Tomas J Welsh1,2,3, Veronika van der Wardt4, Grace Ojo4, Adam L Gordon4,5, John R F Gladman4,6,7. 1. Research Institute for the Care of Older People (RICE), Royal United Hospital, Combe Park, Bath, BA1 3NG, UK. tomas.welsh@nhs.net. 2. Royal United Hospital Bath NHS Foundation Trust, Bath, Somerset, UK. tomas.welsh@nhs.net. 3. University of Bristol, Bristol, UK. tomas.welsh@nhs.net. 4. University of Nottingham, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK. 5. Derby Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Derby, Derbyshire, UK. 6. Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) East Midlands, Leicester, UK. 7. NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cumulative anticholinergic exposure (anticholinergic burden) has been linked to a number of adverse outcomes. To conduct research in this area, an agreed approach to describing anticholinergic burden is needed. OBJECTIVE: This review set out to identify anticholinergic burden scales, to describe their rationale, the settings in which they have been used and the outcomes associated with them. METHODS: A search was performed using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to October 2016 to identify systematic reviews describing anticholinergic burden scales or tools. Abstracts and titles were reviewed to determine eligibility for review with eligible articles read in full. The final selection of reviews was critically appraised using the ROBIS tool and pre-defined data were extracted; the primary data of interest were the anticholinergic burden scales or tools used. RESULTS: Five reviews were identified for analysis containing a total of 62 original articles. Eighteen anticholinergic burden scales or tools were identified with variation in their derivation, content and how they quantified the anticholinergic activity of medications. The Drug Burden Index was the most commonly used scale or tool in community and database studies, while the Anticholinergic Risk Scale was used more frequently in care homes and hospital settings. The association between anticholinergic burden and clinical outcomes varied by index and study. Falls and hospitalisation were consistently found to be associated with anticholinergic burden. Mortality, delirium, physical function and cognition were not consistently associated. CONCLUSIONS: Anticholinergic burden scales vary in their rationale, use and association with outcomes. This review showed that the concept of anticholinergic burden has been variably defined and inconsistently described using a number of indices with different content and scoring. The association between adverse outcomes and anticholinergic burden varies between scores and has not been conclusively established.
BACKGROUND: Cumulative anticholinergic exposure (anticholinergic burden) has been linked to a number of adverse outcomes. To conduct research in this area, an agreed approach to describing anticholinergic burden is needed. OBJECTIVE: This review set out to identify anticholinergic burden scales, to describe their rationale, the settings in which they have been used and the outcomes associated with them. METHODS: A search was performed using the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to October 2016 to identify systematic reviews describing anticholinergic burden scales or tools. Abstracts and titles were reviewed to determine eligibility for review with eligible articles read in full. The final selection of reviews was critically appraised using the ROBIS tool and pre-defined data were extracted; the primary data of interest were the anticholinergic burden scales or tools used. RESULTS: Five reviews were identified for analysis containing a total of 62 original articles. Eighteen anticholinergic burden scales or tools were identified with variation in their derivation, content and how they quantified the anticholinergic activity of medications. The Drug Burden Index was the most commonly used scale or tool in community and database studies, while the Anticholinergic Risk Scale was used more frequently in care homes and hospital settings. The association between anticholinergic burden and clinical outcomes varied by index and study. Falls and hospitalisation were consistently found to be associated with anticholinergic burden. Mortality, delirium, physical function and cognition were not consistently associated. CONCLUSIONS: Anticholinergic burden scales vary in their rationale, use and association with outcomes. This review showed that the concept of anticholinergic burden has been variably defined and inconsistently described using a number of indices with different content and scoring. The association between adverse outcomes and anticholinergic burden varies between scores and has not been conclusively established.
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: Danijela Gnjidic; J Simon Bell; Sarah N Hilmer; Eija Lönnroos; Raimo Sulkava; Sirpa Hartikainen Journal: Ann Med Date: 2011-04-15 Impact factor: 4.709
Authors: Lawrence J Whalley; Sumit Sharma; Helen C Fox; Alison D Murray; Roger T Staff; Ashleigh C Duthie; Ian J Deary; John M Starr Journal: J Alzheimers Dis Date: 2012 Impact factor: 4.472
Authors: Danijela Gnjidic; Sarah N Hilmer; Fiona M Blyth; Vasi Naganathan; Louise Waite; Markus J Seibel; Andrew J McLachlan; Robert G Cumming; David J Handelsman; David G Le Couteur Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2012-06-27 Impact factor: 6.437
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: Danijela Gnjidic; Sarah N Hilmer; Sirpa Hartikainen; Anna-Maija Tolppanen; Heidi Taipale; Marjaana Koponen; J Simon Bell Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-01-13 Impact factor: 3.240
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: 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: Nandita Kachru; Holly M Holmes; Michael L Johnson; Hua Chen; Rajender R Aparasu Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 3.850
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