Potentially Inappropriate Medications Defined by STOPP Criteria and the Risk of Adverse Drug Events in Older Hospitalized Patients

Background: Previous studies have not demonstrated a consistent association between potentially inappropriate medicines (PIMs) in older patients as defined by Beers criteria and avoidable adverse drug events (ADEs). This study aimed to assess whether PIMs defined by new STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons’ potentially inappropriate Prescriptions) criteria are significantly associated with ADEs in older people with acute illness.

Methods: We prospectively studied 600 consecutive patients 65 years or older who were admitted with acute illness to a university teaching hospital over a 4-month interval. Potentially inappropriate medicines were defined by both Beers and STOPP criteria. Adverse drug events were defined by World Health Organization–Uppsala Monitoring Centre criteria and verified by a local expert consensus panel, which also assessed whether ADEs were causal or contributory to current hospitalization. Hallas criteria defined ADE avoidability.Wecompared the proportions of patients taking Beers criteria PIMs
and STOPP criteria PIMs with avoidable ADEs that were causal or contributory to admission.

Results: A total of 329 ADEs were detected in 158 of 600 patients (26.3%); 219 of 329 ADEs (66.6%) were considered causal or contributory to admission. Of the 219 ADEs, 151(68.9%)considered causal or contributory to admission were avoidable or potentially avoidable. After adjusting for age, sex, comorbidity, dementia, baseline activities of daily living function, and number of medications, the likelihood of a serious avoidable ADE increased significantly when STOPP PIMs were prescribed (odds ratio, 1.847; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.506-2.264; P.001); prescription of Beers criteria PIMs did not significantly increase ADE risk (odds ratio, 1.276; 95% CI, 0.945-1.722; P=.11).

Conclusion: STOPP criteria PIMs,unlike Beers criteria PIMs, are significantly associated with avoidable ADEs in older people that cause or contribute to urgent hospitalization.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in an Irish elderly population in primary care.

AIMS Screening tools have been formulated to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing (IP) in older people. Beers’ criteria are the most widely used but have disadvantages when used in Europe. New
IP screening tools called Screening Tool of Older Person’s Prescriptions (STOPP) and Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START) have been developed to identify potential IP and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs). The aim was to measure the prevalence rates of potential IP and PPOs in primary care using Beers’ criteria, STOPP and START.

METHODS
Case records of 1329 patients 65 years old from three general practices in one region of southern Ireland were studied. The mean age SD of the patients was 74.9 6.4 years, 60.9% were female. Patients’current diagnoses and prescription medicines were reviewed and the Beers’ criteria, STOPP and START tools applied.

RESULTS
The total number of medicines prescribed was 6684; median number of medicines per patient was ?ve (range 1–19). Overall, Beers’ criteria identi?ed 286 potentially inappropriate prescriptions in 18.3% (243) of patients, whilst the corresponding IP rate identi?ed by STOPP was 21.4% (284), in respect of 346 potentially inappropriate prescriptions. A total of 333 PPOs were identi?ed in 22.7% (302) of patients using the START tool.

CONCLUSION
Potentially inappropriate drug prescribing and errors of drug omission are highly prevalent among older people living in the community. Prevention strategies should involve primary care doctors and community pharmacists.

Application of STOPP and START criteria: interrater reliability among pharmacists

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate prescribing is a well-documented problem in older people. The new screening tools, STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Peoples' Prescriptions) and START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment) have been formulated to identify potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential errors of omissions (PEOs) in older patients. Consistent, reliable application of STOPP and START is essential for the screening tools to be used effectively by pharmacists. OBJECTIVE: To determine the interrater reliability among a group of clinical pharmacists in applying the STOPP and START criteria to elderly patients' records. METHODS: Ten pharmacists (5 hospital pharmacists, 5 community pharmacists) were given 20 patient profiles containing details including the patients' age and sex, current medications, current diagnoses, relevant medical histories, biochemical data, and estimated glomerular filtration rate. Each pharmacist applied the STOPP and START criteria to each patient record. The PIMs and PEOs identified by each pharmacist were compared with those of 2 academic pharmacists who were highly familiar with the application of STOPP and START. An interrater reliability analysis using the k statistic (chance corrected measure of agreement) was performed to determine consistency between pharmacists. RESULTS: The median ? coefficients for hospital pharmacists and community pharmacists compared with the academic pharmacists for STOPP were 0.89 and 0.88, respectively, while those for START were 0.91 and 0.90, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Interrater reliability of STOPP and START tools between pharmacists working in different sectors is good. Pharmacists working in both hospitals and in the community can use STOPP and START reliably during their everyday practice to identify PIMs and PEOs in older patients.