Reliability and validity of the Swedish indicator 'Drugs that should be avoided in older people'-an appraisal of a set of potentially inappropriate medications.

PURPOSE: To analyse the reliability and validity of the Swedish indicator 'Drugs that should be avoided in older people'. METHODS: From a previous study that included consecutive primary care patients ≥ 65 years of age, all patients ≥ 75 years of age were analysed. Two physicians independently screened their medication lists and medical records, applying the Swedish indicator which includes potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs): long-acting benzodiazepines, drugs with anticholinergic action, tramadol, propiomazine, codeine, and glibenclamide. The clinical relevance of identified PIMs was independently assessed. Thereafter, the physicians determined in consensus whether some medical action related to the drug treatment was medically justified and prioritised before the next regular visit. If so, the drug treatment was considered inadequate, and if not, adequate. RESULTS: A total of 1,146 drugs were assessed in 149 patients (75‒99 years, 62% female, 0‒20 drugs per patient). In 29 (19%) patients, at least one physician identified ≥ 1 PIM according to the indicator at issue; 24 (16%) patients were concordantly identified with ≥ 1 such PIM (kappa: 0.89). Of 26 PIMs concordantly identified, the physicians concordantly assessed four as clinically relevant and 12 as not clinically relevant (kappa: 0.17). After the consensus discussion, six (4%) patients had ≥ 1 PIM according to the studied indicator that merited action. Using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the indicator did not outperform chance in identifying inadequate drug treatment: 0.56 (95% confidence interval: 0.46 to 0.66). CONCLUSION: The Swedish indicator has strong reliability regarding PIM detection but does not validly reflect the adequacy of drug treatment.

Bleeding in patients on concurrent treatment with a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) and low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) compared with SSRI or low-dose ASA alone-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to systematically review whether concurrent treatment with an SSRI and low-dose ASA increases the risk of bleeding compared with treatment with an SSRI alone or ASA alone. METHODS: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and Web of Science (from database inception to January 2023) were searched according to PICO: P = patients on treatment with an SSRI and/or low-dose ASA; I = intervention: SSRI + ASA; C = comparison: ASA or SSRI alone; O = outcomes: bleeding/major bleeding. The included articles were assessed using checklists. Studies without major risk of bias formed the basis for the conclusions. Extracted data were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Certainty of evidence was assessed according to GRADE. RESULTS: Twenty-four studies met the PICO and were included. One randomized and six nonrandomized studies were assessed not to have major risk of bias. Regarding SSRI + ASA vs. ASA only, the pooled hazard ratio of three nonrandomized studies (n = 38 467) was 1.37 (95% confidence interval: 1.10; 1.70; I2 = 0%), and the pooled odds ratio of two nonrandomized studies (n = 28 296) was 0.95 (0.77; 1.19; I2 = 0%). Regarding SSRI + ASA vs. SSRI only, the randomized controlled trial (n = 1048) reported a hazard ratio of 1.82 (0.66; 5.02), the hazard ratio being 1.60 (1.24; 2.06) for ASA vs. placebo in patients without SSRI treatment; and one nonrandomized controlled study (n = 18 920) reported an incidence rate ratio of 1.03 (0.96; 1.12). CONCLUSIONS: The compiled evidence was too uncertain to support an interaction when an SSRI is added to low-dose ASA. Low-dose ASA added to an SSRI may imply an increased risk of bleeding primarily attributable to the initiation of ASA.

¼Läkemedel som bör undvikas till äldre« ur medicinskt perspektiv.

The indicator ¼drugs that should be avoided in older people« from a medical perspective - an analysis with the patient in focus The drug-specific indicator ¼drugs that should be avoided in older people«, defined by the National Board of Health and Welfare of Sweden, is part of a large set of indicators of potentially inappropriate prescribing used for benchmarking in health care and in research. In this study, 149 consecutive primary care patients (75-99 years of age, 62 percent female, 0-20 drugs in the medication list) were included. Their medication lists were screened for potentially inappropriate drugs according to the indicator at issue, including long-acting benzodiazepines, drugs with anticholinergic action, tramadol, propiomazine, codeine, and glibenclamide. Medically justified actions related to these drugs were determined by two specialist physicians in consensus. In all, 29 patients had 32 drugs listed in the indicator, 7 of which, in 6 patients, were deemed relevant to act upon before the next regular physician visit, e.g. the annual control of chronic conditions. For the remaining 25 drugs, in 23 patients, no such related action was medically justified prior to the next regular visit. Using the area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, the indicator did not outperform chance to identify inadequately managed drug treatment, defined as the consensus decision by two specialist physicians that some action related to the full medication could be medically justified prior to the next regular visit: 0.56 (95% CI: 0.46-0.66). In conclusion, the indicator ¼drugs that should be avoided in older people« did not warrant action from a medical perspective for four out of five patients, and could not differentiate between adequately and inadequately managed drug treatment.

Clinical pathway of COVID-19 patients in primary health care in 30 European countries: Eurodata study.

BACKGROUND: Most COVID-19 patients were treated in primary health care (PHC) in Europe. OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate the scope of PHC workflow during the COVID-19 pandemic emphasising similarities and differences of patient's clinical pathways in Europe. METHODS: Descriptive, cross-sectional study with data acquired through a semi-structured questionnaire in PHC in 30 European countries, created ad hoc and agreed upon among all researchers who participated in the study. GPs from each country answered the approved questionnaire. Main variable: PHC COVID-19 acute clinical pathway. All variables were collected from each country as of September 2020. RESULTS: COVID-19 clinics in PHC facilities were organised in 8/30. Case detection and testing were performed in PHC in 27/30 countries. RT-PCR and lateral flow tests were performed in PHC in 23/30, free of charge with a medical prescription. Contact tracing was performed mainly by public health authorities. Mandatory isolation ranged from 5 to 14 days. Sick leave certification was given exclusively by GPs in 21/30 countries. Patient hotels or other resources to isolate patients were available in 12/30. Follow-up to monitor the symptoms and/or new complementary tests was made mainly by phone call (27/30). Chest X-ray and phlebotomy were performed in PHC in 18/30 and 23/30 countries, respectively. Oxygen and low-molecular-weight heparin were available in PHC (21/30). CONCLUSION: In Europe PHC participated in many steps to diagnose, treat and monitor COVID-19 patients. Differences among countries might be addressed at European level for the management of future pandemics.

Revisiting the inter-rater reliability of drug treatment assessments according to the STOPP/START criteria.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to revisit the inter-rater reliability of drug treatment assessments according to the Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions (STOPP)/Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment (START) criteria. METHODS: Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) were independently identified by two physicians in two cohorts of older people (I: 200 hip fracture patients, median age 85 years, STOPP/START version 1; II: 302 primary care patients, median age 74 years, STOPP/START version 2). Kappa statistics were used to evaluate inter-rater agreement. RESULTS: In cohort I, a total of 782 PIMs/PPOs, related to 68 (78%) out of 87 criteria, were identified by at least one assessor, 500 (64%) of which were discordantly identified by the assessors, that is, by one assessor but not the other. For four STOPP criteria, all PIMs (n = 9) were concordantly identified. In cohort II, 955 PIMs/PPOs, related to 80 (70%) out of 114 criteria, were identified, 614 (64%) of which were discordantly identified. For three STOPP criteria, all PIMs (n = 3) were concordantly identified. For no START criterion, with ≥1 PPO identified, were all assessments concordant. The kappa value for PIM/PPO identification was 0.52 in both cohorts. In cohort II, the kappa was 0.37 when criteria regarding influenza and pneumococcal vaccines were excluded. Further analysis of discordantly identified PIMs/PPOs revealed methodological aspects of importance, including the data source used and criteria wording. CONCLUSIONS: When the STOPP/START criteria are applied in PIM/PPO research, reliability seems to be an issue not encountered in previous reliability studies.

Performance of 3 Sets of Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Prescribing in Older People to Identify Inadequate Drug Treatment.

Importance: Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs) are used in research to reflect the quality of drug treatment in older people and have been suggested for inclusion in core outcome sets for evaluation of interventions for improved prescribing. Their validation so far, however, is primarily restricted to expert opinion-based processes. Objective: To evaluate the performance of 3 explicit PIM/PPO criteria sets as diagnostic tools to identify inadequate drug treatment in older patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study analyzed patients aged 65 years or older consecutively included from 2 primary health care centers from October to November 2017. Data were analyzed from February to August 2022. Exposures: The PIMs/PPOs were concordantly identified by 2 specialist physicians (2018-2019) retrospectively after a planned physician visit, using 3 European PIM/PPO criteria sets and without knowledge of this diagnostic study. Main Outcomes and Measures: Area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, reflecting the ability of PIM/PPO criteria sets to identify the reference standard of inadequate drug treatment, determined by 2 specialist physicians in consensus. Inadequate drug treatment implied that additional action related to the medication could be medically justified before the next regular visit. Results: A total of 302 patients were analyzed (median age, 74 [IQR, 69-81] years; 178 women [59%]; median number of drugs in the medication list, 6 [IQR, 3-9]); 98 patients (32%) had inadequate drug treatment. A total of 0 to 8 PIMs/PPOs per patient were identified using the Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions (STOPP)/Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment (START) criteria, 0 to 6 with the European EU(7)-PIM list, and 0 to 12 with the Swedish set of indicators of prescribing quality. The areas under the ROC curve for the 3 sets to identify the reference standard for inadequate drug treatment were 0.60 (95% CI, 0.53-0.66) for the STOPP/START criteria, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.63-0.75) for the EU(7)-PIM list, and 0.73 (95% CI, 0.67-0.80) for the Swedish set. For comparison, the area under the ROC curve was 0.71 (95% CI, 0.65-0.78) using the number of drugs in the medication list. Conclusions and Relevance: In this diagnostic study, the evaluated PIM/PPO sets had poor to fair performance as diagnostic tools to identify inadequate drug treatment, comparable with a simple count of the number of drugs in the medication list. These findings suggest that use of PIMs/PPOs as indicators of drug treatment quality in core outcome sets for the evaluation of interventions for improved prescribing may need reconsideration.

Clinical relevance of potentially inappropriate medications and potential prescribing omissions according to explicit criteria-a validation study.

PURPOSE: To investigate the clinical relevance of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs), and to evaluate the association between PIMs/PPOs and inadequate drug treatment. METHODS: PIMs/PPOs, concordantly identified by two physicians applying the STOPP/START criteria, the EU(7)-PIM list, and a Swedish set in 302 consecutive older primary care patients, were assessed regarding clinical relevance for the specific patient. The physicians determined, in consensus, whether an action related to the medication was medically justified prior to the next regular consultation. If so, the drug treatment was categorised as inadequate, and if not, the treatment was considered adequate. RESULTS: In all, 259 (86%) patients had 1010 PIMs/PPOs, 150 (15%) of which, in 81 (27%) patients, were assessed as clinically relevant (kappa: 0.26). A total of 75 (50%) clinically relevant PIMs and PPOs were prioritised for medical action before the next regular consultation. Action-requiring clinically relevant PIMs most often concerned acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) for primary prevention (four out of 68 patients on ASA). The corresponding PPOs concerned beta-blockers in ischaemic heart disease (four out of 61 patients with this condition). When an overall medical perspective was applied, 164 (63%) out of 259 patients with PIMs/PPOs were assessed as having adequate treatment. In adjusted logistic regression, number of PIMs and/or PPOs and number of drugs were associated with inadequate drug treatment. CONCLUSION: One in seven PIMs/PPOs may be clinically relevant, half of these not of priority for medical action. Cautious interpretation is warranted when PIMs/PPOs are used as outcome measures.

Drug interaction alerts in older primary care patients, and related medically justified actions.

PURPOSE: To describe presented interaction alerts in older patients, and the extent to which these require further medical action for the specific patient or are already being addressed. METHODS: Interaction alerts presented at a physician consultation, for 274 consecutive primary care patients treated with two or more drugs (median age: 75 years; 59% female), were extracted. These alerts are based on Janusmed, a decision support integrated in the medical records that provides recommendations for managing the interactions. One general practitioner (GP) and one GP/clinical pharmacologist determined in retrospect, first independently and then in consensus, whether the alerts justified further medical action, considering each patient's health condition. RESULTS: In all, 405 drug interaction alerts in 151 (55%) patients were triggered. Medical action in response was deemed medically justified for 35 (9%) alerts in 26 (17%) patients. These actions most often involved a switch to a less interacting drug from the same drug class (n = 10), a separate intake (n = 9), or the ordering of a laboratory test (n = 8). Out of 531 actions suggested by the alert system, only 38 (7%) were applicable to the specific patient, as, for instance, laboratory parameters were already being satisfactorily monitored or a separate intake implemented. CONCLUSIONS: More than every other older patient receives drug treatment that triggers drug interaction alerts. Nine in ten alerts were already being addressed or were not relevant in the clinical setting, whereas, for the remaining tenth, some medical action, that for unknown reasons had not been taken, was reasonable. These findings show that interaction alerts are questionable as indicators of problematic prescribing.

Association between recorded medication reviews in primary care and adequate drug treatment management - a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between a recorded procedure code for a medication review and adequate drug treatment management, and to explore factors associated with this code. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study; two primary health care centres, in Region Västra Götaland, Sweden. SUBJECTS: A total of 302 consecutive patients (≥65 years old, 59% female; median number of drugs: six) requiring a non-urgent consultation with a physician in October-November 2017. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Adequate drug treatment management (treatment that did not require any further action), determined in consensus by two specialists in family medicine blinded to the medication review code. RESULTS: Adequate drug treatment management was, overall, less common in those with a recorded medication review over the last year: 63% versus 73% (p = 0.047). This negative association was evident among patients aged 65-74 years: 49% versus 74% (p = 0.003), but absent in those ≥75 years old: 67% versus 70% (p = 0.77). Recommendations from consensus included the search for additional information to be able to make a decision regarding initiation or withdrawal of a drug (n = 53), withdrawal of a drug (n = 41), or ordering a laboratory test (n = 25). Factors associated with a recorded procedure code included age above the remuneration limit of 75 years (odds ratio: 9.8; 95% confidence interval 5.0-19), type 2 diabetes (3.0 (1.5-6.2)), hypertension (2.4 (1.2-4.8)), and depression (2.5 (1.02-6.0)). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of a recorded medication review was not positively associated with adequate drug treatment management but was associated with the age limit for remuneration, and some chronic diseases.Key pointsTo improve drug treatment in older people in primary care, a remuneration system linked to recorded medication reviews has been introduced.In this study, fewer patients with than without a recorded medication review (63% versus 73%) had adequate drug treatment management.A recorded medication review was ten times more common in those ≥75 years, that is, the age limit for remuneration.Recorded codes for medication reviews were also common in those with type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and depression.

Quality of prescribing in older people from a broad family physician perspective: a descriptive pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the quality of drug treatment in older people from a broad family physician perspective, and to provide evidence for power calculations in full-scale studies on prescribing quality. DESIGN: Descriptive, retrospective pilot study. SETTING: A primary healthcare centre in Sweden. PARTICIPANTS: 123 consecutive patients, ≥65 years, with a non-urgent physician consultation in January 2016. MEASURES: The drug treatment was assessed by a physician as either appropriate or suboptimal, taking individual factors like morbidity, life expectancy and concurrent drug treatment into account, and preceded by the application of 493 criteria from three screening tools for Potentially Inappropriate Medications (PIMs) and Potential Prescribing Omissions (PPOs). Suboptimal drug treatment was further categorised regarding priority: (1) immediate change suggested or (2) actions suggested in the longer term. Prevalence of the procedure code 'medication review' and the results thereof were also recorded. RESULTS: Median age: 76 years; 48% women. When a family physician perspective was applied, and 593 PIMs/PPOs identified in 117 (95%) patients considered, 45 (37%) patients had suboptimal drug treatment. Immediate handling was suggested in 13 (11%) patients, most often concerning withdrawals of drugs for anxiety and insomnia. Handling in the longer term was suggested in 32 (26%) patients, most often concerning overuse of proton pump inhibitors. Over the last year, the procedure code 'medication review' was recorded for 65 (53%) patients. In medication reviews recorded during January 2016 (n=45), 23 (7%) drugs out of 309 were acted on, most often a dosage adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study shows that when a broad family physician perspective is applied, taking individual factors and medical priorities in the complex clinical situation into account, drug treatment in primary care is appropriate for the majority of older patients. The results may be useful in sample size considerations for future studies on prescribing practices.

[Potentially inappropriate prescribing in patients over 65 years-old in a primary care health centre]. / Prescripción potencialmente inapropiada en mayores de 65 años en un centro de salud de atención primaria.

OBJECTIVE: To identify potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PPI) and prescribing omissions (OP) by means of the STOPP/START criteria, as well as associated factors in ≥65year old patients in a Primary Care setting in Spain. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional, descriptive study. SETTING: Centro de Salud Monóvar, Primary Health Care. STUDY PERIOD: 6months. PATIENTS RANDOM SAMPLE: 247patients. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: ≥65years patients who attended an urban Primary Care clinic 2 or more times were studied. Terminally ill and nursing home residents were excluded. METHODS: Data were collected from electronic clinical records. STOPP and START criteria were evaluated in each clinical record, including age, sex, co-morbidity, number of chronic prescriptions. MAIN OUTCOMES: PPI and OP identified by STOPP and START criteria, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 81 patients (32.8%) had PPI, with the most common being the long-term use of long-acting benzodiazepines in 17 (6.9%). OP was found in 73 (29.6%) patients, with the most common being the omission of statins in patients diagnosed with diabetes mellitus and/or one or more major cardiovascular risk factors in 21 (8.5%). After adjustment by gender and age, correlations were found between PPI and multiple medication (OR: 2.02; 95%CI: 1.15-3.53; P=.014), and OP and polypharmacy (OR: 2.37; 95%CI: 1.32-4.24; P=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Inappropriate prescribing in older people is frequent, and is mainly associated with long-acting benzodiazepines. There are diabetic patients who do not have statins prescribed. Multiple medication is associated with PPI and OP.