Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Risk of Serious Adverse Events Associated With Individual Cholinesterase Inhibitors Use in Older Adults With Dementia: A Population-Based Cohort Study

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Drugs & Aging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background and Objective

Cholinesterase inhibitors (ChEIs) are used as first-line pharmacotherapy to manage dementia. However, there are limited data regarding their relative safety. This study evaluated the risk of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with individual ChEIs in older adults with dementia and also examined sex-based and dose-based effects on this risk.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study using 2013–2015 US Medicare claims data involving Parts A, B, and D. Patients aged ≥ 65 years with a dementia diagnosis and incident use of the ChEIs, namely donepezil, galantamine, or rivastigmine, were included. The primary outcome of interest was SAEs defined as emergency department visits, inpatient hospitalizations, or death within 6 months of ChEI initiation. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression with propensity score (PS) as a covariate and inverse probability of treatment weighting generated using generalized boosted models was used to assess the risk of SAEs across individual ChEIs.

Results

The study included 767,684 older adults with dementia who were incident new users of ChEIs (donepezil 79.42%, rivastigmine 17.67%, galantamine 2.91%). SAEs were observed in 15.5% of the cohort within 6 months of ChEI prescription. Cox regression model with PS as covariate found that patients prescribed rivastigmine (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.12; 95% CI 1.03–1.33) and galantamine (aHR 1.51; 95% CI 1.24–1.84) were at increased risk of SAEs compared with patients on donepezil. Stratified analyses revealed that rivastigmine was associated with an 18% increased risk for SAEs in females (aHR 1.18; 95% CI 1.06–1.31), and galantamine was associated with a 71% increased risk in males (aHR 1.71; 95% CI 1.17–2.51) compared with donepezil. High and recommended index doses of rivastigmine and galantamine were associated with an increased risk of SAEs compared with donepezil. The findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

The study found that the risk of SAEs varied across individual ChEIs, with sex and dose moderating these effects. Therefore, these moderating effects should be carefully considered in personalizing dementia care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 2021 Alzheimer's disease facts and figures. Alzheimers Dement. 2021;17(3):327–406.

  2. Kaduszkiewicz H, Zimmermann T, Beck-Bornholdt HP, van den Bussche H. Cholinesterase inhibitors for patients with Alzheimer’s disease: systematic review of randomised clinical trials. BMJ. 2005;331(7512):321–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Koller D, Hua T, Bynum JP. Treatment patterns with antidementia drugs in the United States: medicare cohort study. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64(8):1540–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Suh DC, Arcona S, Thomas SK, et al. Risk of antipsychotic drug use in patients with Alzheimer’s disease treated with rivastigmine. Drugs Aging. 2004;21(6):395–403.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Scharre DW, Vekeman F, Lefebvre P, Mody-Patel N, Kahler KH, Duh MS. Use of antipsychotic drugs in patients with Alzheimer’s disease treated with rivastigmine versus donepezil: a retrospective, parallel-cohort, hypothesis-generating study. Drugs Aging. 2010;27(11):903–13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Knight R, Khondoker M, Magill N, Stewart R, Landau S. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in treating the cognitive symptoms of dementia. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2018;45(3–4):131–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Matsunaga S, Fujishiro H, Takechi H. Efficacy and safety of cholinesterase inhibitors for mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Alzheimers Dis. 2019;71(2):513–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kavirajan H, Schneider LS. Efficacy and adverse effects of cholinesterase inhibitors and memantine in vascular dementia: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet Neurol. 2007;6(9):782–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Rochon PA, Gruneir A, Gill SS, et al. Initial cholinesterase inhibitor therapy dose and serious events in older women and men. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018;66(9):1692–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gill SS, Anderson GM, Fischer HD, et al. Syncope and its consequences in patients with dementia receiving cholinesterase inhibitors: a population-based cohort study. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(9):867–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gill SS, Mamdani M, Naglie G, et al. A prescribing cascade involving cholinesterase inhibitors and anticholinergic drugs. Arch Intern Med. 2005;165(7):808–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Fine JP, Gray RJ. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc. 1999;94(446):496–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kim HT. Cumulative incidence in competing risks data and competing risks regression analysis. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13(2 Pt 1):559–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Edwards K, Royall D, Hershey L, et al. Efficacy and safety of galantamine in patients with dementia with Lewy bodies: a 24-week open-label study. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2007;23(6):401–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Emre M, Poewe W, De Deyn PP, et al. Long-term safety of rivastigmine in parkinson disease dementia: an open-label, randomized study. Clin Neuropharmacol. 2014;37(1):9–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Barosso G. How to identify hospital claims for emergency room visits in the Medicare claims data. 2015. In:2018.

  17. Management: ICoHCSD, Reporting. DaSfE. 994 (online). Available at http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/ Guidelines/Efficacy/E2A/Step4/E2A_Guideline.pdf. Accessed June 12, 2021.

  18. Arnegard ME, Whitten LA, Hunter C, Clayton JA. Sex as a biological variable: a 5-year progress report and call to action. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2020;29(6):858–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Semla TP, Beizer JL, Higbee MD. Geriatric dosage handbook: Including monitoring, clinical recommendations, and OBRA guidelines. Lexi-Comp. 2009;2:2.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Andersen R, Newman JF. Societal and individual determinants of medical care utilization in the United States. Milbank Mem Fund Q Health Soc. 1973;51(1):95–124.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Masurkar PP, Chatterjee S, Sherer JT, Aparasu RR. Antimuscarinic cascade across individual cholinesterase inhibitors in older adults with dementia. Drugs Aging. 2021;38(7):593–602.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chekani F, Holmes HM, Johnson ML, Chen H, Sherer JT, Aparasu RR. Use of atypical antipsychotics in long-term care residents with parkinson’s disease and comorbid depression. Drug Healthc Patient Saf. 2020;12:23–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Andersen RM. Revisiting the behavioral model and access to medical care: does it matter? J Health Soc Behav. 1995;36(1):1–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Kamble P, Chen H, Johnson ML, Bhatara V, Aparasu RR. Concurrent use of stimulants and second-generation antipsychotics among children with ADHD enrolled in Medicaid. Psychiatr Serv. 2015;66(4):404–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Williams JW, Plassman BL, Burke J, Benjamin S. Preventing Alzheimer’s disease and cognitive decline. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep). 2010;193:1–727.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Elixhauser A, Steiner C, Harris DR, Coffey RM. Comorbidity measures for use with administrative data. Med Care. 1998;36(1):8–27.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Information® AD. American Society of Health-System Pharmacists Available at http://onlinestatref.com/document/cQfe8yqMRNqgSGqm4Qo8Qj (Accessed May 2021). 2019.

  28. Kim DH, Patorno E, Pawar A, Lee H, Schneeweiss S, Glynn RJ. Measuring frailty in administrative claims data: comparative performance of four claims-based frailty measures in the US medicare data. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2020;75(6):1120–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43(11):1130–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. 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(3):311–20.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Austin PC, Fine JP. Practical recommendations for reporting Fine-Gray model analyses for competing risk data. Stat Med. 2017;36(27):4391–400.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Gray RJ. A class of k-sample tests for comparing the cumulative incidence of a competing risk. Ann Stat. 1988;16(3):1141–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Haushona N, Esterhuizen TM, Thabane L, Machekano R. An empirical comparison of time-to-event models to analyse a composite outcome in the presence of death as a competing risk. Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2020;19: 100639.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Kohl M, Plischke M, Leffondré K, Heinze G. PSHREG: a SAS macro for proportional and nonproportional subdistribution hazards regression. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2015;118(2):218–33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Spreeuwenberg MD, Bartak A, Croon MA, et al. The multiple propensity score as control for bias in the comparison of more than two treatment arms: an introduction from a case study in mental health. Med Care. 2010;48(2):166–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Chatterjee S, Chen H, Johnson ML, Aparasu RR. Comparative risk of cerebrovascular adverse events in community-dwelling older adults using risperidone, olanzapine and quetiapine: a multiple propensity score-adjusted retrospective cohort study. Drugs Aging. 2012;29(10):807–17.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kwak C, Clayton-Matthews A. Multinomial logistic regression. Nurs Res. 2002;51(6):404–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Austin PC. An Introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46(3):399–424.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Armstrong K. Methods in comparative effectiveness research. J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(34):4208–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Brookhart MA, Wyss R, Layton JB, Sturmer T. Propensity score methods for confounding control in nonexperimental research. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6(5):604–11.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. McCaffrey DF, Ridgeway G, Morral AR. Propensity score estimation with boosted regression for evaluating causal effects in observational studies. Psychol Methods. 2004;9(4):403–25.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Griffin BA, Stelzner C, Sanchez R, Cefalu M, McCaffrey DF. Toolkit for Weighting and Analysis of Nonequivalent Groups: A Tutorial on the TWANG Shiny Application for Three or More Treatment Groups. RAND Corporation; 2020.

  43. Parikh RB, Manz C, Chivers C, et al. Machine learning approaches to predict 6-month mortality among patients with cancer. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2(10): e1915997.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Desai RJ, Franklin JM. Alternative approaches for confounding adjustment in observational studies using weighting based on the propensity score: a primer for practitioners. BMJ. 2019;367: l5657.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Parast L, McCaffrey DF, Burgette LF, et al. Optimizing variance-bias trade-off in the TWANG package for estimation of propensity scores. Health Serv Outcomes Res Method. 2017;17(3):175–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Dunkler D, Ploner M, Schemper M, Heinze G. Weighted Cox Regression Using the R Package coxphw. J Stat Softw. 2018;1(2):1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  47. VanderWeele TJ, Ding P. Sensitivity analysis in observational research: introducing the e-value. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(4):268–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Di Santo SG, Prinelli F, Adorni F, Caltagirone C, Musicco M. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine, and memantine in relation to severity of Alzheimer’s disease. J Alzheimers Dis. 2013;35(2):349–61.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Tricco AC, Soobiah C, Berliner S, et al. Efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers for patients with mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. CMAJ. 2013;185(16):1393–401.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. Cummings J, Lefevre G, Small G, Appel-Dingemanse S. Pharmacokinetic rationale for the rivastigmine patch. Neurology. 2007;69(4 Suppl 1):S10-13.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Hansen RA, Gartlehner G, Webb AP, Morgan LC, Moore CG, Jonas DE. Efficacy and safety of donepezil, galantamine, and rivastigmine for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Interv Aging. 2008;3(2):211–25.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Jhee SS, Shiovitz T, Hartman RD, et al. Centrally acting antiemetics mitigate nausea and vomiting in patients with Alzheimer’s disease who receive rivastigmine. Clin Neuropharmacol. 2002;25(2):122–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Alva G, Cummings JL, Galvin JE, Meng X, Velting DM. Skin reactions at the application site of rivastigmine patch (4.6 mg/24 h, 9.5 mg/24 h or 13.3 mg/24 h): a qualitative analysis of clinical studies in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. Int J Clin Pract. 2015;69(5):518–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Lilienfeld S. Galantamine–a novel cholinergic drug with a unique dual mode of action for the treatment of patients with Alzheimer’s disease. CNS Drug Rev. 2002;8(2):159–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Tricco AC, Vandervaart S, Soobiah C, et al. Efficacy of cognitive enhancers for Alzheimer’s disease: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Syst Rev. 2012;1:31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Field TS, Gurwitz JH, Avorn J, et al. Risk factors for adverse drug events among nursing home residents. Arch Intern Med. 2001;161(13):1629–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pharmaceutical Health Outcomes and Policy, College of Pharmacy, University of Houston, 4849 Calhoun Road, Houston, TX, 77204-5047, USA

    Prajakta P. Masurkar, Satabdi Chatterjee, Hua Chen, Michael L. Johnson & Rajender R. Aparasu

  2. Boehringer-Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc, Ridgefield, CT, USA

    Satabdi Chatterjee

  3. Department of Pharmacy Practice and Translational Research, College of Pharmacy, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA

    Jeffrey T. Sherer

Authors
  1. Prajakta P. Masurkar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Satabdi Chatterjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jeffrey T. Sherer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hua Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael L. Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rajender R. Aparasu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rajender R. Aparasu.

Ethics declarations

Funding

No funding was received for this research.

Conflict of Interest

Dr Aparasu has received research funding from Astellas Inc., Incyte Corp., Gilead and Novartis Inc. for projects unrelated to the current work. Prajakta P. Masurkar, Satabdi Chatterjee, Jeffrey T. Sherer, Hua Chen, and Michael L. Johnson declare no conflicts of interest for this article.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Houston under the exempt category (Exemption approval #STUDY00002792).

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and material

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Code availability

Not applicable.

Author contributions

Masurkar and Aparasu had full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. Study concept and design: All authors. Acquisition of data: Masurkar and Aparasu. Analysis of data: Masurkar. Interpretation of data: All authors. Drafting of the manuscript: Masurkar. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors. Statistical analysis: Masurkar, Johnson, Aparasu. Administrative, technical, or material support, and study supervision: Aparasu.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (PDF 368 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Masurkar, P.P., Chatterjee, S., Sherer, J.T. et al. Risk of Serious Adverse Events Associated With Individual Cholinesterase Inhibitors Use in Older Adults With Dementia: A Population-Based Cohort Study. Drugs Aging 39, 453–465 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-022-00944-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40266-022-00944-z

Search

Navigation