Impact of Specific Beers Criteria Medications on Associations between Drug Exposure and Unplanned Hospitalisation in Elderly Patients Taking High-Risk Drugs: A Case-Time-Control Study in Western Australia
- 364 Downloads
Certain broad medication classes have previously been associated with high rates of hospitalisation due to related adverse events in elderly Western Australians, based on clinical coding recorded on inpatient summaries. Similarly, some medications from the Beers Criteria, considered potentially inappropriate in older people, have been linked with an increased risk of unplanned hospitalisation in this population.
Our objective was to determine whether risk estimates of drug-related hospitalisations are altered in elderly patients taking ‘high-risk drugs’ (HRDs) when specific Beers potentially inappropriate medications (PIMS) are taken into consideration.
Using the pharmaceutical claims of 251,305 Western Australians aged ≥65 years (1993–2005) linked with other health data, we applied a case-time-control design to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for unplanned hospitalisations associated with anticoagulants, antirheumatics, opioids, corticosteroids and four major cardiovascular drug groups, from which attributable fractions (AFs), number and proportion of drug-related admissions were derived. The analysis was repeated, taking into account exposure to eight specific PIMs, and results were compared.
A total of 1,899,699 index hospitalisations were involved. Of index subjects, 12–57 % were exposed to each HRD at the time of admission, although the proportions taking both an HRD and one of the selected PIMs were much lower (generally ≤2 %, but as high as 8 % for combinations involving temazepam and for most PIMs combined with hypertension drugs). Included PIMs (indomethacin, naproxen, temazepam, oxazepam, diazepam, digoxin, amiodarone and ferrous sulphate) all tended to increase ORs, AFs and drug-related hospitalisation estimates in HRD combinations, although this was less evident for opioids and corticosteroids. Indomethacin had the greatest overall impact on HRD ORs/AFs. Indomethacin (OR 1.40; 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.27–1.54) and naproxen (OR 1.22; 1.14–1.31) were associated with higher risks of unplanned hospitalisation than other antirheumatics (overall OR 1.09; 1.06–1.12). Similarly, among cardiac rhythm regulators, amiodarone (OR 1.22; 1.13–1.32) was riskier than digoxin (OR 1.08; 1.04–1.13). For comparisons of drug-related hospitalisation estimates, temazepam yielded the greatest absolute increases, especially with hypertension drugs.
Indomethacin and temazepam should be prescribed cautiously in elderly patients, especially in drug combinations. Furthermore, it appears other antirheumatics should be favoured over indomethacin/naproxen and, in situations where both drugs may be appropriate, digoxin over amiodarone. Our methodology may help assess the safety of new medications in drug combinations in preliminary pharmacovigilance investigations.
KeywordsDigoxin Amiodarone Naproxen Temazepam Ferrous Sulphate
This study was funded by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) project grant. The funding body was not involved in any aspect of the study other than assessment of the project proposal for funding purposes via an independent peer review process.
We are grateful to the Department of Health of Western Australia (DoHWA) and the Australian Department of Health and Ageing for supplying the project data. We particularly thank the Data Linkage Branch (DoHWA) for undertaking the record linkage.
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
- 8.Petrovic M, der Cammen Tv, Onder G. Adverse drug reactions in older people: detection and prevention. Drugs Aging. 2012;29(6):453–62.Google Scholar
- 15.Dimitrow MS, Airaksinen MSA, Kivela S-L, Lyles A, Leikola SNS. Comparison of prescribing criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of drug treatment in individuals aged 65 and older: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(8):1521–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03497.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Roughead EE, Gilbert AL, Primrose JG, Sansom LN. Coding drug-related admissions in medical records: is it adequate for monitoring the quality of medication use. Aust J Hosp Pharm. 1998;28(1):7–12.Google Scholar
- 23.Hodgkinson MR, Dirnbauer NJ, Larmour I. Identification of adverse drug reactions using the ICD-10 Australian Modification clinical coding surveillance. J Pharm Pract Res. 2009;39(1):19–23.Google Scholar
- 24.Dawes VP. Poisoning in Western Australia: overview, and investigation of therapeutic poisoning in the elderly [MPH Thesis]. Nedlands: The University of Western Australia; 1994.Google Scholar
- 27.Price SD, Holman CDJ, Sanfilippo FM, Emery JD. Use of case-time-control design in pharmacovigilance applications: exploration with high-risk medications and unplanned hospital admissions in the Western Australian elderly. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22(11):1159–70. doi: 10.1002/pds.3469.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Lopert R. Evidence-based decision-making within Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Issue Brief (Commonwealth Fund). 2009;60:1–13.Google Scholar
- 34.Department of Health and Ageing. Medicare Benefits Schedule book. Canberra: Australian Government; 2008.Google Scholar
- 35.Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Residential aged care in Australia 2007–08: a statistical overview. Aged care statistic series 28. Cat. no. AGE 58. Canberra: AIHW; 2009. p. 138–41.Google Scholar
- 38.Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian historical population statistics—population age-sex structure: population, age and sex, WA, 30 June, 1901 onwards. ABS cat. no. 4105.0.65.001. ABS, Canberra. 2008. http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3105.0.65.0012008?OpenDocument. Accessed Jun 15 2012.
- 39.Department of Health and Ageing. Schedule of pharmaceutical benefits for approved pharmacists and medical practitioners. Canberra: Australian Government; 1991–2007.Google Scholar
- 40.WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment 2007. Oslo, 2006.Google Scholar
- 41.WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC classification index with DDDs 2007. Oslo, 2006.Google Scholar
- 42.Britt H, Miller G, Charles J, Henderson J, Bayram C, Pan Y, et al. General practice activity in Australia 2009–10. General practice series no. 27. Cat. no. GEP 27. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2010.Google Scholar
- 43.Britt H, Miller G, Charles J, Henderson J, Bayram C, Valenti L, et al. General practice activity in Australia 2000-01 to 2009-10: 10 year data tables. General practice series no. 28. Cat. no. GEP 28. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2010.Google Scholar
- 45.MIMS Australia. June 2000 MIMS annual. St Leonards: MIMS Australia; 2000.Google Scholar
- 46.MIMS Australia. June 2005 MIMS annual. St Leonards: MIMS Australia; 2005.Google Scholar
- 47.MIMS Australia. MIMS online. MIMS Australia: St Leonards; 2008. https://www.mimsonline.com.au/Search/Search.aspx. Accessed 2008.
- 48.WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. Guidelines for ATC classification and DDD assignment 2008. Oslo, 2007.Google Scholar
- 49.WHO Collaborating Centre for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC classification index with DDDs 2008. Oslo, 2007.Google Scholar
- 51.Birkett DJ. Pharmacokinetics made easy 3: half-life. Aust Prescriber. 1988;11(3):57–9.Google Scholar
- 53.SAS Institute Inc. SAS 9.2 for Windows. Cary: SAS Institute Inc; 2002–2009.Google Scholar
- 56.Greenland S. Applications of stratified analysis methods. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, editors. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. p. 283–302.Google Scholar
- 57.Greenland S, Rothman KJ, Lash TL. Measures of effect and measures of association. In: Rothman KJ, Greenland S, Lash TL, editors. Modern epidemiology. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008. p. 51–70.Google Scholar
- 58.English DR, Holman CDJ, Milne E, Winter MG, Hulse GK, Codde JP, et al. The quantification of drug caused morbidity and mortality in Australia 1995—part 1. Canberra: Commonwealth Department of Human Services and Health; 1995. p. 6–19.Google Scholar
- 79.Arnstein P. Balancing analgesic efficacy with safety concerns in the older patient. Pain Manag Nurs. 2010;11(2) Sup(1):S11–22.Google Scholar
- 88.Delgado-Rodriguez M, Llorca J. Bias. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004;58:635–41.Google Scholar
- 89.Department of Health and Ageing. Australian statistics on medicines 2004–05. Canberra: Australian Government; 2007.Google Scholar
- 91.Department of Health and Ageing. Schedule of pharmaceutical benefits (effective 1 August 2012–31 August 2012). Canberra: Australian Government; 2012.Google Scholar