Prevalence and predictors of polypharmacy in Jordanian hospitalised patients: A cross-sectional Study

Are there socioeconomic inequalities in polypharmacy among older people? A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic status (SES) may influence prescribing, concordance and adherence to medication regimens. This review set out to investigate the association between polypharmacy and an individual's socioeconomic status.

METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analyses of observational studies was conducted across four databases. Older people (≥ 55 years) from any healthcare setting and residing location were included. The search was conducted across four databases: Medline (OVID), Web of Science, Embase (OVID) and CINAHL. Observational studies from 1990 that reported polypharmacy according to SES were included. A random-effects model was undertaken comparing those with polypharmacy (≥ 5 medication usage) with no polypharmacy. Unadjusted odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and standard errors (SE) were calculated for each study.

RESULTS

Fifty-four articles from 13,412 hits screened met the inclusion criteria. The measure of SES used were education (50 studies), income (18 studies), wealth (6 studies), occupation (4 studies), employment (7 studies), social class (5 studies), SES categories (2 studies) and deprivation (1 study). Thirteen studies were excluded from the meta-analysis. Lower SES was associated with higher polypharmacy usage: individuals of lower educational backgrounds displayed 21% higher odds to be in receipt of polypharmacy when compared to those of higher education backgrounds. Similar findings were shown for occupation, income, social class, and socioeconomic categories.

CONCLUSIONS

There are socioeconomic inequalities in polypharmacy among older people, with people of lower SES significantly having higher odds of polypharmacy. Future work could examine the reasons for these inequalities and explore the interplay between polypharmacy and multimorbidity.

A pharmacist-led medication review service with a deprescribing focus guided by implementation science

Background: Little research addressed deprescribing-focused medication optimization interventions while utilizing implementation science. This study aimed to develop a pharmacist-led medication review service with a deprescribing focus in a care facility serving patients of low income receiving medications for free in Lebanon followed by an assessment of the recommendations' acceptance by prescribing physicians. As a secondary aim, the study evaluates the impact of this intervention on satisfaction compared to satisfaction associated with receiving routine care. Methods: The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to address implementation barriers and facilitators by mapping its constructs to the intervention implementation determinants at the study site. After filling medications and receiving routine pharmacy service at the facility, patients 65 years or older and taking 5 or more medications, were assigned into two groups. Both groups of patients received the intervention. Patient satisfaction was assessed right after receiving the intervention (intervention group) or just before the intervention (control group). The intervention consisted of an assessment of patient medication profiles before addressing recommendations with attending physicians at the facility. Patient satisfaction with the service was assessed using a validated translated version of the Medication Management Patient Satisfaction Survey (MMPSS). Descriptive statistics provided data on drug-related problems, the nature and the number of recommendations as well as physicians' responses to recommendations. Independent sample t-tests were used to assess the intervention's impact on patient satisfaction. Results: Of 157 patients meeting the inclusion criteria, 143 patients were enrolled: 72 in the control group and 71 in the experimental group. Of 143 patients, 83% presented drug-related problems (DRPs). Further, 66% of the screened DRPs met the STOPP/START criteria (77%, and 23% respectively). The intervention pharmacist provided 221 recommendations to physicians, of which 52% were to discontinue one or more medications. Patients in the intervention group showed significantly higher satisfaction compared to the ones in the control group (p < 0.001, effect size = 1.75). Of those recommendations, 30% were accepted by the physicians. Conclusion: Patients showed significantly higher satisfaction with the intervention they received compared to routine care. Future work should assess how specific CFIR constructs contribute to the outcomes of deprescribing-focused interventions.

Evaluating Inappropriate Medication Prescribing Among Elderly Patients in Palestine Using the STOPP/ START Criteria

Background

Elderly patients suffer from chronic diseases and are prone to polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP). This study aimed to identify potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) among elderly patients in a tertiary care hospital setting and to estimate the prevalence of polypharmacy.

Methods

This multicenter retrospective observational study reviewed patient data from two major Palestinian hospitals. The collected data included patient demographics, comorbidities, and medications administered during hospitalization and discharge. The study included 247 patients aged ≥ 65 years hospitalized between January 2019 and December 2019. The STOPP/START criteria version 2 was used to identify the prevalence of PIMs and PPOs. Clinical pharmacists verified the data, and SPSS was used for data analysis. Descriptive statistics, one-tailed bivariate correlations, and Pearson’s test were applied to the variables of interest to examine their association with the STOPP/START criteria.

Results

A total of 247 patients were included in the study, and 50.2% were females. As a result, 165 (66.8%) participants were identified with PIPs, including 30 patients with PPOs, 91 with PIMs, and 44 with both. Furthermore, the prevalence of PIP during hospitalization and discharge was 56.29% and 64.39%, respectively. Polypharmacy (5–9 medications) was 44.5% and 52.1% during hospitalization and discharge, respectively, and excessive polypharmacy (ten medications or more) was 33.6% and 16.4% during hospitalization and discharge, respectively. Moreover, 47.3% of the patients had a comorbidity index of ≥ 5.

Conclusion

This study identified a high prevalence of PIPs among elderly patients during hospital admission and discharge. In addition, more than half of the geriatric patients in this study had PIP and a high prevalence of polypharmacy. Therefore, this study emphasizes the importance of adapting evidence-based tools, such as the STOPP/START criteria, to optimize patient medication therapy and guide prescribers in identifying and resolving PIMs and PPOs.

Barriers and Facilitators of Pharmacoeconomic Studies: A Review of Evidence from the Middle Eastern Countries

The world is facing a continuous increase in medical costs. Due to the surge in disease prevalence, medical science is becoming more sensitive to the economic impact of medications and drug therapies. This brings about the importance of pharmacoeconomics, which is concerned with the effective use of health resources to optimize the efficiency and costs of medications of treatment for the best outcomes. This review was conducted to find out the potential barriers and facilitators to implementing pharmacoeconomic studies in the Middle Eastern region having both high- and low-income countries. The varying economies in the region depict diverse healthcare systems where implementation of pharmacoeconomics faces a large number of challenges and is also aided by numerous facilitators that contribute to the growth of its implementation. In this context, we have reviewed the status of pharmacoeconomics in Middle Eastern countries in research databases (Google Scholar, MEDLINE, Science Direct and Scopus) using keywords (“pharmacoeconomics”, “barriers”, “facilitators”, “Middle East”). The study reported that Yemen, Syria, Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon are the lowest-income countries in the Middle East and the implementation of pharmacoeconomics is the poorest in these states. The UAE, Saudi Arabia and Israel are high-income rich states where economic aspects were comparatively better but still a large number of barriers hinder the way to its effective implementation. These include the absence of national governing bodies, the lack of data on the effectiveness of medications, the absence of sufficient pharmacoeconomic experts and the lack of awareness of the importance of pharmacoeconomics. The main facilitators were the availability of pharmacoeconomic guidelines, the encouragement of pharmacoeconomic experts and the promotion of group discussions and collaborations between researchers and policymakers. Cost-benefit analysis is still evolving in Middle Eastern countries, and there is a great need for improvement so that states can effectively benefit from cost analysis tools and utilize their health resources. In this regard, governments should develop national governing bodies to evaluate, implement pharmacoeconomics at the local and state levels and bring about innovation in the field through further research and development incorporating all sectors of pharmacy and pharmaceutics. The data presented in this research can further be extended in future studies to cover the various domains of pharmacoeconomics including cost-minimization analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-benefit analysis and their applications within the healthcare sectors of Middle Eastern countries.