Phyo Kyaw Myint1, Chris Fox2, Chun Shing Kwok3, Robert N Luben4, Nicholas J Wareham5, Kay-Tee Khaw6. 1. School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, UK Clinical Gerontology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire CB2 0QQ, UK. 2. School of Medicine, University of East Anglia, Norwich, Norfolk NR47TJ, UK. 3. Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, Lancashire, M13 9WL, UK. 4. Clinical Gerontology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire CB2 0QQ, UK. 5. MRC Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, UK. 6. Clinical Gerontology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Clinical Gerontology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have raised concerns that medications with anticholinergic property have potential adverse effects on health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to examine the prospective relationships between total anticholinergic burden (ACB) from medications and mortality, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in a general population. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Community cohort. SUBJECTS: We examined data collected from 21,636 men and women without cancer at the baseline who participated in a baseline survey 1993-97 in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer (EPIC)-Norfolk. They were followed until 2009/11. METHODS: We performed Cox-proportional hazards models to determine the associations between total ACB and the subsequent risk of all-cause mortality and incident CVD during the follow-up. RESULTS: There were a total of 4,342 people died and 7,328 had an incident CVD during the study follow-up (total person years=322,321 years for mortality and 244,119 years for CVD event). Compared with people with no anticholinergic burden (ACB=0), people with total ACB≥3 from medications had hazards ratios of 1.83 (1.53, 2.20) and 2.17 (1.87, 2.52) for mortality and CVD incidence outcomes, respectively, after adjusting for potential confounders. Repeating the analyses after excluding people with prevalent illnesses, and events occurring within the first 2 years of follow-up, only slightly attenuated the results. CONCLUSION: There appear to be a class effect as well as dose-response relationship between the ACB and both outcomes. Future research should focus on understanding the relationship between ACB and mortality, and cardiovascular disease and possibly minimising ACB load where feasible.
BACKGROUND: Studies have raised concerns that medications with anticholinergic property have potential adverse effects on health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to examine the prospective relationships between total anticholinergic burden (ACB) from medications and mortality, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) in a general population. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Community cohort. SUBJECTS: We examined data collected from 21,636 men and women without cancer at the baseline who participated in a baseline survey 1993-97 in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer (EPIC)-Norfolk. They were followed until 2009/11. METHODS: We performed Cox-proportional hazards models to determine the associations between total ACB and the subsequent risk of all-cause mortality and incident CVD during the follow-up. RESULTS: There were a total of 4,342 people died and 7,328 had an incident CVD during the study follow-up (total person years=322,321 years for mortality and 244,119 years for CVD event). Compared with people with no anticholinergic burden (ACB=0), people with total ACB≥3 from medications had hazards ratios of 1.83 (1.53, 2.20) and 2.17 (1.87, 2.52) for mortality and CVD incidence outcomes, respectively, after adjusting for potential confounders. Repeating the analyses after excluding people with prevalent illnesses, and events occurring within the first 2 years of follow-up, only slightly attenuated the results. CONCLUSION: There appear to be a class effect as well as dose-response relationship between the ACB and both outcomes. Future research should focus on understanding the relationship between ACB and mortality, and cardiovascular disease and possibly minimising ACB load where feasible.
Authors: Juho Uusvaara; Kaisu H Pitkala; Hannu Kautiainen; Reijo S Tilvis; Timo E Strandberg Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Nicholas M Wilson; Sarah N Hilmer; Lyn M March; Jian Sheng Chen; Danijela Gnjidic; Rebecca S Mason; Ian D Cameron; Philip N Sambrook Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2012-02-01 Impact factor: 3.923
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: Arduino A Mangoni; Barbara C van Munster; Richard J Woodman; Sophia E de Rooij Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2013-02-06 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Zachary A Marcum; Heidi S Wirtz; Mary Pettinger; Andrea Z LaCroix; Ryan Carnahan; Jane A Cauley; Jennifer W Bea; Shelly L Gray Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2015-09 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Satabdi Chatterjee; Vishal Bali; Ryan M Carnahan; Hua Chen; Michael L Johnson; Rajender R Aparasu Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: David T Gamble; Allan B Clark; Robert N Luben; Nicholas J Wareham; Kay-Tee Khaw; Phyo K Myint Journal: Int J Epidemiol Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 7.196