9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Rates, determinants and success of implementing deprescribing in people with type 2 diabetes: A scoping review

      review-article
      1 , , 2 , 3 , 1
      Diabetic Medicine
      John Wiley and Sons Inc.

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Individualizing goals for people with type 2 diabetes may result in deintensification of medication, but a comprehensive picture of deprescribing practices is lacking.

          Aims

          To conduct a scoping review in order to assess the rates, determinants and success of implementing deprescribing of glucose‐, blood pressure‐ or lipid‐lowering medications in people with diabetes.

          Methods

          A systematic search on MEDLINE and Embase between January 2007 and January 2019 was carried out for deprescribing studies among people with diabetes. Outcomes were rates of deprescribing related to participant characteristics, the determinants and success of deprescribing, and its implementation. Critical appraisal was conducted using predefined tools.

          Results

          Fourteen studies were included; eight reported on rates, nine on determinants and six on success and implementation. Bias was high for studies on success of deprescribing. Deprescribing rates ranged from 14% to 27% in older people with low HbA 1c levels, and from 16% to 19% in older people with low systolic blood pressure. Rates were not much affected by age, gender, frailty or life expectancy. Rates were higher when a reminder system was used to identify people with hypoglycaemia, which led to less overtreatment and fewer hypoglycaemic events. Most healthcare professionals accepted the concept of deprescribing but differed on when to conduct it. Deprescribing glucose‐lowering medications could be successfully conducted in 62% to 75% of participants with small rises in HbA 1c.

          Conclusions

          Deprescribing of glucose‐lowering medications seems feasible and acceptable, but was not widely implemented in the covered period. Support systems may enhance deprescribing. More studies on deprescribing blood pressure‐ and lipid‐lowering medications in people with diabetes are needed.

          Related collections

          Most cited references46

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

            Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: The Sixth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of 10 societies and by invited experts)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation (EACPR).

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                m.p.oktora@umcg.nl
                Journal
                Diabet Med
                Diabet Med
                10.1111/(ISSN)1464-5491
                DME
                Diabetic Medicine
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0742-3071
                1464-5491
                02 October 2020
                February 2021
                : 38
                : 2 ( doiID: 10.1111/dme.v38.2 )
                : e14408
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology University of Groningen University Medical Centre Groningen Groningen The Netherlands
                [ 2 ] School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy Faculty of Health and Medicine University of Newcastle Newcastle NSW Australia
                [ 3 ] Unit of PharmacoTherapy, Epidemiology and Economics Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy University of Groningen Groningen The Netherlands
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                M. P. Oktora, Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.

                Email: m.p.oktora@ 123456umcg.nl

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3116-787X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0849-7210
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7929-4739
                Article
                DME14408
                10.1111/dme.14408
                7891362
                32969063
                328cfb86-8887-4744-87d1-8ad04ced47c3
                © 2020 The Authors. Diabetic Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Diabetes UK

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                : 30 June 2020
                : 20 August 2020
                : 15 September 2020
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 1, Pages: 13, Words: 7207
                Funding
                Funded by: the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP)
                Award ID: S‐1535/LPDP.3/2017
                Categories
                Systematic Review or Meta‐analysis
                Systematic Review or Meta‐analysis
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                February 2021
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.9.7 mode:remove_FC converted:18.02.2021

                Endocrinology & Diabetes
                Endocrinology & Diabetes

                Comments

                Comment on this article