Abstract
Modern pharmacotherapy has to meet high-quality standards for the optimized treatment of every patient. On the one hand, standardization is indispensable for the determination of stable dosages and effect prediction and hereby is one of the major prerequisites for prescription safety and treatment efficacy. On the other hand, individualization of pharmacotherapy is mandatory because both patient-related and environmental factors lead to a wide variability of clinical phenotypes with critical relevance to drug treatment. Despite all standardization procedures and recommendations, pharmacotherapy is still characterized best as an individual experiment in daily practice; factors influencing the therapeutic response are never entirely known a priori, and the effect size cannot be securely calculated in advance. To minimize risks and maximize benefits, a careful estimation process for the risk-benefit ratio should take place at the beginning of every pharmacotherapeutic intervention. Today, information concerning the potential, and thus expected benefit, of a drug relies mainly on clinical studies in accordance with the principles of “evidence-based medicine” (EBM). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) represent the data source with the highest quality, and general validity is claimed for results derived from such studies. However, significant limitations of RCTs are often overlooked; RCTs are preferably performed in populations that are artificially homogeneous by virtue of narrow inclusion and wide exclusion criteria. They thus do not actually represent the entire population with a given disease but may even only be typical for a minority of patients within this population. This strict patient selection mainly reflects methodological considerations and limitations in that clear drug effects may become diluted by confounders such as concomitant diseases or relevant conditions (e.g., kidney impairment). As the selected study population does not represent all patients with the disease, results should not be automatically generalized to the treatment of all patients with a given disease. Serious concerns about the so-called external validity of trial data should be triggered when important subgroups are severely underrepresented, as is still true for most trials almost systematically excluding the elderly (Bugeja et al. 1997; Lee et al. 2001; Dodd et al. 2011; Witham and McMurdo 2007).
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Bengtson VL, Schaie KW (eds) (1999) Handbook of theories of aging. Springer, Berlin
Bugeja G, Kumar A, Banerjee AK (1997) Exclusion of elderly people from clinical research: a descriptive study of published reports. BMJ 315:1059
Calis KA, Young LR (2001) Clinical analysis of adverse drug reactions. In: Atkinson AJ, Daniels CE, Dedrick RL, Grudzinskas CV, Markey SP (eds) Principles of clinical pharmacology. Academic, San Diego, pp 319–332
Dodd KS, Saczynski JS, Zhao Y, Goldberg RJ, Gurwitz JH (2011) Exclusion of older adults and women from recent trials of acute coronary syndromes. J Am Geriatr Soc 59:506–511
Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Cardiovascular Health Study Collaborative Research Group et al (2001) Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 56:M146–M156
Gillick M (1994) Choosing medical care in old age: what kind, how much, when to stop. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Horan MA (1998) Presentation of disease in old age. In: Tallis R, Fillit H, Brocklehurst JC (eds) Brocklehurst’s textbook of geriatric medicine and gerontology. Livingstone, Edinburgh, pp 201–206
Inouye SK, Studenski S, Tinetti ME, Kuchel GA (2007) Geriatric syndromes: clinical, research, and policy implications of a core geriatric concept. J Am Geriatr Soc 55:780–791
Lee PY, Alexander KP, Hammill BG, Pasquali SK, Peterson ED (2001) Representation of elderly persons and women in published randomized trials of acute coronary syndromes. JAMA 286:708–713
Mahoney FI, Barthel DW (1965) Functional evaluation. The Barthel index. Maryland State Med J 14:61–65
McElnay JC, McCallion CR (1998) Adherence and the elderly. In: Myers LB, Midence K (eds) Adherence to treatment in medical conditions. Harwood Academic, Amsterdam, pp 223–253
Nikolaus T, Bach M, Specht-Leible N, Oster P, Schlierf G (1995) The timed test of money counting: a short physical performance test for manual dexterity and cognitive capacity. Age Aging 24:257–258
Nikolaus T, Kruse W, Bach M, Specht-Leible N, Oster P, Schlierf G (1996) Elderly patients’ problems with medication. An inhospital and follow-up study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 49:255–259
Witham MD, McMurdo ME (2007) How to get older people included in clinical studies. Drugs Aging 24:187–196
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Wien
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Burkhardt, H. (2013). Heterogeneity and Vulnerability of Older Patients. In: Wehling, M. (eds) Drug Therapy for the Elderly. Springer, Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-0912-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-0912-0_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Vienna
Print ISBN: 978-3-7091-0911-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-7091-0912-0
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)