Graduate Institute of Clinical Pharmacy, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Clinical Informatics and Medical Statistics Research Center, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan City, Taiwan.
Ann Fam Med. 2017 Nov;15(6):561-569. doi: 10.1370/afm.2131.
No consensus has been reached regarding which anticholinergic scoring system works most effectively in clinical settings. The aim of this population-based cohort study was to examine the association between anticholinergic medication burden, as defined by different scales, and adverse clinical outcomes among older adults.
From Taiwan's Longitudinal Health Insurance Database, we retrieved data on monthly anticholinergic drug use measured by the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS), the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale (ACB), and the Drug Burden Index - Anticholinergic component (DBI-Ach) for 116,043 people aged 65 years and older during a 10-year follow-up. For all 3 scales, a higher score indicates greater anticholinergic burden. We used generalized estimating equations to examine the association between anticholinergic burden (ARS and ACB: grouped from 0 to ≥4; DBI-Ach: grouped as 0, 0-0.5, and 0.5-1) and adverse outcomes, and stratified individuals by age-group (aged 65-74, 75-84, and ≥85 years).
Compared with the ARS and DBI-Ach, the ACB showed the strongest, most consistent dose-response relationships with risks of all 4 adverse outcomes, particularly in people aged 65 to 84 years. For example, among those 65 to 74 years old, going from an ACB score of 1 to a score of 4 or greater, individuals' adjusted odds ratio increased from 1.41 to 2.25 for emergency department visits; from 1.32 to 1.92 for all-cause hospitalizations; from 1.10 to 1.71 for fracture-specific hospitalizations; and from 3.13 to 10.01 for incident dementia.
Compared with the 2 other scales studied, the ACB shows good dose-response relationships between anticholinergic burden and a variety of adverse outcomes in older adults. For primary care and geriatrics clinicians, the ACB may be a helpful tool for identifying high-risk populations for interventions.
目前尚无共识确定哪种抗胆碱能评分系统在临床环境中最有效。本基于人群的队列研究旨在探讨不同量表定义的抗胆碱能药物负担与老年人不良临床结局之间的关系。
我们从台湾的长期健康保险数据库中检索了 116043 名年龄在 65 岁及以上的人群在 10 年随访期间每月抗胆碱能药物使用情况的数据,使用抗胆碱能风险量表(ARS)、抗胆碱能认知负担量表(ACB)和药物负担指数-抗胆碱能成分(DBI-Ach)进行测量。对于所有 3 个量表,评分越高表示抗胆碱能负担越大。我们使用广义估计方程来研究抗胆碱能负担(ARS 和 ACB:分为 0 至≥4;DBI-Ach:分为 0、0-0.5 和 0.5-1)与不良结局之间的关系,并按年龄组(65-74 岁、75-84 岁和≥85 岁)对个体进行分层。
与 ARS 和 DBI-Ach 相比,ACB 与所有 4 种不良结局的风险之间显示出最强、最一致的剂量-反应关系,特别是在 65-84 岁的人群中。例如,在 65-74 岁的人群中,ACB 评分从 1 分增加到 4 分或更高,个体调整后的比值比从急诊就诊的 1.41 增加到 2.25;从所有原因住院的 1.32 增加到 1.92;从骨折特异性住院的 1.10 增加到 1.71;从新发痴呆的 3.13 增加到 10.01。
与研究的另外 2 个量表相比,ACB 显示了抗胆碱能药物负担与老年人各种不良结局之间的良好剂量-反应关系。对于初级保健和老年医学临床医生来说,ACB 可能是识别高危人群进行干预的有用工具。