Anticholinergic Drug Burden in Noncancer Versus Cancer Patients Near the End of Life

Health-related quality of life and use of medication with anticholinergic activity in patients with multiple myeloma

PURPOSE

Verify the association between anticholinergic burden and health-related quality of life of patients with multiple myeloma.

METHODS

Cross-sectional study with multiple myeloma outpatient from a state capital city in southeastern Brazil. Sociodemographic, clinical, and pharmacotherapeutic variables were collected by interview. Clinical data were complemented by medical records. Drugs with anticholinergic activity were identified with Brazilian Anticholinergic Activity Drug Scale. Health-related quality of life scores were obtained using QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20 instruments. Mann-Whitney was used to compare the median of the health-related quality of life scale scores and the independent variables. Multivariate linear regression was performed to verify the association between independent variables and health-related quality of life scores.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirteen patients were included, 56.3% had multi-morbidities, and 71.8% used polypharmacy. In all health-related quality of life domains, there were differences between the medians of the polypharmacy variable. A significant difference was identified between the ACh burden and QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20 scores. Linear regression identified an association between the use of drugs with anticholinergic activity and the reduction of global status scores (QLQ-C30), functional scale (QLQ-C30), body image (QLQ-MY20), and future perspective (QLQ-MY20). Drugs with anticholinergic activity were associated with increased symptom scores (QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20). Polypharmacy was associated with reduction of functioning score and increase of symptom score (QLQ-C30).

CONCLUSION

Anticholinergic burden in MM patients is associated with lower scores in quality of life domains: global health and symptoms (QLQ-C30) and functional (QLQ-C30 and QLQ-MY20). The presence of polypharmacy is also associated with lower scores for functional scales and symptom scales (QLQ-C30).

Effectiveness of a Person-Centered Prescription Model in Hospitalized Older People at the End of Life According to Their Disease Trajectories and Frailty Index

This study aimed to comparatively analyze the effect of the person-centered prescription (PCP) model on pharmacotherapeutic indicators and the costs of pharmacological treatment between a dementia-like trajectory and an end-stage organ failure trajectory, and two states of frailty (cut-off point 0.5). A randomized controlled trial was conducted with patients aged ≥65 years admitted to a subacute hospital and identified by the Necessity of Palliative Care test to require palliative care. Data were collected from February 2018 to February 2020. Variables assessed included sociodemographic, clinical, degree-of-frailty, and several pharmacotherapeutic indicators and the 28-day medication cost. Fifty-five patients with dementia-like trajectory and 26 with organ failure trajectory were recruited observing significant differences at hospital admission in the mean number of medications (7.6 vs. 9.7; p < 0.004), the proportion of people on more than 10 medications (20.0% vs. 53.8%; p < 0.002), the number of drug-drug interactions (2.7 vs. 5.1; p < 0.006), and the Medication Regimen Complexity Index (MRCI) (25.7 vs. 33.4; p < 0.006), respectively. Also, regarding dementia-like patients, after application of the PCP model, these patients improved significantly in the intervention group compared to the control group in the mean number of chronic medications, STOPP Frail Criteria, MRCI and the 28-day cost of regular medications (p < 0.05) between admission and discharge. As for the PCP effect on the control and the intervention group at the end-stage organ failure, we did not observe statistically significant differences. On the other hand, when the effect of the PCP model on different degrees of frailty was evaluated, no unequal behavior was observed.

Application of a person-centered prescription model improves pharmacotherapeutic indicators and reduces costs associated with pharmacological treatment in hospitalized older patients at the end of life

Objective

This study sought to investigate whether applying an adapted person-centered prescription (PCP) model reduces the total regular medications in older people admitted in a subacute hospital at the end of life (EOL), improving pharmacotherapeutic indicators and reducing the expense associated with pharmacological treatment.

Design

Randomized controlled trial. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05454644).

Setting

A subacute hospital in Basque Country, Spain.

Subjects

Adults ≥65 years (n = 114) who were admitted to a geriatric convalescence unit and required palliative care.

Intervention

The adapted PCP model consisted of a systematic four-step process conducted by geriatricians and clinical pharmacists. Relative to the original model, this adapted model entails a protocol for the tools and assessments to be conducted on people identified as being at the EOL.

Measurements

After applying the adapted PCP model, the mean change in the number of regular drugs, STOPPFrail (Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions in Frail adults with limited life expectancy) criteria, drug burden index (DBI), drug-drug interactions, medication regimen complexity index (MRCI) and 28-days medication cost of chronic prescriptions between admission and discharge was analyzed. All patients were followed for 3 months after hospital discharge to measure the intervention's effectiveness over time on pharmacotherapeutic variables and the cost of chronic medical prescriptions.

Results

The number of regular prescribed medications at baseline was 9.0 ± 3.2 in the intervention group and 8.2 ± 3.5 in the control group. The mean change in the number of regular prescriptions at discharge was -1.74 in the intervention group and -0.07 in the control group (mean difference = 1.67 ± 0.57; p = 0.007). Applying a PCP model reduced all measured criteria compared with pre-admission (p < 0.05). At discharge, the mean change in 28-days medication cost was significantly lower in the intervention group compared with the control group (-34.91€ vs. -0.36€; p < 0.004).

Conclusion

Applying a PCP model improves pharmacotherapeutic indicators and reduces the costs associated with pharmacological treatment in hospitalized geriatric patients at the EOL, continuing for 3 months after hospital discharge. Future studies must investigate continuity in the transition between hospital care and primary care so that these new care models are offered transversally and not in isolation.

A comparison of anticholinergic burden in older patients with and without cancer

Aim: To compare anticholinergic burden (ACB) in older patients with and without cancer and evaluate the effects of ACB on geriatric syndromes. Methods: A total of 291 patients from the geriatric clinic and 301 patients from the oncology clinic were evaluated. ACB <2 was categorized as low ACB and ACB ≥2 was categorized as high ACB. A comprehensive geriatric assessment was performed on patients from the geriatric clinic. Results: ACB scores were significantly higher in patients without cancer compared with those with cancer (p < 0.005). Number of falls and Geriatric Depression Scale 15 scores were higher and Mini-Nutritional Assessment and Barthel/Lawton activities of daily living scores were lower in geriatric patients with high ACB scores compared with those with low ACB scores (p < 0.005). Conclusion: It is crucial to understand the potential effects of ACB for rational drug use and optimum cancer management in older patients with cancer.

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.

Clinical outcomes associated with anticholinergic burden in older hospitalized patients with advanced cancer: a single-center database study

PURPOSE

Although anticholinergic burden has been known to be associated with adverse outcomes in older adults, its clinical importance has been less studied in patients with advanced cancer. We aimed to assess clinical impacts of using anticholinergic medications in older patients with cancer.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective database study. This study included patients with stage IV solid cancer aged 65 years or older who were hospitalized in a hospitalist-operated medical unit of a tertiary hospital. We calculated anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scores on admission and during hospitalization by reviewing all medications during hospital stays and collected the following data: demographic, medical history and clinical severity, occurrence of delirium, location of discharge, in-hospital mortality, and after discharge mortality data.

RESULTS

When we divided the patients into two groups based on the change in ACB during hospitalization, the in-hospital mortality rate, incidence of delirium, frequency of transfers to long-term care hospitals, and length of hospital stay were higher in the ACB-increased group than those in the non-increased group. Even after excluding patients with clinically detected delirium, increased ACB were associated with increased in-hospital mortality. Patients in the ACB-increased group showed higher mortality risk after discharge than those in the non-increased group based on the Cox proportional hazard model.

CONCLUSION

Increased ACB during hospitalization is a predictor of worsening clinical features and higher mortality in older patients with cancer. Further studies investigating causal relationship between an increased ACB and poor prognosis are warranted.

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.

Anticholinergic Burden in Hospice Patients With Dementia

BACKGROUND

End-of-life (EOL) patients with dementia have an increased risk for anticholinergic toxicities due to age-related pharmacokinetic and physiologic changes in conjunction with an increased susceptibility to drug-induced cognitive impairments. Despite this well-documented risk, the use of drugs with anticholinergic properties (DAPs) remains prevalent in EOL patients with dementia.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to describe prescribing patterns and characterize anticholinergic burden among hospice patients with dementia, as measured by the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (ACB) scale.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of a national hospice patient information database. Patients included were admitted on January 1, 2016, discharged by death by December 31, 2016, and had a primary diagnosis of dementia. Patients' anticholinergic burden was calculated using ACB scores.

RESULTS

A total of 1283 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of those, 37.1% (n = 476) were prescribed at least 1 DAP. Specifically, 28.9% (n = 371) were prescribed 1 DAP, 6.6% (n = 84) were prescribed 2 DAPs, 1.6% (n = 20) were prescribed 3 DAPs, and 0.08% (n = 1) were prescribed 4 DAPs. The majority of patients prescribed a DAP had an ACB score of 3 (n = 359, 75.4%) and an average ACB score of 3.8. The most common DAPs prescribed in patients with an ACB score of 2 or higher were quetiapine (n = 202, 42.4%), atropine (n = 155, 32.6%), hyoscyamine (n = 61, 12.8%), olanzapine (n = 46, 9.6%), and scopolamine (n = 35, 7.4%).

CONCLUSION

Due to the limited benefit and increased harms with the use of DAPs, providers should aim to maximize nonpharmacologic options. By reducing the use of the top 5 DAPs identified in this study, the quality of life and care for EOL patients with dementia can potentially be improved.