4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Screening indicators to evaluate the clinical significance of drug-drug interactions in polypharmacy among older adults with psychiatric disorders: a delphi study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Polypharmacy is common in older adults with psychiatric disorders, but no consensus has reached about the reliable indicators evaluating the benefits and risks of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in polypharmacy. We aimed to identify indicators suitable for evaluating the clinical significance of DDIs in polypharmacy in older adults with psychiatric disorders.

          Methods

          The online tools were used to distribute and collect the questionnaires. The Delphi method was applied to analyze experts’ opinions. The degree of authority and coordination of experts were analyzed using the coefficient of variation, coefficient of coordination, expert’s judgment factor, familiarity with the study content factor, and Kendall coordination coefficient. Statistical analysis was conducted using the IBM SPSS® Statistics Package version 26.0.

          Results

          After three rounds of expert consultation, five primary and eleven secondary indicators were identified. The primary “pharmacodynamic indicator” included “severity of adverse drug reactions”, “duration of adverse drug reaction”, “symptom relief”, “time to onset of symptomatic relief”, “number of days in hospital”, and “duration of medication”. The secondary “pharmacokinetic indicator” contained “dosage administered” and “dosing intervals”. The primary “patient tolerance indicator” contained one secondary indicator of “patient tolerability”. The primary indicator “patient adherence” contained one secondary indicator of “patient adherence to medication”. The primary indicator “cost of drug combination” contained one secondary indicator of “readmission”. These indicators were used to determine the clinical significance of DDIs during polypharmacy.

          Conclusions

          The clinical significance of drug combinations should be taken into account when polypharmacy is used in the elderly. The five primary indicators and eleven secondary indicators might be preferred to evaluate their risks and benefits. Medication management in this population requires a multidisciplinary team, in which nurses play a key role. Future research should focus on how to establish efficient multidisciplinary team workflows and use functional factors to assess DDIs in polypharmacy for psychiatric disorders.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12888-024-05872-3.

          Related collections

          Most cited references36

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Polypharmacy in older adults: a narrative review of definitions, epidemiology and consequences

          Aim This narrative review aims to find and summarize recent publications on definitions, epidemiology and clinical consequences of polypharmacy. Findings Numerous definitions of polypharmacy and associated terms were found. The prevalence of polypharmacy greatly varies, and numerous adverse clinical outcomes were associated with polypharmacy. Message The clinically oriented definitions of polypharmacy are more useful and relevant. Regardless of the definition, polypharmacy is highly prevalent in older adults. Approaches to increase the appropriateness of polypharmacy can improve clinical outcomes in older adults. Background The number of older adults has been constantly growing around the globe. Consequently, multimorbidity and related polypharmacy have become an increasing problem. In the absence of an accepted agreement on the definition of polypharmacy, data on its prevalence in various studies are not easily comparable. Besides, the evidence on the potential adverse clinical outcomes related to polypharmacy is limited though polypharmacy has been linked to numerous adverse clinical outcomes. This narrative review aims to find and summarize recent publications on definitions, epidemiology and clinical consequences of polypharmacy. Methods The MEDLINE database was used to identify recent publications on the definition, prevalence and clinical consequences of polypharmacy using their respective common terms and their variations. Systematic reviews and original studies published between 2015 and 2020 were included. Results One hundred and forty-three definitions of polypharmacy and associated terms were found. Most of them are numerical definitions. Its prevalence ranges from 4% among community-dwelling older people to over 96.5% in hospitalized patients. In addition, numerous adverse clinical outcomes were associated with polypharmacy. Conclusion The term polypharmacy is imprecise, and its definition is yet subject to an ongoing debate. The clinically oriented definitions of polypharmacy found in this review such as appropriate or necessary polypharmacy are more useful and relevant. Regardless of the definition, polypharmacy is highly prevalent in older adults, particularly in nursing home residents and hospitalized patients. Approaches to increase the appropriateness of polypharmacy can improve clinical outcomes in older adults.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction and their implication in clinical management

            Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are one of the commonest causes of medication error in developed countries, particularly in the elderly due to poly-therapy, with a prevalence of 20-40%. In particular, poly-therapy increases the complexity of therapeutic management and thereby the risk of clinically important DDIs, which can both induce the development of adverse drug reactions or reduce the clinical efficacy. DDIs can be classify into two main groups: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic. In this review, using Medline, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library and Reference lists we searched articles published until June 30 2012, and we described the mechanism of pharmacokinetic DDIs focusing the interest on their clinical implications.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A systematic review of the evidence for deprescribing interventions among older people living with frailty

              Background Older people living with frailty are often exposed to polypharmacy and potential harm from medications. Targeted deprescribing in this population represents an important component of optimizing medication. This systematic review aims to summarise the current evidence for deprescribing among older people living with frailty. Methods The literature was searched using Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, and the Cochrane library up to May 2020. Interventional studies with any design or setting were included if they reported deprescribing interventions among people aged 65+ who live with frailty identified using reliable measures. The primary outcome was safety of deprescribing; whereas secondary outcomes included clinical outcomes, medication-related outcomes, feasibility, acceptability and cost-related outcomes. Narrative synthesis was used to summarise findings and study quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute checklists. Results Two thousand three hundred twenty-two articles were identified and six (two randomised controlled trials) were included with 657 participants in total (mean age range 79–87 years). Studies were heterogeneous in their designs, settings and outcomes. Deprescribing interventions were pharmacist-led ( n  = 3) or multidisciplinary team-led ( n  = 3). Frailty was identified using several measures and deprescribing was implemented using either explicit or implicit tools or both. Three studies reported safety outcomes and showed no significant changes in adverse events, hospitalisation or mortality rates. Three studies reported positive impact on clinical outcomes including depression, mental health status, function and frailty; with mixed findings on falls and cognition; and no significant impact on quality of life. All studies described medication-related outcomes and reported a reduction in potentially inappropriate medications and total number of medications per-patient. Feasibility of deprescribing was reported in four studies which showed that 72–91% of recommendations made were implemented. Two studies evaluated and reported the acceptability of their interventions and further two described cost saving. Conclusion There is a paucity of research about the impact of deprescribing in older people living with frailty. However, included studies suggest that deprescribing could be safe, feasible, well tolerated and can lead to important benefits. Research should now focus on understanding the impact of deprescribing on frailty status in high risk populations. Trial registration The review was registered on the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) ID number: CRD42019153367 .
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                dingyp@njmu.edu.cn
                jiminghui@njmu.edu.cn
                Journal
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BMC Psychiatry
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-244X
                4 June 2024
                4 June 2024
                2024
                : 24
                : 417
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Nursing, Kangda College of Nanjing Medical University, ( https://ror.org/059gcgy73) 88 Chunhui Road, Huaguoshan Avenue, Haizhou District, Lianyungang, Jiangsu Province 222000 China
                [2 ]Department of Geriatrics, The First People’s Hospital of Lianyungang, ( https://ror.org/03617rq47) No. 6 East Zhenhua Road, Haizhou District, Lianyungang, Jiangsu Province 222061 China
                [3 ]GRID grid.89957.3a, ISNI 0000 0000 9255 8984, Department of Psychiatry, , The Fourth People’s Hospital of Lianyungang, Affiliated to Kangda College, Nanjing Medical University, ; No. 316 Jiefang East Road, Haizhou District, Lianyungang, Jiangsu Province 222000 China
                [4 ]Department of Fundamental and Community Nursing, School of Nursing, Nanjing Medical University, ( https://ror.org/059gcgy73) 101 Longmian Avenue, Jiangning District, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province 211166 China
                Article
                5872
                10.1186/s12888-024-05872-3
                11151475
                38834965
                7ec00e32-ae25-471c-839f-afc1e2e3d042
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 6 January 2024
                : 28 May 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: the General Program of Science and Technology Development Fund of Nanjing Medical University
                Award ID: NMUB20220223
                Funded by: the Kangda college of Nanjing Medical University
                Award ID: KDNMUB202208
                Funded by: the Funding for the nursing branding program
                Award ID: JX208000302
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                polypharmacy,elderly,psychotic disorders,drug interaction
                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                polypharmacy, elderly, psychotic disorders, drug interaction

                Comments

                Comment on this article