MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2111665293 · doi:10.1093/ageing/afm002

Cholinesterase inhibitors and cardiovascular disease: a survey of old age psychiatrists' practice

2007· article· en· W2111665293 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
David M. Malone, James Lindesay

Notice bibliographique

RevueAge and Ageing · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueTreatment of Major Depression
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineCholinesteraseDiseaseGerontologyPsychiatryIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

SIR—The cholinesterase inhibitor (ChEI) drugs donepezil, rivastigmine and galantamine are currently approved for the symptomatic treatment of mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). Although the target organ for these drugs is the brain, the heart is also rich in cholinesterases and their inhibition may adversely affect cardiac function. ChEIs are known to raise blood pressure and slow the pulse rate through both central and peripheral mechanisms; they also reduce cardiac beat-by-beat fluctuations [1]. These drugs may also increase the liability to falls in patients with AD and Lewy Body dementia, who have an increased incidence of orthostatic hypotension and carotid sinus hypersensitivity [2, 3]. The safety profile of these drugs in the mostly elderly patients with AD is not yet clear. Although the published clinical trials indicate that ChEIs are safe and well tolerated, they were carried out on relatively healthy subjects. It is not known to what extent the findings can be applied to the general AD population, significant numbers of whom suffer from concurrent cardiovascular disorders [4], and take multiple concomitant medications [5]. In a recent Canadian study of 6424 older adults newly prescribed donepezil, between half and three-quarters of this cohort would have been ineligible for enrollment into the randomised controlled trials that established the efficacy of this drug [6]. This study also found significantly higher rates of discontinuation in those with active cardiovascular disease. Syncope is reported as a common side effect of Donepazil in its summary of product characteristics with a reminder that the syncope may be due to cardiac side effects [7]. Concerns about the safety of ChEIs have also been raised by the recent finding of an increased mortality associated with active treatment in controlled trials of galantamine for Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI: 1.4% versus 0.35%). Although no single cause of death predominated, half of these deaths were due to cardiovascular disorders [8]. This finding has resulted in a warning by the US Food and Drug Administration and its European equivalent in respect of MCI [9], but its relevance to patients with AD is unclear. The British National Formulary lists sick sinus syndrome and other supraventricular conduction problems such as atrial fibrillation and flutter as cautionary conditions in the prescribing of ChEIs [10]. Beyond this recommendation, however, there are currently no guidelines for the prescription of these drugs in the context of cardiovascular disease. From our own experience, we suspected there might be considerable variation in clinical practice regarding their use. To see if this was the case, we conducted a survey of old age psychiatrists in the Trent Region. All old age psychiatrists in Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire and the northern part of Northamptonshire were invited to complete a questionnaire regarding their usual ChEI prescribing practice in AD patients with a range of comorbid cardiovascular conditions: bradycardia, tachycardia, heart block, left and right bundle branch block, prolonged QT interval, sick sinus syndrome, hypertension, postural hypotension, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, and angina. In each instance, they were asked if they would: prescribe as usual; prescribe with caution; or not prescribe. Where respondents indicated they would prescribe with caution, they were asked what specific measures they would take. They were also asked about the routine use of ECGs, and any training they had received in their interpretation. Questionnaires were distributed by post and in person at a regional meeting, and respondents were asked to record their actual practice and not ‘look up the answers’. Data are presented in terms of frequencies. Overall, 53/68 questionnaires were returned, a response rate of 76.5%. This sample consisted of mostly consultants (34), associate specialists (5), specialist registrars (5), staff grade doctors (5) and nurse prescribers (4). All of the respondents regularly prescribed ChEIs, and 74% (39/53) routinely do an ECG before prescribing. For Leicestershire clinicians, a routine ECG is an explicit part of the ChEI treatment protocol, and 88% (15/17) reported that they did so, compared to 63% (22/35) of clinicians elsewhere in the region. There was considerable regional variation with all prescribers in Lincolnshire (n = 6) and none of the prescribers in Northamptonshire (n = 3) routinely doing an ECG. Only 28% (15/53) of respondents had received any training in ChEI prescribing in patients with ECG abnormalities. All of those who had not received such training indicated that it would be useful. Seventy-four per cent (39/52) indicated that they have easy access to a cardiologist or physician opinion in the event of an ECG abnormality. Figure 1 shows the respondents’ prescribing practice in relation to specific cardiovascular conditions. It is evident that for all of these there is considerable variation in this practice. Where respondents indicated they would prescribe with caution, the commonest additional actions taken were to: monitor the patient and the ECG; investigate/treat the cardiovascular condition first; liaise with/refer to a physician; and discuss risks with the patient and family. Survey results. This survey confirms that in the Trent region there is no clinical consensus regarding ChEI prescription for AD in the context of cardiovascular comorbidity. There is no reason to suppose that our experience is any different from the national situation. This lack of agreement is a reflection of the lack of evidence provided by the clinical drug trials, from which this group of patients was largely excluded [7]. As a result, some patients will be exposed to significant risks if they are prescribed ChEIs without proper care and supervision. Conversely, some patients with relatively benign abnormalities will be deprived of the opportunity to benefit from these drugs if they are withheld inappropriately; for example, in our sample 21% of the clinicians said they would not prescribe to a patient with right bundle branch block only. How then should we proceed? Clearly, there is a need to establish an evidence base, by the systematic monitoring of patients with cardiovascular comorbidities who are prescribed a ChEI. In the meantime, we should use the clinical and pharmacological evidence that is available to develop some consensus guidelines as to what is best practice in the present state of knowledge. This would reduce inappropriate variability in prescribing, protect clinicians against charges of malpractice, and provide a framework for the discussion of risks and benefits with patients and their families. This last point is important, because it is currently very difficult for patients to give informed consent to treatment when the risks are unknown and there is no professional consensus to guide them. The content of these guidelines will need to be developed through expert discussion and agreement. We would propose that a pre-treatment ECG should be mandatory for patients being considered for ChEI treatment, both to identify clinically important abnormalities, and to provide a baseline against which to monitor change once treatment has commenced. Patients with moderate dementia commonly have cardiovascular comorbidity and are on multiple concurrent medications. The safety profile of ChEIs in this patient group is still being elucidated. The prescribing of ChEIs by old age psychiatric practitioners, in this patient group, is varied with no clinical consensus as to who should and should not receive these medications. Consensus guidelines are needed to ensure safe and equitable prescribing of ChEIs to this vulnerable group of patients. None

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,310
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,394

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,020
Tête enseignante GPT0,293
Écart entre enseignants0,273 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations28
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueAge and AgeingMême sujetTreatment of Major DepressionTravaux en français237 207