Dataset Information

Anticholinergic burden measures and older people's falls risk: a systematic prognostic review.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Several adverse outcomes have been associated with anticholinergic burden (ACB), and these risks increase with age. Several approaches to measuring this burden are available but, to date, no comparison of their prognostic abilities has been conducted. This PROSPERO-registered systematic review (CRD42019115918) compared the evidence behind ACB measures in relation to their ability to predict risk of falling in older people.

Methods

Medline (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EMBSCO) and PsycINFO (OVID) were searched using comprehensive search terms and a validated search filter for prognostic studies. Inclusion criteria included: participants aged 65 years and older, use of one or more ACB measure(s) as a prognostic factor, cohort or case-control in design, and reporting falls as an outcome. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool.

Results

Eight studies reporting temporal associations between ACB and falls were included. All studies were rated high risk of bias in ⩾1 QUIPS tool categories, with five rated high risk ⩾3 categories. All studies (274,647 participants) showed some degree of association between anticholinergic score and increased risk of falls. Findings were most significant with moderate to high levels of ACB. Most studies (6/8) utilised the anticholinergic cognitive burden scale. No studies directly compared two or more ACB measures and there was variation in how falls were measured for analysis.

Conclusion

The evidence supports an association between moderate to high ACB and risk of falling in older people, but no conclusion can be made regarding which ACB scale offers best prognostic value in older people.

Plain language summary

A review of published studies to explore which anticholinergic burden scale is best at predicting the risk of falls in older people Introduction: One third of older people will experience a fall. Falls have many consequences including fractures, a loss of independence and being unable to enjoy life. Many things can increase the chances of having a fall. This includes some medications. One type of medication, known as anticholinergic medication, may increase the risk of falls. These medications are used to treat common health issues including depression and bladder problems. Anticholinergic burden is the term used to describe the total effects from taking these medications. Some people may use more than one of these medications. This would increase their anticholinergic burden. It is possible that reducing the use of these medications could reduce the risk of falls. We need to carry out studies to see if this is possible. To do this, we need to be able to measure anticholinergic burden. There are several scales available, but we do not know which is best.Methods: We wanted to answer: 'Which anticholinergic scale is best at predicting the risk of falling in older people?'. We reviewed studies that could answer this. We did this in a systematic way to capture all published studies. We restricted the search in several ways. We only included studies relevant to our question.Results: We found eight studies. We learned that people who are moderate to high users of these medications (often people who will use more than one of these medications) had a higher risk of falling. It was less clear if people who have a lower burden (often people who only use one of these medications) had an increased risk of falling. The low number of studies prevented us from determining if one scale was better than another.Conclusion: These findings suggest that we should reduce use of these medications. This could reduce the number falls and improve the well-being of older people.

SUBMITTER: Stewart C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8170331 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAnticholinergic burden has been associated with adverse outcomes such as falls. To date, no gold standard measure has been identified to assess anticholinergic burden, and no conclusion has been drawn on which of the different measure algorithms best predicts falls in older patients from general practice. This study compared the ability of five measures of anticholinergic burden to predict falls. To account for patients' individual susceptibility to medications, the added predictive value of typical anticholinergic symptoms was further quantified in this context.Methods and findingsTo predict falls, models were developed and validated based on logistic regression models created using data from two German cluster-randomized controlled trials. The outcome was defined as "≥ 1 fall" vs. "no fall" within a 6-month follow-up period. Data from the RIME study (n = 1,197) were used in model development, and from PRIMUM (n = 502) for external validation. The models were developed step-wise in order to quantify the predictive ability of anticholinergic burden measures, and anticholinergic symptoms. In the development set, 1,015 patients had complete data and 188 (18.5%) experienced ≥ 1 fall within the 6-month follow-up period. The overall predictive value of the five anticholinergic measures was limited, with neither the employed anticholinergic variable (binary / count / burden), nor dose-dependent or dose-independent measures differing significantly in their ability to predict falls. The highest c-statistic was obtained using the German Anticholinergic Burden Score (0.73), whereby the optimism-corrected c-statistic was 0.71 after interval validation using bootstrapping and 0.63 in the external validation. Previous falls and dizziness / vertigo had the strongest prognostic value in all models.ConclusionsThe ability of anticholinergic burden measures to predict falls does not appear to differ significantly, and the added value they contribute to risk classification in fall-prediction models is limited. Previous falls and dizziness / vertigo contributed most to model performance.

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:ObjectiveTo systematically review and critically appraise prognostic models for falls in community-dwelling older adults.Eligibility criteriaProspective cohort studies with any follow-up period. Studies had to develop or validate multifactorial prognostic models for falls in community-dwelling older adults (60+ years). Models had to be applicable for screening in a general population setting.Information sourceMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO and Web of Science for studies published in English, Danish, Norwegian or Swedish until January 2020. Sources also included trial registries, clinical guidelines, reference lists of included papers, along with contacting clinical experts to locate published studies.Data extraction and risk of biasTwo authors performed all review stages independently. Data extraction followed the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies checklist. Risk of bias assessments on participants, predictors, outcomes and analysis methods followed Prediction study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool.ResultsAfter screening 11 789 studies, 30 were eligible for inclusion (n=86 369 participants). Median age of participants ranged from 67.5 to 83.0 years. Falls incidences varied from 5.9% to 59%. Included studies reported 69 developed and three validated prediction models. Most frequent falls predictors were prior falls, age, sex, measures of gait, balance and strength, along with vision and disability. The area under the curve was available for 40 (55.6%) models, ranging from 0.49 to 0.87. Validated models' The area under the curve ranged from 0.62 to 0.69. All models had a high risk of bias, mostly due to limitations in statistical methods, outcome assessments and restrictive eligibility criteria.ConclusionsAn abundance of prognostic models on falls risk have been developed, but with a wide range in discriminatory performance. All models exhibited a high risk of bias rendering them unreliable for prediction in clinical practice. Future prognostic prediction models should comply with recent recommendations such as Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis.Prospero registration numberCRD42019124021.

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.