Dataset Information

Defining explicit definitions of potentially inappropriate prescriptions for antidiabetic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) of antidiabetic drugs (ADs) (PIPADs) to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been reported in some studies. The detection of PIPs in electronic databases requires the development of explicit definitions. This approach is widely used in geriatrics but has not been extended to PIPADs in diabetes mellitus. The objective of the present literature review was to identify all explicit definitions of PIPADs in patients with T2DM.

Materials and methods

We performed a systematic review of the literature listed on Medline (via PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and, Embase between 2010 and 2021. The query included a combination of three concepts ("T2DM" AND "PIPs" AND "ADs") and featured a total of 86 keywords. Two independent reviewers selected publications, extracted explicit definitions of PIPADs, and then classified the definitions by therapeutic class and organ class.

Results

Of the 4,093 screened publications, 39 were included. In all, 171 mentions of PIPADs (corresponding to 56 unique explicit definitions) were identified. More than 50% of the definitions were related to either metformin (34%) or sulfonylureas (29%). More than 75% of the definitions were related to either abnormal renal function (56%) or age (22%). In addition, 20% (n = 35) mentions stated that biguanides were inappropriate in patients with renal dysfunction and 17.5% (n = 30) stated that sulfonylureas were inappropriate above a certain age. The definitions of PIPADs were heterogeneous and had various degrees of precision.

Conclusion

Our results showed that researchers focused primarily on the at-risk situations related to biguanide prescriptions in patients with renal dysfunction and the prescription of sulfonylureas to older people. Our systematic review of the literature revealed a lack of consensus on explicit definitions of PIPADs, which were heterogeneous and limited (in most cases) to a small number of drugs and clinical situations.

SUBMITTER: Gerard E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9467327 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Defining explicit definitions of potentially inappropriate prescriptions for antidiabetic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review.

Gerard Erwin E Quindroit Paul P Lemaitre Madleen M Robert Laurine L Gautier Sophie S Decaudin Bertrand B Vambergue Anne A Beuscart Jean-Baptiste JB

PloS one 20220912 9

<h4>Introduction</h4>Potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) of antidiabetic drugs (ADs) (PIPADs) to patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have been reported in some studies. The detection of PIPs in electronic databases requires the development of explicit definitions. This approach is widely used in geriatrics but has not been extended to PIPADs in diabetes mellitus. The objective of the present literature review was to identify all explicit definitions of PIPADs in patients wit ...[more]

PMID: 36094919

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThe management of type 2 diabetes mellitus patients has changed over the past decade, and a large number of antidiabetic drug treatment options are now available. This complexity poses challenges for healthcare professionals and may result in potentially inappropriate prescriptions of antidiabetic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus which can be limited using screening tools. The effectiveness of explicit tools such as lists of potentially inappropriate prescriptions has been widely demonstrated. The aim was to set up nominal groups of healthcare professionals from several disciplines and develop a list of explicit definition of potentially inappropriate prescriptions of antidiabetic drugs.MethodsIn a qualitative, nominal-groups approach, 30 diabetologists, general practitioners, and pharmacists in France developed explicit definitions of potentially inappropriate prescriptions of antidiabetic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. A nominal group technique is a structured method that encourages all the participants to contribute and makes it easier to reach an agreement quickly. Each meeting lasted for two hours.ResultsThe three nominal groups comprised 14 pharmacists, 10 diabetologists, and 6 general practitioners and generated 89 explicit definitions. These definitions were subsequently merged and validated by the steering committee and nominal group participants, resulting in 38 validated explicit definitions of potentially inappropriate prescriptions of antidiabetic drugs. The definitions encompassed four contexts: (i) the temporary discontinuation of a medication during acute illness (n = 9; 24%), (ii) dose level adjustments (n = 23; 60%), (iii) inappropriate treatment initiation (n = 3; 8%), and (iv) the need for further monitoring in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (n = 3; 8%).ConclusionThe results of our qualitative study show that it is possible to develop a specific list of explicit definitions of potentially inappropriate prescriptions of antidiabetic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus by gathering the opinions of healthcare professionals caring for these patients. This list of 38 explicit definitions necessitates additional confirmation by expert consensus before use in clinical practice.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Multimorbidity is a global health challenge that is associated with polypharmacy, increasing the risk of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP). There are tools to improve prescription, such as implicit and explicit criteria. OBJECTIVE:To estimate the prevalence of PIP in a population aged 65 to 74 years with multimorbidity and polypharmacy, according to American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria® (2015, 2019), the Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescription -STOPP- criteria (2008, 2014), and the Medication Appropriateness Index -MAI- criteria in primary care. METHODS:This was an observational, descriptive, cross-sectional study. The sample included 593 community-dwelling elderly aged 65 to 74 years, with multimorbidity and polypharmacy, who participated in the MULTIPAP trial. Socio-demographic, clinical, professional, and pharmacological-treatment variables were recorded. Potentially inappropriate prescribing was detected by computerized prescription assistance system, and family doctors evaluated the MAI. The MAI-associated factors were analysed using a logistic regression model. RESULTS:A total of 4,386 prescriptions were evaluated. The mean number of drugs was 7.4 (2.4 SD). A total of 94.1% of the patients in the study had at least one criterion for drug inappropriateness according to the MAI. Potentially inappropriate prescribing was detected in 57.7%, 43.6%, 68.8% and 71% of 50 patients according to the explicit criteria STOPP 2014, STOPP 2008, Beers 2019 and Beers 2015 respectively. For every new drug taken by a patient, the MAI score increased by 2.41 (95% CI 1.46; 3.35) points. Diabetes, ischaemic heart disease and asthma were independently associated with lower summated MAI scores. CONCLUSIONS:The prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing detected in the sample was high and in agreement with previous literature for populations with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. The MAI criteria detected greater inappropriateness than did the explicit criteria, but their application was more complex and difficult to automate.

Project description:ImportanceThe incidence of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) prescribing among older adults is not as well studied as its prevalence. Estimates of factors associated with PIM incidence, such as patient age, sex, race-ethnicity, medication subsidy support, and comorbidity, are also limited.ObjectiveTo estimate the incidence of PIM prescribing in older adult outpatients, as well as the incidence and predictors for each PIM class, in a large outpatient electronic health records (EHR) cohort.DesignRetrospective study of PIM prescribing among outpatients with encounters leading to prescription orders, 2015-2018, excluding prevalent cases.SettingOutpatients receiving care from a multi-site health system in western Pennsylvania.Participants342,405 patients, contributing 893,754 person-years of follow-up.Main outcomes and measuresThe incidence of PIM prescribing based on automated coding of 2019 Beers criteria. A multivariable Poisson regression model was estimated to assess the impact of age, sex, race-ethnicity, comorbidity, and medication subsidy (PACE/PACENET) on PIM risk. For each PIM class, the association between predictors and time to PIM prescribing was evaluated using proportional hazard models.ResultsThe incidence rate (IR) for 1 or more PIM was 193.5 per 1000 person-years, led by short- and intermediate-acting benzodiazepines (37.6), first-generation antihistamines (32.8), and skeletal muscle relaxants (22.0). The incidence of PIM prescribing was 15% higher among white patients and 35% lower among males. High comorbidity (Charlson score ≥ 3) was associated with a 59% higher risk. Participation in the PACE/PACENET program, a medication subsidy program, was associated with an 83% increase in incidence. Each additional year of age was associated with a 1.2% reduction in incidence.Conclusions and relevanceThis study establishes benchmarks for the incidence of PIM prescribing in outpatients and identifies important disparities in PIM risk, which vary by PIM class.

Project description:BackgroundThe increased use of opioid analgesics, sedative hypnotics and stimulants, coupled with the associated risks of overdose have raised concerns around the inappropriate prescribing of these monitored drugs. We assessed the impact of new legislation, the Narcotics Safety and Awareness Act, and a centralized Narcotics Monitoring System (implemented November 2011 and May 2012, respectively), on the dispensing of prescriptions suggestive of misuse.MethodsWe conducted a time series analysis of publicly funded prescriptions for opioids, benzodiazepines and stimulants dispensed monthly in Ontario from January 2007 to May 2013, based on information in the Ontario Public Drug Benefit Database. In the primary analysis, a prescription was deemed potentially inappropriate if it was dispensed within 7 days of an earlier prescription and was for at least 30 tablets of a drug in the same class as the earlier prescription, but originated from a different physician and a different pharmacy.ResultsAfter enactment of the new legislation, the prevalence of potentially inappropriate opioid prescriptions decreased by 12.5% in 6 months (from 1.6% in October 2011 to 1.4% in April 2012; p = 0.01). No further significant change was observed after the introduction of the narcotic monitoring system (p = 0.8). By May 2013, the prevalence had dropped to 1.0%. Inappropriate benzodiazepine prescribing was significantly influenced by both the legislation (p < 0.001) and the monitoring system (p = 0.05), which together reduced potentially inappropriate prescribing by 50.0% between October 2011 and May 2013 (from 0.4% to 0.2%). The prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing of stimulants was significantly influenced by the introduction of the monitoring system in May 2012, falling from 0.7% in April 2012 to 0.3% in May 2013 (p = 0.02).InterpretationFor a select group of drugs prone to misuse and diversion, legislation and a prescription monitoring program reduced the prevalence of prescriptions suggestive of misuse. This suggests that regulatory interventions can promote appropriate prescribing which could potentially be applied to other jurisdictions and drugs of concern.

Dataset Information

Defining explicit definitions of potentially inappropriate prescriptions for antidiabetic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review.

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Defining explicit definitions of potentially inappropriate prescriptions for antidiabetic drugs in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets