We aimed to systematically review the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in older adults in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in all care settings. We searched Embase and MEDLINE (up to June 2019) and checked the reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews. Eligible studies used validated explicit or implicit tools to assess the PIP prevalence in older adults in CEE. All study designs were considered, except case‒control studies and case series. We assessed the risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was inappropriate due to heterogeneity in the outcome measurements. Therefore, we used the synthesis without meta-analysis approach-summarizing effect estimates method. This review included twenty-seven studies with 139,693 participants. Most studies were cross-sectional and conducted in high-income countries. The data synthesis across 26 studies revealed the PIP prevalence: the median was 34.6%, the interquartile range was 25.9-63.2%, and the range was 6.5-95.8%. The certainty of this evidence was very low due to the risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. These findings show that PIP is a prevalent issue in the CEE region. Further well-designed studies conducted across countries are needed to strengthen the existing evidence and increase the generalizability of findings.
- MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nevhodné předepisování * MeSH
- prevalence MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- studie případů a kontrol MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- systematický přehled MeSH
- Geografické názvy
- Evropa MeSH
- východní Evropa MeSH
Background: Drug-related problems (DRPs) which arise from potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) are a common problem in older people with multi-morbidity and polypharmacy. Aim: To develop an integrated PIM clinical decision support tool for identification of DRPs in geriatric multi-morbid polypharmacy patients, using the EU(7)-PIM and EURO-FORTA lists, with a focus on high-risk medications. Methods: The integrated PIM tool used the information on PIMs in both databases-the EU(7)-PIM and EURO-FORTA. PIMs were classified into four color groups based on risk profile: high-risk PIMs (should be avoided in older patients) as red, moderate-risk PIMs (require dose and/or treatment duration adjustment) as yellow, low-risk PIMs (low DRP risk) as green, and questionable PIMs (incomplete/missing information) as grey. Results: The summarized list of the high-risk (red and some grey) PIMs contained 81 active substances and medication classes. According to the ATC classification, most of the high-risk PIMs (n = 60, 74.1%) belong to the A, C, and N medication groups and 50.6% (n = 41) of the high-risk PIMs have currently marketing authorization in Estonia. The preliminary list of the moderate- and low-risk (yellow, green, and other grey) PIMs contained 240 active substances and medication classes, but sub-classification of this category into one or another group depends mainly on an individual patient ́s clinical characteristics in a concrete analyzed study sample and needs further research. Conclusion: The integrated clinical decision support tool based on the EU(7)-PIM and EURO-FORTA criteria addresses the need for more efficient identification of DRPs. It can be applied to identify PIMs and geriatric prescribing problems in different health care settings, and also in a context of little clinical information available.
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
