Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31887163›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Potentially inappropriate medication in older participants of the Berlin Aging Study II (BASE-II) - Sex differences and associations with morbidity and medication use.

Sarah Toepfer, Juliane Bolbrinker, Maximilian König, Elisabeth Steinhagen-Thiessen, Reinhold Kreutz, Ilja Demuth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Observational
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Potentially Inappropriate Drug Duplication in a Cohort of Older Adults with Dementia.Current therapeutic research, clinical and experimental · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

6 authors.

Sarah ToepferCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Lipid Clinic at the Interdisciplinary Metabolism Center, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0517-5056
Juliane BolbrinkerCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Institut für Klinische Pharmakologie und Toxikologie, Berlin, Germany.
Maximilian KönigMedizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Nephrologie und Internistische Intensivmedizin, Charité-Universitätsmedizin, Berlin, Germany.
Elisabeth Steinhagen-ThiessenCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Lipid Clinic at the Interdisciplinary Metabolism Center, Berlin, Germany.
Reinhold KreutzCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Institut für Klinische Pharmakologie und Toxikologie, Berlin, Germany.
Ilja DemuthCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Lipid Clinic at the Interdisciplinary Metabolism Center, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionMultimorbidity in advanced age and the need for drug treatment may lead to polypharmacy, while pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes may increase the risk of adverse drug events (ADEs).

objectiveThe aim of this study was to determine the proportion of subjects using potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) in a cohort of older and predominantly healthy adults in relation to polypharmacy and morbidity.

methodsCross-sectional data were available from 1,382 study participants (median age 69 years, IQR 67-71, 51.3% females) of the Berlin Aging Study II (BASE-II). PIM was classified according to the EU(7)-PIM and German PRISCUS (representing a subset of the former) list. Polypharmacy was defined as the concomitant use of at least five drugs. A morbidity index (MI) largely based on the Charlson Index was applied to evaluate the morbidity burden.

resultsOverall, 24.1% of the participants were affected by polypharmacy. On average, men used 2 (IQR 1-4) and women 3 drugs (IQR 1-5). According to PRISCUS and EU(7)-PIM, 5.9% and 22.6% of participants received at least one PIM, while use was significantly more prevalent in females (25.5%) compared to males (19.6%) considering EU(7)-PIM (p = 0.01). In addition, morbidity in males receiving PIM according to EU(7)-PIM was higher (median MI 1, IQR 1-3) compared to males without PIM use (median MI 1, IQR 0-2, p<0.001).

conclusionPIM use occurred more frequently in women than in men, while it was associated with higher morbidity in males. As expected, EU(7)-PIM identifies more subjects as PIM users than the PRISCUS list but further studies are needed to investigate the differential impact of both lists on ADEs and outcome. KEY POINTS: We found PIM use to be associated with a higher number of regular medications and with increased morbidity. Additionally, we detected a higher prevalence of PIM use in females compared to males, suggesting that women and people needing intensive drug treatment are patient groups, who are particularly affected by PIM use.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCase-Control StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesDrug MisuseEuropeFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMorbidityPolypharmacyPotentially Inappropriate Medication ListPrescription DrugsPrevalencePrescription Drugs

Identifiers

PMID31887163
PMCPMC6936809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.