4.1 Article

Thyroid function tests before prescribing anti-dementia drugs: a retrospective observational study

Journal

CLINICAL INTERVENTIONS IN AGING
Volume 13, Issue -, Pages 1219-1223

Publisher

DOVE MEDICAL PRESS LTD
DOI: 10.2147/CIA.S168182

Keywords

cognitive dysfunction; drug treatment; guideline adherence; hypothyroidism

Funding

  1. Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development [16dk0207024h0001]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Treatable causcs of cognitive dysfunction, such as hypothyroidism, should be excluded by physicians before prescribing anti-dementia drugs. Many clinical guidelines for dementia recommend a thyroid function test (TFT) as one of the standard screening tests for cognitive dysfunction. This study aimed to investigate the national implementation rate of TFTs during the 365 days before the initiation of anti-dementia drugs. Patients and methods: In this retrospective observational study, using Japan's nationwide claim database, we enrolled <= 65-year-old patients who were newly prescribed anti-dementia drugs between April 2015 and March 2016. The outcome of this study was the implementation of TFTs in the 365 days prior to the index date. We used demographic data, including age, sex, comorbidities, home-based/institutional care, and provider type, as covariates. Results: We identified 262,279 patients newly prescribed anti-dementia drugs; of these, only 32.6% underwent TFTs before the initiation of anti-dementia drug treatment. Patients treated in dementia care centers were twice as likely to undergo TFTs as those treated in clinics (57% vs 26%; adjusted risk ratio: 2.17; 95% confidence interval: 2.01 2.33). Conclusion: In Japan, patients with dementi a often do not undergo T FTs be fore being prescribed anti-dementia drugs, particularly in a primary care setting. This suggests that the practice of screening treatable cognitive dysfunction should be audited.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available