PURPOSE: There is a lack of population-based research about factors associated with medication regimen complexity. This study investigated factors associated with medication regimen complexity in older people, and whether factors associated with regimen complexity were similar to factors associated with number of medications. METHODS: This cross-sectional population-based study included 3348 people aged ≥ 60 years. Medication regimen complexity was computed using the validated 65-item Medication Regimen Complexity Index (MRCI). Multinomial logistic regression was used to compute unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for factors associated with regimen complexity. Multivariable quantile regression was used to compare factors associated with regimen complexity and number of medications. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, participants in the highest MRCI quintile (MRCI > 20) were older (OR = 1.04, 95 % CI 1.02;1.05), less likely to live at home (OR = 0.35, 95 % CI 0.15;0.86), had greater comorbidities (OR = 2.17, 95 % CI 1.89;2.49), had higher cognitive status (OR = 1.06, 95 % CI 1.01;1.11), a higher prevalence of self-reported pain (OR = 2.85, 95 % CI 2.16;3.76), had impaired dexterity (OR = 2.39, 95 % CI 1.77;3.24) and were more likely to receive help to sort their medications (OR = 4.43 95 % CI 2.39;8.56) than those with low regimen complexity (MRCI > 0-5.5). Similar factors were associated with both regimen complexity and number of medications. CONCLUSION: Older people with probable difficulties managing complex regimens, including those with impaired dexterity and living in institutional settings, had the most complex medication regimens even after adjusting for receipt of help to sort medications. The strong correlation between regimen complexity and number of medications suggests that clinicians could use a person's number of medications to target interventions to reduce complexity.
PURPOSE: There is a lack of population-based research about factors associated with medication regimen complexity. This study investigated factors associated with medication regimen complexity in older people, and whether factors associated with regimen complexity were similar to factors associated with number of medications. METHODS: This cross-sectional population-based study included 3348 people aged ≥ 60 years. Medication regimen complexity was computed using the validated 65-item Medication Regimen Complexity Index (MRCI). Multinomial logistic regression was used to compute unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for factors associated with regimen complexity. Multivariable quantile regression was used to compare factors associated with regimen complexity and number of medications. RESULTS: In adjusted analyses, participants in the highest MRCI quintile (MRCI > 20) were older (OR = 1.04, 95 % CI 1.02;1.05), less likely to live at home (OR = 0.35, 95 % CI 0.15;0.86), had greater comorbidities (OR = 2.17, 95 % CI 1.89;2.49), had higher cognitive status (OR = 1.06, 95 % CI 1.01;1.11), a higher prevalence of self-reported pain (OR = 2.85, 95 % CI 2.16;3.76), had impaired dexterity (OR = 2.39, 95 % CI 1.77;3.24) and were more likely to receive help to sort their medications (OR = 4.43 95 % CI 2.39;8.56) than those with low regimen complexity (MRCI > 0-5.5). Similar factors were associated with both regimen complexity and number of medications. CONCLUSION: Older people with probable difficulties managing complex regimens, including those with impaired dexterity and living in institutional settings, had the most complex medication regimens even after adjusting for receipt of help to sort medications. The strong correlation between regimen complexity and number of medications suggests that clinicians could use a person's number of medications to target interventions to reduce complexity.
Authors: Ana Margarida Advinha; Sofia de Oliveira-Martins; Vanessa Mateus; Sara Grou Pajote; Manuel José Lopes Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2014-06-07
Authors: David Sh Lee; Nathalie de Rekeneire; Joseph T Hanlon; Thomas M Gill; Douglas C Bauer; Bernd Meibohm; Tamara B Harris; Sean M Jeffery Journal: J Pharm Technol Date: 2012-07-01
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: Clark Kebodeaux; Jamie L Woodyard; Marlowe Djuric Kachlic; Sheila M Allen; Aric D Schadler; Scott Martin Vouri Journal: Am J Pharm Educ Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 2.047
Authors: Samanta Lalic; Kris M Jamsen; Barbara C Wimmer; Edwin C K Tan; Sarah N Hilmer; Leonie Robson; Tina Emery; J Simon Bell Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-06-02 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Barbara C Wimmer; J Simon Bell; Johan Fastbom; Michael D Wiese; Kristina Johnell Journal: Ann Pharmacother Date: 2015-12-17 Impact factor: 3.154
Authors: Janet K Sluggett; Esa Y H Chen; Jenni Ilomäki; Megan Corlis; Sarah N Hilmer; Jan Van Emden; Choon Ean Ooi; Kim-Huong Nguyen; Tracy Comans; Michelle Hogan; Tessa Caporale; Susan Edwards; Lyntara Quirke; Allan Patching; J Simon Bell Journal: Trials Date: 2018-01-12 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: Vanessa Alves-Conceição; Daniel Tenório da Silva; Vanessa Lima de Santana; Edileide Guimarães Dos Santos; Lincoln Marques Cavalcante Santos; Divaldo Pereira de Lyra Journal: BMC Pharmacol Toxicol Date: 2017-07-25 Impact factor: 2.483
Authors: Virtudes Pérez-Jover; José J Mira; Concepción Carratala-Munuera; Vicente F Gil-Guillen; Josep Basora; Adriana López-Pineda; Domingo Orozco-Beltrán Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Michael R Cobretti; Robert L Page; Sunny A Linnebur; Kimberly M Deininger; Amrut V Ambardekar; JoAnn Lindenfeld; Christina L Aquilante Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2017-04-12 Impact factor: 4.458