Prevalence and Predictors of Potential Drug-Drug Interactions in the Elderly: A Cross-Sectional Study in the Brazilian Primary Public Health System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence of clinically important potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) in elderly patients attending the public primary health care system in Brazil. The secondary objective was to investigate possible predictors of potential DDIs. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out in 5 Brazilian cities located in the Ourinhos Micro-region, Sao Paulo State, between November 2010 and April 2011. The selected sample was divided according to the presence (exposed) or absence (unexposed) of one or more potential DDIs (defined as the presence of a minimum 5-day overlap in supply of an interacting drug pair). Data were collected from medical prescriptions and patients' medical records. Potential DDIs (rated major or moderate) were identified using 4 DDI-checker programs. Logistic regression analysis was used to study potential DDI predictors. RESULTS: The prevalence of clinically important potential DDIs found during the study period was 47.4%. Female sex (OR = 2.49 [95% CI 2.29-2.75]), diagnosis of ≥ 3 diseases (OR = 6.43 [95% CI 3.25-12.44]), and diagnosis of hypertension (OR = 1.68 [95% CI 1.23-2.41]) were associated with potential DDIs. The adjusted OR increased from 0.90 [95% CI 0.82-1.03] in patients aged 60 - 64 years to 4.03 [95% CI 3.79 - 4.28] in those aged 75 years or older. Drug therapy regimens involving ≥ 2 prescribers (OR = 1.39 [95% CI 1.17-1.67]), ≥ 3 drugs (OR = 3.21 [95% CI 2.78-3.59]), ≥ 2 ATC codes (OR = 1.19 [95% CI 1.12-1.29]), ≥ 2 drugs acting on cytochrome P450 (OR = 2.24 [95% CI 2.07-2.46]), and ATC codes B (OR = 1.89 [95% CI 1.05-2.08]) and C (OR = 4.01 [95% CI 3.55-4.57]) were associated with potential DDIs. CONCLUSION: Special care should be taken with the prescription and therapeutic follow-up of patients who present characteristics identified as predictors. Knowledge of potential DDI predictors could aid in developing preventive practices and policies that allow public health services to better manage this situation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".