Dataset Information

Quantification of anticholinergic and sedative drug load with the Drug Burden Index: a review of outcomes and methodological quality of studies.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

The Drug Burden Index (DBI) is a non-invasive method to quantify patients' anticholinergic and sedative drug burden from their prescriptions. This systematic review aimed to summarise the evidence on the associations between the DBI and clinical outcomes and methodological quality of studies.

Methods

A search in PubMed and Embase (search terms: 'drug', 'burden', and 'index') was performed and experts were contacted. We excluded publications that did not report empirical results or clinical outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Potential omissions of relevant clinical outcomes and populations were studied.

Results

Of the 2998 identified publications, 21 were eligible. Overall, methodological quality of studies was good. In all but one study, adjustment was made for prevalent co-morbidity. The DBI was examined in diverse older individuals, i.e. both males and females from different settings and countries. However, no studies were conducted in other relevant patient groups, e.g. psychiatric patients. Exposure to anticholinergic and sedative drugs was thoroughly ascertained, though the specific calculation of the DBI differed across studies. Outcomes were assessed from medical records, record linkage or validated objective tests or questionnaires. Many studies found associations between the DBI and outcomes including hospitalisation, physical and cognitive function. Cognitive function and quality of life were understudied and the number and scope of longitudinal studies was limited.

Conclusions

An accumulating body of evidence supports the validity of the DBI. Longitudinal studies of cognitive function and quality of life and in other patient groups, e.g. psychiatric patients, are warranted.

SUBMITTER: Wouters H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5306241 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quantification of anticholinergic and sedative drug load with the Drug Burden Index: a review of outcomes and methodological quality of studies.

Wouters Hans H van der Meer Helene H Taxis Katja K

European journal of clinical pharmacology 20161201 3

<h4>Purpose</h4>The Drug Burden Index (DBI) is a non-invasive method to quantify patients' anticholinergic and sedative drug burden from their prescriptions. This systematic review aimed to summarise the evidence on the associations between the DBI and clinical outcomes and methodological quality of studies.<h4>Methods</h4>A search in PubMed and Embase (search terms: 'drug', 'burden', and 'index') was performed and experts were contacted. We excluded publications that did not report empirical re ...[more]

PMID: 27909739

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOur aim in this research was to establish whether integrating an electronically generated calculation and report on the Drug Burden Index (DBI) in the Home Medicines Review (HMR) setting is an accurate, feasible and useful risk assessment tool to assess risk of anticholinergic and sedative medications; and to establish whether the intervention of DBI together with HMR is associated with a reduced use of anticholinergic and sedative medications in older community-dwelling adults in Australia.MethodsAn interventional feasibility study was conducted. Accredited clinical pharmacists (APs) were recruited to participate. Each AP was educated on implementation of the DBI into HMR practice and given access to the DBI Calculator© web-based software to generate the DBI report for inclusion in HMR reports for general practitioners (GPs). APs recruited patients (?65 years) who were referred to them for HMRs. Patients were sent a letter about their DBI exposure, and a prompt to visit their GP to discuss their medication management options. GPs, APs and patients were asked to evaluate the feasibility and utility of the DBI report. A medication inventory was collected from patients at the time of the HMR and at 3 months to determine whether the intervention affected deprescribing of medications with anticholinergic and sedative effects.ResultsRegarding the feasibility of the DBI report as a risk assessment tool within HMR, 89% of APs and 67% of GPs agreed that it would be feasible. The DBI Calculator© was potentially inaccurate, as 26% of DBI scores were underestimated and 7% were overestimated (at baseline). At 3 months, the median (interquartile range) DBI for patients (n = 100) significantly decreased from 0.82 (0-1.33) to 0.67 (0-1.29) (p = 0.014). Additionally, of patients with a DBI > 0 (n = 66), 36.4% had their DBI score decrease, and 6.1% had a score increase.ConclusionThis study demonstrated that integration of the DBI Calculator© into HMR is a feasible and useful method to prompt deprescribing of anticholinergic and sedative medications in older adults. There is potential for the accuracy of the web-based platform to be improved.Registration of trialName: Feasibility study of the Drug Burden Index with Home Medicines Review.Website: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=368523Trial ID: ACTRN 12615000539538.

Project description:ObjectivesThe Drug Burden Index (DBI) tool quantifies individual exposure to anticholinergic and sedative medications. The DBI has been internationally validated against adverse health outcomes in older people. DBI exposure has not been reported in the Irish older population. This study aimed to: (1) develop a list of drugs with clinically significant anticholinergic and/or sedative effects (DBI medications) relevant to Ireland; (2) examine, using the DBI formula, the prevalence of exposure to DBI medications in Irish older people and (3) explore patient factors associated DBI exposure.DesignA cross-sectional national pharmacy claims database study.SettingCommunity setting using the General Medical Services (GMS) scheme pharmacy claims database maintained by the Health Service Executive Primary Care Reimbursement Services.ParticipantsIrish older individuals (aged ?65 years) enrolled in the GMS scheme and dispensed at least one prescription item in 2016 (n=428?516).Main outcome measuresPrevalence of exposure to DBI medications and patient factors associated with DBI exposure.Results282?874 (66%) of the GMS population aged ?65 years were exposed to at least one DBI medication in 2016. Prevalence of exposure to DBI medications was significantly higher in females than males (females 71.6% vs males 58.7%, adjusted OR 1.65, 95%?CI 1.63 to 1.68). Prevalence of DBI exposure increased progressively with the number of chronic drugs used, rising from 42.7% of those prescribed 0-4 chronic drugs to 95.4% of those on ?12?chronic drugs (adjusted OR 27.8, 95%?CI 26.7 to 29.0). The most frequently used DBI medications were codeine/paracetamol combination products (20.1% of patients), tramadol (11.5%), zopiclone (9.5%), zolpidem (8.5%), pregabalin (7.9%) and alprazolam (7.8%).ConclusionsThe majority of older people in Ireland are exposed to medications with anticholinergic and/or sedative effects, particularly females and those with multiple comorbidities. The high use of low-dose codeine/paracetamol combination products, Z-drugs and benzodiazepines, suggests there are opportunities for deprescribing.

Project description:BackgroundPatients taking medication with high anticholinergic and sedative properties are at increased risk of experiencing poor cognitive and physical outcomes. Therefore, precise quantification of the cumulative burden of their drug regimen is advisable. There is no agreement regarding which scale to use to simultaneously quantify the burden associated with medications.ObjectivesThe objective of this review was to assess the strengths and limitations of available tools to quantify medication-related anticholinergic burden and sedative load in older adults. We discuss specific limitations and agreements between currently available scales and models and propose a comprehensive table combining drugs categorized as high, moderate, low, or no anticholinergic or sedative activity as excerpted from the selected studies.MethodsA targeted search was carried out using the National Library of Medicine through PubMed using medical subject heading terms and text words around the following search terms: (anticholinergic OR sedative) AND (load OR burden OR scale) for studies published between 1 January 1945 and 5 June 2021. In addition, the following databases were searched using the same terms: MEDLINE-EBSCO, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, Scopus, OAIster, OVID-MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. Screening by titles was followed by an abstract and full-text review. After blind evaluation, agreement between reviewers was reached to establish drug characteristics and categories.ResultsAfter 3163 articles were identified, 13 were included: 11 assigned risk scores to anticholinergic drugs and two to sedative drugs. Considerable variability between anticholinergic scales was observed; scales included between 27 and 548 drugs. We generated a comprehensive table combining the anticholinergic and sedative activities of drugs evaluated and proposed a categorization of these drugs based on available scientific and clinical evidence. Our table combines information about 642 drugs and categorizes 44, 25, 99, and 474 drugs as high, moderate, low, or no anticholinergic and sedative activity, respectively.ConclusionsVariability and inconsistency exists among scales used to categorize drugs with anticholinergic or sedative burden. In this review, we provide a comprehensive table that proposes a new categorization of these drugs. A longitudinal study will be required to validate the new proposed anticholinergic and sedative burden catalog in an evidence-based manner.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Medications with anticholinergic activity (MACs) are used to treat diseases common in older adults. Evidence on the association between anticholinergic burden (AB) and increased risk of fractures and osteoporosis or reduced bone mineral density (BMD) is inconsistent. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of observational studies on AB with fractures and osteoporosis or reduced BMD and provide methodological appraisal of included studies. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index and CENTRAL as well as grey literature from database inception up to August 2020. Eligibility criteria were: observational design, AB-exposure measured through a scale, fracture of any type or osteoporosis or reduced BMD as outcome, and reported measure of association between exposure and outcome. No restrictions related to time, language or type of data were applied. Eligibility and risk of bias assessment as well as data extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the RTI Item Bank. RESULTS:The majority of the nine included studies had low risk of bias but heterogeneous methodology. No study used a new user design. Seven studies reported an increased risk of fractures associated with AB. In four studies using the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS), adjusted risk of fractures was increased by 2-61% for ARS?=?1, by 0-97% for ARS?=?2, by 19-84% for ARS?=?3, and by 56-96% for ARS???4; in three studies the ARS was aggregated, risk increased by 39% for ARS?=?1-2 and 17% for ARS?=?2-3. Two studies reported increased risk of fractures of 14 and 52% in the highest AB-category and one study reported that change in ARS of???3 during hospitalization was associated with a 321% increased risk in fractures. Two studies did not find an association between AB and fractures. The association between AB and osteoporosis or reduced BMD could only be assessed in two studies, one reporting increased risk of lower BMD at Ward's triangle, the other reporting no association between AB and BMD T-score change at the femoral neck. DISCUSSION:Our study suggests an association between AB and increased risk of fractures with possible dose-exposure gradient in studies using the ARS. The low number of studies and heterogeneity of methods calls for the conduct of more studies. We conducted a study investigating the risk of fractures associated with anticholinergic burden, which is the result of taking one or more medication with anticholinergic activity. The results of our study suggest that persons who experience anticholinergic burden might have a higher risk of fractures. However, since we were only able to include nine studies, more studies conducted in a similar way are needed.

Project description:ObjectivesThe aims of our study were to examine the anticholinergic drug use and to assess the association between anticholinergic burden and cognitive function in the multimorbid elderly patients of the MultiCare cohort.SettingMultiCare was conducted as a longitudinal cohort study in primary care, located in eight different study centres in Germany.Participants3189 patients (59.3% female).Primary and secondary outcome measuresBaseline data were used for the following analyses. Drugs were classified according to the well-established anticholinergic drug scale (ADS) and the recently published German anticholinergic burden (German ACB). Cognitive function was measured using a letter digit substitution test (LDST) and a mixed-effect multivariate linear regression was performed to calculate the influence of anticholinergic burden on the cognitive function.ResultsPatients used 1764 anticholinergic drugs according to ADS and 2750 anticholinergics according to the German ACB score (prevalence 38.4% and 53.7%, respectively). The mean ADS score was 0.8 (±1.3), and the mean German ACB score was 1.2 (±1.6) per patient. The most common ADS anticholinergic was furosemide (5.8%) and the most common ACB anticholinergic was metformin (13.7%). The majority of the identified anticholinergics were drugs with low anticholinergic potential: 80.2% (ADS) and 73.4% (ACB), respectively. An increasing ADS and German ACB score was associated with reduced cognitive function according to the LDST (-0.26; p=0.008 and -0.24; p=0.003, respectively).ConclusionMultimorbid elderly patients are in a high risk for using anticholinergic drugs according to ADS and German ACB score. We especially need to gain greater awareness for the contribution of drugs with low anticholinergic potential from the cardiovascular system. As anticholinergic drug use is associated with reduced cognitive function in multimorbid elderly patients, the importance of rational prescribing and also deprescribing needs to be further evaluated.Trial registration numberISRCTN89818205.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate if a pharmacist-led medication review is effective at reducing the anticholinergic/sedative load, as measured by the Drug Burden Index (DBI). DESIGN:Randomised controlled single blind trial. SETTING:15 community pharmacies in the Northern Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS:157 community-dwelling patients aged ?65 years who used ?5 medicines for ?3 months, including at least one psycholeptic/psychoanaleptic medication and who had a DBI?1. INTERVENTION:A medication review by the community pharmacist in collaboration with the patient's general practitioner and patient. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES MEASURES:The primary outcome was the proportion of patients whose DBI decreased by at least 0.5. Secondary outcomes were the presence of anticholinergic/sedative side effects, falls, cognitive function, activities of daily living, quality of life, hospital admission and mortality. Data were collected at baseline and 3?months follow-up. RESULTS:Mean participant age was 75.7 (SD, 6.9) years in the intervention arm and 76.6 (SD, 6.7) years in the control arm, the majority were female (respectively 69.3% and 72.0%). Logistic regression analysis showed no difference in the proportion of patients with a?0.5?decrease in DBI between intervention arm (17.3%) and control arm (15.9%), (OR 1.04, CI 0.47 to 2.64, p=0.927). Intervention patients scored higher on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test, measure of cognitive function (OR 2.02, CI 1.11 to 3.67, p=0.021) and reported fewer sedative side effects (OR 0.61, CI 0.40 to 0.94, p=0.024) at follow-up. No significant difference was found for other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Pharmacist-led medication review as currently performed in the Netherlands was not effective in reducing the anticholinergic/sedative load, measured with the DBI, within the time frame of 3 months. Preventive strategies, signalling a rising load and taking action before chronic use of anticholinergic/sedative medication is established may be more successful. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02317666.

Project description:BackgroundThe health impact of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) has not been included in the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) report, as reliable data have been lacking. AMR burden estimates have been derived from models combining incidence and/or prevalence data from national and/or international surveillance systems and mortality estimates from clinical studies. Depending on utilized empirical data, statistical methodology and applied endpoints, the validity and reliability of results can differ substantially.ObjectivesWe assessed comprehensiveness, and internal and external validity of studies estimating the clinical impact of infections caused by the priority antibiotic resistant pathogens monitored by the WHO Global Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance System.Data sourcesOvid MEDLINE, January 1950 to March 2019, In-Process and other non-indexed citations were searched.Study eligibility criteriaStudies reporting mortality, length of hospital stay, duration of the disease until remission and/or death, complications, hospital re-admissions, and follow-up beyond hospital discharge were eligible.MethodsThe literature was searched according to the Cochrane recommendations and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews.ResultsTwo-hundred and eighty-six studies out of 3529 were eligible. Studies derived mainly from high-income countries (215, 75%) and relied on data from retrospective (226, 79%), single-centre (201, 70%), cohort studies (243, 85%). The health impact was mostly limited to all-cause mortality (128, 45%) with heterogeneity in timing of assessment; attributable length of hospital stay was seldom adjusted for pre-infection admission time and a few studies had enough follow-up for assessing long-term sequelae. Overall, adjustment for confounding has shown a substantial improvement. Data on health state definitions and duration of diseases are generally lacking, precluding calculation of disability-adjusted life years, critical for application of the GBD study methodology.ConclusionEfforts to improve harmonization, representativeness, quality of AMR surveillance data and cohort studies to determine AMR attributable mortality and morbidity are urgently required. Policy makers need accurate and detailed burden estimates to inform prioritization of resource allocation, and to select the most effective intervention strategies to halt the AMR crisis.

Project description:BackgroundAnticholinergic burden potentially increases the risk of fracture. Although there are various anticholinergic burden scales, little is known about the inter-scale compatibility regarding the relationship of anticholinergic burden with fracture risk. We performed meta-analysis to examine the association of fracture risk with anticholinergic burden measured using various scales.MethodsPrimary literature was retrieved from PubMed (1966 to March, 2021), the Cochrane Library (1974 to March, 2021), Scopus (1970 to March, 2021), and Ichushi-web (1983 to March, 2021). Cohort and case-control studies that evaluated the association between any fracture and anticholinergic drugs were included. Additionally, we included studies in which patients were administered anticholinergic drugs included on the anticholinergic risk scale (ARS), anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB), anticholinergic drug scale, or drug burden index-anticholinergic component. Random effects models were used to calculate pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) due to heterogeneity among the studies. Publication bias was examined by funnel plots and the Begg's test.ResultsA total of 49 datasets from 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Six of the 10 studies included only patients aged over 65 years, who accounted for 93% of the total study population (453,186/487,247). Meta-analysis indicated a positive relationship between use of anticholinergic drugs and fracture risk, regardless of the anticholinergic burden scale used. However, the relationship between anticholinergic burden and fracture risk varied depending on the scale used. Fracture risk increased linearly with increasing anticholinergic burden measured using ARS. ARS 1 point was associated with 28% increase in fracture risk, ARS 1-2 point(s) with 39%, ARS 2 points with 54%, ARS 3 points with 66%, and ARS ≥ 4 points with 77%. On the other hand, ACB 1 point and ACB 2 points were associated with similar fracture risk (pooled RR [95% CI]: overall; 1.28 [1.18-1.39], 1 point; 1.12 [1.06-1.18], 2 points; 1.15 [1.08-1.23]).ConclusionsThis result suggests that the relationship between anticholinergic drug burden and fracture risk may differ depending on the anticholinergic burden scale used.

Dataset Information

Quantification of anticholinergic and sedative drug load with the Drug Burden Index: a review of outcomes and methodological quality of studies.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Quantification of anticholinergic and sedative drug load with the Drug Burden Index: a review of outcomes and methodological quality of studies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure