ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2025
Pharmacist-led deprescribing interventions for cancer patients in a specialist palliative care setting.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Factors influencing deprescribing in community-dwelling patients with palliative needs in primary care: A qualitative systematic review.Palliative medicine · 2026Review
- Role of clinical pharmacists in palliative care team: A scoping review.Palliative & supportive care · 2026Article
- Trends in prescriptions and factors associated with discontinuation of potentially inappropriate medications in elderly patients with advanced cancer at the end of life: A retrospective cohort study.Palliative care and social practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) among adult cancer patients in palliative care, the rate at which physicians implemented pharmacists' deprescribing recommendations, and some cost implications of deprescribing.
methodsMedication reconciliation was performed for each eligible patient, with both the OncPal deprescribing guideline and clinical judgement applied to identify PIMs. PIM prevalence was evaluated for each medication class. The physician recommendation implementation rate and medication cost savings were calculated.
resultsIn the 48 included patients, 25.2% of medications were PIMs (mean 2.4/patient) - with 86.7% OncPal-defined PIMs, most commonly vitamins, medications for gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), and lipid-modifying agents. Pharmacist deprescribing recommendations were implemented 71.7% of the time, equivalent to 1.7 fewer medications per patient. The 28-day cost was €948.27 for deprescribed PIMs. Implementation rates varied based on patient admission type, with a significantly higher (p<0.05) rate in those admitted for end-of-life care (83.3%) versus symptom control (65.1%) and respite (30%) admissions. Recommendations to deprescribe GORD medications had a significantly lower rate of implementation (26.7%) compared to all other medications (p<0.0001).
conclusionThis study underscores the benefits of pharmacist-led deprescribing in inpatient palliative care, resulting in cost savings and reduced medication burden. There is a notable need for proactive deprescribing before reaching inpatient care. Different deprescribing rates across medication types highlight the significance of reviewing medications which may have a role in symptom management. The omission of some medications from OncPal emphasises the importance in refining future deprescribing guidelines in palliative care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.