20
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      International Group for Reducing Inappropriate Medication Use & Polypharmacy (IGRIMUP): Position Statement and 10 Recommendations for Action

      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

          Globally, the number of drug prescriptions is increasing causing more adverse drug events, which is now a significant cause of mortality, morbidity, and disability that has reached epidemic proportions. The risk of adverse drug events is correlated to very old age, multiple co-morbidities, dementia, frailty, and limited life expectancy, with the major contributor being polypharmacy. Each characteristic alters the risk–benefit balance of medications, typically reducing anticipated benefits and amplifying risk. Current clinical guidelines are based on evidence proven in younger/healthier adult populations using a single disease model and their application to older adults with multimorbidity, in whom testing has not been conducted, yields a different risk–benefit prospect and makes inappropriate medication use and polypharmacy inevitable. Applying inappropriate clinical practice guidelines to older adults is antithetical to good healthcare, is likely to increase health inequity, and is associated with substantial negative clinical, economic, and social implications for health systems. The casualties are on the scale of a war or epidemic, yet are usually invisible in measures of healthcare quality and formal recommendations. Radical and rapid action is required to achieve a better quality of life for older populations and to remain true to the principles of medical professionalism and evidence-based medicine that place patients’ interests and autonomy at the fore. This first International Group for Reducing Inappropriate Medication Use & Polypharmacy position statement briefly details the causes, consequences, and extent of inappropriate medication use and polypharmacy. This article outlines current strategies to reduce inappropriate medication use, provides evidence for their effect, and then proposes recommendations for moving forward with 10 recommendations for action and 12 recommendations for research. We conclude that an urgent integrated effort to reduce inappropriate medication use and polypharmacy should be a leading global target of the highest priority. The cornerstone of this position statement from the International Group for Reducing Inappropriate Medication Use & Polypharmacy is the understanding that without evidence of definite relevant benefit, when it comes to prescribing, for many older patients ‘less is more’. This approach differs from most other current recommendations and guidance in medical care, as the focus is on what, when, and how to stop, rather than on when to start medications/interventions. Disrupting the framework that indiscriminately applies standard guidelines to older adults requires a new approach that better serves patients with multimorbidity. This transition requires a shift in medical education, research, and diagnostic frameworks, and re-examination of the measures used as quality indicators. In achieving this objective, we promote a return to some of the original concepts of evidence-based medicine: which considers scientific data (where it exists), clinical judgment, patient/family preference, and context. A shift is needed: from the current model that focuses on single conditions to one that simultaneously considers multiple conditions and patient priorities. This approach reframes the clinician’s role as a professional providing care, rather than a disease technician.

          Related collections

          Most cited references110

          • 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

            Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies.

            To estimate the incidence of serious and fatal adverse drug reactions (ADR) in hospital patients. Four electronic databases were searched from 1966 to 1996. Of 153, we selected 39 prospective studies from US hospitals. Data extracted independently by 2 investigators were analyzed by a random-effects model. To obtain the overall incidence of ADRs in hospitalized patients, we combined the incidence of ADRs occurring while in the hospital plus the incidence of ADRs causing admission to hospital. We excluded errors in drug administration, noncompliance, overdose, drug abuse, therapeutic failures, and possible ADRs. Serious ADRs were defined as those that required hospitalization, were permanently disabling, or resulted in death. The overall incidence of serious ADRs was 6.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.2%-8.2%) and of fatal ADRs was 0.32% (95% CI, 0.23%-0.41%) of hospitalized patients. We estimated that in 1994 overall 2216000 (1721000-2711000) hospitalized patients had serious ADRs and 106000 (76000-137000) had fatal ADRs, making these reactions between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death. The incidence of serious and fatal ADRs in US hospitals was found to be extremely high. While our results must be viewed with circumspection because of heterogeneity among studies and small biases in the samples, these data nevertheless suggest that ADRs represent an important clinical issue.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Updating the Beers criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults: results of a US consensus panel of experts.

              Medication toxic effects and drug-related problems can have profound medical and safety consequences for older adults and economically affect the health care system. The purpose of this initiative was to revise and update the Beers criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in adults 65 years and older in the United States. This study used a modified Delphi method, a set of procedures and methods for formulating a group judgment for a subject matter in which precise information is lacking. The criteria reviewed covered 2 types of statements: (1) medications or medication classes that should generally be avoided in persons 65 years or older because they are either ineffective or they pose unnecessarily high risk for older persons and a safer alternative is available and (2) medications that should not be used in older persons known to have specific medical conditions. This study identified 48 individual medications or classes of medications to avoid in older adults and their potential concerns and 20 diseases/conditions and medications to be avoided in older adults with these conditions. Of these potentially inappropriate drugs, 66 were considered by the panel to have adverse outcomes of high severity. This study is an important update of previously established criteria that have been widely used and cited. The application of the Beers criteria and other tools for identifying potentially inappropriate medication use will continue to enable providers to plan interventions for decreasing both drug-related costs and overall costs and thus minimize drug-related problems.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                mangind@mcmaster.ca
                gbahatozturk@yahoo.com
                bgolomb@ucsd.edu
                laurie.mallery@nshealth.ca
                Paige.Moorhouse@nshealth.ca
                graziano.onder@rm.unicatt.it
                mirko.petrovic@ugent.be
                dgarfink@netvision.net.il
                Journal
                Drugs Aging
                Drugs Aging
                Drugs & Aging
                Springer International Publishing (Cham )
                1170-229X
                1179-1969
                14 July 2018
                14 July 2018
                2018
                : 35
                : 7
                : 575-587
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8227, GRID grid.25073.33, Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, , McMaster University, ; 100 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON Canada
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2166 6619, GRID grid.9601.e, Division of Geriatrics, Department of Internal Medicine, Istanbul Medical School, , Istanbul University, ; Istanbul, Turkey
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2107 4242, GRID grid.266100.3, Department of Medicine, , University of California San Diego, ; San Diego, CA USA
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8200, GRID grid.55602.34, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, , Dalhousie University, ; Halifax, NS Canada
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0001 0941 3192, GRID grid.8142.f, Department of Geriatrics, , Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, IRCCS Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli, ; Rome, Italy
                [6 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2069 7798, GRID grid.5342.0, Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Geriatrics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, , Ghent University, ; Ghent, Belgium
                [7 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0621 3939, GRID grid.414317.4, Wolfson Medical Center, ; Holon, Israel
                [8 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9751 5297, GRID grid.453408.e, Homecare Hospice Israel Cancer Association, ; Holon, Israel
                [9 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7830, GRID grid.29980.3a, Department of General Practice, , University of Otago, ; Christchurch, New Zealand
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2149-9376
                Article
                554
                10.1007/s40266-018-0554-2
                6061397
                30006810
                4f8f3e8f-9601-4c8f-82ae-944797f846ef
                © 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: No funding was received for this work
                Categories
                Current Opinion
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

                Comments

                Comment on this article