The impact of frailty and polypharmacy on adverse outcomes in older inpatients

Background Older people are at significant risk of adverse outcomes as a result of changes in physiology, frailty, co-morbidity and polypharmacy.1 Timely identification of high-risk patients may facilitate the optimization of medication and reduce the incidence of adverse outcomes. The aims of this study were to evaluate in older inpatients the relationships between risk factors, including frailty and polypharmacy, and adverse health outcomes. Methods This is a prospective study of 1418 patients, aged 70 and older, admitted to general medical units in 11 acute care hospitals across Australia. The interRAI Acute Care (interRAI AC) assessment tool was used for data collection. Frailty status was measured using a Frailty Index (FI), adding each individual’s deficits and dividing by the total number of deficits considered. Adverse health outcomes included falls in hospital, delirium, in-hospital functional and cognitive decline, discharge to a higher level of care and inpatient mortality. Results Patients had a mean age 81 ± 6.8 years with a median length of hospital stay of 6 days (interquartile range 4 to 11 days); 701 (50%) experienced at least one adverse outcome. Polypharmacy (5-9 drugs per day) was observed in almost half of the study population (n=695, 49%) and hyper-polypharmacy (≥10 drugs) observed in about one-third of patients (n=490, 34.6%). Cognitive impairment was shown to be associated with the lower rate of prescribing. FI had a significant association with all adverse outcomes studied (p = <0.05). In contrast, no association was observed between polypharmacy categories and adverse outcomes except for those on 10 or more drugs where they were more likely to be discharged to a higher level of care (p= 0.014). Conclusions Among older inpatients, frailty status was a significant predictor of adverse outcomes. Lower rates of prescribing to patients with cognitive impairment may underpin the lack of an association between polypharmacy and adverse outcomes in this cohort. References: 1. Olsson IN, Runnamo R, Engfeldt P. Medication quality and quality of life in the elderly, a cohort study.Health Qual Life Outcomes.2011;9:95

Polypharmacy among inpatients aged 70 years or older in Australia

Objectives To investigate medication changes for older patients admitted to hospital and to explore associations between patient characteristics and polypharmacy. Design Prospective cohort study. Participants and setting Patients aged 70 years or older admitted to general medical units of 11 acute care hospitals in two Australian states between July 2005 and May 2010. All patients were assessed using the interRAI assessment system for acute care. Main outcome measures Measures of physical, cognitive and psychosocial functioning; and number of regular prescribed medications categorised into three groups: non-polypharmacy (0–4 drugs), polypharmacy (5–9 drugs) and hyperpolypharmacy (≥ 10 drugs). Results Of 1220 patients who were recruited for the study, medication records at admission were available for 1216. Mean age was 81.3 years (SD, 6.8 years), and 659 patients (54.2%) were women. For the 1187 patients with complete medication records on admission and discharge, there was a small but statistically significant increase in mean number of regular medications per day between admission and discharge (7.1 v 7.6), while the prevalence of medications such as statins (459 [38.7%] v 457 [38.5%] patients), opioid analgesics (155 [13.1%] v 166 [14.0%] patients), antipsychotics (59 [5.0%] v 65 [5.5%] patients) and benzodiazepines (122 [10.3%] v 135 [11.4%] patients) did not change significantly. Being in a higher polypharmacy category was significantly associated with increase in comorbidities (odds ratio [OR], 1.27; 95% CI, 1.20–1.34), presence of pain (OR, 1.31; 1.05–1.64), dyspnoea (OR, 1.64; 1.30–2.07) and dependence in terms of instrumental activities of daily living (OR, 1.70; 1.20–2.41). Hyperpolypharmacy was observed in 290/1216 patients (23.8%) at admission and 336/1187 patients (28.3%) on discharge, and the proportion of preventive medication in the hyperpolypharmacy category at both points in time remained high (1209/3371 [35.9%] at admission v 1508/4117 [36.6%] at discharge). Conclusions Polypharmacy is common among older people admitted to general medical units of Australian hospitals, with no clinically meaningful change to the number or classification (symptom control, prevention or both) of drugs made by treating physicians.

Prescribing Practices and Polypharmacy in Kitovu Hospital, Uganda.

This audit of prescribing practices explores recent trends at Kitovu Hospital, Uganda. The average number of drugs prescribed per patient was 2.89 ± 0.11, of which 1.79±0.09 were generics and 0.69±0.06 antibiotics. No injections were prescribed. Patient essential drug knowledge was 100% while the adequacy of labelling was 0%. The number of drugs prescribed correlated positively with patient age, was greater for female patients, similar for doctors and clinical officers but greater in medical (3.30±0.15, n=50) than surgical (2.48±0.13, n=50) outpatient clinics. The mean consultation time was 6.56 min and 10.25 min per patient in medical and surgical outpatient clinics respectively. The patient essential knowledge indicators were greatly improved but only modest reduction in polypharmacy was evident compared to the Ugandan Pharmaceutical Sector national survey of 2002. Antibiotic prescription was high and generic prescribing was found to be low. Policy changes are required to enhance rational drug use in the health sector in Uganda.

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

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
In November 2013, for this first update, a range of literature databases including MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched, and handsearching of reference lists was performed. Search terms included 'polypharmacy', '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 65 years of age and older in which a validated measure of appropriateness was used (e.g. Beers criteria, Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI)).

Data collection and analysis
Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Study-specific estimates were pooled, and a random-effects model was used to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to assess the overall quality of evidence for each pooled outcome.

Main results
Two studies were added to this review to bring the total number of included studies to 12. One intervention consisted of computerised decision support; 11 complex, multi-faceted pharmaceutical approaches to interventions were provided in a variety of settings. Interventions were delivered by healthcare professionals, such as prescribers and pharmacists. Appropriateness of prescribing was measured using validated tools, including the MAI score post intervention (eight studies), Beers criteria (four studies), STOPP criteria (two studies) and START criteria (one study). Interventions included in this review resulted in a reduction in inappropriate medication usage. Based on the GRADE approach, the overall quality of evidence for all pooled outcomes ranged from very low to low. A greater reduction in MAI scores between baseline and follow-up was seen in the intervention group when compared with the control group (four studies; mean difference -6.78, 95% CI -12.34 to -1.22). Postintervention pooled data showed a lower summated MAI score (five studies; mean difference -3.88, 95% CI -5.40 to -2.35) and fewer Beers drugs per participant (two studies; mean difference -0.1, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.09) in the intervention group compared with the control group. Evidence of the effects of interventions on hospital admissions (five studies) and of medication-related problems (six studies) was conflicting.

Authors' conclusions
It is unclear whether interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy, such as pharmaceutical care, resulted in clinically significant improvement; however, they appear beneficial in terms of reducing inappropriate prescribing.

Improving appropriate polypharmacy for older people in primary care: selecting components of an evidence-based intervention to target prescribing and dispensing.

Background
The use of multiple medicines (polypharmacy) is increasingly common in older people. Ensuring that patients receive the most appropriate combinations of medications (appropriate polypharmacy) is a significant challenge. The quality of evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions to improve appropriate polypharmacy is low. Systematic identification of mediators of behaviour change, using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF), provides a theoretically robust evidence base to inform intervention design. This study aimed to (1) identify key theoretical domains that were perceived to influence the prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy to older patients by general practitioners (GPs) and community pharmacists, and (2) map domains to associated behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to include as components of an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care.

Methods
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with members of each healthcare professional (HCP) group using tailored topic guides based on TDF version 1 (12 domains). Questions covering each domain explored HCPs’ perceptions of barriers and facilitators to ensuring the prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy to older people. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis involved the framework method and content analysis. Key domains were identified and mapped to BCTs based on established methods and discussion within the research team.

Results
Thirty HCPs were interviewed (15 GPs, 15 pharmacists). Eight key domains were identified, perceived to influence prescribing and dispensing of appropriate polypharmacy: ‘Skills’, ‘Beliefs about capabilities’, ‘Beliefs about consequences’, ‘Environmental context and resources’, ‘Memory, attention and decision processes’, ‘Social/professional role and identity’, ‘Social influences’ and ‘Behavioural regulation’. Following mapping, four BCTs were selected for inclusion in an intervention for GPs or pharmacists: ‘Action planning’, ‘Prompts/cues’, ‘Modelling or demonstrating of behaviour’ and ‘Salience of consequences’. An additional BCT (‘Social support or encouragement’) was selected for inclusion in a community pharmacy-based intervention in order to address barriers relating to interprofessional working that were encountered by pharmacists.

Conclusions
Selected BCTs will be operationalised in a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy for older people, to be delivered in GP practice and community pharmacy settings. Future research will involve development and feasibility testing of this intervention.

Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy in older people: a Cochrane systematic review

Objective: To summarise the findings of an updated Cochrane review of interventions aimed at improving the appropriate use of polypharmacy in older people. Design: Cochrane systematic review. Multiple electronic databases were searched including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (from inception to November 2013). Hand searching of references was also performed. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series analyses reporting on interventions targeting appropriate polypharmacy in older people in any healthcare setting were included if they used a validated measure of prescribing appropriateness. Evidence quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation).
Setting: All healthcare settings. 
Participants: Older people (≥65 years) with ≥1 long-term condition who were receiving polypharmacy (≥4 regular medicines).
Primary and secondary outcome measures: Primary outcomes were the change in prevalence of appropriate polypharmacy and hospital admissions. Medication-related problems (eg, adverse drug reactions), medication adherence and quality of life were included as secondary outcomes.
Results: 12 studies were included: 8 RCTs, 2 cluster RCTs and 2 controlled before-and-after studies. 1 study involved computerised decision support and 11 comprised pharmaceutical care approaches across various settings. Appropriateness was measured using validated tools, including the Medication Appropriateness Index, Beers’ criteria and Screening Tool of Older Person’s Prescriptions (STOPP)/ Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START). The interventions demonstrated a reduction in inappropriate prescribing. Evidence of effect on hospital admissions and medication-related problems was conflicting. No differences in health-related quality of life were reported.
Conclusions: The included interventions demonstrated improvements in appropriate polypharmacy based on reductions in inappropriate prescribing. However, it remains unclear if interventions resulted in clinically significant improvements (eg, in terms of hospital admissions). Future intervention studies would benefit from available guidance on intervention development, evaluation and reporting to facilitate replication in clinical practice.

Polypharmacy is Associated with an Increased Risk of Bleeding in Elderly Patients with Venous Thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND Polypharmacy, defined as the concomitant use of multiple medications, is very common in the elderly and may trigger drug-drug interactions and increase the risk of falls in patients receiving vitamin K antagonists. OBJECTIVE To examine whether polypharmacy increases the risk of bleeding in elderly patients who receive vitamin K antagonists for acute venous thromboembolism (VTE). DESIGN We used a prospective cohort study. PARTICIPANTS In a multicenter Swiss cohort, we studied 830 patients aged ≥ 65 years with VTE. MAIN MEASURES We defined polypharmacy as the prescription of more than four different drugs. We assessed the association between polypharmacy and the time to a first major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding, accounting for the competing risk of death. We adjusted for known bleeding risk factors (age, gender, pulmonary embolism, active cancer, arterial hypertension, cardiac disease, cerebrovascular disease, chronic liver and renal disease, diabetes mellitus, history of major bleeding, recent surgery, anemia, thrombocytopenia) and periods of vitamin K antagonist treatment as a time-varying covariate. KEY RESULTS Overall, 413 (49.8 %) patients had polypharmacy. The mean follow-up duration was 17.8 months. Patients with polypharmacy had a significantly higher incidence of major (9.0 vs. 4.1 events/100 patient-years; incidence rate ratio [IRR] 2.18, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.32-3.68) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (14.8 vs. 8.0 events/100 patient-years; IRR 1.85, 95 % CI 1.27-2.71) than patients without polypharmacy. After adjustment, polypharmacy was significantly associated with major (sub-hazard ratio [SHR] 1.83, 95 % CI 1.03-3.25) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding (SHR 1.60, 95 % CI 1.06-2.42). CONCLUSIONS Polypharmacy is associated with an increased risk of both major and clinically relevant non-major bleeding in elderly patients receiving vitamin K antagonists for VTE.

Polypharmacy and specific comorbidities in university primary care settings.

AIMS Polypharmacy is associated with adverse events and multimorbidity, but data are limited on its association with specific comorbidities in primary care settings. We measured the prevalence of polypharmacy and inappropriate prescribing, and assessed the association of polypharmacy with specific comorbidities. METHODS We did a cross-sectional analysis of 1002 patients aged 50-80years followed in Swiss university primary care settings. We defined polypharmacy as ≥5 long-term prescribed drugs and multimorbidity as ≥2 comorbidities. We used logistic mixed-effects regression to assess the association of polypharmacy with the number of comorbidities, multimorbidity, specific sets of comorbidities, potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) and potential prescribing omission (PPO). We used multilevel mixed-effects Poisson regression to assess the association of the number of drugs with the same parameters. RESULTS Patients (mean age 63.5years, 67.5% ≥2 comorbidities, 37.0% ≥5 drugs) had a mean of 3.9 (range 0-17) drugs. Age, BMI, multimorbidity, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and cardiovascular diseases were independently associated with polypharmacy. The association was particularly strong for hypertension (OR 8.49, 95%CI 5.25-13.73), multimorbidity (OR 6.14, 95%CI 4.16-9.08), and oldest age (75-80years: OR 4.73, 95%CI 2.46-9.10 vs.50-54years). The prevalence of PPO was 32.2% and PIP was more frequent among participants with polypharmacy (9.3% vs. 3.2%, p<0.006). CONCLUSIONS Polypharmacy is common in university primary care settings, is strongly associated with hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease and cardiovascular diseases, and increases potentially inappropriate prescribing. Multimorbid patients should be included in further trials for developing adapted guidelines and avoiding inappropriate prescribing.

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.

Pharmaceutical strategies towards optimising polypharmacy in older people

This paper focuses on the issue of polypharmacy in older people and potential pharmaceutical strategies to optimize the use of multiple medicines. Although polypharmacy has long been viewed negatively, increasing emphasis is being placed on the difference between appropriate and inappropriate polypharmacy. This is largely being driven by the increasing prevalence of multimorbidity and the use of evidence-based guidelines. In this paper, we outline a number of key considerations that are pertinent to optimizing polypharmacy, notably prescribing appropriate polypharmacy, pharmaceutical formulations, the involvement of older people in clinical trials and patient adherence.

‘Potentially inappropriate or specifically appropriate?’ Qualitative evaluation of general practitioners views on prescribing, polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people

Background: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is common in older people in primary care, as evidenced by a significant body of quantitative research. However, relatively few qualitative studies have investigated the phenomenon of PIP and its underlying processes from the perspective of general practitioners (GPs). The aim of this paper is to explore qualitatively, GP perspectives regarding prescribing and PIP in older primary care patients.

Method: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with GPs participating in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of an intervention to decrease PIP in older patients (≥70 years) in Ireland. Interviews were conducted with GP participants (both intervention and control) from the OPTI-SCRIPT cluster RCT as part of the trial process evaluation between January and July 2013. Interviews were conducted by one interviewer and audio recorded. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a thematic analysis was conducted.

Results: Seventeen semi-structured interviews were conducted (13 male; 4 female). Three main, inter-related themes emerged (complex prescribing environment, paternalistic doctor-patient relationship, and relevance of PIP concept). Patient complexity (e.g. polypharmacy, multimorbidity), as well as prescriber complexity (e.g. multiple prescribers, poor communication, restricted autonomy) were all identified as factors contributing to a complex prescribing environment where PIP could occur, as was a paternalistic-doctor patient relationship. The concept of PIP was perceived to be of variable usefulness to GPs and the criteria to measure it may be at odds with the complex processes of prescribing for this patient population.

Conclusions: Several inter-related factors contributing to the occurrence of PIP were identified, some of which may be amenable to intervention. Improvement strategies focused on improved management of polypharmacy and multimorbidity, and communication across primary and secondary care could result in substantial improvements in PIP.

Polypharmacy and inappropriate medication use in patients with dementia: an underresearched problem

Multimorbidity and polypharmacy are increasingly prevalent across healthcare systems and settings as global demographic trends shift towards increased proportions of older people in populations. Numerous studies have demonstrated an association between polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP), and have reported high prevalence of PIP across settings of care in Europe and North America and, as a consequence, increased risk of adverse drug reactions, healthcare utilisation, morbidity and mortality. These studies have not focused specifically on people with dementia, despite the high risk of adverse drug reactions and PIP in this patient cohort. This narrative review considers the evidence currently available in the area, including studies examining prevalence of PIP in older people with dementia, how appropriateness of prescribing is assessed, the medications most commonly implicated, the clinical consequences, and research priorities to optimise prescribing for this vulnerable patient group. Although there has been considerable research effort to develop criteria to assess medication appropriateness in older people in recent years, the majority of tools do not focus on people with dementia. Of the limited number of tools available, most focus on the advanced stages of dementia in which life-expectancy is limited. The development of tools to assess medication appropriateness in people with mild-to-moderate dementia or across the full spectrum of disease severity represents an important gap in the research literature and is beginning to attract research interest, with recent studies considering the medication regimen as a whole, or misprescribing, overprescribing or underprescribing of certain medications/medication classes including anticholinergics, psychotropics, antibiotics and analgesics. Further work is required in development and validation of criteria to assess prescribing appropriateness in this vulnerable patient population, to determine prevalence of PIP in large cohorts of people with the full spectrum of dementia variants and severities and to examine the impact of PIP on health outcomes.