Home › Research › Clinical safety
Adverse drug reactions in special populations - the elderly
Davies EA, O'Mahony MS.. British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2015-05-22
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
The International Conference on Harmonization considers older people a 'special population', as they differ from younger adults in terms of comorbidity, polypharmacy, pharmacokinetics and greater vulnerability to adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Medical practice is often based on single disease guidelines derived from clinical trials that have not included frail older people or those with multiple morbidities. This presents a challenge caring for older people, as drug doses in trials may not be achievable in real world patients and risks of ADRs are underestimated in clinical trial populations. The majority of ADRs in older people are Type A, potentially avoidable and associated with commonly prescribed medications. Several ADRs are particularly associated with major adverse consequences in the elderly and their reduction is therefore a clinical priority. Falls are strongly associated with benzodiazepines, neuroleptics, antidepressants and antihypertensives. There is good evidence for medication review as part of a multifactorial intervention to reduce falls risk in community dwelling elderly. Multiple medications also contribute to delirium, another multifactorial syndrome resulting in excess mortality particularly in frail older people. Clostridium difficile associated with use of broad spectrum antibiotics mainly affects frail older people and results in prolonged hospital stay with substantial morbidity and mortality. Antipsychotics increase the risk of stroke by more than three-fold in patients with dementia. Inappropriate prescribing can be reduced by adherence to prescribing guidelines, suitable monitoring and regular medication review. Given the heterogeneity within the older population, providing individualized care is pivotal to preventing ADRs.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Davies, E. A., & O'Mahony, M. S. (2015). Adverse drug reactions in special populations - the elderly. British journal of clinical pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.12596
Vancouver
Davies EA, O'Mahony MS. Adverse drug reactions in special populations - the elderly. British journal of clinical pharmacology. 2015. doi:10.1111/bcp.12596. PMID: 25619317.
BibTeX
@article{davies2015-25619317,
author = {Davies, E. A. and O'Mahony, M. S.},
title = {{Adverse drug reactions in special populations - the elderly}},
journal = {British journal of clinical pharmacology},
year = {2015},
doi = {10.1111/bcp.12596},
pmid = {25619317},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.12596}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- The majority of ADRs in older people are Type A, potentially avoidable and associated with commonly prescribed medications.
- Several ADRs are particularly associated with major adverse consequences in the elderly and their reduction is therefore a clinical priority.
- Falls are strongly associated with benzodiazepines, neuroleptics, antidepressants and antihypertensives.
- Clostridium difficile associated with use of broad spectrum antibiotics mainly affects frail older people and results in prolonged hospital stay with substantial morbidity and mortality.
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported, studied in people and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (British journal of clinical pharmacology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2015 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 25619317) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Clinical safety
Also in Clinical safety
96 studies in the library are filed under Clinical safety with no topic tag they share with another; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed tour of them. The Clinical safety hub.