Reducing the drug burden of sedative and anticholinergic medications in older adults: a scoping review of explicit decision criteria.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the extent, characteristics, and knowledge gaps regarding explicit decision criteria for deprescribing drugs with anticholinergic or sedative properties (Ach/Sed) in older adults. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Original studies, clinical trial protocols, grey literature, and Summaries of Product Characteristics. METHODS: Searches targeting explicit decision criteria for deprescribing Ach/Sed were performed across MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science, including trial registries (clinicaltrials.gov, ICTRP, EU-CTR, ANZCTR) for pertinent articles, study protocols. Additionally, to encompass non-traditional or 'grey literature' sources, Google searches and relevant agency websites were explored, alongside the summary of product characteristics for Ach/Sed. RESULTS: The initial literature search identified 8,192 unique data sources. After review, 188 original articles or books, 79 internet sources, and 127 SmPCs were included. Examining these sources for explicit criteria for 154 Ach/Sed, overall, 1,271 explicit criteria guidance for identifying clinical scenarios warranting deprescription of Ach/Sed across 145/154 Ach/Sed were identified. These criteria were identified mainly from qualitative research and Summaries of Product Characteristics. Additionally, 455 criteria-based recommendations suggesting approaches for tapering implementation across 76/154 Ach/Sed were identified, mostly from sources classified as expert opinions. Significant heterogeneity was found across the approaches for tapering Ach/Sed. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review provides a comprehensive overview of the literature providing guidance for clinical scenarios where Ach/Sed should be deprescribed and highlights the existing knowledge gaps regarding comprehensive guidance on tapering these drugs which warranties future research and development.

The Predictive Value of Anticholinergic Burden Measures in Relation to Cognitive Impairment in Older Chronic Complex Patients.

Anticholinergic burden (AB) is related to cognitive impairment (CI) and older complex chronic patients (OCCP) are more susceptible. Our objective was to evaluate the predictive value of ten anticholinergic scales to predict a potential CI due to anticholinergic pharmacotherapy in OCCP. An eight-month longitudinal multicentre study was carried out in a cohort of OCCP, in treatment with at least one anticholinergic drug and whose cognition status had been evaluated by Pfeiffer test twice for a period of 6-15 months. CI was considered when the Pfeiffer test increased 2 or more points. AB was detected using ten scales included on the Anticholinergic Burden Calculator. An ROC curve analysis was performed to assess the discriminative capacity of the scales to predict a potential CI and the cut-off point of AB that obtains better validity indicators. 415 patients were included (60.2% female, median age of 85 years (IQR = 11)). 190 patients (45.8%) manifested CI. Only the DBI (Drug Burden Index) showed statistically significant differences in the median AB between patients without CI and with CI (0.5 (1.00) vs. 0.67 (0.65), p = 0.006). At the ROC curve analysis, statistically significant values were obtained only with the DBI (AUC: 0.578 (0.523-0.633), p = 0.006). The cut-off point with the greatest validity selected for the DBI was an AB of 0.41 (moderate risk) (sensitivity = 81%, specificity = 36%, PPV = 51%). The DBI is the scale with the greatest discriminatory power to detect OCCP at risk of CI and the best cut-off point is a load value of 0.41.

Chronic-pharma: New Platform for Chronic Patients Pharmacotherapy Optimization.

We describe the technological development of a web platform named CHRONIC-PHARMA that integrates three prescription support tools for patients with chronic diseases: Anticholinergic Burden Calculator (ABC), LESS-CHRON criteria and TRIGGER-CHRON. They focus on the optimization and evaluation of pharmacotherapy in patients with chronic diseases, resulting in a useful, single platform that can facilitate the review of pharmacotherapy and improve the safety of chronically ill patients. This is achieved by estimating and reducing the anticholinergic risk (ABC), detecting opportunities for deprescribing drugs and monitoring its success (LESS-CHRON criteria), as well as calculating the risk of adverse drug events (TRIGGER-CHRON). The platform is freely accessible online ( https://chronic-pharma.com/ ) as well as through a mobile application, and therefore easily accessible among the healthcare community.

Concordance Among 10 Different Anticholinergic Burden Scales in At-Risk Older Populations.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to evaluate the concordance among 10 anticholinergic scales for the measurement of anticholinergic drug exposure in at-risk elderly complex chronic patients in primary care. METHODS: An 8-month cross-sectional, multicenter study was carried out in a cohort of complex chronic patients older than 65 years in treatment with at least 1 drug with anticholinergic activity. Demographic, pharmacological, and clinical data were collected. Anticholinergic burden and risk were detected using the 10 scales included on the anticholinergic burden calculator (http://www.anticholinergicscales.es/). We used κ statistics to evaluated the concordance 2 to 2 (according to risk: high, medium, low or without risk) among the included scales. RESULTS: Four hundred seventy-three patients were recruited (60.3% female, median age of 84 years [interquartile range = 10]). Eighty was the total number of anticholinergic drugs with any scale (1197 prescriptions), with a median of 2 drugs with anticholinergic activity per patient (interquartile range = 2). The κ statistics comparing all the 10 scales ranged from -0.175 (Drug Burden Index versus Chew Scale) to 0.708 (Anticholinergic Activity Scale [AAS] versus Chew Scale). The best concordance was obtained between AAS and Chew Scale (κ = 0.708), followed by Clinician-Rated Anticholinergic Scale and Duran Scale (κ = 0.632) and AAS and Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale (κ = 0.618), being considered substantial strengths of concordance. CONCLUSIONS: The agreement among the 10 scales in elderly patients with complex chronic conditions was highly variable. Great care should be taken when assessing anticholinergic drug exposure using existing scales because of the wide variability among them. The only scales that showed agreement were the AAS-Chew, Clinician-Rated Anticholinergic Scale-Duran, and AAS-Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale pairs. In the rest of the cases, the scales are not interchangeable.

Anticholinergic Exposure in Elderly Complex Chronic Patients: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Elderly patients with multiple chronic conditions are closely linked to polymedication, a condition that is also highly associated with the presence of adverse effects, such as those observed by anticholinergic activity. Anticholinergic burden is defined in a very variable way and is described inconsistently using different scores and providing different interpretations of the risk of suffering from anticholinergic adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: The objective is to analyse the anticholinergic risk exposure in elderly complex chronic patients. METHODS: A observational multicentre study was performed for a cohort of complex chronic patients over 65 years who received treatment with at least one drug with anticholinergic activity. Anticholinergic exposure was assessed using ten scales included in the Anticholinergic Burden Calculator. RESULTS: 473 patients were recruited, being 67.7% with excessive polypharmacy. 80 was the total number of anticholinergic drugs with any scale, with a median of 2 drugs with anticholinergic activity per patient (IQR=2). Three scales evaluated more than 70% of the patients (Chew: 79.1%; Drug Burden Index (DBI): 77.8%; Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (ACB): 75.9%). The percentage of different drugs with anticholinergic properties evaluated ranged from 13.8% (Anticholinergic Burden Classification (ABC)) to 57.5% (DBI) and anticholinergic drugs prescriptions oscillated from 14% (Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS)) to 53.3% (DBI). 71.1% of patients were at risk (moderate and high risk) according to DBI vs. 9.7% by ARS at the opposite side. Important differences of anticholinergic risk in patients with excessive polypharmacy were in ACB, ABC and DBI scales. CONCLUSION: This study has highlighted clear differences between the scales used. DBI seems to be the scale that identifies a higher number of elderly chronic complex patients at risk of developing anticholinergic adverse effects.

Validation of the LESS-CHRON criteria: reliability study of a tool for deprescribing in patients with multimorbidity.

OBJECTIVE: The 'LESS-CHRON criteria' (List of Evidence-Based Deprescribing for Chronic Patients criteria) is a newly created tool with 27 criteria to guide deprescribing. It was developed using a Delphi methodology. Each criterion consists of drugs and their indications, conditions under which deprescribing would be considered, a health variable to be monitored after deprescribing and a follow-up period. The aim of our study was to evaluate the reliability of the LESS-CHRON criteria in a population of patients with multimorbidity to determine the possible usefulness of this tool in clinical practice. METHODS: We selected chronic patients with multimorbidity from an internal medicine unit who were older than 80 years old and were alive at the time of the study. To determine interobserver reliability, each professional (internist or hospital pharmacy specialist) applied the questionnaire under the same conditions and with the same resources. To determine intraobserver reliability, each health professional applied the tool at baseline and 2 months later. We measured interobserver and intraobserver reliability using the kappa coefficient. The proportion of overall agreement was also determined. RESULTS: We obtained a moderate overall kappa (ĸ=0.46, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.55) for interobserver reliability, and good (ĸ=0.65, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.78) and moderate (ĸ=0.59, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.74) values for intraobserver reliability for the internist and pharmacist, respectively. The proportion of overall agreement was very high: 92% (range: 62%-100%) for the interobserver, and 94% (80%-100%) and 93% (63%-100%) for the internist and pharmacist, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The LESS-CHRON criteria shows early promise as a reliable method to help guide deprescribing in patients with multimorbidity. Further, more complete testing with a larger sample of prescribers is needed.

Association Between Drug Burden Index and Functional and Cognitive Function in Patients with Multimorbidity.

BACKGROUND: Anticholinergic and sedative drugs are associated with adverse events such as cognitive and functional impairment in elderly. The Drug Burden Index (DBI) is a measure of an individual's total exposure to anticholinergic and sedative drugs. Objetive: The study aimed to evaluate the association between the total DBI and cognitive and functional impairment in patients with multimorbidity. SETTING: Patients with multimorbidity enrolled in the IMPACTO project. METHODS: Cross-sectional observational study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The anticholinergic and sedative exposure was calculated using DBI. The Pfeiffer Test (PT) was used for cognitive status and the Barthel Index (BI) for functional status. RESULTS: 336 patients were included (mean age 77.6 ± 8.7 years, 54.2% men and a mean of 11.5 ± 3.7 prescribed drugs). 180 patients (53.6%) exposed to anticholinergic and/or sedative drugs were identified. The median score obtained in PT was slightly higher in exposed patients (1 (IQR 0-2) and 2 (IQR 0-4), p = 0.082 in "non-exposed" and "exposed", respectively). The bivariate analysis showed an association [0.544 (95% CI 0.044-1.063, p = 0.03)]. The median obtained in the BI analysis was 85.0 (IQR 30.0) and 75.5 (IQR 42.5) p = 0.002, in "nonexposed" and "exposed", respectively. After the adjusted analysis, a relationship was obtained between both the variables [-9,558 (95% CI-15,794; -3,321, p = 0.03)]. CONCLUSION: Higher DBI is associated with the impairment of functional status and, slightly to the deterioration of cognitive function in patients with multimorbidity. DBI should be considered in patients with multimorbidity to optimize the pharmacological treatment of a group of special interest due to its vulnerability.

Development of the Anticholinergic Burden Calculator Web Tool / Desarrollo de la herramienta web Anticholinergic Burden Calculator

No disponible

Systematic review on the use of anticholinergic scales in poly pathological patients.

PURPOSE: Anticholinergic drugs may increase the risk of cognitive and functional disorders in older patients. There are anticholinergic scales on which said risk is estimated. The objectives of this study are: to identify the scales described in literature that are applicable to polypathological patients and analyze their clinical outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic review was performed. Data sources were MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science which were consulted until August 2014. INCLUSION CRITERIA: (1) studies that specify the list of drugs, describe the methodology for their elaboration and how they calibrate the anticholinergic potential and (2) studies that use the scales identified as a tool to measure exposure to anticholinergic drugs in polypathological patients or those with similar characteristics. The main differences between the scales and main results on cognitive, functional and mortality status were collected. RESULTS: 25 articles were included. 10 scales were identified. For their preparation, 8 were based on literature about drugs with anticholinergic activity and/or previously published scales as well as expert opinions. Exposure to anticholinergic drugs has been linked to cognitive disorders (basically measured with Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS), Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale (ACB) and Drug Burden Index (DBI)) and functional scale (with ARS and DBI). However, there is no clear relationship with mortality. The Anticholinergic Drug Scale was the only one that obtained no association with any of the variables studied. CONCLUSIONS: There is a great variety of scales published and applied to older patients. The clinical results are different depending on the scale used which is probably due to the different methodology in their elaboration.

Nadolol for the treatment of infantile hemangioma.

PURPOSE: The successful use of nadolol as an alternative to propranolol therapy in three cases of infantile hemangioma is reported. SUMMARY: Infantile hemangioma is a benign vascular neoplastic disorder that affects up to 10% of newborns and can lead to deformity or local complications in severe cases. Propranolol, administered alone or in combination with corticosteroids, is increasingly used to treat infantile hemangioma, but its ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and potentially cause central nervous system adverse effects has prompted research on alternative ß-blocker therapies for the disorder that have more favorable safety profiles, including nadolol. This article describes the use of nadolol to treat three pediatric patients with a buccal or genital hemangioma who developed adverse reactions (mainly, irritability and sleep disturbances) or resistance to initial treatment with propranolol. The patients were 10 months, 12 months, and 4 years of age, respectively, when hemangioma treatment was initiated. The results of nadolol therapy were favorable, with involution of lesions and gradual disappearance of propranolol-associated adverse effects occurring in all three cases. As with any use of ß-blocker therapy in a pediatric patient, a cardiac workup is advised before the start of nadolol therapy; blood pressure and heart rate monitoring should be performed at one and two hours after the first dose and continued during dose escalation. CONCLUSION: Nadolol was an effective alternative to propranolol in three pediatric patients with hemangiomas.

Systematic review of efficacy and safety of pemetrexed in non-small-cell-lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Lung cancer accounts for 20 % of cancer deaths in Spain. The most frequent subtype (87 %) is non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Pemetrexed is a recently marketed drug added to NSCLC therapeutic arsenal. It seems to have become one of the most used options for the treatment of this condition over the last 3 years. AIM OF THE REVIEW: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of pemetrexed in NSCLC, in the different therapy lines. Method A systematic search of published literature was conducted using the main databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and the Center for Reviews and Dissemination) and subsequently a search of referenced literature was performed. We included clinical trials, meta-analyses and systematic reviews. The evaluation of the quality of the articles was performed by pairs using specific assessment scales, Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) adapted for CASP Spain. Then we extracted data on efficacy and safety according to the treatment line assessed. RESULTS: We identified 277 references. Finally, nine clinical trials and a meta-analysis complied with inclusion criteria. In first-line induction, treatment with pemetrexed associated with a platinum was similar in terms of efficacy to other alternative chemotherapy regimens, except in patients with non-squamous histology, in whom survival was higher in the experimental group. In maintenance treatment, greater efficacy was seen with pemetrexed in patients with non-squamous histology. In second-line treatment, there were no significant differences in terms of efficacy and safety for pemetrexed treatment versus other chemotherapy options. The most frequent adverse reactions were: hematological, gastrointestinal and neurological. All were significantly less frequent with pemetrexed versus other alternative therapies, except for liver toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the high degree of uncertainty as to its efficacy in certain subgroups of patients, including conflicting data; to its recent incorporation, and therefore lack of safety data in the medium and long term, and the high budgetary impact of its incorporation into health systems, it seems reasonable to optimize its use, identifying those patients who may benefit most.