Prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing and prescribing omissions in Irish adults: findings from the Irish LongituDinal Study on Ageing (TILDA)

Purpose: We sought to estimate the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIP) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) using a subset of the STOPP/START criteria in a population based sample of Irish adults aged ≥65 years using data from The Irish LongituDinal Study on Ageing (TILDA).

Methods: A subset of 26 PIP indicators and 10 PPO indicators from the STOPP/START criteria were applied to the TILDA dataset. PIP/PPO prevalence according to individual STOPP/START criteria and the overall prevalence of PIP/PPO were estimated. The relationship between PIP and PPOs and polypharmacy, age, gender and multimorbidity was examined using logistic regression.

Results: The overall prevalence of PIP in the study population (n = 3,454) was 14.6 %. The most common examples of PIP identified were NSAID with moderate-severe hypertension (200 participants; 5.8 %) and aspirin with no history of coronary, cerebral, or peripheral vascular symptoms or occlusive event (112 participants; 3.2 %). The overall prevalence of PPOs was 30 % (n = 1,035). The most frequent PPO was antihypertensive therapy where systolic blood pressure consistently >160 mmHg (n = 341, 9.9 %), There was a significant association between PIP and PPO and polypharmacy when adjusting for age, sex and multimorbidity (adjusted OR 2.62, 95 % CI 2.05–3.33 for PIP and adjusted OR 1.46, 95 % CI 1.23–1.75 for prescribing omissions).

Conclusion: Our findings indicate prescribing omissions are twice as prevalent as PIP in the elderly using a subset of the STOPP/START criteria as an explicit process measure of potentially inappropriate prescribing and prescribing omissions. Polypharmacy was independently associated with both PPO and PIP. Application of such screening tools to prescribing decisions may reduce unnecessary medication, related adverse events, healthcare utilisation and cost.

The effect of multiple chronic conditions on self-rated health, disability and quality of life among the older populations of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland: a comparison of two nationally representative cross-sectional surveys

Objectives: Multimorbidity is common in the older population, but the impact of combinations of chronic conditions on disability and quality of life (QoL) is not well known. This analysis explores the effect of specific combinations of chronic diseases on disability, QoL and self-rated health (SRH).

Design: We used data from two population representative cross-sectional studies, the Northern Ireland Health and Social Wellbeing Survey (NIHSWS) 2005 and the Survey of Lifestyle, Attitudes and Nutrition (SLAN) 2007 (conducted in the Republic of Ireland).

Setting: Randomly selected community-living participants were interviewed at home.

Participants: A total of 6159 participants aged 50 years and older were included in the analysis.

Outcome measures: Chronic conditions were classified as cardiovascular disease, chronic pain,diabetes or respiratory disease. Interaction terms estimated by logistic regression were used to examine the effects of multiple chronic conditions on disability, SRH and QoL.

Results: Each chronic condition group was correlated with each of the others after adjusting for sociodemographic factors. Those from Northern Ireland were more likely to report a limitation in daily activities (45%) compared to those from the Republic of Ireland (21%). Each condition had an independent effect on disability, SRH and QoL, and those with multiple chronic conditions reported the worst outcomes. However, there were no statistically significant positive interactions between chronic condition groups with respect to any outcome.

Conclusions: Chronic conditions affect individuals largely independent of each other with respect to their effect on disability, SRH and QoL. However, a significant proportion of the population aged 50 years and over across the island of Ireland lives with multimorbidity,and this group is at the highest risk of disability, poor SRH and poor QoL.

The development of the PROMPT (PRescribing Optimally in Middle-aged People’s Treatments) criteria

BACKGROUND: Whilst multimorbidity is more prevalent with increasing age, approximately 30% of middle-aged adults (45-64 years) are also affected. Several prescribing criteria have been developed to optimise medication use in older people (≥65 years) with little focus on potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in middle-aged adults. We have developed a set of explicit prescribing criteria called PROMPT (PRescribing Optimally in Middle-aged People's Treatments) which may be applied to prescribing datasets to determine the prevalence of PIP in this age-group.

METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify published prescribing criteria for all age groups, with the Project Steering Group (convened for this study) adding further criteria for consideration, all of which were reviewed for relevance to middle-aged adults. These criteria underwent a two-round Delphi process, using an expert panel consisting of general practitioners, pharmacists and clinical pharmacologists from the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. Using web-based questionnaires, 17 panellists were asked to indicate their level of agreement with each criterion via a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree) to assess the applicability to middle-aged adults in the absence of clinical information. Criteria were accepted/rejected/revised dependent on the panel's level of agreement using the median response/interquartile range and additional comments.

RESULTS: Thirty-four criteria were rated in the first round of this exercise and consensus was achieved on 17 criteria which were accepted into the PROMPT criteria. Consensus was not reached on the remaining 17, and six criteria were removed following a review of the additional comments. The second round of this exercise focused on the remaining 11 criteria, some of which were revised following the first exercise. Five criteria were accepted from the second round, providing a final list of 22 criteria [gastro-intestinal system (n = 3), cardiovascular system (n = 4), respiratory system (n = 4), central nervous system (n = 6), infections (n = 1), endocrine system (n = 1), musculoskeletal system (n = 2), duplicates (n = 1)].

CONCLUSIONS: PROMPT is the first set of prescribing criteria developed for use in middle-aged adults. The utility of these criteria will be tested in future studies using prescribing datasets.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in two populations with differing socio-economic profiles: a cross-sectional database study using the PROMPT criteria

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to establish the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in middle-aged adults (45-64 years) in two populations with differing socio-economic profiles, and to investigate factors associated with PIP, using the PROMPT (PRescribing Optimally in Middle-aged People's Treatments) criteria.METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted using 2012 data from the Enhanced Prescribing Database (EPD), covering the full population in Northern Ireland and the Health Services Executive Primary Care Reimbursement Service (HSE-PCRS) database, covering the most socio-economically deprived third of the population in this age group in the Republic of Ireland. The prevalence for each PROMPT criterion and overall prevalence of PIP were calculated. Logistic regression was used to investigate the association between PIP and gender, age group and polypharmacy.RESULTS: This study included 441,925 patients from the EPD and 309,748 patients from the HSE-PCRS database. Polypharmacy was common in both datasets (46.7 % in the HSE-PCRS and 20.3 % in the EPD). The prevalence of PIP was 42.9 % (95%CI 42.7, 43.1) in the HSE-PCRS and 21.1 % (95%CI 21.0, 21.2) in the EPD. Age group, female gender and polypharmacy were significantly associated with PIP in both populations (p < 0.05) and polypharmacy had the strongest association.CONCLUSIONS: PIP is common amongst middle-aged people with the risk of PIP increasing with polypharmacy. Differences in the prevalence of polypharmacy and PIP between the two populations may relate to heterogeneity in healthcare services and different socio-economic profiles, with higher rates of multimorbidity and associated polypharmacy in more deprived groups.

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.