The Prognostic Utility of Anticholinergic Burden Scales: An Integrative Review and Gap Analysis

• Published in: Drugs & aging 2023-09, Vol.40 (9), p.763-783
• Main Authors: Michael, Henry Ukachukwu, Enechukwu, Okechukwu, Brouillette, Marie-Josée, Tamblyn, Robyn, Fellows, Lesley K., Mayo, Nancy E.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anticholinergics; Clinical outcomes; Clinical significance; Cognitive ability; Content analysis; Drugs; Frailty; Geriatrics/Gerontology; Internal Medicine; Internet resources; Medical prognosis; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Older people; Patient safety; Pharmacology/Toxicology; Pharmacotherapy; Systematic Review; Validation studies
• ISSN: 1170-229X; 1179-1969
• DOI: 10.1007/s40266-023-01050-4

Background Anticholinergic drugs are commonly prescribed, especially to older adults. Anticholinergic burden scales (ABS) have been used to evaluate the cumulative effects of multiple anticholinergics. However, studies have shown inconsistent results regarding the association between anticholinergic burden assessed with ABS and adverse clinical outcomes such as cognitive impairment, functional decline, and frailty. This review aims to identify gaps in research on the development, validation, and evaluation of ABS, and provide recommendations for future studies. Method A comprehensive search of five databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, CINAHL, CENTRAL) was conducted for relevant studies published from inception until 25 May 2023. Two reviewers screened for eligibility and assessed the quality of studies using different tools based on the study design and stage of the review framework. Research evidence was evaluated, and gaps were identified and grouped into evidence, knowledge, and methodological gaps, using evidence tables to summarize data. Results Several evidence, knowledge, and methodological gaps in existing development, validation, and evaluation studies of ABS were identified. There is no universally accepted scale, and there is a need to define a clinically relevant threshold for measuring total anticholinergic burden. The current evidence has limitations, underrepresenting low- and middle-income countries, younger individuals, and populations with cognitive disabilities. The impact of anticholinergic burden on frailty is also understudied. Existing evaluation studies provide limited evidence on the benefit of reducing anticholinergic burden on clinical outcomes or the safety of anticholinergic deprescribing. There is also uncertainty regarding optimal reduction, clinically significant anticholinergic burden thresholds, and cost effectiveness. Conclusions Future research recommendations to bridge knowledge gaps include developing a risk assessment framework, refining ABS scales, establishing a standardized consensus scale, and creating a longitudinal measure of cumulative anticholinergic risk. Strategies to minimize bias, consider frailty, and promote multidisciplinary and multinational collaborations are also necessary to improve patient outcomes.