Winn Cashion1, William McClellan2, George Howard3, Abhinav Goyal2, David Kleinbaum2, Michael Goodman2, Valerie Prince4, Paul Muntner5, Leslie A McClure3, Ann McClellan2, Suzanne Judd3. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA. Electronic address: cashionw@upmc.edu. 2. Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA. 3. Department of Biostatistics, University of Alabama at Birmingham. 4. Department of Pharmacy Practice, Samford University McWhorter School of Pharmacy, Birmingham, AL. 5. Department of Epidemiology, University of Alabama at Birmingham.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Medications can have unintended effects. High medication use populations may benefit from increased regimen oversight. Limited knowledge exists concerning racial and regional polypharmacy variation. We estimated total medication distributions (excluding supplements) of American black and white adults and assessed racial and regional polypharmacy variation. METHODS: REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) cohort data (n = 30,239 U.S. blacks and whites aged ≥45 years) were analyzed. Home pill bottle inspections assessed the last two weeks' medications. Polypharmacy (≥8 medications) was determined by summing prescription and/or over-the-counter ingredients. Population-weighted logistic regression assessed polypharmacy's association with census region, race, and sex. RESULTS: The mean ingredient number was 4.12 (standard error = 0.039), with 15.7% of REGARDS using 8 ingredients or more. In crude comparisons, women used more medications than men, and blacks and whites reported similar mean ingredients. A cross-sectional, logistic model adjusting for demographics, socioeconomics, and comorbidities showed increased polypharmacy prevalence in whites versus blacks (OR [95% CI]: 0.63, [0.55-0.72]), women (1.94 [1.68-2.23]), and Southerners (broadly Southeasterners and Texans; 1.48 [1.17-1.87]) versus Northeasterners (broadly New England and upper Mid-Atlantic). Possible limitations include polypharmacy misclassification and model misspecification. CONCLUSION: Polypharmacy is common. Race and geography are associated with polypharmacy variation. Further study of underlying factors explaining these differences is warranted.
PURPOSE: Medications can have unintended effects. High medication use populations may benefit from increased regimen oversight. Limited knowledge exists concerning racial and regional polypharmacy variation. We estimated total medication distributions (excluding supplements) of American black and white adults and assessed racial and regional polypharmacy variation. METHODS: REasons for Geographic And Racial Differences in Stroke (REGARDS) cohort data (n = 30,239 U.S. blacks and whites aged ≥45 years) were analyzed. Home pill bottle inspections assessed the last two weeks' medications. Polypharmacy (≥8 medications) was determined by summing prescription and/or over-the-counter ingredients. Population-weighted logistic regression assessed polypharmacy's association with census region, race, and sex. RESULTS: The mean ingredient number was 4.12 (standard error = 0.039), with 15.7% of REGARDS using 8 ingredients or more. In crude comparisons, women used more medications than men, and blacks and whites reported similar mean ingredients. A cross-sectional, logistic model adjusting for demographics, socioeconomics, and comorbidities showed increased polypharmacy prevalence in whites versus blacks (OR [95% CI]: 0.63, [0.55-0.72]), women (1.94 [1.68-2.23]), and Southerners (broadly Southeasterners and Texans; 1.48 [1.17-1.87]) versus Northeasterners (broadly New England and upper Mid-Atlantic). Possible limitations include polypharmacy misclassification and model misspecification. CONCLUSION: Polypharmacy is common. Race and geography are associated with polypharmacy variation. Further study of underlying factors explaining these differences is warranted.
Authors: Frederick A Masoudi; Charles A Baillie; Yongfei Wang; W David Bradford; John F Steiner; Edward P Havranek; JoAnne Micale Foody; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2005-10-10
Authors: G Ziere; J P Dieleman; A Hofman; H A P Pols; T J M van der Cammen; B H Ch Stricker Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2006-02 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Virginia J Howard; Dawn O Kleindorfer; Suzanne E Judd; Leslie A McClure; Monika M Safford; J David Rhodes; Mary Cushman; Claudia S Moy; Elsayed Z Soliman; Brett M Kissela; George Howard Journal: Ann Neurol Date: 2011-03-17 Impact factor: 10.422
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: Xue Feng; Xi Tan; Brittany Riley; Tianyu Zheng; Thomas K Bias; James B Becker; Usha Sambamoorthi Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2017-06-21 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Winn Cashion; William McClellan; Suzanne Judd; Abhinav Goyal; David Kleinbaum; Michael Goodman; Valerie Prince; Paul Muntner; George Howard Journal: Pharmacol Res Perspect Date: 2021-08