Original ArticlePolypharmacy, defined as taking five or more drugs, is inadequate in the cardiovascular setting
Introduction
Population aging is associated with an increased frequency of multimorbidity and evidence-based guidelines recommend using several drugs in the treatment of a single condition. Both phenomena have made medication therapy particularly challenging as a growing number of patients take several drugs, which is referred to as polypharmacy [1], [2], [3].
Although the term polypharmacy has been used for decades, a precise definition is lacking. The cutoff points, methods, and settings for exploring polypharmacy vary widely [4], [5]. Most studies used a cutoff point of five or more drugs to define polypharmacy [6], [7]. A definition based on the number of units or of pharmacologically active ingredients remains an open debate. Indeed, the emergence of drugs combining two or more pharmacologically active ingredients (e.g., polypill for cardiovascular diseases [CVDs] prevention) might change the concept of polypharmacy. By how much polypharmacy (defined by number of drugs) differs from polyactive ingredients (defined by the number of pharmacologically active ingredients) has not been assessed.
Thus, this study aimed to compare the prevalence and 10-year trends of polypharmacy vs. polyactive ingredients among community-dwelling subjects taking CV medicines.
Section snippets
Study population and design
The CoLaus study is an ongoing prospective survey investigating the biological and genetic determinants of CV risk factors and CVD in the population of Lausanne, Switzerland. Detailed descriptions of the study design have been reported elsewhere [8]. A simple, nonstratified random sample of the Lausanne population aged 35–75 years was drawn. Recruitment began in June 2003 and ended in May 2006 and included 6,733 participants, with a participation rate of 41%. The follow-up was conducted
Participants
Of the 1,332 participants eligible for the study (taking CV drugs), 880 (66.0%, 441 men) were included (Fig. 1). Included participants were younger, more frequently born in Switzerland and had a higher prevalence of former smokers, although no differences were found regarding gender or alcohol consumption Supplemental Table 2.
Trends in prevalence of polypharmacy, polyactive ingredient, and cardiovascular drug combinations
The trends in the number of drugs, pharmacologically active ingredients, and prevalence of polypharmacy, polyactive ingredient use, and CV drug combinations at baseline
Discussion
In 10 years, the prevalence of both polypharmacy and polyactive ingredient increased among community-dwelling CV patients. If at baseline, the prevalences of polypharmacy and polyactive ingredient were rather close, 10 years afterward the prevalence of polyactive ingredient was significantly higher than the prevalence of polypharmacy. Furthermore, at follow-up, a significant number of participants taking five or more pharmacologically active drugs were not considered as being on polypharmacy.
Conclusion
Among individuals taking CV drugs, polypharmacy as defined by the number of drugs underestimates the prevalence of individuals taking five or more pharmacologically active ingredients. Polypharmacy should be counted as the number of pharmacologically active ingredient.
Acknowledgments
Authors' contributions: N.A. suggested the topic and wrote most of the article; P.M.V. collected data, made the statistical analysis, and reviewed the article for important intellectual content. P.M.V. had full access to the data and is the guarantor of the study. Both authors have read and approved the final version of the article.
References (14)
- et al.
Polypharmacy cutoff and outcomes: five or more medicines were used to identify community-dwelling older men at risk of different adverse outcomes
J Clin Epidemiol
(2012) - et al.
A polypill strategy to improve adherence: results from the FOCUS project
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2014) - et al.
Geographic region and racial variations in polypharmacy in the United States
Ann Epidemiol
(2015) - et al.
Polypharmacy as commonly defined is an indicator of limited value in the assessment of drug-related problems
Br J Clin Pharmacol
(2007) Healthy ageing: ageing safely
Eur Heart J
(2001)- et al.
Complexity in caring for an ageing heart failure population: concomitant chronic conditions and age related impairments
Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs
(2004) - et al.
Antipsychotic monotherapy and polypharmacy in the naturalistic treatment of schizophrenia with atypical antipsychotics
BMC Psychiatry
(2005)
Cited by (13)
Drug-related Problems in Home-dwelling Older Adults: A Systematic Review
2020, Clinical TherapeuticsCitation Excerpt :Coding systems are critical tools to register DRPs, and thus it was expected that all studies would mention the coding system used; however, three studies failed to report it.14,16,22 The included studies suggested that the number of medicines is associated with increased difficulty in the management of medicines by patients; however, studies performed in different settings failed the attempt to relate the number of drugs used to the risk of undesirable health outcomes.28,29 Older adults are more likely to have multiple medical problems, multiple medications, and cognitive impairment, and these factors can predispose to the occurrence of DRPs.
Polypharmacy: A general review of definitions, descriptions and determinants
2019, TherapieCitation Excerpt :The emergence of fixed drug combinations with two or more pharmacologically active substances, especially polypills for cardiovascular diseases prevention, should be considered when determining the threshold. Taking into account the number of these active substances, instead of the number of drug packaging boxes, seems to be more biologically plausible to measure polypharmacy [15]. Patients’ characteristics such as age or living conditions (home, nursing home, etc.) imply different thresholds of the number of drugs to consider polypharmacy as clinically significant [8].
Utilization of drugs for the management of cardiovascular diseases at intermediate care facilities for older adults in Japan
2020, Archives of Gerontology and GeriatricsCitation Excerpt :Drugs prescribed for regular use were considered in the analysis; those used only when needed were excluded. Pharmacologically active drugs, such as those prescribed to manage CVDs (Abolhassani & Marques-Vidal, 2018) and some other conditions (e.g., analgesics), in combination formulations were counted individually; however, multi-ingredient preparations such as cold medications, vitamins, enzymes, and Kampo medicine (Japanese traditional medicine) were counted as one drug. Age, sex, and diagnoses at admission were evaluated.
Evaluation of medication use and polypharmacy in postoperative cardiac patients: The clinical pharmacist's imperative in a public institute of Pakistan
2024, Pakistan Journal of Pharmaceutical SciencesPrevalence of polypharmacy among older adults in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
2023, Scientific ReportsDrug prescribing changes in the last year of life among homebound older adults: national retrospective cohort study
2022, BMJ Supportive and Palliative Care
Conflict of interest: The authors report no conflict of interest.
Ethical statement and consent: The institutional Ethics Committee of the University of Lausanne, which afterward became the Ethics Commission of Canton Vaud, approved the baseline CoLaus study (reference 16/03, decisions of 13th January and 10th February 2003); the approval was renewed for the second (reference 26/14, decision of 11th March 2014) follow-up. The study was performed in agreement with the Helsinki declaration and in accordance with the applicable Swiss legislation. All participants gave their signed informed consent before entering the study.
Funding: The CoLaus study was and is supported by research grants from GlaxoSmithKline, the Faculty of Biology and Medicine of Lausanne, and the Swiss National Science Foundation (grants 33CSCO-122661, 33CS30-139468 and 33CS30-148401). N.A. is supported by an excellence scholarship from the Swiss Federal Government (Reference No. 2016.1098). The funding sources had no contribution to the study design, analysis, and interpretation, as well as writing the report and decision to submit the article for publication.