Deborah Hukins1, Una Macleod1, Jason W Boland2. 1. Wolfson Centre for Palliative Care Research, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK. 2. Wolfson Centre for Palliative Care Research, Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK. Jason.Boland@hyms.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Older people with dementia are at risk of adverse events associated with potentially inappropriate prescribing. AIM: to describe (1) how international tools designed to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing have been used in studies of older people with dementia, (2) the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in this cohort and (3) advantages/disadvantages of tools METHODS: Systematic literature review, designed and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, the Social Science Citation Index, OpenGrey, Base, GreyLit, Mednar and the National Database of Ageing Research were searched in April 2016 for studies describing the use of a tool or criteria to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people with dementia. RESULTS: Three thousand three hundred twenty-six unique papers were identified; 26 were included in the review. Eight studies used more than one tool to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing. There were variations in how the tools were applied. The Beers criteria were the most commonly used tool. Thirteen of the 15 studies using the Beers criteria did not use the full tool. The prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing ranged from 14 to 74% in older people with dementia. Benzodiazepines, hypnotics and anticholinergics were the most common potentially inappropriately prescribed medications. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in tool application may at least in part explain variations in potentially inappropriate prescribing across studies. Recommendations include a more standardised tool usage and ensuring the tools are comprehensive enough to identify all potentially inappropriate medications and are kept up to date.
PURPOSE: Older people with dementia are at risk of adverse events associated with potentially inappropriate prescribing. AIM: to describe (1) how international tools designed to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing have been used in studies of older people with dementia, (2) the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in this cohort and (3) advantages/disadvantages of tools METHODS: Systematic literature review, designed and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychInfo, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, the Social Science Citation Index, OpenGrey, Base, GreyLit, Mednar and the National Database of Ageing Research were searched in April 2016 for studies describing the use of a tool or criteria to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people with dementia. RESULTS: Three thousand three hundred twenty-six unique papers were identified; 26 were included in the review. Eight studies used more than one tool to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing. There were variations in how the tools were applied. The Beers criteria were the most commonly used tool. Thirteen of the 15 studies using the Beers criteria did not use the full tool. The prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing ranged from 14 to 74% in older people with dementia. Benzodiazepines, hypnotics and anticholinergics were the most common potentially inappropriately prescribed medications. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in tool application may at least in part explain variations in potentially inappropriate prescribing across studies. Recommendations include a more standardised tool usage and ensuring the tools are comprehensive enough to identify all potentially inappropriate medications and are kept up to date.
Authors: Sujita W Narayan; Sallie-Anne Pearson; Melisa Litchfield; David G Le Couteur; Nicholas Buckley; Andrew J McLachlan; Helga Zoega Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2019-07-07 Impact factor: 4.335