A comparative analysis of medication counting methods to assess polypharmacy in medico-administrative databases.

BACKGROUND: The variety of methods for counting medications may lead to confusion when attempting to compare the extent of polypharmacy across different populations. OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence estimates of polypharmacy derived from medico-administrative databases, using different methods for counting medications. METHODS: Data were drawn from the Québec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System. A random sample of 110,000 individuals aged >65 was selected, including only those who were alive and covered by the public drug plan during the one-year follow-up. We used six methods to count medications: #1-cumulative one-year count, #2-average of four quarters' cumulative counts, #3-count on a single day, #4-count of medications used in first and fourth quarters, #5-count weighted by duration of exposure, and #6-count of uninterrupted medication use. Polypharmacy was defined as ≥5 medications. Cohen's Kappa was calculated to assess the level of agreement between the methods. RESULTS: A total of 93,516 (85 %) individuals were included. The prevalence of polypharmacy varied across methods. The highest prevalence was observed with cumulative methods (#1:74.1 %; #2:61.4 %). Single day count (#3:47.6 %), first and fourth quarters count (#4:49.5 %), and weighted count (#5:46.6 %) yielded similar results. The uninterrupted use count yielded the lowest estimate (#6:35.4 %). The weighted method (#5) showed strong agreement with the first and fourth quarters count (#4). Cumulative methods identified higher proportions of younger, less multimorbid individuals compared to other methods. CONCLUSION: Counting methods significantly affect polypharmacy prevalence estimates, necessitating their consideration when comparing and interpretating results.

Evidence-based data for newly approved medications' use in older adults: An analysis from clinical trials to monographs.

BACKGROUND: Older adults have historically been excluded from clinical trials, limiting evidence-based data. An updated picture of the situation with newly marketed medications is needed. We aimed to describe (1) the recommendations specific to older adults in monographs of newly marketed medications; (2) the representation of older adults in clinical trials of those medications. METHODS: In November 2020, we listed all medications that received a notice of compliance from Health Canada between January 2006 and September 2020, excluding those with indications irrelevant to community-dwelling older adults and locally acting medications. We assessed the availability and clarity of recommendations in monographs regarding older adults. Using Clinicaltrials.gov, we identified randomized controlled double-blind Phase III-IV trials led in Canada/United States of a sample of 30 commonly used medications among those previously listed. We extracted information on study design, participants, and efficacy/safety analysis specific to older patients. We used simple linear regression and Chi-square/Fisher's exact tests to analyze time trends in the representation of older adults over different periods. RESULTS: A total of 195 monographs were included. Of the 130 monographs reporting a dosing recommendation in older adults, 53 (41%) also reported limited/insufficient data in this population or its subgroups. Of the 373 trials included, 217 (58%) did not integrate a maximum age as an inclusion criterion. However, only 113 (30%) reported including a proportion of older adults representative (or over-representative) of the Canadian older population. Most trials (n = 289; 78%) did not provide efficacy or safety data specific to older adults. In our sample, the number/proportion of older adults in trials seemed to be increasingly reported over time, either explicitly or implicitly (e.g., inclusion criterion specifies <65 years old). CONCLUSIONS: Newly marketed medications still appear to under-represent older adults. The resulting lack of clear recommendations in monographs compromises evidence-based practice, thereby perpetuating the risk to older adults' health.

How does deprescribing (not) reduce mortality? A review of a meta-analysis in community-dwelling older adults casts uncertainty over claimed benefits.

Some meta-analyses suggest that deprescribing may reduce mortality. Our aim was to determine the underlying factors contributing to this observed reduction. We analysed data from 12 randomized controlled trials included in the latest meta-analysis on deprescribing in community-dwelling older adults. Our analysis focused on deprescribed medications and potential methodological concerns. Only a third (4/12) of the trials aimed to study mortality, and that too as a secondary outcome. Five trials reported a reduction in total medications, potentially inappropriate medications or drug-related problems. Information on specific classes of deprescribed medications was limited, although a wide array was concerned (e.g., antihypertensive, sedative, gastro-intestinal medications and vitamins). Follow-up periods were ≤1 year in 11 trials, and five trials included ≤150 participants. Small sample sizes often resulted in imbalanced groups (e.g., comorbidities, number of potentially inappropriate medications), yet no trials presented multivariable analyses. In the two trials with the most weight in the meta-analysis, several deaths occurred before the intervention, making it difficult to draw conclusions about the impact of the deprescribing intervention on mortality. These methodological issues cast significant uncertainty on the benefits of deprescribing on mortality outcomes. Large-scale, well-designed trials are needed to address this issue effectively.

Intracorporeal versus extracorporeal anastomosis in laparoscopic right hemicolectomy: a retrospective cohort study of anastomotic complications.

PURPOSE: Laparoscopic right hemicolectomy (LRH) can be performed with an intracorporeal anastomosis (IA) or extracorporeal anastomosis (EA). It is not clear which technique is best. This study evaluated the impact of each anastomosis technique on perioperative safety and postoperative evolution. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study at a tertiary colorectal surgery center. All patients who had an elective LRH from 2015 to 2019 were analyzed according to the anastomosis technique used. RESULTS: In total, 285 patients were included in the study. IA was performed in 64 patients (22.5%). Mean operative time was longer in the patients with IA (IA, 160±31 minutes vs. EA, 138±42 minutes; P<0.001). No differences were observed in intraoperative complications, time to first bowel movement, length of stay, reoperation, or rehospitalization. Time to first flatus was longer in the patients with IA (P=0.049). At 30 days after surgery, there were no differences in the frequency of anastomotic leak (IA, 0% vs. EA, 2.3%; P=0.59), bleeding (IA, 3.1% vs. EA, 2.7%; P>0.99), or intraabdominal abscess (IA, 0% vs. EA, 0.5%; P>0.99). During follow-up, we noted more incisional hernias in patients with EA (IA, 1.6% vs. EA, 11.3%; P=0.01) and a trend toward more hernia in patients with EA in multivariate analysis (hazard ratio, 7.13; P=0.06). Anastomosis technique had no influence on recurrence. CONCLUSION: For LRH, both IA and EA are safe, with a low incidence of complications when performed by experienced surgeons. IA may be associated with a lower incidence of incisional hernia.