9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Potentially Inappropriate Medication Dispensing in Outpatients: Comparison of Different Measurement Approaches

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose of the Research

          This paper aims at comparing different approaches to measure potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) with routinely collected data on prescriptions, patient age institutionalization status (ie in nursing home or in the community). A secondary objective is to measure the rate and prevalence of PIM dispensing and to identify problematic practices in Switzerland.

          Material and Methods

          The studied population includes about 90,000 insured over 17 years old from a Swiss health maintenance organization in 2019 and 2020. We computed and compared the number of PIM per patient for Beers criteria, Priscus list, Laroche, NORGEP and Prescrire approaches. We also created a composite indicator that accounts for the specificities of the Swiss context (adaptation to the Swiss drugs’ market, recommendations in force related to sleeping pills, anxiolytics and NSAIDs). We also stratified the analysis per physician, including initiation and cessation of PIM prescription.

          Results

          Our comparison revealed similarities between the approaches, but also that each of them had specific gaps that provides further motivation for the development of a composite approach. PIM rate was particularly high for sleeping pills, anxiolytics, NSAIDs, even when analyses were limited to chronic use. Drugs with anticholinergic effect were also frequently prescribed. Based on our composite indicator, 27% of insured over 64 years old received at least one PIM in 2020, and 8% received more than one. Our analyses also reveal that for sleeping pills and anxiolytics, half of the volume (or prevalence?) occurs in the <65 population. We observed strong variations between physicians and a significant proportion of new users among patients with PIM.

          Conclusion

          Our results show that PIMs prescribing is very frequent in Switzerland and is driven mostly by a few drug categories. There is important physician variation in PIM prescribing that warrants the development of intervention targeted at high PIM-prescribers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Sedative hypnotics in older people with insomnia: meta-analysis of risks and benefits.

            To quantify and compare potential benefits (subjective reports of sleep variables) and risks (adverse events and morning-after psychomotor impairment) of short term treatment with sedative hypnotics in older people with insomnia. Medline, Embase, the Cochrane clinical trials database, PubMed, and PsychLit, 1966 to 2003; bibliographies of published reviews and meta-analyses; manufacturers of newer sedative hypnotics (zaleplon, zolpidem, zopiclone) regarding unpublished studies. Randomised controlled trials of any pharmacological treatment for insomnia for at least five consecutive nights in people aged 60 or over with insomnia and otherwise free of psychiatric or psychological disorders. 24 studies (involving 2417 participants) with extractable data met inclusion and exclusion criteria. Sleep quality improved (effect size 0.14, P 0.05), and reports of daytime fatigue were 3.82 times more common (1.88 to 7.80, P < 0.001) in people using any sedative compared with placebo. Improvements in sleep with sedative use are statistically significant, but the magnitude of effect is small. The increased risk of adverse events is statistically significant and potentially clinically relevant in older people at risk of falls and cognitive impairment. In people over 60, the benefits of these drugs may not justify the increased risk, particularly if the patient has additional risk factors for cognitive or psychomotor adverse events.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A method for assessing drug therapy appropriateness.

              This study evaluated the reliability of a new medication appropriateness index. Using the index, independent assessments were made of chronic medications taken by 10 ambulatory, elderly male patients by a clinical pharmacist and an internist-geriatrician. Their overall inter-rater agreement for medication appropriateness (ppos) was 0.88, and for medication inappropriateness (pneg) was 0.95; the overall kappa was 0.83. Their intra-rater agreement for ppos was 0.94 overall, for pneg was 0.98 overall while the overall kappa was 0.92. The chronic medications taken by 10 different ambulatory elderly male patients were independently evaluated by two different clinical pharmacists. Their overall inter-rater agreement for ppos was 0.76, and for pneg was 0.93, while the overall kappa was 0.59. This new index provides a reliable method to assess drug therapy appropriateness. Its use may be applicable as a quality of care outcome measure in health services research and in institutional quality assurance programs.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Risk Manag Healthc Policy
                Risk Manag Healthc Policy
                rmhp
                Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
                Dove
                1179-1594
                23 November 2023
                2023
                : 16
                : 2565-2578
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne , Lausanne, Switzerland
                [2 ]Réseau Delta , Lancy, Switzerland
                [3 ]Internal Medicine Department, La Tour Hospital and University of Geneva , Geneva, Switzerland
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Yves Eggli, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), ECOSAN , Route de la Corniche 10, Lausanne, 1010, Switzerland, Tel +41 21 314 33 83, Email yves.eggli@unisante.ch
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2979-7936
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9721-7289
                Article
                427516
                10.2147/RMHP.S427516
                10680376
                38024485
                ce0ab531-228b-44ea-b873-73befc49a2bf
                © 2023 Eggli et al.

                This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms ( https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php).

                History
                : 20 July 2023
                : 13 October 2023
                Page count
                Figures: 1, Tables: 4, References: 50, Pages: 14
                Categories
                Original Research

                Social policy & Welfare
                low-value care,inappropriateness,medication,outpatients,switzerland
                Social policy & Welfare
                low-value care, inappropriateness, medication, outpatients, switzerland

                Comments

                Comment on this article