Low-Income Older Adults' Vulnerability to Anticholinergic Medication-Associated Frailty.

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY Drugs & Aging Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-10-19 DOI:10.1007/s40266-023-01069-7
Lana Sargent, Kristin M Zimmerman, Almutairi Mohammed, Matthew J Barrett, Huma Nawaz, Kathryn Wyman-Chick, Marissa Mackiewicz, Youssef Roman, Patricia Slattum, Sally Russell, Dave L Dixon, Sarah K Lageman, Sarah Hobgood, Leroy R Thacker, Elvin T Price
{"title":"Low-Income Older Adults' Vulnerability to Anticholinergic Medication-Associated Frailty.","authors":"Lana Sargent, Kristin M Zimmerman, Almutairi Mohammed, Matthew J Barrett, Huma Nawaz, Kathryn Wyman-Chick, Marissa Mackiewicz, Youssef Roman, Patricia Slattum, Sally Russell, Dave L Dixon, Sarah K Lageman, Sarah Hobgood, Leroy R Thacker, Elvin T Price","doi":"10.1007/s40266-023-01069-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>A growing body of research supports the negative impact of anticholinergic drug burden on physical frailty. However, prior research has been limited to homogeneous white European populations, and few studies have evaluated how anticholinergic burden tools compare in their measurement function and reliability with minority community-dwelling adult populations. This study investigated the association between anticholinergic drug exposure and frailty by conducting a sensitivity analysis using multiple anticholinergic burden tools in a diverse cohort.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive psychometric approach was used to assess the performance of five clinical Anticholinergic Burden Tools: Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale (ACB), Anticholinergic Drug Scale (ADS), average daily dose, total standardized daily doses (TSDD), and Cumulative Anticholinergic Burden scale (CAB). Spearman correlation matrix and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to determine the association among the variables. Ordinal logistic regression is used to evaluate the anticholinergic burden measured by each scale to determine the prediction of frailty. Model performance is determined by the area under the curve (AUC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The cohort included 80 individuals (mean age 69 years; 55.7% female, 71% African American). All anticholinergic burden tools were highly correlated (p < 0.001), ICC3 0.66 (p < 0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.73). Among individuals prescribed anticholinergics, 33% were robust, 44% were prefrail, and 23% were frail. All five tools predicted prefrail and frail status (p < 0.05) with low model misclassification rates for frail individuals (AUC range 0.78-0.85).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Anticholinergic burden tools evaluated in this cohort of low-income African American older adults were highly correlated and predicted prefrail and frail status. Findings indicate that clinicians can select the appropriate instrument for the clinic setting and research question while maintaining confidence that all five tools will produce reliable results. Future anticholinergic research is needed to unravel the association between interventions such as deprescribing on incident frailty in longitudinal data.</p>","PeriodicalId":11489,"journal":{"name":"Drugs & Aging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Drugs & Aging","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-023-01069-7","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/10/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: A growing body of research supports the negative impact of anticholinergic drug burden on physical frailty. However, prior research has been limited to homogeneous white European populations, and few studies have evaluated how anticholinergic burden tools compare in their measurement function and reliability with minority community-dwelling adult populations. This study investigated the association between anticholinergic drug exposure and frailty by conducting a sensitivity analysis using multiple anticholinergic burden tools in a diverse cohort.

Methods: A comprehensive psychometric approach was used to assess the performance of five clinical Anticholinergic Burden Tools: Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale (ACB), Anticholinergic Drug Scale (ADS), average daily dose, total standardized daily doses (TSDD), and Cumulative Anticholinergic Burden scale (CAB). Spearman correlation matrix and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to determine the association among the variables. Ordinal logistic regression is used to evaluate the anticholinergic burden measured by each scale to determine the prediction of frailty. Model performance is determined by the area under the curve (AUC).

Results: The cohort included 80 individuals (mean age 69 years; 55.7% female, 71% African American). All anticholinergic burden tools were highly correlated (p < 0.001), ICC3 0.66 (p < 0.001, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53-0.73). Among individuals prescribed anticholinergics, 33% were robust, 44% were prefrail, and 23% were frail. All five tools predicted prefrail and frail status (p < 0.05) with low model misclassification rates for frail individuals (AUC range 0.78-0.85).

Conclusion: Anticholinergic burden tools evaluated in this cohort of low-income African American older adults were highly correlated and predicted prefrail and frail status. Findings indicate that clinicians can select the appropriate instrument for the clinic setting and research question while maintaining confidence that all five tools will produce reliable results. Future anticholinergic research is needed to unravel the association between interventions such as deprescribing on incident frailty in longitudinal data.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
低收入老年人易患抗胆碱能药物相关衰弱。
背景:越来越多的研究支持抗胆碱能药物负荷对身体虚弱的负面影响。然而,先前的研究仅限于同质的欧洲白人人群,很少有研究评估抗胆碱能负荷工具在测量功能和可靠性方面与居住在少数族裔社区的成年人群的比较。本研究通过在不同队列中使用多种抗胆碱能负荷工具进行敏感性分析,调查了抗胆碱能药物暴露与虚弱之间的关系。方法:采用综合心理测量法评估五种临床抗胆碱能负荷工具的性能:抗胆碱能认知负荷量表(ACB)、抗胆碱能药物量表(ADS)、平均日剂量、总标准化日剂量(TSDD)和累积抗胆碱能负担量表(CAB)。Spearman相关矩阵和组内相关系数(ICC)用于确定变量之间的关联。有序逻辑回归用于评估每个量表测量的抗胆碱能负荷,以确定虚弱的预测。模型性能由曲线下面积(AUC)决定。结果:队列包括80名个体(平均年龄69岁;55.7%为女性,71%为非裔美国人)。所有抗胆碱能负荷工具高度相关(p<0.001),ICC3 0.66(p<0.001,95%置信区间(CI)0.53-0.73)。在服用抗胆碱能药物的个体中,33%的人身体强壮,44%的人在服用前,23%的人身体虚弱。所有五种工具都预测了飞行前和虚弱状态(p<0.05),虚弱个体的模型错误分类率较低(AUC范围为0.78-0.85)。结论:在这一低收入非裔美国老年人队列中评估的抗胆碱能负荷工具高度相关,并预测了飞行后和虚弱状态。研究结果表明,临床医生可以为临床环境和研究问题选择合适的仪器,同时保持对所有五种工具都能产生可靠结果的信心。未来的抗胆碱能研究需要解开干预措施之间的联系,例如在纵向数据中取消对事件虚弱的描述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Drugs & Aging
Drugs & Aging 医学-老年医学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
68
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Drugs & Aging delivers essential information on the most important aspects of drug therapy to professionals involved in the care of the elderly. The journal addresses in a timely way the major issues relating to drug therapy in older adults including: the management of specific diseases, particularly those associated with aging, age-related physiological changes impacting drug therapy, drug utilization and prescribing in the elderly, polypharmacy and drug interactions.
期刊最新文献
Assessing Long-Term Adverse Outcomes in Older Kidney Transplant Recipients: A Propensity Score-Matched Comparison of Early Steroid Withdrawal Versus Continuous Steroid Immunosuppression Using a Large Real-World Database. Efficacy and Safety of Fixed-Dose Combinations for Pain in Older Adults. Pilocarpine in the Treatment of Presbyopia: Progress, Issues, and Future Prospects. Minimising Harm and Managing Pain: Deprescribing Opioids in Older Adults. Differences in Pharmacological Treatment of Heart Failure Among Persons with or without Major Cognitive Disorder: A Cross-Sectional Study Based on National Registries in Sweden.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1