Evidence Hub

The Sex-Specific Impact of the FORTA (Fit-fOR-The-Aged) List on Medication Quality and Clinical Endpoints in Older Hospitalized Patients: Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial

Anna Schmitt, C. Weiss, H. Burkhardt, H. Frohnhofen, M. Wehling, F. Pazan

Drugs - Real World Outcomes, 2022

409 participants · 2 citations

Abstract

Little is known about the sex-specific impact of drug optimization tools such as the Fit fOR The Aged (FORTA) list on drug use and relevant clinical endpoints in older people. We aimed to detect gender differences of interventional effects on medication quality and related clinical effects in the VALFORTA trial. A sex-specific analysis of data from 409 patients (147 men and 262 women, mean age 79.4 and 82.7 years, respectively) in acute geriatric care comparing the control and FORTA intervention groups was performed. Changes of the FORTA score (sum of over- and undertreatment errors per patient), the incidence of adverse drug events (ADEs) during hospitalization, and several clinically relevant endpoints [e.g., the Barthel index (BI)] were tested for equivalence at a 20% margin. “Success” or “failure” for the development of these clinical endpoints was defined and their frequencies compared by a risk reduction analysis. Sex differences were insignificant for the reduction of the FORTA score, the improvement of BI, or over- and undertreatment errors (p > 0.05). In women only, the FORTA intervention significantly increased the number of patients without an ADE (p = 0.010). Statistical sex equivalence was found for the improvement of the FORTA scores, BI, and the number of prevented events (e.g., falls, confusion, or renal failure) (p 0.05). Both sexes benefit equally from the FORTA intervention regarding the amelioration of the quality of drug treatment as well as several…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 409 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free