Introduction The importance of rational drug therapy is increasing with the aging of the population. Since one of the main reasons for inappropriate drug prescribing is also the “age-blind” approach, which results in ageist practices, this narrative literature review focuses on the description of the main barriers related to insufficient individualization of drug regimens associated with such age-blind approaches. Methodology A narrative literature review using the PubMed, WoS, Embase, and Scopus databases was conducted by the EU COST Action IS1402. Experts in different scientific fields from six countries (the Czech Republic, Spain, Portugal, Hungary, Serbia, and Turkey) worked in four specific areas: (1) underrepresentation of older adults in clinical trials and clinical and ethical consequences; (2) insufficient consideration of age-related changes and geriatric frailty in the evaluation of the therapeutic value of drugs; (3) frequent prescribing of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs); and (4) frequent underuse of highly beneficial nonpharmacological strategies (e.g., exercise). Results Older patients are underrepresented in clinical trials. Therefore, rigorous observational geriatric research is needed in order to obtain evidence on the real efficacy and safety of frequently used drugs, and e.g. developed geriatric scales and frailty indexes for claims databases should help to stimulate such research. The use of PIMs, unfortunately, is still highly prevalent in Europe: 22.6% in community-dwelling older patients and 49.0% in institutionalized older adults. Specific tests to detect the majority of age-related pharmacological changes are usually not available in everyday clinical practice, which limits the estimation of drug risks and possibilities to individualize drug therapy in geriatric patients before drug prescription. Moreover, the role of some nonpharmacological strategies is highly underestimated in older adults in contrast to frequent use of polypharmacy. Among nonpharmacological strategies, particularly physical exercise was highly effective in reducing functional decline, frailty, and the risk of falls in the majority of clinical studies. Conclusion Several regulatory and clinical barriers contribute to insufficient knowledge on the therapeutic value of drugs in older patients, age-blind approach, and inappropriate prescribing. New clinical and observational research is needed, including data on comprehensive geriatric assessment and frailty, to document the real efficacy and safety of frequently used medications.

We aimed to systematically review the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in older adults in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in all care settings. We searched Embase and MEDLINE (up to June 2019) and checked the reference lists of the included studies and relevant reviews. Eligible studies used validated explicit or implicit tools to assess the PIP prevalence in older adults in CEE. All study designs were considered, except case‒control studies and case series. We assessed the risk of bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Prevalence Critical Appraisal Tool and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Meta-analysis was inappropriate due to heterogeneity in the outcome measurements. Therefore, we used the synthesis without meta-analysis approach—summarizing effect estimates method. This review included twenty-seven studies with 139,693 participants. Most studies were cross-sectional and conducted in high-income countries. The data synthesis across 26 studies revealed the PIP prevalence: the median was 34.6%, the interquartile range was 25.9–63.2%, and the range was 6.5–95.8%. The certainty of this evidence was very low due to the risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. These findings show that PIP is a prevalent issue in the CEE region. Further well-designed studies conducted across countries are needed to strengthen the existing evidence and increase the generalizability of findings.

Few studies have been conducted on multimorbidity (two or more chronic diseases) and rational geriatric prescribing in Africa. This study examined the prevalence and determinants of multimorbidity, polypharmacy (five or more long-term medications), and potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) use according to the 2019 Beers criteria among the older adults attending chronic care clinics from a single institution in Ethiopia. A hospital-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 320 randomly selected older adults from 12 March 2020 to 30 August 2020. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the predictor variables. The prevalence of multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and PIM exposure was 59.1%, 24.1%, and 47.2%, respectively. Diuretics (10%), insulin sliding scale (8.8%), amitriptyline (7.8%), and aspirin (6.9%) were among the most frequently prescribed PIMs. Older patients experiencing pain flare-ups were more likely to have multimorbidity (adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 1.64, 95% confidence intervals: 1.13–2.39). Persistent anger (AOR: 3.33; 1.71–6.47) and use of mobility aids (AOR: 2.41, 1.35–4.28) were associated with polypharmacy. Moreover, cognitive impairment (AOR: 1.65, 1.15–2.34) and health deterioration (AOR: 1.61, 1.11–2.32) increased the likelihood of PIM exposure. High prevalence of multimorbidity and PIM use was observed in Ethiopia. Several important determinants that can be modified by applying PIM criteria in routine practice were also identified.

Background: The European Union (EU)(7)-PIM (potentially inappropriate medication) list presents the most comprehensive and up-to-date tool for evaluation of PIM prescribing in Europe; however, several country-specific studies have documented lower specificity of this list on pharmaceutical markets of some countries. The aim of our study was to describe approval rates and marketing of PIMs stated by EU(7)-PIM criteria in six EU countries [in comparison with the American Geriatric Society (AGS) Beers 2015 criteria]. Methods: Research teams of six EU countries (Czech Republic, Spain, Portugal, Serbia, Hungary and Turkey) participated in this study conducted by WG1b EU COST Action IS1402 group in the period October 2015–November 2018. Data on approval rates of PIMs and their availability on pharmaceutical markets have been obtained from databases of national drug-regulatory institutes and up-to-date drug compendia. The EU(7)-PIM list and AGS Beers 2015 Criteria (Section 1) were applied. Results: PIMs from EU(7)-PIM list were approved for clinical use more often than those from the AGS Beers 2015 criteria (Section 1). Approval rates for EU(7)-PIMs ranged from 42.8% in Serbia to 71.4% in Spain (for AGS criteria only from 36.4% to 65.1%, respectively). Higher percentages of approved PIMs were documented in Spain (71.4%), Portugal (67.1%) and Turkey (67.5%), lower in Hungary (55.5%), Czech Republic (50.2%) and Serbia (42.8%). The majority of approved PIMs were also currently marketed in all countries except in Turkey (19.8–21.7% not marketed PIMs) and less than 20% of PIMs were available as over-the-counter medications (except in Turkey, 46.4–48.1%). Conclusions: The EU(7)-PIM list was created for utilization in European studies; however, applicability of this list is still limited in some countries, particularly in Eastern and Central Europe. The EU project EUROAGEISM H2020 (2017–2021) that focuses on PIM prescribing and regulatory measures in Central and Eastern European countries must consider these limits.

Over the past 25 years, there has been growing recognition of the importance of studying the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (ELSI) of genetic and genomic research. A large investment into ELSI research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Human Genomic Project budget in 1990 stimulated the growth of this emerging field; ELSI research has continued to develop and is starting to emerge as a field in its own right. The evolving subject matter of ELSI research continues to raise new research questions as well as prompt re-evaluation of earlier work and a growing number of scholars working in this area now identify themselves as ELSI scholars rather than with a particular discipline. Due to the international and interdisciplinary nature of ELSI research, scholars can often find themselves isolated from disciplinary or regionally situated support structures. We conducted a workshop with Early Career Researchers (ECRs) in Oxford, UK, and this paper discusses some of the particular challenges that were highlighted. While ELSI ECRs may face many of the universal challenges faced by ECRs, we argue that a number of challenges are either unique or exacerbated in the case of ELSI ECRs and discuss some of the reasons as to why this may be the case. We identify some of the most pressing issues for ELSI ECRs as: interdisciplinary angst and expertise, isolation from traditional support structures, limited resources and funding opportunities, and uncertainty regarding how research contributions will be measured. We discuss the potential opportunity to use web 2.0 technologies to transform academic support structures and address some of the challenges faced by ELSI ECRs, by helping to facilitate mentoring and support, access to resources and new accreditation metrics. As our field develops it is crucial for the ELSI community to continue looking forward to identify how emerging digital solutions can be used to facilitate the international and interdisciplinary research we perform, and to offer support for those embarking on, progressing through, and transitioning into an ELSI research career.