Nine key questions to address polypharmacy in the elderly

A literature review: polypharmacy protocol for primary care

The purpose of this literature review is to critically evaluate published protocols on polypharmacy in adults ages 65 and older that are currently used in primary care settings that may potentially lead to fewer adverse drug events. A review of OVID, CINAHL, EBSCO, Cochrane Library, Medline, and PubMed databases was completed using the following key words: protocol, guideline, geriatrics, elderly, older adult, polypharmacy, and primary care. Inclusion criteria were: articles in medical, nursing, and pharmacology journals with an intervention, protocol, or guideline addressing polypharmacy that lead to fewer adverse drug events. Qualitative and quantitative studies were included. Exclusion criteria were: publications prior to the year 1992. A gap exists in the literature. No standardized protocol for addressing polypharmacy in the primary care setting was found. Mnemonics, algorithms, clinical practice guidelines, and clinical strategies for addressing polypharmacy in a variety of health care settings were found throughout the literature. Several screening instruments for use in primary care to assess potentially inappropriate prescription of medications in the elderly, such as the Beers Criteria and the STOPP screening tool, were identified. However, these screening instruments were not included in a standardized protocol to manage polypharmacy in primary care. Polypharmacy in the elderly is a critical problem that may result in adverse drug events such as falls, hospitalizations, and increased expenditures for both the patient and the health care system. No standardized protocols to address polypharmacy specific to the primary care setting were identified in this review of the literature. Given the growing population of elderly in this country and the high number of medications they consume, it is critical to focus on the utilization of a standardized protocol to address the potential harm of polypharmacy in the primary care setting and evaluate its effects on patient outcomes.

Polypharmacy in the HIV-infected older adult population

The prevalence of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection among people older than 50 years is increasing. Older HIV-infected patients are particularly at risk for polypharmacy because they often have multiple comorbidities that require pharmacotherapy. Overall, there is not much known with respect to both the impact of aging on medication use in HIV-infected individuals, and the potential for interactions with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) and coadministered medications and its clinical consequences. In this review, we aim to provide an overview of polypharmacy with a focus on its impact on the HIV-infected older adult population and to also provide some clinical considerations in this high-risk population.

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 there is growing interest in appropriate polypharmacy, where many medicines may be used to achieve better clinical outcomes for patients.

OBJECTIVES

This review sought 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

A range of literature databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched in addition to handsearching reference lists. Search terms included polypharmacy, Beers criteria, medication appropriateness and inappropriate prescribing.

SELECTION CRITERIA

A range of study designs were eligible. Eligible studies described interventions affecting prescribing aimed at improving appropriate polypharmacy in people aged 65 years and older where a validated measure of appropriateness was used (e.g. Beers criteria or Medication Appropriateness Index - MAI).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Study specific estimates were pooled, using a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

Electronic searches identified 2200 potentially relevant citations, of which 139 were examined in detail. Following assessment, 10 studies were included. One intervention was computerised decision support and nine were complex, multifaceted pharmaceutical care provided in a variety of settings. Appropriateness of prescribing was measured using the MAI score postintervention (seven studies) and/or Beers criteria (four studies). The interventions included in this review demonstrated a reduction in inappropriate medication use. A mean difference of -6.78 (95% CI -12.34 to -1.22) in the change in MAI score in favour of the intervention group (four studies). Postintervention pooled data (five studies) showed a mean reduction of -3.88 (95% CI -5.40 to -2.35) in the summated MAI score and a mean reduction of -0.06 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.04) in the number of Beers drugs per patient (three studies). Evidence of the effect of the interventions on hospital admissions (four studies) was conflicting. Medication-related problems, reported as the number of adverse drug events (three studies), reduced significantly (35%) postintervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is unclear if interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as pharmaceutical care, resulted in a clinically significant improvement; however, they appear beneficial in terms of reducing inappropriate prescribing and medication-related problems.

Polypharmacy and food-drug interactions among older persons: a review

Polypharmacy is generally defined as the use of 5 or more prescription medications on a regular basis. The average number of prescribed and over-the-counter medications used by community-dwelling older adults per day in the United States is 6 medications, and the number used by institutionalized older persons is 9 medications. Almost all medications affect nutriture, either directly or indirectly, and nutriture affects drug disposition and effect. This review will highlight the issues surrounding polypharmacy, food-drug interactions, and the consequences of these interactions for the older adult.

Increasing polypharmacy - an individual-based study of the Swedish population 2005-2008

Background

An increase in the use of drugs and polypharmacy have been displayed over time in spite of the fact that polypharmacy represents a well known risk factor as regards patients' health due to the adverse drug reactions, drug-drug interactions, and low adherence to drug therapy arising from polypharmacy. For policymakers, as well as for clinicians, it is important to follow the developing trends in drug use and polypharmacy over time. We wanted to study if the prevalence of polypharmacy in an entire national population has changed during a 4-year period.

Methods

By applying individual-based data on dispensed drugs, we have studied all dispensed prescribed drugs for the entire Swedish population during four 3-month periods 2005-2008. Five or more (DP ≥5) and ten or more (DP ≥10) dispensed drugs during the 3-month period was applied as the cut-offs indicating the existence of polypharmacy and excessive polypharmacy respectively.

Results

During the period 2005-2008, the prevalence of polypharmacy (DP≥5) increased by 8.2% (from 0.102 to 0.111), and the prevalence of excessive polypharmacy (DP≥10) increased by 15.7% (from 0.021 to 0.024).

In terms of age groups, the prevalence of polypharmacy and excessive polypharmacy increased as regards all ages with the exception of the age group 0-9 years. However, the prevalence of excessive polypharmacy displayed a clear age trend, with the largest increase for the groups 70 years and above. Furthermore, the increase in the prevalence of polypharmacy was, generally, approximately twice as high for men as for women. Finally, the mean number of dispensed drugs per individual increased by 3.6% (from 3.3 to 3.4) during the study period.

Conclusions

The prevalence of polypharmacy and excessive polypharmacy, as well as the mean number of dispensed drugs per individual, increased year-by-year in Sweden 2005-2008.

Strategies for reducing polypharmacy in older adults

Polypharmacy is a major concern in the care of older adults. Multiple factors contribute to this problem, and recognizing these factors is an initial step in addressing the problem. Further, identifying those individuals at risk for medication problems, as well as implementing specific strategies in practice to reduce the problem, will enable clinicians to develop safe and evidence-based medication regimens that minimize the risk of adverse drug reactions. The key to treating older adults is not necessarily to find a set number of medications and try to stay below it, but to find the right medication at the right dosage and for the shortest possible duration on a case-by-case basis. This individualized approach to treating patients will provide a much safer and effective means of practicing and will improve patients' quality of life.

Dispensed drugs and multiple medications in the Swedish population: an individual-based register study

BACKGROUND

Multiple medications is a well-known potential risk factor in terms of patient's health. The aim of the present study was to estimate the prevalence of dispensed drugs and multiple medications in an entire national population, by using individual based data on dispensed drugs.

METHODS

Analyses of all dispensed out-patient prescriptions in 2006 from the Swedish prescribed drug register. As a cut-off for multiple medications, we applied five or more different drugs dispensed (DP >or= 5) at Swedish pharmacies for a single individual during a 3-month, a 6-month, and a 12-month study period. For comparison, results were also calculated with certain drug groups excluded.

RESULTS

6.2 million individuals received at least one dispensed drug (DP >or= 1) during 12 months in 2006 corresponding to a prevalence of 67.4%; 75.6% for females and 59.3% for males. Individuals received on average 4.7 dispensed drugs per individual (median 3, Q1-Q3 2-6); females 5.0 (median 3, Q1-Q3 2-7), males 4.3 (median 3, Q1-Q3 1-6).The prevalence of multiple medications (DP >or= 5) was 24.4% for the entire population. The prevalence increased with age. For elderly 70-79, 80-89, and 90-years, the prevalence of DP >or= 5 was 62.4, 75.1, and 77.7% in the respective age groups. 82.8% of all individuals with DP >or= 1 and 64.9% of all individuals with DP >or= 5 were < 70 years. Multiple medications was more frequent for females (29.6%) than for males (19.2%). For individuals 10 to 39 years, DP >or= 5 was twice as common among females compared to males. Sex hormones and modulators of the genital system excluded, reduced the relative risk (RR) for females vs. males for DP >or= 5 from 1.5 to 1.4. The prevalence of DP >or= 1 increased from 45.1 to 56.2 and 67.4%, respectively, when the study period was 3, 6, and 12 respectively months and the corresponding prevalence of DP >or= 5 was 11.3, 17.2, and 24.4% respectively.

CONCLUSION

The prevalence of dispensed drugs and multiple medications were extensive in all age groups and were higher for females than for males. Multiple medications should be regarded as a risk in terms of potential drug-drug interactions and adverse drug reactions in all age groups.

Polypharmacy: misleading, but manageable

The percentage of the population described as elderly is growing, and a higher prevalence of multiple, chronic disease states must be managed concurrently. Healthcare practitioners must appropriately use medication for multiple diseases and avoid risks often associated with multiple medication use such as adverse effects, drug/drug interactions, drug/disease interactions, and inappropriate dosing. The purpose of this study is to identify a consensus definition for polypharmacy and evaluate its prevalence among elderly outpatients. The authors also sought to identify or develop a clinical tool which would assist healthcare practitioners guard against inappropriate drug therapy in elderly patients. The most commonly cited definition was a medication not matching a diagnosis. Inappropriate was part of definitions used frequently. Some definitions placed a numeric value on concurrent medications. Two common definitions (ie, 6 or more medications or a potentially inappropriate medication) were used to evaluate polypharmacy in elderly South Carolinians (n = 1027). Data analysis demonstrates that a significant percentage of this population is prescribed six or more concomitant drugs and/or uses a potentially inappropriate medication. The findings are 29.4% are prescribed 6 or more concurrent drugs, 15.7% are prescribed one or more potentially inappropriate drugs, and 9.3% meet both definitions of polypharmacy used in this study. The authors recommend use of less ambiguous terminology such as hyperpharmacotherapy or multiple medication use. A structured approach to identify and manage inappropriate polypharmacy is suggested and a clinical tool is provided.

A composite screening tool for medication reviews of outpatients: general issues with specific examples

Regular performance of medication reviews is prominent among methods that have been advocated to reduce the extent and seriousness of drug-related problems, such as adverse drug reactions, drug-disease interactions, drug-drug interactions, drug ineffectiveness and cost ineffectiveness. Several screening tools have been developed to guide practising healthcare professionals and researchers in reviewing the medication patterns of elderly patients; however, each of these tools has its own limitations. This review discusses a wide range of general prescription-, treatment- and patient-related issues that should be taken into account when reviewing medication patterns by implicit screening. These include generic and therapeutic substitution; potentially superfluous or inappropriate medications; potentially inappropriate dosages or duration of treatment; drug-disease and drug-drug interactions; under-treatment; making use of laboratory test results; patient adherence, experiences and habits; appropriate dosage forms and packaging. A broad selection of specific examples and references that can be used as a basis for explicit screening of medication patterns in outpatients is also offered.