Prevalence and factors associated with polypharmacy: a systematic review and Meta-analysis

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

Polypharmacy is commonly associated with adverse health outcomes. There are currently no meta-analyses of the prevalence of polypharmacy or factors associated with polypharmacy. We aimed to estimate the pooled prevalence of polypharmacy and factors associated with polypharmacy in a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies with no restrictions on date. We included observational studies that reported on the prevalence of polypharmacy among individuals over age 19. Two reviewers extracted study characteristics including polypharmacy definitions, study design, setting, geography, and participant demographics. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scales. The main outcome was the prevalence of polypharmacy and factors associated with polypharmacy prevalence. The pooled prevalence estimates of polypharmacy with 95% confidence intervals were determined using random effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses were undertaken to evaluate factors associated with polypharmacy such as polypharmacy definitions, study setting, study design and geography. Meta-regression was conducted to assess the associations between polypharmacy prevalence and study year.

Results

106 full-text articles were identified. The pooled estimated prevalence of polypharmacy in the 54 studies reporting on polypharmacy in all medication classes was 37% (95% CI: 31-43%). Differences in polypharmacy prevalence were reported for studies using different numerical thresholds, study setting, and publication year. Sex, study geography, study design and geographical location were not associated with differences in polypharmacy prevalence.

Discussion

Our review highlights that polypharmacy is common particularly among older adults and those in inpatient settings. Clinicians should be aware of populations who have an increased likelihood of experiencing polypharmacy and efforts should be made to review the appropriateness of prescribed medications and occurrence of adverse effects potentially associated with polypharmacy.

Conclusions and implications

Clinicians should be aware of the common occurrence of polypharmacy and undertake efforts to minimize inappropriate polypharmacy whenever possible.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-03279-x.

Related collections

Most cited references 125

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

Julian P T Higgins, Simon G Thompson (2002)

The extent of heterogeneity in a meta-analysis partly determines the difficulty in drawing overall conclusions. This extent may be measured by estimating a between-study variance, but interpretation is then specific to a particular treatment effect metric. A test for the existence of heterogeneity exists, but depends on the number of studies in the meta-analysis. We develop measures of the impact of heterogeneity on a meta-analysis, from mathematical criteria, that are independent of the number of studies and the treatment effect metric. We derive and propose three suitable statistics: H is the square root of the chi2 heterogeneity statistic divided by its degrees of freedom; R is the ratio of the standard error of the underlying mean from a random effects meta-analysis to the standard error of a fixed effect meta-analytic estimate, and I2 is a transformation of (H) that describes the proportion of total variation in study estimates that is due to heterogeneity. We discuss interpretation, interval estimates and other properties of these measures and examine them in five example data sets showing different amounts of heterogeneity. We conclude that H and I2, which can usually be calculated for published meta-analyses, are particularly useful summaries of the impact of heterogeneity. One or both should be presented in published meta-analyses in preference to the test for heterogeneity. Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

0 comments Cited 5482 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

What is polypharmacy? A systematic review of definitions

Nashwa Masnoon, Sepehr Shakib, Lisa Kalisch-Ellett … (2017)

Background Multimorbidity and the associated use of multiple medicines (polypharmacy), is common in the older population. Despite this, there is no consensus definition for polypharmacy. A systematic review was conducted to identify and summarise polypharmacy definitions in existing literature. Methods The reporting of this systematic review conforms to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE and Cochrane were systematically searched, as well as grey literature, to identify articles which defined the term polypharmacy (without any limits on the types of definitions) and were in English, published between 1st January 2000 and 30th May 2016. Definitions were categorised as i. numerical only (using the number of medications to define polypharmacy), ii. numerical with an associated duration of therapy or healthcare setting (such as during hospital stay) or iii. Descriptive (using a brief description to define polypharmacy). Results A total of 1156 articles were identified and 110 articles met the inclusion criteria. Articles not only defined polypharmacy but associated terms such as minor and major polypharmacy. As a result, a total of 138 definitions of polypharmacy and associated terms were obtained. There were 111 numerical only definitions (80.4% of all definitions), 15 numerical definitions which incorporated a duration of therapy or healthcare setting (10.9%) and 12 descriptive definitions (8.7%). The most commonly reported definition of polypharmacy was the numerical definition of five or more medications daily (n = 51, 46.4% of articles), with definitions ranging from two or more to 11 or more medicines. Only 6.4% of articles classified the distinction between appropriate and inappropriate polypharmacy, using descriptive definitions to make this distinction. Conclusions Polypharmacy definitions were variable. Numerical definitions of polypharmacy did not account for specific comorbidities present and make it difficult to assess safety and appropriateness of therapy in the clinical setting.

0 comments Cited 711 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

The rising tide of polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions: population database analysis 1995–2010

Bruce Guthrie, Boikanyo Makubate, Virginia Hernandez Santiago … (2015)

Background The escalating use of prescribed drugs has increasingly raised concerns about polypharmacy. This study aims to examine changes in rates of polypharmacy and potentially serious drug-drug interactions in a stable geographical population between 1995 and 2010. Methods This is a repeated cross-sectional analysis of community-dispensed prescribing data for all 310,000 adults resident in the Tayside region of Scotland in 1995 and 2010. The number of drug classes dispensed and the number of potentially serious drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in the previous 84 days were calculated, and age-sex standardised rates in 1995 and 2010 compared. Patient characteristics associated with receipt of ≥10 drugs and with the presence of one or more DDIs were examined using multilevel logistic regression to account for clustering of patients within primary care practices. Results Between 1995 and 2010, the proportion of adults dispensed ≥5 drugs doubled to 20.8%, and the proportion dispensed ≥10 tripled to 5.8%. Receipt of ≥10 drugs was strongly associated with increasing age (20–29 years, 0.3%; ≥80 years, 24.0%; adjusted OR, 118.3; 95% CI, 99.5–140.7) but was also independently more common in people living in more deprived areas (adjusted OR most vs. least deprived quintile, 2.36; 95% CI, 2.22–2.51), and in people resident in a care home (adjusted OR, 2.88; 95% CI, 2.65–3.13). The proportion with potentially serious drug-drug interactions more than doubled to 13% of adults in 2010, and the number of drugs dispensed was the characteristic most strongly associated with this (10.9% if dispensed 2–4 drugs vs. 80.8% if dispensed ≥15 drugs; adjusted OR, 26.8; 95% CI 24.5–29.3). Conclusions Drug regimens are increasingly complex and potentially harmful, and people with polypharmacy need regular review and prescribing optimisation. Research is needed to better understand the impact of multiple interacting drugs as used in real-world practice and to evaluate the effect of medicine optimisation interventions on quality of life and mortality. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0322-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

0 comments Cited 289 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Dallas P. Seitz: dallas.seitz@ucalgary.ca

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMC Geriatr

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMC Geriatr

Title: BMC Geriatrics

Publisher: BioMed Central (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 1471-2318

Publication date (Electronic): 19 July 2022

Publication date PMC-release: 19 July 2022

Publication date Collection: 2022

Volume: 22

Electronic Location Identifier: 601

Affiliations

[1 ]GRID grid.410356.5, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8331, Department of Psychiatry, Queen’s University, , Providence Care-Mental Health Services, ; Kingston, Ontario Canada

[2 ]GRID grid.22072.35, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7697, Department of Psychiatry, Hotchkiss Brain Institute, and O’Brien Institute for Public Health, , University of Calgary, ; Calgary, Alberta Canada

[3 ]GRID grid.22072.35, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7697, Cumming School of Medicine, , University of Calgary, ; Room 2919 Health Sciences Centre, 3330 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1 Canada

[4 ]GRID grid.22072.35, ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7697, Departments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences, , Hotchkiss Brain Institute, and O’Brien Institute for Public Health, ; Calgary, Alberta Canada

Article

Publisher ID: 3279

DOI: 10.1186/s12877-022-03279-x

PMC ID: 9297624

PubMed ID: 35854209

SO-VID: a4eb1a86-3648-4159-9aae-8320ab52f57f

License:

Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

History

Date received : 19 November 2021

Date accepted : 6 July 2022

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: Geriatric medicine

Keywords: polypharmacy,multiple medication prescribing,population-based study,administrative database

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Geriatric medicine

Keywords: polypharmacy, multiple medication prescribing, population-based study, administrative database

Prevalence and factors associated with polypharmacy: a systematic review and Meta-analysis

Read this article at

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions and implications

Supplementary Information

Related collections

Hearing Loss and Restoration

Most cited references 125

Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.

What is polypharmacy? A systematic review of definitions

The rising tide of polypharmacy and drug-drug interactions: population database analysis 1995–2010

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 383

Cited by 20

Most referenced authors 1,450