|Year : 2022 | Volume
| Issue : 2 | Page : 91-102
Incidence of adverse drug reactions among elderly patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Rajesh Hadia1, Dhaval Joshi2, Dipika Bhil3, Rajesh Maheshwari1
1 Department of Pharmacy Practice, Sumandeep Vidyapeeth Deemed to be University, Vadodara, India
2 Department of Pharmacy Practice, Maliba Pharmacy College, Bardoli, Gujarat, India
3 Department of Paediatrics, SBKS Medical Institute and Research Center, Sumandeep Vidyapeeth Deemed to be University, Vadodara, India
|Date of Submission||24-Mar-2022|
|Date of Acceptance||23-May-2022|
|Date of Web Publication||23-Aug-2022|
Department of Pharmacy Practice, Sumandeep Vidyapeeth Deemed to be University, Vadodara - 391 760, Gujarat
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Background: Several studies suggest that adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are commonly seen among hospitalized elderly and found common causes of hospital admission leading to substantial morbidity and mortality among elderly. However, no meta-analysis was conducted till date to estimate the overall incidence of ADRs among elderly. Objectives: To estimate the overall incidence of ADRs in elderly patients, incidence of ADRs in elderly in different health-care settings, incidence of serious ADRs in elderly patients, and the continent-wise incidence of ADRs in elderly patients. Design: Meta-analysis and systematic review. Methodology: Studies were identified through searching different databases such as MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google Scholar, Clinical Key, and Scopus (published from 1980 to October, 2015) and by hand searching the reputed journals on geriatrics and gerontology and references of the included articles. Original peer-reviewed research articles published in English, defined ADRs according to the WHO's or similar definition and assessed the incidence of ADRs in elderly or having sufficient raw data to determine the incidence were included. Disease- or treatment-specific studies were excluded. Before meta-analysis, the studies were evaluated for heterogeneity using Chi-square and I2 statistics. The overall incidence of ADRs among the elderly with 95% confidence interval (CI) was determined using a random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird method). Subgroup analyses were performed based on study settings and continent where the studies conducted. All the analyses were carried out using Review Manager (RevMan, version: 5.3) software. Results: Of the 5747 articles retrieved, only 56 and 54 articles were included for systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. The overall incidence (95% CI) of ADRs among elderly population was 12.94%. The health-care setting-wise overall incidences of ADRs in the elderly were 17.53%, 19.54%, and 6.92% in inpatients, outpatients, and patients hospitalized due to ADRs, respectively. The continent-wise overall incidences of ADRs in elderly were 12.15%, 22.94%, 12.34%, and 18.76% in Asia, Australia, Europe, and USA, respectively. Electrolyte disorders and skin rashes were the common manifestations of the drugs. Cardiovascular drugs and NSAIDs were the most common causative drugs for the ADRs among elderly. Polypharmacy was the major risk factor for ADRs in elderly population, irrespective of the type of health-care settings and continents. Conclusions: The incidence of ADRs in the elderly was higher and is a significant health-care burden in the elderly. Appropriate prescribing, proper compliance, and monitoring for ADRs are needed to decrease the incidence of ADRs in elderly patients.
Keywords: Adverse drug reactions, elderly, systematic review and meta-analysis
|How to cite this article:|
Hadia R, Joshi D, Bhil D, Maheshwari R. Incidence of adverse drug reactions among elderly patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sci Soc 2022;49:91-102
|How to cite this URL:|
Hadia R, Joshi D, Bhil D, Maheshwari R. Incidence of adverse drug reactions among elderly patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sci Soc [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 Sep 27];49:91-102. Available from: https://www.jscisociety.com/text.asp?2022/49/2/91/354276
| Introduction|| |
At present, elderly people are the most rapidly growing part of the patient population worldwide. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), world's elderly population, i.e., people with 60 years of age and older, is approximately 650 million at present, and by 2050, it is forecast to reach 2 billion. In addition, 70% of all older people now live in low- or middle-income countries, where sustainable pharmacovigilance systems have not developed yet. As per the report jointly brought by the United Nations Population Fund and Help Age International, “India has around 100 million elderly at present and the number is expected to increase to 323 million by 2050.” Individuals aged 80 years or more are the fastest growing section of the population and are expected to reach nearly 30% of the overall population in the richest nations by 2050., It is not surprising that older persons in general have the highest prevalence of chronic and multiple diseases. Although the elderly account for 15% of the population in Western countries, they consume one-third of total volume of prescription medications. However, benefits of medication use are always accompanied by potential harm. Even when medication is prescribed in the recommended doses according to the guidelines, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can occur. ADRs are regarded as top of the pyramid containing all drug-related problems (DRPs) and are a major public health concern.,, In the USA, more than 90% of adults aged 65 years and older use one medication per week and 10%–25% experience ADRs. These ADRs are responsible for 3.4%–7.0% of hospital admissions. The average rate of ADR-related hospital admission is 16.6% in the elderly compared to 4.1% in younger patients, with 88% considered preventable. Recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention revealed that older adults (65 years or older) are twice as likely as others to come to emergency departments for adverse drug events (ADEs) (over 177,000 emergency visits each year) and nearly seven times more likely to be hospitalized after an emergency visit. A study conducted in an Indian tertiary care hospital showed ADR incidence of 16.5% in elderly inpatients, while the similar studies conducted in Europe and USA showed incidence of 42.45% and 54.18%, respectively.,, Similar differences are present in the incidence of ADR in ambulatory care elderly and ADR leads to hospitalization in the elderly among different countries and continents.,,, Considering the severity and clinical importance of ADRs in elderly, it is worthful to know the overall incidence of ADRs in the elderly among different settings and among different continents. By conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of ADRs in the elderly, a comprehensive result regarding ADRs in elderly population can be obtained. As per our knowledge, there is no systematic review or meta-analysis to find out the overall incidence of ADRs in the elderly. Hence, this study aimed to assess the overall incidence of ADRs among elderly as well as the incidence of ADRs in different health-care setting and different continents by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis.
| Methodology|| |
A comprehensive literature search was carried out using various databases such as MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Google Scholar, Clinical Key, and Scopus for articles published on ADRs among the elderly from 1980 to August 2016 considering the inclusion of the latest data of ADRs along with the support of previous studies in the past 35 years. The studies conducted before 1980 were excluded as many of the drugs and dosing regimens used during that era are outdated now. Some reputed journals on the elderly and gerontology, references of the included articles, and previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses on ADRs were also reviewed to identify additional relevant articles. The databases were searched for commonly utilized terminology on ADRs among elderly patients in titles, abstracts, and index terms of the articles [Table 1] and [Table 2].
The titles and abstracts of all the citations retrieved were screened initially by two investigators to identify their suitability for inclusion. Studies were selected for inclusion after the careful reviewing of full-text articles based on the following inclusion and exclusion criteria. A third investigator participated in the review process when uncertainty about eligibility criteria arose. To avoid inconsistent estimates on the incidence of ADRs, studies that adopted WHO's definition, defining ADR as “a response which is noxious and unintended, and which occurs at doses normally used in humans for the prophylaxis, diagnosis, or therapy of disease, or for the modification of physiological function”, or those studies which adopted Edwards and Aronson's definition were selected. Small changes in wording were overlooked if the two researchers agreed that the functional meaning remained the same. Observational studies (prospective, retrospective, epidemiologic, database survey, registry, cohort, case–control, etc.) conducted on elderly patients to find the incidence of ADRs and studies conducted on general population, but determined the incidence of ADRs in elderly patients, were included. The studies which had sufficient information to calculate the incidence of ADRs in elderly patients, adopted the definition of ADR coincided with definition adopted in this study, and published in English were selected. The studies in which the patients were selected for particular conditions or specific drug exposures were excluded. The studies in which ADRs caused by errors in administration, noncompliance, overdose, drug abuse, and therapeutic failures were not considered. We also excluded the studies that assessed neither incidence nor having enough data available to estimate the incidence, summarizing previous results without original assessment of ADRs, and studies focusing only on specific types of or life-threatening or fatal ADRs. Review articles, letters to editor which were published without original data, editorials, and/or case reports were not considered. Multiple publications of the same study were carefully reviewed and included only the most-relevant studies and the remaining were excluded. In order to maximize the number of articles, paid articles were sourced through all possible access available with institution. Furthermore, in all cases, where there was no source of retrieval of paid articles, corresponding authors were contacted for full-text articles through E-mail communication. After exploring all the possible resources, if full-text was not available, abstract of that particular study was included.
One investigator extracted the data from all the included studies, and the accuracy and completeness of the extraction were confirmed by the second investigator. Any disagreements were noted and resolved by consensus with the third investigator. The extracted data were based on information reported in or calculated from the included articles, and where required, the authors were contacted for additional information. In order to increase the reliability and efficiency of data extraction, Excel sheet was used to extract the data by adopting the checklist for the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology. When studies have details on more than one setting and more than one continent (e.g., information on ADR incidence for inpatients as well ADRs leading to hospitalization and information on incidence of ADRs in America and Asia), data were extracted separately for each setting and each continent.
The overall incidence of ADRs among the elderly was estimated based on the data available in all studies. Whereas, the incidences of ADRs among the elderly in different settings such as inpatients, outpatients, and EDs and the incidences of ADRs among the elderly in different continents such as Asia, Australia, Europe, and USA were determined based on a prespecified subgroup analysis. Where direct values for considered parameters were not available, values were calculated based on available information. When studies showed large number of causative drugs and/or common manifestations, topmost causative drugs and/or manifestations were extracted for systematic review.
The incidence of ADRs among the elderly was determined by dividing the number of elderly patients experienced at least one ADR by the total number of elderly patients included in the study. The incidence was determined only if the study has not provided the value and the raw data were available to calculate the incidence. Standard error (SE) for the reported or calculated incidence was calculated using the following formula.
SEp = sqrt (p [1-p]/n)
(SEp: Standard Error, sqrt: Square root, p: Proportion of successes in the sample, n: Number of observations in the sample).
Heterogeneity among the studies was assessed using the Chi-square and I2 statistics; for the Chi-square statistic, P < 0.10 was considered statistically significant for heterogeneity; for I2, 50% is considered a measure of severe heterogeneity. Meta-analysis was performed to assess the overall incidence of ADRs among the elderly using the random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird method), which accounts for heterogeneity among the studies. 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each summary measure were calculated. All analyses were performed using RevMan version 5.3. All statistical tests were two-sided, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant, unless otherwise specified. The present study was performed as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [Table 3].
|Table 3: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols 2015 checklist: Recommended items to include in a systematic review protocol|
Click here to view
| Results|| |
| Search results|| |
A total of 4947 citations were found from electronic database searches and additional 800 records were identified from search in individual journals and reference lists of the retrieved articles. After removal of 2505 duplicate records, there were 3242 unique citations available for reviewing the titles and abstracts to identify the relevance. A total of 2920 citations were excluded by reviewing the titles and abstracts and it leaves 322 articles to assess the eligibility as per the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After reading full-text articles, 272 articles were excluded for various reasons. Finally, 56 studies were included for systematic review (qualitative synthesis) and 54 studies for meta-analysis (quantitative synthesis). The excluded articles commonly focused on studies on ADEs having insufficient information on ADRs and studies on ADRs in general population only. Many of the studies were excluded as they had information on ADRs on specific diseases which are more prevalent in the elderly and specific drugs which are commonly used by the elderly. Among the included studies, two studies, have reported the incidence of ADR in elderly patients, but there was a lack of information on the total number of elderly patients included in the study and/or total number of patients developed ADRs. Thus, for these studies, it was not possible to calculate SE, which is necessary to include the study in forest plot. For this reason, these two studies were not included in the meta-analysis to estimate the overall incidence of ADRs among elderly. However, these two studies were included for systematic review as they matched for inclusion criteria and provided useful information on ADRs in elderly patients. Thus, 56 and 54 studies were considered for systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. Among all the included studies, a total of 25 studies had details on the incidence of ADRs in elderly inpatients, but in one study, there was not sufficient information on raw data to calculate SE and it was not included for meta-analysis but included for systematic review. Ten studies had information on the incidence of ADRs among elderly outpatients and all these studies were included for both meta-analysis and systematic review. Of the 28 studies on ADRs leading to hospitalization in the elderly, 27 studies were included for meta-analysis. Under continent-wise subgroup analysis, studies were grouped as per continent where the study was conducted. For meta-analysis, 11 studies,,,,,,,,,, from Asia, 3 studies,, from Australia, 24 studies,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, from Europe, and 16 studies,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, from USA were included. Two more studies were included only for systematic review. Among them, one study was on ADRs in elderly inpatients conducted in Asia (China) and another was on ADRs leading to hospitalization in elderly which was conducted in Europe (Netherland) [Table 2].
Among all the included studies, 21 studies followed WHO definition of ADR, and 2 studies, followed Edward and Aronsan's definition of ADR. One study each followed Karch and Lasagna's definition, Kramer's Definition, and Rawlins and Thompson's definition. Other studies have followed definition of ADRs reviewed and approved by the Hospital's Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee and/or derived from the WHO definition of ADRs. Some of the studies were conducted in more than one setting. Four studies,,, were reviewed for both ADRs in inpatients and ADRs leading to hospitalization in the elderly. In a similar way, one study was reviewed for both ADRs in elderly inpatients and outpatients. Among all the included studies, 46 were specified on ADRs, while the others,,,,,,,,,, were specifically focused on ADEs, DRPs, or MEs. Since they have enough information for calculating ADRs in the elderly, they were not excluded from our study-analysis. For the same reason, 15 studies,,,,,,,,,,,,,, which were focused on general population were included for the systematic review and meta-analysis. Most of the studies included for the analysis were of prospective type (28 studies). The studies were conducted between 1980 and 2014. The study periods ranged from 4 days to 27 years. The age group of the elderly considered among the included studies was ≥60 to ≥80 years. The total number of elderly patients among all the studies included for meta-analysis was 5,759,576 and the total number of elderly patients experienced ADRs were 86,730. The characteristics on the included studies, based on the study settings, are presented in [Figure 2],[Figure 3],[Figure 4].
|Figure 1: Forest plot for overall incidence of ADRs in elderly patients. ADRs: Adverse drug reactions|
Click here to view
|Figure 2: Forest plot for incidence of ADRs in elderly inpatients. ADRs: Adverse drug reactions|
Click here to view
|Figure 3: Forest plot for incidence of ADRs in elderly outpatients. ADRs: Adverse drug reactions|
Click here to view
|Figure 4: Forest plot for incidence of ADRs leads to hospitalization in elderly patients. ADRs: Adverse drug reactions|
Click here to view
Overall incidence of adverse drug reactions in the elderly
Because heterogeneity (Pheterogeneity < 0.001 and I2 = 100%) was observed, a random-effects model was chosen over a fixed-effects model and it was found that the overall incidence of ADRs in elderly was 12.94% [95% CI: 12.29, 13.60%]. Both incidences with 95% CIs of each study and pooled incidence are shown in [Figure 1].
Subgroup analysis (continent-wise incidence of adverse drug reactions in elderly)
The continent-wise overall incidences of ADR were found to be 12.15% (95% CI: 10.51, 13.80), 22.94% (95% CI: 1.1, 46.98), 12.34% (95% CI: 11.20, 13.48), and 18.76% (95% CI: 16.25, 21.27) in Asia, Australia, Europe, and USA, respectively. In subgroup analysis also, significant heterogeneity was found [Figure 2].
Overall incidence of adverse drug reactions in elderly inpatients
The overall incidence of ADRs in elderly inpatients was found to be 17.53% [95% CI: 16.31, 18.74]. The heterogeneity was found (Pheterogeneity < 0.001 and I2 = 99%) [Figure 3].
Subgroup analysis (continent-wise incidence of adverse drug reactions in elderly inpatients)
The continent-wise overall incidences of ADR in inpatients were found to be 11.42% (95% CI: 10.12, 12.72), 21.40% (95% CI: 15.92, 26.88), and 43.32% (95% CI: 27.52, 59.13) in Asia, Europe, and USA, respectively. In subgroup analysis also, significant heterogeneity was found [Figure 3].
Overall incidence of adverse drug reactions in elderly outpatients
The overall incidence of ADRs in elderly outpatients was found to be 19.54% (95% CI: 14.31, 24.78). The heterogeneity was found.(Pheterogeneity < 0.001 and I2 = 99%) [Figure 4].
Subgroup analysis (continent-wise incidence of adverse drug reactions in elderly outpatients)
The continent-wise overall incidences of ADR in elderly outpatients were found to be 9.05% (95% CI: 6.12, 11.98), 51.18% (95% CI: 45.8, 56.49), 5.72% (95% CI: 4.76, 6.68), and 20.74% (95% CI: 10.15, 31.33) in Asia, Australia, Europe, and USA, respectively. In subgroup analysis also, significant heterogeneity was found [Figure 4].
Overall incidence of adverse drug reactions leading to hospitalization in elderly
The overall incidence of ADRs leading to hospitalization in elderly was found to be 6.92% (95% CI: 5.93, 7.91). The heterogeneity was found (Pheterogeneity < 0.001 and I2 = 99%).
Subgroup analysis (continent-wise incidence of adverse drug reactions leading to hospitalization in elderly)
The overall continent-wise incidences of ADRs leading o hospitalization were found to be 4.6% (95% CI: 0.37, 9.57), 8.72% (95% CI: 0.24, 17.20), 6.94% (95% CI: 5.80, 8.07), and 7.47% (95% CI: 5.10, 9.85) in Asia, Australia, Europe, and USA, respectively. In subgroup analysis also, significant heterogeneity was found.
| Discussion|| |
As per our knowledge, till date, there is no meta-analysis to find continent-wise incidence of ADR in elderly. We have explored in our study to obtain the pooled ADR incidence in elderly population in each of the continents. The ADR incidence in elderly, as calculated in each study, could have not been originated from one common population, so from the proportions, as calculated in each individual study, no common estimator should be calculated. The best resolution for this problem is to choose for the weighted average. From all the included studies, arithmetic mean of ADR incidence in elderly was found to be 53.01%, which is almost four times more than the pooled ADR incidence (12.94%) calculated by considering weighted incidence of each study. The studies having larger population have been given more weightage compared to studies having smaller population. The data on ADRs in elderly are found to be heterogeneous. As large number of studies with different countries, population, and study designs are included, heterogeneity is quite expected. In this meta-analysis, we found the highest heterogeneity (Pheterogeneity < 0.001 and I2 = 100%). However, to minimize the effect of heterogeneity on the results, we carried out setting-wise and continent-wise subgroup analysis. The overall incidence of ADRs was found to be 12.94% in our findings, which included reports from elderly inpatients and outpatients as well ADRs leading to hospitalization in the elderly. Effective comparisons of this incidence with data in other studies could not be done since most of the studies report incidence of ADRs in the elderly in either one or two of the above-mentioned categories. Meta-analysis conducted by Miguel et al. indicated that ADRs occur in 16.88% (95% CI: 13.56%–20.21%) of patients (general population) during hospitalization. Our finding shows 17.53% of the ADR incidence in elderly inpatients. This finding shows that the incidence of ADRs in elderly patients is slightly higher than the incidence of ADRs in general population. A systematic review conducted by Kongkaew et al. represented approximately 5.3% of hospital admissions associated with ADRs in general population. Our finding shows 6.92% of hospital admissions associated with ADRs in elderly population. These findings show that the incidence of ADR in elderly patients is slightly higher than the incidence of ADRs in general population. A meta-analysis conducted by Beijer and de Blaey reported the incidence of 16.6% for hospitalization of the elderly due to ADRs, while our finding shows incidence of 6.92% for hospitalization due to ADRs in the elderly. As we have included a greater number of studies with larger population, significant difference in incidence compared to this previous study has been observed as a result of decreased heterogeneity.
In the elderly, 87.9% of hospital admissions were found to be preventable in previous study. In contrast, we could identify preventability with lesser incidence of 36.8% for ADRs leading to hospitalization in the elderly. One meta-analysis conducted on hospitalized children shows the overall incidence of ADRs of 9.53%, which is lesser than the overall incidence of ADRs in the elderly (17.53%) found in our study. This indicates higher incidence of ADR in the elderly compared to pediatrics in hospital setting. In elderly inpatients, the major clinical manifestation found in our systematic-review was skin rash, which is consistent with the most of the studies on ADRs on general and/or elderly inpatients. Moreover, our findings show electrolyte imbalance (mainly hypokalemia) as another major clinical manifestation in elderly inpatients. In our systematic review, NSAIDs, antimicrobials, cardiovascular drugs, antithrombotic, and antidiabetics were the most commonly implicated drug classes, which probably reflects their widespread use in elderly population. Previous meta-analysis identified cardiovascular drugs and NSAIDs as major causative drug classes for hospitalization. In our study, we could able to identify specific drugs, digitalis, digoxin, and aspirin, as major causative agents in these classes. Moreover, from the two studies conducted on elderly outpatients, we could identify heparin and warfarin as major causative agents for ADRs in the elderly in ambulatory setting. By combining the results of five studies from inpatient elderly, we could identify furosemide, insulin, and aspirin as major causative agents for inpatient elderly. Our finding shows polypharmacy as a major risk factor for ADRs in the elderly, which is consistent to the previous study results. One study shows a positive correlation between ≥9 medications and occurrence of ADRs in elderly. Our result (average medications consumed by elderly experienced ADRs, mean: 15.8 and median: 10) is consistent with this finding. Another study conducted on elderly outpatients reported that the elderly who experienced ADRs used more different drugs (14.4 ± 6 drugs) than the other elderly patients (8.14 ± 5.7 drugs). In contrast, in our study, the average number of drugs consumed by the elderly outpatients who experienced ADRs was found to be in the range of 6.45–8.7. Other than polypharmacy, inappropriate medications in the elderly inpatients and more numbers of concurrent diseases in elderly outpatients are identified as major risk factors for ADRs in the elderly. In this manner, the specific risk factors by different settings were not identified by previous studies. One systematic review and meta-analysis on general population shows women at a greater risk for ADRs (68%). Similarly, our systematic review could able to identify female gender as a risk factor for ADRs in the elderly. We observed no positive association between a variety of geriatric conditions and risk of developing an ADR, which is consistent with previous study results. In our systematic review, we observed that one study has reported the details on fatal ADRs in elderly inpatients. Based on the information available, we determined the incidence of fatal ADRs, which was found to be 19.57%. One study conducted on general population shows that 6.4% of the deaths were suspected to be caused by ADRs in the hospital. This difference shows that elderly is more prone to mortality secondary to ADRs compared to general population. In our systematic review, only one study mentioned details of fatal ADRs. The main ADRs and causative drugs were digitalis toxicity, dehydration aggravated by diuretics, hyperkalemia by spironolactone and amiloride, acute renal failure by lisinopril, hemorrhage with an anticoagulant or antiplatelet drug (heparin, acenocoumarol, fluindione, and ticlopidine), cytopenia by cytarabine, cyclophosphamide, and etoposide, and severe hypoglycemia by glipizide. For analyzing and preventing fatal ADRs in the elderly, much more research is needed especially focusing on fatality of ADRs in elderly with details of causative drugs. In our study, the range of hospital stay was found to be 11.1–25 days for elderly hospitalized patients experienced ADRs. One study mentioned average length of stay of 5.5 days in elderly hospitalized patients. This difference clearly shows an increase in length of stay due to ADRs in elderly. In our systematic review, the range of hospital stay was found to be 7.4–25 for elderly hospitalized due to ADR, which is more than a previous finding of 8.7 days by Goettler et al. on general population.
In our study, we identified the range of 48.5%–80.4% for preventable ADRs in elderly, which is more than the incidence (45%) of preventable ADRs in elderly identified by previous meta-analysis. In a systematic review, we identified the range of 22%–36.84% for definitely preventable ADRs and 6%–17.54% for probably preventable ADRs, which is lesser than 71% of preventability found in previous meta-analysis on preventability of ADRs for general outpatients. This finding shows that most of ADRs in elderly outpatients are not preventable. The main contribution of the present study was identification of drugs that are considered to be mainly responsible for ADRs in elderly populations. This finding is useful for continuous education programs, therapeutic committees, and policy makers, because adverse effects complicate the course of diseases in aged patients, cause hospitalization, and/or require the prescription of additional drugs. In addition to contributing to education in health-care costs, continuous efforts to promote rational drug use could also benefit elderly patients by preventing some avoidable drug toxicity. Through this study, we were able to identify the overall, continent-wise, and setting-wise ADR incidence in the elderly. Moreover, systematic review of ADR will help the reader to identify all general characteristics of ADRs in elderly patients. As mentioned earlier, there are very few studies focused on severe and fatal ADRs in the elderly. To prevent morbidities and mortalities secondary to ADRs, more studies focused on severe and fatal ADRs should be conducted.
| Conclusion|| |
The overall incidence of ADRs in elderly population is very significant (12.94%). Appropriate prescribing, proper compliance, and monitoring for ADRs are needed to decrease ADRs and their life-threatening outcomes in elderly population. The overall continent-wise incidence of ADRs in elderly inpatients was highest in Australia (22.94%), followed by USA (18.76%) and Europe (12.34%), while the overall incidence was the least in Asian countries (12.15%), yet it is significant. In health-care setting wise, the incidence of ADR is highest in elderly outpatients (19.54%) and polypharmacy was found to be the main risk factor in elderly for developing ADRs. The range of percentage of severe ADRs was found to be 10%–11.11% for elderly experiencing ADRs. For assessment of incidence of serious ADRs, sufficient data on elderly patients experiencing ADRs were not available. Hence, pooled incidence of serious ADR was not obtained.
Moher et al. Systematic Reviews 2015, 4:1. Available on: http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/4/1/1.
Financial support and sponsorship
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References|| |
Cohen JE. Human population: The next half century. Science 2003;302:1172-5.
Hajjar ER, Cafiero AC, Hanlon JT. Polypharmacy in elderly patients. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother 2007;5:345-51.
World Health Organization. World Health Statistics. Global Health Observatory Data Repository. Life tables. Available from: http://apps.who.int/ghodata/?vid=720
. [Last accessed on 2011 Oct 04].
Christensen K, Doblhammer G, Rau R, Vaupel JW. Ageing populations: The challenges ahead. Lancet 2009;374:1196-208.
Paille F. Over-consumption of drugs by elderly patients. Therapie 2004;59:215-22.
Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, Fried LP, Boult L, Wu AW. Clinical practice guidelines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: Implications for pay for performance. JAMA 2005;294:716-24.
Krähenbühl-Melcher A, Schlienger R, Lampert M, Haschke M, Drewe J, Krähenbühl S. Drug-related problems in hospitals: A review of the recent literature. Drug Saf 2007;30:379-407.
Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998;279:1200-5.
Pirmohamed M, James S, Meakin S, Green C, Scott AK, Walley TJ, et al.
Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: Prospective analysis of 18 820 patients. BMJ 2004;329:15-9.
Hamilton HJ, Gallagher PF, O'Mahony D. Inappropriate prescribing and adverse drug events in older people. BMC Geriatr 2009;9:5.
Beijer HJ, de Blaey CJ. Hospitalisations caused by adverse drug reactions (ADR): A meta-analysis of observational studies. Pharm World Sci 2002;24:46-54.
Shah R, Gajjar B, Desai S. A profile of adverse drug reactions with risk factors among geriatric patients in a tertiary care teaching rural hospital in India. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol 2012;2:113-22.
Dormann H, Muth-Selbach U, Krebs S, Criegee-Rieck M, Tegeder I, Schneider HT, et al.
Incidence and costs of adverse drug reactions during hospitalisation: Computerised monitoring versus stimulated spontaneous reporting. Drug Saf 2000;22:161-8.
Schmader KE, Hanlon JT, Pieper CF, Sloane R, Ruby CM, Twersky J, et al.
Effects of geriatric evaluation and management on adverse drug reactions and suboptimal prescribing in the frail elderly. Am J Med 2004;116:394-401.
Wu C, Bell CM, Wodchis WP. Incidence and economic burden of adverse drug reactions among elderly patients in Ontario emergency departments: A retrospective study. Drug Saf 2012;35:769-81.
Franceschi M, Scarcelli C, Niro V, Seripa D, Pazienza AM, Pepe G, et al.
Prevalence, clinical features and avoidability of adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to a geriatric unit: A prospective study of 1756 patients. Drug Saf 2008;31:545-56.
Steinman MA, Landefeld CS, Rosenthal GE, Berthenthal D, Sen S, Kaboli PJ. Polypharmacy and prescribing quality in older people. J Am Geriatr Soc 2006;54:1516-23.
Mandavi SD, Sachdev A, Tiwari P. Adverse drug reactions & their risk factors among Indian ambulatory elderly patients. Indian J Med Res 2012;136:404-10.
International drug monitoring: The role of national centres. Report of a WHO meeting. World Health Organ Tech Rep Ser 1972;498:1-25.
Edwards IR, Aronson JK. Adverse drug reactions: Definitions, diagnosis, and management. Lancet 2000;356:1255-9.
von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP, et al.
The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:344-9.
Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-60.
Qing-ping S, Xiao-dong J, Feng D, Yan L, Mei-ling Y, Jin-xiu Z, et al.
Consequences, measurement, and evaluation of the costs associated with adverse drug reactions among hospitalized patients in China. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14:73.
Hartholt KA, van der Velde N, Looman CW, Panneman MJ, van Beeck EF, Patka P, et al.
Adverse drug reactions related hospital admissions in persons aged 60 years and over, The Netherlands, 1981-2007: Less rapid increase, different drugs. PLoS One 2010;5:e13977.
Arulmani R, Rajendran SD, Suresh B. Adverse drug reaction monitoring in a secondary care hospital in South India. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2008;65:210-6.
Chan AL, Lee HY, Ho CH, Cham TM, Lin SJ. Cost evaluation of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients in Taiwan: A prospective, descriptive, observational study. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 2008;69:118-29.
Harugeri A, Joseph J, Parthasarathi G, Ramesh M, Guido S. Potentially inappropriate medication use in elderly patients: A study of prevalence and predictors in two teaching hospitals. J Postgrad Med 2010;56:186-91.
] [Full text]
Harugeri A, Parthasarathi G, Ramesh M, Guido S, Basavanagowdappa H. Frequency and nature of adverse drug reactions in elderly in-patients of two Indian medical college hospitals. J Postgrad Med 2011;57:189-95.
] [Full text]
Jose J, Rao PG. Pattern of adverse drug reactions notified by spontaneous reporting in an Indian tertiary care teaching hospital. Pharmacol Res 2006;54:226-33.
Koh Y, Kutty FB, Li SC. Drug-related problems in hospitalized patients on polypharmacy: The influence of age and gender. Ther Clin Risk Manag 2005;1:39-48.
Malhotra S, Karan RS, Pandhi P, Jain S. Drug related medical emergencies in the elderly: Role of adverse drug reactions and non-compliance. Postgrad Med J 2001;77:703-7.
Morimoto T, Sakuma M, Matsui K, Kuramoto N, Toshiro J, Murakami J, et al.
Incidence of adverse drug events and medication errors in Japan: The JADE study. J Gen Intern Med 2011;26:148-53.
Ramesh M, Pandit J, Parthasarathi G. Adverse drug reactions in a south Indian hospital – Their severity and cost involved. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2003;12:687-92.
Ahmad A, Mast MR, Nijpels G, Elders PJ, Dekker JM, Hugtenburg JG. Identification of drug-related problems of elderly patients discharged from hospital. Patient Prefer Adherence 2014;8:155-65.
Chan M, Nicklason F, Vial JH. Adverse drug events as a cause of hospital admission in the elderly. Intern Med J 2001;31:199-205.
Zhang M, Holman CD, Preen DB, Brameld K. Repeat adverse drug reactions causing hospitalization in older Australians: A population-based longitudinal study 1980-2003. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007;63:163-70.
Alexopoulou A, Dourakis SP, Mantzoukis D, Pitsariotis T, Kandyli A, Deutsch M, et al.
Adverse drug reactions as a cause of hospital admissions: A 6-month experience in a single center in Greece. Eur J Intern Med 2008;19:505-10.
Conforti A, Costantini D, Zanetti F, Moretti U, Grezzana M, Leone R. Adverse drug reactions in older patients: An Italian observational prospective hospital study. Drug Healthc Patient Saf 2012;4:75-80.
Dormann H, Sonst A, Müller F, Vogler R, Patapovas A, Pfistermeister B, et al.
Adverse drug events in older patients admitted as an emergency: The role of potentially inappropriate medication in elderly people (PRISCUS). Dtsch Arztebl Int 2013;110:213-9.
Egger T, Dormann H, Ahne G, Runge U, Neubert A, Criegee-Rieck M, et al.
Identification of adverse drug reactions in geriatric inpatients using a computerised drug database. Drugs Aging 2003;20:769-76.
van Kraaij DJ, Haagsma CJ, Go IH, Gribnau FW. Drug use and adverse drug reactions in 105 elderly patients admitted to a general medical ward. Neth J Med 1994;44:166-73.
Laroche ML, Charmes JP, Nouaille Y, Picard N, Merle L. Is inappropriate medication use a major cause of adverse drug reactions in the elderly? Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007;63:177-86.
Lattanzio F, Laino I, Pedone C, Corica F, Maltese G, Salerno G, et al.
Geriatric conditions and adverse drug reactions in elderly hospitalized patients. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2012;13:96-9.
Leach S, Roy SS. Adverse drug reactions: An investigation on an acute geriatric ward. Age Ageing 1986;15:241-6.
Lindley CM, Tully MP, Paramsothy V, Tallis RC. Inappropriate medication is a major cause of adverse drug reactions in elderly patients. Age Ageing 1992;21:294-300.
Mannesse CK, Derkx FH, de Ridder MA, Man in 't Veld AJ, van der Cammen TJ. Contribution of adverse drug reactions to hospital admission of older patients. Age Ageing 2000;29:35-9.
Matanović SM, Vlahović-Palčevski V. Potentially inappropriate prescribing to the elderly: Comparison of new protocol to Beer's criteria with relation to hospitalizations for ADRs. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2014;70:483-90.
Nickel CH, Ruedinger JM, Messmer AS, Maile S, Peng A, Bodmer M, et al.
Drug-related emergency department visits by elderly patients presenting with non-specific complaints. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med 2013;21:15.
Olivier P, Bertrand L, Tubery M, Lauque D, Montastruc JL, Lapeyre-Mestre M. Hospitalizations because of adverse drug reactions in elderly patients admitted through the emergency department: A prospective survey. Drugs Aging 2009;26:475-82.
Onder G, Pedone C, Landi F, Cesari M, Della Vedova C, Bernabei R, et al.
Adverse drug reactions as cause of hospital admissions: Results from the Italian Group of Pharmacoepidemiology in the Elderly (GIFA). J Am Geriatr Soc 2002;50:1962-8.
Pouyanne P, Haramburu F, Imbs JL, Bégaud B. Admissions to hospital caused by adverse drug reactions: Cross sectional incidence study. French Pharmacovigilance Centres. BMJ 2000;320:1036.
Somers A, Petrovic M, Robays H, Bogaert M. Reporting adverse drug reactions on a geriatric ward: A pilot project. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2003;58:707-14.
Sánchez Muñoz-Torrero JF, Barquilla P, Velasco R, Fernández Capitan Mdel C, Pacheco N, Vicente L, et al
. Adverse drug reactions in internal medicine units and associated risk factors. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2010;66:1257-64.
Tangiisuran B, Davies JG, Wright JE, Rajkumar C. Adverse drug reactions in a population of hospitalized very elderly patients. Drugs Aging 2012;29:669-79.
Tosato M, Settanni S, Antocicco M, Battaglia M, Corsonello A, Ruggiero C, et al.
Pattern of medication use among older inpatients in seven hospitals in Italy: Results from the CRiteria to assess Appropriate Medication use among Elderly complex patients (CRIME) project. Curr Drug Saf 2013;8:98-103.
van der Hooft CS, Dieleman JP, Siemes C, Aarnoudse AJ, Verhamme KM, Stricker BH, et al
. Adverse drug reaction-related hospitalisations: A population-based cohort study. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2008;17:365-71.
Veehof LJ, Stewart RE, Meyboom-de Jong B, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM. Adverse drug reactions and polypharmacy in the elderly in general practice. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1999;55:533-6.
Wawruch M, Zikavska M, Wsolova L, Kuzelova M, Kahayova K, Strateny K, et al.
Adverse drug reactions related to hospital admission in Slovak elderly patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2009;48:186-90.
Williamson J, Chopin JM. Adverse reactions to prescribed drugs in the elderly: A multicentre investigation. Age Ageing 1980;9:73-80.
Bero LA, Lipton HL, Bird JA. Characterization of geriatric drug-related hospital readmissions. Med Care 1991;29:989-1003.
Bowman L, Carlstedt BC, Hancock EF, Black CD. Adverse drug reaction (ADR) occurrence and evaluation in elderly inpatients. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1996;5:9-18.
Budnitz DS, Lovegrove MC, Shehab N, Richards CL. Emergency hospitalizations for adverse drug events in older Americans. N Engl J Med 2011;365:2002-12.
Chrischilles EA, Segar ET, Wallace RB. Self-reported adverse drug reactions and related resource use. A study of community-dwelling persons 65 years of age and older. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:634-40.
Col N, Fanale JE, Kronholm P. The role of medication noncompliance and adverse drug reactions in hospitalizations of the elderly. Arch Intern Med 1990;150:841-5.
Colt HG, Shapiro AP. Drug-induced illness as a cause for admission to a community hospital. J Am Geriatr Soc 1989;37:323-6.
Grymonpre RE, Mitenko PA, Sitar DS, Aoki FY, Montgomery PR. Drug-associated hospital admissions in older medical patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1988;36:1092-8.
Hanlon JT, Pieper CF, Hajjar ER, Sloane RJ, Lindblad CI, Ruby CM, et al.
Incidence and predictors of all and preventable adverse drug reactions in frail elderly persons after hospital stay. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2006;61:511-5.
Hutchinson TA, Flegel KM, Kramer MS, Leduc DG, Kong HH. Frequency, severity and risk factors for adverse drug reactions in adult out-patients: a prospective study. J Chronic Dis 1986;39:533-42.
Marcum ZA, Amuan ME, Hanlon JT, Aspinall SL, Handler SM, Ruby CM, et al.
Prevalence of unplanned hospitalizations caused by adverse drug reactions in older veterans. J Am Geriatr Soc 2012;60:34-41.
Passarelli MC, Jacob-Filho W, Figueras A. Adverse drug reactions in an elderly hospitalised population: Inappropriate prescription is a leading cause. Drugs Aging 2005;22:767-77.
Schneider JK, Mion LC, Frengley JD. Adverse drug reactions in an elderly outpatient population. Am J Hosp Pharm 1992;49:90-6.
Sellors J, Kaczorowski J, Sellors C, Dolovich L, Woodward C, Willan A, et al.
A randomized controlled trial of a pharmacist consultation program for family physicians and their elderly patients. CMAJ 2003;169:17-22.
Steinman MA, Hanlon JT, Sloane RJ, Boscardin WJ, Schmader KE. Do geriatric conditions increase risk of adverse drug reactions in ambulatory elders? Results from the VA GEM Drug Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2011;66:444-51.
Miguel A, Azevedo LF, Araújo M, Pereira AC. Frequency of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2012;21:1139-54.
Kongkaew C, Noyce PR, Ashcroft DM. Hospital admissions associated with adverse drug reactions: A systematic review of prospective observational studies. Ann Pharmacother 2008;42:1017-25.
Hakkarainen KM, Hedna K, Petzold M, Hägg S. Percentage of patients with preventable adverse drug reactions and preventability of adverse drug reactions – A meta-analysis. PLoS One 2012;7:e33236.
Nguyen JK, Fouts MM, Kotabe SE, Lo E. Polypharmacy as a risk factor for adverse drug reactions in geriatric nursing home residents. Am J Geriatr Pharmacother 2006;4:36-41.
Hussain MM, Girhepunje K, Pal R, Siddiqua SS. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in a tertiary care hospital: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Pharm Lett 2010;2:358-68.
Wester K, Jönsson AK, Spigset O, Druid H, Hägg S. Incidence of fatal adverse drug reactions: A population based study. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2008;65:573-9.
Goettler M, Schneeweiss S, Hasford J. Adverse drug reaction monitoring – Cost and benefit considerations. Part II: Cost and preventability of adverse drug reactions leading to hospital admission. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 1997;6 Suppl 3:S79-90.
[Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3], [Figure 4]
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]