Deprescribing in cognitively vulnerable older people: development and validation of STOPPCog criteria

IF 6 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Age and ageing Pub Date : 2025-02-04 DOI:10.1093/ageing/afaf014
Siobhan McGettigan, Denis Curtin, Denis O’Mahony
{"title":"Deprescribing in cognitively vulnerable older people: development and validation of STOPPCog criteria","authors":"Siobhan McGettigan, Denis Curtin, Denis O’Mahony","doi":"10.1093/ageing/afaf014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective To validate STOPPCog, a list of explicit criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in cognitively vulnerable older adults. Design A Delphi consensus survey of an expert panel comprising academic geriatricians, old age psychiatrists, general practitioners, and clinical pharmacists. Setting Ireland. Subjects Nine panellists. Methods STOPPCog criteria were initially created by the authors based on clinical experience and literature appraisal. Criteria were organised according to drug/drug class. Using Delphi consensus methodology, panellists ranked their agreement with each criterion on a 5-point Likert scale and provided written feedback. Criteria with a median value of 1 or 2 (strongly agree/agree) and a 25th centile value of ≤2 were included in the final list. Results All panellists completed two Delphi consensus validation rounds. Twenty-five criteria were proposed initially, twenty were accepted. One criterion was rejected (multi-vitamin supplements), and four criteria were rephrased (two of these were combined to one criterion for greater clarity). The final list comprised 23 criteria that are arranged in six subgroups i.e. (i) drugs with anticholinergic properties taken daily; (ii) drugs with sedative properties taken daily; (iii) drugs that may exacerbate psychotic symptoms in patients with alpha-synuclein pathology; (iv) drugs used for chronic pain; (v) drugs without proven efficacy for dementia taken daily; (vi) drugs that are of no proven benefit in advanced stage dementia i.e. clinical dementia rating of 3.0 where palliation may be appropriate. Conclusion STOPPCog comprises 23 criteria relating to medications that are potentially inappropriate in cognitively vulnerable older adults. STOPPCog may assist physicians in deprescribing medications in this patient population.","PeriodicalId":7682,"journal":{"name":"Age and ageing","volume":"80 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Age and ageing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afaf014","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective To validate STOPPCog, a list of explicit criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in cognitively vulnerable older adults. Design A Delphi consensus survey of an expert panel comprising academic geriatricians, old age psychiatrists, general practitioners, and clinical pharmacists. Setting Ireland. Subjects Nine panellists. Methods STOPPCog criteria were initially created by the authors based on clinical experience and literature appraisal. Criteria were organised according to drug/drug class. Using Delphi consensus methodology, panellists ranked their agreement with each criterion on a 5-point Likert scale and provided written feedback. Criteria with a median value of 1 or 2 (strongly agree/agree) and a 25th centile value of ≤2 were included in the final list. Results All panellists completed two Delphi consensus validation rounds. Twenty-five criteria were proposed initially, twenty were accepted. One criterion was rejected (multi-vitamin supplements), and four criteria were rephrased (two of these were combined to one criterion for greater clarity). The final list comprised 23 criteria that are arranged in six subgroups i.e. (i) drugs with anticholinergic properties taken daily; (ii) drugs with sedative properties taken daily; (iii) drugs that may exacerbate psychotic symptoms in patients with alpha-synuclein pathology; (iv) drugs used for chronic pain; (v) drugs without proven efficacy for dementia taken daily; (vi) drugs that are of no proven benefit in advanced stage dementia i.e. clinical dementia rating of 3.0 where palliation may be appropriate. Conclusion STOPPCog comprises 23 criteria relating to medications that are potentially inappropriate in cognitively vulnerable older adults. STOPPCog may assist physicians in deprescribing medications in this patient population.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Age and ageing
Age and ageing 医学-老年医学
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
6.00%
发文量
796
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Age and Ageing is an international journal publishing refereed original articles and commissioned reviews on geriatric medicine and gerontology. Its range includes research on ageing and clinical, epidemiological, and psychological aspects of later life.
期刊最新文献
Deprescribing in cognitively vulnerable older people: development and validation of STOPPCog criteria Utilisation of nursing home care before and after the 2015 Dutch national reform: an interrupted time series analysis Impact of in-hospital medication changes on clinical outcomes in older inpatients: the journey and destination Creating dementia-friendly travel: enhancing accessibility and inclusion. Evaluation of claims-based frailty measurements in older patients with cancer: a retrospective cohort study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1