Table 3.
Longitudinal association of PIM use, defined by four different criteria, and incident frailty (N = 2,011 community-dwelling older adults, N = 423 incident frailty cases during 6 years for FUP)
| Model |
PRISCUS PIM users
(N = 250) |
EU(7) PIM users
(N = 689) |
BEERS PIM users
(N = 498) |
BEERS dementia PIM users
(N = 161) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HR (95%CI) | HR (95%CI) | HR (95%CI) | HR (95%CI) | |
| Crude model | 1.50 (1.16, 1.93) | 1.63 (1.35, 1.97) | 1.89 (1.55, 2.31) | 1.80 (1.32, 2.46) |
| Multivariable model 1a | 1.43 (1.11, 1.84) | 1.42 (1.17, 1.73) | 1.65 (1.35, 2.02) | 1.58 (1.15, 2.19) |
| Multivariable model 2b | 1.09 (0.84, 1.41) | 1.07 (0.86, 1.32) | 1.31 (1.06, 1.63) | 1.22 (0.88, 1.70) |
| Multivariable model 3c | 0.99 (0.75, 1.30) | 1.00 (0.81, 1.23) | 1.34 (1.08, 1.66) | 1.17 (0.83, 1.65) |
| Propensity score modeld | 0.92 (0.69, 1.23) | 0.97 (0.78, 1.21) | 1.17 (0.92, 1.48) | 1.19 (0.84, 1.68) |
Note. Statistically significant results are in italics. CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio; PIM, potentially inappropriate medication
a Adjusted for age and sex.
b Adjusted for age, sex and the number of medicines.
c Adjusted for age, sex, the number of medicines, school education, net household income, smoking status, body mass index, total comorbidity score and baseline pre-frailty.
d Adjusted for propensity score deciles.