4.1 Article

Potentially inappropriate prescribing for elderly outpatients in Germany: a retrospective claims data analysis

出版社

DUSTRI-VERLAG DR KARL FEISTLE
DOI: 10.5414/CP201441

关键词

Beers criteria; potentially inappropriate medication; Germany; claims data; elderly outpatients

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To quantify the frequency of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) prescribing for outpatients aged 65 years and older using claims data of a German statutory health insurance. Methods: Based on the 2002 Beers criteria for PIM use, a retrospective evaluation of drug prescription data in outpatient care was conducted for the years 2003 and 2004 using data from a German statutory health insurance (AOK) in the area of Saxony. The study was limited to those drugs classified as being potentially inappropriate according to the criteria independent of existing medical conditions and without any restrictions concerning dosage or duration of use, because this information was not available from the data. Results: In 2003, 3.3% (408,375) of all 12,513,584 drug prescriptions for patients 65 years and older which were analyzed included a PIM from the Beers list. In 2004, it was 2.9% (297,524) of 10,126,809 (p < 0.001). The most frequently prescribed PIMs were short-acting nifedipine (13.4%), indomethacin (12.3%) and diazepam (11.8%) in 2003, and diazepam (14.6%) followed by indomethacin (13.7%) and doxazosin (10.9%) in 2004. 21.7% (119,482) and 18.2% (98,465) of patients 65 years or older received at least one prescription of a PIM in 2003 and 2004, respectively (p < 0.001). In a multivariate logistic regression model female gender and a higher number of prescribed drugs were significantly associated with an increased frequency of receiving a PIM in both years. Conclusions: In our study, approximately every 5th older patient was prescribed at least one PIM. For the future an ongoing update of the Beers criteria to further include newer agents and an adaptation to the different situation in European countries is desirable.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据