Purpose: screening tool of older people's prescriptions (STOPP) and screening tool to alert to right treatment (START) criteria were first published in 2008. Due to an expanding therapeutics evidence base, updating of the criteria was required.Methods: we reviewed the 2008 STOPP/START criteria to add new evidence-based criteria and remove any obsolete criteria. A thorough literature review was performed to reassess the evidence base of the 2008 criteria and the proposed new criteria. Nineteen experts from 13 European countries reviewed a new draft of STOPP & START criteria including proposed new criteria. These experts were also asked to propose additional criteria they considered important to include in the revised STOPP & START criteria and to highlight any criteria from the 2008 list they considered less important or lacking an evidence base. The revised list of criteria was then validated using the Delphi consensus methodology.Results: the expert panel agreed a final list of 114 criteria after two Delphi validation rounds, i.e. 80 STOPP criteria and 34 START criteria. This represents an overall 31% increase in STOPP/START criteria compared with version 1. Several new STOPP categories were created in version 2, namely antiplatelet/anticoagulant drugs, drugs affecting, or affected by, renal function and drugs that increase anticholinergic burden; new START categories include urogenital system drugs, analgesics and vaccines.Conclusion: STOPP/START version 2 criteria have been expanded and updated for the purpose of minimizing inappropriate prescribing in older people. These criteria are based on an up-to-date literature review and consensus validation among a European panel of experts.

STOPP criteria PIMs, unlike Beers criteria PIMs, are significantly associated with avoidable ADEs in older people that cause or contribute to urgent hospitalization.

No abstract

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT • Potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people is a well‐documented problem and has been associated with adverse drug reactions and hospitalization.• Beers' criteria, Screening Tool of Older Persons' potentially inappropriate Prescriptions (STOPP) and Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START) are screening tools that have been formulated to help physicians and pharmacists identify potentially inappropriate prescribing and potential prescribing omissions.• The prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing and prescribing omissions in the elderly population presenting to hospital with acute illness is high according to STOPP and START criteria. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS • Potential errors of prescribing and of omission of medicines are prevalent among medically stable older people in primary care.• Screening tools should be incorporated into the everyday practice of primary care doctors and community pharmacists as a means of preventing potential errors of prescribing commission and prescribing omission in older people.AIMS Screening tools have been formulated to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing (IP) in older people. Beers' criteria are the most widely used but have disadvantages when used in Europe. New IP screening tools called Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions (STOPP) and Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START) have been developed to identify potential IP and potential prescribing omissions (PPOs). The aim was to measure the prevalence rates of potential IP and PPOs in primary care using Beers' criteria, STOPP and START.METHODS Case records of 1329 patients ≥65 years old from three general practices in one region of southern Ireland were studied. The mean age ± SD of the patients was 74.9 ± 6.4 years, 60.9% were female. Patients' current diagnoses and prescription medicines were reviewed and the Beers' criteria, STOPP and START tools applied.RESULTS The total number of medicines prescribed was 6684; median number of medicines per patient was five (range 1–19). Overall, Beers' criteria identified 286 potentially inappropriate prescriptions in 18.3% (243) of patients, whilst the corresponding IP rate identified by STOPP was 21.4% (284), in respect of 346 potentially inappropriate prescriptions. A total of 333 PPOs were identified in 22.7% (302) of patients using the START tool.CONCLUSION Potentially inappropriate drug prescribing and errors of drug omission are highly prevalent among older people living in the community. Prevention strategies should involve primary care doctors and community pharmacists.

of older person's potentially inappropriate prescriptions, screening tool to alert doctors to the right treatment SUMMARYWhat is known and Objective: Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) has significant clinical, humanistic and economic impacts. Identifying PIP in older adults may reduce their burden of adverse drug events. Tools with explicit criteria are being developed to screen for PIP in this population. These tools vary in their ability to identify PIP in specific care settings and jurisdictions due to such factors as local prescribing practices and formularies. One promising set of screening tools are the STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Person's potentially inappropriate Prescriptions) and START (Screening Tool of Alert doctors to the Right Treatment) criteria. We conducted a systematic review of research studies that describe the application of the STOPP/START criteria and examined the evidence of the impact of STOPP/START on clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes in older adults. Methods: We performed a systematic review of studies from relevant biomedical databases and grey literature sources published from January 2007 to January 2012. We searched citation and reference lists and contacted content experts to identify additional studies. Two authors independently selected studies using a predefined protocol. We did not restrict selection to particular study designs; however, non-English studies were excluded during the selection process. Independent extraction of articles by two authors used predefined data fields. For randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing STOPP/START to other explicit criteria, we assessed risk of bias using an adapted tool. Results and Discussion: We included 13 studies: a single randomized controlled trial and 12 observational studies. We performed a descriptive analysis as heterogeneity of study populations, interventions and study design precluded metaanalysis. All observational studies reported the prevalence of PIP; however, the application of the criteria was not consistent across all studies. Seven of the observational studies compared STOPP/ START with other explicit criteria. The STOPP/START criteria were reported to be more sensitive than the more-frequentlycited Beers criteria in six studies, but less sensitive than a set of criteria developed in Australia. The STOPP criteria identified more medications associated with adverse drug events than the 2002 version of the Beers criteria. Patients with PIP, as identified by STOPP, had an 85% increased risk of adverse drug events in one study (OR = 1Á85, 95% CI: 1Á51-2Á26; P < 0Á001). There was limited evidence that the application of STOPP/START criteria optimized prescribing. Research involving the application of STOPP/START on the impact on the quality of life was not found. The direct costs of PIP were documented in three studies from Ireland, but more extensive analyses on the economic impact or studies from other jurisdictions were not found. What is new and Conclusion: The STOPP/START c...

Global healthcare expenditure is escalating at an unsustainable rate. Money spent on medicines and managing medication-related problems continues to grow. The high prevalence of medication errors and inappropriate prescribing is a major issue within healthcare systems, and can often contribute to adverse drug events, many of which are preventable. As a result, there is a huge opportunity for pharmacists to have a significant impact on reducing healthcare costs, as they have the expertise to detect, resolve, and prevent medication errors and medication-related problems. The development of clinical pharmacy practice in recent decades has resulted in an increased number of pharmacists working in clinically advanced roles worldwide. Pharmacist-provided services and clinical interventions have been shown to reduce the risk of potential adverse drug events and improve patient outcomes, and the majority of published studies show that these pharmacist activities are cost-effective or have a good cost:benefit ratio. This review demonstrates that pharmacists can contribute to substantial healthcare savings across a variety of settings. However, there is a paucity of evidence in the literature highlighting the specific aspects of pharmacists’ work which are the most effective and cost-effective. Future high-quality economic evaluations with robust methodologies and study design are required to investigate what pharmacist services have significant clinical benefits to patients and substantiate the greatest cost savings for healthcare budgets.

SUMMARYWhat is known and objective: STOPP/START are explicit screening tools that identify potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults. Our objective was to update our 2013 systematic review that showed limited evidence of impact, using new evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes in older adults. Methods: We performed a search of PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and grey literature for RCTs published in English since the previous review through June 2014. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used. We performed a meta-analysis on the effect of STOPP on potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) rates and a narrative synthesis on other outcomes. Results and discussion: Four RCTs (n = 1925 adults) from four countries were included, reporting both acute (n = 2) and longterm care (n = 2) patients. Studies differed in implementation. Two studies were judged to have low risk, and two to have moderate-to-high risk of bias in key domains. Meta-analysis found that the STOPP criteria reduced PIM rates in all four studies, but study heterogeneity (I 2 = 86Á7%) prevented the calculation of a meaningful statistical summary. We found evidence that use of the criteria reduces falls, delirium episodes, hospital length-of-stay, care visits (primary and emergency) and medication costs, but no evidence of improvements in quality of life or mortality. What is new and conclusion: STOPP/START may be effective in improving prescribing quality, clinical, humanistic and economic outcomes. Additional research investigating these tools is needed, especially in frail elderly and community-living patients receiving primary care. WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVEMedication use in older adults occurs in a complex environment. Appropriate prescribing involves an understanding of the effect of ageing on physiology and pharmacokinetics, a knowledge of pharmacology, the ability to balance risks versus benefits, and a willingness to listen to patient and caregiver concerns.1,2 Practitioners experience an ongoing challenge in finding age-and disease-appropriate evidence as many clinical trials continue to exclude the very frail, or older patients with multiple morbidities. Moreover, life expectancy and cost efficiency must also be considered in best prescribing practices.Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) is a term that encompasses the prescribing of potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) where risks and costs outweigh potential benefits, as well as potential prescribing omission (PPO), where clinically beneficial medications may not be prescribed for a number of reasons. 1,4 There is agreement that PIP is prevalent in older patients. 1,5 Studies that determine the incidence or prevalence of PIP in older adults report a range of rates dependent on the healthcare setting and the characteristics of population studied. The rates reported also vary depending on the instrument used to measure PIP. A recent study in Sweden used five explicit screening tools and found 38% o...

Background: adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are a major cause of morbidity and healthcare utilisation in older people. The GerontoNet ADR risk score aims to identify older people at risk of ADRs during hospitalisation. We aimed to assess the clinical applicability of this score and identify other variables that predict ADRs in hospitalised older people. Methods: we prospectively studied 513 acutely ill patients aged ≥65 years. The GerontoNet ADR risk score was calculated for all patients. ADRs were identified through patient and physician consultation together with analysis of case notes. Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to test the ability of the GerontoNet risk score to predict ADRs. Multivariate logistic regression examined the influence of individual variables on the presence of ADRs. Results: in-hospital ADRs were identified in 135 patients (26%). The area under the ROC curve was 0.62 (95% CI: 0.57-0.68). Variables which increased ADR risk include (i) renal failure (OR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.12-2.92), (ii) increasing number of medications (OR: 1.09, 95% CI: 1.02-1.17) (iii) inappropriate medications (OR: 2.40, 95% CI: 1.26-4.50) and (iv) age ≥75 years (OR: 2.12, 95% CI: 1.23-3.70). Conclusion: the GerontoNet ADR risk score incorrectly classified 38% of patients as low risk. Inappropriate medications and increasing age also contribute to ADR risk.