Defining, identifying and addressing problematic polypharmacy within multimorbidity in primary care: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Polypharmacy and multimorbidity pose escalating challenges. Despite numerous attempts, interventions have yet to show consistent improvements in health outcomes. A key factor may be varied approaches to targeting patients for intervention. OBJECTIVES: To explore how patients are targeted for intervention by examining the literature with respect to: understanding how polypharmacy is defined; identifying problematic polypharmacy in practice; and addressing problematic polypharmacy through interventions. DESIGN: We performed a scoping review as defined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. SETTING: The focus was on primary care settings. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Cochrane along with ClinicalTrials.gov, Science.gov and WorldCat.org were searched from January 2004 to February 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all articles that had a focus on problematic polypharmacy in multimorbidity and primary care, incorporating multiple types of evidence, such as reviews, quantitative trials, qualitative studies and policy documents. Articles focussing on a single index disease or not written in English were excluded. EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: We performed a narrative synthesis, comparing themes and findings across the collective evidence to draw contextualised insights and conclusions. RESULTS: In total, 157 articles were included. Case-finding methods often rely on basic medication counts (often five or more) without considering medical history or whether individual medications are clinically appropriate. Other approaches highlight specific drug indicators and interactions as potentially inappropriate prescribing, failing to capture a proportion of patients not fitting criteria. Different potentially inappropriate prescribing criteria also show significant inconsistencies in determining the appropriateness of medications, often neglecting to consider multimorbidity and underprescribing. This may hinder the identification of the precise population requiring intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Improved strategies are needed to target patients with polypharmacy, which should consider patient perspectives, individual factors and clinical appropriateness. The development of a cross-cutting measure of problematic polypharmacy that consistently incorporates adjustment for multimorbidity may be a valuable next step to address frequent confounding.

Protocol for the development and validation of a Polypharmacy Assessment Score.

BACKGROUND: An increasing number of people are using multiple medications each day, named polypharmacy. This is driven by an ageing population, increasing multimorbidity, and single disease-focussed guidelines. Medications carry obvious benefits, yet polypharmacy is also linked to adverse consequences including adverse drug events, drug-drug and drug-disease interactions, poor patient experience and wasted resources. Problematic polypharmacy is 'the prescribing of multiple medicines inappropriately, or where the intended benefits are not realised'. Identifying people with problematic polypharmacy is complex, as multiple medicines can be suitable for people with several chronic conditions requiring more treatment. Hence, polypharmacy is often potentially problematic, rather than always inappropriate, dependent on clinical context and individual benefit vs risk. There is a need to improve how we identify and evaluate these patients by extending beyond simple counts of medicines to include individual factors and long-term conditions. AIM: To produce a Polypharmacy Assessment Score to identify a population with unusual levels of prescribing who may be at risk of potentially problematic polypharmacy. METHODS: Analyses will be performed in three parts: 1. A prediction model will be constructed using observed medications count as the dependent variable, with age, gender and long-term conditions as independent variables. A 'Polypharmacy Assessment Score' will then be constructed through calculating the differences between the observed and expected count of prescribed medications, thereby highlighting people that have unexpected levels of prescribing. Parts 2 and 3 will examine different aspects of validity of the Polypharmacy Assessment Score: 2. To assess 'construct validity', cross-sectional analyses will evaluate high-risk prescribing within populations defined by a range of Polypharmacy Assessment Scores, using both explicit (STOPP/START criteria) and implicit (Medication Appropriateness Index) measures of inappropriate prescribing. 3. To assess 'predictive validity', a retrospective cohort study will explore differences in clinical outcomes (adverse drug reactions, unplanned hospitalisation and all-cause mortality) between differing scores. DISCUSSION: Developing a cross-cutting measure of polypharmacy may allow healthcare professionals to prioritise and risk stratify patients with polypharmacy using unusual levels of prescribing. This would be an improvement from current approaches of either using simple cutoffs or narrow prescribing criteria.

Risk of Falls and Fractures in Individuals With Cataract, Age-Related Macular Degeneration, or Glaucoma.

Importance: Three leading disease causes of age-related visual loss are cataract, age-related macular degeneration (AMD), and glaucoma. Although all 3 eye diseases have been implicated with falls and fracture risk, evidence is mixed, with the contribution of different eye diseases being uncertain. Objective: To examine whether people with cataract, AMD, or glaucoma have higher risks of falls or fractures than those without. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a population-based study in England using routinely collected electronic health records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD and Aurum primary care databases with linked hospitalization and mortality records from 2007 to 2020. Participants were people with cataract, AMD, or glaucoma matched to comparators (1:5) by age, sex, and general practice. Data were analyzed from May 2021 to June 2023. Exposures: For each eye disease, we estimated the risk of falls or fractures using separate multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Main Outcomes: Two primary outcomes were incident falls and incident fractures derived from general practice, hospital, and mortality records. Secondary outcomes were incident fractures of specific body sites. Results: A total of 410 476 people with cataract, 75 622 with AMD, and 90 177 with glaucoma were matched (1:5) to 2 034 194 (no cataract), 375 548 (no AMD), and 448 179 (no glaucoma) comparators. The mean (SD) age was 73.8 (11.0) years, 79.4 (9.4) years, and 69.8 (13.1) years for participants with cataract, AMD, or glaucoma, respectively. Compared with comparators, there was an increased risk of falls in those with cataract (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; 95% CI, 1.35-1.38), AMD (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.23-1.27), and glaucoma (HR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.35-1.41). Likewise for fractures, there were increased risks in all eye diseases, with an HR of 1.28 (95% CI, 1.27-1.30) in the cataract cohort, an HR of 1.18 (95% CI, 1.15-1.21) for AMD, and an HR of 1.31 (95% CI, 1.27-1.35) for glaucoma. Site-specific fracture analyses revealed increases in almost all body sites (including hip, spine, forearm, skull or facial bones, pelvis, ribs or sternum, and lower leg fractures) compared with matched comparators. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study support recognition that people with 1 or more of these eye diseases are at increased risk of both falls and fractures. They may benefit from improved advice, access, and referrals to falls prevention services.