4.7 Article

Sedative Load and Frailty Among Community-Dwelling Population Aged ≥65 Years

Journal

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2014.10.010

Keywords

Sedative load; frailty; drug utilization; aging; frailty index

Funding

  1. Irish Life [D02155]
  2. Atlantic Philanthropies [D02175]
  3. Irish Government Department of Health and Children [G01529]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To explore the association between use of sedative drugs and frailty. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting: First wave of The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (TILDA), a nationally representative cohort of the community-dwelling population aged 50 years or older in Ireland. Participants: Participants were 1642 men and 1804 women aged 65 years or older. Measurements: Regular use of sedative drugs determined according to the sedative load (SL) model, frailty phenotype status, and frailty deficit index (FI) score assessed using validated, established protocols. Results: Overall, 19% of the participants took sedative drugs, most frequently hypnotics and antidepressants. Sedative drug use was at 46% for frail, 23% for prefrail, and 9% for nonfrail participants. After adjustment for covariates, SL was positively associated with being prefrail (odds ratio [OR] 1.27; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-1.46) and frail (OR 1.30; 95% CI 1.02-1.64). Advancing age but not sex remained significant (P < .001). After adjustment for covariates, the association between SL and the FI was also significant at P <= .001 (beta = 1.77; 95% CI 1.13-2.42). Conclusion: Higher SL was positively associated with phenotype frailty and the FI. This suggests that careful consideration must be given when prescribing sedatives to frail older adults, who are most vulnerable to adverse drug reactions and adverse health outcomes. (C) 2015 AMDA - The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available