25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Potential Drug-Drug Interactions in a Cohort of Elderly, Polymedicated Primary Care Patients on Antithrombotic Treatment

      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

          Introduction

          Drug–drug interactions (DDIs) are an important risk factor for adverse drug reactions. Older, polymedicated patients are particularly affected. Although antithrombotics have been detected as high-risk drugs for DDIs, data on older patients exposed to them are scarce.

          Methods

          Baseline data of 365 IDrug study outpatients (≥ 60 years, use of an antithrombotic and one or more additional long-term drug) were analyzed regarding potential drug–drug interactions (pDDIs) with a clinical decision support system. Data included prescription and self-medication drugs.

          Results

          The prevalence of having one or more pDDI was 85.2%. The median number of alerts per patient was three (range 0–17). For 58.4% of the patients, potential severe/contraindicated interactions were detected. Antiplatelets and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) showed the highest number of average pDDI alert involvements per use (2.9 and 2.2, respectively). For NSAIDs, also the highest average number of severe/contraindicated alert involvements per use (1.2) was observed. 91.8% of all pDDI involvements concerned the 25 most frequently used drug classes. 97.5% of the severe/contraindicated pDDIs were attributed to only nine different potential clinical manifestations. The most common management recommendation for severe/contraindicated pDDIs was to intensify monitoring. Number of drugs was the only detected factor significantly associated with increased number of pDDIs ( p < 0.001).

          Conclusion

          The findings indicate a high risk for pDDIs in older, polymedicated patients on antithrombotics. As a consequence of patients’ frequently similar drug regimens, the variety of potential clinical manifestations was small. Awareness of these pDDI symptoms and the triggering drugs as well as patients’ self-medication use may contribute to increased patient safety.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Clinical consequences of polypharmacy in elderly.

          Polypharmacy, defined as the use of multiple drugs or more than are medically necessary, is a growing concern for older adults. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched from January 1, 1986 to June 30, 2013) to identify relevant articles in people aged > 65 years. We present information about: i) prevalence of polypharmacy and unnecessary medication use; ii) negative consequences of polypharmacy; and iii) interventions to improve polypharmacy. International research shows that polypharmacy is common in older adults with the highest number of drugs taken by those residing in nursing homes. Nearly 50% of older adults take one or more medications that are not medically necessary. Research has clearly established a strong relationship between polypharmacy and negative clinical consequences. Moreover, well-designed interprofessional (often including clinical pharmacist) intervention studies that focus on enrolling high-risk older patients with polypharmacy have shown that they can be effective in reducing aspects of unnecessary prescribing with mixed results on distal health outcomes.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Prevalence, Determinants and Patterns of Multimorbidity in Primary Care: A Systematic Review of Observational Studies

            Introduction Multimorbidity is a major concern in primary care. Nevertheless, evidence of prevalence and patterns of multimorbidity, and their determinants, are scarce. The aim of this study is to systematically review studies of the prevalence, patterns and determinants of multimorbidity in primary care. Methods Systematic review of literature published between 1961 and 2013 and indexed in Ovid (CINAHL, PsychINFO, Medline and Embase) and Web of Knowledge. Studies were selected according to eligibility criteria of addressing prevalence, determinants, and patterns of multimorbidity and using a pretested proforma in primary care. The quality and risk of bias were assessed using STROBE criteria. Two researchers assessed the eligibility of studies for inclusion (Kappa  = 0.86). Results We identified 39 eligible publications describing studies that included a total of 70,057,611 patients in 12 countries. The number of health conditions analysed per study ranged from 5 to 335, with multimorbidity prevalence ranging from 12.9% to 95.1%. All studies observed a significant positive association between multimorbidity and age (odds ratio [OR], 1.26 to 227.46), and lower socioeconomic status (OR, 1.20 to 1.91). Positive associations with female gender and mental disorders were also observed. The most frequent patterns of multimorbidity included osteoarthritis together with cardiovascular and/or metabolic conditions. Conclusions Well-established determinants of multimorbidity include age, lower socioeconomic status and gender. The most prevalent conditions shape the patterns of multimorbidity. However, the limitations of the current evidence base means that further and better designed studies are needed to inform policy, research and clinical practice, with the goal of improving health-related quality of life for patients with multimorbidity. Standardization of the definition and assessment of multimorbidity is essential in order to better understand this phenomenon, and is a necessary immediate step.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Hospital admissions associated with adverse drug reactions: a systematic review of prospective observational studies.

              To determine the prevalence of hospital admissions associated with ADRs and examine differences in prevalence rates between population groups and methods of ADR detection. Studies were identified through electronic searches of Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, and MEDLINE to August 2007. There were no language restrictions. A systematic review was conducted of prospective observational studies that used the World Health Organization ADR definition. Subgroup analysis examined the influence of patient age groups and methods of ADR detection on reported ADR admission rates. All statistical analyses were performed using STATA v 9.0. Twenty-five studies were identified including 106,586 patients who were hospitalized; 2143 of these patients had experienced ADRs. The prevalence rates of ADRs ranged from 0.16% to 15.7%, with an overall median of 5.3% (interquartile range [IQR] 2.7-9.0%). Median ADR prevalence rates varied between age groups; for children, the ADR admission rate was 4.1% (IQR 0.16-5.3%), while the corresponding rates for adults and elderly patients were 6.3% (IQR 3.9-9.0%) and 10.7% (IQR 9.6-13.3%), respectively. ADR rates also varied depending on the methods of ADR detection employed in the different studies. Studies that employed multiple ADR detection methods, such as medical record review and patient interview, reported higher ADR admission rates compared with studies that used medical record review alone. Anti-infective drugs were most often associated with ADR admissions in children; cardiovascular drugs were most often associated with ADR admissions in adults and elderly patients. Approximately 5.3% of hospital admissions were associated with ADRs. Higher rates were found in elderly patients who are likely to be receiving multiple medications for long-term illnesses. The methods used to detect ADRs are also likely to explain much of the variation in the reported ADR prevalence rates between different studies.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +49228993073375 , katharina.schneider@bfarm-research.de
                Journal
                Drugs Aging
                Drugs Aging
                Drugs & Aging
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                1170-229X
                1179-1969
                8 May 2018
                8 May 2018
                2018
                : 35
                : 6
                : 559-568
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9599 0422, GRID grid.414802.b, Research Division, , Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices, ; Kurt-Georg-Kiesinger-Allee 3, 53175 Bonn, Germany
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2240 3300, GRID grid.10388.32, Centre for Translational Medicine, , Medical Faculty of the University of Bonn, ; Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127 Bonn, Germany
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2240 3300, GRID grid.10388.32, Institute of General Practice and Family Medicine, , Medical Faculty of the University of Bonn, ; Sigmund-Freud-Str. 25, 53127 Bonn, Germany
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9664-3059
                Article
                550
                10.1007/s40266-018-0550-6
                5999138
                29737468
                0f840dd0-35ea-4e13-8c3e-d2743b7899ad
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100002347, Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung;
                Award ID: 01GY1333A
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Original Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content285

                Cited by7

                Most referenced authors410