Aims To investigate whether results from case control and cross sectional studies which suggest an association between laxative use and other drug use could be confirmed in a cohort study of nursing home patients. Methods A prospective cohort study of 2355 nursing home patients aged 65 years and over was performed to estimate the incidence relative risk of constipation associated with drug use. The study was conducted with prescription sequence analysis of each resident's detailed pharmacy records and data on morbidity and mobility. Results Use of drugs, which according to the summaries of product characteristics (SPC) and the literature on adverse drug effects have moderately to strongly constipating properties, was associated with a relative risk of 1.59 (95% CI 1.24-2.04) for the occurrence of constipation during exposure time. Use of drugs with mildly to moderately constipating effects was not associated with laxative use (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.93-1.38). Stratification on the level of age, gender, type of nursing ( psychogeriatric or somatic), morbidity, number of medications taken and mobility showed no confounding effects of these variables on outcome measurements. These variables all acted as effect modifiers. Effect of age and number of medications taken on the relative risk was nonlinear. Conclusions Although an association between drugs that exhibit moderately to strongly constipating effects and occurrence of constipation was found, the risk was not as high as seen in previous studies. The high prevalence of constipation in nursing home patients is only partly due to adverse drug effects.

No abstract

No abstract

OBJECTIVE:To evaluate drug use in 2 Dutch nursing homes (254 residents) by developing and evaluating prescribing indicators based on pharmacy prescription data. METHODS:We evaluated the prescribing of benzodiazepines, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), ulcer-healing drugs, and diuretics. Prescribing indicators were used to identify prescribing that was potentially not in line with recommendations in national and regional prescribing guidelines. We used both descriptive indicators, such as the number and percentage of users, and indicators reflecting potentially suboptimal prescribing, such as use of drugs outside the regional drug formulary, use of >1 drug from the same drug class, and prescription of drug dosages above recommended values. When potentially suboptimal prescribing was found, we verified the findings by means of an interview with 1 of the prescribers. RESULTS:The prescribing indicators we assessed were generally in agreement with national and regional guidelines. However, prescribing of NSAIDs without concomitant prescribing of gastroprotective drugs was found in a relatively high number of patients. After prescriber interview and patient chart review, it was found that some prescribing indicators, such as dosages above recommended values, were not always indicative for suboptimal prescribing. CONCLUSIONS:This pilot study showed that prescribing indicators based solely on pharmacy prescription data can be a useful tool to evaluate drug prescribing. With some of these prescribing indicators, we identified cases of potentially suboptimal prescribing. However, with other indicators such as those based on drug dosages, we could not identify suboptimal prescribing, and clinical information from the prescriber was necessary to get insight into the appropriateness of prescribing.