Evaluation of the appropriateness of prescribing in geriatric patients using Beers criteria and Phadke's criteria and comparison thereof

Prevalence of Polypharmacy, Hyperpolypharmacy and Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in Older Adults in India: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Older people often receive multiple medications for chronic conditions, which often result in polypharmacy (concomitant use of 5‒9 medicines) and hyperpolypharmacy (concomitant use of ≥10 medicines). A limited number of studies have been performed to evaluate the prevalence of polypharmacy, hyperpolypharmacy, and potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use in older people of developing countries. The present study aimed to investigate regional variations in the prevalence of polypharmacy, hyperpolypharmacy, and PIM use in older people (60 + years) in India. Methods: Studies were identified using Medline/PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases published from inception (2002) to September 31, 2020. Out of the total 1890 articles, 27 were included in the study. Results: Overall, the pooled prevalence of polypharmacy was 49% (95% confidence interval: 42-56; p < 0.01), hyperpolypharmacy was 31% (21-40; p < 0.01), and PIM use was 28% (24-32; p < 0.01) among older Indian adults. Polypharmacy was more prevalent in North-east India (65%, 50-79), whereas hyperpolypharmacy was prevalent in south India (33%, 17-48). Region-wize estimates for the pooled prevalence of PIM use in India were as follows: 23% (21-25) in East, 33% in West (24-42), 17.8% in North (11-23), and 32% (26-38) in South India. The prevalence of PIM use in adults aged ≥70°years was 35% (28-42), in those taking more medications (≥5.5/day) was 27% (22-31), and in adults using a high number of PIMs (≥3) was 29% (22-36). Subgroup analysis showed that cross-sectional studies had a higher pooled prevalence of polypharmacy 55% (44-65) than cohorts 45% (37-54). Hyperpolypharmacy in inpatient care settings was 37% (26-47), whereas PIM use was higher in private hospitals 31% (24-38) than government hospitals 25% (19-31). Conclusion: Polypharmacy and hyperpolypharmacy are widely prevalent in India. About 28% of older Indian adults are affected by PIM use. Thus, appropriate steps are needed to promote rational geriatric prescribing in India. Systematic Review Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov, identifier [CRD42019141037].

Improving prescribing for older patients - 'Yes S-I-R-E!'

INTRODUCTION

Polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing are associated with negative health outcomes in the elderly. Several prescribing tools have been developed to assess medication appropriateness. Explicit (criteria-based) tools often do not take into account patients' preferences and comorbidities, and have little room for individualised clinical judgement.

METHODS

A cross-sectional observational study was conducted in 243 elderly patients admitted to the Geriatric Medicine service in a Singapore tertiary hospital over one month. We incorporated an implicit (judgement-based) tool developed by Scott et al into a mnemonic, 'S-I-R-E', to assess medication appropriateness: S = symptoms ('Have symptoms resolved?'), I = indication ('Is there a valid indication?'), R = risks ('Do risks outweigh benefits?') and E = end of life ('Is there short life expectancy limiting clinical benefit?').

RESULTS

Inappropriate prescribing was present in 27.6% of patients. The most common reason for inappropriateness of medications was lack of valid indication (62.2%), followed by high risk-benefit ratio (20.7%). The most common medications that lacked valid indication were supplements and proton pump inhibitors. Polypharmacy was found in 93% of patients and was significantly associated with inappropriate prescribing (p = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

Inappropriate prescribing and polpharmacy are highly prevalent in the hospitalised elderly. The 'S-I-R-E' mnemonic can be used as a memory aid and practical framework to guide appropriate prescribing in the elderly.

Utilization Pattern of Potentially Inappropriate Medications in Geriatric Patients in a Tertiary Care Hospital: A Retrospective Observational Study

INTRODUCTION

Geriatric population is on the rise throughout the world, hence the quality and the safety of prescribing in the elderly is a global healthcare concern. It is important for the healthcare providers to be aware of the limitations in prescribing certain drugs to the elderly. This study was an attempt to shed light on the utilization pattern of Potentially Inappropriate Medications (PIMs) in elderly patients admitted in the medicine wards in a tertiary care hospital in Goa.

AIM

To measure the percentage prevalence of PIMs prescribed in the admitted geriatric patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this retrospective observational study, 150 case records of patients aged 60 years or more were analysed. All the prescribed medications, for each case record, were then analysed by referring to the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) Beers Criteria 2015. Data was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) software.

RESULTS

Of the 150 patients, 99 (66%) received at least one PIM according to the Beers Criteria 2015 (including drugs to be used with caution). However, after excluding the drugs to be used with caution, the prevalence of PIMs decreased to 44%. The most commonly prescribed PIMs were ranitidine (17.33%) and prazosin (8.66%) and the most commonly prescribed drug to be used with caution was furosemide (35.33%).

CONCLUSION

As the medication needs of the geriatric population are unique, it is essential that the healthcare professionals are aware of these needs and also follow the available guidelines and tools. Formulation of hospital policies and protocols in this regard would help to improve the scenario. Increased education, awareness and reporting of drug-related problems along with more doctor-patient interaction in these situations are some of the factors that could play an important role in promoting better and safer prescribing practices and a better quality of life to the older generations of our communities.

A study of medication errors in a tertiary care hospital

Objective:

To determine the nature and types of medication errors (MEs), to evaluate occurrence of drug-drug interactions (DDIs), and assess rationality of prescription orders in a tertiary care teaching hospital.

Materials and Methods:

A prospective, observational study was conducted in General Medicine and Pediatric ward of Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad during October 2012 to January 2014. MEs were categorized as prescription error, dispensing error, and administration error (AE). The case records and treatment charts were reviewed. The investigator also accompanied the staff nurse during the ward rounds and interviewed patients or care taker to gather information, if necessary. DDIs were assessed by Medscape Drug Interaction Checker software (version 4.4). Rationality of prescriptions was assessed using Phadke's criteria.

Results:

A total of 1109 patients (511 in Medicine and 598 in Pediatric ward) were included during the study period. Total number of MEs was 403 (36%) of which, 195 (38%) were in Medicine and 208 (35%) were in Pediatric wards. The most common ME was PEs 262 (65%) followed by AEs 126 (31%). A potential significant DDIs were observed in 191 (17%) and serious DDIs in 48 (4%) prescriptions. Majority of prescriptions were semirational 555 (53%) followed by irrational 317 (30%), while 170 (17%) prescriptions were rational.

Conclusion:

There is a need to establish ME reporting system to reduce its incidence and improve patient care and safety.

Assessing potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) and predicting patient outcomes in Ontario's older population: a population-based cohort study applying subsets of the STOPP/START and Beers' criteria in large health administrative databases

INTRODUCTION

Adverse drug events (ADEs) are common in older people and contribute significantly to emergency department (ED) visits, unplanned hospitalisations, healthcare costs, morbidity and mortality. Many ADEs are avoidable if attention is directed towards identifying and preventing inappropriate drug use and undesirable drug combinations. Tools exist to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in clinical settings, but they are underused. Applying PIP assessment tools to population-wide health administrative data could provide an opportunity to assess the impact of PIP on individual patients as well as on the healthcare system. This would open new possibilities for interventions to monitor and optimise medication management on a broader, population-level scale.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The aim of this study is to describe the occurrence of PIP in Ontario's older population (aged 65 years and older), and to assess the health outcomes and health system costs associated with PIP-more specifically, the association between PIP and the occurrence of ED visits, hospitalisations and death, and their related costs. This will be done within the framework of a population-based retrospective cohort study using Ontario's large health administrative and population databases. Eligible patients aged 66 years and older who were issued at least 1 prescription between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2014 (approximately 2 million patients) will be included.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained from the Ottawa Health Services Network Ethical Review Board and from the Bruyère Research Institute Ethics Review Board. Dissemination will occur via publication, presentation at national and international conferences, and ongoing exchanges with regional, provincial and national stakeholders, including the Ontario Drug Policy Research Network and the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Registered with clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT02555891).

Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in long-term care (LTC) patients: validation of the 2014 STOPP-START and 2012 Beers criteria in a LTC population--a protocol for a cross-sectional comparison of clinical and health administrative data

INTRODUCTION

Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is frequent and problematic in older patients. Identifying PIP is necessary to improve prescribing quality; ideally, this should be performed at the population level. Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions/Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (STOPP/START) and Beers criteria were developed to identify PIP in clinical settings and are useful at the individual patient level; however, they are time-consuming and costly to apply. Only a subset of these criteria is applicable to routinely collected population-level health administrative data (HAD) because the clinical information necessary to implement these tools is often missing from databases. The performance of subsets of STOPP/START and Beers criteria in HAD compared with clinical data from the same patients is unknown; furthermore, the performance of the updated 2014 STOPP-START and 2012 Beers criteria compared with one another is also unknown.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A cross-sectional study of linked HAD and clinical data will be conducted to validate the subsets of STOPP/START and Beers criteria applicable to HAD by comparing their performance when applied to clinical and HAD for the same patients. Eligible patients will be 66 years and over and recently admitted to 1 of 6 long-term care facilities in Ottawa, Ontario. The target sample size is 275, but may be less if statistical significance can be achieved sooner. Medication, diagnostic and clinical data will be collected by a consultant pharmacist. The main outcome measure is the proportion of PIP missed by the subset of STOPP/START and Beers criteria applied to HAD when compared with clinical data.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Ottawa Health Services Network Research Ethics Board, the Bruyère Continuing Care Research Ethics Board and the ethics board of the City of Ottawa Long Term Care Homes. Dissemination will occur via publication, national and international conference presentations, and exchanges with regional, provincial and national stakeholders.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02523482.

Conceptualizing and measuring potentially inappropriate drug therapy

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Elderly people are the principal consumers of prescription drugs. The more the medication used by the patient, the greater the likelihood there is of the patient being subjected to potentially inappropriate drug therapy (PIDT). PIDT has been measured in the literature with both implicit and explicit tools. The purpose of this review was to assess the use of tools to detect PIDT in various studies and to determine which terms are used to refer to PIDT in practice.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted according to the following steps: the first was identification. In this step, studies were selected from different combinations of the descriptors 'aged', 'elderly', 'inappropriate prescribing' and 'drug utilization' in three different languages, using the Embase, Medline, Scielo, Scopus and Web of Science databases. Second, the papers that satisfied the inclusion criteria for data extraction were carefully examined by three evaluators to determine the tools used and terms that referred to PIDT.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

From the combinations of keywords, 8610 articles were found. At the end of the selection process, 119 of the articles complied with the specified criteria. The degree of agreement among evaluators was moderate for the study titles (κ1  = 0·479) and substantial for abstracts (κ2  = 0·647). With respect to the PIDT evaluation criteria used by the studies, 27·7% used two criteria. Of the 27 evaluation criteria identified, the Beers criteria were used by 82·3% of the studies. More than 50 different terms to identify PIDT were found in the literature.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

This review is the first study to conceptualize and discuss terms that refer to PIDT. At present, there is no consensus regarding terms used to refer to PIDT, with over 50 different terms currently in use. This review shows an increase in the number of articles aimed at evaluating PIDT using implicit and explicit tools.

Use of potentially inappropriate medications in hospitalized elderly at a teaching hospital: a comparison between Beers 2003 and 2012 criteria

Objectives:

To detect the prevalence and pattern of use of Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in hospitalized elderly patients of a tertiary care teaching hospital using Beers 2012 criteria and to compare the same with Beers 2003 criteria.

Materials and Methods:

Prescriptions of the elderly patients aged 65 years and above were collected from the medicine ward and analyzed. PIMs were identified with help of Beers 2003 and Beers 2012 criteria and comparison was made between the two criteria. Predictors associated with use of PIM were identified using bivariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Results:

A total of 210 patients received 2,267 drugs. According to Beers 2003 criteria, 60 (28.57%) elderly patients received at least one PIM and 2.9% drugs were prescribed inappropriately. According to Beers 2012 criteria, 84 (40%) elderly received at least one PIM while 22 (10.47%) received multiple PIMs and about 5% drugs were prescribed inappropriately. The most commonly prescribed PIM was mineral oil-liquid paraffin (30, 14.3%) followed by spironolactone (25, 11.9%), digoxin (19, 9%), and benzodiazepines (14, 6.7%). There was a significant association between the number of patients receiving more than six drugs and the use of PIMs (P < 0.01). Use of more than 10 drugs was a significant predictor for use of PIMs in the elderly.

Conclusion:

The study shows high prevalence of prescribing PIMs in hospitalized elderly patients. Beers 2012 criteria are more effective in identifying PIMs than Beers 2003 criteria.