有痴呆症和无痴呆症的老年人接受住院用药管理审查时的多药和潜在用药不当情况比较

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q4 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Australasian Journal on Ageing Pub Date : 2024-04-06 DOI:10.1111/ajag.13316
Mouna J. Sawan, Alexander Clough, Jodie Hillen, Natalie Soulsby, Danijela Gnjidic
{"title":"有痴呆症和无痴呆症的老年人接受住院用药管理审查时的多药和潜在用药不当情况比较","authors":"Mouna J. Sawan,&nbsp;Alexander Clough,&nbsp;Jodie Hillen,&nbsp;Natalie Soulsby,&nbsp;Danijela Gnjidic","doi":"10.1111/ajag.13316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Among residents who had a residential medication management review (RMMR), there is a lack of studies assessing exposure to polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in people with dementia. This study compared the exposure to polypharmacy and PIMs in residents with dementia and without dementia receiving RMMR.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>A retrospective analysis was performed using data of 16,261 residents living in 343 Australian residential aged care facilities who had an RMMR in 2019. Medication use was assessed as polypharmacy (defined as ≥9 medications) and use of ≥1 PIMs using the 2019 updated Beers criteria. Dementia diagnosis was determined with ICD-10 coding from medical records. Descriptive analyses reported resident demographics and patterns of medication use. Pearson's <i>χ</i><sup>2</sup> tests and logistic regression analysis were conducted to compare medication exposure between residents with and without dementia.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Among 16,261 residents, 6781 (42%) had dementia. Residents with dementia were significantly more likely to be exposed to polypharmacy and PIMs, compared to those without dementia (74% vs. 70% and 83% vs. 73%, <i>p</i> &lt; .001 respectively). Residents with dementia had 1.31 times the odds of exposure to polypharmacy (adjusted OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.22–1.41, <i>p</i> &lt; .001) and 1.88 times the odds of being prescribed ≥1 PIMs than people without dementia (adjusted OR: 1.88, 95% CI: 1.73–2.04, <i>p</i> &lt; .001).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\n \n <p>In a study of residents receiving RMMR, polypharmacy and PIMs were highly common, and those with dementia were more likely to be exposed to inappropriate polypharmacy. There is a need for targeted deprescribing strategies to immediately address inappropriate prescribing in residents, particularly those living with dementia.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55431,"journal":{"name":"Australasian Journal on Ageing","volume":"43 3","pages":"628-635"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajag.13316","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults with and without dementia receiving residential medication management reviews\",\"authors\":\"Mouna J. Sawan,&nbsp;Alexander Clough,&nbsp;Jodie Hillen,&nbsp;Natalie Soulsby,&nbsp;Danijela Gnjidic\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/ajag.13316\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>Among residents who had a residential medication management review (RMMR), there is a lack of studies assessing exposure to polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in people with dementia. This study compared the exposure to polypharmacy and PIMs in residents with dementia and without dementia receiving RMMR.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>A retrospective analysis was performed using data of 16,261 residents living in 343 Australian residential aged care facilities who had an RMMR in 2019. Medication use was assessed as polypharmacy (defined as ≥9 medications) and use of ≥1 PIMs using the 2019 updated Beers criteria. Dementia diagnosis was determined with ICD-10 coding from medical records. Descriptive analyses reported resident demographics and patterns of medication use. Pearson's <i>χ</i><sup>2</sup> tests and logistic regression analysis were conducted to compare medication exposure between residents with and without dementia.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>Among 16,261 residents, 6781 (42%) had dementia. Residents with dementia were significantly more likely to be exposed to polypharmacy and PIMs, compared to those without dementia (74% vs. 70% and 83% vs. 73%, <i>p</i> &lt; .001 respectively). Residents with dementia had 1.31 times the odds of exposure to polypharmacy (adjusted OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.22–1.41, <i>p</i> &lt; .001) and 1.88 times the odds of being prescribed ≥1 PIMs than people without dementia (adjusted OR: 1.88, 95% CI: 1.73–2.04, <i>p</i> &lt; .001).</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions</h3>\\n \\n <p>In a study of residents receiving RMMR, polypharmacy and PIMs were highly common, and those with dementia were more likely to be exposed to inappropriate polypharmacy. There is a need for targeted deprescribing strategies to immediately address inappropriate prescribing in residents, particularly those living with dementia.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55431,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australasian Journal on Ageing\",\"volume\":\"43 3\",\"pages\":\"628-635\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ajag.13316\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australasian Journal on Ageing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajag.13316\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australasian Journal on Ageing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ajag.13316","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的在接受过住院用药管理审查(RMMR)的住院患者中,缺乏对痴呆症患者接触多种药物和潜在不适当药物(PIMs)情况的评估研究。本研究比较了痴呆症患者和非痴呆症患者在接受RMMR时的多药性和潜在不当用药暴露情况。方法利用2019年接受RMMR的343家澳大利亚养老院16261名住院患者的数据进行了回顾性分析。根据2019年更新的Beers标准,将药物使用情况评估为多药(定义为≥9种药物)和使用≥1种PIMs。痴呆诊断根据病历中的 ICD-10 编码确定。描述性分析报告了住院患者的人口统计学特征和用药模式。进行了皮尔逊χ2检验和逻辑回归分析,以比较有痴呆症和无痴呆症居民的用药情况。与非痴呆症患者相比,痴呆症患者接触多种药物和PIMs的几率明显更高(分别为74%对70%和83%对73%,P< .001)。与非痴呆症患者相比,痴呆症患者接触多种药物的几率是后者的 1.31 倍(调整后 OR:1.31,95% CI:1.22-1.41,p < .001),被开具≥1 种 PIMs 的几率是后者的 1.88 倍(调整后 OR:1.结论在一项对接受 RMMR 的住院患者进行的研究中,多药治疗和 PIMs 非常普遍,痴呆患者更有可能接触到不适当的多药治疗。有必要采取有针对性的去处方化策略,立即解决住院患者,尤其是痴呆症患者的不当处方问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

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
Comparison of polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults with and without dementia receiving residential medication management reviews

Objectives

Among residents who had a residential medication management review (RMMR), there is a lack of studies assessing exposure to polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in people with dementia. This study compared the exposure to polypharmacy and PIMs in residents with dementia and without dementia receiving RMMR.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed using data of 16,261 residents living in 343 Australian residential aged care facilities who had an RMMR in 2019. Medication use was assessed as polypharmacy (defined as ≥9 medications) and use of ≥1 PIMs using the 2019 updated Beers criteria. Dementia diagnosis was determined with ICD-10 coding from medical records. Descriptive analyses reported resident demographics and patterns of medication use. Pearson's χ2 tests and logistic regression analysis were conducted to compare medication exposure between residents with and without dementia.

Results

Among 16,261 residents, 6781 (42%) had dementia. Residents with dementia were significantly more likely to be exposed to polypharmacy and PIMs, compared to those without dementia (74% vs. 70% and 83% vs. 73%, p < .001 respectively). Residents with dementia had 1.31 times the odds of exposure to polypharmacy (adjusted OR: 1.31, 95% CI: 1.22–1.41, p < .001) and 1.88 times the odds of being prescribed ≥1 PIMs than people without dementia (adjusted OR: 1.88, 95% CI: 1.73–2.04, p < .001).

Conclusions

In a study of residents receiving RMMR, polypharmacy and PIMs were highly common, and those with dementia were more likely to be exposed to inappropriate polypharmacy. There is a need for targeted deprescribing strategies to immediately address inappropriate prescribing in residents, particularly those living with dementia.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Australasian Journal on Ageing
Australasian Journal on Ageing 医学-老年医学
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
6.20%
发文量
114
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Australasian Journal on Ageing is a peer reviewed journal, which publishes original work in any area of gerontology and geriatric medicine. It welcomes international submissions, particularly from authors in the Asia Pacific region.
期刊最新文献
Off-road trauma. DriveSafeDriveAware Testing: An occupational therapist's perspective. Gender disparity regarding the impact of retirement on marital satisfaction: Evidence from a longitudinal study of older Korean adults. Implementing a perioperative medicine for older people undergoing surgery (POPS) service: A guide for clinical leaders. Systematic scoping review of ageing in place strategies in Japan, Singapore and Thailand: A comparative analysis. Associations between dual-task walking and cognitive impairment in people attending a cognitive diagnostic clinic.
×
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