Clinical relevance of the STOPP/START criteria in hip fracture patients
- PMID: 28050623
- PMCID: PMC5350233
- DOI: 10.1007/s00228-016-2188-9
Clinical relevance of the STOPP/START criteria in hip fracture patients
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical relevance of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs), identified by the STOPP criteria, and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs), identified by the START criteria, and to identify predictors for clinically relevant PIMs and PPOs.
Methods: The STOPP and START criteria were applied on the medication lists of 200 older hip fracture patients, consecutively recruited to a randomized controlled study in 2009. For each identified PIM and/or PPO, the clinical relevance was assessed at the individual level, using medical records from both hospital and primary care as well as data collected in the original study.
Results: A total of 555 PIMs/PPOs were identified in 170 (85%) patients (median age: 85 years, 67% female), 298 (54%) of which, in 141 (71%) patients, were assessed as clinically relevant. A greater proportion of PIMs than PPOs were clinically relevant: 71% (95% CI: 66%; 76%) vs. 32% (27%; 38%). A greater proportion of PPOs than PIMs could not be assessed with available information: 38% (32%; 44%) vs. 22% (17%; 27%). Number of drugs and multidose drug dispensing, but not age, sex, cognition, or nursing home residence, were associated with ≥1 clinically relevant PIMs/PPOs.
Conclusions: The present study illustrates that one in two PIMs/PPOs identified by the STOPP/START criteria is clearly clinically relevant, PIMs being clinically relevant to a greater extent than PPOs. Based on available information, the clinical relevance could not be determined in a non-negligible proportion of PIMs/PPOs. Number of drugs and multidose drug dispensing were associated with ≥1 clinically relevant PIMs/PPOs.
Keywords: Clinical relevance; Pharmacoepidemiology; Prescribing quality; START criteria; STOPP criteria.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Funding
The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council (521-2013-2639) and the Health and Medical Care Committee of the Region Västra Götaland (ALFGBG-428711). The funding sources did not influence the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.
References
-
- Patterson SM, Cadogan CA, Kerse N, Cardwell CR, Bradley MC, Ryan C, Hughes C. Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;10:CD008165. - PubMed
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical
