10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Polypharmacy among older Brazilians: prevalence, factors associated, and sociodemographic disparities (ELSI-Brazil)

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      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 has become an increasingly public health issue as population age and novel drugs are developed. Yet, evidence on low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is still scarce.

          Objective:

          This work aims to estimate the prevalence of polypharmacy among Brazilians aged 50 and over, and investigate associated factors.

          Methods:

          A cross-sectional study was conducted using data from the baseline assessment of the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSI-Brazil), a nationally representative study of persons aged 50 years and older (n=9,412). Univariate and bivariate analyses described the sample. Robust Poisson regression was used to estimate prevalence ratios and predict probabilities of polypharmacy.

          Results:

          Prevalence of polypharmacy was estimated at 13.5% among older adults in Brazil. Important disparities were observed in regard to gender (16.1% among women and 10.5% among men), race (16.0% among whites and 10.1% among blacks) and geographic region (ranging from 5.1% in the North to 18.7% in the South). The multivariate analysis showed that polypharmacy is associated with various sociodemographic/individual factors (age, gender, race, education, region, health status, body mass index) as well as with several variables of healthcare access/utilization (number of visits, same physician, provider’s knowledge of patient’s medications, gate-keeper, and difficulty managing own medication). Overall, the more utilization of health services, the higher the probability of polypharmacy, after adjusting for all other model covariates.

          Conclusions:

          Polypharmacy prevalence is relatively low in Brazil, compared to European countries. After controlling for variables of healthcare need and demographic characteristics, there is still substantial residual variance in polypharmacy prevalence. Policies to identify inappropriate prescribing and reduce regional discrepancies are necessary.

          Related collections

          Most cited references41

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls

          Most studies have some missing data. Jonathan Sterne and colleagues describe the appropriate use and reporting of the multiple imputation approach to dealing with them
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            What is polypharmacy? A systematic review of definitions

            Background Multimorbidity and the associated use of multiple medicines (polypharmacy), is common in the older population. Despite this, there is no consensus definition for polypharmacy. A systematic review was conducted to identify and summarise polypharmacy definitions in existing literature. Methods The reporting of this systematic review conforms to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE and Cochrane were systematically searched, as well as grey literature, to identify articles which defined the term polypharmacy (without any limits on the types of definitions) and were in English, published between 1st January 2000 and 30th May 2016. Definitions were categorised as i. numerical only (using the number of medications to define polypharmacy), ii. numerical with an associated duration of therapy or healthcare setting (such as during hospital stay) or iii. Descriptive (using a brief description to define polypharmacy). Results A total of 1156 articles were identified and 110 articles met the inclusion criteria. Articles not only defined polypharmacy but associated terms such as minor and major polypharmacy. As a result, a total of 138 definitions of polypharmacy and associated terms were obtained. There were 111 numerical only definitions (80.4% of all definitions), 15 numerical definitions which incorporated a duration of therapy or healthcare setting (10.9%) and 12 descriptive definitions (8.7%). The most commonly reported definition of polypharmacy was the numerical definition of five or more medications daily (n = 51, 46.4% of articles), with definitions ranging from two or more to 11 or more medicines. Only 6.4% of articles classified the distinction between appropriate and inappropriate polypharmacy, using descriptive definitions to make this distinction. Conclusions Polypharmacy definitions were variable. Numerical definitions of polypharmacy did not account for specific comorbidities present and make it difficult to assess safety and appropriateness of therapy in the clinical setting.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Guidelines for people not for diseases: the challenges of applying UK clinical guidelines to people with multimorbidity.

              currently one of the major challenges facing clinical guidelines is multimorbidity. Current guidelines are not designed to consider the cumulative impact of treatment recommendations on people with several conditions, nor to allow comparison of relative benefits or risks. This is despite the fact that multimorbidity is a common phenomenon. to examine the extent to which National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines address patient comorbidity, patient centred care and patient compliance to treatment recommendations. five NICE clinical guidelines were selected for review (type-2 diabetes mellitus, secondary prevention for people with myocardial infarction, osteoarthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and depression) as these conditions are common causes of comorbidity and the guidelines had all been produced since 2007. Two authors extracted information from each full guideline and noted the extent to which the guidelines accounted for patient comorbidity, patient centred care and patient compliance. The cumulative recommended treatment, follow-up and self-care regime for two hypothetical patients were then created to illustrate the potential cumulative impact of applying single disease recommendations to people with multimorbidity. comorbidity and patient adherence were inconsistently accounted for in the guidelines, ranging from extensive discussion to none at all. Patient centred care was discussed in generic terms across the guidelines with limited disease-specific recommendations for clinicians. Explicitly following guideline recommendations for our two hypothetical patients would lead to a considerable treatment burden, even when recommendations were followed for mild to moderate conditions. In addition, the follow-up and self-care regime was complex potentially presenting problems for patient compliance. clinical guidelines have played an important role in improving healthcare for people with long-term conditions. However, in people with multimorbidity current guideline recommendations rapidly cumulate to drive polypharmacy, without providing guidance on how best to prioritise recommendations for individuals in whom treatment burden will sometimes be overwhelming.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Pharm Pract (Granada)
                Pharm Pract (Granada)
                Pharmacy Practice
                Centro de Investigaciones y Publicaciones Farmaceuticas
                1885-642X
                1886-3655
                Jan-Mar 2021
                22 January 2021
                : 19
                : 1
                : 2168
                Affiliations
                BPharm, MSc. Department of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) . Los Angeles, CA (United States). brayanseixas@ 123456ucla.edu
                BPharm, MSc, PhD. Graduate Program of Public Health, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Federal University of Paraíba . João Pessoa (Brazil). gabriel.freitas@ 123456academico.ufpb.br
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3863-0572
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9938-3977
                Article
                pharmpract-19-2168
                10.18549/PharmPract.2021.1.2168
                7844972
                33520038
                ce779793-2507-4586-b91c-6b51c92b55d7
                Copyright: © Pharmacy Practice and the Authors

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 30 September 2020
                : 10 January 2021
                Categories
                Original Research

                polypharmacy,prevalence,multimorbidity,socioeconomic factors,age factors,race factors,sex factors,health services accessibility,multivariate analysis,cross-sectional studies,brazil

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content172

                Cited by9

                Most referenced authors413