Justin P Turner1,2,3, Kris M Jamsen4,5, Sepehr Shakib6, Nimit Singhal7,8, Robert Prowse9, J Simon Bell4,10,5. 1. Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, 381 Royal Parade, Parkville, 3052, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. Justin.Turner@unisa.edu.au. 2. School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia. Justin.Turner@unisa.edu.au. 3. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia. Justin.Turner@unisa.edu.au. 4. Centre for Medicine Use and Safety, Faculty of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Monash University, 381 Royal Parade, Parkville, 3052, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. 5. NHMRC Cognitive Decline Partnership Centre, Hornsby Ku-ring-gai Hospital, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia. 6. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 7. Department of Medical Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 8. School of Medicine, Adelaide University, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 9. Department of Geriatric and Rehabilitation Medicine, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia. 10. School of Pharmacy and Medical Sciences, University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Polypharmacy is often defined as use of 'five-or-more-medications'. However, the optimal polypharmacy cut-point for predicting clinically important adverse events in older people with cancer is unclear. The aim was to determine the sensitivities and specificities of a range of polypharmacy cut-points in relation to a variety of adverse events in older people with cancer. METHODS: Data on medication use, falls and frailty criteria were collected from 385 patients aged ≥70 years presenting to a medical oncology outpatient clinic. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were produced to examine sensitivities and specificities for varying definitions of polypharmacy in relation to exhaustion, falls, physical function, Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) and frailty. Sub-analyses were performed when stratifying by age, sex, comorbidity status and analgesic use. RESULTS: Patients had a mean age of 76.7 years. Using Youden's index, the optimal polypharmacy cut-point was 6.5 medications for predicting frailty (specificity 67.0 %, sensitivity 70.0 %), physical function (80.2 %, 49.3 %) and KPS (69.8 %, 52.1 %), 5.5 for falls (59.2 %, 73.0 %) and 3.5 for exhaustion (43.4 %, 74.5 %). For polypharmacy defined as five-or-more-medications, the specificities and sensitivities were frailty (44.9 %, 77.5 %), physical function (58.0 %, 69.7 %), KPS (47.7 %, 69.4 %), falls (44.5 %, 75.7 %) and exhaustion (52.6 %, 64.1 %). The optimal polypharmacy cut-points were similar when the sample was stratified by age, sex, comorbidity status and analgesic use. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that no single polypharmacy cut-point is optimal for predicting multiple adverse events in older people with cancer. In this population, the common definition of five-or-more-medications is reasonable for identifying 'at-risk' patients for medication review.
PURPOSE: Polypharmacy is often defined as use of 'five-or-more-medications'. However, the optimal polypharmacy cut-point for predicting clinically important adverse events in older people with cancer is unclear. The aim was to determine the sensitivities and specificities of a range of polypharmacy cut-points in relation to a variety of adverse events in older people with cancer. METHODS: Data on medication use, falls and frailty criteria were collected from 385 patients aged ≥70 years presenting to a medical oncology outpatient clinic. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were produced to examine sensitivities and specificities for varying definitions of polypharmacy in relation to exhaustion, falls, physical function, Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS) and frailty. Sub-analyses were performed when stratifying by age, sex, comorbidity status and analgesic use. RESULTS:Patients had a mean age of 76.7 years. Using Youden's index, the optimal polypharmacy cut-point was 6.5 medications for predicting frailty (specificity 67.0 %, sensitivity 70.0 %), physical function (80.2 %, 49.3 %) and KPS (69.8 %, 52.1 %), 5.5 for falls (59.2 %, 73.0 %) and 3.5 for exhaustion (43.4 %, 74.5 %). For polypharmacy defined as five-or-more-medications, the specificities and sensitivities were frailty (44.9 %, 77.5 %), physical function (58.0 %, 69.7 %), KPS (47.7 %, 69.4 %), falls (44.5 %, 75.7 %) and exhaustion (52.6 %, 64.1 %). The optimal polypharmacy cut-points were similar when the sample was stratified by age, sex, comorbidity status and analgesic use. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that no single polypharmacy cut-point is optimal for predicting multiple adverse events in older people with cancer. In this population, the common definition of five-or-more-medications is reasonable for identifying 'at-risk' patients for medication review.
Authors: Arti Hurria; Ilene S Browner; Harvey Jay Cohen; Crystal S Denlinger; Mollie deShazo; Martine Extermann; Apar Kishor P Ganti; Jimmie C Holland; Holly M Holmes; Mohana B Karlekar; Nancy L Keating; June McKoy; Bruno C Medeiros; Ewa Mrozek; Tracey O'Connor; Stephen H Petersdorf; Hope S Rugo; Rebecca A Silliman; William P Tew; Louise C Walter; Alva B Weir; Tanya Wildes Journal: J Natl Compr Canc Netw Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 11.908
Authors: Emily Reeve; Michael D Wiese; Ivanka Hendrix; Michael S Roberts; Sepehr Shakib Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2013-08-26 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Roopa Lakhanpal; Jaclyn Yoong; Sachin Joshi; Desmond Yip; Linda Mileshkin; Gavin M Marx; Tracey Dunlop; Elizabeth J Hovey; Stephen A Della Fiorentina; Lakshmi Venkateswaran; Martin H N Tattersall; Sem Liew; Kathryn Field; Nimit Singhal; Christopher B Steer Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2015-03-23 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Danijela Gnjidic; Sarah N Hilmer; Fiona M Blyth; Vasi Naganathan; Louise Waite; Markus J Seibel; Andrew J McLachlan; Robert G Cumming; David J Handelsman; David G Le Couteur Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2012-06-27 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: D Gnjidic; S N Hilmer; F M Blyth; V Naganathan; R G Cumming; D J Handelsman; A J McLachlan; D R Abernethy; E Banks; D G Le Couteur Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: L P Fried; C M Tangen; J Walston; A B Newman; C Hirsch; J Gottdiener; T Seeman; R Tracy; W J Kop; G Burke; M A McBurnie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Marjaana P H Koponen; J Simon Bell; Niina M Karttunen; Irma A Nykänen; Franciska A M Desplenter; Sirpa A Hartikainen Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Tanya M Wildes; Ronald J Maggiore; William P Tew; David Smith; Can-Lan Sun; Harvey Cohen; Supriya G Mohile; Ajeet Gajra; Heidi D Klepin; Cynthia Owusu; Cary P Gross; Hyman Muss; Andrew Chapman; Stuart M Lichtman; Vani Katheria; Arti Hurria Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-04-28 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Taliesin E Ryan-Atwood; Mieke Hutchinson-Kern; Jenni Ilomäki; Michael J Dooley; Susan G Poole; Carl M Kirkpatrick; Elizabeth Manias; Biswadev Mitra; J Simon Bell Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2017-08 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Eman Biltaji; Elena Y Enioutina; Venkata Yellepeddi; Joseph E Rower; Catherine M T Sherwin; Robert M Ward; Richard S Lemons; Jonathan E Constance Journal: Leuk Lymphoma Date: 2020-04-07
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