Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30610276›Full record

ReviewEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2019

Medication use in older patients and age-blind approach: narrative literature review (insufficient evidence on the efficacy and safety of drugs in older age, frequent use of PIMs and polypharmacy, and underuse of highly beneficial nonpharmacological strategies).

Daniela Fialová, Blanca Laffon, Valentina Marinković, Ljiljana Tasić, Peter Doro, Gyӧngyver Sόos, Jorge Mota, Soner Dogan, Jovana Brkić, João Paulo Teixeira and 3 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors at 6 institutions in 6 countries.

Daniela FialováDepartment of Social and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy in Hradec Králové, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic. daniela.fialova@faf.cuni.cz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5638-9690
Blanca LaffonDICOMOSA Group, Department of Psychology, Area of Psychobiology, Universidade da Coruña, A Coruña, Spain.
Valentina MarinkovićDepartment of Social Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Legislation, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
Ljiljana TasićDepartment of Social Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Legislation, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
Peter DoroDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Gyӧngyver SόosDepartment of Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Szeged, Szeged, Hungary.
Jorge MotaCentro de Investigação em Actividade Fìsica, Saúde e Lazer (CIAFEL), University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Soner DoganDepartment of Medical Biology, School of Medicine, Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Jovana BrkićDepartment of Social and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy in Hradec Králové, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic.
João Paulo TeixeiraDepartment of Environmental Health, Portuguese National Institute of Health, Porto, Portugal.
Vanessa ValdiglesiasDICOMOSA Group, Department of Psychology, Area of Psychobiology, Universidade da Coruña, A Coruña, Spain.
Solange CostaDepartment of Environmental Health, Portuguese National Institute of Health, Porto, Portugal.
EUROAGEISM H2020 project and WG1b group “Healthy clinical strategies for healthy aging” of the EU COST Action IS 1402
Universidade do Porto · PTCharles University · CZUniversidade da Coruña · ESUniversity of Belgrade · RSUniversity of Szeged · HUYeditepe University · TR

Funding

European Cooperation in Science and Technology EU COST Action IS1402 "Ageism - a multi-national, interdisciplinary perspective" (2015-2018)H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions EUROAGEISM Horizon 2020 project EC no. 764632 MSCA-ITN (2017-2021)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe importance of rational drug therapy is increasing with the aging of the population. Since one of the main reasons for inappropriate drug prescribing is also the "age-blind" approach, which results in ageist practices, this narrative literature review focuses on the description of the main barriers related to insufficient individualization of drug regimens associated with such age-blind approaches. METHODOLOGY: A narrative literature review using the PubMed, WoS, Embase, and Scopus databases was conducted by the EU COST Action IS1402. Experts in different scientific fields from six countries (the Czech Republic, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Serbia, and Turkey) worked in four specific areas: (1) underrepresentation of older adults in clinical trials and clinical and ethical consequences; (2) insufficient consideration of age-related changes and geriatric frailty in the evaluation of the therapeutic value of drugs; (3) frequent prescribing of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs); and (4) frequent underuse of highly beneficial nonpharmacological strategies (e.g., exercise).

resultsOlder patients are underrepresented in clinical trials. Therefore, rigorous observational geriatric research is needed in order to obtain evidence on the real efficacy and safety of frequently used drugs, and e.g. developed geriatric scales and frailty indexes for claims databases should help to stimulate such research. The use of PIMs, unfortunately, is still highly prevalent in Europe: 22.6% in community-dwelling older patients and 49.0% in institutionalized older adults. Specific tests to detect the majority of age-related pharmacological changes are usually not available in everyday clinical practice, which limits the estimation of drug risks and possibilities to individualize drug therapy in geriatric patients before drug prescription. Moreover, the role of some nonpharmacological  strategies is highly underestimated in older adults in contrast to frequent use of polypharmacy. Among nonpharmacological strategies, particularly physical exercise was highly effective in reducing functional decline, frailty, and the risk of falls in the majority of clinical studies.

conclusionSeveral regulatory and clinical barriers contribute to insufficient knowledge on the therapeutic value of drugs in older patients, age-blind approach, and inappropriate prescribing. New clinical and observational research is needed, including data on comprehensive geriatric assessment and frailty, to document the real efficacy and safety of frequently used medications.

Indexed as

PolypharmacyAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsDrug PrescriptionsEuropeFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHumansInappropriate PrescribingMalePotentially Inappropriate Medication ListPrevalenceRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRisk FactorsTurkeyAgeismAge-related changesDrug prescribingFrailtyObservational studiesOlder patientsPolypharmacyPotentially inappropriate medicationsRandomized controlled trials

Identifiers

PMID30610276
OpenAlexW2907576127

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.