Cardiovascular polypharmacy is not associated with unplanned hospitalisation: evidence from a retrospective cohort study

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, so that many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients. This is the third update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions, alone or in combination, in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 13 January 2021, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies. We ran updated searches in February 2023 and have added potentially eligible studies to 'Characteristics of studies awaiting classification'.

SELECTION CRITERIA

For this update, we included randomised trials only. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy (four or more medicines) in people aged 65 years and older, which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, and two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 38 studies, which includes an additional 10 in this update. The included studies consisted of 24 randomised trials and 14 cluster-randomised trials. Thirty-six studies examined complex, multi-faceted interventions of pharmaceutical care (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patients' outcomes), in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists, nurses and geriatricians, and most were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane risk of bias tool found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low. It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool) (mean difference (MD) -5.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) -9.26 to -2.06; I2 = 97%; 8 studies, 947 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.05; I2 = 67%; 9 studies, 2404 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIM (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.98; I2 = 84%; 13 studies, 4534 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -1.05 to 0.09; I2 = 92%; 3 studies, 691 participants; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only three studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk of bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPO (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.91; I2 = 95%; 7 studies, 2765 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to hospital admissions (data not pooled; 14 studies, 4797 participants; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference to quality of life (data not pooled; 16 studies, 7458 participants; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in 10 studies (6740 participants) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies. This also applied to studies examining adherence to medication (nine studies, 3848 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy resulted in clinically significant improvement. Since the last update of this review in 2018, there appears to have been an increase in the number of studies seeking to address potential prescribing omissions and more interventions being delivered by multidisciplinary teams.

The Association Between Medication Use in Older Women with Early-Stage Operable Primary Breast Cancer and Decision Regarding Primary Treatment

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy is one factor contributing to increased mortality, hospitalization, and adverse drug reactions in older adults. The aim of this study was to measure the prevalence of polypharmacy in a cohort of older women with early-stage operable primary breast cancer and the relationship of polypharmacy to primary treatment decision and functional status.

METHODS

A total of 139 patients with a new diagnosis of early-stage operable primary breast cancer proven histologically were recruited as part of a prospective study. The average age was 77 years. Assessment using a cancer-specific Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) tool was conducted within 6 weeks of diagnosis of breast cancer. Association was determined between number of medications and treatment decision and physical status as measured by the CGA outcomes. Additional analysis was performed to determine the associations above with polypharmacy defined by ≥5 daily medications, and if cardiovascular-related diseases have a role in the treatment decision.

RESULTS

Polypharmacy was present in 48% of patients (n = 139). CGA determined that polypharmacy was associated with greater comorbidity (P < .001), reduced physical status rated by physicians (P = .009) and patients (P = .019), and reduced ability to perform activities of instrumental ADLs (P = .008). Similar findings were present in the analysis of cardiovascular-related diseases.

CONCLUSIONS

This work suggests that patients with polypharmacy are more likely to be frail. The number of medications could help us screen patients who should go on to receive full CGA.

A nationwide study of multimedicine use in people treated with cardiovascular medicines in Australia

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Multimorbidity and multimedicine use are common in people with cardiovascular disease and can lead to harms, such as prescribing errors and drug interactions. We quantified multimedicine use in people treated with cardiovascular medicines in a national sample of Australians.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

DATA SOURCE

Pharmaceutical dispensing claims for a 10% random sample of Australians.

PATIENTS

Australian adults dispensed any cardiovascular medicine between June and August 2019.

INTERVENTION

None.

MEASUREMENTS

We quantified the number and type of cardiovascular and non-cardiovascular medicines dispensed during the study period, and the number of unique prescribers, by age and sex.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 493,081 people dispensed any cardiovascular medicine (median age = 67 years, 50.2% women). The population prevalence of cardiovascular medicine dispensing increased from 1.7% (n = 10,503) in people 18-34 years to 80.1% (n = 99,271) in people 75-84 years. Cardiovascular medicine dispensing varied by sex; women 18-34 years were more likely to be dispensed any cardiovascular medicine than men (male:female prevalence ratio [PR] = 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.81-0.87), whereas the prevalence of cardiovascular medicine dispensing was higher in men 35-44 years (PR = 1.27, 95% CI 1.24-1.30) and 45-54 years (PR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.22-1.26) and was similar between sexes in people ≥65 years. Overall, both women and men were dispensed a median of 2.0 (interquartile range [IQR] = 1.0-3.0) cardiovascular medicines. Two-thirds of people ≥65 years (73.5%; n = 208,524) were dispensed ≥2 cardiovascular medicines, with 16.6% (n = 6736) of people ≥85 years dispensed five or more. Women and men were dispensed a median of 2.0 (IQR = 1.0-5.0) and 2.0 (IQR = 0.0-4.0) non-cardiovascular medicines, respectively, to treat comorbid conditions, commonly gastroesophageal reflux disease medicines (32.2% of women and 26.6% of men), antibiotics (28.7% of women and 22.4% of men), and antidepressants (26.3% of women and 15.9% of men). One quarter of both sexes had multiple prescribers for their cardiovascular medicines alone, whereas 54.5% (n = 134,939) of women and 49.9% (n = 122,706) of men had multiple prescribers for all medicines.

CONCLUSION

Multimedicine use is common in people treated with cardiovascular medicines and presents a risk for inappropriate prescribing. Understanding the comorbid conditions commonly treated concurrently with cardiovascular disease can help improve co-prescribing guidelines and develop a person-centered approach to multimorbidity treatment.

Antibacterial prescription and the associated factors among outpatients diagnosed with respiratory tract infections in Mbarara Municipality, Uganda

Background

Respiratory tract infections (RTI) are the second most frequent diagnosis after Malaria amongst Outpatients in Uganda. Majority are Non pneumonia cough and flu which are self-limiting and often do not require antibacterials. However, antibiotics are continuously prescribed for these conditions and are a major contributor to antimicrobial resistance and wastage of health resources. Little is known about this problem in Uganda hence the impetus for the study.

Objectives

To determine the antibacterial prescribing rate and associated factors among RTI outpatients in Mbarara municipality

Methodology

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study on records of RTI outpatients from 1st April 2019 to 31st March 2020 (prior to the novel corona virus disease pandemic) in four selected public health facilities within Mbarara municipality. A pretested data caption tool was used to capture prescribing patterns using WHO/INRUD prescribing indicators. We used logistic regression to determine factors associated to antibacterial prescribing.

Results

A total of 780 encounters were studied with adults (18-59 years) forming the largest proportion of age categories at (337, 43.15%) and more females (444, 56.85%) than men (337, 43.15%). The antibacterial prescribing rate was 77.6% (606) with Amoxicillin the most prescribed 80.4% (503). The prescribing pattern showed an average of 2.47 (sd 0.72) drugs per encounter and the percentage of encounters with injection at 1.5% (24). Drugs prescribed by generic (1557, 79%) and drugs prescribed from essential medicine list (1650, 84%) both not conforming to WHO/INRUD standard; an indicator of possible irrational prescribing. Female gender (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI]: (1.06–2.16); 18–59 years age group (aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.09–2.33) and Individuals prescribed at least three drugs were significantly more likely to have an antibacterial prescribed (aOR= 2.72, 95% CI: 1.86–3.98).

Conclusion

The study found a high antibacterial prescribing rate especially among patients with URTI, polypharmacy and non-conformity to both essential medicine list and generic name prescribing. This prescribing pattern does not comply with rational drug use policy and needs to be addressed through antimicrobial stewardship interventions, prescriber education on rational drug use and carrying out more research to determine the appropriateness of antibacterial prescribed.

Association between number of medications and mortality among older adult patients in a specialized cardiology hospital

AIM

Although polypharmacy has been associated with poor clinical outcomes, whether taking an increased number of medications is harmful or beneficial for older adult patients treated for cardiovascular diseases might require further discussion.

METHODS

We analyzed data of 2089 patients aged ≥75 years in a single hospital-based cohort. The study population was divided into three groups according to the tertiles of the number of medications at baseline: <3 (n = 647), 3-7 (n = 707) and ≥8 (n = 735).

RESULTS

The cumulative incidences of all-cause death at 3 years among patients taking less than three, three to seven and eight or more medications were 3.7%, 4.1% and 7.8%, respectively (log-rank test P = 0.015). In a Cox regression analysis, taking eight or more total medications (vs 0-2) was independently associated with all-cause death (hazard ratio 1.67, 95% CI 1.01-2.78). For predicting mortality using the number of medications, the maximum Youden Index was 7. In subgroups with certain heart diseases, no regular tendency of an increase in the risk of all-cause death was observed with an increase in the number of medications.

CONCLUSIONS

The number of medications taken was independently associated with mortality among older adult patients, with a relatively high cut-off point. This association was not observed in patients with certain heart diseases, possibly indicating the merit - rather than the harm - of medical treatment in the cardiovascular field. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2021; 21: 985-995.

International prescribing patterns and polypharmacy in older people with advanced chronic kidney disease: results from the European Quality study

BACKGROUND

People with chronic kidney disease (CKD) are at high risk of polypharmacy. However, no previous study has investigated international prescribing patterns in this group. This article aims to examine prescribing and polypharmacy patterns among older people with advanced CKD across the countries involved in the European Quality (EQUAL) study.

METHODS

The EQUAL study is an international prospective cohort study of patients ≥65 years of age with advanced CKD. Baseline demographic, clinical and medication data were analysed and reported descriptively. Polypharmacy was defined as ≥5 medications and hyperpolypharmacy as ≥10. Univariable and multivariable linear regressions were used to determine associations between country and the number of prescribed medications. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression were used to determine associations between country and hyperpolypharmacy.

RESULTS

Of the 1317 participants from five European countries, 91% were experiencing polypharmacy and 43% were experiencing hyperpolypharmacy. Cardiovascular medications were the most prescribed medications (mean 3.5 per person). There were international differences in prescribing, with significantly greater hyperpolypharmacy in Germany {odds ratio (OR) 2.75 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.73-4.37]; P < 0.001, reference group UK}, the Netherlands [OR 1.91 (95% CI 1.32-2.76); P = 0.001] and Italy [OR 1.57 (95% CI 1.15-2.15); P = 0.004]. People in Poland experienced the least hyperpolypharmacy [OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.17-0.87); P = 0.021].

CONCLUSIONS

Hyperpolypharmacy is common among older people with advanced CKD, with significant international differences in the number of medications prescribed. Practice variation may represent a lack of consensus regarding appropriate prescribing for this high-risk group for whom pharmacological treatment has great potential for harm as well as benefit.

Relation of severe COVID-19 to polypharmacy and prescribing of psychotropic drugs: the REACT-SCOT case-control study

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to investigate the relation of severe COVID-19 to prior drug prescribing.

METHODS

Severe cases were defined by entry to critical care or fatal outcome. For this matched case-control study (REACT-SCOT), all 4251 cases of severe COVID-19 in Scotland since the start of the epidemic were matched for age, sex and primary care practice to 36,738 controls from the population register. Records were linked to hospital discharges since June 2015 and dispensed prescriptions issued in primary care during the last 240 days.

RESULTS

Severe COVID-19 was strongly associated with the number of non-cardiovascular drug classes dispensed. This association was strongest in those not resident in a care home, in whom the rate ratio (95% CI) associated with dispensing of 12 or more drug classes versus none was 10.8 (8.8, 13.3), and in those without any of the conditions designated as conferring increased risk of COVID-19. Of 17 drug classes postulated at the start of the epidemic to be "medications compromising COVID", all were associated with increased risk of severe COVID-19 and these associations were present in those without any of the designated risk conditions. The fraction of cases in the population attributable to exposure to these drug classes was 38%. The largest effect was for antipsychotic agents: rate ratio 4.18 (3.42, 5.11). Other drug classes with large effects included proton pump inhibitors (rate ratio 2.20 (1.72, 2.83) for = 2 defined daily doses/day), opioids (3.66 (2.68, 5.01) for = 50 mg morphine equivalent/day) and gabapentinoids. These associations persisted after adjusting for covariates and were stronger with recent than with non-recent exposure.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe COVID-19 is associated with polypharmacy and with drugs that cause sedation, respiratory depression, or dyskinesia; have anticholinergic effects; or affect the gastrointestinal system. These associations are not easily explained by co-morbidity. Measures to reduce the burden of mortality and morbidity from COVID-19 should include reinforcing existing guidance on reducing overprescribing of these drug classes and limiting inappropriate polypharmacy.

REGISTRATION

ENCEPP number EUPAS35558.

Polypharmacy among COVID-19 patients: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy, the concomitant use of 5 or more medications, is highly prevalent among older adults and individuals with multimorbid conditions and has been linked to suboptimal clinical outcomes in various diseases. However, little is known about the impact of polypharmacy on clinical outcomes among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review summarizes the available literature on the association between polypharmacy and specific drug classes, and clinical outcomes among COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

We conducted an electronic database search on Embase, Medline, Cochrane, Scopus, Google Scholar, clinicaltrials.gov, LITCOVID, PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and China national knowledge infrastructure for studies on Polypharmacy among COVID-19 patients using relevant combinations of the keywords. Only studies published between November 2019 to September 2020 were included. Seven articles out of 1502 unique articles met the inclusion criteria and were used for the current study. We adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline in conducting and reporting this systematic review.

RESULTS

The total sample size of all studies was 474,342, out of which 10,519 patients were COVID-19 positive, and 4818 COVID-19 positive patients experienced polypharmacy. Five out of the 7 included studies found associations between polypharmacy and negative clinical outcomes among COVID-19 patients. Polypharmacy was associated with increase in the relative risk of a positive COVID-19 test result (P < 0.01), death among male COVID-19 patients (P < 0.001), increase in the rate of acute kidney injury (P = 0.003), and adverse drug reactions (P < 0.001). Antipsychotic drugs were associated with severe COVID-19 morbidity (OR = 2.79; 95% CI 2.23-3.49) and increased risk of death among COVID-19 infected men (OR = 1.71; 95% CI 1.18-2.48) and women (OR = 1.96; 95% CI 1.41-2.73).

CONCLUSION

Polypharmacy and selected drug classes are associated with increased risk of adverse clinical outcomes among COVID-19 patients. Understanding these relationships can enhance risk stratification and evidence-based decision-making that may improve care and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients.

Long-term trajectories of medicine use among older adults experiencing polypharmacy in Australia

AIMS

To explore longitudinal changes in the number and type of medicines used among older people who experience polypharmacy.

METHODS

We used pharmaceutical claims for a 10% sample of Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme beneficiaries to identify people aged 70 years and older who were exposed to 5 or more medicines on 15 February 2014. Using group-based trajectory modelling, we explored changes in the quarterly number and type of medicines used over a 5-year period (2014-2018).

RESULTS

In our cohort of 98 539 people, we identified 2 predominant groups of medicine use: sustained polypharmacy (77% of people, 4 trajectories); and decreasing medicine use (23%, 3 trajectories). Within the sustained polypharmacy group, people in trajectories with a lower mean number of medicines (e.g. 6 unique medicines) had relatively stable trajectories, while those using a higher number of medicines (e.g. 15 unique medicines) experienced greater seasonal variation in the number and type of medicines used. On average, people continued to use 2/3 of their medicines (chemical substance level) across adjacent quarters. Within groups of decreasing medicine use, the most common trajectory was a slight drop in medicines within 3 months. Overall, 79% of people still experienced polypharmacy after 1 year.

CONCLUSION

Polypharmacy among older people is a sustained phenomenon, reflecting the chronic nature of multimorbidity within this population. However, there is an underlying volatility in the nature of medicines involved, reflecting both changes in treatment and seasonal fluctuation in dispensing. Ongoing prescribing vigilance is required, particularly for patients using very large amounts of medicines.

Initial cardiovascular treatment patterns during the first 90 days following an incident cardiovascular event

AIMS

The aim of this study was to investigate the initial cardiovascular prescription patterns in patients after their first cardiovascular events, and to identify factors associated with cardiovascular polypharmacy.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study including patients aged ≥ 45 years with the first record of coronary heart disease (CHD) or stroke between 2007 and 2016 using The Health Improvement Network database. This study investigated the patterns of cardiovascular drugs prescribed during the first 90 days after the first cardiovascular events. Logistic regression was used to examine the association between patients' baseline characteristics and cardiovascular polypharmacy (≥5 cardiovascular drugs).

RESULTS

A total of 121,600 (59,843 CHD and 61,757 stroke) patients were included in the study. The mean age was 69.5 ± 11.9 years. The proportion of patients who were prescribed 0-1, 2-3, 4-5 drugs and ≥6 drugs were 11.0%, 29.8%, 38.6% and 20.5%, respectively. Factors associated with cardiovascular polypharmacy were sex (female: OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.72-0.76 vs male), age (75-84 years old: OR 0.50, 0.47-0.53 vs 45-54 years old), smoking status (current smoking: OR 1.29, 1.15-1.24 vs never), body mass index (obesity: OR 1.38, 1.34-1.43 vs normal), deprivation status (most deprived: OR 1.09, 1.04-1.14 vs least deprived) and Charlson comorbidity index (index ≥5: OR 1.25, 1.16-1.35 vs index 0).

CONCLUSION

Multiple cardiovascular drugs treatment was common in patients with CVD in the UK. High-risk factors of CVD were also associated with cardiovascular polypharmacy. Further studies are warranted to assess the impact of cardiovascular polypharmacy and its interaction on CVD recurrence and mortality.

Prevalence and determinants of polypharmacy in cardiovascular patients attending outpatient clinic in Ethiopia University Hospital

BACKGROUND

While there are advances in medicine and pharmaceutical care, the burden of medication use has also grown with polypharmacy. In this regard, cardiovascular patients are subjected to polypharmacy for a longer period.

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to assess the prevalence and predictors of polypharmacy in cardiovascular outpatients attending the University of Gondar Comprehensive specialized hospital, northwest Ethiopia.

METHODS

A hospital-based cross-sectional study was employed at the University of Gondar Comprehensive Specialized Hospital from March 30 -May 30, 2019. The unique medical registration number of 424 patients was selected by using systematic random sampling to trace the medical chart and followed with an interview to explore the factors related to polypharmacy. All the Statistical analysis was carried out using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22. Bivariable and multivariable logistic regressions were used to identify the predictors of polypharmacy in cardiovascular patients.

RESULT

The mean age of the respondents was 56.83 ± 15.27 years. The mean number of medications per patient was 3.3±1.6. The prevalence of polypharmacy was 24.8% in cardiovascular outpatients while cardiovascular specific polypharmacy was 9.2%. Elderly (aged ≥ 65 years and above) patients were nearly two times more likely to had polypharmacy prescriptions with AOR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.08-3.61; p = 0.027. Patients with abnormal weight (underweight AOR: 4.51; 95% CI: 1.42-14.30; p = 0.010, overweight AOR: 3.78; 95% CI: 1.83-7.83; p<0.001 and obese AOR: 5.1; 95% CI: 2.04-12.75 p<0.001) are more likely to have polypharmacy. Having a family history of CVD increase the likelihood of polypharmacy more than double; AOR: 2.40; 95% CI: 1.17-4.93; p = 0.017. A unit increase in Charlson comorbidity index score resulted in a nearly threefold likelihood of polypharmacy with AOR: 2.83; 95% CI 1.91-3.89; p<0.001.

CONCLUSION

One out of four cardiovascular patients attending the outpatient clinic was on polypharmacy. The elderly age, abnormal body mass index (non-normal weight), family history of cardiovascular diseases and increasing Charlson morbidity index were the predictors of polypharmacy in cardiovascular patients. Clinicians should ensure the relevance of all prescribed medications and pharmaceutical care targeting at the prevention of inappropriate polypharmacy would be pivotal to reduce polypharmacy associated burdens.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate polypharmacy is a particular concern in older people and is associated with negative health outcomes. Choosing the best interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is a priority, hence interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients, is growing. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine which interventions, alone or in combination, are effective in improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy and reducing medication-related problems in older people.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers up until 7 February 2018, together with handsearching of reference lists to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people aged 65 years and older, prescribed polypharmacy (four or more medicines), which used a validated tool to assess prescribing appropriateness. These tools can be classified as either implicit tools (judgement-based/based on expert professional judgement) or explicit tools (criterion-based, comprising lists of drugs to be avoided in older people).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. We pooled study-specific estimates, and used a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 32 studies, 20 from this update. Included studies consisted of 18 randomised trials, 10 cluster randomised trials (one of which was a stepped-wedge design), two non-randomised trials and two controlled before-after studies. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support (CDS); and 31 were complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical-care based approaches (i.e. the responsible provision of medicines to improve patient's outcomes), one of which incorporated a CDS component as part of their multi-faceted intervention. Interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals such as general physicians, pharmacists and geriatricians, and all were conducted in high-income countries. Assessments using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool, found that there was a high and/or unclear risk of bias across a number of domains. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome ranged from low to very low.It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care improves medication appropriateness (as measured by an implicit tool), mean difference (MD) -4.76, 95% CI -9.20 to -0.33; 5 studies, N = 517; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the number of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.22, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.05; 7 studies; N = 1832; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PIMs, (risk ratio (RR) 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.02; 11 studies; N = 3079; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may slightly reduce the number of potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) (SMD -0.81, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.64; 2 studies; N = 569; low-certainty evidence), however it must be noted that this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias. Likewise, it is uncertain whether pharmaceutical care reduces the proportion of patients with one or more PPOs (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.85; 5 studies; N = 1310; very low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in hospital admissions (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 4052; low-certainty evidence). Pharmaceutical care may make little or no difference in quality of life (data not pooled; 12 studies; N = 3211; low-certainty evidence). Medication-related problems were reported in eight studies (N = 10,087) using different terms (e.g. adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions). No consistent intervention effect on medication-related problems was noted across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as reviews of patients' prescriptions, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they may be slightly beneficial in terms of reducing potential prescribing omissions (PPOs); but this effect estimate is based on only two studies, which had serious limitations in terms of risk bias.

Developing a measure of polypharmacy appropriateness in primary care: systematic review and expert consensus study

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy is an increasing challenge for primary care. Although sometimes clinically justified, polypharmacy can be inappropriate, leading to undesirable outcomes. Optimising care for polypharmacy necessitates effective targeting and monitoring of interventions. This requires a valid, reliable measure of polypharmacy, relevant for all patients, that considers clinical appropriateness and generic prescribing issues applicable across all medications. Whilst there are several existing measures of potentially inappropriate prescribing, these are not specifically designed with polypharmacy in mind, can require extensive clinical input to complete, and often cover a limited number of drugs. The aim of this study was to identify what experts consider to be the key elements of a measure of prescribing appropriateness in the context of polypharmacy.

METHODS

Firstly, we conducted a systematic review to identify generic (not drug specific) prescribing indicators relevant to polypharmacy appropriateness. Indicators were subject to content analysis to enable categorisation. Secondly, we convened a panel of 10 clinical experts to review the identified indicators and assess their relative clinical importance. For each indicator category, a brief evidence summary was developed, based on relevant clinical and indicator literature, clinical guidance, and opinions obtained from a separate patient discussion panel. A two-stage RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was used to reach consensus amongst the panel on a core set of indicators of polypharmacy appropriateness.

RESULTS

We identified 20,879 papers for title/abstract screening, obtaining 273 full papers. We extracted 189 generic indicators, and presented 160 to the panel grouped into 18 classifications (e.g. adherence, dosage, clinical efficacy). After two stages, during which the panel introduced 18 additional indicators, there was consensus that 134 indicators were of clinical importance. Following the application of decision rules and further panel consultation, 12 indicators were placed into the final selection. Panel members particularly valued indicators concerned with adverse drug reactions, contraindications, drug-drug interactions, and the conduct of medication reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified a set of 12 indicators of clinical importance considered relevant to polypharmacy appropriateness. Use of these indicators in clinical practice and informatics systems is dependent on their operationalisation and their utility (e.g. risk stratification, targeting and monitoring polypharmacy interventions) requires subsequent evaluation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration number: PROSPERO ( CRD42016049176 ).

Diseases Linked to Polypharmacy in Elderly Patients

Introduction

Polypharmacy in several cases is deemed necessary and elderly patients are prone to this phenomenon. The objective of this study was to identify the prevalence and the predictors of polypharmacy among consecutively unplanned admissions of patients aged ≥65 years.

Patients and Methods

In 310 patients (51% women), mean age 80.24 years (95% CI 79.35–81.10), demographic characteristics, medical history, medications, and cause of admission were recorded. Parametric tests and multiple logistic regression analysis were applied to identify the factors that have significant association with polypharmacy.

Results

53.5% of patients belonged to polypharmacy group. In multivariate analysis the independent predictors of polypharmacy were arterial hypertension (p = 0.003, OR = 2.708, and 95% CI 1.400–5.238), coronary artery disease (p = 0.001, OR = 8.274, and 95% CI 3.161–21.656), heart failure (p = 0.030, OR = 4.042, and 95% CI 1.145–14.270), atrial fibrillation (p = 0.031, OR = 2.477, and 95% CI 1.086–5.648), diabetes mellitus (p = 0.010, OR = 2.390, and 95% CI 1.232–4.636), dementia (p = 0.001, OR = 4.637, and 95% CI 1.876–11.464), and COPD (p = 0.022, OR = 3.626, and 95% CI 1.208–10.891).

Conclusions

Polypharmacy mainly was linked to cardiovascular diseases. If deprescribing is not feasible, physicians must oversee those patients in order to recognise early, possible drug reactions.

Deprescribing: a primary care perspective

Polypharmacy is an increasing and global issue affecting primary care. Although sometimes appropriate, polypharmacy can also be problematic, leading to a range of adverse consequences. Deprescribing is the process of supervised withdrawal of an inappropriate medication and has the potential to reduce some of the problems associated with polypharmacy. It is a complex and sensitive process. We examine the issue of deprescribing from the perspective of primary care. Key steps in the deprescribing process are a review of medications and corresponding indications, consideration of harms, assessment of eligibility for discontinuation, prioritisation of medications and implementation of a stopping plan with appropriate monitoring. Patient involvement is a key feature of this process. Deprescribing should be considered in the context of end-of-life care and medication safety, but approaches are also required to identify other situations where deprescribing is appropriate. General practitioners are well positioned to facilitate deprescribing, usually through formal medication review, with decisions informed by a range of other healthcare professionals. Guidelines are available that help guide these processes. A range of studies have explored attitudes towards deprescribing; patients are generally supportive of the concept, although clinician views are varied. The successful implementation of deprescribing strategies still requires important patient and clinician barriers to be overcome, and clinical trial evidence of effectiveness and safety is essential.

Prevalence and Covariates of Polypharmacy in Elderly Patients on Discharge from a Tertiary Care Hospital in Oman

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the prevalence of polypharmacy in relation to gender, comorbidity, and age among elderly patients upon discharge from an academic tertiary care hospital in Muscat, Oman.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted at Sultan Qaboos University Hospital between February and July 2014. We reviewed the electronic medical records of elderly patients aged ≥ 60 years who were admitted to any of the hospital's medical wards during the study period and collected data on age, gender, and diagnoses. We also collected information on the medications prescribed on discharge. Polypharmacy was defined as the concurrent use of ≥ 5 medications.

RESULTS

A total of 431 elderly inpatients were enrolled, of which approximately 50% were female. Polypharmacy was identified in 76.3% of discharge prescriptions. Gender (adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 1.17; 95% CI 0.73, 1.88, p = 0.502) and age (aOR, 0.98; 95% CI 0.95, 1.00, p = 0.075) had no impact on polypharmacy. On the other hand, a significant association between polypharmacy and comorbidity was observed (aOR, 1.31; 95% CI 1.12, 1.54, p = 0.001). Cardiovascular diagnosis on admission was also identified as being associated with polypharmacy (aOR, 2.66; 95% CI 1.49, 4.75, p = 0.001). More patients had cardiovascular diseases on admission (31.0%), followed by infections (23.0%), and gastrointestinal diseases (13.0%). The most commonly prescribed drugs on discharge were cardiovascular drugs (48.0%), followed by drugs acting on the gastrointestinal system (11.0%), endocrine system (9.2%), and nutrition and blood (7.5%).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of polypharmacy among elderly medical patients discharged from our hospital was high (76.3%) and was associated with a number of comorbidities and cardiovascular disease as a cause of admission, but not with age or gender. The prevalence of polypharmacy in our institution raises significant concerns over its potential impact on patients' health outcomes and requires further investigation. Raising physicians' awareness of health implications of polypharmacy may help reduce the incidence of medication-related adverse events and improve treatment outcomes.

Appropriate Polypharmacy and Medicine Safety: When Many is not Too Many

The use of multiple medicines (polypharmacy) is increasingly common in middle-aged and older populations. Ensuring the correct balance between the prescribing of ‘many’ drugs and ‘too many’ drugs is a significant challenge. Clinicians are tasked with ensuring that patients receive the most appropriate combinations of medications based on the best available evidence, and that medication use is optimised according to patients’ clinical needs (appropriate polypharmacy). Historically, polypharmacy has been viewed negatively because of the associated medication safety risks, such as drug interactions and adverse drug events. More recently, polypharmacy has been identified as a risk factor for under-prescribing, such that patients do not receive necessary medications and this can also pose risks to patients’ safety and well-being. The negative connotations that have long been associated with the term polypharmacy could potentially be acting as a driving factor for under-prescribing, whereby clinicians are reluctant to prescribe necessary medicines for patients who are already receiving ‘many’ medicines. It is now recognised that the prescribing of ‘many’ medicines can be entirely appropriate in patients with several chronic conditions and that the risks of adverse drug events that have been associated with polypharmacy may be greatly reduced when patients’ clinical context is taken into consideration. In this article, we outline the current perspectives on polypharmacy and make the case for adopting the term ‘appropriate polypharmacy’ in differentiating between the prescribing of ‘many’ drugs and ‘too many’ drugs. We also outline the inherent challenges in doing so and provide recommendations for future clinical practice and research.

Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication use in geriatric oncology

Polypharmacy is a highly prevalent problem in older persons, and is challenging to assess and improve due to variations in definitions of the problem and the heterogeneous methods of medication review and reduction. The purpose of this review is to summarize evidence regarding the prevalence and impact of polypharmacy in geriatric oncology patients and to provide recommendations for assessment and management. Polypharmacy has somewhat variably been incorporated into geriatric assessment studies in geriatric oncology, and polypharmacy has not been consistently evaluated as a predictor of negative outcomes in patients with cancer. Once screened, interventions for polypharmacy are even more uncertain. There is a great need to create standardized interventions to improve polypharmacy in geriatrics, and particularly in geriatric oncology. The process of deprescribing is aimed at reducing medications for which real or potential harm outweighs benefit, and there are numerous methods to determine which medications are candidates for deprescribing. However, deprescribing approaches have not been evaluated in older patients with cancer. Ultimately, methods to identify polypharmacy will need to be clearly defined and validated, and interventions to improve medication use will need to be based on clearly defined and standardized methods.

Age-Dependent Impact of Medication Underuse and Strategies for Improvement

Background: Medication underuse is common in aging populations and, because of the growing risk for competing deaths, the benefit of preventive medicines gradually vanishes with advancing age, thus limiting their success. Objective: To estimate the optimum time of initiation of the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events, we examined the impact of appropriate pharmacotherapy for different starting ages at which it is implemented. Methods: In the competing risk framework, we obtained the population's life course from life tables, combined it with effect estimates quantifying the real-world effectiveness of secondary prevention, and compared the outcome of patients not receiving appropriate treatment (underuse) with those receiving preventive medicines that have demonstrated a reduction in the transition to serious cardiovascular events (START criteria). Starting at the age of 55 years, the population proportions of the distinct states of the framework were calculated for each year of chronological age in subgroups of appropriate treatment and underuse. These proportions were used over a follow-up period to estimate measures of treatment effectiveness and risks of underuse. Results: Despite increasing relative effectiveness with advancing age, benefits measured by patient-relevant endpoints, such as life years gained (LYG) or gained quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), markedly dropped after the starting age of 75 years, but even at an initiation age of 85 years, QALYs gained exceeded 1 year. Conclusion: Interventions targeting medication underuse may achieve considerable benefits at any stage of later life, while the benefit is probably largest if appropriate treatment is started before 75 years.

Risk factors for developing drug-related problems in patients with cardiovascular diseases attending Gondar University Hospital, Ethiopia

Background:

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are often accompanied with comoribidities and complications leading to taking multiple drugs and thus are more liable to be exposed to drug-related problems (DRPs). DRPs can occur at any stages of medication process from prescription to follow-up treatment. However, a few studies have assessed the specific risk factors for occurrence of at least one potential DRP per patient with CVDs in sub-Saharan African region.

Aim:

We aim to assess the risk factors for developing potential DRPs in patients with CVDs attending Gondar University Referral Hospital (GUH).

Methodology:

This was a cross-sectional study. A structured systematic data review was designed focusing on patients with CVDs (both out and inpatients) with age >18 years of both genders attending GUH from April to June 2015. All DRPs were assessed using drugs.com and Medscape. The causes of DRPs were classified using Pharmaceutical Care Network Europe version 6.2. Risk factors that could cause DRPs were assessed using binary logistic regression showing odds ratio with 95% confidential interval. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results:

A total of 227 patients with CVDs were reviewed with a mean age of 52.0 ± 1.7 years. Majority were females (143, 63%), outpatients (133, 58.6%), and diagnosed with heart failure (71, 31.3%). Diuretics (199, 29.5%) were the most commonly prescribed drugs. A total of 265 DRPs were identified, 63.4% of patients have at least one DRP (1.17 ± 1.1). The most common DRPs were found to be an inappropriate selection of drug (36.1%) and dose (24.8%). The most identified risk factors causing DRPs were: Need of additional drug therapy and lack of therapeutic monitoring.

Conclusion:

The most identified risk factors for developing DRPs were the need of additional drug therapy and lack of therapeutic monitoring. There is a need for clinical pharmacist interventions to monitor and prevent the risk of developing DRPs and contribute to improve the clinical outcome in patients with CVDs.

Improving appropriate polypharmacy for older people in primary care: selecting components of an evidence-based intervention to target prescribing and dispensing

Background

The use of multiple medicines (polypharmacy) is increasingly common in older people. Ensuring that patients receive the most appropriate combinations of medications (appropriate polypharmacy) is a significant challenge. The quality of evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is low. Systematic identification of mediators of behaviour change, using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), provides a theoretically robust evidence base to inform intervention design. This study aimed to (1) identify key theoretical domains that were perceived to influence the prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy to older patients by general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists, and (2) map domains to associated behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to include as components of an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of each healthcare professional (HCP) group using tailored topic guides based on TDF version 1 (12 domains). Questions covering each domain explored HCPs’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators to ensuring the prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy to older people. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis involved the framework method and content analysis. Key domains were identified and mapped to BCTs based on established methods and discussion within the research team.

Results

Thirty HCPs were interviewed (15 GPs, 15 pharmacists). Eight key domains were identified, perceived to influence prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy: ‘Skills’, ‘Beliefs about capabilities’, ‘Beliefs about consequences’, ‘Environmental context and resources’, ‘Memory, attention and decision processes’, ‘Social/professional role and identity’, ‘Social influences’ and ‘Behavioural regulation’. Following mapping, four BCTs were selected for inclusion in an intervention for GPs or pharmacists: ‘Action planning’, ‘Prompts/cues’, ‘Modelling or demonstrating of behaviour’ and ‘Salience of consequences’. An additional BCT (‘Social support or encouragement’) was selected for inclusion in a community pharmacy-based intervention in order to address barriers relating to interprofessional working that were encountered by pharmacists.

Conclusions

Selected BCTs will be operationalised in a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy for older people, to be delivered in GP practice and community pharmacy settings. Future research will involve development and feasibility testing of this intervention.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-015-0349-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.