Rights statement: This is the peer reviewed version of the following article:McMahon, M., McMahon, M., Hatton, C., Bowring, D. L., Hardy, C., and Preston, N. J. (2021) The prevalence of potential drug–drug interactions in adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 65: 930– 940. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12844 which has been published in final form at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.12844 This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.
Accepted author manuscript, 297 KB, PDF document
Available under license: CC BY-NC: Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License
Final published version
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - The prevalence of potential drug-drug interactions in adults with intellectual disability
AU - McMahon, Martin
AU - Hatton, Chris
AU - Bowring, Darren Lee
AU - Hardy, Claire
AU - Preston, Nancy
N1 - This is the peer reviewed version of the following article:McMahon, M., McMahon, M., Hatton, C., Bowring, D. L., Hardy, C., and Preston, N. J. (2021) The prevalence of potential drug–drug interactions in adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 65: 930– 940. https://doi.org/10.1111/jir.12844 which has been published in final form at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jir.12844 This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance With Wiley Terms and Conditions for self-archiving.
PY - 2021/10/31
Y1 - 2021/10/31
N2 - BackgroundThere is a high use of medications in adults with intellectual disability (ID). One implication of taking multiple medications is the potential for drug–drug interactions (DDIs). However, despite this being well highlighted in the mainstream literature, little is known about the incidence or associations of DDIs in the ID population.MethodsThis study describes the prevalence, patterns and associations of potential DDIs in a total administrative sample of adults with ID known to services in Jersey. Demographic, health‐related and medication data were collected from 217 adults known to ID services. Data were collected using a face‐to‐face survey. The Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification system was used to categorise medications, and Stockley's Drug Interaction Checker was used to classify potential DDIs. Drug–drug pairings were considered to be of clinical significance if they were to be ‘avoided, adjusted, monitored or required further information’.ResultsPotential DDIs of clinical significance were common. Exposure to potential DDIs of clinical significance was associated with being female, taking more than five medications (polypharmacy), living in residential care and having more health conditions. A simple regression was used to understand the effect of number of prescribed medications on potential DDIs of clinical significance. Every prescribed drug led to a 0.87 (95% confidence interval: 0.72–1.00) increase in having a potential DDI of clinical significance.ConclusionAdults with ID who live in residential care, who are female, exposed to polypharmacy and have more health conditions may be more likely to have potential DDIs of clinical significance. Urgent consideration needs to be given to the potential of DDIs in this population given their exposure to high levels of medication.
AB - BackgroundThere is a high use of medications in adults with intellectual disability (ID). One implication of taking multiple medications is the potential for drug–drug interactions (DDIs). However, despite this being well highlighted in the mainstream literature, little is known about the incidence or associations of DDIs in the ID population.MethodsThis study describes the prevalence, patterns and associations of potential DDIs in a total administrative sample of adults with ID known to services in Jersey. Demographic, health‐related and medication data were collected from 217 adults known to ID services. Data were collected using a face‐to‐face survey. The Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification system was used to categorise medications, and Stockley's Drug Interaction Checker was used to classify potential DDIs. Drug–drug pairings were considered to be of clinical significance if they were to be ‘avoided, adjusted, monitored or required further information’.ResultsPotential DDIs of clinical significance were common. Exposure to potential DDIs of clinical significance was associated with being female, taking more than five medications (polypharmacy), living in residential care and having more health conditions. A simple regression was used to understand the effect of number of prescribed medications on potential DDIs of clinical significance. Every prescribed drug led to a 0.87 (95% confidence interval: 0.72–1.00) increase in having a potential DDI of clinical significance.ConclusionAdults with ID who live in residential care, who are female, exposed to polypharmacy and have more health conditions may be more likely to have potential DDIs of clinical significance. Urgent consideration needs to be given to the potential of DDIs in this population given their exposure to high levels of medication.
KW - adverse reaction
KW - drug–drug interaction
KW - intellectual disability
KW - medication
KW - polypharmacy
U2 - 10.1111/jir.12844
DO - 10.1111/jir.12844
M3 - Journal article
VL - 65
SP - 930
EP - 940
JO - Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
JF - Journal of Intellectual Disability Research
SN - 0964-2633
IS - 10
ER -