Inappropriate prescribing among older persons in primary care: protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies

Prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults in Central and Eastern Europe: a systematic review and synthesis without meta-analysis

We aimed to systematically review the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in older adults in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in all care settings. We searched Embase and MEDLINE (up to June 2019) and checked the reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews. Eligible studies used validated explicit or implicit tools to assess the PIP prevalence in older adults in CEE. All study designs were considered, except case‒control studies and case series. We assessed the risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was inappropriate due to heterogeneity in the outcome measurements. Therefore, we used the synthesis without meta-analysis approach-summarizing effect estimates method. This review included twenty-seven studies with 139,693 participants. Most studies were cross-sectional and conducted in high-income countries. The data synthesis across 26 studies revealed the PIP prevalence: the median was 34.6%, the interquartile range was 25.9-63.2%, and the range was 6.5-95.8%. The certainty of this evidence was very low due to the risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. These findings show that PIP is a prevalent issue in the CEE region. Further well-designed studies conducted across countries are needed to strengthen the existing evidence and increase the generalizability of findings.

The prevalence and impact of potentially inappropriate prescribing among older persons in primary care settings: multilevel meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) may not have received as much attention in primary care settings (compared to tertiary hospital and nursing home settings), due to uncertainty about its prevalence in this healthcare setting. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to summarise the prevalence of PIP specific to primary care settings and computed the population attributable risk (PAR) to estimate the impact of PIP in primary care.

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO and previous review articles for studies related to 'older persons', 'primary care' and 'inappropriate prescribing'. Two reviewers selected eligible articles, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Multilevel meta-analysis was conducted to pool the prevalence estimates across the included studies, while meta-regression was conducted to investigate the sources of heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Of the 4,259 articles identified, we included 67 articles with 111 prevalence estimates and a total of 5,054,975 participants. Overall, PIP had a pooled prevalence of 33.3% (95% CI 29.7-37.0%). Based on population attributable risks, PIP explained 7.7-17.3% of adverse outcomes related to older persons in primary care. If current PIP prevalence is halved, 37-79 cases of adverse outcomes may potentially be prevented (per 1,000 adverse outcomes).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrate the relevance and potential impact of PIP specific to primary care settings. Given the increasingly central role that primary care plays in coordinating healthcare, the findings highlight the need to prioritise PIP intervention in primary care as a key strategy to reduce iatrogenic medication-related harm among older persons in current healthcare system.

Socioeconomic circumstances and respiratory function from childhood to early adulthood: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Disadvantaged socioeconomic circumstances in early life have the potential to impact lung function. Thus, this study aimed to summarise evidence on the association between socioeconomic circumstances and respiratory function from childhood to young adulthood.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines, Medline, ISI-Web of Science and Scopus were searched from inception up to January 2018. Original studies on the association between socioeconomic circumstances and respiratory function in early ages (ie, participants younger than 25 years of age) were investigated. Two investigators independently evaluated articles, applied the exclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A meta-analysis of the standardised mean difference and 95% CI in respiratory function between participants from different socioeconomic circumstances was conducted, using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Thirty-three papers were included in this review and 23 showed that disadvantaged socioeconomic circumstances were significantly associated with reduced respiratory function. The meta-analysis including seven papers showed a significant difference of -0.31 (95% CI -0.42 to -0.21) litres in forced expiratory volume in the first second between children, adolescents and young adults from disadvantaged versus advantaged socioeconomic circumstances. Specifically a difference of -0.31 (95% CI -0.51 to -0.10) litres in girls and -0.43 (95% CI -0.51 to -0.35) litres in boys was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Children, adolescents and young adults from disadvantaged socioeconomic circumstances had lower respiratory function, and boys presented higher respiratory health inequalities. This information contributes to explain the social patterning of respiratory diseases, and might enable health policy makers to tackle respiratory health inequalities at early ages.

Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing Among Older Persons: A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies

PURPOSE

Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is a common yet preventable medical error among older persons in primary care. It is uncertain whether PIP produces adverse outcomes in this population, however. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to pool the adverse outcomes of PIP specific to primary care.

METHOD

We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, and previous review articles for studies related to "older persons," "primary care," and "inappropriate prescribing." Two reviewers selected eligible articles, extracted data, and evaluated the risk of bias. Meta-analysis was conducted to pool studies with similar PIP criteria and outcome measures.

RESULTS

Of the 2,804 articles identified, we included 8 articles with a total of 77,624 participants. All included studies had cohort design and low risk of bias. Although PIP did not affect mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.05), it was significantly associated with the other available outcomes, including emergency room visits (RR 1.63; 95% CI, 1.32-2.00), adverse drug events (RR 1.34; 95% CI, 1.09-1.66), functional decline (RR 1.53; 95% CI, 1.08-2.18), health-related quality of life (standardized mean difference -0.26; 95% CI, -0.36 to -0.16), and hospitalizations (RR 1.25; 95% CI, 1.09-1.44). A majority of the pooled estimates had negligible heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis provides consolidated evidence on the wide-ranging impact of PIP among older persons in primary care. It highlights the need to identify PIP in primary care, calls for further research on PIP interventions in primary care, and points to the need to consider potential implications when deciding on the operational criteria of PIP.

Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing in Older Adults with Hypertension or Diabetes Mellitus and Hypertension in a Primary Care Setting in Bahrain

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to evaluate: (1) the prevalence and types of potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults with hypertension or diabetes mellitus and hypertension, and (2) whether or not differences in the training of primary care physicians were associated with potentially inappropriate prescribing.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Primary care prescriptions issued by family physicians and general practitioners were audited using Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions criteria (version 1), with 18 out of 65 applicable criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to test the difference between proportions, and two-tailed t test was used for continuous variables.

RESULTS

A total of 2,090 outpatient prescriptions were written during the study period; of these, 712 (34.1%) were potentially inappropriate. The mean number of drugs per patient was 6.03 (±2.5). Of the 712 prescriptions, 543 (76.3%) were used for the treatment of acute medical illnesses. The most common examples of potentially inappropriate prescribing were: orphenadrine (n = 174; 8.33%), long-term nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for > 3 months (n = 150; 7.18%), proton pump inhibitors for > 8 weeks (n = 135; 6.46%), antihypertensive therapy duplication (n = 59; 2.82%), long-acting glyburide (n = 48; 2.29%), and chlordiazepoxide for > 1 month (n = 44; 2.11%). Family physicians showed a greater tendency toward potentially inappropriate prescribing compared to general practitioners, but the difference was nonsignificant (n = 514 [34.75%] vs. n = 162 [31.3%]; p = 0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (i.e., 34.1%) was within the spectrum reported worldwide and unrelated to the training backgrounds of physicians. Most of the identified potentially inappropriate prescribing (76.3%) in older adults was associated with medications for acute medical illnesses and hence inappropriate polypharmacy should be discouraged.