BACKGROUND: Anticholinergic drugs are often involved in explicit criteria for inappropriate prescribing in older adults. Several scales were developed for screening of anticholinergic drugs and estimation of the anticholinergic burden. However, variation exists in scale development, in the selection of anticholinergic drugs, and the evaluation of their anticholinergic load. This study aims to systematically review existing anticholinergic risk scales, and to develop a uniform list of anticholinergic drugs differentiating for anticholinergic potency. METHODS: We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE. Studies were included if provided (1) a finite list of anticholinergic drugs; (2) a grading score of anticholinergic potency and, (3) a validation in a clinical or experimental setting. We listed anticholinergic drugs for which there was agreement in the different scales. In case of discrepancies between scores we used a reputed reference source (Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference®) to take a final decision about the anticholinergic activity of the drug. RESULTS: We included seven risk scales, and evaluated 225 different drugs. Hundred drugs were listed as having clinically relevant anticholinergic properties (47 high potency and 53 low potency), to be included in screening software for anticholinergic burden. CONCLUSION: Considerable variation exists among anticholinergic risk scales, in terms of selection of specific drugs, as well as of grading of anticholinergic potency. Our selection of 100 drugs with clinically relevant anticholinergic properties needs to be supplemented with validated information on dosing and route of administration for a full estimation of the anticholinergic burden in poly-medicated older adults.
BACKGROUND: Anticholinergic drugs are often involved in explicit criteria for inappropriate prescribing in older adults. Several scales were developed for screening of anticholinergic drugs and estimation of the anticholinergic burden. However, variation exists in scale development, in the selection of anticholinergic drugs, and the evaluation of their anticholinergic load. This study aims to systematically review existing anticholinergic risk scales, and to develop a uniform list of anticholinergic drugs differentiating for anticholinergic potency. METHODS: We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE. Studies were included if provided (1) a finite list of anticholinergic drugs; (2) a grading score of anticholinergic potency and, (3) a validation in a clinical or experimental setting. We listed anticholinergic drugs for which there was agreement in the different scales. In case of discrepancies between scores we used a reputed reference source (Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference®) to take a final decision about the anticholinergic activity of the drug. RESULTS: We included seven risk scales, and evaluated 225 different drugs. Hundred drugs were listed as having clinically relevant anticholinergic properties (47 high potency and 53 low potency), to be included in screening software for anticholinergic burden. CONCLUSION: Considerable variation exists among anticholinergic risk scales, in terms of selection of specific drugs, as well as of grading of anticholinergic potency. Our selection of 100 drugs with clinically relevant anticholinergic properties needs to be supplemented with validated information on dosing and route of administration for a full estimation of the anticholinergic burden in poly-medicated older adults.
Authors: Marci L Chew; Benoit H Mulsant; Bruce G Pollock; Mark E Lehman; Andrew Greenspan; Ramy A Mahmoud; Margaret A Kirshner; Denise A Sorisio; Robert R Bies; Georges Gharabawi Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-05-26 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Gobhathai Sittironnarit; David Ames; Ashley I Bush; Noel Faux; Leon Flicker; Jonathan Foster; Sarah Hilmer; Nicola T Lautenschlager; Paul Maruff; Colin L Masters; Ralph N Martins; Christopher Rowe; Cassandra Szoeke; Kathryn A Ellis Journal: Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord Date: 2011-03-09 Impact factor: 2.959
Authors: Noll Campbell; Malaz Boustani; Tony Limbil; Carol Ott; Chris Fox; Ian Maidment; Cathy C Schubert; Stephanie Munger; Donna Fick; David Miller; Rajesh Gulati Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2009-06-09 Impact factor: 4.458
Authors: Michael J Hochman; Arif H Kamal; Steven P Wolf; Greg P Samsa; David C Currow; Amy P Abernethy; Thomas W LeBlanc Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2016-09-20 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Marta Lavrador; Ana C Cabral; Isabel V Figueiredo; Manuel T Veríssimo; M Margarida Castel-Branco; Fernando Fernandez-Llimos Journal: Int J Clin Pharm Date: 2020-08-29