R A Payne1, A J Avery, M Duerden, C L Saunders, C R Simpson, G A Abel. 1. Cambridge Centre for Health Services Research, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Forvie Site, Robinson Way, Cambridge, CB2 0SR, UK, rap55@medschl.cam.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Polypharmacy-the use of multiple medications by a single patient-is an important issue associated with various adverse clinical outcomes and rising costs. It is also a topic rarely addressed by clinical guidelines. We used routine Scottish health records to address the lack of data on the prevalence of polypharmacy in the broader, adult primary care population, particularly in relation to long-term conditions. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of adult electronic primary healthcare records and used linear regression models to examine the association between the number of medicines prescribed regularly and both multimorbidity and specific clinical conditions, adjusting for age, gender and socioeconomic deprivation. RESULTS: Overall, 16.9 % of the adults assessed were receiving four to nine medications, and 4.6 % were receiving ten or more medications, increasing with age (28.6 and 7.4 %, respectively, in those aged 60-69 years; 51.8 and 18.6 %, respectively, in those aged ≥ 80 years), but relatively unaffected by gender or deprivation. Of those patients with two clinical conditions, 20.8 % were receiving four to nine medications, and 1.1 % were receiving ten or more medications; in those patients with six or more comorbidities, these values were 47.7 and 41.7 %, respectively. The number of medications varied considerably between clinical conditions, with cardiovascular conditions associated with the greatest number of additional medications. The accumulation of additional medicines was less with concordant conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy is common in UK primary care. The main factor associated with this is multimorbidity, although considerable variation exists between different conditions. The impact of clinical conditions on the number of medicines is generally less in the presence of co-existing concordant conditions.
PURPOSE: Polypharmacy-the use of multiple medications by a single patient-is an important issue associated with various adverse clinical outcomes and rising costs. It is also a topic rarely addressed by clinical guidelines. We used routine Scottish health records to address the lack of data on the prevalence of polypharmacy in the broader, adult primary care population, particularly in relation to long-term conditions. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of adult electronic primary healthcare records and used linear regression models to examine the association between the number of medicines prescribed regularly and both multimorbidity and specific clinical conditions, adjusting for age, gender and socioeconomic deprivation. RESULTS: Overall, 16.9 % of the adults assessed were receiving four to nine medications, and 4.6 % were receiving ten or more medications, increasing with age (28.6 and 7.4 %, respectively, in those aged 60-69 years; 51.8 and 18.6 %, respectively, in those aged ≥ 80 years), but relatively unaffected by gender or deprivation. Of those patients with two clinical conditions, 20.8 % were receiving four to nine medications, and 1.1 % were receiving ten or more medications; in those patients with six or more comorbidities, these values were 47.7 and 41.7 %, respectively. The number of medications varied considerably between clinical conditions, with cardiovascular conditions associated with the greatest number of additional medications. The accumulation of additional medicines was less with concordant conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Polypharmacy is common in UK primary care. The main factor associated with this is multimorbidity, although considerable variation exists between different conditions. The impact of clinical conditions on the number of medicines is generally less in the presence of co-existing concordant conditions.
Authors: Aileen B Dequito; Peter G M Mol; Jasperien E van Doormaal; Rianne J Zaal; Patricia M L A van den Bemt; Flora M Haaijer-Ruskamp; Jos G W Kosterink Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Dima M Qato; G Caleb Alexander; Rena M Conti; Michael Johnson; Phil Schumm; Stacy Tessler Lindau Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-12-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Karen Barnett; Stewart W Mercer; Michael Norbury; Graham Watt; Sally Wyke; Bruce Guthrie Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-05-10 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Anne-Marie Hill; Angela Jacques; A Michelle Chandler; Phyllis A Richey; Lorraine C Mion; Ronald I Shorr Journal: Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf Date: 2018-09-28
Authors: Jean-Baptiste Beuscart; Lisa G Pont; Stefanie Thevelin; Benoit Boland; Olivia Dalleur; Anne W S Rutjes; Johanna I Westbrook; Anne Spinewine Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2017-01-18 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Aniko Huizer-Pajkos; Alice E Kane; Susan E Howlett; John Mach; Sarah J Mitchell; Rafael de Cabo; David G Le Couteur; Sarah N Hilmer Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Frank Zhang; Ronac Mamtani; Frank I Scott; David S Goldberg; Kevin Haynes; James D Lewis Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 2.890