Browsing by Author "Dogan, Soner"
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Applicability of EU(7)-PIM criteria in cross-national studies in European countriesPublication . Fialová, Daniela; Brkić, Jovana; Laffon, Blanca; Reissigová, Jindra; Grešáková, Silvia; Dogan, Soner; Doro, Peter; Tasić, Ljiljana; Marinković, Valentina; Valdiglesias, Vanessa; Costa, Solange; Kostřiba, JanBackground: 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.
- Medication use in older patients and age-blind approach: narrative literature review (insufficient evidence on the efficacy and safety of drugs in older age, frequent use of PIMs and polypharmacy, and underuse of highly beneficial nonpharmacological strategies)Publication . Fialová, Daniela; Laffon, Blanca; Marinkovic, Valentina; Tasic, Ljiljana; Doro, Peter; Sóos, Gyongyver; Mota, Jorge; Dogan, Soner; Jovana, Brkic; Teixeira, João Paulo; Valdiglesias, Vanessa; Costa, Solange; EUROAGEISM H2020 project and WG1b group “Healthy clinical strategies for healthy aging” of the EU COST Action IS 1402Introduction: The importance of rational drug therapy is increasing with the aging of the population. Since one of the main reasons for inappropriate drug prescribing is also the “age-blind” approach, which results in ageist practices, this narrative literature review focuses on the description of the main barriers related to insufficient individualization of drug regimens associated with such age-blind approaches. Methodology: A narrative literature review using the PubMed, WoS, Embase, and Scopus databases was conducted by the EU COST Action IS1402. Experts in different scientific fields from six countries (the Czech Republic, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Serbia, and Turkey) worked in four specific areas: (1) underrepresentation of older adults in clinical trials and clinical and ethical consequences; (2) insufficient consideration of age-related changes and geriatric frailty in the evaluation of the therapeutic value of drugs; (3) frequent prescribing of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs); and (4) frequent underuse of highly beneficial nonpharmacological strategies (e.g., exercise). Results: Older patients are underrepresented in clinical trials. Therefore, rigorous observational geriatric research is needed in order to obtain evidence on the real efficacy and safety of frequently used drugs, and e.g. developed geriatric scales and frailty indexes for claims databases should help to stimulate such research. The use of PIMs, unfortunately, is still highly prevalent in Europe: 22.6% in community-dwelling older patients and 49.0% in institutionalized older adults. Specific tests to detect the majority of age-related pharmacological changes are usually not available in everyday clinical practice, which limits the estimation of drug risks and possibilities to individualize drug therapy in geriatric patients before drug prescription. Moreover, the role of some nonpharmacological strategies is highly underestimated in older adults in contrast to frequent use of polypharmacy. Among nonpharmacological strategies, particularly physical exercise was highly effective in reducing functional decline, frailty, and the risk of falls in the majority of clinical studies. Conclusion: Several regulatory and clinical barriers contribute to insufficient knowledge on the therapeutic value of drugs in older patients, age-blind approach, and inappropriate prescribing. New clinical and observational research is needed, including data on comprehensive geriatric assessment and frailty, to document the real efficacy and safety of frequently used medications.