A systematic review of prescribing criteria to evaluate appropriateness of medications in frail older people

This study systematically reviews the published literature regarding inappropriate prescribing in frail individuals aged at least 65 years. Twenty-five of 466 identified studies met the inclusion criteria. All papers measured some surrogate indicators of frailty, such as performance-based tests, cognitive function and functional dependency. Beers criteria were used in 20 studies (74%) to evaluate inappropriate medication use and 36% (9/25) studies used more than one criterion. The prevalence of inappropriate medications ranged widely from 11 to 92%. Only a few studies reported the relationship between potentially inappropriate medication use and surrogate measures of frailty. These diverse findings indicate the need for a standardized measure for assessing appropriateness of medication in frail older individuals. Prescribing tools should address both medication and patient-related factors such as life expectancy and functional status to minimize inappropriate prescribing in frail individuals.

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.

PIPc study: development of indicators of potentially inappropriate prescribing in children (PIPc) in primary care using a modified Delphi technique

Objective There is limited evidence regarding the quality of prescribing for children in primary care. Several prescribing criteria (indicators) have been developed to assess the appropriateness of prescribing in older and middle-aged adults but few are relevant to children. The objective of this study was to develop a set of prescribing indicators that can be applied to prescribing or dispensing data sets to determine the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in children (PIPc) in primary care settings.


Design Two-round modified Delphi consensus method.


Setting Irish and UK general practice.


Participants A project steering group consisting of academic and clinical general practitioners (GPs) and pharmacists was formed to develop a list of indicators from literature review and clinical expertise. 15 experts consisting of GPs, pharmacists and paediatricians from the Republic of Ireland and the UK formed the Delphi panel.


Results 47 indicators were reviewed by the project steering group and 16 were presented to the Delphi panel. In the first round of this exercise, consensus was achieved on nine of these indicators. Of the remaining seven indicators, two were removed following review of expert panel comments and discussion of the project steering group. The second round of the Delphi process focused on the remaining five indicators, which were amended based on first round feedback. Three indicators were accepted following the second round of the Delphi process and the remaining two indicators were removed. The final list consisted of 12 indicators categorised by respiratory system (n=6), gastrointestinal system (n=2), neurological system (n=2) and dermatological system (n=2).


Conclusions The PIPc indicators are a set of prescribing criteria developed for use in children in primary care in the absence of clinical information. The utility of these criteria will be tested in further studies using prescribing databases.

The effect of simulated astigmatic refractive error on reading performance

Background: Few studies have specifically investigated the functional effects of uncorrected astigmatism on measures of reading fluency. This information is important to provide evidence for the development of clinical guidelines for the correction of astigmatism. Methods: Participants included 30 visually normal, young adults (mean age 21.7 ± 3.4 years). Distance and near visual acuity and reading fluency were assessed with optimal spectacle correction (baseline) and for two levels of astigmatism, 1.00DC and 2.00DC, at two axes (90° and 180°) to induce both against-the-rule (ATR) and with-the-rule (WTR) astigmatism. Reading and eye movement fluency were assessed using standardized clinical measures including the test of Discrete Reading Rate (DRR), the Developmental Eye Movement (DEM) test and by recording eye movement patterns with the Visagraph (III) during reading for comprehension. Results: Both distance and near acuity were significantly decreased compared to baseline for all of the astigmatic lens conditions (p < 0.001). Reading speed with the DRR for N16 print size was significantly reduced for the 2.00DC ATR condition (a reduction of 10%), while for smaller text sizes reading speed was reduced by up to 24% for the 1.00DC ATR and 2.00DC condition in both axis directions (p<0.05). For the DEM, sub-test completion speeds were significantly impaired, with the 2.00DC condition affecting both vertical and horizontal times and the 1.00DC ATR condition affecting only horizontal times (p<0.05). Visagraph reading eye movements were not significantly affected by the induced astigmatism. Conclusions: Induced astigmatism impaired performance on selected tests of reading fluency, with ATR astigmatism having significantly greater effects on performance than did WTR, even for relatively small amounts of astigmatic blur of 1.00DC. These findings have implications for the minimal prescribing criteria for astigmatic refractive errors.

Studies to Reduce Unnecessary Medication Use in Frail Older Adults:A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Overuse of unnecessary medications in frail older adults with limited life expectancy remains an understudied challenge. OBJECTIVE: To identify intervention studies that reduced use of unnecessary medications in frail older adults. A secondary goal was to identify and review studies focusing on patients approaching end of life. We examined criteria for identifying unnecessary medications, intervention processes for medication reduction, and intervention effectiveness. METHODS: A systematic review of English articles using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and International Pharmaceutical Abstracts from January 1966 to September 2012. Additional studies were identified by searching bibliographies. Search terms included prescription drugs, drug utilization, hospice or palliative care, and appropriate or inappropriate. A manual review of 971 identified abstracts for the inclusion criteria (study included an intervention to reduce chronic medication use; at least 5 participants; population included patients aged at least 65 years, hospice enrollment, or indication of frailty or risk of functional decline-including assisted living or nursing home residence, inpatient hospitalization) yielded 60 articles for full review by 3 investigators. After exclusion of review articles, interventions targeting acute medications, or studies exclusively in the intensive care unit, 36 articles were retained (including 13 identified by bibliography review). Articles were extracted for study design, study setting, intervention description, criteria for identifying unnecessary medication use, and intervention outcomes. RESULTS: The studies included 15 randomized controlled trials, 4 non-randomized trials, 6 pre-post studies, and 11 case series. Control groups were used in over half of the studies (n = 20). Study populations varied and included residents of nursing homes and assisted living facilities (n = 16), hospitalized patients (n = 14), hospice/palliative care patients (n = 3), home care patients (n = 2), and frail or disabled community-dwelling patients (n = 1). The majority of studies (n = 21) used implicit criteria to identify unnecessary medications (including drugs without indication, unnecessary duplication, and lack of effectiveness); only one study incorporated patient preference into prescribing criteria. Most (25) interventions were led by or involved pharmacists, 4 used academic detailing, 2 used audit and feedback reports targeting prescribers, and 5 involved physician-led medication reviews. Overall intervention effect sizes could not be determined due to heterogeneity of study designs, samples, and measures. CONCLUSIONS: Very little rigorous research has been conducted on reducing unnecessary medications in frail older adults or patients approaching end of life.

STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2

PURPOSE: screening tool of older people's prescriptions (STOPP) and screening tool to alert to right treatment (START) criteria were first published in 2008. Due to an expanding therapeutics evidence base, updating of the criteria was required.

METHODS: we reviewed the 2008 STOPP/START criteria to add new evidence-based criteria and remove any obsolete criteria. A thorough literature review was performed to reassess the evidence base of the 2008 criteria and the proposed new criteria. Nineteen experts from 13 European countries reviewed a new draft of STOPP & START criteria including proposed new criteria. These experts were also asked to propose additional criteria they considered important to include in the revised STOPP & START criteria and to highlight any criteria from the 2008 list they considered less important or lacking an evidence base. The revised list of criteria was then validated using the Delphi consensus methodology.

RESULTS: the expert panel agreed a final list of 114 criteria after two Delphi validation rounds, i.e. 80 STOPP criteria and 34 START criteria. This represents an overall 31% increase in STOPP/START criteria compared with version 1. Several new STOPP categories were created in version 2, namely antiplatelet/anticoagulant drugs, drugs affecting, or affected by, renal function and drugs that increase anticholinergic burden; new START categories include urogenital system drugs, analgesics and vaccines.

CONCLUSION: STOPP/START version 2 criteria have been expanded and updated for the purpose of minimizing inappropriate prescribing in older people. These criteria are based on an up-to-date literature review and consensus validation among a European panel of experts.

Any versus long-term prescribing of high risk medications in older people using 2012 Beers Criteria: results from three cross-sectional samples of primary care records for 2003/4, 2007/8 and 2011/12

Background: High risk medications are commonly prescribed to older US patients. Currently, less is known about high risk medication prescribing in other Western Countries, including the UK. We measured trends and correlates of high risk medication prescribing in a subset of the older UK population (community/institutionalized) to inform harm minimization efforts. Methods: Three cross-sectional samples from primary care electronic clinical records (UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, CPRD) in fiscal years 2003/04, 2007/08 and 2011/12 were taken. This yielded a sample of 13,900 people aged 65 years or over from 504 UK general practices. High risk medications were defined by 2012 Beers Criteria adapted for the UK. Using descriptive statistical methods and regression modelling, prevalence of ‘any’ (drugs prescribed at least once per year) and ‘long-term’ (drugs prescribed all quarters of year) high risk medication prescribing and correlates were determined. Results: While polypharmacy rates have risen sharply, high risk medication prevalence has remained stable across a decade. A third of older (65+) people are exposed to high risk medications, but only half of the total prevalence was long-term (any = 38.4 % [95 % CI: 36.3, 40.5]; long-term = 17.4 % [15.9, 19.9] in 2011/12). Long-term but not any high risk medication exposure was associated with older ages (85 years or over). Women and people with higher polypharmacy burden were at greater risk of exposure; lower socio-economic status was not associated. Ten drugs/drug classes accounted for most of high risk medication prescribing in 2011/12. Conclusions: High risk medication prescribing has not increased over time against a background of increasing polypharmacy in the UK. Half of patients receiving high risk medications do so for less than a year. Reducing or optimising the use of a limited number of drugs could dramatically reduce high risk medications in older people. Further research is needed to investigate why the oldest old and women are at greater risk. Interventions to reduce high risk medications may need to target shorter and long-term use separately.

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.

Prescribing practices of Australian dispensing doctors

Background: In response to health workforce shortages policymakers have considered expanding the roles that a health professional may perform. A more traditional combination of health professional roles is that of a dispensing doctor (DD) who routinely prescribes and dispenses pharmaceuticals. A systematic review conducted on mainly overseas DDs’ practices found that DDs tended to prescribe more items per patients, less often generically, and showed poorer adherence to best practice. Convenience for patients was cited by both patients and DDs as the main reason for dispensing. In Australia, rural doctors are allowed to dispense Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS) subsidised pharmaceutical benefits if there is no reasonable pharmacy coverage. Little was known about the practices of these Australian DDs. Objectives: To examine the PBS prescribing patterns of dispensing with matched non-dispensing doctors and identify factors that influence prescribing behaviour. Method: A sequential explanatory (QUAN-->qual) mixed methodology was utilised. Firstly, rurality-matched DDs’ and non-DDs’ PBS data for fiscal years 2005-7 were analysed against criteria distilled from a systematic review and stakeholder consultations. Secondly, structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of DDs to examine the quantitative findings. Key findings: DDs prescribed significantly fewer PBS prescriptions per patients but used Regulation 24 significantly more than non-DDs. Regulation 24 biased the prescribing data. DDs prescribed proportionally more penicillin type antibiotics, adrenergic inhalants and non-steroidal anti-inflammatories as compared to non-DDs. Reasons offered by DD-respondents highlighted that prescribing was influenced by an awareness of cost to the patients, peer pressure and confidential prescriber feedback provided on a regular basis. Implications: This innovative census study does not support international data that DDs are less judicious in their prescribing. There is some evidence that DDs might reduce health inequity between rural and urban Australian, and that the DD health model is valuable to patients in isolated communities.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients discharged from acute care hospitals to residential aged care facilities

Background The frequency of prescribing potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in older patients remains high despite evidence of adverse outcomes from their use. Little is known about whether admission to hospital has any effect on appropriateness of prescribing. Objectives This study aimed to identify the prevalence and nature of PIMs and explore the association of risk factors for receiving a PIM. Methods This was a prospective study of 206 patients discharged to residential aged care facilities (RACFs) from acute care. All patients were aged at least 70 years and were admitted between July 2005 and May 2010; their admission and discharge medications were evaluated. Results Mean patient age was 84.8 ± 6.7 years; the majority (57%) were older than 85 years and mean (SD) Frailty Index was 0.42 (0.15). At least one PIM was identified in 112 (54.4%) patients on admission and 102 (49.5%) patients on discharge. Of all medications prescribed at admission (1728), 10.8% were PIMs and at discharge of 1759 medications, 9.6% were PIMs. Of total 187 PIMs on admission, 56 (30%) were stopped and 131 were continued; 32 new PIMs were introduced. Of the potential risk factors considered, in-hospital cognitive decline and frailty status were the only significant predictors of PIMs. Conclusion Although, admission to hospital is an opportunity to review the indications for specific medications, a high prevalence of inappropriate drug use was observed. The only associations with PIM use were the frailty status and in-hospital cognitive decline. Additional studies are needed to further evaluate this association.

Potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients admitted to acute care hospitals and discharged to residential aged care facilities

Background The frequency of prescribing potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in older patients remains high regardless of the evidence of adverse outcomes from their use. This study aims to identify the prevalence and nature of PIMs at admission to acute care and at discharge to residential aged care facilities (RACFs) using the recently updated Beers’ Criteria. We also aim to identify if polypharmacy, age, gender and the frailty status of patients are independent risk factors for receiving a PIM. Methods This was a retrospective study of 206 patients discharged to RACFs from acute care. All patients were aged at least70 years and were admitted between July 2005 and May 2010; their admission and discharge medications were evaluated. Frailty status was measured as the Frailty Index (FI), adding each individual’s deficits and dividing by the total number of deficits considered, with FI 0.25 used as the cut-off between “fit” and “frail”. Results Mean patient age was 84.8 ± 6.7 years; the majority (57%) were older than 85 years and approximately 90% were frail. Patients were prescribed a mean of 7.2 regular medications at admission and 8.1 on discharge. At least one PIM was identified in 112 (54.4%) patients on admission and 102 (49.5%) patients on discharge. Of all medications prescribed at admission (1728), 10.8% were PIMs and at discharge of 1759 medications, 9.6% were PIMs. Of the total 187 PIMs on admission, 56 (30%) were stopped, and 131 were continued; 32 new PIMs were introduced. Commonly prescribed PIMs at both admission and discharge were central nervous system, cardiovascular and gastrointestinal drugs and analgesics. Of the potential risk factors, frailty status was the only significant predictor of PIMs at both admission and discharge (p = 0.016). Conclusion A high prevalence of unnecessary drug use was observed in frail older patients on admission to acute care hospitals and on discharge to RACFs. The only association with PIM use was the frailty status of patients. Further studies are needed to further evaluate this association.

Perspectives on prescribing in nursing homes in Helsinki

Prescribing for older patients is challenging. The prevalence of diseases increases with advancing age and causes extensive drug use. Impairments in cognitive, sensory, social and physical functioning, multimorbidity and comorbidities, as well as age-related changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics all add to the complexity of prescribing. This study is a cross-sectional assessment of all long-term residents aged ≥ 65 years in all nursing homes in Helsinki, Finland. The residents’ health status was assessed and data on their demographic factors, health and medications were collected from their medical records in February 2003. This study assesses some essential issues in prescribing for older people: psychotropic drugs (Paper I), laxatives (Paper II), vitamin D and calcium supplements (Paper III), potentially inappropriate drugs for older adults (PIDs) and drug-drug interactions (DDIs)(Paper IV), as well as prescribing in public and private nursing homes. A resident was classified as a medication user if his or her medication record indicated a regular sequence for its dosage. Others were classified as non-users. Mini Nutritional Assessment (MNA) was used to assess residents’ nutritional status, Beers 2003 criteria to assess the use of PIDs, and the Swedish, Finnish, INteraction X-referencing database (SFINX) to evaluate their exposure to DDIs. Of all nursing home residents in Helsinki, 82% (n=1987) participated in studies I, II, and IV and 87% (n=2114) participated in the study III. The residents’ mean age was 84 years, 81% were female, and 70% were diagnosed with dementia. The mean number of drugs was 7.9 per resident; 40% of the residents used ≥ 9 drugs per day, and were thus exposed to polypharmacy. Eighty percent of the residents received psychotropics; 43% received antipsychotics, and 45% used antidepressants. Anxiolytics were prescribed to 26%, and hypnotics to 28% of the residents. Of those residents diagnosed with dementia, 11% received antidementia drugs. Fifty five percent of the residents used laxatives regularly. In multivariate analysis, those factors associated with regular laxative use were advanced age, immobility, poor nutritional status, chewing problems, Parkinson’s disease, and a high number of drugs. Eating snacks between meals was associated with lower risk for laxative use. Of all participants, 33% received vitamin D supplementation, 28% received calcium supplementation, and 20% received both vitamin D and calcium. The dosage of vitamin D was rather low: 21% received vitamin D 400 IU (10 µg) or more, and only 4% received 800 IU (20 µg) or more. In multivariate analysis, residents who received vitamin D supplementation enjoyed better nutritional status, ate snacks between meals, suffered no constipation, and received regular weight monitoring. Those residents receiving PIDs (34% of all residents) more often used psychotropic medication and were more often exposed to polypharmacy than residents receiving no PIDs. Residents receiving PIDs were less often diagnosed with dementia than were residents receiving no PIDs. The three most prevalent PIDs were short-acting benzodiazepine in greater dosages than recommended, hydroxyzine, and nitrofurantoin. These three drugs accounted for nearly 77% of all PID use. Of all residents, less than 5% were susceptible to a clinically significant DDI. The most common DDIs were related to the use of potassium-sparing diuretics, carbamazepine, and codeine. Residents exposed to potential DDIs were younger, had more often suffered a previous stroke, more often used psychotropics, and were more often exposed to PIDs and polypharmacy than were residents not exposed to DDIs. Residents in private nursing homes were less often exposed to polypharmacy than were residents in public nursing homes. Long-term residents in nursing homes in Helsinki use, on average, nearly eight drugs daily. The use of psychotropic drugs in our study was notably more common than in international studies. The prevalence of laxatives equaled other prior international studies. Regardless of the known benefit and recommendation of vitamin D supplementation for elderly residing mostly indoors, the proportion of nursing home residents receiving vitamin D and calcium was surprisingly low. The use of PIDs was common among nursing home residents. PIDs increased the likelihood of DDIs. However, DDIs did not seem a major concern among the nursing home population. Monitoring PIDs and potential drug interactions could improve the quality of prescribing.