Polypharmacy

BackgroundPolypharmacy is one of the most important health issues for its potential impacts on disease burden and healthcare costs. The aim of this study was to update a comprehensive picture of prevalence and trends in polypharmacy over 20 years in U.S. adults.MethodsParticipants included 55,081 adults aged ≥ 20 from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, January 1, 1999, through December 31, 2018. The simultaneously use of ≥ 5 drugs in one individual was defined as polypharmacy. National prevalence and trends in polypharmacy were evaluated among U.S. adults within different demo-socioeconomic status and pre-existing diseases.ResultsFrom 1999-2000 to 2017-2018, the overall percentages of adults with polypharmacy remained on the rise, increasing from 8.2% (7.2-9.2%) to 17.1% (15.7-18.5%) (average annual percentage change [AAPC] = 2.9%, P = .001). The polypharmacy prevalence was considerably higher in the elderly (from 23.5% to 44.1%), in adults with heart disease (from 40.6% to 61.7%), and in adults with diabetes (from 36.3% to 57.7%). Also, we observed a greater increase rate of polypharmacy in men (AAPC = 4.1%, P ConclusionsFrom 1999-2000 to 2017-2018, the prevalence of polypharmacy is continually increasing in U.S. adults. The polypharmacy was especially higher in the older, in patients with heart disease, or diabetes. The high prevalence urges the healthcare providers and health policymakers to manage polypharmacy among specific population groups.

ImportancePolypharmacy is associated with mortality, falls, hospitalizations, and functional and cognitive decline. The study of polypharmacy-related interventions has increased substantially, prompting the need for an updated, more focused systematic overview.ObjectiveTo systematically evaluate and summarize evidence across multiple systematic reviews (SRs) examining interventions addressing polypharmacy.Evidence reviewA search was conducted of MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects for articles published from January 2017-October 2022, as well as those identified in a previous overview (January 2004-February 2017). Systematic reviews were included regardless of study design, setting, or outcome. The evidence was summarized by 4 categories: (1) medication-related process outcomes (eg, potentially inappropriate medication [PIM] and potential prescribing omission reductions), (2) clinical and functional outcomes, (3) health care use and economic outcomes, and (4) acceptability of the intervention.FindingsFourteen SRs were identified (3 from the previous overview), 7 of which included meta-analyses, representing 179 unique published studies. Nine SRs examined medication-related process outcomes (low to very low evidence quality). Systematic reviews using pooled analyses found significant reductions in the number of PIMs, potential prescribing omissions, and total number of medications, and improvements in medication appropriateness. Twelve SRs examined clinical and functional outcomes (very low to moderate evidence quality). Five SRs examined mortality; all mortality meta-analyses were null, but studies with longer follow-up periods found greater reductions in mortality. Five SRs examined falls incidence; results were predominantly null save for a meta-analysis in which PIMs were discontinued. Of the 8 SRs examining quality of life, most (7) found predominantly null effects. Ten SRs examined hospitalizations and readmissions (very low to moderate evidence quality) and 4 examined emergency department visits (very low to low evidence quality). One SR found significant reductions in hospitalizations and readmissions among higher-intensity medication reviews with face-to-face patient components. Another meta-analysis found a null effect. Of the 7 SRs without meta-analyses for hospitalizations and readmissions, all had predominantly null results. Two of 4 SRs found reductions in emergency department visits. Two SRs examined acceptability (very low evidence quality), finding wide variation in the adoption of polypharmacy-related interventions.Conclusions and relevanceThis updated systematic overview noted little evidence of an association between polypharmacy-related interventions and reduced important clinical and health care use outcomes. More evidence is needed regarding which interventions are most useful and which populations would benefit most.

Falls prevention and management in older adults is a critical global challenge. One of the key risk factors for falls is the use of certain medications. Therefore, to prevent medication-related falls, the following is recommended in the recent World Guidelines for Falls Prevention and Management: (1) assess for fall history and the risk of falls before prescribing potential fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs), (2) use a validated, structured screening and assessment tool to identify FRIDs when performing a medication review, (3) include medication review and appropriate deprescribing of FRIDs as a part of the multifactorial falls prevention intervention, and (4) in long-term care residents, if multifactorial intervention cannot be conducted due to limited resources, the falls prevention strategy should still always include deprescribing of FRIDs.In the present statement paper, the working group on medication-related falls of the World Guidelines for Falls Prevention and Management, in collaboration with the European Geriatric Medicine Society (EuGMS) Task and Finish group on FRIDs, outlines its position on how to implement and execute these recommendations in clinical practice.Preferably, the medication review should be conducted as part of a comprehensive geriatric assessment to produce a personalized and patient-centered assessment. Furthermore, the major pitfall of the published intervention studies so far is the suboptimal implementation of medication review and deprescribing. For the future, it is important to focus on gaining which elements determine successful implementation and apply the concepts of implementation science to decrease the gap between research and practice.

AimTo examine how medication burden varies across frailty stages in hospitalized older adults, with a focus on potential nonlinear associations: METHODS: We analyzed a multicenter cohort of hospitalized adults aged ≥ 65 years. Frailty was assessed using the preadmission Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS). Associations between CFS and total medication count, potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) count, and anticholinergic burden (Japanese Anticholinergic Risk Scale) were evaluated using restricted cubic spline models adjusted for age, sex, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Primary analyses were conducted in participants with complete data (n = 1075).ResultsCFS showed significant associations with all medication-related indicators (all overall p ConclusionsMedication burden is strongly and nonlinearly associated with frailty in hospitalized older adults. These stage-dependent patterns suggest that moderate frailty may represent a window for targeted medication review and deprescribing, supporting frailty-stratified approaches to medication management in acute care.