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.

Looking beneath the Surface: Differences in Decision-Making Structures across Processes

The previous chapter presented the overall decision-making structure in Swiss politics at the beginning of the 21st century. This provides us with a general picture and allows for a comparison over time with the decision-making structure in the 1970s. However, the analysis of the overall decision-making structure potentially neglects important differences between policy domains (Atkinson and Coleman 1989; Knoke et al. 1996; Kriesi et al. 2006a; Sabatier 1987). Policy issues vary across policy domains, as do the political actors involved. In addition, actors may hold different policy preferences from one policy domain to the next, and they may also collaborate with other partners depending on the policy domain at stake. Examining differences between policy domains is particularly appropriate in Switzerland. Because no fixed coalitions of government and opposition exist, actors create different coalitions in each policy domain (Linder and Schwarz 2008). Whereas important parts of the institutional setting are similar across policy domains, decision-making structures might still vary. As was the case with the cross-time analysis conducted in the two previous chapters, a stability of 'rules-in-form' might hide important variations in 'rules-in-use' also across different policy domains.