Time frame: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
Number of participants with transfers out of the institution (return to independent living)
Time frame: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
Number of participants with transfers out of the institution (return to independent living)
Time frame: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
Number of participants with episodes of delirium based on responses to questions in Section C of the interRAI LTCF assessment form
Time frame: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
Number of participants with episodes of delirium based on responses to questions in Section C of the interRAI LTCF assessment form
Time frame: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
Number of participants with episodes of delirium based on responses to questions in Section C of the interRAI LTCF assessment form
Time frame: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
Number of changes from baseline in composite safety data
Time frame: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
Number of changes from baseline in composite safety data
Time frame: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
Number of changes from baseline in composite safety data
Time frame: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
User experience with MedSafer reports and MedReviewRx. Measured by survey responses.
Time frame: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
User experience with MedSafer reports and MedReviewRx. Measured by survey responses.
Time frame: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
User experience with MedSafer reports and MedReviewRx. Measured by survey responses.
Time frame: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
User experience with MedSafer reports and MedReviewRx. Measured through interview data.
Time frame: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
User experience with MedSafer reports and MedReviewRx. Measured through interview data.
Time frame: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
User experience with MedSafer reports and MedReviewRx. Measured through interview data.
Time frame: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
User experience with MedSafer reports and MedReviewRx. Measured through informal feedback received by the study team.
Time frame: 90-days following the first intervention cycle (9-months)
User experience with MedSafer reports and MedReviewRx. Measured through informal feedback received by the study team.
Time frame: 90-days following the second intervention cycle (6-months)
User experience with MedSafer reports and MedReviewRx. Measured through informal feedback received by the study team.
Time frame: 90-days following the third intervention cycle (3-months)
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 16 Jun 2021.
- Background: PubMed 30122912AlRasheed MM, Alhawassi TM, Alanazi A, Aloudah N, Khurshid F, Alsultan M. Knowledge and willingness of physicians about deprescribing among older patients: a qualitative study. Clin Interv Aging. 2018 Aug 6;13:1401-1408. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S165588. eCollection 2018.
- Background: PubMed 25530297Caputo A. Trends of psychology-related research on euthanasia: a qualitative software-based thematic analysis of journal abstracts. Psychol Health Med. 2015;20(7):858-69. doi: 10.1080/13548506.2014.993405. Epub 2014 Dec 20.
- Background: PubMed 30335185Brath H, Mehta N, Savage RD, Gill SS, Wu W, Bronskill SE, Zhu L, Gurwitz JH, Rochon PA. What Is Known About Preventing, Detecting, and Reversing Prescribing Cascades: A Scoping Review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018 Nov;66(11):2079-2085. doi: 10.1111/jgs.15543. Epub 2018 Oct 18.
- Background: PubMed 30241874Conklin J, Farrell B, Suleman S. Implementing deprescribing guidelines into frontline practice: Barriers and facilitators. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2019 Jun;15(6):796-800. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2018.08.012. Epub 2018 Sep 18.
- Background: PubMed 30108032Dills H, Shah K, Messinger-Rapport B, Bradford K, Syed Q. Deprescribing Medications for Chronic Diseases Management in Primary Care Settings: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2018 Nov;19(11):923-935.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2018.06.021. Epub 2018 Aug 11.
- Background: PubMed 29682764Djatche L, Lee S, Singer D, Hegarty SE, Lombardi M, Maio V. How confident are physicians in deprescribing for the elderly and what barriers prevent deprescribing? J Clin Pharm Ther. 2018 Aug;43(4):550-555. doi: 10.1111/jcpt.12688. Epub 2018 Apr 22.
- Background: PubMed 31250427McDonald EG, Wu PE, Rashidi B, Forster AJ, Huang A, Pilote L, Papillon-Ferland L, Bonnici A, Tamblyn R, Whitty R, Porter S, Battu K, Downar J, Lee TC. The MedSafer Study: A Controlled Trial of an Electronic Decision Support Tool for Deprescribing in Acute Care. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019 Sep;67(9):1843-1850. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16040. Epub 2019 Jun 27.
- Background: PubMed 27663392Sirois C, Ouellet N, Reeve E. Community-dwelling older people's attitudes towards deprescribing in Canada. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2017 Jul-Aug;13(4):864-870. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2016.08.006. Epub 2016 Aug 31.
- Background: PubMed 29541966Thillainadesan J, Gnjidic D, Green S, Hilmer SN. Impact of Deprescribing Interventions in Older Hospitalised Patients on Prescribing and Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Randomised Trials. Drugs Aging. 2018 Apr;35(4):303-319. doi: 10.1007/s40266-018-0536-4.
- Background: PubMed 32566758van der Sluijs R, Fiddelers AAA, Waalwijk JF, Reitsma JB, Dirx MJ, den Hartog D, Evers SMAA, Goslings JC, Hoogeveen WM, Lansink KW, Leenen LPH, van Heijl M, Poeze M. The impact of the Trauma Triage App on pre-hospital trauma triage: design and protocol of the stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized TESLA trial. Diagn Progn Res. 2020 Jun 18;4:10. doi: 10.1186/s41512-020-00076-1. eCollection 2020.
- Background: PubMed 28279222Barker D, D'Este C, Campbell MJ, McElduff P. Minimum number of clusters and comparison of analysis methods for cross sectional stepped wedge cluster randomised trials with binary outcomes: A simulation study. Trials. 2017 Mar 9;18(1):119. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-1862-2.
- Background: PubMed 23523551Woertman W, de Hoop E, Moerbeek M, Zuidema SU, Gerritsen DL, Teerenstra S. Stepped wedge designs could reduce the required sample size in cluster randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013 Jul;66(7):752-8. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.009. Epub 2013 Mar 22.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Non-pharma academic researchers may contact the principal investigator by email one year following the primary publication for access to data which will be shared via password-protected excel document.
Related trials for Polypharmacy
Recruiting
Polypharmacy on Healthy Aging in People Living With HIV Over the Age of 75
Virus-HIV
Active, not recruiting
Improving Medication Management in World Trade Center Responders
Polypharmacy
Recruiting
PRE-EMPTIVE PHARMACOGENOMICS IN ACUTE CARE SETTINGS WITH HEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS (PHOENIX TRIAL)
Pharmacogenomic Drug Interaction
Not yet recruiting
Impact of Pharmacotherapy Optimization in Polymedicated Lebanese Older Adults in Primary Health Care Centers
Older Adults (65 Years and Older), Polypharmacy (People Under Treatment With 5 or More Drugs)
RecruitingObservational study
IPGx PILOT Whole Genome Sequencing Extension Cohort
Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR), Polypharmacy Patients
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Carole Goodine, Pharm D principal investigator
Horizon Health Network
Emily McDonald, MD principal investigator
McGill University Health Centre/Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre
5 sites in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing MedReviewRx in people with Polypharmacy and Deprescribing, run by Centre for Innovation and Research in Aging, Canada at 5 sites in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 16 Jun 2021. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 5 sites in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Impact of MedReviewRx on the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in New Brunswick nursing homes (NBNHs). (time frame: Baseline to 3 months). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04762303, which also lists 23 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 16 Jun 2021.