for the EUROAGEISM H2020 project and WG1b group BHealthy clinical strategies for healthy aging^of the EU COST Action IS 1402

Few studies have been conducted on multimorbidity (two or more chronic diseases) and rational geriatric prescribing in Africa. This study examined the prevalence and determinants of multimorbidity, polypharmacy (five or more long-term medications), and potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use according to the 2019 Beers criteria among the older adults attending chronic care clinics from a single institution in Ethiopia. A hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 320 randomly selected older adults from 12 March 2020 to 30 August 2020. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the predictor variables. The prevalence of multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and PIM exposure was 59.1%, 24.1%, and 47.2%, respectively. Diuretics (10%), insulin sliding scale (8.8%), amitriptyline (7.8%), and aspirin (6.9%) were among the most frequently prescribed PIMs. Older patients experiencing pain flare-ups were more likely to have multimorbidity (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.64, 95% confidence intervals: 1.13–2.39). Persistent anger (AOR: 3.33; 1.71–6.47) and use of mobility aids (AOR: 2.41, 1.35–4.28) were associated with polypharmacy. Moreover, cognitive impairment (AOR: 1.65, 1.15–2.34) and health deterioration (AOR: 1.61, 1.11–2.32) increased the likelihood of PIM exposure. High prevalence of multimorbidity and PIM use was observed in Ethiopia. Several important determinants that can be modified by applying PIM criteria in routine practice were also identified.

Background Benzodiazepines (BZDs) and Z-drugs have high potential for developing frequent adverse drug events in older adults (e.g., psychomotor sedation, drug-related dementia, deliria, drug dependence, etc.). Knowledge of the prevalence and patterns of the use of BZDs/Z-drugs in vulnerable older patients is important in order to prevent and reduce the burden caused by their drug-related complications. Our study focused on international comparisons of the prevalence, country-specific prescribing patterns and risk factors of regular BZD/Z-drug use in nursing home (NH) residents. Methods This cross-sectional study retrospectively analysed data of 4156 NH residents, prospectively assessed in the Services and Health in the Elderly in Long TERm care (SHELTER) project conducted from 2009 to 2014. Residents aged 65+ in 57 NHs in 7 European countries and Israel were assessed by the InterRAI Long-Term Care Facilities instrument. Descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression models were used to describe the country-specific prevalence, patterns and risk factors of BZD/Z-drug use. Results The mean age of the participants was 83.4 ± 9.4 years, 73% were female and 27.7% used BZDs/Z-drugs. The prevalence of BZD/Z-drug use differed significantly across countries, ranging from 44.1% in Israel to 14.5% in Germany. The most frequently prescribed were zopiclone (17.8%), lorazepam (17.1%) and oxazepam (16.3%). Lorazepam, oxazepam and diazepam were used in most of the countries. Brotizolam, temazepam and zolpidem showed highest prevalence in Israel (99.4% of all regular users of this medication in the sample), the Netherlands (72.6%) and France (50.0%), respectively. Residing in Israel was the most significant factor associated with the use of BZDs/Z-drugs or BZDs only (odds ratio [OR] 6.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.8–9.2 and OR 9.7, 95%CI 6.5–14.5, respectively). The use of Z-drugs only was most significantly associated with residing in France (OR 21.0, 95%CI 9.0–48.9). Conclusions Despite global recommendations and warnings, the preference for and extent of use of individual BZDs and Z-drugs in vulnerable NH residents differ significantly across countries. The strong association with country of residence compared to clinical and functional factors denotes that prescribing habits, social, cultural, behavioural, and regulatory factors still play an important role in the current diverse use of these medications.

Background: The European Union (EU)(7)-PIM (potentially inappropriate medication) list presents the most comprehensive and up-to-date tool for evaluation of PIM prescribing in Europe; however, several country-specific studies have documented lower specificity of this list on pharmaceutical markets of some countries. The aim of our study was to describe approval rates and marketing of PIMs stated by EU(7)-PIM criteria in six EU countries [in comparison with the American Geriatric Society (AGS) Beers 2015 criteria]. Methods: Research teams of six EU countries (Czech Republic, Spain, Portugal, Serbia, Hungary and Turkey) participated in this study conducted by WG1b EU COST Action IS1402 group in the period October 2015–November 2018. Data on approval rates of PIMs and their availability on pharmaceutical markets have been obtained from databases of national drug-regulatory institutes and up-to-date drug compendia. The EU(7)-PIM list and AGS Beers 2015 Criteria (Section 1) were applied. Results: PIMs from EU(7)-PIM list were approved for clinical use more often than those from the AGS Beers 2015 criteria (Section 1). Approval rates for EU(7)-PIMs ranged from 42.8% in Serbia to 71.4% in Spain (for AGS criteria only from 36.4% to 65.1%, respectively). Higher percentages of approved PIMs were documented in Spain (71.4%), Portugal (67.1%) and Turkey (67.5%), lower in Hungary (55.5%), Czech Republic (50.2%) and Serbia (42.8%). The majority of approved PIMs were also currently marketed in all countries except in Turkey (19.8–21.7% not marketed PIMs) and less than 20% of PIMs were available as over-the-counter medications (except in Turkey, 46.4–48.1%). Conclusions: The EU(7)-PIM list was created for utilization in European studies; however, applicability of this list is still limited in some countries, particularly in Eastern and Central Europe. The EU project EUROAGEISM H2020 (2017–2021) that focuses on PIM prescribing and regulatory measures in Central and Eastern European countries must consider these limits.

We aimed to systematically review the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in older adults in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in all care settings. We searched Embase and MEDLINE (up to June 2019) and checked the reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews. Eligible studies used validated explicit or implicit tools to assess the PIP prevalence in older adults in CEE. All study designs were considered, except case‒control studies and case series. We assessed the risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was inappropriate due to heterogeneity in the outcome measurements. Therefore, we used the synthesis without meta-analysis approach—summarizing effect estimates method. This review included twenty-seven studies with 139,693 participants. Most studies were cross-sectional and conducted in high-income countries. The data synthesis across 26 studies revealed the PIP prevalence: the median was 34.6%, the interquartile range was 25.9–63.2%, and the range was 6.5–95.8%. The certainty of this evidence was very low due to the risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. These findings show that PIP is a prevalent issue in the CEE region. Further well-designed studies conducted across countries are needed to strengthen the existing evidence and increase the generalizability of findings.