Displaying all 3 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Kua CH, Mak VSL, Huey Lee SW
    J Am Med Dir Assoc, 2019 03;20(3):362-372.e11.
    PMID: 30581126 DOI: 10.1016/j.jamda.2018.10.026
    OBJECTIVES: Deprescribing is effective in addressing concerns relating to polypharmacy in residents of nursing homes. However, the clinical outcomes of deprescribing interventions among residents in nursing homes are not well understood. We evaluated the impact of deprescribing interventions by health care professionals on clinical outcomes among the older residents in nursing homes.

    DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception until September 2017; manual searches of reference lists of systematic reviews identified in the electronic search; and online trial registries for unpublished, ongoing, or planned trials. (PROSPERO CRD42016050028).

    SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized controlled trials in a nursing home setting that included participants of at least 60 years of age.

    MEASURES: Falls, all-cause mortality, hospitalization, and potentially inappropriate medication were assessed in the meta-analysis.

    RESULTS: A total of 41 randomized clinical studies (18,408 residents) that examined deprescribing (defined as either medication discontinuation, substitution, or reduction) in nursing were identified. Deprescribing interventions significantly reduced the number of residents with potentially inappropriate medications by 59% (odds ratio [OR] 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.19-0.89). In subgroup analysis, medication review-directed deprescribing interventions reduced all-cause mortality by 26% (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65-0.84), as well as the number of fallers by 24% (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62-0.93).

    CONCLUSIONS: Compared to other deprescribing interventions, medication review-directed deprescribing had significant benefits on older residents in nursing homes. Further research is required to elicit other clinical benefits of medication review-directed deprescribing practice.

  2. James SL, Castle CD, Dingels ZV, Fox JT, Hamilton EB, Liu Z, et al.
    Inj Prev, 2020 Oct;26(Supp 1):i125-i153.
    PMID: 32839249 DOI: 10.1136/injuryprev-2019-043531
    BACKGROUND: While there is a long history of measuring death and disability from injuries, modern research methods must account for the wide spectrum of disability that can occur in an injury, and must provide estimates with sufficient demographic, geographical and temporal detail to be useful for policy makers. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 study used methods to provide highly detailed estimates of global injury burden that meet these criteria.

    METHODS: In this study, we report and discuss the methods used in GBD 2017 for injury morbidity and mortality burden estimation. In summary, these methods included estimating cause-specific mortality for every cause of injury, and then estimating incidence for every cause of injury. Non-fatal disability for each cause is then calculated based on the probabilities of suffering from different types of bodily injury experienced.

    RESULTS: GBD 2017 produced morbidity and mortality estimates for 38 causes of injury. Estimates were produced in terms of incidence, prevalence, years lived with disability, cause-specific mortality, years of life lost and disability-adjusted life-years for a 28-year period for 22 age groups, 195 countries and both sexes.

    CONCLUSIONS: GBD 2017 demonstrated a complex and sophisticated series of analytical steps using the largest known database of morbidity and mortality data on injuries. GBD 2017 results should be used to help inform injury prevention policy making and resource allocation. We also identify important avenues for improving injury burden estimation in the future.

  3. James SL, Castle CD, Dingels ZV, Fox JT, Hamilton EB, Liu Z, et al.
    Inj Prev, 2020 10;26(Supp 1):i96-i114.
    PMID: 32332142 DOI: 10.1136/injuryprev-2019-043494
    BACKGROUND: Past research in population health trends has shown that injuries form a substantial burden of population health loss. Regular updates to injury burden assessments are critical. We report Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2017 Study estimates on morbidity and mortality for all injuries.

    METHODS: We reviewed results for injuries from the GBD 2017 study. GBD 2017 measured injury-specific mortality and years of life lost (YLLs) using the Cause of Death Ensemble model. To measure non-fatal injuries, GBD 2017 modelled injury-specific incidence and converted this to prevalence and years lived with disability (YLDs). YLLs and YLDs were summed to calculate disability-adjusted life years (DALYs).

    FINDINGS: In 1990, there were 4 260 493 (4 085 700 to 4 396 138) injury deaths, which increased to 4 484 722 (4 332 010 to 4 585 554) deaths in 2017, while age-standardised mortality decreased from 1079 (1073 to 1086) to 738 (730 to 745) per 100 000. In 1990, there were 354 064 302 (95% uncertainty interval: 338 174 876 to 371 610 802) new cases of injury globally, which increased to 520 710 288 (493 430 247 to 547 988 635) new cases in 2017. During this time, age-standardised incidence decreased non-significantly from 6824 (6534 to 7147) to 6763 (6412 to 7118) per 100 000. Between 1990 and 2017, age-standardised DALYs decreased from 4947 (4655 to 5233) per 100 000 to 3267 (3058 to 3505).

    INTERPRETATION: Injuries are an important cause of health loss globally, though mortality has declined between 1990 and 2017. Future research in injury burden should focus on prevention in high-burden populations, improving data collection and ensuring access to medical care.

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links