Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40234370›Full record

ArticleDrugs & aging2025

Comparison of Anticholinergic Burden Scales and Their Association with Cognitive and Functional Impairment in Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study Using the REPOSI Database.

Alessio Novella, Marina Azab, Luca Pasina, REPOSI Investigators

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Drugs & aging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alessio NovellaLaboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Appropriateness of Drug Prescription, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri 2, 20156, Milan, Italy.
Marina AzabLaboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Appropriateness of Drug Prescription, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri 2, 20156, Milan, Italy. marina.azab@marionegri.it.ORCID 0009-0008-9336-5055
Luca PasinaLaboratory of Clinical Pharmacology and Appropriateness of Drug Prescription, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri 2, 20156, Milan, Italy.
REPOSI Investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe increasing use of anticholinergic medications in older adults with multiple chronic conditions raises significant concerns regarding their cumulative anticholinergic burden, which is linked to several adverse outcomes. This study aimed to compare existing anticholinergic burden scales to identify those most effective at correlating drug-induced anticholinergic load with cognitive and functional impairment. In addition, we proposed a new classification system on the basis of published scales to optimally correlate total anticholinergic burden with observed clinical deficits.

methodsThis cross-sectional study analyzed data from the REPOSI registry, which collects clinical and therapeutic information on patients aged 65 years and older admitted to internal medicine and geriatric wards across Italy. Anticholinergic exposure was assessed using 20 established anticholinergic burden scales from literature. In addition, seven experimental scales were developed on the basis of published scales and various mathematical functions (maximum, mode, median, and mean) to evaluate potential differences in measuring anticholinergic load. Outcomes included cognitive impairment, assessed using the Short Blessed Test (SBT), and functional independence, measured by the Barthel Index (BI). A zero-inflated negative binomial model was applied to analyze associations between anticholinergic burden and each outcome. Given the variability in drug scoring across published scales, we developed seven experimental scales using different mathematical functions (maximum, mode, median, and mean) to standardize scoring. Three versions included a null-score adjustment to account for drugs omitted in some scales, ensuring a more comprehensive measure of anticholinergic burden.

resultsAmong 7735 patients, higher anticholinergic burden was consistently associated with increased cognitive impairment (SBT) and physical dependency (BI) across all existing and proposed scales. The modified Anticholinergic Risk Scale (mARS) scale showed the strongest associations with cognitive (rate ratio [RR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06, 1.13; P < 0.0001) and physical impairment (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.11, 1.24; P < 0.0001), indicating an 18% higher risk of dependency per unit increase, while the CRIDECO Anticholinergic Load Scale (CALS) scale exhibited the best model fit. Our newly developed scales confirmed these associations, with the median with null score and the mean with null score scale showing the strongest link to cognitive impairment (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.05, 1.09; P < 0.0001) and the strongest association with physical dependency (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.08, 1.15; P < 0.0001).

conclusionsScales that identify a greater proportion of patients with at least one anticholinergic drug may provide a more comprehensive assessment of anticholinergic burden in clinical practice. While no single scale demonstrated a definitive advantage across all outcomes, these scales may identify patients at risk. Prioritizing the use of scales with broader coverage could enhance clinical decision-making and optimize management of polypharmacy in older adults and recognize its potential impact on cognitive and functional outcomes.

Indexed as

Cholinergic AntagonistsCognitive DysfunctionAgedAged, 80 and overCognitionCross-Sectional StudiesDatabases, FactualFemaleHumansItalyMaleCholinergic Antagonists

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.