General Practice and Primary Care, Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Sciences, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom.
Ann Fam Med. 2020 Mar;18(2):148-155. doi: 10.1370/afm.2501.
Anticholinergic burden (ACB), the cumulative effect of anticholinergic medications, is associated with adverse outcomes in older people but is less studied in middle-aged populations. Numerous scales exist to quantify ACB. The aims of this study were to quantify ACB in a large cohort using the 10 most common anticholinergic scales, to assess the association of each scale with adverse outcomes, and to assess overlap in populations identified by each scale.
We performed a longitudinal analysis of the UK Biobank community cohort (502,538 participants, baseline age: 37-73 years, median years of follow-up: 6.2). The ACB was calculated at baseline using 10 scales. Baseline data were linked to national mortality register records and hospital episode statistics. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE). Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality, MACE, hospital admission for fall/fracture, and hospital admission with dementia/delirium. Cox proportional hazards models (hazard ratio [HR], 95% CI) quantified associations between ACB scales and outcomes adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic status, body mass index, smoking status, alcohol use, physical activity, and morbidity count.
Anticholinergic medication use varied from 8% to 17.6% depending on the scale used. For the primary outcome, ACB was significantly associated with all-cause mortality/MACE for each scale. The Anticholinergic Drug Scale was most strongly associated with mortality/MACE (HR = 1.12; 95% CI, 1.11-1.14 per 1-point increase in score). The ACB was significantly associated with all secondary outcomes. The Anticholinergic Effect on Cognition scale was most strongly associated with dementia/delirium (HR = 1.45; 95% CI, 1.3-1.61 per 1-point increase).
The ACB was associated with adverse outcomes in a middle- to older-aged population. Populations identified and effect size differed between scales. Scale choice influenced the population identified as potentially requiring reduction in ACB in clinical practice or intervention trials.
抗胆碱能负担(ACB)是抗胆碱能药物累积效应的体现,与老年人的不良结局相关,但在中年人群中的研究较少。有许多量表可用于量化 ACB。本研究的目的是使用最常用的 10 种抗胆碱能量表在大型队列中量化 ACB,评估每个量表与不良结局的关联,并评估每个量表识别的人群之间的重叠。
我们对英国生物库社区队列(502538 名参与者,基线年龄:37-73 岁,中位随访年限:6.2 年)进行了纵向分析。使用 10 种量表在基线时计算 ACB。基线数据与国家死亡率登记册记录和医院发病统计数据相关联。主要结局是全因死亡率和主要不良心血管事件(MACE)的复合结局。次要结局是全因死亡率、MACE、跌倒/骨折住院和痴呆/谵妄住院。Cox 比例风险模型(风险比[HR],95%CI)量化了 ACB 量表与调整年龄、性别、社会经济地位、体重指数、吸烟状态、饮酒状态、身体活动和疾病计数后的结局之间的关联。
根据使用的量表,抗胆碱能药物的使用情况从 8%到 17.6%不等。对于主要结局,每个量表的 ACB 与全因死亡率/MACE 均显著相关。抗胆碱能药物量表与死亡率/MACE 相关性最强(HR=1.12;95%CI,每增加 1 分,得分增加 1.11-1.14)。ACB 与所有次要结局均显著相关。抗胆碱能作用认知量表与痴呆/谵妄相关性最强(HR=1.45;95%CI,每增加 1 分,得分增加 1.3-1.61)。
ACB 与中年至老年人群的不良结局相关。不同量表识别的人群和效应大小不同。量表的选择会影响临床实践或干预试验中潜在需要降低 ACB 的人群。