Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics · 2019
Potentially inappropriate medications with risk of cardiovascular adverse events in the elderly: A systematic review of tools addressing inappropriate prescribing.
СтатьяСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Aguiar João Pedro, Brito Ana Mafalda, Martins Ana Paula, Leufkens Hubert G M, Alves da Costa Filipa
Аннотация
WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: In the last decades, many lists have been developed to screen for inappropriate prescribing. However, information on which potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) could increase the cardiovascular risk in the elderly is not objectively presented. This review aimed to identify and quantify those PIMs by extracting information from published PIM-lists.
METHODS: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA), a systematic review of PIM-lists was conducted. The search strategy was run in PubMed, MEDLINE and Google Scholar (1991-09/2017). All PIMs described in those lists were extracted and stratified by their potential cardiovascular risk (including major adverse cardiovascular events-MACE). The number of times each PIM was reported on those lists was also assessed.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We identified 724 papers, and 24 were retained. From those, a total of 17 PIMs to be avoided by the elderly and 21 drug-disease interactions were retrieved. The reporting of PIMs with risk of cardiovascular adverse events was 15.3%, whereas the reporting of those with MACE risk was 7.2%. PIMs most frequently described were tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs; 12/24), centrally acting antiadrenergic agents (11/24), NSAIDs (7/24), antiarrhythmics (Class I and III; 6/24), peripherally acting antiadrenergic agents (6/24) and antithrombotic agents (5/24). Most frequently described PIMs with MACE risk were NSAIDs (7/24), antiarrhythmics (Class I and III) (7/24), selective calcium channel blockers with vascular effects (6/24) and antipsychotics (4/24).
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Data suggest that PIM-lists focus mainly on common adverse events and often poorly describe the potential consequence for MACE occurrence. This systematic review could help healthcare professionals in the identification and deprescribing of these medicines in older patients with high cardiovascular risk during medication review.
METHODS: In accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA), a systematic review of PIM-lists was conducted. The search strategy was run in PubMed, MEDLINE and Google Scholar (1991-09/2017). All PIMs described in those lists were extracted and stratified by their potential cardiovascular risk (including major adverse cardiovascular events-MACE). The number of times each PIM was reported on those lists was also assessed.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We identified 724 papers, and 24 were retained. From those, a total of 17 PIMs to be avoided by the elderly and 21 drug-disease interactions were retrieved. The reporting of PIMs with risk of cardiovascular adverse events was 15.3%, whereas the reporting of those with MACE risk was 7.2%. PIMs most frequently described were tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs; 12/24), centrally acting antiadrenergic agents (11/24), NSAIDs (7/24), antiarrhythmics (Class I and III; 6/24), peripherally acting antiadrenergic agents (6/24) and antithrombotic agents (5/24). Most frequently described PIMs with MACE risk were NSAIDs (7/24), antiarrhythmics (Class I and III) (7/24), selective calcium channel blockers with vascular effects (6/24) and antipsychotics (4/24).
WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: Data suggest that PIM-lists focus mainly on common adverse events and often poorly describe the potential consequence for MACE occurrence. This systematic review could help healthcare professionals in the identification and deprescribing of these medicines in older patients with high cardiovascular risk during medication review.