Search

Objectives The objectives of the present analyses are to estimate the frequency of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) at admission according to STOPP/START criteria version 2 in older patients hospitalised due to chronic disease exacerbation as well as to identify risk factors associated to the most frequent active principles as potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Methods A multicentre, prospective cohort study including older patients (≥65) hospitalized due to chronic disease exacerbation at the internal medicine or geriatric services of 5 hospitals in Spain between September 2016 and December 2018 was conducted. Demographic and clinical data was collected, and a medication review process using STOPP/START criteria version 2 was performed, considering both PIMs and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs). Primary outcome was defined as the presence of any most frequent principles as PIMs, and secondary outcomes were the frequency of any PIM and PPO. Descriptive and bivariate analyses were conducted on all outcomes and multilevel logistic regression analysis, stratified by participating centre, was performed on the primary outcome. Results A total of 740 patients were included (mean age 84.1, 53.2% females), 93.8% of them presenting polypharmacy, with a median of 10 chronic prescriptions. Among all, 603 (81.5%) patients presented at least one PIP, 542 (73.2%) any PIM and 263 (35.5%) any PPO. Drugs prescribed without an evidence-based clinical indication were the most frequent PIM (33.8% of patients); vitamin D supplement in older people who are housebound or experiencing falls or with osteopenia was the most frequent PPO (10.3%). The most frequent active principles as PIMs were proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and benzodiazepines (BZDs), present in 345 (46.6%) patients. This outcome was found significantly associated with age, polypharmacy and essential tremor in an explanatory model with 71% AUC. Conclusions PIMs at admission are highly prevalent in these patients, especially those involving PPIs or BZDs, which affected almost half of the patients. Therefore, these drugs may be considered as the starting point for medication review and deprescription. Trial registration number NCT02830425

Multimorbidity is increasing and poses a challenge to the clinical management of patients with multiple conditions and drug prescriptions. The objectives of this work are to evaluate if multimorbidity patterns are associated with quality indicators of medication: potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) or adverse drug reactions (ADRs). A multicentre prospective cohort study was conducted including 740 older (≥65 years) patients hospitalised due to chronic pathology exacerbation. Sociodemographic, clinical and medication related variables (polypharmacy, PIP according to STOPP/START criteria, ADRs) were collected. Bivariate analyses were performed comparing previously identified multimorbidity clusters (osteoarticular, psychogeriatric, minor chronic disease, cardiorespiratory) to presence, number or specific types of PIP or ADRs. Significant associations were found in all clusters. The osteoarticular cluster presented the highest prevalence of PIP (94.9%) and ADRs (48.2%), mostly related to anxiolytics and antihypertensives, followed by the minor chronic disease cluster, associated with ADRs caused by antihypertensives and insulin. The psychogeriatric cluster presented PIP and ADRs of neuroleptics and the cardiorespiratory cluster indicators were better overall. In conclusion, the associations that were found reinforce the existence of multimorbidity patterns and support specific medication review actions according to each patient profile. Thus, determining the relationship between multimorbidity profiles and quality indicators of medication could help optimise healthcare processes. Trial registration number: NCT02830425.

ObjectivesTo estimate the frequency of chronic conditions and geriatric syndromes in older patients admitted to hospital because of an exacerbation of their chronic conditions, and to identify multimorbidity clusters in these patients.DesignMulticentre, prospective cohort study.SettingInternal medicine or geriatric services of five general teaching hospitals in Spain.Participants740 patients aged 65 and older, hospitalised because of an exacerbation of their chronic conditions between September 2016 and December 2018.Primary and secondary outcome measuresActive chronic conditions and geriatric syndromes (including risk factors) of the patient, a score about clinical management of chronic conditions during admission, and destination at discharge were collected, among other variables. Multimorbidity patterns were identified using fuzzy c-means cluster analysis, taking into account the clinical management score. Prevalence, observed/expected ratio and exclusivity of each chronic condition and geriatric syndrome were calculated for each cluster, and the final solution was approved after clinical revision and discussion among the research team.Results740 patients were included (mean age 84.12 years, SD 7.01; 53.24% female). Almost all patients had two or more chronic conditions (98.65%; 95% CI 98.23% to 99.07%), the most frequent were hypertension (81.49%, 95% CI 78.53% to 84.12%) and heart failure (59.86%, 95% CI 56.29% to 63.34%). The most prevalent geriatric syndrome was polypharmacy (79.86%, 95% CI 76.82% to 82.60%). Four statistically and clinically significant multimorbidity clusters were identified: osteoarticular, psychogeriatric, cardiorespiratory and minor chronic disease. Patient-level variables such as sex, Barthel Index, number of chronic conditions or geriatric syndromes, chronic disease exacerbation 3 months prior to admission or destination at discharge differed between clusters.ConclusionsIn older patients admitted to hospital because of the exacerbation of chronic health problems, it is possible to define multimorbidity clusters using soft clustering techniques. These clusters are clinically relevant and could be the basis to reorganise healthcare circuits or processes to tackle the increasing number of older, multimorbid patients.Trial registration numberNCT02830425.

Inflammatory bowel disease; Faecal microbiota transplantation; Rat model of colitis Enfermedad inflamatoria intestinal; Trasplante de microbiota fecal; Modelo de colitis en ratas Malaltia inflamatòria intestinal; Trasplantament de microbiota fecal; Model de colitis en rates Background: Faecal microbiota transplantation (FMT) is a novel potential therapy for inflammatory bowel diseases, but it is poorly characterised. Methods: We evaluated the performance of the mouse and rat as a pre-clinical model for human microbiota engraftment. We then characterised the effect of a single human stool transfer (HST) on a humanised model of DSS-induced colitis. Colonic and faecal microbial communities were analysed using the 16S rRNA approach and clinical manifestations were assessed in a longitudinal setting. Findings: The microbial community of rats showed greater similarity to that of humans, while the microbiome of mice showed less similarity to that of humans. Moreover, rats captured more human microbial species than mice after a single HST. Using the rat model, we showed that HST compensated faecal dysbiosis by restoring alpha-diversity and by increasing the relative abundance of health-related microbial genera. To some extent, HST also modulated the microbial composition of colonic tissue. These faecal and colonic microbial communities alterations led to a relative restoration of colon length, and a significant decrease in both epithelium damage and disease severity. Remarkably, stopping inflammation by removing DSS before HST caused a faster and greater recovery of both microbiome and clinical manifestation features. Interpretation: Our results indicate that the rat outperforms the mouse as a model for human microbiota engraftment and show that the efficacy of HST can be enhanced when inflammation stimulation is withdrawn. Finally, our findings support a new therapeutic strategy based on the use FMT combined with anti inflammatory drugs. Study funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III/FEDER (PI17/00614), a government agency. The funder had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation or writing of the report.