Home › Research › Treatments
A prescribing cascade involving cholinesterase inhibitors and anticholinergic drugs
Gill SS, Mamdani M, Naglie G, Streiner DL, Bronskill SE, Kopp A, Shulman KI, Lee PE et al.. Archives of internal medicine, 2005-04-01
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
Background The prescribing cascade model involves the misinterpretation of an adverse reaction to 1 drug and the subsequent, potentially inappropriate prescription of a second drug. We present a new example of the prescribing cascade involving cholinesterase inhibitors and anticholinergic drugs used to manage urinary incontinence. Methods A population-based retrospective cohort study was carried out in Ontario, Canada. Participants included 44,884 older adults with dementia (20,491 were dispensed a cholinesterase inhibitor and 24,393 were not), enrolled between June 1, 1999, and March 31, 2002. Subjects were observed until they received an anticholinergic drug, stopped the cholinesterase inhibitor treatment, died, or the study period ended (March 31, 2003). The main outcome measure was receipt of an anticholinergic drug to manage urinary incontinence. Results After adjusting for potential confounding factors, we observed that older adults with dementia who were dispensed cholinesterase inhibitors had an increased risk of subsequently receiving an anticholinergic drug (4.5% vs 3.1%; P<.001; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-1.72), relative to those not receiving cholinesterase inhibitors. This finding was consistent in a series of subgroup analyses. Conclusions Use of cholinesterase inhibitors is associated with an increased risk of receiving an anticholinergic drug to manage urinary incontinence. The use of an anticholinergic drug in this setting may represent a clinically important prescribing cascade. Clinicians should consider the possible contributing role of cholinesterase inhibitors in new-onset or worsening urinary incontinence and the potential risk of coprescribing cholinesterase inhibitors and anticholinergic drugs to patients with dementia.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Gill, S. S., Mamdani, M., Naglie, G., Streiner, D. L., Bronskill, S. E., Kopp, A., et al. (2005). A prescribing cascade involving cholinesterase inhibitors and anticholinergic drugs. Archives of internal medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.165.7.808
Vancouver
Gill SS, Mamdani M, Naglie G, Streiner DL, Bronskill SE, Kopp A, et al. A prescribing cascade involving cholinesterase inhibitors and anticholinergic drugs. Archives of internal medicine. 2005. doi:10.1001/archinte.165.7.808. PMID: 15824303.
BibTeX
@article{gill2005-15824303,
author = {Gill, S. S. and Mamdani, M. and Naglie, G. and Streiner, D. L. and Bronskill, S. E. and Kopp, A. and Shulman, K. I. and Lee, P. E. and others},
title = {{A prescribing cascade involving cholinesterase inhibitors and anticholinergic drugs}},
journal = {Archives of internal medicine},
year = {2005},
doi = {10.1001/archinte.165.7.808},
pmid = {15824303},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.165.7.808}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results After adjusting for potential confounding factors, we observed that older adults with dementia who were dispensed cholinesterase inhibitors had an increased risk of subsequently receiving an anticholinergic drug (4.5% vs 3.1%; P<.001; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.39-1.72), relative to those not receiving cholinesterase inhibitors.
- Conclusions Use of cholinesterase inhibitors is associated with an increased risk of receiving an anticholinergic drug to manage urinary incontinence.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Treatments →
Study details
- Study designcohort study
- Participants44,884
- Effect size4.5%; 3.1%
- Evidence strengthModerate
How this study scored 67/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a cohort study following people over time. Scored zero for randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 67 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Archives of internal medicine) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 7 / 12 | A cohort study following people over time |
| Strength of evidence | 3 / 5 | Rated “moderate” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2005 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 4 / 4 | 44,884 participants |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 15824303) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 39 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 39 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 67 out of 100. |
| Total | 67 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Treatments
Also tagged “cascade”
3 studies in the library carry the topic tag “cascade”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 3 tagged studies.