SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.27 suppl.2Percepción de calidad de vida en pacientes con síndrome de Sjögren. Estudio de diez añosPoliautoinmunidad en síndrome de Sjögren índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google

Compartir


Revista Colombiana de Reumatología

versión impresa ISSN 0121-8123

Rev.Colomb.Reumatol. vol.27  supl.2 Bogotá dic. 2020  Epub 04-Sep-2021

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcreu.2020.04.008 

Original Investigation

Consistency between anticholinergic burden scales in patients with Sjögren’s syndrome

Consistencia entre escalas de carga anticolinérgica en pacientes con síndrome de Sjögren

Luis Fernando Valladales-Restrepoa  b 

Jorge Enrique Machado-Albaa  * 

a Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance Research Group, Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira-Audifarma S.A, Pereira, Risaralda, Colombia.

b Biomedical Research Group, School of Medicine, Fundación Universitaria Autónoma de las Américas, Pereira, Colombia.


ABSTRACT

Introduction:

Sjögren’s syndrome is the second most frequent autoimmune rheumatic disease and is characterized by exocrine gland involvement manifesting as sicca symptoms. The objective of this study was to estimate the degree of agreement between three anticholinergic burden scales related to the prescriptions of patients diagnosed with Sjögren’s syndrome in Colombia.

Materials and methods:

An analytical concordance study was conducted. The weighted kappa coefficient with quadratic weights was used to identify consistency between the Anticholinergic Drug Scale (ADS), Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale (ACB) and Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS), which address the prescriptions used for 3 months by patients with Sjögren s syndrome, in a population database.

Results:

A total of 15,696 patients with Sjögren’s syndrome were identified, with a mean age of 65.4 ± 13.9 years, and 74.2% were women. A total of 94.1% of the patients received at least one topical lubricant, with carboxymethyl cellulose being the most commonly prescribed (22.9%), while oral pilocarpine was prescribed to 3.5% of patients. The ACB was the tool identified more antimuscarinic prescriptions (37.5%), followed by the ADS (35.3%) and ARS (25.2%). The greatest degree of agreement was found between the ADS and ACB (kappa 0.6520; confidence interval (CI): 0.6393-0.6648).

Conclusions:

Except for the ADS and ACB, little agreement was found between the three scales gauging the anticholinergic burden. Additional studies are needed to determine how these differences can impact the clinical outcomes of patients.

Keywords: Sjögren’s síndrome; Pilocarpine; Cholinergic antagonists; Drug interactions; Pharmacovigilance

RESUMEN

Introducción:

El síndrome de Sjögren es la segunda enfermedad reumática autoinmune más frecuente, caracterizada especialmente por el compromiso de glándulas exocrinas manifestándose con síntomas sicca. El objetivo fue estimar el grado de acuerdo de 3 escalas de carga anticolinérgica en las prescripciones de pacientes con diagnóstico de síndrome de Sjögren en Colombia.

Materiales y métodos:

Estudio analítico de concordancia. Se empleó el coeficiente Kappa con ponderación cuadrática para identificar la consistencia entre los instrumentos Anticholin-ergic Drug Scale (ADS), Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale (ACB) y Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS) de las prescripciones utilizadas durante 3 meses por pacientes con síndrome de Sjögren, a partir de una base de datos poblacional.

Resultados:

Se identificaron 15.696 pacientes con síndrome de Sjögren, con una edad media de 65,4 ±13,9 anos y el 74,2% de mujeres. El 94,1% recibieron por lo menos un lubricante tópico siendo el más prescrito la carboximetilcelulosa (22,9%), mientras que la pilocarpina oral se formuló en el 3,5% de ellos. La escala ACB fue la herramienta que más prescripciones anti-muscarínicas identificó (37,5%) seguida de la ADS (35,3%) y ARS (25,2%). El mayor grado de acuerdo se presentó entre las escalas ADS-ACB (Kappa: 0,6520; IC: 0,6393-0,6648).

Conclusiones:

Con excepción de las escalas ADS-ACB, hubo poco acuerdo al comparar las 3 escalas de carga anticolinérgica. Se requieren estudios adicionales para determinar cómo estas diferencias pueden impactar en la validez de los desenlaces clínicos de los pacientes.

Palabras clave: Síndrome de Sjögren; Pilocarpina; Antagonistas colinérgicos; Interacciones medicamentosas; Farmacovigilancia

Introduction

Sjögren’s syndrome is the second most common autoimmune rheumatic disease and is characterized by lymphocytic infiltration of the exocrine glands, causing their dysfunction and destruction, especially the salivary and tear glands, thus leading to dry mouth and dry eyes, which are known as sicca symptoms.1-3 Sjogren's syndrome is a systemic disease that can compromise the musculoskeletal, peripheral and/or central nervous, cardiovascular, circulatory, respiratory, renal and gastrointestinal systems, among others, in 50-60% of patients.1,2,4

The general prevalence of Sjögren’s syndrome is estimated to range from 0.3 to 1 per 1000 people,5 females are more often affected, with a female:male ratio of 9 to 1, and the maximum incidence is observed among individuals aged from 40 to 55 years.3,5,6 In Colombia, the prevalence is 0.12% among patients over 18 years old, with a female:male ratio of 4.6:1, and the age group with the highest prevalence is that to 65-69 years (0.5%).7 In another study, in 6 cities in the country, the prevalence was 0.08% (95%CI: 0.02-0.27).8

Treatments for sicca symptoms include moisturizers, eye lubricants, ophthalmic cyclosporine, artificial saliva and muscarinic agonists such as pilocarpine, as well as nonpharmacological measures.9-11 Inadequate management of dry eye can lead to complications such as surface wear, corneal perforation, conjunctivitis, keratitis and vision loss, while dry mouth can produce dysphagia, speech difficulties, an atrophic or fissured tongue, ulcers, stomatitis, oral candida and dental caries, resulting in quality of life deterioration and disability.1-3

Sicca symptoms can be exacerbated by numerous medications, especially diuretics, antidepressants, neuroleptics, muscle relaxants, hypnotics, opioids, benzodiazepines, anti-histamines and antispasmodics, among others,1,3,4,6 and many of these medications have antimuscarinic properties that contribute to the anticholinergic burden of patients. The anticholinergic burden is defined as the cumulative effect of taking one or more drugs capable of producing adverse antimuscarinic reactions,12,13 which can include dryness of the skin and mucous membranes, constipation, urinary retention, mydriasis, delirium, cognitive deterioration and sedation, among others.12,14,15 Scales developed to quantify the anticholinergic burden use equations and medication lists to classify and assign points according to the medications' antimuscarinic activity.12,13,16

These tools present variations due to the different methodologies used for their preparation and validation, which may influence patient outcomes.12,13,17 In a systematic review in 2015, the ACB (Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale), ARS (Anticholinergic Risk Scale) and ADS (Anticholinergic Drug Scale) were identified as the most validated instruments13; however, no standardized quantification scale is available.13,16

Concordance studies use different designs to evaluate the degree of agreement between two or more observers or between different methods, techniques or instruments on the same observed phenomenon. If one technique or instrument is considered the "gold standard", then the resulting concordance will be considered a measure of conformity. However, if no techniques or instruments are considered "gold standards" or references, then any concordance identified will serve as a measure of consistency.18,19 Because no "gold standard" is available to quantify the anticholinergic burden or for comparison with other tools, this is a study of consistency. Some studies have shown that the anticholinergic burden increases the risk of mucosal dryness20,21; therefore, the objectives of the study were to use the three most validated anticholinergic burden scales to assess the prescriptions of patients with Sjögren’s syndrome and to determine the degree of agreement between these scales, in addition, to characterize some of their sociodemographic, clinical, and pharmacological variables.

Materials and methods

An analytical study of consistency was performed with three anticholinergic burden scales and the drugs currently used by patients diagnosed with Sjögren’s syndrome according to a population database. This database collects information from approximately 8.5 million people affiliated with Colombia's Health System, including six health insurance companies, corresponding to approximately 30.0% of the active affiliate population of the contributing regime and 6.0% of patients registered with the state-subsidized health insurance regime in the country, representing 16.3% of the Colombian population.

The identification of the patients was made through the diagnosis of Sjögren’s syndrome from the 1st of July to the 30th of September 2019. The diagnosis was identified using the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD-10), where M35.0 is the code for sicca (Sjögren) syndrome. Male and female patients older than 14 years of age who attended outpatient consultations were included. We analyzed the prescriptions of patients diagnosed with Sjögren’s syndrome who were receiving drugs with anticholinergic properties using the ADS, ACB and ARS.

Based on information regarding medication consumption among the affiliated population, which was systematically collected by the dispensing company (Audifarma S.A.), a database was designed to allow collection of the following groups of patient variables:

  1. Sociodemographic variables: sex, age and city of care.

  2. Chronic comorbidities, which were identified from primary and secondary diagnoses coded according to the ICD-10 during the same study period, were grouped into four categories: none, 1-2, 3-4 and 5 or more pathologies; the following groups of diseases were considered.

    • Cardiovascular diseases: hypertension, ischemic car-diomyopathy, arrhythmias, heart failure and valvulopathies.

    • Endocrine diseases: diabetes mellitus, hypothyroidism, dyslipidemia, obesity and hyperthyroidism.

    • Rheumatologic diseases: osteoarthrosis, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, fibromyalgia, systemic lupus ery-thematosus, vasculitis, systemic sclerosis, ankylosing spondylitis, polymyalgia rheumatica, amyloidosis, scle-roderma and inflammatory myopathy.

    • Renal diseases: chronic kidney disease.

    • Psychiatric diseases: depression, anxiety, bipolar affective disorder, sleep disorders and schizophrenia.

    • Neurologic diseases: peripheral neuropathies, dementia, migraine, epilepsy, Parkinson's disease, stroke and mental retardation.

    • Digestive diseases: gastritis, gastroesophageal reflux, constipation, fecal incontinence, cirrhosis, peptic ulcer and ulcerative colitis.

    • Respiratory: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and asthma.

  3. Pharmacological management variables:

    • Medications used for symptomatic management of xerostomia/xerophthalmia:

    • Local: artificial tears (carboxymethyl cellulose, hyaluronate, hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose, chon-droitin, polyethylene glycol, propylene glycol, glycerin and polyacrylic acid), ophthalmic cyclosporine and artificial saliva.

    • Systemic: oral pilocarpine.

    • Synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: methotrexate, sulfasalazine, chloroquine, hydroxy-chloroquine, azathioprine and leflunomide.

    • Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: rit-uximab, abatacept, etanercept, infliximab, tocilizumab, certolizumab, golimumab and adalimumab.

  4. Anticholinergic drugs: A search was conducted for 88 of the 117 drugs included in the ADS, 64 of the 88 drugs included in the ACB and 43 of the 49 included in the ARS that are marketed in Colombia according to the Instituto Nacional de Vigilancia de Medicamentos y Alimentos (INVIMA, Colombia's National Food and Drug Surveillance Institute). The total anticholinergic burden was determined by the sum of the risk of each of the prescribed medications. Accordingly, the patients were classified into four groups: 1. Patients with a score of 0 (no anticholinergic activity); 2. Patients with a score of 1 (mild anticholinergic activity); 3. Patients with a score of 2 (moderate anticholinergic activity); and 4. Patients with a score > 3 (high anticholinergic activity).

The protocol was approved by the Bioethics Committee of the Universidad Tecnológica de Pereira in the risk-free research category. The ethical principles established by the Declaration of Helsinki were respected. Patients' personal data were not considered.

The data were analyzed with the statistical package SPSS Statistics, version 24.0 for Windows (IBM, USA). A descriptive analysis was performed in which frequencies and proportions were used to describe qualitative variables, while measures of central tendency and dispersion were used for quantitative variables. Quantitative variables were compared using Student's t test or ANOVA, and the X2 test was used for categorical variables. Binary logistic regression models were established using the consumption of drugs with an anticholinergic burden (1 or more points, according to the ADS, ACB and ARS) as the dependent variable, and variables that were significantly associated with these drugs in bivariate analyses as covariables. p<0.05 was set as the level of statistical significance.

Using the Epidat software version 4.2 of 2016, the concordance analysis was performed between the ADS, ARS and ACB using the weighted kappa coefficient with quadratic weights and a confidence interval (CI) of 95%. To classify the results, the scale described by Landis and Koch was used as follows: weak agreement, 0-0.2; mild agreement, 0.2-0.4; moderate agreement, 0.4-0.6; substantial or high agreement, 0.6-0.8; and almost perfect agreement, 0.8-1.22

Results

A total of 15,696 patients diagnosed with Sjögren’s syndrome and distributed among 99 different cities were identified. The mean age was 65.4±13.9 years (range: 14.08-104.83 years), and 74.2% (n = 11,641) of the patients were women. The female:male ratio in the study population was 2.9:1. A total of 94.1% (n = 14,765) of the patients were receiving pharmacological treatment for Sjögren’s syndrome, with carboxymethylcellulose (n=3594, 22.9%) being the most prescribed eye lubricant, while oral pilocarpine was prescribed to 3.5% (n = 544) of patients. The use of synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs was identified in 8.3% (n = 1299) of the patients, while the use of biological drugs was identified in 0.3% (n = 46) of the patients (Table 1).

Table 1 Pharmacological management of patients diagnosed with Sjögren’s syndrome, Colombia. 

Pharmacotherapy Frequency n = 15,696 %
Symptomatic 14,765 94.1
Lubricants and ocular humectants 14,509 92.4
Carboxymethylcellulose 3594 22.9
Hyaluronate 3575 22.8
Chondroitin + hyaluronate 2915 18.6
Polyacrylic acid 2104 13.4
Polyethylene glycol + propylene glycol 1560 9.9
Carboxymethylcellulose + glycerin + hyaluronate 1315 8.4
Carboxymethylcellulose + glycerin 895 5.7
Hydroxypropylmethylcellulose 402 2.6
Polyethylene glycol + propylene glycol + hyaluronate 101 0.6
Hydroxypropylmethylcellulose + dextran 12 0.1
Carboxymethylcellulose + glycerin + polysorbate 9 0.1
Oral pilocarpine 544 3.5
Cyclosporine ophthalmic 229 1.5
Artificial saliva 31 0.2
Synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs 1299 8.3
Methotrexate 589 3.8
Chloroquine 458 2.9
Leflunomide 251 1.6
Sulfasalazine 187 1.2
Azathioprine 169 1.1
Hydroxychloroquine 101 0.6
Biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs 46 0.3
Abatacept 11 0.1
Etanercept 11 0.1
Adalimumab 9 0.1
Certolizumab 9 0.1
Tocilizumab 5 0.0
Golimimab 1 0.0
Oral corticosteroid 865 5.5
Prednisolone 723 4.6
Deflazacort 71 0.5
Prednisone 70 0.4
Methylprednisolone 21 0.1

Anticholinergic burden

The scale that identified the highest proportion of patients with antimuscarinic prescriptions was the ACB (n=5886, 37.5%; 46 different medications), followed by the ADS (n= 5546, 35.3%; 59 different medications) and the ARS (n = 3959, 25.2%; 29 different medications). The drug most frequently identified by the ACB was metoprolol (n = 1436, 9.1%), the ADS most frequently identified furosemide (n= 1061,6.8%), and the ARS most frequently identified methocarbamol (n = 965, 6.1%) (Table 2).

Table 2 Principal antimuscarinic drugs identified with the ADS, ACB and ARS scales in patients diagnosed with Sjögren’s syndrome, Colombia. 

Drugs Anticholinergic load Frequency n = 15,696 %
ACB (n = 46) - 5886 37.5
Metoprolol 1 1436 9.1
Furosemide 1 1061 6.8
Prednisolone 1 723 4.6
Codeine 1 676 4.3
Trazodone 1 629 4.0
Chlorpheniramine 3 513 3.3
Ranitidine 1 465 3.0
Nifedipine 1 395 2.5
Dimenhydrinate 3 307 2.0
Imipramine 3 306 1.9
ADS (n = 59) - 5546 35.3
Furosemide 1 1061 6.8
Prednisolone 1 723 4.6
Codeine 1 676 4.3
Chlorpheniramine 3 513 3.3
Sertraline 1 469 3.0
Ranitidine 2 465 3.0
Dexamethasone 1 458 2.9
Nifedipine 1 395 2.5
Dimenhydrinate 3 307 2.0
Imipramine 3 306 1.9
ARS (n = 29) - 3959 25.2
Methocarbamol 1 965 6.1
Loratadine 2 673 4.3
Trazodone 1 629 4.0
Chlorpheniramine 3 513 3.3
Ranitidine 1 465 3.0
Imipramine 3 306 1.9
Amitriptyline 3 243 1.5
Metoclopramide 1 214 1.4
Quetiapine 1 200 1.3
Loperamide 2 120 0.8
ACB: Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale; ADS: Anticholinergic Drug Scale; ARS: Anticholinergic Risk Scale.

Comorbidities

The most frequently identified comorbidities were hypertension (n = 6243, 39.8%), diabetes mellitus (n = 1965, 12.5%), glaucoma (n = 1774, 11.3%), hypothyroidism (n = 1206, 7.7%), chronic kidney disease (n = 1028, 6.5%), dyslipidemia (n = 682, 4.3%), osteoarthritis (n = 602, 3.8%), rheumatoid arthritis (n = 579, 3.7%), benign prostatic hyperplasia (n = 442, 2.8%) and depression (n = 403, 2.6%). Among the patients, 71.5% (n = 11,225) had chronic comorbidities, with cardiovascular (n = 6445, 41.1%), endocrine (n = 3701, 23.6%) and rheumatologic (n = 1841, 11, 7%) diseases being the most frequent pathologies. A total of 57.6% (n = 9036) of the patients had 1-2 comorbidities, 12.5% (n = 1958) had 3-1 comorbidities, and 1.5% (n = 231) had 5 or more comorbidities.

Comparison between age groups

The use of topical lubricants or moisturizers by patients with Sjögren’s syndrome did not show significant variations across the different age groups, while oral pilocarpine was predominately prescribed to patients between 40 and 64 years of age. Chronic comorbidities increased with increasing age. The ARS identified the lowest proportions of patients using antimuscarinic drugs in all age groups; the proportions identified using the ACB among patients aged 65 years and older were higher than those identified using the ADS, while the opposite results were found for patients younger than 65 years (Table 3).

Table 3 Comparison of some sociodemographic, clinical and pharmacological variables by age group in patients diagnosed with Sjögren’s syndrome, Colombia. 

Variable Total <40 years 40-64 years 65-74 years 75-84 years ≥ 85 years
n = 15,696 % n = 832 % n = 6319 % n = 4708 % n = 2795 % n = 1042 %
Woman 11,641 74.2 575 69.1 4955 78.4 3475 73.8 1925 68.9 711 68.2
Symptomatic treatment 14,765 94.1 785 94.4 5966 94.4 4433 94.2 2600 93.0 981 94.1
Lubricants/humectants 14,509 92.4 768 92.3 5830 92.3 4367 92.8 2571 92.0 973 93.4
Oral pilocarpine 544 3.5 23 2.8 314 5.0 146 3.1 53 1.9 8 0.8
Cyclosporine ophthalmic 229 1.5 35 4.2 109 1.7 53 1.1 21 0.8 11 1.1
Chronic comorbidities 11,225 71.5 268 32.2 3974 62.9 3691 78.4 2360 84.4 932 89.4
Cardiovascular 6445 41.1 63 7.6 1903 30.1 2224 47.2 1611 57.6 644 61.8
Endocrine 3701 23.6 64 7.7 1349 21.3 1378 29.3 695 24.9 215 20.6
Rheumatologic 1841 11.7 69 8.3 857 13.6 542 11.5 283 10.1 90 8.6
Renal 1028 6.5 13 1.6 164 2.6 339 7.2 359 12.8 153 14.7
Psychiatric 766 4.9 33 4.0 337 5.3 203 4.3 127 4.5 66 6.3
Anticholinergic load - - - - - - - - - - - -
ACB1 point 5886 37.5 173 20.8 2005 31.7 1805 38.3 1335 47.8 568 54.5
ACB ≥ 1-2 points 3797 24.2 101 12.1 1257 19.9 1167 24.8 889 31.8 383 36.8
ACB ≥ 3 points 2089 13.3 72 8.7 748 11.8 638 13.6 446 16.0 185 17.8
ADS1 point 5546 35.3 198 23.8 2059 32.6 1637 34.8 1151 41.2 501 48.1
ADS ≥ 1-2 points 3534 22.5 133 16.0 1295 20.5 1020 21.7 750 26.8 336 32.2
ADS ≥ 3 points 2012 12.8 65 7.8 764 12.1 617 13.1 401 14.3 165 15.8
ARS1 point 3959 25.2 144 17.3 1538 24.3 1195 25.4 758 27.1 324 31.1
ARS ≥ 1-2 points 2491 15.9 85 10.2 937 14.8 744 15.8 491 17.6 234 22.5
ARS ≥ 3 points 1468 9.4 59 7.1 601 9.5 451 9.6 267 9.6 90 8.6
>ACB: Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale; ADS: Anticholinergic Drug Scale; ARS: Anticholinergic Risk Scale.

Consistency analysis

The ADS and ACB showed the best degree of agreement (kappa 0.6520; 95%CI: 0.6393-0.6648), while comparisons involving the ARS yielded low consistencies (Table 4).

Table 4 Analysis of the consistency between the ADS, ACB and ARS scales in patients diagnosed with Sjögren’s syndrome, Colombia. 

Scales Kappa coefficient Standard error CI:95% p
Lower Upper
ADS-ACB 0.6520 0.0065 0.6393 0.6648 <0.001
ACB-ARS 0.3063 0.0080 0.2907 0.3219 <0.001
ARS-ADS 0.2746 0.0083 0.2583 0.2909 <0.001
ACB: Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale; ADS: Anticholinergic Drug Scale; ARS: Anticholinergic Risk Scale.

Multivariate analysis

The multivariate analysis revealed that female sex increased the probability of receiving anticholinergic medications (ADS: odds ratio (OR):1.26, 95%CI:1.16-1.37; ACB: OR:1.24, 95%CI:1.14-1.35; ARS: OR:1.31,95%CI:1.19-1.44), as well as having 1-2 chronic comorbidities (ADS: OR:1.71, 95%CI:1.50-1.94; ACB: OR:1.88, 95%CI:1.65-2.15; ARS: OR:1.40, 95%CI:1.23-1.60) and 3-4 chronic comorbidities (ADS: OR:2.11, 95%CI:1.70-2.63; ACB: OR:2.35, 95%CI:1.89-2.93; ARS: OR:1.45, 95%CI:1.16-1.81). Among the comorbidities, psychiatric disorders were most associated with the risk of having antimuscarinic prescriptions on the three scales (ADS: OR:3.56, 95%CI:2.97-4.27; ACB: OR:3.84, 95%CI:3.19-4.62; ARS: OR:5.20, 95%CI:4.37-6.17). The OR was adjusted for sex, age, city and comorbidities (supplementary Tables 1-3).

Discussion

This study identified potentially inappropriate prescriptions of antimuscarinic drugs among patients diagnosed with Sjögren’s syndrome using three different anticholinergic burden scales and determined the degree of agreement between the scales. The findings may be useful for caregivers, scholars and scientists with respect to clinical decision-making regarding potential harmful interactions and adverse drug reactions experienced by patients. In Colombia, the ADS has historically identified an anticholinergic burden of 39.1% among patients with Sjögren’s syndrome.23

The ACB identified the highest amount of drugs with antimuscarinic properties (37.5%), followed by the ADS (35.3%) and the ARS (25.2%). These findings are similar to those reported in Finland by Tiisanoja et al. in patients with xerostomia, where antimuscarinic prescriptions were mostly identified by the ACB (33.7%), followed by the ADS (29.6%) and ARS (28.9%).17 Identifying these drugs is important because the number of adverse antimuscarinic reactions increases with a higher anticholinergic burden; however, no evidence indicates that the association is linear, and ultimately, a plateau most likely occurs when burden values become very high.12

In another study conducted in Finland, Tiisanoja et al. found that a score of 3 or higher on the ADS was a risk factor for developing xerostomia (risk ratio (RR): 3.17:95%CI:1.44-6.96).20 Based on a list of drugs with anticholinergic properties, Rudolph et al. found that patients with a high anticholinergic burden had an increased risk (OR:1.9; 95% CI:1.50-2.50) of experiencing adverse peripheral effects (xerostomia, xeroph-thalmia and constipation).21 No studies relating ACB scores with an increased risk of mucosal dryness are available.

When comparing the three tools, the ADS and ACB showed the best agreement (0.65). In contrast, the degree of agreement between the ACB and ARS and between the ADS and ARS was low. Discrepancies between these scales may be related to how they were developed, the associated methodologies and validation measures, the number of drugs listed in each instrument, differences in the classification of the antimus-carinic potency of each drug and the inclusion of routes of administration other than oral or parenteral.21,24,25

No consistency studies comparing anticholinergic burden scales specifically among patients with Sjögren’s syndrome have been identified. However, some studies have been conducted in different populations and clinical contexts.26-29 Naples et al. found the best agreement between the ADS and ACB (0.70) for seniors living at home in the USA.26 Pont et al. found the highest degree of agreement between the ADS and ACB (0.62) for nonhospitalized men in Australia,27 and Turró-Garriga et al. identified high concordance between the ADS and ACB (0.62) for patients with dementia in Spain.29 However, in other research conducted in Spain, Lertxundi et al. found the best agreement between the ACB and ARS (0.25) in patients hospitalized for psychiatric disorders.28 Possible explanations for this discrepancy may include differences in the characteristics of the population (community, hospitalized and specific population groups) and the inclusion of medications in the instruments that are not available in all countries.

Related to the above, the multivariate models used to find the variables that were related to anticholinergic load, calculated with the ADS, ACB and ARS scales, showed risk or protective associations that varied according to the tool used (see supplementary tables). These discrepancies were also evidenced in a study that compared the three anticholinergic burden scales, but in patients with vertebral and non-vertebral fractures.30

Anticholinergic drugs are necessary in the treatment of various pathologies, such as overactive bladder, urinary incontinence, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, Parkinson's disease, psychotic disorders, mood disorders and allergic reactions.14 Anticholinergic burden scales are tools that help guide clinical decision-making, allowing clinicians to stop or change a drug with potent antimuscarinic activity in favor of another drug with little or no burden and thus guaranteeing greater safety and a lower probability of adverse reactions.14 In recent years, problems related to prescribing practices have attracted increasing interest, which has promoted the development of tools for more appropriate drug prescription practices, such as the Beers criteria31 and the STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions),32 which include anticholinergic medications.31,32

In this study, most patients received useful topical prescriptions for the management of sicca symptoms, which is consistent with the recommendations of different clinical practice guidelines.9-11 The use of oral pilocarpine (3.5%) differed from that found in other studies (20-31.7%).33,34 These differences are probably due to the prescribing habits of physicians, the availability or lack of such drugs in the health systems of various countries or the degree of xerostomia and xerophthalmia severity among patients included in the studies.

Some limitations related to the interpretation of the results should be noted. Clinical histories were not obtained to identify nonpharmacological management measures used by patients, the evolution of the disease was not considered, the classification of the disease as a primary or secondary diagnosis was not determined, and possible complications experienced by patients were not evaluated. Furthermore, whether some of the possible adverse effects actually occurred was not investigated. In addition, the diagnosis of sicca (Sjögren) syndrome found in the ICD-10 can be used in patients with symptoms secondary to adverse drug reactions as well as to chemotherapy or radiotherapy. On the other hand, as a specific limitation of cross-sectional studies, it was found that the different variables were collected at a certain point in time, therefore the anticholinergic load and the pharmacological treatment of patients with Sjögren’s syndrome are distributed in a 3-month period and not throughout the course of the disease.

Conclusions

Based on the above findings, we found little agreement between the three scales gauging the anticholinergic burden, although greater consistency was found between the ADS and ACB. Therefore, additional studies are needed to determine how these differences may impact clinically relevant outcomes such as mucosal or skin dryness, among others. Most patients received topical treatments for Sjögren’s syndrome according to clinical practice recommendations. These results should be useful to promote and strengthen educational and pharmacovigilance strategies that improve the prescription habits of physicians involved in the care of these patients.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Soffy Claritza López for her work in obtaining the database.

REFERENCES

1. Thorne I, Sutcliffe N. Sjögren’s syndrome. Br J Hosp Med (Lond). 2017;78:438-2, http://dx.doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2017.78.8.438. [ Links ]

2. Brito-Zeron P, Baldini C, Bootsma H, Bowman SJ, Jonsson R, Mariette X, et al. Sjögren syndrome. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2016;2:16047, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrdp.2016.47. [ Links ]

3. Vivino FB. Sjogren’s syndrome: clinical aspects. Clin Immunol. 2017;182:48-54, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clim.2017.04.005. [ Links ]

4. Baer AN, Walitt B. Sjögren syndrome and other causes of sicca in older adults. Clin Geriatr Med. 2017;33:87-103, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cger.2016.08.007. [ Links ]

5. Mariette X, Criswell LA. Primary Sjögren’s syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:931-9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp1702514. [ Links ]

6. Bowman SJ. Primary Sjögren’s syndrome. Lupus. 2018;27 Suppl.:32-5, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0961203318801673. [ Links ]

7. Fernández-Ávila DG, Rincón-Riaño DN, Bernal-Macías S, Gutiérrez Dávila JM, Rosselli D. Prevalencia y características demográficas del síndrome de Sjögren en Colombia, según información del Sistema Integral de Información de la Protección Social. Reumatol Clin. 2018, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.reuma.2018.09.005. Epub. [ Links ]

8. Londoño J, Peláez-Ballestas I, Cuervo F, Angarita I, Giraldo R, Rueda JC, et al. Prevalencia de la enfermedad reumática en Colombia, según estrategia COPCORD-Asociación Colombiana de Reumatología Estudio de prevalencia de enfermedad reumática en población colombiana mayor de 18 años. Rev Colomb Reumatol. 2018;25:245-56, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rcreu.2018.08.003. [ Links ]

9. Zero DT, Brennan MT, Daniels TE, Papas A, Stewart C, Pinto A, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for oral management of Sjögren disease: dental caries prevention. J Am Dent Assoc. 2016;147:295-305, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adaj.2015.11.008. [ Links ]

10. Foulks GN, Forstot SL, Donshik PC, Forstot JZ, Goldstein MH, Lemp MA, et al. Clinical guidelines for management of dry eye associated with Sjögren disease. Ocul Surf. 2015;13:118-32, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtos.2014.12.001. [ Links ]

11. Price EJ, Rauz S, Tappuni AR, Sutcliffe N, Hackett KL, Barone F, et al. The British Society for Rheumatology guideline for the management of adults with primary Sjögren’s syndrome. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2017;56:1828, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kex375. [ Links ]

12. Mayer T, Haefeli WE, Seidling HM. Different methods, different results - how do available methods link a patient's anticholinergic load with adverse outcomes? Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;71:1299-314, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00228-015-1932-x. [ Links ]

13. Salahudeen MS, Duffull SB, Nishtala PS. Anticholinergic burden quantified by anticholinergic risk scales and adverse outcomes in older people: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr. 2015; 15: 31, http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12877-015-0029-9. [ Links ]

14. Gerretsen P, Pollock BG. Drugs with anticholinergic properties: a current perspective on use and safety. Expert Opin Drug Saf. 2011;10:751-65, http://dx.doi.org/10.1517/14740338.2011.579899. [ Links ]

15. Fox C, Smith T, Maidment I, Chan WY, Bua N, Myint PK, et al. Effect of medications with anti-cholinergic properties on cognitive function, delirium, physical function and mortality: a systematic review. Age Ageing. 2014;43:604-15, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afu096. [ Links ]

16. Collamati A, Martone AM, Poscia A, Brandi V, Celi M, Marzetti E, et al. Anticholinergic drugs and negative outcomes in the older population: from biological plausibility to clinical evidence. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2016;28:25-35, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40520-015-0359-7. [ Links ]

17. Tiisanoja A, Syrjala AH, Kullaa A, Ylostalo P. Anticholinergic burden and dry mouth in middle-aged people. JDR Clin Trans Res. 2020;5:62-70, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2380084419844511. [ Links ]

18. Édgar CR, Jorge Andrés RR, Hernando GD. Métodos estadísticos de evaluación de la concordancia y la reproducibilidad de pruebas diagnósticas. Rev Colomb Obstet Ginecol. 2010;61:247-55. [ Links ]

19. Watson PF, Petrie A. Method agreement analysis: a review of correct methodology. Theriogenology. 2010;73:1167-79, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.01.003. [ Links ]

20. Tiisanoja A, Syrjala AM, Komulainen K, Lampela P, Hartikainen S, Taipale H, et al. Anticholinergic burden and dry mouth among Finnish, community-dwelling older adults. Gerodontology. 2018;35:3-10, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ger.12304. [ Links ]

21. Rudolph JL, Salow MJ, Angelini MC, McGlinchey RE. The anticholinergic risk scale and anticholinergic adverse effects in older persons. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168:508-13, http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2007.106. [ Links ]

22. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33:159-74, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529310. [ Links ]

23. Valladales-Restrepo LF, Machado-Alba JE. Potentially inappropriate anticholinergic drug prescriptions for patients with Sjögren’s syndrome. J Transl Autoimmunity. 2019;100007, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtauto.2019.100007. [ Links ]

24. Carnahan RM, Lund BC, Perry PJ, Pollock BG, Culp KR. The Anticholinergic Drug Scale as a measure of drug-related anticholinergic burden: associations with serum anticholinergic activity. J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;46:1481-6, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0091270006292126. [ Links ]

25. Boustani M, Campbell N, Munger S, Maidment I, Fox C. Impact of anticholinergics on the aging brain: a review and practical application. Aging Health. 2008;4:311-20, http://dx.doi.org/10.2217/1745509X.4.3.311. [ Links ]

26. Naples JG, Marcum ZA, Perera S, Gray SL, Newman AB, Simonsick EM, et al. Concordance between anticholinergic burden scales. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2015;63:2120-4, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jgs.13647. [ Links ]

27. Pont LG, Nielen JT, McLachlan AJ, Gnjidic D, Chan L, Cumming RG, et al. Measuring anticholinergic drug exposure in older community-dwelling Australian men: a comparison of four different measures. BrJ Clin Pharmacol . 2015;80:1169-75, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.12670. [ Links ]

28. Lertxundi U, Domingo-Echaburu S, Hernández R, Peral J, Medrano J. Expert-based drug lists to measure anticholinergic burden: similar names, different results. Psychogeriatrics. 2013;13:17-24, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1479-8301.2012.00418.x. [ Links ]

29. Turro-Garriga O, Calvo-Perxas L, Vilalta-Franch J, Blanco-Silvente L, Castells X, Capella D, et al. Measuring anticholinergic exposure in patients with dementia: a comparative study of nine anticholinergic risk scales. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2018;33:710-7, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/gps.4844. [ Links ]

30. Valladales-Restrepo LF, Duran-Lengua M, Castro-Osorio EE, Machado-Alba JE. Consistency between anticholinergic burden scales in the elderly with fractures. PLOS ONE. 2020;15:e0228532, http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0228532. [ Links ]

31. American Geriatrics Society 2019 Updated AGS Beers Criteria(R) for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc . 2019;67:674-94. doi:10.1111/jgs.15767 [ Links ]

32. O’Mahony D, O’Sullivan D, Byrne S, O’Connor MN, Ryan C, Gallagher P. STOPP/START criteria for potentially inappropriate prescribing in older people: version 2. Age Ageing . 2015;44:213-8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afu145. [ Links ]

33. Tsuboi H, Asashima H, Takai C, Hagiwara S, Hagiya C, Yokosawa M, et al. Primary and secondary surveys on epidemiology of Sjogren’s syndrome in Japan. Mod Rheumatol. 2014;24:464-70, http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/14397595.2013.843765. [ Links ]

34. Tsukamoto M, Suzuki K, Takeuchi T. Ten-year observation of patients with primary Sjogren’s syndrome: Initial presenting characteristics and the associated outcomes. Int J Rheum Dis. 2019;22:929-33, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1756-185X. 13464. [ Links ]

Sources of funding The present study did not receive funding.

Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.rcreu.2020.04.008.

Received: January 15, 2020; Accepted: April 14, 2020; other: July 16, 2020

* Corresponding author. E-mail address: machado@utp.edu.co (J.E. Machado-Alba).

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License