Angela Maria Villalba-Moreno1, Eva Rocío Alfaro-Lara2, Maria Concepción Pérez-Guerrero3, Maria Dolores Nieto-Martín4, Bernardo Santos-Ramos5. 1. Pharmacy Service, University Hospital Virgen del Rocio, Seville, Spain. Electronic address: angelavm_21@hotmail.com. 2. Andalusian Agency for Health Technology Assessment, Seville, Spain. 3. Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy, Seville, Spain. 4. Internal Medicine Service, University Hospital Virgen del Rocio, Seville, Spain. 5. Pharmacy Service, University Hospital Virgen de Valme, Seville, Spain.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Anticholinergic drugs may increase the risk of cognitive and functional disorders in older patients. There are anticholinergic scales on which said risk is estimated. The objectives of this study are: to identify the scales described in literature that are applicable to polypathological patients and analyze their clinical outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review was performed. Data sources were MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science which were consulted until August 2014. INCLUSION CRITERIA: (1) studies that specify the list of drugs, describe the methodology for their elaboration and how they calibrate the anticholinergic potential and (2) studies that use the scales identified as a tool to measure exposure to anticholinergic drugs in polypathological patients or those with similar characteristics. The main differences between the scales and main results on cognitive, functional and mortality status were collected. RESULTS: 25 articles were included. 10 scales were identified. For their preparation, 8 were based on literature about drugs with anticholinergic activity and/or previously published scales as well as expert opinions. Exposure to anticholinergic drugs has been linked to cognitive disorders (basically measured with Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS), Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale (ACB) and Drug Burden Index (DBI)) and functional scale (with ARS and DBI). However, there is no clear relationship with mortality. The Anticholinergic Drug Scale was the only one that obtained no association with any of the variables studied. CONCLUSIONS: There is a great variety of scales published and applied to older patients. The clinical results are different depending on the scale used which is probably due to the different methodology in their elaboration.
PURPOSE: Anticholinergic drugs may increase the risk of cognitive and functional disorders in older patients. There are anticholinergic scales on which said risk is estimated. The objectives of this study are: to identify the scales described in literature that are applicable to polypathological patients and analyze their clinical outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review was performed. Data sources were MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science which were consulted until August 2014. INCLUSION CRITERIA: (1) studies that specify the list of drugs, describe the methodology for their elaboration and how they calibrate the anticholinergic potential and (2) studies that use the scales identified as a tool to measure exposure to anticholinergic drugs in polypathological patients or those with similar characteristics. The main differences between the scales and main results on cognitive, functional and mortality status were collected. RESULTS: 25 articles were included. 10 scales were identified. For their preparation, 8 were based on literature about drugs with anticholinergic activity and/or previously published scales as well as expert opinions. Exposure to anticholinergic drugs has been linked to cognitive disorders (basically measured with Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS), Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale (ACB) and Drug Burden Index (DBI)) and functional scale (with ARS and DBI). However, there is no clear relationship with mortality. The Anticholinergic Drug Scale was the only one that obtained no association with any of the variables studied. CONCLUSIONS: There is a great variety of scales published and applied to older patients. The clinical results are different depending on the scale used which is probably due to the different methodology in their elaboration.
Authors: Shanna C Trenaman; Austin Harding; Susan K Bowles; Susan A Kirkland; Melissa K Andrew Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 5.988
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
Authors: James A G Crispo; Allison W Willis; Dylan P Thibault; Yannick Fortin; Harlen D Hays; Douglas S McNair; Lise M Bjerre; Dafna E Kohen; Santiago Perez-Lloret; Donald R Mattison; Daniel Krewski Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-03 Impact factor: 3.240