Comparison of four criteria for potentially inappropriate medications in older patients with newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer

ABSTRACT

Background

Potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use is a common problem among older patients. This study aimed to compare the prevalence of PIMs in older patients with newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and to identify the correlates of PIMs.

Research design and methods

A secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study was conducted. Patients were enrolled from January 2014 to December 2020 and information were extracted from patients’ electronic medical records (EMRs). We evaluated the PIMs using four different PIM criteria. The concordance among the four PIM criteria was calculated using kappa tests. The possible risk factors associated with PIMs were analyzed by multivariate logistic regression.

Results

The prevalence of at least one PIM identified by the four criteria ranged from 25.1% to 48.2% among 514 patients. There was moderate consistency between the GO-PIM scale and the AGS/Beers criteria, while poor consistency with the other criteria (the STOPP criteria and the Chinese criteria). Polypharmacy was found to be significantly associated with the occurrence of PIMs in all criteria (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Our results showed a high prevalence of PIMs in older patients with NSCLC, which was significantly associated with polypharmacy, and the consistency across the four criteria was poor-to-moderate.

KEYWORDS:

• Non-small cell lung cancer
• older persons
• potentially inappropriate medications
• hospitalized
• polypharmacy

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Declaration of interest

The authors have no relevant affiliations or financial involvement with any organization or entity with a financial interest in or financial conflict with the subject matter or materials discussed in the manuscript. This includes employment, consultancies, honoraria, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, grants or patents received or pending, or royalties.

Authors’ contributions

Study concept and design: All authors; Acquisition of data: M Xu, Z Ma; Analysis and interpretation of data: M Xu, Z Ma; Drafting of the manuscript: M Xu, Z Ma; Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital (No. 2009–4, 2016–79 and No. 2021-ke-443) and all patients have provided written informed consent.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Pharmacy Department of Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing in which the study was carried out

Reviewer disclosures

Peer reviewers on this manuscript have no relevant financial or other relationships to disclose.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/14740338.2024.2348567

Additional information

Funding

This paper was not funded.