Advertisement

Drugs & Aging

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 61–71 | Cite as

The EURO-FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged) List: International Consensus Validation of a Clinical Tool for Improved Drug Treatment in Older People

  • Farhad Pazan
  • Christel Weiss
  • Martin WehlingEmail author
  • FORTA
Original Research Article

Abstract

Background

Drug treatment of older people is still potentially inappropriate in many cases as multimorbidity and related polypharmacy are highly prevalent. To increase the quality of drug treatment in older people, the FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged) List (first version 2012) was developed in a Delphi consensus procedure and updated (FORTA2015) by 21 experts from Germany and Austria. It has been validated in a randomized, controlled, prospective trial demonstrating significant improvement in the quality of drug treatment and clinical endpoints (VALFORTA).

Methods

Based on these results, Delphi consensus validations (two rounds) of country/region-specific FORTA Lists were conducted in the UK/Ireland, France, Poland, Italy, Spain, the Nordic countries and The Netherlands. An algorithm based on geriatric/pharmacologic expertise, publications and professional position was used to find experts in the field.

Results

Forty-seven experts agreed to participate in the Delphi process (return rate of 97.9%). For each country/region, the overall mean consensus coefficient (deviation from the initiator proposal) was > 0.9. FORTA Lists from six countries/regions with a minimum of four participating experts (excluding The Netherlands) plus the original FORTA List were collated into the EURO-FORTA List containing 264 items in 26 main indication groups. Two drugs had to be added to the proposed items, as proposed by at least four countries/regions; none had to be removed.

Conclusion

This project produced seven new country/region-specific FORTA Lists, as well as the overarching EURO-FORTA List showing a high consensual level based on a broader expert base. EURO-FORTA should help to spread the FORTA approach and improve geriatric pharmacotherapy internationally.

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

No sources of funding were received for this project or for the preparation of this manuscript.

Conflict of interest

M.W. was employed by AstraZeneca R&D, Mölndal, as director of discovery medicine (=translational medicine) from 2003 to 2006, while on sabbatical leave from his professorship at the University of Heidelberg. Since returning to this position in January 2007, he has received lecturing and consulting fees from Sanofi-Aventis, Bayer, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Novartis, Takeda, Roche, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers, Daichii-Sankyo, Lilly, Otsuka, Novo-Nordisk, Berlin-Chemie, Shire and LEO Pharma. F.P. and C.W. have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Supplementary material

40266_2017_514_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (408 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 407 kb)
40266_2017_514_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (1.6 mb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 1648 kb)
40266_2017_514_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (1.1 mb)
Supplementary material 3 (PDF 1176 kb)
40266_2017_514_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (1.1 mb)
Supplementary material 4 (PDF 1171 kb)
40266_2017_514_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (1.2 mb)
Supplementary material 5 (PDF 1230 kb)
40266_2017_514_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (1.2 mb)
Supplementary material 6 (PDF 1243 kb)
40266_2017_514_MOESM7_ESM.pdf (1.2 mb)
Supplementary material 7 (PDF 1189 kb)
40266_2017_514_MOESM8_ESM.pdf (1 mb)
Supplementary material 8 (PDF 1057 kb)
40266_2017_514_MOESM9_ESM.pdf (1 mb)
Supplementary material 9 (PDF 1035 kb)
40266_2017_514_MOESM10_ESM.pdf (805 kb)
Supplementary material 10 (PDF 805 kb)
40266_2017_514_MOESM11_ESM.pdf (192 kb)
Supplementary material 11 (PDF 191 kb)
40266_2017_514_MOESM12_ESM.pdf (175 kb)
Supplementary material 12 (PDF 174 kb)
40266_2017_514_MOESM13_ESM.pdf (443 kb)
Supplementary material 13 (PDF 443 kb)
40266_2017_514_MOESM14_ESM.pdf (15 mb)
Supplementary material 14 (PDF 15407 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    World Population Ageing 2015. United Nations, New York, 2015. http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/ageing/WPA2015_Report.pdf. Accessed 19 Jul 2017.
  2. 2.
    An aging nation: the older population in the United States. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p25-1140.pdf. Accessed 19 Jul 2017.
  3. 3.
    Maher RL, Hanlon J, Hajjar ER. Clinical consequences of polypharmacy in elderly. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2014;13:57–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barnett K, Mercer SW, Norbury M, et al. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2012;380:37–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mc Namara KP, Breken BD, Alzubaidi HAT, et al. Health professional perspectives on the management of multimorbidity and polypharmacy for older patients in Australia. Age Ageing. 2017;46:291–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Watts G. Why the exclusion of older people from clinical research must stop. BMJ. 2012;344:e3445.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Clegg A, Relton C, Young J, et al. Improving recruitment of older people to clinical trials: use of the cohort multiple randomised controlled trial design. Age Ageing. 2015;44:547–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shenoy P, Harugeri A. Elderly patients’ participation in clinical trials. Perspect Clin Res. 2015;6:184–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wehling M. Drug therapy for the elderly. Vienna: Springer; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wehling M. Guideline-driven polypharmacy in elderly, multimorbid patients is basically flawed: there are almost no guidelines for these patients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59:376–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Beers MH. Explicit criteria for determining potentially inappropriate medication use by the elderly. An update. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157:1531–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    American Geriatrics Society 2015 Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel. American Geriatrics Society updated beers criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;2015(63):2227–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Page RL, Ruscin JM. The risk of adverse drug events and hospital-related morbidity and mortality among older adults with potentially inappropriate medication use. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother. 2006;4:297–305.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cooper JA, Cadogan CA, Patterson SM, et al. Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy in older people: a Cochrane systematic review. BMJ Open. 2015;5:e009235.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wehling M. Older people, a plethora of drugs, and drug list approaches: useful, efficacious, or a waste of time? J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2016;17:1073–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wehling M. Drug therapy in the elderly: too much or too little, what to do? A new assessment system: fit for the aged FORTA [in German]. Dtsch Med Wochenschr. 2008;133:2289–91.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuhn-Thiel AM, Weiss C, Wehling M. Consensus validation of the FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged) List: a clinical tool for increasing the appropriateness of pharmacotherapy in the elderly. Drugs Aging. 2014;31:131–40.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pazan F, Weiss C, Wehling M. The FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged) List 2015: update of a validated clinical tool for improved pharmacotherapy in the elderly. Drugs Aging. 2016;33:447–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wehling M, Burkhardt H, Kuhn-Thiel A, et al. VALFORTA: a randomised trial to validate the FORTA (Fit fOR The Aged) classification. Age Ageing. 2016;45:262–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fialova D, Topinkova E, Gambassi G, et al. Potentially inappropriate medication use among elderly home care patients in Europe. JAMA. 2005;293:1348–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Renom-Guiteras A, Meyer G, Thürmann PA. The EU(7)-PIM list: a list of potentially inappropriate medications for older people consented by experts from seven European countries. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;71:861–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pastor Cano J, Aranda Garcia A, Gascon Canovas JJ, et al. Spanish adaption of Beers criteria [in Spanish]. An Sist Sanit Navar. 2015;38:375–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    EUROSTAT. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/de. Accessed 19 Jul 2017.
  24. 24.
    The Nordic Gerontological Federation (NGF). http://www.ngf-geronord.se. Accessed 19 Jul 2017.
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
  27. 27.
    O’Mahony D, O’Sullivan D, Byrne S, et al. STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2. Age Ageing. 2015;44:213–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    O’Connor MN, O’Sullivan D, Gallagher PF, et al. Prevention of hospital-acquired adverse drug reactions in older people using screening tool of older persons’ prescriptions and screening tool to alert to right treatment criteria: a cluster randomized controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64:1558–66.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Farhad Pazan
    • 1
  • Christel Weiss
    • 2
  • Martin Wehling
    • 1
    Email author
  • FORTA
  1. 1.Institute for Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Clinical PharmacologyMedical Faculty Mannheim, Ruprecht-Karls-University HeidelbergMannheimGermany
  2. 2.Department of Medical Statistics, Biomathematics and Information ProcessingMedical Faculty Mannheim, Heidelberg UniversityMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations