BMC Geriatrics (Jan 2024)

Disentangling drug contributions: anticholinergic burden in older adults linked to individual medications: a cross-sectional population-based study

  • Gauri Bhatkhande,
  • Niteesh K. Choudhry,
  • Mufaddal Mahesri,
  • Nancy Haff,
  • Julie C. Lauffenburger

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-023-04640-4
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 24, no. 1
pp. 1 – 11

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Background Medications with potent anticholinergic properties have well-documented adverse effects. A high cumulative anticholinergic burden may arise from the concurrent use of multiple medications with weaker anticholinergic effects. We sought to identify patterns of high anticholinergic burden and associated patient characteristics. Methods We identified patients aged ≥ 65 who filled ≥ 1 medication with anticholinergic adverse effects in 2019 and had a cumulative Anticholinergic Burden score (ACB) ≥ 4 (i.e., high anticholinergic burden) in a large US health insurer. We classified patients based on how they attained high burden, as follows: 1) only filling strong or moderate anticholinergic medications (i.e., ACB = 2 or 3, “moderate/strong”), 2) only filling lightly anticholinergic medications (i.e., ACB = 1, “light/possible”), and 3) filling any combination (“mix”). We used multinomial logistic regression to assess the association between measured patient characteristics and membership in the three anticholinergic burden classifications, using the moderate/strong group as the referent. Results In total, 83,286 eligible patients with high anticholinergic burden were identified (mean age: 74.3 years (SD:7.1), 72.9% female). Of these, 4.5% filled only strong/moderate anticholinergics, 4.3% filled only light/possible anticholinergics, and the rest filled a mix (91.2%). Within patients in the mixed group, 64.3% of medication fills were for light/possible anticholinergics, while 35.7% were for moderate/strong anticholinergics. Compared with patients in the moderate/strong anticholinergics group, patients filling only light/possible anticholinergics were more likely to be older (adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR] per 1-unit of age: 1.06, 95%CI: 1.05–1.07), less likely to be female (aOR: 0.56, 95%CI: 0.50–0.62 vs. male), more likely to have comorbidities (e.g., heart failure aOR: 3.18, 95%CI: 2.70–3.74 or depression aOR: 1.20, 95%CI: 1.09–1.33 vs. no comorbidity), and visited fewer physicians (aOR per 1-unit of change: 0.98, 95%CI: 0.97–0.98). Patients in the mixed group were older (aOR per 1-unit of age: 1.02, 95%CI: 1.02–1.03) and less likely to be female (aOR: 0.89, 95%CI: 0.82–0.97 vs. male) compared with those filling moderate/strong anticholinergics. Conclusion Most older adults accumulated high anticholinergic burden through a combination of light/possible and moderate/strong anticholinergics rather than moderate/strong anticholinergics, with light/possible anticholinergics being the major drivers of overall anticholinergic burden. These insights may inform interventions to improve prescribing in older adults.

Keywords