Evidence mapPaperPMID 42295601Full record

SynthesisApplied health economics and health policy2026

Deprescribing Interventions in Older Adults with Polypharmacy: A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluations.

Josephine Aikpitanyi, Florence Pierrard, Catherine Pétein, Perrine Evrard, Anne Spinewine, Sandy Tubeuf

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Applied health economics and health policy, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Josephine AikpitanyiInstitute of Health and Society Research (IRSS), Faculty of Public Health, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium. josephine.aikpitanyi@uclouvain.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6209-137X
Florence PierrardInstitute of Health and Society Research (IRSS), Faculty of Public Health, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Catherine PéteinClinical Pharmacy and Pharmacoepidemiology Research Group, Louvain Drug Research Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Perrine EvrardClinical Pharmacy and Pharmacoepidemiology Research Group, Louvain Drug Research Institute, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.
Anne SpinewinePharmacy Department, CHU UCL Namur, Université catholique de Louvain, Yvoir, Belgium.
Sandy TubeufInstitute of Health and Society Research (IRSS), Faculty of Public Health, Université catholique de Louvain, Brussels, Belgium.

Funding

Actions de Recherche Concertées Communauté Française Belgique 22/27-124
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDeprescribing is increasingly promoted to address polypharmacy and medication-related harm in older adults. However, its economic value as a distinct intervention remains unclear, as prior reviews have often conflated deprescribing with broader medication optimisation strategies. This systematic review synthesises the economic evidence on deprescribing using a strict conceptual definition.

methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted from January 2000 to June 2025. Studies were included if they reported full economic evaluations (cost-effectiveness, cost-utility, cost-benefit, or cost-consequence analyses) of interventions explicitly involving medication discontinuation in adults aged ≥ 65 years. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist, and reporting quality was assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 statement. Cost data were standardised to 2024 US dollars using purchasing power parity where feasible.

resultsEight studies were included (two trial-based, six model-based). Deprescribing interventions targeting medications with well-established harm profiles, such as sedatives, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and proton pump inhibitors (prolonged use), were most consistently cost-saving or dominant, primarily through reductions in adverse drug events. In contrast, evidence for antihypertensive deprescribing was limited and context dependent, with one model-based study suggesting potential long-term harms under specific assumptions. Across studies, economic outcomes were strongly influenced by intervention design and implementation, with structured, multi-component approaches demonstrating greater effectiveness. Quality assessment indicated generally robust methodological foundations but identified gaps in the handling of uncertainty, transparency in reporting, and the inclusion of broader cost components.

conclusionDeprescribing can represent good value for money when targeted to high-risk medications and supported by structured implementation strategies. Its economic value is not universal but depends on patient context, medication class, and intervention design. Future research should prioritise methodologically rigorous, transparent, and context-sensitive economic evaluations to inform policy and practice.

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.