Exposure to anticholinergic and sedative medicines as indicators of high-risk prescriptions in the elderly

High-Risk Medication in Home Care Nursing: A Delphi Study

AIMS

The aims of the study were to reach consensus on which medications in home care nursing should be considered high-risk medication (HRM) and to obtain recommendations about which interventions home care nurses can perform to improve quality of care and safety in managing these HRM.

DESIGN

This is an international Delphi study with 13 purposively selected experts from 4 different countries.

METHODS

A 3-round iterative Delphi survey was conducted from May 2018 to October 2018, based on a list of 32 medications previously reported as HRM in community care. A proposal for HRM was based on this literature search, and experts were asked to reflect on which (groups of) medications should be considered HRM by home care nurses (completeness of the list, risk assessment per [group of] medication, the need for home care nurse interventions, and the need for an HRM care procedure). The cutoff point for consensus was set at 80% of expert agreement.

RESULTS

The panel assessed the initial list and added 30 (groups of) medications. In the last round, consensus of 80% or more was reached for 27 (groups of) medications to be considered HRM by home care nurses. For 28 medications, additional interventions by a home care nurse were considered warranted. A procedure or protocol for home care nurses was deemed necessary for 12 medications.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified a set of (groups of) medications that should primarily be considered HRM by home care nurses.Impact:• What problem did the study address? This study clarified which medications should be considered HRM by home care nurses.• What were the main findings? Experts identified a set of 27 (groups of) medications that should primarily be considered HRM by home care nurses.• Where and on whom will the research have an impact? The results provide essential information for home care agencies when setting up an HRM policy.

Quality of anticholinergic burden scales and their impact on clinical outcomes: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Older people are at risk of anticholinergic side effects due to changes affecting drug elimination and higher sensitivity to drug's side effects. Anticholinergic burden scales (ABS) were developed to quantify the anticholinergic drug burden (ADB). We aim to identify all published ABS, to compare them systematically and to evaluate their associations with clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify all published ABS and a Web of Science citation (WoS) analysis to track validation studies implying clinical outcomes. Quality of the ABS was assessed using an adapted AGREE II tool. For the validation studies, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane tool Rob2.0. The validation studies were categorized into six evidence levels based on the propositions of the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine with respect to their quality. At least two researchers independently performed screening and quality assessments.

RESULTS

Out of 1297 records, we identified 19 ABS and 104 validations studies. Despite differences in quality, all ABS were recommended for use. The anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale and the German anticholinergic burden scale (GABS) achieved the highest percentage in quality. Most ABS are validated, yet validation studies for newer scales are lacking. Only two studies compared eight ABS simultaneously. The four most investigated clinical outcomes delirium, cognition, mortality and falls showed contradicting results.

CONCLUSION

There is need for good quality validation studies comparing multiple scales to define the best scale and to conduct a meta-analysis for the assessment of their clinical impact.

Quantifying cumulative anticholinergic and sedative drug load among US Medicare Beneficiaries

PURPOSE

Medications with anticholinergic and sedative properties are widely used among older adults despite strong evidence of harm. The drug burden index (DBI), a pharmacological screening tool, measures these properties across drug classes, and higher DBI drug exposure (DBI > 1) has been associated with certain physical function-related adverse events. Our aim was to quantify mean daily DBI drug exposure among older adults in the United States (US).

METHODS

We screened medications for DBI properties and operationalized the DBI for US Medicare claims. We then conducted a retrospective cohort study of a 20% random, nationwide sample of 4 137 384 fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 66+ years (134 757 039 person-months) from January 2013 to December 2016. We measured the monthly distribution based on mean daily DBI, categorized as (a) >0 vs 0 (any use) and (b) 0, 0 < DBI ≤ 1, 1 < DBI ≤ 2, and DBI > 2, and examined temporal trends. We described patient-level factors (eg, demographics, healthcare use) associated with high (>2) vs low (0 < DBI≤1) DBI drug exposure.

RESULTS

The distribution of the mean daily DBI, aggregated at the month-level, was: 58.1% DBI = 0, 29.0% 0 < DBI≤1, 9.3% 1 < DBI≤2, and 3.7% DBI > 2. Predictors of high monthly DBI drug exposure (DBI > 2) included certain indicators of increased healthcare use (eg, high number of drug claims), white race, younger age, frailty, and a psychosis diagnosis code.

CONCLUSIONS

The predictors of high DBI drug exposure can inform discussions between patients and providers about medication appropriateness and potential de-prescribing. Future Medicare-based studies should assess the association between the DBI and adverse events.

Quality of anticholinergic burden scales and their impact on clinical outcomes: a systematic review

Purpose

Older people are at risk of anticholinergic side effects due to changes affecting drug elimination and higher sensitivity to drug’s side effects. Anticholinergic burden scales (ABS) were developed to quantify the anticholinergic drug burden (ADB). We aim to identify all published ABS, to compare them systematically and to evaluate their associations with clinical outcomes.

Methods

We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify all published ABS and a Web of Science citation (WoS) analysis to track validation studies implying clinical outcomes. Quality of the ABS was assessed using an adapted AGREE II tool. For the validation studies, we used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Cochrane tool Rob2.0. The validation studies were categorized into six evidence levels based on the propositions of the Oxford Center for Evidence-Based Medicine with respect to their quality. At least two researchers independently performed screening and quality assessments.

Results

Out of 1297 records, we identified 19 ABS and 104 validations studies. Despite differences in quality, all ABS were recommended for use. The anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale and the German anticholinergic burden scale (GABS) achieved the highest percentage in quality. Most ABS are validated, yet validation studies for newer scales are lacking. Only two studies compared eight ABS simultaneously. The four most investigated clinical outcomes delirium, cognition, mortality and falls showed contradicting results.

Conclusion

There is need for good quality validation studies comparing multiple scales to define the best scale and to conduct a meta-analysis for the assessment of their clinical impact.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00228-020-02994-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The Prevalence of Beers Criteria Medication Use and Associations with Falls in Geriatric Patients at a Level 1 Trauma Center

The Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication (PIM) use is a list of medications with multiple risks in older patients. Approximately 24 per cent use rate is reported in prior studies. Our objective was to determine the local PIM use and subsequent fall risk in geriatric trauma patients. We conducted a retrospective analysis of PIM use in all geriatric patients evaluated at our Level 1 trauma center between 2014 and 2017. Patients were identified from our trauma database. Pre-admission medication use was determined through medication reconciliation from our electronic medical record (EMR). Patients not undergoing medication reconciliation were excluded. After initial analysis, patients were stratified by age into three groups: 65 to 74, 75 to 84, and ≥85 years. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to calculate odds ratios of falls for specific PIMs. In all, 2181 patients met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 71.2 per cent of geriatric trauma patients were prescribed at least one PIM—73.1 per cent of falls compared with 68.6 per cent for other mechanisms. Specific PIM use varied by age group. PIMs associated with fall risk in all patients included antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, and diclofenac. For those aged 65 to 74 years, antihistamines, diclofenac, proton pump inhibitors, and promethazine were associated. In those aged 75 to 84 years, alprazolam, antipsychotics, benzodiazepines, cyclobenzaprine, diclofenac, and muscle relaxants were implicated. No significant associations were found for patients aged ≥85 years. PIM use at our trauma center seems to be rampant and well above the national average. Geriatric falls were associated with using ≥1 PIM and multiple specific PIMs implicated. We are designing a targeted educational program for local primary care physicians (PCPs) that will attempt to decrease geriatric PIM use.

Anticholinergic Burden and Safety Outcomes in Older Patients with Chronic Hepatitis C: A Retrospective Cohort Study

AIM

Older patients with chronic hepatitis C infection starting direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) are frequently prescribed multiple medications that may be categorized as inappropriate. Anticholinergic burden has been shown to be a predictor of adverse health and functional outcomes. Different scales are available to calculate anticholinergic burden. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of anticholinergic medication among older patients treated with DAAs and the risk factors associated using the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (ACB) scale, the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS) and the Anticholinergic Drug Scale (ADS) and analyze the resulting safety consequences.

METHODS

Observational, retrospective cohort study of consecutive patients ≥65 years old receiving DAAs and taking concomitant medication. This study was conducted in accordance with the Strengthening the Reporting of observational studies in Epidemiology Statement.

RESULTS

236 patients were included. The average age was 71.7 years, 73.3% cirrhotic, and 47% patients took ≥5 medicines. According to the ACB, ARS and ADS scales, 35.2% (n = 83), 10.6% (n = 25) and 34.3% (n = 81) of the patients were treated with anticholinergic medication. Two hundred-and-six (86%) patients presented any adverse events (AEs) during therapy. ARS scale showed a significant relationship between presence of anticholinergic medication and AEs. A large number of patients suffered anticholinergic events, with more events per patient in patients taking anticholinergic drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Older hepatitis C chronic patients are exposed to potentially inappropriate polypharmacy and anticholinergic risk, according to the ACB, ARS and ADS scales. The three scales showed different results. Only the ARS scale was associated with AEs, but the rate of anticholinergic effects per patient was significantly higher in patients with anticholinergic drugs, regardless of the scale used. Consider quality of pharmacotherapy when starting DAA with a multidisciplinary approach could improve health outcomes.

Prevalence of anticholinergic burden and risk factors amongst the older population: analysis of insurance claims data of Korean patients

Background Despite growing interest in the negative clinical outcomes of multiple anticholinergic use, limited studies have evaluated anticholinergic burden in the geriatric population nationally. Objective To evaluate the prevalence of high anticholinergic burden using the newly developed Korean Anticholinergic Burden Scale in comparison with previous tools and to identify associated factors. Setting National insurance data from a cross section (20%) of older Koreans (2016). Methods Anticholinergic burden was measured using the Korean scale in comparison to the Anticholinergic Drug Scale, Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden, and Anticholinergic Risk Scale. High anticholinergic burden was defined as a summed score of ≥ 3 for concurrent medications or a dose-standardized average daily score of ≥ 3, using each anticholinergic scale. Main outcomes measured Prevalence and predictors of high anticholinergic burden. Results Data of 1,292,323 patients were analyzed. According to the Korean scale, the prevalence of high anticholinergic burden was 25.5%. This result was similar to that from the Anticholinergic Drug Scale (24.9%) and Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (22.2%). Factors associated with an increased likelihood of anticholinergic burden include: age, gender (female), high Charlson comorbidity index score, polypharmacy, medical aid beneficiary, co-morbidities (such as schizophrenia, depression, urinary incontinence, and Parkinson's disease), frequent healthcare visits, various healthcare facilities utilized, and predominantly visiting hospital-level facilities. According to the Korean Anticholinergic Burden Scale, the major drugs contributing to the anticholinergic burden were ranitidine, chlorpheniramine, tramadol, and dimenhydrinate. Conclusion This study showed that 1 in 4 older Koreans are exposed to high anticholinergic burden. The predictors identified in this research might assist pharmacists in early interventions for their patients.

Change in sedative burden after dementia onset using difference-in-difference estimations

Background

Sedative agents are avoided in older adults because of potential risks including cognitive impairment, fall, frailty, and mortality. However, no studies addressing both prediagnostic and postdiagnostic period of dementia have evaluated sedative agent usage over an extended period.

Objectives

To describe a longitudinal change in sedative medication use before and after the diagnosis with dementia over 10 years compared to patients without dementia.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using longitudinal claims data for senior national health insurance beneficiaries. After 1:4 propensity score matching, 54,165 older patients (≥60 years) were included. Difference-in-difference (DID) of sedative burden and use of sedative agents pre- and post-dementia diagnosis were estimated, and compared to those of patients without dementia. The yearly average daily sedative load (adSL) for each individual was calculated after applying duration, dose, and sedative score of medications from the sedative load model. The medication use for each sedative category was calculated using the defined daily dose (DDD) per 1000 patient-days.

Results

The adSL in patients with dementia was consistently high before and after diagnosis and significantly increased after diagnosis, compared to those of patients without dementia (DID 0.123 unit/day, 95% confidence interval 0.117–0.129). DID of medication use was the highest for antidepressants (64.764 DDD/1000 patient-days) followed by Z-drugs and antipsychotics. Atypical antipsychotic and antidepressant usage steeply increased after dementia diagnosis.

Conclusion

Sedative burden in patients with dementia before and after dementia diagnosis was higher than that in patients without dementia, and was further increased after dementia diagnosis.