Tsang JY, Sperrin M, Blakeman T, Payne RA, Ashcroft D. Defining, identifying and addressing problematic polypharmacy within multimorbidity in primary care: a scoping review.
BMJ Open 2024;
14:e081698. [PMID:
38803265 PMCID:
PMC11129052 DOI:
10.1136/bmjopen-2023-081698]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/03/2023] [Accepted: 05/11/2024] [Indexed: 05/29/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
Polypharmacy and multimorbidity pose escalating challenges. Despite numerous attempts, interventions have yet to show consistent improvements in health outcomes. A key factor may be varied approaches to targeting patients for intervention.
OBJECTIVES
To explore how patients are targeted for intervention by examining the literature with respect to: understanding how polypharmacy is defined; identifying problematic polypharmacy in practice; and addressing problematic polypharmacy through interventions.
DESIGN
We performed a scoping review as defined by the Joanna Briggs Institute.
SETTING
The focus was on primary care settings.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Cochrane along with ClinicalTrials.gov, Science.gov and WorldCat.org were searched from January 2004 to February 2024.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
We included all articles that had a focus on problematic polypharmacy in multimorbidity and primary care, incorporating multiple types of evidence, such as reviews, quantitative trials, qualitative studies and policy documents. Articles focussing on a single index disease or not written in English were excluded.
EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS
We performed a narrative synthesis, comparing themes and findings across the collective evidence to draw contextualised insights and conclusions.
RESULTS
In total, 157 articles were included. Case-finding methods often rely on basic medication counts (often five or more) without considering medical history or whether individual medications are clinically appropriate. Other approaches highlight specific drug indicators and interactions as potentially inappropriate prescribing, failing to capture a proportion of patients not fitting criteria. Different potentially inappropriate prescribing criteria also show significant inconsistencies in determining the appropriateness of medications, often neglecting to consider multimorbidity and underprescribing. This may hinder the identification of the precise population requiring intervention.
CONCLUSIONS
Improved strategies are needed to target patients with polypharmacy, which should consider patient perspectives, individual factors and clinical appropriateness. The development of a cross-cutting measure of problematic polypharmacy that consistently incorporates adjustment for multimorbidity may be a valuable next step to address frequent confounding.
Collapse