Affiliation:
1. Cancer, Ageing and Vaccines Research Group, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences RMIT University Bundoora Victoria Australia
2. School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine Monash University Melbourne Victoria Australia
3. Peninsula Clinical School Monash University Melbourne Victoria Australia
4. Hennepin Healthcare Research Institute Hennepin Healthcare Minneapolis Minnesota USA
5. Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine University of Minnesota Minneapolis Minnesota USA
6. Menzies Institute for Medical Research University of Tasmania Hobart Tasmania Australia
7. Discipline of General Practice University of Adelaide Adelaide South Australia Australia
8. Department of Pharmacy Practice and Science, College of Pharmacy and Department of Family Medicine, Carver College of Medicine The University of Iowa Iowa City Iowa USA
Abstract
AbstractBackgroundEfforts to minimize medication risks among older adults include avoidance of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). However, most PIMs research has focused on older people in aged or inpatient care, creating an evidence gap for community‐dwelling older adults. To address this gap, we investigated the impact of PIMs use in the ASPirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) clinical trial cohort.MethodsAnalysis included 19,114 community‐dwelling ASPREE participants aged 70+ years (65+ if US minorities) without major cardiovascular disease, cognitive impairment, or significant physical disability. PIMs were defined according to a modified 2019 AGS Beers Criteria. Cox proportional‐hazards regression models were used to estimate the association between baseline PIMs exposure and disability‐free survival, death, incident dementia, disability, and hospitalization, with adjustment for sex, age, country, years of education, frailty, average gait speed, and comorbidities.ResultsAt baseline, 7396 (39% of the total) participants were prescribed at least one PIM. Compared with those unexposed, participants on a PIM at baseline were at an increased risk of persistent physical disability (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21, 1.80) and hospitalization (adjusted HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.20, 1.32), but had similar rates of disability‐free survival (adjusted HR 1.02; 95% CI 0.93, 1.13) and death (adjusted HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.81, 1.05). These effects did not vary by polypharmacy status in interaction analyses. PIMs exposure was associated with higher risk of disability followed by hospitalization (adjusted HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.25, 2.96) as well as vice versa (adjusted HR 1.54, 95% CI 1.15, 2.05). PPIs, anti‐psychotics and benzodiazepines, were associated with increased risk of disability.ConclusionsPIMs exposure is associated with subsequent increased risk of both incident disability and hospitalization. Increased risk of disability prior to hospitalization suggests that PIMs use may start the disability cascade in healthy older adults. Our findings emphasize the importance of caution when prescribing PIMs to older adults in otherwise good health.
Funder
Monash University
National Health and Medical Research Council
National Institute on Aging
Victorian Cancer Agency
Subject
Geriatrics and Gerontology