| Literature DB >> 34087056 |
Brian Bell1, Anthony Avery1, Delia Bishara2, Carol Coupland1, Darren Ashcroft3, Martin Orrell4.
Abstract
Evidence suggests that the prescription of bladder anticholinergics is increasing. Recent studies have accentuated concerns about whether certain prescribed medications could increase risk of dementia, including anticholinergic drugs, and specifically anticholinergics used for bladder symptoms. Nevertheless, it can be difficult to draw together the evidence to review the case for possible causation. Recognising this issue in 1965, Bradford-Hill set out nine criteria to help assess whether evidence of a causal relationship could be inferred between a presumed cause and an observed effect. In this commentary, we explore the extent to which associations between anticholinergics and dementia satisfy the Bradford-Hill criteria and examine the potential implications. First, we look at studies that have examined the relationship between anticholinergic drugs with urological properties (bladder drugs) and the onset of dementia, and then present those studies which specifically focus on the cognitive effects of bladder drugs that affect muscarinic receptors in the brain versus the bladder on older people along with suggestions for future research. We also discuss the risks and benefits of these drugs for treating overactive bladder. If it can be shown that certain medications carry a specific risk of dementia, it is possible that initiatives to change prescribing could become a key tool in reducing the risk of dementia and may be easier to implement than some lifestyle changes.Entities:
Keywords: Bradford-Hill criteria; anticholinergics; bladder symptoms; dementia; deprescribing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34087056 PMCID: PMC8177062 DOI: 10.1002/prp2.793
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmacol Res Perspect ISSN: 2052-1707
FIGURE 1Defined daily doses by year of various bladder treatment drugs (2010–2019).
| 1) Strength of association, in which the larger the association, the more likely a causal relationship can be inferred. |
| 2) Consistency, or repetitiveness in the findings, where a variety of locations, methods, and populations show the same results. |
| 3) Specificity, in which one exposure causes only one disease. |
| 4) Temporality, in which exposure precedes the disease in time, which can include low exposure over long time periods. |
| 5) Biological gradient, where there is a dose–response relationship between the exposure and the effect. |
| 6) Plausibility, in which the association can be accommodated within existing biological or social models. |
| 7) Coherence, where the cause and effect relationship is bolstered by all of the evidence available to the researcher. |
| 8) Experiment, in which an intervention reduces exposure, thereby reducing the risk of the disease. |
| 9) Analogy, which allows the researcher to accept weaker evidence for a relationship if a stronger causal relationship has been established between a similar agent and a similar disease. |