Number of drugs in the medication list as an indicator of prescribing quality: a validation study of polypharmacy indicators in older hip fracture patients

Inter-rater reliability of assessments regarding the quality of drug treatment, and drug-related hospital admissions

AIMS

To investigate inter-rater agreement on the quality of drug treatment, and the relationship between the drug treatment and hospital admission.

METHODS

Three specialist physicians and two resident physicians determined, independently and in consensus, the quality of drug treatment from an overall medical perspective, and its association with admission, in 30 randomly selected patients (50% female, median age 72 years) admitted to Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Sweden, in April 2018. The inter-rater agreement was evaluated with Gwet's agreement coefficient (AC₁ ).

RESULTS

In all, 200 (95%) out of 210 drugs at admission and 238 (97%) out of 245 drugs at discharge were assessed as reasonable drug treatment by all assessors. Conversely, none of the drugs at admission, and two at discharge, were assessed as unreasonable drug treatment by all assessors (AC₁ : 0.88 and 0.94 [all], 0.86 and 0.95 [specialists], 0.92 and 0.92 [residents], respectively). The assessments regarding the association between the drug treatment and the hospital admission (not related or main/contributory reason) were consistent between the assessors for 16 out of 30 patients (AC₁ : 0.67 [all], 0.74 [specialists], 0.54 [residents]). In none of the three cases where the hospital admission was considered possibly attributable to a prescribing error did the assessors make consistent assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

As the inter-rater agreement ranged between weak and almost perfect, the reliability of assessments of drug treatment quality, as well as adverse consequences, appears to be a methodological concern. To yield acceptably reliable results regarding both drug treatment aspects at issue, specialist physicians should be involved.

Use of potentially inappropriate medication and polypharmacy in older adults: a repeated cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

With age, the number of chronic conditions increases along with the use of medications. For several years, polypharmacy has been found to be on the increase in western societies. Polypharmacy is associated with an increased risk of adverse drug events (ADE). Medications called potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) have also been found to increase the risk of ADEs in an older population. In this study, which we conducted during a national information campaign to reduce PIM, we analysed the prevalence of PIM in an older adult population and in different strata of the variables age, gender, number of chronic conditions and polypharmacy and how that prevalence changed over time.

METHODS

This is a registry-based repeated cross-sectional study including two cohorts. Individuals aged 75 or older listed at a primary care centre in Blekinge on the 31st March 2011 (cohort 1, 15,361 individuals) or on the 31st December 2013 (cohort 2, 15,945 individuals) were included in the respective cohorts. Using a chi2 test, the two cohorts were compared on the variables age, gender, number of chronic conditions and polypharmacy. Use of five or more medications at the same time was the definition for polypharmacy.

RESULTS

Use of PIM decreased from 10.60 to 7.04% (p-value < 0.001) between 2011 and 2013, while prevalence of five to seven chronic conditions increased from 20.55 to 23.66% (p-value < 0.001). Use of PIM decreased in all strata of the variables age, gender number of chronic conditions and polypharmacy. Except for age 80-84 and males, where it increased, prevalence of polypharmacy was stable in all strata of the variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of potentially inappropriate medications had decreased in all variables between 2011 and 2013; this shows the possibility to reduce PIM with a focused effort. Polypharmacy does not increase significantly compared to the rest of the population.

Fall-risk increasing drugs and prevalence of polypharmacy in older patients discharged from an Orthogeriatric Unit after a hip fracture

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy and fall-risk increasing drugs (FRIDS) have been associated with injurious falls. We aimed to estimate the prevalence of polypharmacy and FRIDS in older patients discharged from an Orthogeriatric Unit after a hip fracture surgery.

METHODS

This study describes the baseline findings of a 2-year retrospective cohort study. We included patients older than 80 years discharged from an Orthogeriatric Unit who were able to walk before surgery. Patient's baseline variables, total number of drugs, and FRIDS at hospital discharge were collected.

RESULTS

We included 228 patients. The mean number of drugs and FRIDS prescribed at discharge was 11.6 ± 3.0 and 2.9 ± 1.6, respectively. Polypharmacy was prevalent in all patients except in three: 23.3% (5-9 drugs) and 75.9% (≥ 10 drugs). Only 11 patients had no FRIDS and 35.5% were on > 3 FRIDS. The most prevalent FRIDS were: agents acting on the renin-angiotensin system (43.9%) and anxiolytics (39.9%). The number of FRIDS was higher in patients with extreme polypharmacy (3.4 ± 1.5) than in those on 5-9 drugs (1.5 ± 1.0, p < 0.05). Independent people in performing instrumental activities had lower risk of extreme polypharmacy (≥ 10 drugs) or > 3 FRIDS: OR 0.39 (95% CI 0.18-0.83) and OR 0.41 (95% CI 0.20-0.84), respectively. People living in a nursing home had higher risk of > 3 FRIDS: OR 4.03 (95% CI 1.12-14.53).

CONCLUSIONS

Polypharmacy and fall-risk increasing drugs are prevalent in patients discharged from orthogeriatric care after surgery for a hip fracture. Interventions on drug use at hospital discharge could have a potential impact on falls in this high-risk population.

Quality of prescribing in older people from a broad family physician perspective: a descriptive pilot study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the quality of drug treatment in older people from a broad family physician perspective, and to provide evidence for power calculations in full-scale studies on prescribing quality.

DESIGN

Descriptive, retrospective pilot study.

SETTING

A primary healthcare centre in Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS

123 consecutive patients, ≥65 years, with a non-urgent physician consultation in January 2016.

MEASURES

The drug treatment was assessed by a physician as either appropriate or suboptimal, taking individual factors like morbidity, life expectancy and concurrent drug treatment into account, and preceded by the application of 493 criteria from three screening tools for Potentially Inappropriate Medications (PIMs) and Potential Prescribing Omissions (PPOs). Suboptimal drug treatment was further categorised regarding priority: (1) immediate change suggested or (2) actions suggested in the longer term. Prevalence of the procedure code 'medication review' and the results thereof were also recorded.

RESULTS

Median age: 76 years; 48% women. When a family physician perspective was applied, and 593 PIMs/PPOs identified in 117 (95%) patients considered, 45 (37%) patients had suboptimal drug treatment. Immediate handling was suggested in 13 (11%) patients, most often concerning withdrawals of drugs for anxiety and insomnia. Handling in the longer term was suggested in 32 (26%) patients, most often concerning overuse of proton pump inhibitors. Over the last year, the procedure code 'medication review' was recorded for 65 (53%) patients. In medication reviews recorded during January 2016 (n=45), 23 (7%) drugs out of 309 were acted on, most often a dosage adjustment.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study shows that when a broad family physician perspective is applied, taking individual factors and medical priorities in the complex clinical situation into account, drug treatment in primary care is appropriate for the majority of older patients. The results may be useful in sample size considerations for future studies on prescribing practices.

Polypharmacy, defined as taking five or more drugs, is inadequate in the cardiovascular setting

BACKGROUND

By how much polypharmacy (defined by number of drugs) differs from polyactive ingredient use (defined by the number of pharmacologically active ingredients) has not been assessed.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the extent of polypharmacy vs. polyactive ingredients among patients taking cardiovascular (CV) medicines.

METHODS

Prospective, 10-year follow-up study conducted among 880 participants of the CoLaus study taking CV drugs at baseline. Polypharmacy was defined as the use of five or more CV medicines; polyactive ingredient use was defined as the use of five or more pharmacologically active CV ingredients.

RESULTS

The prevalence of polypharmacy increased from 1.4% (0.7-2.4) (prevalence rate [95% confidence interval]) at baseline to 11.9% (9.9-14.3) at follow-up, and the prevalence of polyactive ingredients increased from 2.4% (1.5-3.6) at baseline to almost 17.6% (15.2-20.3) at follow-up. The prevalence of combination drugs increased from 15.7% (13.3-18.3) at baseline to 25.9% (23-28.9) at follow-up, and the prevalence of three-component combination use increased from 0.1% (0.0-0.6) at baseline to 2.3% (1.4-3.5) at follow-up. At baseline, nine of 21 participants on polyactive ingredients were not considered as being on polypharmacy; at follow-up, the rate was 50 of 155 participants.

CONCLUSION

Among individuals taking CV drugs, polypharmacy as defined by the number of drugs underestimates the prevalence of individuals taking five or more pharmacologically active drugs. Polypharmacy should no longer be based on the number of drugs but on the number of pharmacologically active drugs.

Clinician agreement and influence of medication-related characteristics on assessment of polypharmacy

It is not known how clinicians assess polypharmacy or the medication‐related characteristics that influence their assessment. The aim of this study was to examine the level of agreement between clinicians when assessing polypharmacy and to identify medication‐related characteristics that influence their assessment. Twenty cases of patients with varying levels of comorbidity and polypharmacy were used to examine clinician assessment of polypharmacy. Medicine‐related factors within the cases included Beers and STOPP Criteria medicines, falls‐risk medicines, drug burden index (DBI) medicines, medicines causing postural hypotension, and pharmacokinetic drug–drug interactions. Clinicians were asked to rate cases on the degree of polypharmacy, likelihood of harm, and potential for the medication list to be simplified. Inter‐rater reliability analysis, correlations, and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify medicine factors associated with clinicians' assessment. Eighteen expert clinicians were recruited (69.2% response rate). Strong agreement was observed in clinicians' assessment of polypharmacy (intraclass correlation coefficients [ICC] = 0.94), likelihood to cause harm (ICC = 0.89), and ability to simplify medication list (ICC = 0.90). Multivariate analyses demonstrated number of medicines (P < 0.0001) and DBI scores (P = 0.047) were significantly associated with assessment of polypharmacy. Medicines associated with harm were significantly associated with the number of medicines (P = 0.01) and Beers criteria medicines (P = 0.003). Ability to simplify the medication regimen was significantly associated with number of medicines (P = 0.03) and medicines from the STOPP criteria (P = 0.018). Among clinicians, strong consensus exists with regard to assessment of polypharmacy, medication harm, and ability to simplify medications. Definitions of polypharmacy need to take into account not only the numbers of medicines but also potential for medicines to cause harm or be inappropriate, and validate them against clinical outcomes.

Patterns of drug prescriptions in an orthogeriatric ward as compared to orthopaedic ward: results from the Trondheim Hip Fracture Trial-a randomised clinical trial

Purpose

In the Trondheim Hip Fracture Trial, 397 home-dwelling patients with hip fractures were randomised to comprehensive geriatric care (CGC) in a geriatric ward or traditional orthopaedic care (OC). Patients in the CGC group had significantly better mobility and function 4 months after discharge. This study explores group differences in drug prescribing and possible associations with the outcomes in the main study.

Methods

Drugs prescribed at admission and discharge were registered from hospital records. Mobility, function, fear of falling and quality of life were assessed using specific rating scales. Linear regression was used to analyse association between drug changes and outcomes at 4 months.

Results

The mean age was 83 years, and 74% were females. The mean number (± SD) of drugs in the CGC and OC groups was 3.8 (2.8) and 3.9 (2.8) at inclusion and 7.1 (2.8) and 6.2 (3.0) at discharge, respectively (p = 0.003). The total number of withdrawals was 209 and 82 in the CGC and OC groups, respectively (p < 0.0001), and the number of starts was 844 and 526, respectively (p < 0.0001). A significant negative association was found between the number of drug changes during the hospital stay and mobility and function 4 months later in both groups. However, this association disappeared when adjusting for baseline function and comorbidities.

Conclusion

These secondary analyses suggest that there are significant differences in the pharmacological treatment between geriatric and orthopaedic wards, but these differences could not explain the beneficial effect of CGC in the Trondheim Hip Fracture Trial.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00228-017-2263-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical relevance of the STOPP/START criteria in hip fracture patients

Purpose

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical relevance of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), identified by the STOPP criteria, and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs), identified by the START criteria, and to identify predictors for clinically relevant PIMs and PPOs.

Methods

The STOPP and START criteria were applied on the medication lists of 200 older hip fracture patients, consecutively recruited to a randomized controlled study in 2009. For each identified PIM and/or PPO, the clinical relevance was assessed at the individual level, using medical records from both hospital and primary care as well as data collected in the original study.

Results

A total of 555 PIMs/PPOs were identified in 170 (85%) patients (median age: 85 years, 67% female), 298 (54%) of which, in 141 (71%) patients, were assessed as clinically relevant. A greater proportion of PIMs than PPOs were clinically relevant: 71% (95% CI: 66%; 76%) vs. 32% (27%; 38%). A greater proportion of PPOs than PIMs could not be assessed with available information: 38% (32%; 44%) vs. 22% (17%; 27%). Number of drugs and multidose drug dispensing, but not age, sex, cognition, or nursing home residence, were associated with ≥1 clinically relevant PIMs/PPOs.

Conclusions

The present study illustrates that one in two PIMs/PPOs identified by the STOPP/START criteria is clearly clinically relevant, PIMs being clinically relevant to a greater extent than PPOs. Based on available information, the clinical relevance could not be determined in a non-negligible proportion of PIMs/PPOs. Number of drugs and multidose drug dispensing were associated with ≥1 clinically relevant PIMs/PPOs.

A practical approach to the pharmacological management of hypertension in older people

Hypertension is the leading cause of cardiovascular (CV) morbidity and mortality in adults over the age of 65. The first part of this paper is an overview, summarizing the current guidelines on the pharmacological management of hypertension in older adults in Europe and the USA, and evidence from key trials that contributed to the guidelines. In the second part of the paper, we will discuss the major challenges of managing hypertension in the context of multimorbidity, including frailty, orthostatic hypotension (OH), falls and cognitive impairment that are associated with ageing. A novel 'BEGIN' algorithm is proposed for use by prescribers prior to initiating antihypertensive therapy to guide safe medication use in older adults. Practical suggestions are highlighted to aid practitioners in making rational decisions to treat and monitor hypertension, and for considering withdrawal of antihypertensive drugs in the complex older person.

Long-term use of proton pump inhibitors and prevalence of disease- and drug-related reasons for gastroprotection-a cross-sectional population-based study

Purpose

To analyse the prevalence of long‐term use of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) with respect to underlying diseases and drugs, and to find predictors for such treatment when an evident rationale for the PPI treatment is lacking.

Methods

The study cohort consisted of individuals, ≥65 years in 2010, residing in the Region Västra Götaland during 2005–2010. For individuals with and without long‐term use of PPI in 2010, we investigated the prevalence of an underlying diagnosis, that is, an acid‐related disease during the five preceding years, as well as concomitant long‐term use of antiplatelet agents or cyclooxygenase inhibitors.

Results

In all, 278 205 individuals (median age: 74 years; 55% female; median 3 drugs per person; 5% nursing home residents, 11% with multi‐dose drug dispensing) were included in the analyses, 32 421 (12%) of whom were on long‐term treatment with PPI in 2010. For 12 253 individuals (38%) with such treatment, no underlying rationale was found. In individuals without a disease‐ or a drug‐related reason for PPI use, nursing home residence, number of drugs, female sex, but not multi‐dose drug dispensing, were associated with long‐term use of PPI; adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval): 1.63 (1.49; 1.78), 1.27 (1.26; 1.28), 1.24 (1.19; 1.29), and 0.94 (0.88; 1.01), respectively.

Conclusions

Long‐term use of PPI occurs in one out of nine individuals in the older population. For four out of ten of these, no reason for PPI use can be identified. Nursing home residence, female sex, and greater number of drugs predict non‐rational long‐term use of PPI. © 2016 The Authors. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

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.

The First Decade with the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register - A Systematic Review of the Output in the Scientific Literature

The aim of this study was to quantify and characterize the scientific output from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register (SPDR) the first decade after its establishment. A systematic literature search was performed in Medline, EMBASE and PubMed (2005-2014). Additional publications were identified by personal knowledge, reference lists, contact with active authors and a citation search in Web of Sciences. Publications using SPDR data were included in the analysis and characterized regarding study type, presence of patient-level record linkage, target population and topic. A total of 719 publications were identified in the literature search and an additional 148 by other strategies. Three hundred and thirty-eight studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The majority were analytic (n = 166; 49.1%) or descriptive (n = 100; 29.5%). The remaining studies focused on validation (n = 20; 5.9%), health economics (n = 16; 4.7%) or miscellaneous (n = 36; 10.7%). The analytic studies investigating effects of drug exposure focused mainly on safety (n = 46) and/or effectiveness (n = 24). The first publications appeared in 2007 (n = 6), and in 2014, 90 articles using SPDR were published. Over the years, linkage with other registers using the personal identity number increased (0-88.9% of the publications). The population was often selected by age (49.7%), condition (45.0%) and/or drug (22.8%) and concerned predominantly psychiatric (29.0%) and cardiovascular (20.4%) diseases. In conclusion, this study illustrates that the establishment of a nationwide individual-based register on dispensed prescription drugs facilitates an encouraging development of pharmacoepidemiological research, both regarding the number of publications and the scientific level of the analyses.

Association between drug-specific indicators of prescribing quality and quality of drug treatment: a validation study

Purpose

To evaluate the concurrent validity of three European sets of drug‐specific indicators of prescribing quality

Methods

In 200 hip fracture patients (≥65 years), consecutively recruited to a randomized controlled study in Sahlgrenska University Hospital in 2009, quality of drug treatment at study entry was assessed according to a gold standard as well as to three drug‐specific indicator sets (Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare, French consensus panel list, and German PRISCUS list). As gold standard, two specialist physicians independently assessed and then agreed on the quality for each patient, after initial screening with STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions) and START (Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment).

Results

According to the Swedish, French, and German indicator sets, 82 (41%), 54 (27%), and 43 (22%) patients had potentially inappropriate drug treatment. A total of 141 (71%) patients had suboptimal drug treatment according to the gold standard. The sensitivity for the indicator sets was 0.51 (95% confidence interval: 0.43; 0.59), 0.33 (0.26; 0.41), and 0.29 (0.22; 0.37), respectively. The specificity was 0.83 (0.72; 0.91), 0.88 (0.77; 0.94), and 0.97 (0.88; 0.99). Suboptimal drug treatment was 2.0 (0.8; 5.3), 1.9 (0.7; 5.1), and 6.1 (1.3; 28.6) times as common in patients with potentially inappropriate drug treatment according to the indicator sets, after adjustments for age, sex, cognition, residence, multi‐dose drug dispensing, and number of drugs.

Conclusions

In this setting, the indicator sets had high specificity and low sensitivity. This needs to be considered upon use and interpretation. Copyright © 2015 The Authors Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.