4.7 Article

Number and Dosage of Central Nervous System Medications on Recurrent Falls in Community Elders: The Health, Aging and Body Composition Study

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/gerona/gln043

关键词

Aged; Falls; Central nervous system medications

资金

  1. National Institute of Aging [R01AG027017, P30AG024827, N01-AG-6-2101, N01-AG-6-2103, N01-AG-6-2106]
  2. National Institutes of Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Few studies have examined the risk of multiple or high doses of combined central nervous system (CNS) medication use for recurrent falls in the elderly. The study objective was to evaluate whether multiple- or high-dose CNS medication use in older adults was associated with a higher risk of recurrent (>= 2) falls. This longitudinal cohort study included 3,055 participants from the Health, Aging and Body Composition study who were well functioning at baseline. CNS medication use (benzodiazepine and opioid receptor agonists, antipsychotics, antidepressants) was determined annually (except Year 4) during in-person interviews. The number and summated standard daily doses (SDDs; low, medium, and high) of CNS medications were computed. Falls 1 year later were ascertained annually for 5 years. For a period of 5 years, as many as 24.1% of CNS medication users took 2+ agents annually, whereas as no more than 18.9% of CNS medication users took high doses annually (3+ SDDs). Yearly, as many as 9.7% of participants reported recurrent falls. Multivariable Generalized Estimating Equation analyses showed that multiple CNS medication users compared with never users had an increased risk of sustaining 2+ falls (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.35-2.81). Those taking high (3+) CNS SDDs also exhibited an increased risk of 2+ falls (adjusted OR 2.89; 95% CI 1.96-4.25). Higher total daily doses of CNS medications were associated with recurrent falls. Further studies are needed to determine the impact of reducing the number of CNS medications and/or dosage on recurrent falls.

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

4.7
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