Dataset Information

A Propensity Score Matched Approach to Assess the Associations of Commonly Prescribed Medications with Fall Risk in a Large Harmonized Cohort of Older Ambulatory Persons.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Several medication classes are considered to present risk factors for falls. However, the evidence is mainly based on observational studies that often lack adequate adjustment for confounders. Therefore, we aimed to assess the associations of medication classes with fall risk by carefully selecting confounders and by applying propensity score matching (PSM).

Methods

Data from several European cohorts, harmonized into the ADFICE_IT cohort, was used. Our primary outcome was time until the first fall within 1-year follow-up. The secondary outcome was a fall in the past year. Our exposure variables were commonly prescribed medications. We used 1:1 PSM to match the participants with reported intake of specific medication classes with participants without. We constructed Cox regression models stratified by the pairs matched on the propensity score for our primary outcome and conditional logistic regression models for our secondary outcome.

Results

In total, 32.6% of participants fell in the 1-year follow-up and 24.4% reported falling in the past year. ACE inhibitor users (prevalence of use 15.3%) had a lower fall risk during follow-up when matched to non-users, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.82 (95% CI 0.68-0.98). Also, statin users (prevalence of use 20.1%) had a lower risk, with an HR of 0.76 (95% CI 0.65-0.90). Other medication classes showed no association with risk of first fall. Also, in our secondary outcome analyses, statin users had a significantly lower risk. Furthermore, β-blocker users had a lower fall risk and proton pump inhibitor use was associated with a higher risk in our secondary outcome analysis.

Conclusion

Many commonly prescribed medication classes showed no associations with fall risk in a relatively healthy population of community-dwelling older persons. However, the treatment effects and risks can be heterogeneous between individuals. Therefore, focusing on identification of individuals at risk is warranted to optimize personalized falls prevention.

SUBMITTER: Seppala LJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8419131 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Achieving good medication adherence is a major challenge for patients with chronic conditions. Our study aimed to assess the Threshold for Unacceptable Risk of Non-adherence (TURN), defined as the threshold at which physicians consider the health risks incurred by patients due to medication non-adherence unacceptable, for the most commonly prescribed drugs in France. METHODS:We conducted an online study using a crowdsourcing approach among French general practitioners and specialists from September 2016 to August 2017. Physicians assessed the TURN for various levels of missed doses by evaluating a series of randomly presented clinical vignettes, each presenting a given medication with a given therapeutic indication. For each "drug-indication group" (i.e., all drugs from the same pharmacological class with a similar therapeutic indication): 1) we described the distribution of physicians' assessments, 2) we provided a summary estimate of the TURN, defined as the frequency of missed doses above which 75% of the physicians' assessments were located; 3) we computed the number of pill boxes reimbursed in France in 2016 to put our results into context. RESULTS:We collected a total of 5365 assessments from 544 physicians, each of whom evaluated a random sample among 528 distinct clinical vignettes. Estimates of the TURN varied widely across drug-indication groups, ranging from risk considered unacceptable with 1 daily dose missed per month (e.g., insulin for diabetes) to risk always considered acceptable (e.g., anti-dementia drugs). Drugs with an estimated TURN of over one missing daily dose per week represented 44.9% of the prescription volume of the medications assessed in our study. CONCLUSIONS:According to physicians, the impact of non-adherence may vary greatly. Patient-physician discussions on the variable consequences of non-adherence could lead to a paradigm shift by seeking to reach "optimal adherence" depending on drugs rather than unrealistic "perfect adherence" to all drugs.

Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to demonstrate the existence of systematic associations in drug prescription that lead to the establishment of patterns of polypharmacy, and the clinical interpretation of the associations found in each pattern.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted based on information obtained from electronic medical records and the primary care pharmacy database in 2008. An exploratory factor analysis of drug dispensing information regarding 79,089 adult patients was performed to identify the patterns of polypharmacy. The analysis was stratified by age and sex.ResultsSeven patterns of polypharmacy were identified, which may be classified depending on the type of disease they are intended to treat: cardiovascular, depression-anxiety, acute respiratory infection (ARI), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), rhinitis-asthma, pain, and menopause. Some of these patterns revealed a clear clinical consistency and included drugs that are prescribed together for the same clinical indication (i.e., ARI and COPD patterns). Other patterns were more complex but also clinically consistent: in the cardiovascular pattern, drugs for the treatment of known risk factors-such as hypertension or dyslipidemia-were combined with other medications for the treatment of diabetes or established cardiovascular pathology (e.g., antiplatelet agents). Almost all of the patterns included drugs for preventing or treating potential side effects of other drugs in the same pattern.ConclusionsThe present study demonstrated the existence of non-random associations in drug prescription, resulting in patterns of polypharmacy that are sound from the pharmacological and clinical viewpoints and that exist in a significant proportion of the population. This finding necessitates future longitudinal studies to confirm some of the proposed causal associations. The information discovered would further the development and/or adaptation of clinical patient guidelines to patients with multimorbidity who are taking multiple drugs.

Project description:ImportanceThe National Action Plan for Adverse Drug Event (ADE) Prevention identified 3 high-priority, high-risk drug classes as targets for reducing the risk of drug-related injuries: anticoagulants, diabetes agents, and opioids.ObjectiveTo determine whether a multifaceted clinical pharmacist intervention improves medication safety for patients who are discharged from the hospital and prescribed medications within 1 or more of these high-risk drug classes.Design, setting, and participantsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted at a large multidisciplinary group practice in Massachusetts and included patients 50 years or older who were discharged from the hospital and prescribed at least 1 high-risk medication. Participants were enrolled into the trial from June 2016 through September 2018.InterventionsThe pharmacist-directed intervention included an in-home assessment by a clinical pharmacist, evidence-based educational resources, communication with the primary care team, and telephone follow-up. Participants in the control group were provided educational materials via mail.Main outcomes and measuresThe study assessed 2 outcomes over a 45-day posthospital discharge period: (1) adverse drug-related incidents and (2) a subset defined as clinically important medication errors, which included preventable or ameliorable ADEs and potential ADEs (ie, medication-related errors that may not yet have caused injury to a patient, but have the potential to cause future harm if not addressed). Clinically important medication errors were the primary study outcome.ResultsThere were 361 participants (mean [SD] age, 68.7 [9.3] years; 177 women [49.0%]; 319 White [88.4%] and 8 Black individuals [2.2%]). Of these, 180 (49.9%) were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 181 (50.1%) to the control group. Among all participants, 100 (27.7%) experienced 1 or more adverse drug-related incidents, and 65 (18%) experienced 1 or more clinically important medication errors. There were 81 adverse drug-related incidents identified in the intervention group and 72 in the control group. There were 44 clinically important medication errors in the intervention group and 45 in the control group. The intervention did not significantly alter the per-patient rate of adverse drug-related incidents (unadjusted incidence rate ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.83-1.56) or clinically important medication errors (unadjusted incidence rate ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.65-1.49).Conclusions and relevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, there was not an observed lower rate of adverse drug-related incidents or clinically important medication errors during the posthospitalization period that was associated with a clinical pharmacist intervention. However, there were study recruitment challenges and lower than expected numbers of events among the study population.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02781662.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The differential effects of commonly prescribed combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) regimens on AIDS-defining neurological conditions (neuroAIDS) remain unknown. SETTING:Prospective cohort studies of HIV-positive individuals from Europe and the Americas included in the HIV-CAUSAL Collaboration. METHODS:Individuals who initiated a first-line cART regimen in 2004 or later containing a nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone and either atazanavir, lopinavir, darunavir, or efavirenz were followed from cART initiation until death, lost to follow-up, pregnancy, the cohort-specific administrative end of follow-up, or the event of interest, whichever occurred earliest. We evaluated 4 neuroAIDS conditions: HIV dementia and the opportunistic infections toxoplasmosis, cryptococcal meningitis, and progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. For each outcome, we estimated hazard ratios for atazanavir, lopinavir, and darunavir compared with efavirenz via a pooled logistic model. Our models were adjusted for baseline demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS:Twenty six thousand one hundred seventy-two individuals initiated efavirenz, 5858 initiated atazanavir, 8479 initiated lopinavir, and 4799 initiated darunavir. Compared with efavirenz, the adjusted HIV dementia hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) were 1.72 (1.00 to 2.96) for atazanavir, 2.21 (1.38 to 3.54) for lopinavir, and 1.41 (0.61 to 3.24) for darunavir. The respective hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for the combined end point were 1.18 (0.74 to 1.88) for atazanavir, 1.61 (1.14 to 2.27) for lopinavir, and 1.36 (0.74 to 2.48) for darunavir. The results varied in subsets defined by calendar year, nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor backbone, and age. CONCLUSION:Our results are consistent with an increased risk of neuroAIDS after initiating lopinavir compared with efavirenz, but temporal changes in prescribing trends and confounding by indication could explain our findings.