潜在不适当药物清单与再住院有关吗?系统回顾。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Drugs & Aging Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-25 DOI:10.1007/s40266-024-01099-9
Camille Schwab, Alice Clementz, Agnès Dechartres, Christine Fernandez, Patrick Hindlet
{"title":"潜在不适当药物清单与再住院有关吗?系统回顾。","authors":"Camille Schwab, Alice Clementz, Agnès Dechartres, Christine Fernandez, Patrick Hindlet","doi":"10.1007/s40266-024-01099-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Suboptimal prescribing, including the prescription of potentially inappropriate medications (PIM), is frequent in patients aged 65 years and older. PIMs are associated with adverse drug events, which may lead to hospital admissions and readmissions for the most serious cases. Several tools, known as lists of PIMs, can detect suboptimal prescription.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aimed to identify which lists of PIMs are associated with hospital readmission of older patients.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for the period from 1 January 1991 up to 12 May 2022 to identify original studies assessing the association between PIMs and hospital readmissions or emergency department (ED) revisits within 30 days of discharge in older patients. This study is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Checklist, and the risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies (NOS) and the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of six studies presenting four different lists of PIMs were included. Readmission rates varied from 4.3 to 25.5% and the odds ratio (OR) between PIMs and hospital readmission varied from 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59; 1.42] to 6.48 [95% CI 3.00; 14.00]. Only two studies found a statistically significant association between a list of PIMs and hospital readmission. These two studies used different tools: the Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions (STOPP) and the Screening Tool to Alert Doctors to Right Treatment (START) and a combination of Beers Criteria® and STOPP and START.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This systematic review shows that the association between list of PIMs and 30-day unplanned readmissions remains unclear and seems dependent on the PIM detection tool. Further studies are needed to clarify this association. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021252107.</p>","PeriodicalId":11489,"journal":{"name":"Drugs & Aging","volume":" ","pages":"209-218"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Are Lists of Potentially Inappropriate Medications Associated with Hospital Readmissions? A Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Camille Schwab, Alice Clementz, Agnès Dechartres, Christine Fernandez, Patrick Hindlet\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40266-024-01099-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Suboptimal prescribing, including the prescription of potentially inappropriate medications (PIM), is frequent in patients aged 65 years and older. PIMs are associated with adverse drug events, which may lead to hospital admissions and readmissions for the most serious cases. Several tools, known as lists of PIMs, can detect suboptimal prescription.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review aimed to identify which lists of PIMs are associated with hospital readmission of older patients.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for the period from 1 January 1991 up to 12 May 2022 to identify original studies assessing the association between PIMs and hospital readmissions or emergency department (ED) revisits within 30 days of discharge in older patients. This study is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Checklist, and the risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies (NOS) and the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of six studies presenting four different lists of PIMs were included. Readmission rates varied from 4.3 to 25.5% and the odds ratio (OR) between PIMs and hospital readmission varied from 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59; 1.42] to 6.48 [95% CI 3.00; 14.00]. Only two studies found a statistically significant association between a list of PIMs and hospital readmission. These two studies used different tools: the Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions (STOPP) and the Screening Tool to Alert Doctors to Right Treatment (START) and a combination of Beers Criteria® and STOPP and START.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This systematic review shows that the association between list of PIMs and 30-day unplanned readmissions remains unclear and seems dependent on the PIM detection tool. Further studies are needed to clarify this association. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021252107.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11489,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Drugs & Aging\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"209-218\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Drugs & Aging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-024-01099-9\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drugs & Aging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-024-01099-9","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在 65 岁及以上的患者中,经常出现处方不合理的情况,包括处方可能不适当的药物(PIM)。PIMs 与药物不良事件有关,最严重的病例可能导致入院和再入院。有几种被称为 PIMs 清单的工具可以检测出次优处方:本系统综述旨在确定哪些 PIMs 列表与老年患者再入院相关:检索了 1991 年 1 月 1 日至 2022 年 5 月 12 日期间的 MEDLINE、Cochrane 图书馆、EMBASE 和 clinicaltrials.gov,以确定评估 PIM 与老年患者出院后 30 天内再入院或急诊科 (ED) 再次就诊之间关系的原始研究。本研究按照《2020 年系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)核对表》进行报告,并采用纽卡斯尔-渥太华队列研究质量评估量表(NOS)和修订版 Cochrane 随机试验偏倚风险工具(RoB 2)评估偏倚风险:结果:共纳入了六项研究,包括四份不同的 PIMs 清单。再入院率从 4.3% 到 25.5% 不等,PIMs 与再入院率之间的比值比 (OR) 从 0.92 [95% 置信区间 (CI) 0.59; 1.42] 到 6.48 [95% CI 3.00; 14.00] 不等。只有两项研究发现 PIMs 列表与再入院之间存在统计学意义上的显著关联。这两项研究使用了不同的工具:老年人处方筛查工具(STOPP)和提醒医生正确治疗的筛查工具(START),以及 Beers Criteria®、STOPP 和 START 的组合:本系统综述表明,PIMs 列表与 30 天非计划再入院之间的关系仍不明确,而且似乎取决于 PIM 检测工具。需要进一步研究来澄清这种关联。PROSPERO 注册号:CRD42021252107。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Are Lists of Potentially Inappropriate Medications Associated with Hospital Readmissions? A Systematic Review.

Are Lists of Potentially Inappropriate Medications Associated with Hospital Readmissions? A Systematic Review.

Background: Suboptimal prescribing, including the prescription of potentially inappropriate medications (PIM), is frequent in patients aged 65 years and older. PIMs are associated with adverse drug events, which may lead to hospital admissions and readmissions for the most serious cases. Several tools, known as lists of PIMs, can detect suboptimal prescription.

Objective: This systematic review aimed to identify which lists of PIMs are associated with hospital readmission of older patients.

Patients and methods: MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched for the period from 1 January 1991 up to 12 May 2022 to identify original studies assessing the association between PIMs and hospital readmissions or emergency department (ED) revisits within 30 days of discharge in older patients. This study is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 Checklist, and the risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale for Cohort Studies (NOS) and the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2).

Results: A total of six studies presenting four different lists of PIMs were included. Readmission rates varied from 4.3 to 25.5% and the odds ratio (OR) between PIMs and hospital readmission varied from 0.92 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59; 1.42] to 6.48 [95% CI 3.00; 14.00]. Only two studies found a statistically significant association between a list of PIMs and hospital readmission. These two studies used different tools: the Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions (STOPP) and the Screening Tool to Alert Doctors to Right Treatment (START) and a combination of Beers Criteria® and STOPP and START.

Conclusion: This systematic review shows that the association between list of PIMs and 30-day unplanned readmissions remains unclear and seems dependent on the PIM detection tool. Further studies are needed to clarify this association. PROSPERO registration number CRD42021252107.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Drugs & Aging
Drugs & Aging 医学-老年医学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Drugs & Aging delivers essential information on the most important aspects of drug therapy to professionals involved in the care of the elderly. The journal addresses in a timely way the major issues relating to drug therapy in older adults including: the management of specific diseases, particularly those associated with aging, age-related physiological changes impacting drug therapy, drug utilization and prescribing in the elderly, polypharmacy and drug interactions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信