"Have You Seen This Drivel?" A Comparison of How Common Health Issues Are Discussed within Brachycephalic and Non-Brachycephalic Dog Breed Groups on Social Media.

As brachycephalic dog breed ownership increases, there is a growing concern for the welfare of these breeds due to extreme brachycephalism. Understanding the motivations and behaviours of those choosing to own these breeds is important if we wish to address these concerns. The aim of this study was to investigate how owners of brachycephalic and non-brachycephalic dog breeds use social media dog breed groups to discuss common health issues. The purpose of Facebook posts in relation to common health issues, owner awareness of health issues and the role of Facebook facilitated social support were explored between brachycephalic and non-brachycephalic dog owners. Twelve Facebook breed goups were selected (brachycephalic breed groups, n = 6, non-brachycephalic breed groups, n = 6). Using key word searches we extracted the first twenty posts from each group. Thematic analysis revealed three overarching themes: advice seeking, advice giving and community bonding mechanisms. Whilst the purpose of posting did not differ between groups, non-brachycephalic owners appeared to display greater awareness of breed-specific health issues, whilst social support played a more prominent role in brachycephalic groups. This research highlights that social media groups can act as platforms for knowledge exchange and emotional support. These could be utilised by owners, veterinarians and welfare organisations to more effectively enhance dog health and wellbeing.

Anticholinergic deprescribing interventions for reducing risk of cognitive decline or dementia in older adults with and without prior cognitive impairment.

BACKGROUND: Anticholinergics are medications that block the action of acetylcholine in the central or peripheral nervous system. Medications with anticholinergic properties are commonly prescribed to older adults. The cumulative anticholinergic effect of all the medications a person takes is referred to as the anticholinergic burden. A high anticholinergic burden may cause cognitive impairment in people who are otherwise cognitively healthy, or cause further cognitive decline in people with pre-existing cognitive problems. Reducing anticholinergic burden through deprescribing interventions may help to prevent onset of cognitive impairment or slow the rate of cognitive decline. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective • To assess the efficacy and safety of anticholinergic medication reduction interventions for improving cognitive outcomes in cognitively healthy older adults and older adults with pre-existing cognitive issues. Secondary Objectives • To compare the effectiveness of different types of reduction interventions (e.g. pharmacist-led versus general practitioner-led, educational versus audit and feedback) for reducing overall anticholinergic burden. • To establish optimal duration of anticholinergic reduction interventions, sustainability, and lessons learnt for upscaling • To compare results according to differing anticholinergic scales used in medication reduction intervention trials • To assess the efficacy of anticholinergic medication reduction interventions for improving other clinical outcomes, including mortality, quality of life, clinical global impression, physical function, institutionalisation, falls, cardiovascular diseases, and neurobehavioral outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL on 22 December 2022, and we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases from inception to 1 November 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions that aimed to reduce anticholinergic burden in older people and that investigated cognitive outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. The data were not suitable for meta-analysis, so we summarised them narratively. We used GRADE methods to rate our confidence in the review results. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials with a total of 299 participants. All three trials were conducted in a cognitively mixed population (some cognitively healthy participants, some participants with dementia). Outcomes were assessed after one to three months. One trial reported significantly improved performance on the Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST) in the intervention group (treatment difference 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 1.30), although there was no difference between the groups in the proportion of participants with reduced anticholinergic burden. Two trials successfully reduced anticholinergic burden in the intervention group. Of these, one reported no significant difference between the intervention versus control in terms of their effect on cognitive performance measured by the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer's Disease (CERAD) immediate recall (mean between-group difference 0.54, 95% CI -0.91 to 2.05), CERAD delayed recall (mean between-group difference -0.23, 95% CI-0.85 to 0.38), CERAD recognition (mean between-group difference 0.77, 95% CI -0.39 to 1.94), and Mini-Mental State Examination (mean between-group difference 0.39, 95% CI -0.96 to 1.75). The other trial reported a significant correlation between anticholinergic burden and a test of working memory after the intervention (which suggested reducing the burden improved performance), but reported no effect on multiple other cognitive measures. In GRADE terms, the results were of very low certainty. There were no reported between-group differences for any other clinical outcome we investigated. It was not possible to investigate differences according to type of reduction intervention or type of anticholinergic scale, to measure the sustainability of interventions, or to establish lessons learnt for upscaling. No trials investigated safety outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to reach any conclusions on the effects of anticholinergic burden reduction interventions on cognitive outcomes in older adults with or without prior cognitive impairment. The evidence from RCTs was of very low certainty so cannot support or refute the hypothesis that actively reducing or stopping prescription of medications with anticholinergic properties can improve cognitive outcomes in older people. There is no evidence from RCTs that anticholinergic burden reduction interventions improve other clinical outcomes such as mortality, quality of life, clinical global impression, physical function, institutionalisation, falls, cardiovascular diseases, or neurobehavioral outcomes. Larger RCTs investigating long-term outcomes are needed. Future RCTs should also investigate potential benefits of anticholinergic reduction interventions in cognitively healthy populations and cognitively impaired populations separately.

Anticholinergic burden for prediction of cognitive decline or neuropsychiatric symptoms in older adults with mild cognitive impairment or dementia.

BACKGROUND: Medications with anticholinergic properties are commonly prescribed to older adults with a pre-existing diagnosis of dementia or cognitive impairment. The cumulative anticholinergic effect of all the medications a person takes is referred to as the anticholinergic burden because of its potential to cause adverse effects. It is possible that a high anticholinergic burden may be a risk factor for further cognitive decline or neuropsychiatric disturbances in people with dementia. Neuropsychiatric disturbances are the most frequent complication of dementia that require hospitalisation, accounting for almost half of admissions; hence, identification of modifiable prognostic factors for these outcomes is crucial. There are various scales available to measure anticholinergic burden but agreement between them is often poor. OBJECTIVES: Our primary objective was to assess whether anticholinergic burden, as defined at the level of each individual scale, was a prognostic factor for further cognitive decline or neuropsychiatric disturbances in older adults with pre-existing diagnoses of dementia or cognitive impairment. Our secondary objective was to investigate whether anticholinergic burden was a prognostic factor for other adverse clinical outcomes, including mortality, impaired physical function, and institutionalisation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched these databases from inception to 29 November 2021: MEDLINE OvidSP, Embase OvidSP, PsycINFO OvidSP, CINAHL EBSCOhost, and ISI Web of Science Core Collection on ISI Web of Science. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective and retrospective longitudinal cohort and case-control observational studies, with a minimum of one-month follow-up, which examined the association between an anticholinergic burden measurement scale and the above stated adverse clinical outcomes, in older adults with pre-existing diagnoses of dementia or cognitive impairment.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, and undertook data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and GRADE assessment. We summarised risk associations between anticholinergic burden and all clinical outcomes in a narrative fashion. We also evaluated the risk association between anticholinergic burden and mortality using a random-effects meta-analysis.  We established adjusted pooled rates for the anticholinergic cognitive burden (ACB) scale; then, as an exploratory analysis, established pooled rates on the prespecified association across scales.  MAIN RESULTS: We identified 18 studies that met our inclusion criteria (102,684 older adults). Anticholinergic burden was measured using five distinct measurement scales: 12 studies used the ACB scale; 3 studies used the Anticholinergic Risk Scale (ARS); 1 study used the Anticholinergic Drug Scale (ADS); 1 study used the Anticholinergic Effect on Cognition (AEC) Scale; and 2 studies used a list developed by Tune and Egeli.  Risk associations between anticholinergic burden and adverse clinical outcomes were highly heterogenous. Four out of 10 (40%) studies reported a significantly increased risk of greater long-term cognitive decline for participants with an anticholinergic burden compared to participants with no or minimal anticholinergic burden. No studies investigated neuropsychiatric disturbance outcomes. One out of four studies (25%) reported a significant association with reduced physical function for participants with an anticholinergic burden versus participants with no or minimal anticholinergic burden. No study (out of one investigating study) reported a significant association between anticholinergic burden and risk of institutionalisation. Six out of 10 studies (60%) found a significantly increased risk of mortality for those with an anticholinergic burden compared to those with no or minimal anticholinergic burden. Pooled analysis of adjusted mortality hazard ratios (HR) measured anticholinergic burden with the ACB scale, and suggested a significantly increased risk of death for those with a high ACB score relative to those with no or minimal ACB scores (HR 1.153, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.030 to 1.292; 4 studies, 48,663 participants). An exploratory pooled analysis of adjusted mortality HRs across anticholinergic burden scales also suggested a significantly increased risk of death for those with a high anticholinergic burden (HR 1.102, 95% CI 1.044 to 1.163; 6 studies, 68,381 participants).   Overall GRADE evaluation of results found low- or very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-certainty evidence that older adults with dementia or cognitive impairment who have a significant anticholinergic burden may be at increased risk of death. No firm conclusions can be drawn for risk of accelerated cognitive decline, neuropsychiatric disturbances, decline in physical function, or institutionalisation.

Understanding Stakeholder Views Regarding the Design of an Intervention Trial to Reduce Anticholinergic Burden: A Qualitative Study.

Background: Anticholinergic burden (ACB), is defined as the cumulative effect of anticholinergic medication which are widely prescribed to older adults despite increasing ACB being associated with adverse effects such as: falls, dementia and increased mortality. This research explores the views of health care professionals (HCPs) and patients on a planned trial to reduce ACB by stopping or switching anticholinergic medications. The objectives were to explore the views of key stakeholders (patients, the public, and HCPs) regarding the potential acceptability, design and conduct of an ACB reduction trial. Materials and Methods: We conducted qualitative interviews and focus groups with 25 HCPs involved in prescribing medication with anticholinergic properties and with 22 members of the public and patients who were prescribed with the medication. Topic guides for the interviews and focus groups explored aspects of feasibility including: 1) views of a trial of de-prescribing/medication switching; 2) how to best communicate information about such a trial; 3) views on who would be best placed and preferred to undertake such medication changes, e.g., pharmacists or General Practitioners (GPs)? 4) perceived barriers and facilitators to trial participation and the smooth conduct of such a trial; 5) HCP views on the future implementability of this approach to reducing ACB and 6) patients' willingness to be contacted for participation in a future trial. Qualitative data analysis was underpinned by Normalization Process Theory. Results: The public, patients and HCPs were supportive of an ACB reduction trial. There was consensus among the different groups that key points to consider with such a trial included: 1) ensuring patient engagement throughout to enable concerns/potential pitfalls to be addressed from the beginning; 2) ensuring clear communication to minimise potential misconceptions about the reasons for ACB reduction; and 3) provision of access to a point of contact for patients throughout the life of a trial to address concerns; The HCPs in particular suggested two more key points: 4) minimise the workload implications of any trial; and 5) pharmacists may be best placed to carry out ACB reviews, though overall responsibility for patient medication should remain with GPs. Conclusion: Patients, the public and HCPs are supportive of trials to reduce ACB. Good communication and patient engagement during design and delivery of a trial are essential as well as safety netting and minimising workload.

Anticholinergic burden measures and older people's falls risk: a systematic prognostic review.

INTRODUCTION: Several adverse outcomes have been associated with anticholinergic burden (ACB), and these risks increase with age. Several approaches to measuring this burden are available but, to date, no comparison of their prognostic abilities has been conducted. This PROSPERO-registered systematic review (CRD42019115918) compared the evidence behind ACB measures in relation to their ability to predict risk of falling in older people. METHODS: Medline (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EMBSCO) and PsycINFO (OVID) were searched using comprehensive search terms and a validated search filter for prognostic studies. Inclusion criteria included: participants aged 65 years and older, use of one or more ACB measure(s) as a prognostic factor, cohort or case-control in design, and reporting falls as an outcome. Risk of bias was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. RESULTS: Eight studies reporting temporal associations between ACB and falls were included. All studies were rated high risk of bias in ⩾1 QUIPS tool categories, with five rated high risk ⩾3 categories. All studies (274,647 participants) showed some degree of association between anticholinergic score and increased risk of falls. Findings were most significant with moderate to high levels of ACB. Most studies (6/8) utilised the anticholinergic cognitive burden scale. No studies directly compared two or more ACB measures and there was variation in how falls were measured for analysis. CONCLUSION: The evidence supports an association between moderate to high ACB and risk of falling in older people, but no conclusion can be made regarding which ACB scale offers best prognostic value in older people. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: A review of published studies to explore which anticholinergic burden scale is best at predicting the risk of falls in older people Introduction: One third of older people will experience a fall. Falls have many consequences including fractures, a loss of independence and being unable to enjoy life. Many things can increase the chances of having a fall. This includes some medications. One type of medication, known as anticholinergic medication, may increase the risk of falls. These medications are used to treat common health issues including depression and bladder problems. Anticholinergic burden is the term used to describe the total effects from taking these medications. Some people may use more than one of these medications. This would increase their anticholinergic burden. It is possible that reducing the use of these medications could reduce the risk of falls. We need to carry out studies to see if this is possible. To do this, we need to be able to measure anticholinergic burden. There are several scales available, but we do not know which is best.Methods: We wanted to answer: 'Which anticholinergic scale is best at predicting the risk of falling in older people?'. We reviewed studies that could answer this. We did this in a systematic way to capture all published studies. We restricted the search in several ways. We only included studies relevant to our question.Results: We found eight studies. We learned that people who are moderate to high users of these medications (often people who will use more than one of these medications) had a higher risk of falling. It was less clear if people who have a lower burden (often people who only use one of these medications) had an increased risk of falling. The low number of studies prevented us from determining if one scale was better than another.Conclusion: These findings suggest that we should reduce use of these medications. This could reduce the number falls and improve the well-being of older people.

Barriers and facilitators to reducing anticholinergic burden: a qualitative systematic review.

Background Despite common use, anticholinergic medications have been associated with serious health risks. Interventions to reduce their use are being developed and there is a need to understand their implementation into clinical care. Aim of review This systematic review aims to identify and analyse qualitative research studies exploring the barriers and facilitators to reducing anticholinergic burden. Methods Medline (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EMBSCO) and PsycINFO (OVID) were searched using comprehensive search terms. Peer reviewed studies published in English presenting qualitative research in relation to the barriers and facilitators of deprescribing anticholinergic medications, involving patients, carers or health professionals were eligible. Normalization Process Theory was used to explore and explain the data. Results Of 1764 identified studies, two were eligible and both involved healthcare professionals (23 general practitioners, 13 specialist clinicians and 12 pharmacists). No studies were identified that involved patients or carers. Barriers to collaborative working often resulted in poor motivation to reduce anticholinergic use. Low confidence, system resources and organisation of care also hindered anticholinergic burden reduction. Good communication and relationships with patients, carers and other healthcare professionals were reported as important for successful anticholinergic burden reduction. Having a named person for prescribing decisions, and clear role boundaries, were also important facilitators. Conclusions This review identified important barriers and facilitators to anticholinergic burden reduction from healthcare provider perspectives which can inform implementation of such deprescribing interventions. Studies exploring patient and carer perspectives are presently absent but are required to ensure person-centeredness and feasibility of future interventions.

Anticholinergic burden (prognostic factor) for prediction of dementia or cognitive decline in older adults with no known cognitive syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Medications with anticholinergic properties are commonly prescribed to older adults. The cumulative anticholinergic effect of all the medications a person takes is referred to as the 'anticholinergic burden' because of its potential to cause adverse effects. It is possible that high anticholinergic burden may be a risk factor for development of cognitive decline or dementia. There are various scales available to measure anticholinergic burden but agreement between them is often poor. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether anticholinergic burden, as defined at the level of each individual scale, is a prognostic factor for future cognitive decline or dementia in cognitively unimpaired older adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to 24 March 2021: MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), and ISI Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included prospective and retrospective longitudinal cohort and case-control observational studies with a minimum of one year' follow-up that examined the association between an anticholinergic burden measurement scale and future cognitive decline or dementia in cognitively unimpaired older adults. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, and undertook data extraction, assessment of risk of bias, and GRADE assessment. We extracted odds ratios (OR) and hazard ratios, with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and linear data on the association between anticholinergic burden and cognitive decline or dementia. We intended to pool each metric separately; however, only OR-based data were suitable for pooling via a random-effects meta-analysis. We initially established adjusted and unadjusted pooled rates for each available anticholinergic scale; then, as an exploratory analysis, established pooled rates on the prespecified association across scales. We examined variability based on severity of anticholinergic burden. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 25 studies that met our inclusion criteria (968,428 older adults). Twenty studies were conducted in the community care setting, two in primary care clinics, and three in secondary care settings. Eight studies (320,906 participants) provided suitable data for meta-analysis. The Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden scale (ACB scale) was the only scale with sufficient data for 'scale-based' meta-analysis. Unadjusted ORs suggested an increased risk for cognitive decline or dementia in older adults with an anticholinergic burden (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.96) and adjusted ORs similarly suggested an increased risk for anticholinergic burden, defined according to the ACB scale (OR 2.63, 95% CI 1.09 to 6.29). Exploratory analysis combining adjusted ORs across available scales supported these results (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.38 to 3.38), and there was evidence of variability in risk based on severity of anticholinergic burden (ACB scale 1: OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.11 to 4.29; ACB scale 2: OR 2.71, 95% CI 2.01 to 3.56; ACB scale 3: OR 3.27, 95% CI 1.41 to 7.61); however, overall GRADE evaluation of certainty of the evidence was low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-certainty evidence that older adults without cognitive impairment who take medications with anticholinergic effects may be at increased risk of cognitive decline or dementia.

ANTECEDENTES: A los adultos mayores se les prescriben con frecuencia fármacos con propiedades anticolinérgicas. El efecto anticolinérgico acumulado de todos los fármacos que toma una persona se denomina "carga anticolinérgica" por su potencial para causar efectos adversos. Es posible que una alta carga anticolinérgica sea un factor de riesgo para la aparición de un deterioro cognitivo o la demencia. Existen varias escalas para medir la carga anticolinérgica, pero la concordancia entre ellas suele ser mala. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar si la carga anticolinérgica, definida a nivel de cada escala individual, es un factor pronóstico de un futuro deterioro cognitivo o demencia en adultos mayores sin deterioro cognitivo. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se realizaron búsquedas en las siguientes bases de datos desde su creación hasta el 24 de marzo de 2021: MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) e ISI Web of Science Core Collection (ISI Web of Science). CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron los estudios observacionales de cohortes y de casos y controles longitudinales prospectivos y retrospectivos con un seguimiento mínimo de un año, que examinaron la asociación entre una escala de medición de la carga anticolinérgica y el futuro deterioro cognitivo o demencia en adultos mayores sin deterioro cognitivo. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión, de forma independiente, evaluaron los estudios para su inclusión y realizaron la extracción de los datos, la evaluación del riesgo de sesgo y la evaluación GRADE. Se extrajeron los odds ratios (OR) y los cociente de riesgos instantáneos, con intervalos de confianza (IC) del 95%, y los datos lineales sobre la asociación entre la carga anticolinérgica y el deterioro cognitivo o la demencia. La intención fue agrupar cada métrica por separado; sin embargo, sólo los datos basados en el OR fueron aptos para agruparlos mediante un metanálisis de efectos aleatorios. Inicialmente se establecieron las tasas agrupadas ajustadas y no ajustadas para cada escala anticolinérgica disponible; luego, como un análisis exploratorio, se establecieron las tasas agrupadas sobre la asociación predeterminada entre las escalas. Se examinó la variabilidad según la intensidad de la carga anticolinérgica. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se identificaron 25 estudios que cumplían los criterios de inclusión (968 428 adultos mayores). Veinte estudios se realizaron en ámbitos de atención comunitaria, dos en centros de atención primaria y tres en ámbitos de atención secundaria. Ocho estudios (320 906 participantes) proporcionaron datos adecuados para el metanálisis. La escala Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (escala ACB) fue la única escala con datos suficientes para un metanálisis "basado en la escala". Los OR no ajustados indicaron un aumento en el riesgo de deterioro cognitivo o demencia en los adultos mayores con sobrecarga anticolinérgica (OR 1,47; IC del 95%: 1,09 a 1,96) y los OR ajustados indicaron igualmente un aumento en el riesgo de sobrecarga anticolinérgica, definida según la escala ACB (OR 2,63; IC del 95%: 1,09 a 6,29). El análisis exploratorio que combina los OR ajustados entre las escalas disponibles apoyó estos resultados (OR 2,16; IC del 95%: 1,38 a 3,38) y hubo evidencia de variabilidad en el riesgo según la intensidad de la carga anticolinérgica (1 en escala ACB): OR 2,18; IC del 95%: 1,11 a 4,29; 2 en escala ACB: OR 2,71; IC del 95%: 2,01 a 3,56; 3 en escala ACB: OR 3,27; IC del 95%: 1,41 a 7,61); sin embargo, la evaluación global de la certeza de la evidencia con el método GRADE fue baja. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: Existe evidencia de certeza baja de que los adultos mayores sin deterioro cognitivo que toman fármacos con efectos anticolinérgicos podrían tener un mayor riesgo de deterioro cognitivo o demencia.

Outcomes of Prophylactic Mid-Urethral Sling at the Time of Robotic Sacrocolpopexy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes of patients who underwent robotic sacrocolpopexy (RSC) with and without concomitant mid-urethral sling (MUS) placement for prophylaxis or treatment of preoperative stress urinary incontinence (SUI) METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all patients without prior incontinence procedures who underwent RSC with or without MUS placement by 3 surgeons (JA, LA, KE) at a single institution from 2012 to 2017 for treatment of pelvic organ prolapse. Patients had a MUS placed for either documented SUI or prophylaxis of SUI. We compared patient characteristics, operative details, postoperative outcomes, and complications between the groups. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients were identified. 58 (43%) had a MUS placed for documented SUI, 43 (32%) had prophylactic MUS, and 33 (25%) did not have a MUS placed. There were no differences in baseline characteristics between the 3 groups. Patients who did not have a MUS placed had less estimated blood loss (76.4 vs 63.8 vs 36.9 mL, P = .018) but no difference in operative time (P = .408), length of stay (P = .427), or postoperative urinary retention (P = .988). A total of 4 (7%) patients who had a MUS placed for SUI had persistent SUI postoperatively. There were 2 (5%) patients who had a MUS placed prophylactically and 4 (12%) patients who did not have a MUS that developed de novo SUI. CONCLUSION: In this series, we demonstrate the safety and efficacy of prophylactic MUS placement at the time of RSC. Randomized studies evaluating concomitant prophylactic sling at time of robotic sacrocolpopexy could further guide preoperative patient counseling and decision-making.

Anticholinergic Burden Measures Predict Older People's Physical Function and Quality of Life: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: This systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42019115918) compared the evidence behind anticholinergic burden (ACB) measures and their ability to predict changes in older people's physical function and quality of life. DESIGN: Eligible cohort or case-control studies were identified systematically using comprehensive search terms and a validated search filter for prognostic studies. Medline (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), CINAHL (EMBSCO), and PsycINFO (OVID) databases were searched. Risk of bias, using Quality in Prognosis Studies tool, and quality of evidence, using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation, were assessed. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: People aged 65 years and older from any clinical setting. MEASURES: Any ACB measures were accepted (including the anticholinergic domain of the Drug Burden Index). Any global/multidimensional measure for physical function and/or quality of life was accepted for outcome. RESULTS: Thirteen studies reporting associations between ACB and physical function (n = 10) or quality of life (n = 4) were included. Exposure measures included Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale, Anticholinergic Drug Scale, Anticholinergic Risk Scale, Clinician Rated Anticholinergic Score, and the anticholinergic domain of the Drug Burden Index. All studies were rated moderate risk of bias in ≥2 Quality in Prognosis Studies categories with 5 rated high risk in ≥1 categories. Seven of 10 studies (5251 of 7569 participants) reported significant decline in physical function with increased burden. All 4 studies (2635 participants) reporting quality of life demonstrated similar association with increased burden. High risk of biases and inadequate data reporting restricted analysis. There was no evidence to support one measure being superior to another. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The evidence supports association between increased ACB and future impairments in physical function and quality of life. No conclusion can be made regarding which ACB measure has the best prognostic value. Well-designed longitudinal studies are required to address this. Clinicians should be aware of patient's anticholinergic burden and consider alternative medications where appropriate.

The Prognostic Value of Anticholinergic Burden Measures in Relation to Mortality in Older Individuals: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Greater anticholinergic burden (ACB) increases the risk of mortality in older individuals, yet the strength of this association varies between studies. One possible explanation for this variance is the use of different approaches to quantify ACB. This systematic review (PROSPERO number CRD42019115918) assessed the prognostic utility of ACB-specific measures on mortality in older individuals. METHODS: Multiple cross-disciplinary databases were searched from 2006-2018. Observational studies assessing the association between ACB and mortality utilizing ≥1 ACB measure, involving persons aged ≥65 years were included. Screening and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved by a third independent reviewer. Risk of bias and quality of evidence were assessed using Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria. Meta-analysis was conducted where appropriate. RESULTS: Of 19,224 titles, 20 articles describing 18 cohort studies involving 498,056 older individuals were eligible. Eight anticholinergic-specific measures were identified; the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden Scale (ACBS, n=9) and Anticholinergic Risk scale (ARS, n=8) were most frequently reported. The evidence base was of poor quality, with moderate to high risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed increased mortality risk. CONCLUSIONS: There was a modest association between some ACB measures and mortality, with most evidence derived from the ACBS. Studies comparing different measures within the same population were lacking. Analysis was limited by poor generalizability between studies, specifically regarding heterogeneity in methodology and reporting, as well as high risk of bias for most studies in the evidence base.

Non-pharmacological, non-surgical interventions for urinary incontinence in older persons: A systematic review of systematic reviews. The SENATOR project ONTOP series.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence is especially common in older age. Non-pharmacological therapies are particularly desirable in this group. OBJECTIVE: To define optimal evidence-based non-pharmacological, non-surgical therapies for urinary incontinence in older persons. METHODS: A Delphi process determined critical outcome measures of interest. Studies of any non-pharmacological intervention reporting critical outcomes were identified through database searches for relevant systematic reviews in Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Cochrane up to June 2018. Primary trials with a population mean age ≥65years were identified, from which data were extracted and risk of bias was assessed. Qualitative analysis and meta-analysis, when possible, were undertaken, followed by grading of the evidence using GradePro software. Finally, bullet-point recommendations were formulated for the indications and contraindications for non-pharmacological interventions for urinary incontinence in older persons. RESULTS: Frequency of incontinence was identified as a critically important outcome. In total, 33 systematic reviews were identified with 27 primary trials meeting inclusion criteria. Evaluated therapies included exercise therapy, habit retraining, behavioural therapy, electrical stimulation, transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation, magnetic stimulation, caffeine reduction and acupuncture. From meta-analysis, group exercise therapy and behavioural therapy in women were beneficial in reducing episodes of incontinence (mean reduction of 1.07 (95 %CI 0.69-1.45) and 0.74 (95 %CI 0.42-1.06) episodes per day respectively, evidence grade 'moderate'). Evidence for other interventions was limited and of insufficient quality. CONCLUSIONS: There is sufficient evidence to warrant recommendation of group exercise therapy for stress incontinence and behavioural therapy for urgency, stress or mixed urinary incontinence in older women. Evidence was insufficient to recommend any other non-drug therapy.

Barriers and facilitators to reducing anticholinergic burden from the perspectives of patients, their carers, and healthcare professionals: A protocol for qualitative evidence synthesis.

Anticholinergic drugs are prescribed for a range of conditions including gastrointestinal disorders, overactive bladder, allergies, and depression. While in some circumstances anticholinergic effects are therapeutic, they also pose many undesired or adverse effects. The overall impact from concomitant use of multiple medications with anticholinergic properties is termed anticholinergic burden (ACB). Greater ACB is associated with increased risks of impaired physical and cognitive function, falls, cardiovascular events, and mortality. This has led to the development of interventions aimed at reducing ACB through the deprescribing of anticholinergic drugs. However, little is known about the implementation issues that may influence successful embedding and integration of such interventions into routine clinical practice. In this paper, we present the protocol for our systematic review that aims to identify the qualitative evidence for the barriers and facilitators to reduce ACB from the perspectives of patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. A comprehensive search strategy will be conducted across OVID Medline, EMBASE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL. The review will be conducted in accordance with ENTREQ (Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the Synthesis of Qualitative Research) and has been registered with PROSPERO (Registration CRD42018109084). Normalization process theory (NPT) will be used to explore, understand, and explain qualitative data in relation to factors that act as barriers or facilitators to ACB reduction.

Non-pharmacological interventions for the improvement of post-stroke quality of life amongst older stroke survivors: a systematic review of systematic reviews (The SENATOR ONTOP series).

PURPOSE: The efficacy of non-pharmacological stroke rehabilitation approaches for older stroke survivors is largely unknown, particularly in relation to psychosocial outcomes such as quality of life. This systematic review examined the evidence for such interventions as part of the Optimal Evidence-Based Non-Drug Therapies in Older Persons (ONTOP) project conducted under an European Union funded project called the Software Engine for the Assessment and Optimisation of Drug and Non-Drug Therapies in Older Persons (SENATOR) [ http://www.senator-project.eu ]. METHODS: Thirteen experts in geriatric medicine, as part of a Delphi panel, agreed quality of life to be a critical outcome of stroke rehabilitation. A comprehensive search strategy was developed and databases were searched for eligible systematic reviews from which trials meeting our criteria were identified. Eligible papers were then double reviewed. Due to heterogeneity, narrative analysis was performed. Cochrane risk of bias and GRADE assessment tools were used to assess bias and quality of evidence. RESULTS: We identified 28 trials, spanning ten types of intervention. Limited evidence supports the use of additional occupational therapy and physiotherapy, with very limited evidence supporting our recommendation to explore caregiver training, constraint-induced movement therapy, device-assisted physiotherapy, and self-management education further. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence suggests a range of non-pharmacological interventions may improve the quality of life of older stroke survivors. However, evidence is limited by low study quality and the small number of studies targeting older stroke survivors. We recommend future studies explore such interventions exclusively in older adult populations and improve methodological and outcome reporting.

Non-pharmacological interventions for the improvement of post-stroke activities of daily living and disability amongst older stroke survivors: A systematic review.

Globally, stroke remains a leading cause of death and disability, with older adults disproportionately affected. Numerous non-pharmacological stroke rehabilitation approaches are in use to address impairments, but their efficacy in older persons is largely unknown. This systematic review examined the evidence for such interventions as part of the Optimal Evidence-Based Non-Drug Therapies in Older Persons (ONTOP) project conducted under an European Union funded project called the Software Engine for the Assessment and Optimisation of Drug and Non-Drug Therapies in Older Persons (SENATOR) [http://www.senator-project.eu]. A Delphi panel of European geriatric experts agreed activities of daily living and disability to be of critical importance as stroke rehabilitation outcomes. A comprehensive search strategy was developed and five databases (Pubmed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycInfo and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) searched for eligible systematic reviews. Primary studies meeting our criteria (non-pharmacologic interventions, involving stroke survivors aged ≥65 years, assessing activities of daily living and/or disability as outcome) were then identified from these reviews. Eligible papers were double reviewed, and due to heterogeneity, narrative analysis performed. Cochrane risk of bias and GRADE assessment tools were used to assess bias and quality of evidence, allowing us to make recommendations regarding specific non-pharmacologic rehabilitation in older stroke survivors. In total, 72 primary articles were reviewed spanning 14 types of non-pharmacological intervention. Non-pharmacological interventions based on physiotherapy and occupational therapy techniques improved activities of daily living amongst older stroke survivors. However, no evidence was found to support use of any non-pharmacological approach to benefit older stroke survivors' disability. Evidence was limited by poor study quality and the small number of studies targeting older stroke survivors. We recommend future studies explore such interventions exclusively in older adult populations and improve methodological and outcome reporting.

Comparison of Adjuvant Radiation Therapy Before or After Artificial Urinary Sphincter Placement: A Multi-Institutional, Retrospective Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if the timing of radiation therapy on artificial urinary sphincter (AUS) impacts complication rates, revision rates, and number of pads per day after placement. METHODS: A retrospective review was conducted of men with prostate cancer who underwent AUS placement and radiation therapy between 1987 and 2016. RESULTS: Of 306 men, 292 (95.4%) received radiation before AUS placement (group 1) and 14 (4.6%) received radiation after AUS placement (group 2). Median follow-up was 30 months after AUS placement. Group 1 had 32 of 292 (11.0%) patients suffer from erosion, compared with 0 of 14 (0.0%) patients in group 2 (P = .191). None of the patients in group 2 had infection or mechanical failure. The number of patients who received revision in group 1 was 91 of 292 (31.2%) and in group 2 was 2 of 14 (14.3%) (P = .180). The number of pads used per day in group 1 before and after AUS placement was 5.24 ± 3.12 and 1.13 ± 1.31, respectively (P <.001). In group 2, the number of pads used per day before and after AUS placement was 6.09 ± 1.97 and 1.53 ± 0.99, respectively (P <.001). There was no significant difference in the average number of postoperative pads used per day between group 1 and group 2 (P = .907). CONCLUSION: The timing of radiation therapy does not appear to significantly affect complication rates or urinary continence, as measured in pads used after AUS placement. This multi-institutional retrospective analysis showed similar erosion and revision rates when radiation occurred after AUS placement and demonstrates preliminary safety and feasibility of the administration of radiation after AUS placement.

Flow characteristics of urethral catheters of the same caliber vary between manufacturers.

BACKGROUND: Clean intermittent catheterization (CIC) is frequently prescribed for bladder dysfunction, either per urethra or via a continent catheterizable channel. Small catheters may be required for infants or continent channels. Success with CIC is highly dependent upon patient and family compliance. The urinary flow rate through the catheter is an important factor, which can decrease CIC time and improve quality of life. There is little objective information regarding flow rate through urinary catheters to guide catheter recommendation or prescription. Clinically, we noted that there was a difference in flow among catheter brands, and we questioned if catheters of the same-labeled diameter exhibit the same flow characteristics, which could have implications for catheter selection. METHODS: Twenty-one commercially available male pediatric urinary catheters from nine brands were tested (11 straight tip, 10 coude tip). Nine of the 21 tested catheters had a hydrophilic coating. All tested catheters shared a 10F outer diameter. For each, microscopic imaging and a precision caliper were used to measure the inner diameter and tip inlet area. A hydraulic system modified from ASTM standard testing specifications was used to simulate bladder catheterization. Measurement of each catheter was repeated five times using three different static hydraulic pressures (20, 40 and 50 cmH2O). Catheter flow rate and structural measurements were identified and the fastest and slowest of the catheters are presented in the table. The variable flow rates between brands were due to the differences in catheter structural characteristics such as the inner diameter (ID) and the tip inlet area to inner lumen area ratio (AR). The maximum variation of flow rate of all tested 10F catheters was 48%, ID varied up to 22%, from 1.71 to 2.11 mm or 5.13-6.33F. AR varied up to 166%. The table delineates the fastest and slowest rates at three measured pressures. The outer diameter labeled 10F on packaging was true to size. CONCLUSIONS: Based on packaging information, providers, and patients are unable to predict urinary flow through a catheter and thus use information regarding flow rate to guide catheter selection. This information cannot be calculated based on ideal flow calculations and could be listed on packaging to assist physicians and families in selecting the optimal urinary catheter for CIC.

Device Survival after Primary Implantation of an Artificial Urinary Sphincter for Male Stress Urinary Incontinence.

PURPOSE: The AMS 800™ artificial urinary sphincter remains the gold standard for the surgical management of male stress urinary incontinence. We reviewed artificial urinary sphincter device survival after primary implantation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective data were collected from the AMS 800 patient information form database. Since 1972, 77,512 patient information forms for primary artificial urinary sphincter implantation have been completed in the United States. Following exclusion of procedures performed in children and females, and those labeled with an unknown surgical technique, 27,096 artificial urinary sphincter cases were included in the analysis. Collected variables included patient age, surgical approach, number of cuffs and surgeon volume. Measured outcomes included device explantation, device revision, component revision and time to each event. RESULTS: Artificial urinary sphincter insertion was performed by low volume implanters in 22,165 (82.6%) cases. The approach was perineal in 18,373 cases (67.8%) and a tandem cuff was used in 2,224 cases (8.2%). Overall 5,723 cases required revision or explantation (21.1%). Younger age and penoscrotal approach were associated with higher device explantation and revision rates, while the use of a tandem cuff was associated with higher explantation rates. On multivariate analysis younger age, penoscrotal approach and use of a tandem cuff but not surgeon volume were significant factors associated with device explantation and component revision. CONCLUSIONS: These data provide a general overview of artificial urinary sphincter device survival and may serve urologists when counseling patients. Younger age, penoscrotal approach and use of a tandem cuff may be associated with inferior outcomes.

Technology Based Treatment for UreteroPelvic Junction Obstruction.

Surgical management of ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO) has historically been performed with open pyeloplasty. With the advent of endourology, laparoscopy, and robotics, minimally-invasive techniques have been described and accepted as alternatives to open surgery. Each of these approaches has its own advantages and disadvantages, equipment needs, degree of invasiveness, and experience of the treating urologist. Advocates and critics have their own say as to their preferred technique. In this article, we review the chronological evolution of these techniques and discuss their current role in the management of UPJO.

Avanafil for the treatment of erectile dysfunction.

INTRODUCTION: Erectile dysfunction (ED) affects millions of men worldwide, and the incidence of ED will continue to increase as the aging population grows. The first generation of phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE5) inhibitors, the mainstay of oral ED therapy, has revolutionized the treatment of this condition, but not without some drawbacks. Avanafil, the only United States and European Union-approved second-generation PDE5 inhibitor, is a safe and efficacious alternative to its predecessors. AREAS COVERED: We reviewed the current and most up-to-date literature regarding Avanafil, as well as the pivotal trials that measured efficacy and tolerability. As Avanafil is still a relatively new drug, there is still a relative paucity of literature which inherently limited the search parameters. We searched the PUBMED database for articles detailing the clinical trials, chemistry, pharmacokinetics and dynamics, safety, and efficacy of the drug. Expert commentary: Avanafil's unique pharmacologic profile both narrows and minimizes side effects while reducing the time of onset of action to half of its closest competitor, providing men who suffer with ED a return to a more spontaneous sex life.