Wen-Han Hsu1, Yu-Wen Wen2, Liang-Kung Chen3,4,5, Fei-Yuan Hsiao6,7,8. 1. Graduate Institute of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. 2. Clinical Informatics and Medical Statistics Research Center, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan. 3. Aging and Health Research Center, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. 4. Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology, Taipei Veterans General Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan. 5. Institute of Public Health, School of Medicine, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan. 6. Graduate Institute of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan fyshsiao@ntu.edu.tw. 7. School of Pharmacy, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. 8. Department of Pharmacy, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Abstract
PURPOSE: No consensus has been reached regarding which anticholinergic scoring system works most effectively in clinical settings. The aim of this population-based cohort study was to examine the association between anticholinergic medication burden, as defined by different scales, and adverse clinical outcomes among older adults. METHODS: From Taiwan's Longitudinal Health Insurance Database, we retrieved data on monthly anticholinergic drug use measured by the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS), the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale (ACB), and the Drug Burden Index - Anticholinergic component (DBI-Ach) for 116,043 people aged 65 years and older during a 10-year follow-up. For all 3 scales, a higher score indicates greater anticholinergic burden. We used generalized estimating equations to examine the association between anticholinergic burden (ARS and ACB: grouped from 0 to ≥4; DBI-Ach: grouped as 0, 0-0.5, and 0.5-1) and adverse outcomes, and stratified individuals by age-group (aged 65-74, 75-84, and ≥85 years). RESULTS: Compared with the ARS and DBI-Ach, the ACB showed the strongest, most consistent dose-response relationships with risks of all 4 adverse outcomes, particularly in people aged 65 to 84 years. For example, among those 65 to 74 years old, going from an ACB score of 1 to a score of 4 or greater, individuals' adjusted odds ratio increased from 1.41 to 2.25 for emergency department visits; from 1.32 to 1.92 for all-cause hospitalizations; from 1.10 to 1.71 for fracture-specific hospitalizations; and from 3.13 to 10.01 for incident dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the 2 other scales studied, the ACB shows good dose-response relationships between anticholinergic burden and a variety of adverse outcomes in older adults. For primary care and geriatrics clinicians, the ACB may be a helpful tool for identifying high-risk populations for interventions.
PURPOSE: No consensus has been reached regarding which anticholinergic scoring system works most effectively in clinical settings. The aim of this population-based cohort study was to examine the association between anticholinergic medication burden, as defined by different scales, and adverse clinical outcomes among older adults. METHODS: From Taiwan's Longitudinal Health Insurance Database, we retrieved data on monthly anticholinergic drug use measured by the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS), the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale (ACB), and the Drug Burden Index - Anticholinergic component (DBI-Ach) for 116,043 people aged 65 years and older during a 10-year follow-up. For all 3 scales, a higher score indicates greater anticholinergic burden. We used generalized estimating equations to examine the association between anticholinergic burden (ARS and ACB: grouped from 0 to ≥4; DBI-Ach: grouped as 0, 0-0.5, and 0.5-1) and adverse outcomes, and stratified individuals by age-group (aged 65-74, 75-84, and ≥85 years). RESULTS: Compared with the ARS and DBI-Ach, the ACB showed the strongest, most consistent dose-response relationships with risks of all 4 adverse outcomes, particularly in people aged 65 to 84 years. For example, among those 65 to 74 years old, going from an ACB score of 1 to a score of 4 or greater, individuals' adjusted odds ratio increased from 1.41 to 2.25 for emergency department visits; from 1.32 to 1.92 for all-cause hospitalizations; from 1.10 to 1.71 for fracture-specific hospitalizations; and from 3.13 to 10.01 for incident dementia. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the 2 other scales studied, the ACB shows good dose-response relationships between anticholinergic burden and a variety of adverse outcomes in older adults. For primary care and geriatrics clinicians, the ACB may be a helpful tool for identifying high-risk populations for interventions.
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: Luca Pasina; Lorenzo Colzani; Laura Cortesi; Mauro Tettamanti; Antonella Zambon; Alessandro Nobili; Andrea Mazzone; Paolo Mazzola; Giorgio Annoni; Giuseppe Bellelli Journal: Drugs Aging Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 3.923
Authors: Martin Taylor-Rowan; Sophie Edwards; Anna H Noel-Storr; Jenny McCleery; Phyo K Myint; Roy Soiza; Carrie Stewart; Yoon Kong Loke; Terry J Quinn Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-05-05
Authors: Patricia Amoros-Reboredo; Dolors Soy; Marta Hernandez-Hernandez; Sabela Lens; Conxita Mestres Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-26 Impact factor: 3.390