Performance of potentially inappropriate medications assessment tools in older Indian patients with cancer

Author:

Kumar Sharath1,Castelino Renita1,Rao Abhijith2,Gattani Shreya2,Kumar Anita2,Pillai Anupa2,Sehgal Arshiya1,Rane Pallavi3,Ramaswamy Anant24,Dhekale Ratan2,Krishnamurthy Jyoti2,Banavali Shripad24,Badwe Rajendra45,Prabhash Kumar24ORCID,Noronha Vanita24,Gota Vikram14ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Clinical Pharmacology Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer, Tata Memorial Centre Navi Mumbai India

2. Department of Medical Oncology Tata Memorial Hospital Mumbai India

3. Department of Statistics Advanced Centre for Treatment, Research and Education in Cancer, Tata Memorial Centre Navi Mumbai India

4. Homi Bhabha National Institute Mumbai India

5. Department of Surgical Oncology Tata Memorial Hospital Mumbai Maharashtra India

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundPolypharmacy and potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use are common problems in older adults. Safe prescription practices are a necessity. The tools employed for the identification of PIM sometimes do not concur with each other.MethodsA retrospective analysis of patients ≥60 years who visited the Geriatric Oncology Clinic of the Tata Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, India from 2018 to 2021 was performed. Beer's‐2015, STOPP/START criteria v2, PRISCUS‐2010, Fit fOR The Aged (FORTA)‐2018, and the EU(7)‐PIM list‐2015 were the tools used to assess PIM. Every patient was assigned a standardized PIM value (SPV) for each scale, which represented the ratio of the number of PIMs identified by a given scale to the total number of medications taken. The median SPV of all five tools was considered the reference standard for each patient. Bland–Altman plots were utilized to determine agreement between each scale and the reference. Association between baseline variables and PIM use was determined using multiple logistic regression analysis.ResultsOf the 467 patients included in this analysis, there were 372 (79.66%) males and 95 (20.34%) females with an average age of 70 ± 5.91 years. The EU(7)‐PIM list was found to have the highest level of agreement given by a bias estimate of 0.010, the lowest compared to any other scale. The 95% CI of the bias was in the narrow range of −0.001 to 0.022, demonstrating the precision of the estimate. In comparison, the bias (95%) CI of Beer's criteria, STOPP/START criteria, PRISCUS list, and FORTA list were −0.039 (−0.053 to −0.025), 0.076 (0.060 to 0.092), 0.035 (0.021 to 0.049), and −0.148 (−0.165 to −0.130), respectively. Patients on polypharmacy had significantly higher PIM use compared to those without (OR = 1.47 (1.33–1.63), p = <0.001).ConclusionsThe EU(7)‐PIM list was found to have the least bias and hence can be considered the most reliable among all other tools studied.

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Cancer Research,Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and imaging,Oncology

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3