A comparative analysis of medication counting methods to assess polypharmacy in medico-administrative databases

Marie-Eve Gagnon,Miceline Mésidor,Marc Simard,Yohann M. Chiu,Maude Gosselin,Bernard Candas,Caroline Sirois

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2024.05.006

IF: 3.348

2024-05-25

Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy

Abstract:(238 words) Background The variety of methods for counting medications may lead to confusion when attempting to compare the extent of polypharmacy across different populations. Objective To compare the prevalence estimates of polypharmacy derived from medico-administrative databases, using different methods for counting medications. Methods Data were drawn from the Québec Integrated Chronic Disease Surveillance System. A random sample of 110,000 individuals aged >65 was selected, including only those who were alive and covered by the public drug plan during the one-year follow-up. We used six methods to count medications: #1-cumulative one-year count, #2-average of four quarters' cumulative counts, #3-count on a single day, #4-count of medications used in first and fourth quarters, #5-count weighted by duration of exposure, and #6-count of uninterrupted medication use. Polypharmacy was defined as ≥5 medications. Cohen's Kappa was calculated to assess the level of agreement between the methods. Results A total of 93,516 (85%) individuals were included. The prevalence of polypharmacy varied across methods. The highest prevalence was observed with cumulative methods (#1:74.1%; #2:61.4%). Single day count (#3:47.6%), first and fourth quarters count (#4:49.5%), and weighted count (#5:46.6%) yielded similar results. The uninterrupted use count yielded the lowest estimate (#6:35.4%). The weighted method (#5) showed strong agreement with the first and fourth quarters count (#4). Cumulative methods identified higher proportions of younger, less multimorbid individuals compared to other methods. Conclusion Counting methods significantly affect polypharmacy prevalence estimates, necessitating their consideration when comparing and interpretating results.

public, environmental & occupational health