Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Ability to detect potentially inappropriate prescribing in older patients: comparative analysis between PIM-Check and STOPP/STARTv2.
Farhat, Akram; Panchaud, Alice; Al-Hajje, Amal; Lang, Pierre-Olivier; Csajka, Chantal.
Afiliação
  • Farhat A; Center for Research and Innovation in Clinical Pharmaceutical Sciences, Lausanne University Hospital and University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. akram.farhat@hotmail.com.
  • Panchaud A; Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences of Western Switzerland, University of Geneva, University of Lausanne, Geneva, Switzerland. akram.farhat@hotmail.com.
  • Al-Hajje A; School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland. akram.farhat@hotmail.com.
  • Lang PO; Service of Pharmacy, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
  • Csajka C; Clinical and Epidemiological Research Laboratory, Faculty of Pharmacy, Lebanese University, Hadat, Lebanon.
Eur J Clin Pharmacol ; 77(11): 1747-1756, 2021 Nov.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34191107
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is a source of preventable adverse drug events. The objective of this study was a comparative analysis (quantitative and qualitative) between two tools used to detect PIP, PIM-Check and STOPP/START.

METHODS:

First, a qualitative analysis (QAC) was conducted to evaluate the concordance between the criteria, which constitute PIM-Check and the gold standard STOPP/START. Second, a retrospective comparative and observational study was performed on the list of treatment at the admission of 50 older patients hospitalized in an acute geriatric ward of a university hospital in Switzerland in 2016 using both tools.

RESULTS:

The QAC has shown that 50% (57 criteria) of STOPP/START criteria are fully or partially concordant with those of PIM-Check. The retrospective study was performed on 50 patients aged 87 years, suffering from 5 co-morbidities (min-max 1-11) and treated by of 8 drugs (min-max 2-16), as medians. The prevalence of the detected PIP was 80% by PIM-Check and 90% by STOPP/START. Medication review shows that 4.2 PIP per patient were detected by PIM-Check and 3.5 PIP by STOPP/START among which 1.9 PIP was commonly detected by both tools, as means. PIM-Check detected more PIP related to cardiology, angiology, nephrology, and endocrinology in older patients but missed the PIP related to geriatric syndromes (e.g., fall, dementia, Alzheimer) detected by STOPP/START.

CONCLUSIONS:

By using PIM-Check in geriatric settings, some PIP will not be detected. It is considered as a limitation for this tool in this frail population but brings a certain complementarity in other areas of therapy not covered by STOPP/START.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Avaliação Geriátrica / Prescrição Inadequada / Lista de Medicamentos Potencialmente Inapropriados Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Qualitative_research / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male País/Região como assunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Suíça

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Avaliação Geriátrica / Prescrição Inadequada / Lista de Medicamentos Potencialmente Inapropriados Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies / Qualitative_research / Risk_factors_studies Limite: Aged / Aged80 / Female / Humans / Male País/Região como assunto: Europa Idioma: En Revista: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Ano de publicação: 2021 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Suíça