Potentially serious drug-drug interactions are highly prevalent (25.8% of prescriptions) among elderly patients in the South African private health sector, driven primarily by polypharmacy rather than age or gender.
May prompt medication review for polypharmacy in elderly patients; supports polypharmacy as primary DDI driver but leaves causal outcomes open.
Objectives To determine the prevalence of potentially serious drug–drug interactions (DDIs) and their relationship with gender and age, among elderly in South Africa. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted using pharmaceutical claims data for 2013, for a total of 103 420 medical scheme beneficiaries’ ≥65 years. All medications dispensed within one calendar month where the days’ supply of medication dispensed overlapped, were grouped as one prescription. DDIs per prescription were then identified using the Mimica Matanović/Vlahović-Palčevski DDI protocol. Results were interpreted using effect sizes, that is Cramér’s V, Cohen’s d and Cohen’s ƒ2. Key findings A total of 331 659 DDIs were identified on 235 870 (25.8%, N = 912 713) prescriptions (mean 0.36 (SD 0.7) (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.37)). Women encountered 63.5% of all DDIs. Effect sizes for the association between DDIs and age group (Cramér’s V = 0.06), and gender (Cramér’s V = 0.05) was negligible. There was no difference between men and women regarding the mean number of DDIs identified per prescription (Cohen’s d = 0.10). The number of medicine per prescription (ƒ2 = 0.51) was the biggest predictor of the DDIs. The most frequent interacting drug combinations were between central nervous system medicines (30.6%). Conclusion Our study is the first to report the prevalence of potentially serious DDIs among an elderly population in the South African private health sector utilising the Mimica Matanović/Vlahović-Palčevski DDI protocol. Overall, we identified DDIs in approximately 26% of the prescriptions in our study. Age and gender were not found to be predictors of potentially serious DDIs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Heerden et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: