Clinical medication review tool for polypharmacy: Mapping approach for pharmacotherapeutic classifications

Prevalence and factors associated with polypharmacy: a systematic review and Meta-analysis

Introduction

Polypharmacy is commonly associated with adverse health outcomes. There are currently no meta-analyses of the prevalence of polypharmacy or factors associated with polypharmacy. We aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of polypharmacy and factors associated with polypharmacy in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies with no restrictions on date. We included observational studies that reported on the prevalence of polypharmacy among individuals over age 19. Two reviewers extracted study characteristics including polypharmacy definitions, study design, setting, geography, and participant demographics. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scales. The main outcome was the prevalence of polypharmacy and factors associated with polypharmacy prevalence. The pooled prevalence estimates of polypharmacy with 95% confidence intervals were determined using random effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to evaluate factors associated with polypharmacy such as polypharmacy definitions, study setting, study design and geography. Meta-regression was conducted to assess the associations between polypharmacy prevalence and study year.

Results

106 full-text articles were identified. The pooled estimated prevalence of polypharmacy in the 54 studies reporting on polypharmacy in all medication classes was 37% (95% CI: 31-43%). Differences in polypharmacy prevalence were reported for studies using different numerical thresholds, study setting, and publication year. Sex, study geography, study design and geographical location were not associated with differences in polypharmacy prevalence.

Discussion

Our review highlights that polypharmacy is common particularly among older adults and those in inpatient settings. Clinicians should be aware of populations who have an increased likelihood of experiencing polypharmacy and efforts should be made to review the appropriateness of prescribed medications and occurrence of adverse effects potentially associated with polypharmacy.

Conclusions and implications

Clinicians should be aware of the common occurrence of polypharmacy and undertake efforts to minimize inappropriate polypharmacy whenever possible.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-03279-x.

Potentially inappropriate medication in primary care at the end of life: a mixed-method study

CONTEXT

Polypharmacy results in adverse drug interactions, high pill burden, and medication costs. Stopping or diminishing potentially inappropriate medication (PIM), is complex . Data on the use of PIM in a primary care context are scarce and deprescribing barriers for general practitioners (GP) are underexplored.

OBJECTIVE

Describing the use of PIM in primary care at the end of life, and exploring the barriers for GPs to deprescribe.

METHODS

Retrospective chart review of 210 consecutive patients referred to a palliative home care service and semi-structured interviews with 11 GPs. Percentages were calculated on medication use, linear regression was done to evaluate the effect of diagnosis on PIM use. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interviews.

RESULTS

In total 83 % of patients took at least one PIM. The proportion that continued taking PIMs at the time of referral, one week prior to death and at the day of dying: varies between 6% and 45% according to drug category. Linear regression showed a statistical significant (p < 0.001) higher number of PIM use with non-cancer patients (mean 3,1-SD 1,5) than with cancer patients (mean 1,6-SD 1,6). Participants reported being aware of the PIM use, making efforts to deprescribe. Main issues GPs are taking into account are medical, communicative, and collaborative in nature.

CONCLUSION

This study confirms the high level of PIM use in primary care at the end of life. The views of GPs inspire support strategies for deprescribing focusing on shared decision-making with patients and on interprofessional collaboration.