Aging Clinical and Experimental Research (ACER) Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research (ACER) Group, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK.
J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021 Jan;22(1):56-64. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2020.05.065. Epub 2020 Jul 21.
This systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42019115918) compared the evidence behind anticholinergic burden (ACB) measures and their ability to predict changes in older people's physical function and quality of life.
Eligible cohort or case-control studies were identified systematically using comprehensive search terms and a validated search filter for prognostic studies. Medline (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EMBSCO), and PsycINFO (OVID) databases were searched. Risk of bias, using Quality in Prognosis Studies tool, and quality of evidence, using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, were assessed.
People aged 65 years and older from any clinical setting.
Any ACB measures were accepted (including the anticholinergic domain of the Drug Burden Index). Any global/multidimensional measure for physical function and/or quality of life was accepted for outcome.
Thirteen studies reporting associations between ACB and physical function (n = 10) or quality of life (n = 4) were included. Exposure measures included Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale, Anticholinergic Drug Scale, Anticholinergic Risk Scale, Clinician Rated Anticholinergic Score, and the anticholinergic domain of the Drug Burden Index. All studies were rated moderate risk of bias in ≥2 Quality in Prognosis Studies categories with 5 rated high risk in ≥1 categories. Seven of 10 studies (5251 of 7569 participants) reported significant decline in physical function with increased burden. All 4 studies (2635 participants) reporting quality of life demonstrated similar association with increased burden. High risk of biases and inadequate data reporting restricted analysis. There was no evidence to support one measure being superior to another.
The evidence supports association between increased ACB and future impairments in physical function and quality of life. No conclusion can be made regarding which ACB measure has the best prognostic value. Well-designed longitudinal studies are required to address this. Clinicians should be aware of patient's anticholinergic burden and consider alternative medications where appropriate.
本系统评价(PROSPERO CRD42019115918)比较了抗胆碱能负担(ACB)测量及其预测老年人身体功能和生活质量变化的证据。
使用全面的搜索词和经过验证的预后研究搜索筛选器,系统地识别合格的队列或病例对照研究。检索了 Medline(OVID)、EMBASE(OVID)、CINAHL(EMBSCO)和 PsycINFO(OVID)数据库。使用预后研究质量工具评估了偏倚风险,并使用推荐评估、制定与评价分级法评估了证据质量。
来自任何临床环境的 65 岁及以上的人。
接受任何 ACB 测量(包括药物负担指数的抗胆碱能域)。接受任何用于身体功能和/或生活质量的整体/多维测量。
纳入了 13 项报告 ACB 与身体功能(n=10)或生活质量(n=4)之间关联的研究。暴露测量包括抗胆碱能认知负担量表、抗胆碱能药物量表、抗胆碱能风险量表、临床医师评定的抗胆碱能评分以及药物负担指数的抗胆碱能域。所有研究在≥2 个预后研究类别中被评为中度偏倚风险,其中 5 个在≥1 个类别中被评为高风险。在 10 项研究中,有 7 项(7569 名参与者中的 5251 名)报告了随着负担的增加身体功能明显下降。所有 4 项报告生活质量的研究都表明与负担增加存在类似的关联。高偏倚风险和数据报告不足限制了分析。没有证据表明一种测量方法优于另一种。
证据支持 ACB 增加与未来身体功能和生活质量受损之间的关联。不能得出关于哪种 ACB 测量具有最佳预后价值的结论。需要进行精心设计的纵向研究来解决这个问题。临床医生应该意识到患者的抗胆碱能负担,并在适当的情况下考虑替代药物。