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

      Targeting continuity of care and polypharmacy to reduce drug–drug interaction

      research-article
      1 , 2 , 1 ,
      Scientific Reports
      Nature Publishing Group UK
      Health care, Risk factors

      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

          Drug–drug interaction (DDI) is common among the elderly, and it can have detrimental effects on patients. However, how DDI can be targeted has been under-researched. This study investigates whether DDI can be reduced by targeting continuity of care (COC) through reducing polypharmacy. Population claims data of Taiwan National Health Insurance were used to conduct a 7-year-long longitudinal study on patients aged ≥ 65 years (n = 2,318,766). Mediation analysis with counterfactual method and a 4-way decomposition of the effect of COC on DDI was conducted. Mediation effect through excessive polypharmacy differed from that through lower-level polypharmacy. Compared with the low COC group, the high COC group demonstrated reduced excess relative risk of DDI by 26% (excess relative risk =  − 0.263; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) =  − 0.263 to − 0.259) to 30% (excess relative risk =  − 0.297; 95% CI =  − 0.300 to − 0.295) with excessive polypharmacy as the mediator. The risk only reduced by 8% (excess relative risk =  − 0.079; 95% CI, − 0.08 to − 0.078) to 10% (excess relative risk =  − 0.096; 95% CI, − 0.097 to − 0.095) when the mediator was changed to lower-level polypharmacy. The effect of COC on DDI was mediated by polypharmacy, and the mediation effect was higher with excessive polypharmacy. Therefore, to reduce DDI in the elderly population, different policy interventions should be designed by considering polypharmacy levels to maximize the positive effect of COC on DDI.

          Related collections

          Most cited references55

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.

          In this article, we attempt to distinguish between the properties of moderator and mediator variables at a number of levels. First, we seek to make theorists and researchers aware of the importance of not using the terms moderator and mediator interchangeably by carefully elaborating, both conceptually and strategically, the many ways in which moderators and mediators differ. We then go beyond this largely pedagogical function and delineate the conceptual and strategic implications of making use of such distinctions with regard to a wide range of phenomena, including control and stress, attitudes, and personality traits. We also provide a specific compendium of analytic procedures appropriate for making the most effective use of the moderator and mediator distinction, both separately and in terms of a broader causal system that includes both moderators and mediators.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2

            Purpose: screening tool of older people's prescriptions (STOPP) and screening tool to alert to right treatment (START) criteria were first published in 2008. Due to an expanding therapeutics evidence base, updating of the criteria was required. Methods: we reviewed the 2008 STOPP/START criteria to add new evidence-based criteria and remove any obsolete criteria. A thorough literature review was performed to reassess the evidence base of the 2008 criteria and the proposed new criteria. Nineteen experts from 13 European countries reviewed a new draft of STOPP & START criteria including proposed new criteria. These experts were also asked to propose additional criteria they considered important to include in the revised STOPP & START criteria and to highlight any criteria from the 2008 list they considered less important or lacking an evidence base. The revised list of criteria was then validated using the Delphi consensus methodology. Results: the expert panel agreed a final list of 114 criteria after two Delphi validation rounds, i.e. 80 STOPP criteria and 34 START criteria. This represents an overall 31% increase in STOPP/START criteria compared with version 1. Several new STOPP categories were created in version 2, namely antiplatelet/anticoagulant drugs, drugs affecting, or affected by, renal function and drugs that increase anticholinergic burden; new START categories include urogenital system drugs, analgesics and vaccines. Conclusion: STOPP/START version 2 criteria have been expanded and updated for the purpose of minimizing inappropriate prescribing in older people. These criteria are based on an up-to-date literature review and consensus validation among a European panel of experts.
              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

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                cypu@ym.edu.tw
                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2045-2322
                4 December 2020
                4 December 2020
                2020
                : 10
                : 21279
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.260770.4, ISNI 0000 0001 0425 5914, Institute of Public Health, , National Yang-Ming University, ; 155 Li-Nong ST. Sec 2, Peitou, Taipei, Taiwan
                [2 ]GRID grid.260770.4, ISNI 0000 0001 0425 5914, Institute of Hospital and Healthcare Administration, , National Yang-Ming University, ; 155 Li-Nong ST. Sec 2, Peitou, Taipei, Taiwan
                Article
                78236
                10.1038/s41598-020-78236-y
                7718252
                33277524
                2ad5a806-b2e3-4e82-bb3d-212d53185284
                © The Author(s) 2020

                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/.

                History
                : 6 August 2020
                : 19 November 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100004663, Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan;
                Award ID: 109-2314-B-010 -049 -MY2
                Award Recipient :
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Uncategorized
                health care,risk factors
                Uncategorized
                health care, risk factors

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content114

                Cited by8

                Most referenced authors885