Impact of Pharmacotherapy Optimization in Polymedicated Lebanese Older Adults in Primary Health Care Centers

NCT07866677 — Not applicable, Not yet recruiting, 452 participants, National Institute of Public Health, Clinical Epidemiology, and Toxicology-Lebanon (INSPECT-LB)

ClinicalTrials Daily  ·  Areas  ·  Conditions  ·  Drugs  ·  Sponsors  ·  

Pharmacotherapy Review and Optimization: Impact on Clinical Outcomes, Social Determinants of Health, and Quality of Life Among Polymedicated Lebanese Older Patients in the Primary Healthcare Setting Amidst Crises

RegistryNCT07866677, acronym PHARMACT-PHC
StatusNot yet recruiting
PhaseNot applicable
Study typeInterventional; randomized, parallel, masking: none, treatment
Enrollment452 (Estimated)
SponsorNational Institute of Public Health, Clinical Epidemiology, and Toxicology-Lebanon (INSPECT-LB) (Other); collaborators: University Hospital, Toulouse
ConditionsOlder Adults (65 Years and Older), Polypharmacy (People Under Treatment With 5 or More Drugs), Primary Health Care, Social Determinants of Health (SDOH), Clinical Outcomes, Quality of Life (QOL), Pharmacotherapy Optimization, Intrinsic Capacity, Health Outcomes
InterventionsStructured pharmacotherapy optimization, Usual Care (Other)
Datesstart 2026-10-01 (estimated), primary completion 2027-08-01 (estimated), completion 2027-08-01 (estimated), first posted 2026-10-08, last updated 2026-10-08
Locations1 site in Lebanon

Related Papers Related Patents Related Grants Related Experts
All trials for Older Adults (65 Years and Older) All trials for Polypharmacy (People Under Treatment With 5 or More Drugs) All trials of Structured pharmacotherapy optimization All trials of Usual Care

-Summary

Why are the researchers doing this study? Many older adults take five or more medicines every day. Some of these medicines may no longer help them. Some may even cause harm, such as falls, confusion or tiredness. At the same time, a medicine the person needs may be missing.

The researchers want to find out whether a careful review of a person's medicines helps older adults stay well. They will look at intrinsic capacity. This means the physical and mental abilities a person can draw on: memory and thinking, walking and moving, eating well, mood, eyesight and hearing. They will also look at quality of life, daily life, health and social conditions.

This kind of study has not been done before in primary health care centers in Lebanon.

Who can take part?

You may be able to join if you:

* are 65 years old or older
* have been a patient at one of the health centers for at least one year
* take five or more medicines for long-term health problems
* can carry out your daily activities on your own What will happen in the study? About 452 people will join at the primary health care centers of the Order of Malta Lebanon.

A computer will place each person in one of two groups, by chance, like the toss of a coin. About half (226 people) will be in each group:

* In the first group, a pharmacist will go through all of the person's medicines. The pharmacist will use tools made for checking medicines in older people. The pharmacist will then send suggestions to the person's doctor. The doctor decides what to change. No medicine is changed without the doctor's agreement.
* In the second group, people will keep taking the medicines their doctor already prescribed. These medicines are checked in the usual way, which is the same for all patients. They are not checked with tools made for older people.

The study does not test any new or experimental medicine. Every month, when the person comes to pick up their medicines, the pharmacist will check the medicine list. The pharmacist will write down any change and any problem the person reports.

The researchers will check the person's abilities three times: at the start, after three months, and after six months. They will also ask about quality of life, health and social conditions at the start and after six months.

Each person takes part for six months. What are the possible risks and benefits? In both groups, a person's medicines may change during the study. A medicine may be added, stopped or replaced after a review.

Medicines can cause new problems, such as side effects. This can happen with a new medicine. It can also happen with a medicine the person has taken for a long time. The pharmacist asks about such problems every month. Any change to a person's medicines is decided by their own doctor, as in normal care.

People in the study may or may not feel better. The researchers hope the results will help care for older people in Lebanon and in other countries.

What happens after the study? People in both groups keep receiving the usual care of their health center. Taking part does not change a person's right to care. Joining is a free choice. A person can stop at any time, and their care will not change.

Expand all sections  ·  Collapse all

+Detailed description

Scientific rationale:

Polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) are associated with adverse drug events, drug-drug interactions, prescribing cascades, falls and functional decline in older adults. PIP covers both the use of medications whose risks outweigh their benefits and the omission of clinically indicated therapies. The WHO Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) framework reorients geriatric care toward the preservation of intrinsic capacity (IC), defined as the composite of physical and mental capacities an individual can draw upon, across cognition, locomotion, vitality, psychological status and sensory function. Explicit criteria such as STOPP/START allow structured identification of inappropriate medications and prescribing omissions, while implicit approaches grounded in individualized clinical judgment allow decisions to be tailored to patient context and values. The effect of combining both approaches on IC has not been evaluated in a randomized design. In Lebanon, where a rapid demographic transition coincides with economic crisis and sustained pressure on the healthcare system, ICOPE has not been implemented in primary care, IC has not been systematically studied, and pharmacotherapy optimization is not routinely integrated into geriatric care.

Setting and recruitment strategy:

The trial is conducted in the primary health care centers (PHCCs) operated by the Order of Malta Lebanon and distributed across the Lebanese territory. The study is sponsored by the National Institute of Public Health, Clinical Epidemiology and Toxicology-Lebanon (INSPECT-LB), with the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse as collaborating institution.

Recruitment runs in parallel at all sites over a four-month period, which distributes the enrollment burden across centers. Recruitment targets are allocated in proportion to regional population density and center capacity, with larger numbers drawn from the largest centers. Participants are identified on site during routine visits by trained PHCC staff, mainly pharmacists and triage nurses; no telephone-based or remote recruitment is conducted. Eligible individuals are long-standing beneficiaries of their center who attend regularly for medical services including monthly medication refills, which provides repeated and predictable contact points for screening without requiring an additional visit. In 2025, the participating centers served approximately 14,000 unique beneficiaries aged 65 years and over. Screening logs are reviewed per center on a bi-weekly basis by the principal investigator and the co-investigator to monitor recruitment progress.

Assessment schedule:

Data are collected prospectively at the PHCC through face-to-face interviews conducted by trained staff using a standardized questionnaire. The full assessment is administered at baseline (T0) and at six months (T6). At baseline, the following set of information is obtained to capture functional, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics.

Functional status is assessed using the Activities of Daily Living (ADL) and Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) scales. These serve both as baseline measures and as eligibility confirmation, ensuring that participants are functionally independent; individuals who do not meet the threshold are not included.

Sociodemographic and center-related data include the geographic location of the center, source of referral and duration of attendance, together with age, sex, educational level, marital status, number of children where applicable, living arrangements, caregiver status, breadwinner status, place of residence (urban or rural), household crowding index, housing ownership, employment status and healthcare coverage.

Lifestyle characteristics and clinical parameters are assessed at T0 and T6 and encompass physical activity, sleep duration, sedentary behavior, caffeine intake, smoking, alcohol consumption, vital signs (heart rate, oxygen saturation, systolic and diastolic blood pressure), laboratory results and chronic diseases.

Frailty and sarcopenia are assessed at T0 and T6 using the Fried frailty phenotype and the SARC-F screening tool. Although these measures are typically part of the Step 2 mobility assessment within the ICOPE framework, they are administered to all participants at baseline following Step 1 screening, to ensure comprehensive characterization of functional status.

Medication-related variables at baseline include the number of prescribed chronic medications, the total daily pill burden, a detailed medication list, and medication adherence assessed with the Lebanese Medication Adherence Scale for Primary Healthcare (LMAS-PHC). Throughout the six-month follow-up, the pharmacist updates the medication list at each monthly in-person refill visit, alongside routine counselling and education, and documents any medication change with its reason and any reported adverse event. Adherence is re-assessed with the LMAS-PHC at six months.

Health-related quality of life is evaluated at T0 and T6 with the WHO Quality of Life-OLD brief instrument. Social determinants of health are assessed at the same timepoints using the Socioeconomic Status for Primary Healthcare (SES-PHC) scale, the Steps to Better Health Questionnaire (STBH-Q), the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being scale (FACIT-Sp-12, version 4), the UCLA Loneliness Scale (ULS-8, version 3) and the European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q16).

For data elements that are clinically documented rather than self-reported, such as vital signs, laboratory results, chronic diseases and current medication lists, information may be retrieved from PHENICS, the health information system deployed by the Lebanese Ministry of Public Health across all PHCCs. This minimizes interview burden while ensuring the accuracy and completeness of routinely recorded clinical data.

Implementation of the ICOPE framework:

The ICOPE framework is implemented following a real-life approach. Step 1 screening is systematically performed for all participants across the intrinsic capacity domains defined by WHO: cognition, locomotion, vitality, vision, hearing and psychological status, with vision and hearing forming the sensory domain at the scoring stage. Screening enables early detection of functional decline and supports the assessment of overall intrinsic capacity. It is administered at baseline, at three months (T3) and at six months. The T3 assessment is limited to Step 1 screening; it provides three IC measurements per participant, supports the estimation of individual trajectories, and limits the impact of loss to follow-up before T6.

Step 2 in-depth assessments, using validated tools, are conducted at baseline and at six months, in line with WHO recommendations for biannual evaluation. They are performed selectively, for the domains concerned, and are initiated only after Step 1 alerts have been reviewed and appropriately managed, in order to confirm suspected impairment or screening-detected decline in the corresponding domain. Participants screening abnormal in one or two domains undergo a Step 2 assessment targeted to those domains, while a comprehensive Step 2 evaluation across all domains is undertaken when impairment is identified in at least three domains.

Sample size justification:

The sample size was estimated for the IC endpoint. In the absence of published data in a comparable population, assumptions were derived from preliminary unpublished data from the ongoing INSPIRE study at CHU de Toulouse, France, in which participants aged 65 years and over had a mean IC score of 79.27 (SD 9.47; n = 549), with greater dispersion among those taking five or more medications. A between-group difference of 2.5 IC points (79.0 versus 81.5) was considered clinically plausible, and a conservative standard deviation of 9 points was retained to avoid underestimating variability in an older polymedicated population. With a two-sided alpha of 0.05, 80% power and 1:1 allocation, 203 participants per group were required. To account for an anticipated 10% rate of loss to follow-up, withdrawal of consent and missing primary-outcome data, this figure was inflated by dividing by (1 - 0.10), giving 226 participants per group.

A second, independent estimation was performed to verify the adequacy of this figure under the planned adjusted analysis. Using G*Power (version 3.1.9.7), a multiple linear regression model (fixed model, R² increase) was applied to detect the effect of the pharmacotherapy optimization intervention on IC improvement with adjustment for baseline characteristics. Parameters were set as follows: a small anticipated effect size (f² = 0.02), a two-tailed alpha of 0.05, a power of 0.80, one tested predictor (the intervention) and 30 total predictors accounting for potential confounders, including age, sex, number of medications, comorbidities and baseline intrinsic capacity measures. Under these assumptions, a minimum of 395 participants was required, corresponding to 439 participants after the same 10% inflation.

The two approaches therefore converged on a comparable magnitude, and the larger, more conservative estimate of 452 participants (226 per group) was retained as the recruitment target; at this sample size, the adjusted regression model attains a statistical power of 0.85, providing an additional margin for the multivariable analysis.

Statistical analysis:

Analyses will be performed using SPSS and R, with a two-sided alpha of 0.05 and 95% confidence intervals. Baseline characteristics will be described overall and by arm, without significance testing of between-arm differences. Analyses follow the intention-to-treat principle: all randomized participants from both arms will be analyzed in the group to which they were allocated.

The IC score is the additive ICOPE Step 1 composite score. Each domain is rescaled to 0-100 using the percentage of maximum possible method, and the score is the arithmetic mean of five domains: cognition, locomotion, vitality, sensory capacity (vision and hearing averaged) and psychological status. Step 2 data are not used in the derivation of this score.

The intervention effect on IC will be estimated using a linear mixed-effects model including group, time (T0, T3 and T6) and the group-by-time interaction as fixed effects, participant-specific random intercepts and, if supported by model fit, random slopes for time, adjusted for relevant baseline covariates. The distribution of IC scores by arm will be described in relation to published French age- and sex-specific reference centiles and to preliminary Lebanese centiles. Continuous secondary outcomes will be analyzed using the same mixed-effects approach.

PIP is measured before randomization and is therefore analyzed descriptively: the number and types of PIP identified with the STOPP/START version 3 criteria and an implicit approach will be reported for the full baseline sample and by arm, with correlates examined using multivariable logistic regression for the presence of at least one PIP and multivariable linear regression for the number of PIP per participant. As the intervention effect is tested inferentially only for the IC outcome, no adjustment for multiplicity between the two co-primary outcomes is applied.

No imputation will be performed. Baseline covariates are collected in full, and the likelihood-based mixed-effects models use all available observations under a missing-at-random assumption. Step 2 data not indicated by Step 1 screening are structurally absent by design and are not treated as missing.

Exploratory analyses, conducted where data permit and considered hypothesis-generating, include a bifactor confirmatory factor analysis to derive a latent IC score, retained only if model fit and factor-score reliability are acceptable; preliminary Lebanese age- and sex-specific IC centile curves generated with GAMLSS; IC centile transitions between baseline and six months by arm; time from randomization to first medication change analyzed with Cox proportional hazards regression; psychometric evaluation of the study scales; and domain-level analyses of Step 2 data restricted to participants with impairment identified at screening.

Safety monitoring and trial conduct:

A data monitoring committee of four members, independent of the sponsor, the collaborating institution, the host institution and the funders, reviews the monthly medication review records throughout the trial and meets monthly from the initiation of data collection. No interim analysis is planned, given the six-month follow-up and the profile of the intervention, which involves no novel molecule, no experimental treatment, no placebo and no withholding of indicated care, and in which all prescribing decisions remain the responsibility of the treating physician. Site pharmacists report adverse events to the principal investigator within 24 hours of identification; serious adverse events are reported to the ethics committee in accordance with its requirements. Site visits to the participating centers are conducted every one to two months to verify data quality and protocol compliance; the interval may be extended where road safety or security conditions temporarily prevent travel.

+Arms and interventions

ArmTypeInterventionsDescription
Structured pharmacotherapy optimizationExperimentalOther: Structured pharmacotherapy optimizationIntervention-group participants at each Order of Malta Lebanon primary health care center (PHCC) will undergo structured pharmacotherapy optimization using the STOPP/START explicit criteria and the implicit prescribing approach, supervised by the research team with support from an expert panel in clinical pharmacy and geriatric pharmacotherapy. Patient cases will be reviewed in weekly meetings between researchers, PHCC pharmacists, and treating physicians, where identified prescribing issues and proposed optimization strategies will be discussed. Final prescribing decisions will remain with the treating physician and his/her clinical judgement, who, after discussing the agreed changes with the patient at the next monthly medication-refill visit, will amend the prescription as clinically appropriate and update it in the health information system. The pharmacist will then provide the participant with the individualized education on the optimized regimen.
Usual careActive comparatorOther: Usual CareControl-group participants will receive usual care at the participating Order of Malta Lebanon primary health care centers, without the structured pharmacotherapy optimization based on the STOPP/START criteria and the implicit prescribing approach. Usual care comprises multidisciplinary medication reconciliation, routine medication management, patient education and counseling, and dispensing.
  • Structured pharmacotherapy optimization (Other): A structured medication-review and optimization intervention based on STOPP/START explicit criteria, an implicit medication-review approach, and clinical judgment. Medication-related problems and potential optimization strategies are reviewed with the research team and treating physicians. Final prescribing decisions remain the responsibility of the treating physician. Pharmacists subsequently provide participants with medication-related education and updated medication lists during monthly refill visits.
  • Usual Care (Other): Participants receive the usual multidisciplinary medication reconciliation provided at the participating primary healthcare centers (applied to all patients of all ages and not specifically based on the explicit criteria and implicit approach for older patients).

+Outcome measures

Primary outcomes

  • Change in intrinsic capacity composite score [Baseline and 6 months post-randomization]: Intrinsic capacity is measured as the composite score derived from the five WHO ICOPE domains in Step 1 screening, analyzed as change from baseline (T0) to six months post-randomization (T6), and summarized as the adjusted between-group mean difference. Distribution of intrinsic capacity scores across centile categories. Participants will also be positioned on French age- and sex-specific intrinsic capacity reference centiles and on preliminary Lebanese centiles. Transitions across centile categories between baseline and six months are compared between arms.
  • Number of potentially inappropriate prescriptions per participant at baseline [Baseline]: Potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) are identified using the STOPP/START version 3 explicit criteria combined with an implicit prescribing approach. The outcome is the number of PIPs per participant, reported as the mean number per participant and the distribution of PIPs by type. As this outcome is measured before randomization, it is descriptive and is reported for the full baseline sample and by arm.

Secondary outcomes

  • Change in health-related quality of life (WHOQOL-OLD, brief format) [Baseline and 6 months post-randomization]: The change in health-related QOL is analyzed as change from baseline to six months, summarized as the adjusted between-group mean difference. The WHOQOL score ranges between 24 and 120.
  • Change in socioeconomic status (SES-PHC scale) [Baseline and 6 months post-randomization]: The change in SES-PHC scale is analyzed as change from baseline to six months, summarized as the adjusted between-group mean difference. The score ranges between 7 and 29.
  • Change in score on the Steps to Better Health Questionnaire (STBH-Q) [Baseline and 6 months post-randomization]: The change in score on the Steps to Better Health Questionnaire (STBH-Q) is analyzed as change from baseline to six months, summarized as the adjusted between-group mean difference. Score of the STBH-Q ranges between 0 and 152.
  • Change in spiritual well-being (FACIT-Sp-12, version 4) [Baseline and 6 months post-randomization]: The Change in spiritual well-being (FACIT-Sp-12, version 4) is analyzed as change from baseline to six months, summarized as the adjusted between-group mean difference. The FACIT score ranges between 0 and 48.
  • Change in loneliness (UCLA Loneliness Scale, ULS-8, version 3) [Baseline and 6 months post-randomization]: The Change in loneliness (UCLA Loneliness Scale, ULS-8, version 3) is analyzed as change from baseline to six months, summarized as the adjusted between-group mean difference. The UCLA score ranges between 8 and 32.
  • Change in health literacy (HLS-EU-Q16) [Baseline and 6 months post-randomization]: The Change in health literacy (HLS-EU-Q16) is analyzed as change from baseline to six months, summarized as the adjusted between-group mean difference. The HLS score ranges between 0 and 16.
  • Change in frailty status (Fried frailty phenotype) [Baseline and 6 months post-randomization]: The Change in frailty status (Fried frailty phenotype) is analyzed as change from baseline to six months, summarized as the adjusted between-group mean difference. The Fried frailty score ranges between 0 and 5 criteria.
  • Change in sarcopenia screening score (SARC-F) [Baseline and 6 months post-randomization]: The Change in sarcopenia screening score (SARC-F) is analyzed as change from baseline to six months, summarized as the adjusted between-group mean difference. The SARC-F score ranges between 0 and 10.
  • Change in medication adherence (LMAS-PHC) [Baseline and 6 months post-randomization]: The Change in medication adherence (LMAS-PHC) is analyzed as change from baseline to six months, summarized as the adjusted between-group mean difference. LMAS score ranges between 0 and 66.
  • Proportion of participants with at least one reported adverse event [Randomization through six months]: Adverse events reported by participants and documented by the pharmacist at each monthly in-person medication refill visit, analyzed as event occurrence over the follow-up period and summarized as proportions by arm.
  • Proportion of participants with at least one change in medication prescription [Randomization through six months]: Any medication discontinuation, dose adjustment, therapeutic substitution or initiation documented by the pharmacist at each monthly in-person refill visit, with its reason; summarized as proportions by arm.

+Eligibility

Sex: All, ages: 65 Years to any

Inclusion Criteria:

1. Lebanese patients
2. Older patients ≥ 65 years of age
3. Diagnosed and treated for at least two chronic diseases*
4. Resorting to an OML PHCC and benefiting from chronic medication dispensing services for at least one year
5. Treated with at least five chronic medications
6. Autonomous (non-dependent) patients living in their houses
7. Signed the consent form

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Non-Lebanese patients
2. Patients < 65 years of age
3. Patients diagnosed with only one chronic disease
4. Beneficiaries newly registered in the PHCC
5. Patients only presenting to the PHCC for acute consultations and non-chronic medications dispensing services
6. Patients with advanced stage of cognitive impairment
7. Patients diagnosed with cancer
8. Dependent patients or patients residing in specialized care homes/hospitals
9. Persons presenting to the PHCC on behalf of the older patients to collect the monthly medication refill

+Locations (1)

FacilityCityCountryStatus
Order of Malta LebanonBeirutLebanon

+Publications

  • Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development [Internet]. New York: United Nations: United Nations; [cited 2026 Apr 10]. Available from: https://sdgs.un.org/sites/default/files/publications/21252030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf
  • Meier C, Vilpert S, Wieczorek M, Borrat-Besson C, Jox RJ, Maurer J. Development and validation of a subjective end-of-life health literacy scale. PLoS One. 2023 Oct 13;18(10):e0292367. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0292367. eCollection 2023. PMID 37831689
  • Hays RD, DiMatteo MR. A short-form measure of loneliness. J Pers Assess. 1987 Spring;51(1):69-81. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5101_6. PMID 3572711
  • Alateeq D, Aljabri A, Aldogiam G, Alajmi H, Alsoqaih H, Alfadhly R, Alshahrani R. Psychometric properties of the Arabic version of the UCLA Loneliness Scale among Saudi female undergraduate students. IJMDC. 2022;149-54. doi:10.24911/IJMDC.51-1638046495
  • Lazenby M, Khatib J, Al-Khair F, Neamat M. Psychometric properties of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy--Spiritual Well-being (FACIT-Sp) in an Arabic-speaking, predominantly Muslim population. Psychooncology. 2013 Jan;22(1):220-7. doi: 10.1002/pon.2062. Epub 2011 Sep 29. PMID 21957056
  • Oster C, Gransbury B, Anderson D, Martin V, Skuza P, Leibbrandt R. Development and validation of a self-report social determinants of health questionnaire in Australia. Health Promot Int. 2023 Jun 1;38(3):daac029. doi: 10.1093/heapro/daac029. PMID 35325112
  • Traboulsi L, Sacre H, Wehbi F, Safwan J, Malhab SB, Haddad C, Saleh N, Abdo R, Zakhia M, Mouanes H, Ejreiss M, Naoum S, Hanna J, Ghata C, Salameh P. Socioeconomic status assessment in Lebanese primary health care centers: development and validation of the SES-PHC scale. Sci Rep. 2026 Jul 18. doi: 10.1038/s41598-026-63034-9. Online ahead of print. PMID 42471400
  • Sacre H, Haddad C, Hajj A, Zeenny RM, Akel M, Salameh P. Development and validation of the Socioeconomic Status Composite Scale (SES-C). BMC Public Health. 2023 Aug 24;23(1):1619. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-16531-9. PMID 37620893
  • Jaber Chehayeb R, Kala S, Abou Ghannam H, Hasan G, Salloum J. The evolving Lebanese drug crisis: Trends in drug availability and affordability for common outpatient diseases from 2019 to 2023. PLOS Glob Public Health. 2023 Nov 1;3(11):e0002538. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0002538. eCollection 2023. PMID 37910463
  • Worldometer [Internet]. [cited 2026 May 2]. Lebanon Population (2026). Available from: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/lebanon-population/
  • Country profile - LEBANON 22-2-2022 [Internet]. UNFPA; 2022 [cited 2026 May 2]. Available from: https://lebanon.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub-pdf/older_persons_country_profile_-_lebanon_2022.pdf
  • Lu WH, Rolland Y, Guyonnet S, de Souto Barreto P, Vellas B. Reference centiles for intrinsic capacity throughout adulthood and their association with clinical outcomes: a cross-sectional analysis from the INSPIRE-T cohort. Nat Aging. 2023 Dec;3(12):1521-1528. doi: 10.1038/s43587-023-00522-x. Epub 2023 Nov 9. PMID 37946044
  • Beard JR, Jotheeswaran AT, Cesari M, Araujo de Carvalho I. The structure and predictive value of intrinsic capacity in a longitudinal study of ageing. BMJ Open. 2019 Nov 2;9(11):e026119. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026119. PMID 31678933
  • Ferriollia E, Lourenço RA, Oliveira VPD, Mello RGBD, Ferretti-Rebustini REDL, Pereira LSM, Busse AL, Maciel ÁCC, Leopoldino AAO, Lacerda ACR, Navarro AM, Fattori A, Castro CDSS, Ximenes CRC, Fernandes DDS, Abreu DCCD, Rebustini F, Roschel H, Santos JLF, Roriz JDS, Marques JMDA, Carneiro JAO, Pompeu JE, Moriguti JC, Pinto JM, Silva JPD, Pfrimer K, Kusumota L, Pegorari MS, Alves NMDC, Lima NKDC, Avelar NCPD, Almeida OLS, Boas PJFV, Barreto PDS, Freire RC, Guerra RO, Amorim RS, Corte RRD, Rodrigues RAP, Silva SLAD, Neves T, Fett WCR, Jacob W. Assessment of intrinsic capacity in the Brazilian older population and the psychometric properties of the WHO/ICOPE screening tool: a multicenter cohort study protocol. Geriatr Gerontol Aging. 2024;18:e0000166. doi:10.53886/gga.e0000166_EN
  • de Souto Barreto P, Lu WH, Tavassoli N, Nourhashemi F, Gorga Bandeira de Mello R, Ferriolli E, Guyonnet S, Rolland Y, Soto Martin ME, Vellas B; IHU HealthAge INSPIRE/Open Science study group. Reference centiles for intrinsic capacity to monitor clinical health outcomes in real-world primary care cohorts. Nat Aging. 2025 Jul;5(7):1217-1231. doi: 10.1038/s43587-025-00861-x. Epub 2025 May 13. PMID 40360907
  • Jandu JS, Mohanaselvan A, Bista S. Strategies to Reduce Polypharmacy in Older Adults. 2024 Aug 11. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK574550/ PMID 34662064
  • Lang PO, Dramé M, Guignard B, Mahmoudi R, Payot I, Latour J, Schmitt E, Pepersack T, Vogt-Ferrier N, Hasso Y, Dalleur O, Boland B. Les critères STOPP/START.v2 : adaptation en langue française. NPG Neurologie - Psychiatrie - Gériatrie. 2015 Dec;15(90):323-36. doi:10.1016/j.npg.2015.08.001
  • O'Mahony D, O'Sullivan D, Byrne S, O'Connor MN, Ryan C, Gallagher P. STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2. Age Ageing. 2015 Mar;44(2):213-8. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afu145. Epub 2014 Oct 16. PMID 25324330
  • Gallagher P, Ryan C, Byrne S, Kennedy J, O'Mahony D. STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions) and START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment). Consensus validation. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008 Feb;46(2):72-83. doi: 10.5414/cpp46072. PMID 18218287
  • O'Mahony D, Cherubini A, Guiteras AR, Denkinger M, Beuscart JB, Onder G, Gudmundsson A, Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Knol W, Bahat G, van der Velde N, Petrovic M, Curtin D. STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 3. Eur Geriatr Med. 2023 Aug;14(4):625-632. doi: 10.1007/s41999-023-00777-y. Epub 2023 May 31. PMID 37256475
  • Fayyad R, Ragi ME, Ghattas H, McCall SJ; Community Action for Equity in Pandemic Preparedness and Control (CAEP) Study Group. Social Determinants of Self-Reported Health in Vulnerable Populations During a Polycrisis in Lebanon. JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Oct 1;8(10):e2529733. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.29733. PMID 41060656
  • Social Determinants of Health - Healthy People 2030 | odphp.health.gov [Internet]. US: Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (OASH); [cited 2026 May 2]. Available from: https://odphp.health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health
  • Al-Habbal K, Yousef S, Kaddoura R, Hassan Z, El Zein O. Promoting healthy ageing through measures addressing social determinants of older adults' health: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open. 2025 Jul 18;15(7):e091079. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-091079. PMID 40681201
  • Integrated Care for Older People: Guidelines on Community-Level Interventions to Manage Declines in Intrinsic Capacity. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK488250/ PMID 29608259
  • Banerjee A, Sadana R. Editorial: Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE): From Guidelines to Demonstrating Feasibility. J Frailty Aging. 2021;10(2):84-85. doi: 10.14283/jfa.2020.40. No abstract available. PMID 33575695
  • Integrated care for older people (ICOPE): guidance for person-centred assessment and pathways in primary care, 2nd ed [Internet]. World Health Organization (WHO); [cited 2026 May 2]. Available from: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240103726
  • Beers MH. Explicit criteria for determining potentially inappropriate medication use by the elderly. An update. Arch Intern Med. 1997 Jul 28;157(14):1531-6. PMID 9236554
  • Hire AJ, Franklin BD. Potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in older people and its association with socioeconomic deprivation-a systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMC Geriatr. 2024 Aug 2;24(1):651. doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-04858-w. PMID 39095729
  • Varghese D, Patel P. Polypharmacy. 2024 Feb 12. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2024 Jan-. Available from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532953/ PMID 30422548
  • Ageing: Global population [Internet]. World Health Organization (WHO); [cited 2026 May 2]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/population-ageing

+Investigators