Authors
- Al Shemeili, Saeed MPharm
- Stewart, Derek PgCert, BSc, MSc, PhD, MRPharmS
Abstract
Review question/objective: The aim of this review is to critically appraise, synthesize and present evidence on the use of the Drug Burden Index (DBI) to identify and reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing of anticholinergic and sedative agents in elderly patients in institutionalized care.
More specifically, this review seeks to answer the following questions:
1. In which specific settings and patient groups has the DBI been applied?
2. Which outcomes have been studied? (E.g. occurrence and incidence of adverse drug reactions, physical functioning, mental functioning, cause of admission to hospital, etc.)
3. Has the use of the DBI impacted upon inappropriate prescribing of anticholinergic and sedative agents to elderly patients in institutionalized care? (E.g. cessation of therapy, prescribing altered to other agents, reduction in adverse drug reactions, etc.)
Background: Elderly patients are at particular risk of the adverse effects of their medication, impacting significantly on health outcomes and healthcare resources.1-4 These effects are complex and may arise due to many inter-related factors including: age-related physiological changes, e.g. reduced renal function; numerous co-morbidities, e.g. diabetes-related cardiovascular complications; confusion over medicine taking; and prescribing of multiple medications.
Indeed, given the advances in evidence-based medicine and pharmacotherapy, elderly patients are likely to be prescribed multiple medicines for multiple indications. Medicines for hypertension, diabetes mellitus, hypercholesterolemia and other conditions are often needed to prevent serious illness, or to allow elderly patients to maintain a healthy and active lifestyle.The term 'polypharmacy' has been used to describe the prescription of multiple medications and has been described as one of the most pressing prescribing challenges.5 Polypharmacy increases the likelihood of adverse drug reactions, clinically important drug-drug interactions, as well as contributing to sub-optimal medication adherence. While traditionally, polypharmacy has been described by some as four or five medications,6-7 there is no universally accepted definition. In a recent systematic review of interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people, Patterson et al., suggested a change in emphasis from inappropriate polypharmacy (too many drugs) to the prescribing of appropriate polypharmacy (many drugs).8
However, the prescribing of appropriate polypharmacy in the elderly remains a complex issue and much work has been undertaken to classify specific drug classes or individual drugs which may be particularly problematic in the elderly.8 These lists of drug classifications encourage more appropriate medicine selection, are considered both essential and supportive for practitioners caring for the elderly and are designed with the aim of being easily and effectively interpreted. Furthermore, they have additional uses in undergraduate and postgraduate education and provide reference points and standards for audit and research.9
Two of the most commonly used lists of problematic drugs are the 'Beers criteria',10,11 and the 'STOPP-START criteria'.12,13 Both of these criteria highlight the anticholinergic and sedative drugs as being particularly problematic and hence potentially inappropriate medication in the elderly. Sedative drugs, such as benzodiazepines, continue to be prescribed in the elderly despite their well-recognized adverse effects. These include confusion, daytime sedation, memory problems, falls and motor vehicle accidents. In addition, long term use of benzodiazepines may have adverse psychological and physical effects, as these drugs are prone to cause tolerance, physical dependence and withdrawal syndrome.14 Benzodiazepines enhance the effect of the neurotransmittergamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) at theGABAA receptor, resulting insedative,hypnotic (sleep-inducing),anxiolytic (anti-anxiety),anticonvulsant and muscle relaxant properties.15
Anticholinergic agents or drugs with anticholinergic properties are widely used in the elderly and include drugs for urinary incontinence, antidepressants and antihistamines.16 Anticholinergic agents act by blocking the actions of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine.17 Cholinergic receptors are classified into muscarinic and nicotinic, with muscarinic receptors categorized into five subtypes M1-M5; three of these subtypes play a fundamental role in cognitive function.18 Adverse anticholinergic effects in the elderly can be severe and debilitating, including: dry mouth and sore throat; dental caries; diplopia; glaucoma; urinary retention; tachycardia; loss of co-ordination; confusion and agitation; memory problems; incoherent speech; mental confusion; and orthostatic hypotension leading to falls.19-21
The cumulative effect of prescribing multiple medications which block muscarinic receptors in the cholinergic nervous system is termed the 'anticholinergic burden'. Many factors have been noted to influence the 'anticholinergic burden' including: age-related pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic changes; polypharmacy (inappropriate and appropriate) drug regimens with anticholinergic effects; drug-drug interactions; exposure to certain drugs; reliability of the blood brain barrier; and co-morbid disease states, particularly dementia.22
Several scales have been developed to measure the 'anticholinergic burden'. Duran et al., recently reported a systematic review of anticholinergic risk scales in the elderly, with the aim of developing a uniform list of anticholinergic drugs, differentiating for anticholinergic properties.22 One limitation of their review was restricting the search solely to Medline. Inclusion criteria for the studies were: a finite list of anticholinergic drugs; a grading score of anticholinergic potency; and validation in a clinical setting. Seven different risk scales were identified, with considerable variation in terms of the specific drugs included within the scales and the grading of anticholinergic potency. Synthesis of study findings gave a list of 100 drugs (47 high in anticholinergic potency and 53 low in anticholinergic potency).
The most recent scale to assess anticholinergic burden is the Drug Burden Index (DBI).23 One key advantage of the DBI over other scales is that it also captures use of sedative agents. Hilmer et al., published the first report of this scale in 2007.23 The DBI is calculated as follows:
Where D is the daily dose of anticholinergic or sedative medication and [delta] is the minimum efficacious dose as approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States of America. Hilmer et al., employed the index in the analysis of the correlation between cognitive and physical function and use of drugs.23 This seminal study established that increasing DBI had a positive correlation with deterioration in functions of grip strength and gait. In addition, a unit increase in DBI was a prediction of deterioration in gait speed of 0.04 m/s. The DBI is therefore a potentially powerful tool to quantify the effects of anticholinergic and sedative agents to aid review of these medications and to quantify the effects of interventions to reduce the DBI.
Since 2007, the DBI has been studied in various countries and clinical settings. A scoping search of CINAHL and Medline identified a volume of literature focusing on the DBI and to date no systematic review has been published or protocol registered with the Joanna Briggs Institute, the Cochrane Collaboration or the Center for Reviews and Dissemination. Professor Hilmer has also been contacted to confirm that she is not conducting, nor is aware of any such review. This review will focus on the use of the DBI to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing of anticholinergic and sedative agents in elderly patients in institutionalized care (e.g. hospital or care home settings). This will provide an opportunity to systematically search, locate, appraise, synthesize, summarize and interpret the best available evidence using standard JBI approaches. The findings of this review will be of particular relevance to practitioners caring for elderly patients in institutionalized settings, providing quality information on any associations between the DBI and health outcomes (e.g. related to adverse drug reactions), and the impact of medication review on the DBI and these outcomes.
Article Content
Inclusion criteria
Types of participants
The focus of this review will specifically be on 'elderly patients' as described within the studies. If no classification is given within studies, then only those studies reporting on patients aged 65 years and over will be included in the review. Furthermore, patients receiving care within either hospital or care home settings (institutionalized care) will be included in the review. The care of these patients and hence the use of the DBI is likely to be markedly different to home dwelling patients.
Types of intervention(s)
Use of the DBI tool to identify and reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing of anticholinergic or sedative medications.
Types of comparisons
Patients with a score of zero on the DBI (i.e. no prescription of anticholinergic or sedative medicines) compared to the DBI score; or different levels of DBI scores between sub-samples of patients. Most studies will have no comparison.
Types of outcomes
This review will consider studies that include the following outcome measures:
1. DBI scores
2. Physical and mental functioning; adverse effects of anticholinergic and sedative medicines
3. Changes to therapy following application of the DBI as a tool to identify potentially inappropriate prescribing
Types of studies
The review will consider quantitative studies relevant to the application of the DBI and hence these will be observational in nature, specifically prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case control studies and analytical cross sectional studies.
Search strategy
The search strategy aims to find both published and unpublished studies. A two-step search strategy will be utilized in this review.
1. 'Drug Burden Index' is a specific term and hence will be the only search term employed.
2. To ensure full coverage of all of the literature, the reference lists of all papers and reports will be reviewed for any previously unidentified studies.
The first paper describing the DBI was published in 2007 and hence studies published from 2007 to 2013 in the English language will be included in the review.
The databases to be searched are:
1. Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE)
2. International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA)
3. Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)
4. PsycARTICLES
The search for unpublished studies will include: Google, Google Scholar, Scricus.com, Robert Wood Johnson Institute and Dissertations Abstract International.
The search string will be applied with results and exceptions recorded. Titles of papers returned by the search will be independently screened by two reviewers followed by abstracts and full papers (all independently reviewed); where necessary (in case of uncertainty or disagreement between two reviewers) a third reviewer will be consulted.
Assessment of methodological quality
Quantitative papers selected for retrieval will be assessed by two independent reviewers for methodological validity prior to inclusion in the review using standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI) (Appendix I). Any disagreements that arise between the reviewers will be resolved through discussion, or with a third reviewer.
Data collection
Quantitative data will be extracted from papers included in the review using the standardized data extraction tool from JBI-MAStARI (Appendix II). The data extracted will include specific details about the interventions, populations, study methods and outcomes of significance to the review question and specific objectives.
Data synthesis
Quantitative papers will, where possible, be pooled in statistical meta-analysis using JBI-MAStARI. All results will be subject to double data entry. Effect sizes expressed as odds ratios (for categorical data) and weighted mean differences (for continuous data) and their 95% confidence intervals will be calculated for analysis. Heterogeneity will be assessed statistically using the standard chi-square test and also explored using subgroup analyses based on the different quantitative study designs included in this review. Where statistical pooling is not possible, the findings will be presented in narrative form including tables and figures to aid in data presentation where appropriate.
Conflicts of interest
No potential conflicts of interest are identified.
Acknowledgements
The reviewers would like to acknowledge their employers, Robert Gordon University, for providing an opportunity to take part in the JBI Comprehensive Systematic Review Course. The Embassy of United Arab Emirates provided the funding for Saeed Al Shemeili to undertake JBI training.
References
1. Spinewine A, Schmader KE, Barber N, Hughes C, Lapane KL, Swine C et al. Appropriate prescribing in elderly people: how well can it be measured and optimised? Lancet 2007;370(9582):173-184. [Context Link]
2. Gurwitz JH, Field TS, Harrold LR, Rothschild J, Debellis K, Seger AC et al. Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events among older persons in the ambulatory setting. Journal of the American Medical Association 2003;289(9):1107-1116. [Context Link]
3. Budnitz DS, Lovegrove MC, Shehab N, Richards CL. Emergency hospitalizations for adverse drug events in older Americans. New England Journal of Medicine 2011; 365(21):2002-2012. [Context Link]
4. Routledge PA, O'Mahony MS, Woodhouse KW. Adverse drug reactions in elderly patients. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2004;57(2): 121-126. [Context Link]
5. Payne RA, Avery AJ. Polypharmacy: one of the greatest prescribing challenges in general practice. British Journal of General Practice 2011;61:83-84. [Context Link]
6. Rollason V, Vogt N. Reduction of polypharmacy in the elderly. A systematic review of the role of the pharmacist. Drugs Aging 2003;20:817-832. [Context Link]
7. Linjakumpu T, Hartikainen S, Klaukka T, Veijola J, Isoaho R. Use of medications and polypharmacy are increasing among the elderly. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2002; 55(8):809-817. [Context Link]
8. Patterson SM, Hughes C, Kerse N, Cardwell CR, Bradley MC. Interventions to improve the appropriate use of polypharmacy for older people. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2012:5(5). [Context Link]
9. Dimitrow MS, Airaksinen MS, Kivela SL, Lyles A, Leikola SN. Comparison of prescribing criteria to evaluate the appropriateness of drug treatment in individuals aged 65 and older: a systematic review. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2011;59(8):1521-1530. [Context Link]
10. Fick DM, Cooper JW, Wade WE, Waller JL, Maclean JR, Beers MH. Updating the Beers criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults: results of a US consensus panel of experts. Archives of Internal Medicine 2003;163(22):2716. [Context Link]
11. Jano E, Aparasu RR. Healthcare outcomes associated with Beers' criteria: a systematic review. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2007;41(3):438-447. [Context Link]
12. Gallagher P, Ryan C, Byrne S, Kennedy J, O'Mahony D. STOPP (screening tool of older person's prescriptions) and START (screening tool to alert doctors to right treatment). Consensus validation. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 2008;46(2):72-83. [Context Link]
13. Hill-Taylor B, Sketris I, Hayden J, Byrne S, O'Sullivan D, Christie R. Application of the STOPP/START criteria: a systematic review of the prevalence of potentially inappropriate prescribing in older adults, and evidence of clinical, humanistic and economic impact. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics 2013, in press. [Context Link]
14. Sithamparanathan K, Sadera A, Leung L. Adverse effects of benzodiazepine use in elderly people: a meta-analysis. Asian Journal of Gerontology & Geriatrics 2012;7 (2):(2012). [Context Link]
15. Mohler H. The rise of a new GABA pharmacology. Neuropharmacology 2011;60(7):1042-1049. [Context Link]
16. Chew ML, Mulsant BH, Pollock BG, Lehman ME, Greenspan A, Mahmoud RA et al. Anticholinergic activity of 107 medications commonly used by older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2008;56(7):1333-1341. [Context Link]
17. Rudolph JL, Salow MJ, Angelini MC, McGlinchey RE. The anticholinergic risk scale and anticholinergic adverse effects in older persons. Archives of Internal Medicine 2008;168(5):508. [Context Link]
18. Kay GG, Granville LJ. Antimuscarinic agents: Implications and concerns in the management of overactive bladder in the elderly. Clinical Therapeutics 2005;27(1):127-138. [Context Link]
19. Cilag J, Abbott E, Center G. Anticholinergic effects of medication in elderly patients. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 2001;62(21):11-14. [Context Link]
20. Inouye SK, Schlesinger MJ, Lydon TJ. Delirium: a symptom of how hospital care is failing older persons and a window to improve quality of hospital care. The American Journal of Medicine 1999;106(5):565-573 [Context Link]
21. Aizenberg D, Sigler M, Weizman A, Barak Y. Anticholinergic burden and the risk of falls among elderly psychiatric inpatients: a 4-year case-control study. International Psychogeriatrics 2002;14(3):307-310. [Context Link]
22. Duran CE, Azermai M, Vander Stichele RH, Systematic review of anticholinergic risk scales in older adults. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2013;69:1485-1496. [Context Link]
23. Hilmer SN, Mager DE, Simonsick EM, Cao Y, Ling SM, Windham GB et al. A drug burden index to define the functional burden of medications in older people. Archives of Internal Medicine 2007;167(8): 781. [Context Link]
Appendix I: Appraisal instruments
MAStARI appraisal instrument[Context Link]
Appendix II: Data extraction instruments
MAStARI data extraction instrument[Context Link]
Keywords: drug burden index; anticholinergic; sedative; elderly; hospital; institutionalized care