Abstract
Background
Drug duplication (DD), the use of two identical drugs simultaneously, is a medication error increasing the risk of adverse drug events. We describe the trends and implicated drugs in potential DD in older adults in Sweden from 2006 to 2021.
Methods
We conducted a register-based, repeated cross-sectional study of all older adults (aged ≥65 years) dispensed drugs at a community pharmacy in 2006–2021. DD was defined as a ≥30-day overlap of two dispensations of drugs with the same 5th level (chemical substance) Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification, but with different brand names, within a 3-month period each year.
Results
Among Swedish older adults with ordinary prescriptions (i.e. multidose excluded; n ≈ 1,200,000–1,600,000 per year), the prevalence of potential DD increased from 5.2% to 10.6% in 65- to 79-year-olds and from 7.0% to 11.7% in those aged ≥80 years. The drug groups (ATC level 3; pharmacological subgroup) most frequently implicated in DD in 2006 were β-blocking agents, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and calcium channel blockers, and in 2021 Vitamin B12 and folic acid, β-blocking agents and angiotensin II receptor blockers.
Conclusions
DD represents a common but unnecessary and potentially hazardous medication error. Our results indicate that during the last two decades, the prevalence has almost doubled in older adults with ordinary prescriptions, reaching 11% in 2021. More national efforts are needed to revert this trend, including a nationally available complete drug list for all patients, and prescriber support to detect DD.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
The prevalence of potential drug duplications (DDs) has almost doubled in older adults with ordinary prescriptions from 2006 to 2021. |
The drug groups most frequently implicated in the DDs were cardiovascular drugs, vitamin B12 and folic acid, and drugs for peptic ulcer and gastroesophageal reflux disease. |
As DD may increase the risk of adverse drug reactions, more national efforts are needed to revert this trend, including a nationally available complete drug list for all patients, and prescriber support to detect DDs. |
1 Introduction
Drug duplication (DD), defined as the concurrent use of two drugs with the same active ingredient(s), is an underrecognized medication error increasing the risk of overdose and adverse effects [1]. The dose increase associated with unintended DDs may be specifically harmful to older adults, being more sensitive to high drug concentrations [2]. This might contribute to the already high overall risk of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in older adults, resulting in morbidity, hospitalization, healthcare costs, and mortality [3]. DDs have been reported to be more common among older adults with polypharmacy (usually defined as the concurrent use of five or more drugs) and among persons with more than one prescriber [1, 4]. Given that the prevalence of polypharmacy has been reported to be on the rise [5, 6], it is of great importance to also monitor trends in DD and the specific drugs implicated.
DD can occur for a number of reasons, including automatic generic substitution (substitution to the cheapest brand with the same active ingredient), multiple prescribers, shortcomings of electronic prescription systems and multiple sources of medication lists [7]. Compared with therapeutic duplications (concurrent use of drugs in the same class), DDs are more often unintended and inappropriate. However, as noted in previous studies of duplicate drugs using routinely collected data, it is difficult to distinguish between stockpiling and duplicate use when only dispensing records are available and not data on actual consumption [1].
Previous research has shown that the prevalence of DD is high among older adults. For example, a study in the UK reported a high baseline prevalence of DD (9%) in patients treated in general surgical wards, indicating the widespread occurrence of this phenomenon even among non-older populations [8]. In ambulatory care settings, a study using Korean national health insurance claims data found that DD was more frequent for antihypertensives and lipid-modifying drugs, both within and between prescriptions [9]. A study in Italy found that the prevalence of patients exposed to at least one DD increased significantly from hospital admission to discharge, and the majority of patients discharged with duplicate drugs were still taking them at a 3-month follow-up [10].
In Sweden, previous studies have reported a relatively high prevalence of DD in older patients with chronic conditions. For instance, a report on drug utilization reviews in ambulatory older patients in Sweden during 2007–2008 reported therapeutic duplication (use of two or more drugs with similar pharmacodynamic properties) as high as 13% in individuals aged 65 years and older [11]. Another study based on electronic data in patients with diabetes mellitus, congestive heart failure, or osteoarthritis found a prevalence of DD of 4.9% in the medication list in the electronic medical record and 6.1% in the list stored in the national prescription repository [12]. A more recent Swedish study reported a prevalence of 9.3% for DD [7], suggesting that DD is a prevalent issue.
Despite the previous findings of a high prevalence of DD in older adults, there is a lack of research investigating time trends in DD in Sweden and elsewhere. This is of particular interest considering the continuously increasing drug use in older adults [5, 6]. Therefore, the primary aim of this study was to investigate trends in potential DD in older adults in Sweden from 2006 to 2021. Additionally, this study aimed to report the drug groups that are most frequently implicated in these DDs.
2 Methods
We used routinely collected administrative prescription data with national coverage, from the Swedish National Prescribed Drug Register (SPDR), for the years 2006, 2011, 2016, and 2021. The SPDR contains extensive information on all prescribed medications dispensed at a pharmacy for the whole Swedish population.
2.1 Study Design and Population
In this repeated cross-sectional study, we included older adults (age ≥65 years) with ‘ordinary’ drug prescriptions, i.e. drugs dispensed at community pharmacies, during the study years. We excluded persons with multidose dispensing each year, since multidose dispensations typically are delivered regularly every 2 weeks, and therefore the likelihood of finding DDs according to the present definition would be very low. The number of excluded multidose users was 152,937 in 2006, 187,652 in 2011, 221,097 in 2016, and 283,622 in 2021.
2.2 Drug Exposure
For each person, information on all drugs dispensed during the year was collected. Drug exposure windows for each dispensation was calculated from the dispensing date to the date when the supply of the drug ended. The end date was calculated by dividing the amount of drug dispensed by the prescribed daily dose (available in free text), which gives an assumed number of days that given drug dispensation should last, and then adding this number to the dispensing date, as previously described [13].
2.3 Duplicate Drugs
DD was defined as the dispensations of two or more drugs with the same active substance (7-character, 5th level, Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical [ATC] code) but with different brand names, overlapping for 30 days or more during a 3-month period (October–December) each year. DD consisting of at least one drug for external use (ointments, mouthwash, etc.) or for as-needed use were excluded due to difficulty in estimating the correct daily dose and thus the end date of the medication. Drugs for injection were also excluded from the analysis, as it is likely that a DD with drugs for both oral and parenteral administration is either intentional or the result of clinically justifiable switches.
Sex and age (categorized into 65–79 years and ≥80 years) was extracted from the SPDR.
2.4 Statistical Analysis
The prevalence of DD was calculated each year by dividing the number of individuals with duplicated drugs by the number of persons with at least one ordinary drug dispensation estimated to be in use during October–December each year. Descriptive statistics, including proportions (%), mean, standard deviation, median and interquartile range (IQR), were calculated using SPSS 26.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA).
3 Results
The study populations consisted of more than 1 million individuals each study year with filled ordinary prescriptions estimated to be in use October–December each year. The populations included more women than men. The average number of used drugs increased over the 15 years from 2006 to 2021 (Table 1).
The overall prevalence of potential DD increased from 5.8% in 2006 to 10.9% in 2021. The increasing trend was observable in both women and men, and in both age groups (Figs. 1a, b). Men showed a slightly higher prevalence of DD compared with women, and persons ≥80 years of age showed a higher prevalence than those aged 65–79 years.
The top five drug classes (ATC level 3; pharmacological subgroup) implicated in the potential DD are shown in Table 2. Vitamin B12 and folic acid (ATC: B03B) and β-blocking agents (C07A) were among the top five drug groups for all 4 years. Lipid-modifying agents (C10A) in 3 of 4 years, and drugs for peptic ulcer and gastroesophageal reflux disease (A02B; mainly consisting of proton pump inhibitors [PPIs]), high-ceiling diuretics (C03C) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (C09C) were among the top five drug groups in 2 years. At the substance level, metoprolol and bisoprolol were the most common duplicated drugs from the β-blocking agent group. It can also be noted that the antithrombotic agents, being more common among the DDs in 2021, mainly consisted of acetylsalicylic acid, although clopidogrel was nearly as frequent.
3.1 Subgroup Analyses
The drug groups most implicated in the potential DD were also analyzed separately for women and men (electronic supplementary material [ESM] Table S1) and for those aged 65–79 years and ≥80 years (ESM Table S2). The differences between men and women were small in all study years. For persons ≥80 years of age, high-ceiling diuretics (C03C) were more often implicated in DD, as compared with 65- to 79-year-olds.
4 Discussion
In this register-based study, we report that the prevalence of potential DD has almost doubled from 2006 to 2021 among older adults with ordinary prescriptions in Sweden, with a similar trend across age groups and sex. As a whole, more than 1 in 10 individuals had a DD during the three observed months in 2021. The drug groups (ATC level 3; pharmacological subgroup) most frequently implicated in the DD were overall cardiovascular drugs, vitamin B12 and folic acid, and drugs for peptic ulcer and gastroesophageal reflux disease, and, in 2021, additionally antithrombotics. National efforts are needed to revert this concerning trend.
Relatively few studies have investigated the prevalence of DD at the substance level, defined by the WHO as ‘double medication’ or ‘ingredient duplication’. To our knowledge, this is the first study reporting time trends at a national level. In a Swedish study from 2010 in which Ekedahl et al. [12] examined the discrepancies between the currently prescribed treatment stated by patients, the medication list from the electronic medical record, and the list stored in the national prescription repository, they found a prevalence of DD between 4.9% and 6.1% of all prescriptions. Using a similar methodology, a more recent Swedish study reported the prevalence to be 9.3% [7], which aligns with our results of an increasing trend. Ekedahl et al. also observed that duplicate drugs were more frequent in patients with congestive heart failure, compared with patients with diabetes mellitus or osteoarthritis [12]. This is in line with our findings that cardiovascular drugs are often implicated in DD. Thus, overall, our results are in accordance with previous findings in Sweden.
Our findings are also compatible with the international literature. Using claims data, a Korean study in an ambulatory care setting reported that the most frequently implicated drugs in DD were drugs for acid-related disorder [such as PPIs] (8%), antihypertensives (10%) and lipid-modifying drugs (9%) [9]. These three drug groups were also among the top five groups in our present study. There is high agreement between the most frequently used drugs among persons with polypharmacy in Sweden [14] and the most frequently duplicated drugs in our study. Hence, the drugs implicated in duplications seem to reflect frequency of use rather than any specific clinical consideration. This is also reflected by the higher proportion of duplicated diuretics in the older age group, as diuretics are used more frequently by the oldest segment of the population [14, 15]. Furthermore, we found only small sex differences in the prevalence of DDs, as has been reported by others [16].
Interestingly, our results showed a continuous increase in the prevalence of DD after 2006. This may reflect that new rules for generic substitution were introduced for Swedish pharmacies in 2009, stating that the cheapest exchangeable drug every month should be the first choice when dispensing prescriptions. This effectively means that a prescribed drug can be replaced each time the patient picks it up at the pharmacy. Unsurprisingly, lack of familiarity is a frequent reason for refusing substitution [17]. Given the high level of complexity in medication use for older adults with polypharmacy, adding regular switches in brand name and layout of packages might increase complexity further and increase the risk of medication errors, including DD.
Besides being irrational and unnecessary, a DD may lead to an overdose of the involved active substance(s), which in turn can result in ADRs, particularly in older persons where pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes increase the sensitivity to drugs [2]. Indeed, according to data from the Swedish suspected adverse reaction database (Swedish Medical Products Agency), connected to the European EudraVigilance system [18], several of the drug groups and substances that we found to be involved in the potential DD in the present study are prone to cause an ADR. In 2006, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and β-blocking agents were the third and seventh most common drug groups reported to cause serious ADRs in older adults (≥65 years). In 2019, antithrombotic agents were the most common, and lipid-modifying agents the fifth most common, drug group in these ADR reports [19].
In clinical practice, the most important measures to avoid duplicate drugs is to maintain a comprehensive record of all medications the person is taking and to regularly conduct medication reviews (potentially using electronic systems with built-in alerts for duplicate therapies). A major challenge is when physicians cannot see all the medications a patient is prescribed. Many older adults have medications from more than one prescriber, potentially recorded in different systems. Thus, DDs may not be detectable for any of the prescribers. In Sweden, the development of a National Drug List (‘Nationella läkemedelslistan’) is ongoing [20]. Moreover, pharmacists in Sweden have had access to an electronic system called EES (Electronic Expert Support) since 2009 [21]. This system signals for a variety of different potential drug-related problems (DRPs), including potential DD. In an open controlled study, Danish et al. compared the rate of identification of DRPs for prescriptions dispensed by pharmacists with and without the use of EES [22]. A higher number of DRPs were identified with (n = 52) than without (n = 39) the support from EES. The most identified DRP was DD, although it was found to be detected to a lesser extent in the EES support group (10 instances) compared with the control group (15 instances). A national drug list coupled with EES might revert the increasing trend in DD; however, uptake of the EES system has been stated to be low and only used on about 20% of patients [22]. Increased awareness of the issue of DD is needed.
4.1 Strengths and Limitations
To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to assess trends in DD in Sweden using nationwide register data. An important strength of the study is that it is based on all persons in Sweden aged 65 years and older using drugs with ordinary prescriptions. Moreover, it covers a long period of time, from 2006 to 2021, which allows examination of longer time trends in the prevalence and nature of DDs. However, there are also limitations. One is that the SPDR does not include over-the-counter (OTC) medications or drugs distributed within hospitals or dispensed from storerooms in nursing homes, which may have led to an underestimation of the prevalence of DD. Another limitation is that we do not know to what extent the studied patients are adherent to the drug prescriptions. However, we do at least know that they have picked up the medicines at the pharmacy. Finally, our calculation of the occurrence of potential DD cannot be equated with the true prevalence of DD, as some patients, or people who assist them with the drug management, might be aware that a drug is duplicated and hence avoid this error. However, it is reasonable to assume that an overlap of 30 days or more, of drugs with the same active substance but with different drug names, is highly indicative of duplicate drug use. Moreover, our measure of DD only includes overlap of medications with different brand names. Drugs with the same brand name can also be duplicated; hence, we have chosen a conservative measure of DD.
5 Conclusion
In this study, we demonstrated that the prevalence of potential DD has almost doubled in older adults with ordinary prescriptions during the last two decades, reaching 11% in 2021. In general, we found that the drugs that are most frequently duplicated tend to mirror the most used drugs in the older population. DD is a potentially hazardous medication error that can be avoided. The rising prevalence of DD suggests that more national efforts are needed to revert this trend, including a nationally available complete drug list for all patients, increased awareness, and prescriber support to detect DD.
References
Heinze G, Jandeck LM, Hronsky M, Reichardt B, Baumgärtel C, Bucsics A, et al. Prevalence and determinants of unintended double medication of antihypertensive, lipid-lowering, and hypoglycemic drugs in Austria: a nationwide cohort study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25:90–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.3898.
Reeve E, Wiese MD, Mangoni AA. Alterations in drug disposition in older adults. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2015;11:491–508. https://doi.org/10.1517/17425255.2015.1004310.
Sultana J, Cutroneo P, Trifirò G. Clinical and economic burden of adverse drug reactions. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2013;4(1 Suppl):S73–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-500X.120957.
Wucherer D, Thyrian JR, Eichler T, Hertel J, Kilimann I, Richter S, et al. Drug-related problems in community-dwelling primary care patients screened positive for dementia. Int Psychogeriatr. 2017;29:1857–68. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610217001442.
Wastesson JW, Morin L, Tan ECK, Johnell K. An update on the clinical consequences of polypharmacy in older adults: a narrative review. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2018;17:1185–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2018.1546841.
Guthrie B, Makubate B, Hernandez-Santiago V, Dreishculte T. The rising tide of polypharmacy and drug–drug interactions:population database analysis 1995–2010. BMC Med. 2015;13:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0322-7.
Hammar T, Mzil L, Eiermann B. Discrepancies in patients’ medication lists from pharmacies in Sweden: an interview study before the implementation of the Swedish National Medication List. Int J Clin Pharm. 2023;45:88–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11096-022-01480-X.
Huynh I, Rajendran T. Therapeutic duplication on the general surgical wards. BMJ Open Qual. 2021;10: e001363. https://doi.org/10.1136/BMJOQ-2021-001363.
Kim DS, Je NK, Kim GJ, Kang H, Kim YJ, Lee S. Therapeutic duplicate prescribing in Korean ambulatory care settings using the National Health Insurance claim data. Int J Clin Pharm. 2015;37:76–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11096-014-0042-7.
Pasina L, Astuto S, Cortesi L, Tettamanti M, Franchi C, Marengoni A, et al. Therapeutic duplicates in a cohort of hospitalized elderly patients: results from the REPOSI study on behalf of the REPOSI Investigators. Drugs Aging. 2016;33:647–54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-016-0395-9.
Lieberman-Ram H, Skarph A. Läkemedelsgenomgångar i samverkan för äldre personer i ordinärt boende, anslutna till hemsjukvården. Nestor FoU-center 2009; 02/09. ISBN 978-91-85347-09-4.
Ekedahl A, Brosius H, Jönsson J, Karlsson H, Yngvesson M. Discrepancies between the electronic medical record, the prescriptions in the Swedish national prescription repository and the current medication reported by patients. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2011;20:1177–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/PDS.2226.
Wallerstedt SM, Fastbom J, Johnell K, Sjöberg C, Landahl S, Sundström A. Drug treatment in older people before and after the transition to a multi-dose drug dispensing system—a longitudinal analysis. PLoS ONE. 2013;8: e67088. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067088.
Wastesson JW, Minguez AC, Fastbom J, Maioli S, Johnell K. The composition of polypharmacy: a register-based study of Swedes aged 75 years and older. PLoS ONE. 2018;13: e0194892. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194892.
Wastesson JW, Parker MG, Fastbom J, Thorslund M, Johnell K. Drug use in centenarians compared with nonagenarians and octogenarians in Sweden: a nationwide register-based study. Age Ageing. 2012;41:218–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afr144.
Trenaman SC, Bowles SK, Kirkland SA, Andrew MK. Potentially inappropriate drug duplication in a cohort of older adults with dementia. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2021;95: 100644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.curtheres.2021.100644.
Nokelainen H, Lämsä E, Ahonen R, Timonen J. Reasons for allowing and refusing generic substitution and factors determining the choice of an interchangeable prescription medicine: a survey among pharmacy customers in Finland. BMC Health Serv Res. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-4894-3.
European Medicines Agency. EudraVigilance—European database of suspected adverse drug reaction reports. Available at: https://www.adrreports.eu/en/search_subst.html. Accessed 9 Sept 2024.
Socialstyrelsen. Kartläggning och analys av förskrivningen av antidepressiva läkemedel till personer 65 år och äldre. Socialstyrelsen 2023;2023-11-8828. https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/globalassets/sharepoint-dokument/artikelkatalog/ovrigt/2023-11-8828.pdf. Accessed 9 Sept 2024.
Hoffmann M. Timeline of and expectations for the national medication list in Sweden. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2023;302:327–31. https://doi.org/10.3233/SHTI230128.
Hammar T, Hellström L, Ericson L. The use of a decision support system in Swedish pharmacies to identify potential drug-related problems—effects of a national intervention focused on reviewing elderly patients’ prescriptions. Pharmacy. 2020;8(3):118. https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmacy8030118
Danish A, Westerlund T, Eriksson T. Use of an electronic expert support system in a Swedish community pharmacy to identify and resolve drug-related problems. Authorea. 2020. https://doi.org/10.22541/au.159050275.56939559.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Ms. Pouran Almstedt for register data management.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
Open access funding provided by Karolinska Institute. This work was supported by funding from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (FORTE) and Riksbankens Jubileumsfond. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest
Tatiana Erhan, Jonas W. Wastesson and Johan Fastbom have declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Availability of Data
The data used for the analyses are based on individual data that cannot be shared due to confidentiality, in accordance with Swedish law and the European Union General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). However, upon reasonable request, additional analyses can be conducted after contact with the corresponding author.
Ethics Approval
This study was approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board in Stockholm (dnr: 2016/1001-31/4; 2017/501-31; 2020-03525; 2021-02004).
Consent to Participate
All data in the SPDR are recorded without written consent from the patients.
Consent for Publication
Not applicable.
Code Availability
Not applicable.
Author Contributions
JF conceived and designed the study and prepared the data. TE analyzed and interpreted the data, and drafted and critically revised the manuscript. JWW and JF interpreted the data and critically revised the manuscript. JF is the guarantor of the study and data integrity. All authors gave approval for the final version of the manuscript and agree to be accountable for all aspects of this work.
Additional information
Tatiana Erhan and Jonas W. Wastesson are co first authors.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Erhan, T., Wastesson, J.W. & Fastbom, J. Trends in Drug Duplications in Swedish Older Adults: A Nationwide Register Study from 2006 to 2021. Drugs Aging 41, 775–781 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-024-01145-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-024-01145-6