4.2 Article

Polypharmacy and frailty: prevalence, relationship, and impact on mortality in a French sample of 2350 old people

期刊

PHARMACOEPIDEMIOLOGY AND DRUG SAFETY
卷 24, 期 6, 页码 637-646

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pds.3772

关键词

aged; frailty; drugs; pharmacoepidemiology; polypharmacy; survival; pharmacoepidemiology

资金

  1. AG2R La Mondiale
  2. Universite Versailles St-Quentin-en-Yvelines

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeTo assess the prevalence of polypharmacy and frailty, to examine their association, and to establish their independent and combined effects on mortality in a sample of French old people. MethodsThis is a cross-sectional population study of people aged 70years and over. A total of 2350 respondents were interviewed at home in 2008-2010. Frailty was defined as impairment in three domains or more among nutrition, energy, physical activity, strength, and mobility, in the absence of difficulties in basic activities of daily living. Mortality data were documented after a mean follow-up period of 2.6years. ResultsMean age of the population was 83.3+/-7.5years, with 59.4% of women. Prevalence of frailty was 17.0%. Polypharmacy (5-9 drugs) was reported in 53.6% of the population, and excessive polypharmacy (10 drugs or more) in 13.8%. After adjustment for socio-demographic and health variables, polypharmacy and excessive polypharmacy were associated with frailty with odds ratio 1.77 [1.20-2.61] and 4.47 [2.37-8.42], respectively. Frailty (hazard ratio [HR] 2.56 [1.63-4.04]) and excessive polypharmacy (HR 1.83 [1.28-2.62]) were independent predictors of mortality. Compared with non-frail people without polypharmacy, frail people with excessive polypharmacy were six times more likely to die during the follow-up period (HR 6.30 [3.09-12.84]). ConclusionBy showing the independent and combined effects of polypharmacy and frailty on mortality risk, this study should reinforce the awareness of clinicians with regard to these factors, rather prevalent in old people. Copyright (c) 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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

4.2
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