Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Die PRISCUS-Liste im klinischen Test

Praktikabilität und Vergleich mit internationalen PIM-Listen

The PRISCUS list in clinical routine

Practicability and comparison to international PIM lists

  • Originalarbeit
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für Gerontologie und Geriatrie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Hintergrund

Bestimmte Arzneistoffe gelten als potenziell ungeeignet für geriatrische Patienten; auf ihren Einsatz sollte möglichst verzichtet werden. Potenziell inadäquate Medikationen (PIM) wurden zu unterschiedlichen PIM-Listen zusammengefasst. 2010 erschien die deutsche PRISCUS-Liste. Ziel der vorliegenden Untersuchung ist die Bewertung der PRISCUS-Liste im Vergleich mit internationalen PIM-Listen.

Material und Methoden

Basierend auf ausgewählten PIM-Listen (PRISCUS, STOPP/START, Beers) wurde die Medikation von 308 Patienten einer geriatrischen Rehabilitationsklinik auf PIM untersucht. Einschlusskriterium der Patienten war ein Alter von  ≥ 65 Jahren.

Ergebnisse

Bezüglich ermittelter PIM unterlag die PRISCUS-Liste quantitativ den STOPP-Kriterien. Während des Aufenthalts erhielt jeder Patient durchschnittlich 1,2 PIM gemäß STOPP-Kriterien und 0,5 PIM nach der PRISCUS-Liste. Die geringste Anzahl lieferte die Beers-Liste (0,4 PIM).

Schlussfolgerung

Vom Einsatz der Beers-Liste sollte wegen der fehlenden Anpassung an den deutschen Arzneimittelmarkt abgesehen werden. Eine Anpassung der PRISCUS-Liste um diagnoseabhängige STOPP-Kriterien könnte dazu beitragen, Therapieerfolg und Arzneimitteltherapiesicherheit bei geriatrischen Patienten wesentlich zu verbessern.

Abstract

Background

Certain drugs are classified as potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) for the elderly. In 2010, the PRISCUS list was published, specifically designed for its applicability in the German pharmaceutical market. The aim of this study was to evaluate the PRISCUS list compared to international PIM lists.

Methods

Based on selected PIM lists (PRISCUS, STOPP/START, Beers), the medications of 308 patients at a clinic of geriatric rehabilitation were screened for PIMs. Applying START criteria, omission of indicated drug therapies was detected.

Results

Regarding the rate of PIM detection, the PRISCUS list was less sensitive than the application of STOPP criteria. While hospitalized, the mean number of administered PIMs per patient was 1.2 based on STOPP criteria and 0.5 based on the PRISCUS list. The lowest number of PIMs per patient was detected by applying the Beers list (0.4 PIMs).

Conclusion

The Beers list should not be used in the German pharmaceutical market. The amendment of diagnosis-related STOPP criteria to the PRISCUS list would be useful to significantly advance therapeutic success and drug safety in the elderly.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. Ackerman SJ, Knight T, Schein J et al (2004) Risk of constipation in patients prescribed fentanyl transdermal system or oxycodone hydrochloride controlled-release in a California medicaid population. Consult Pharm 19:118–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Azermai M, Elseviers M, Petrovic M et al (2011) Geriatric drug utilisation of psychotropics in Belgian nursing homes. Hum Psychopharmacol Clin Exp 26:12–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Barry PJ, Gallagher P, Ryan C, O’Mahony D (2007) START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment). An evidence-based screening tool to detect prescribing omissions in elderly patients. Age Ageing 36:628–631

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beers MH (1997) Explicit criteria for determining potentially inappropriate medication use by the elderly. Arch Intern Med 157:1531–1536

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Chitturi S, George J (2002) Hepatotoxicity of commonly used-drugs: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antihypertensives, antidiabetic agents, anticonvulsants, lipid-lowering agents, psychotropic drugs. Semin Liver Dis 22:169–183

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Clark RF, Wei EM, Anderson PO (1995) Meperidine: therapeutic use and toxicity. J Emerg Med 13:797–802

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Fialová D, Topinková E, Gambassi G et al (2005)Potentially inappropriate medication use among elderly home care patients in Europe. JAMA 293:1348–1358

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Fick DM, Cooper JW, Wade W (2003) Updating the Beers criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults-results of a US consensus panel of experts. Arch Intern Med 163:2716–2724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Gallagher P, Ryan C, Byrne S, O’Mahony D (2008) STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Person’s Prescriptions) and START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment). Consensus validation. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 46:72–83

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Golden AG, Ma Q, Nair V et al (2010) Risk for fractures with centrally acting muscle relaxants: an analysis of a national medicare advantage claims database. Ann Pharmacother 44:1369–1375

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Harirforoosh S, Jamali F (2009) Renal adverse effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Expert Opin Drug Saf 8:669–681

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Holt S, Schmiedl S, Thürmann PA (2010) Potentiell inadäquate Medikation für ältere Menschen: die PRISCUS-Liste. Dtsch Arztebl Int 107:543–551

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Klotz U (2009) Pharmacokinetics and drug metabolism in the elderly. Drug Metab Rev 41:67–76

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kyle CJ, Petersen HE, Overø KF (1998) Comparison of the tolerability and efficacy of citalopram and amitriptyline in elderly depressed patients treated in general practice. Depress Anxiety 8:147–153

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Lader MH (1999) Limitations on use of benzodiazepines in anxiety and insomnia: are they justified? Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 9(Suppl 6):399–405

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Landi F, Onder G, Cesari M et al (2005) Psychotropic medications and risk for falls among community-dwelling frail older people: an observational study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 60:622–626

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Mangoni AA, Jackson SHD (2003) Age-related changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: basic principles and practical applications. Br J Clin Pharmacol 57:6–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Mitra R (2011) Adverse effects of corticosteroids on bone metabolism: a review. PMR 3:466–471

    Google Scholar 

  19. Montgomery P, Lilly J (2007) Insomnia in the elderly. Clin Evid 5(online):pii2302

    Google Scholar 

  20. Rhalimi M, Helou R, Jaecker P (2009) Medication use and increased risk of falls in hospitalized elderly patients: a retrospective, case-control study. Drugs Aging 26:847–852

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Spanemberg L, Nogueira EL, Silva CT da et al (2011) High prevalence and prescription of benzodiazepines for elderly: data from psychiatric consultation to patients from an emergency room of a general hospital. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 33:45–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Tinetti M (2003) Preventing falls in elderly persons. N Eng J Med 348:42–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Vale N, Nordmann AJ, Schwartz GG et al (2011) Statins for acute coronary syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 6:CD006870

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Van den Akker NM, Buntinx F, Knottnerus A (1996) Comorbidity or multimorbidity: what‚s in a name? A review of the literature. Eur J Gen Pract 2:65–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Wehling M (2008) Arzneimitteltherapie im Alter: Zu viel und zu wenig, was tun? Ein neues Bewertungssystem: fit for the aged (FORTA). Dtsch Med Wochenschr 133:2289–2291

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt für sich und seine Koautoren an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Danksagung

Diese Untersuchung wurde von der Apothekerstiftung Westfalen-Lippe in Rahmen einer Projektförderung unterstützt.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. St. Franziskus-Hospital Münster, Hohenzollernring 72, 48145, Münster, Deutschland

    S. Siebert &  M. Smollich

  2. Klinik für Geriatrische Rehabilitation Maria Frieden Telgte, Telgte, Deutschland

    B. Elkeles

  3. Institut für Pharmazeutische und Medizinische Chemie, Klinische Pharmazie, Münster, Deutschland

    G. Hempel & J. Kruse

Authors
  1. S. Siebert
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Elkeles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. G. Hempel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Kruse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Smollich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. Smollich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Siebert, S., Elkeles, B., Hempel, G. et al. Die PRISCUS-Liste im klinischen Test. Z Gerontol Geriat 46, 35–47 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-012-0324-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00391-012-0324-4

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation