4.5 Article

Comorbidity in the elderly with diabetes: Identification of areas of potential treatment conflicts

期刊

DIABETES RESEARCH AND CLINICAL PRACTICE
卷 87, 期 3, 页码 385-393

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabres.2009.10.019

关键词

Diabetes; Comorbidity; Inappropriate prescribing; Elderly; Polypharmacy

资金

  1. Australian Research Council/National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims: To investigate the prevalence of comorbid conditions in the elderly with diabetes and the prescribing of potentially inappropriate medicines or treatment conflicts. Methods: A cross-sectional study of diabetics aged >= 65 years, using prescription dispensing data from the Australian Department of Veterans' Affairs. Comorbidities were determined using the comorbidity index Rx-Risk-V. Potentially inappropriate prescribing or treatment conflicts specific for the elderly were determined from guidelines or reference compendia, in addition to the 2003 updated Beers criteria. Results: Of 18,968 diabetics, the median number of comorbidities was 5 (IQR 3-8). Diabetes and associated cardiovascular medicines accounted for 41.9% of all medicine use. Associated cardiovascular diseases were highly prevalent comorbidities. 46% had gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, 25% depression, 20% chronic airways disease or chronic pain and 15% also had heart failure or inflammation-pain. At least 16% were dispensed a medicine associated with adverse effects in patients with diabetes and 22.7% were dispensed at least one potentially inappropriate medicine. Conclusion: Significant comorbid conditions in elderly diabetic patients with potential for inappropriate prescribing or treatment conflicts include arthritis, heart failure, chronic airways diseases and diseases treatable with systemic corticosteroids. Appropriate management of comorbidity should be included in guidelines for the elderly with diabetes. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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