Iva Mucalo1, Maja Ortner Hadžiabdić2, Andrea Brajković2, Sonja Lukić3, Patricia Marić3, Ivana Marinović4, Vesna Bačić-Vrca2,4. 1. Centre for Applied Pharmacy, University of Zagreb Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, A. Kovacica 1, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia. imucalo@pharma.hr. 2. Centre for Applied Pharmacy, University of Zagreb Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, A. Kovacica 1, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia. 3. University of Zagreb Faculty of Pharmacy and Biochemistry, A. Kovacica 1, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia. 4. Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University Hospital Dubrava, Av. Gojka Suska 6, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to measure the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) by using the EU(7)-PIM list, STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions) version 2 criteria and the new comprehensive protocol. METHODS: This prospective study involved a sample of 276 consecutive elderly patients discharged from the university teaching hospital. Age, gender, diagnoses, medication history and medicines at discharge were recorded. The main outcome measure was the prevalence of PIMs according to each set of criteria: EU(7)-PIM list, STOPP version 2 criteria and comprehensive protocol. RESULTS: The median patient age (range) was 74 (65-92) years. The median number of prescribed medications was 7 (1-17). STOPP identified 393 PIMs affecting 190 patients (69%), EU(7)-PIM list identified 330 PIMs in 184 patients (66.7%) whilst the comprehensive protocol identified 134 PIMs in 102 patients (37%). STOPP version 2 criteria identified significantly more PIMs per patient than the other two protocols (p < 0.001). Gender (p = 0.002), glomerular filtration rate (p = 0.039) and number of comorbidities (p = 0.001) were associated with the proportion of PIMs for the STOPP version 2 criteria only. CONCLUSION: A very high PIM prevalence at discharge was reported suggesting the urgent need for actions to reduce them. STOPP version 2 criteria identified significantly more PIMs than the EU(7)-PIM list and the comprehensive protocol and was found as a more sensitive tool for PIM detection.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to measure the prevalence of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) by using the EU(7)-PIM list, STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions) version 2 criteria and the new comprehensive protocol. METHODS: This prospective study involved a sample of 276 consecutive elderly patients discharged from the university teaching hospital. Age, gender, diagnoses, medication history and medicines at discharge were recorded. The main outcome measure was the prevalence of PIMs according to each set of criteria: EU(7)-PIM list, STOPP version 2 criteria and comprehensive protocol. RESULTS: The median patient age (range) was 74 (65-92) years. The median number of prescribed medications was 7 (1-17). STOPP identified 393 PIMs affecting 190 patients (69%), EU(7)-PIM list identified 330 PIMs in 184 patients (66.7%) whilst the comprehensive protocol identified 134 PIMs in 102 patients (37%). STOPP version 2 criteria identified significantly more PIMs per patient than the other two protocols (p < 0.001). Gender (p = 0.002), glomerular filtration rate (p = 0.039) and number of comorbidities (p = 0.001) were associated with the proportion of PIMs for the STOPP version 2 criteria only. CONCLUSION: A very high PIM prevalence at discharge was reported suggesting the urgent need for actions to reduce them. STOPP version 2 criteria identified significantly more PIMs than the EU(7)-PIM list and the comprehensive protocol and was found as a more sensitive tool for PIM detection.
Authors: Nadine Shehab; Maribeth C Lovegrove; Andrew I Geller; Kathleen O Rose; Nina J Weidle; Daniel S Budnitz Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-11-22 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sture Rognstad; Mette Brekke; Arne Fetveit; Olav Spigset; Torgeir Bruun Wyller; Jørund Straand Journal: Scand J Prim Health Care Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.581
Authors: Diana M Rydberg; Lennart Holm; Ida Engqvist; Jessica Fryckstedt; Jonatan D Lindh; Carl-Olav Stiller; Charlotte Asker-Hagelberg Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-09-13 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Khedidja Hedna; Katja M Hakkarainen; Hanna Gyllensten; Anna K Jönsson; Max Petzold; Staffan Hägg Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2015-09-26 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Katarina Fehir Šola; Iva Mucalo; Andrea Brajković; Ivona Jukić; Donatella Verbanac; Sanda Vladimir Knežević Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 1.671