[Prospective evaluation of mouth and eye dryness induced by antimuscarinic drugs used for neurogenic overactive bladder in 35 patients with multiple sclerosis]

Ocular adverse events from pharmacological treatment in patients with multiple sclerosis-A systematic review of the literature

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to review the scientific evidence and describe the ocular treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) related to pharmacological treatment in patients with multiple sclerosis.

METHODS

A systematic review of literature was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis guidelines in the MEDLINE, LILACS, EMBASE, and COCHRANE databases. Articles were filtered based on title and abstract considering the selection criteria and subsequently filtered by full-text reading. The resulting articles were evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute Quality Tools. Study characteristics and results were extracted and presented in structured tables to conduct a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

A total of 2852 published articles were extracted using our strategy. After removing duplicates, 2841 articles were screened based on title and abstract, 102 articles were evaluated using quality tools, and 69 articles were filtered by full-text reading. Through this search strategy, 60 articles met all the inclusion criteria and seven articles, through a search update conducted in the same manner, were included. This resulted in 67 articles meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 11 were experimental and 56 were observational. The therapies related to ocular TEAEs were alemtuzumab, amantadine, fingolimod, steroids, CTLA-4 Ig, estriol, interferon β, natalizumab, hyperbaric oxygen, rituximab, siponimod, teriflunomide, and tovaxin. Fingolimod and siponimod were commonly associated with macular edema, interferon β was associated with retinopathy, alemtuzumab was associated with thyroid eye disease, amantadine was associated with corneal edema, and steroids were associated with acute retinal necrosis. Opportunistic infections were also found, and there was one life-threatening case.

CONCLUSIONS

Our search revealed different methodological assessments of the topic. However, longitudinal studies regarding ocular TEAEs related to multiple sclerosis therapy are necessary to provide evidence-based recommendations, especially in understudied regions such as Latin America and Africa. Physicians should monitor ocular symptoms in patients being treated for multiple sclerosis and consider an interdisciplinary approach.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO ID CRD42020106886.

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.

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.