Cited by 1,153Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient OutcomesDementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchCholinesterase and Neurodegenerative Diseases

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 11 of the 38 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Cumulative Use of Strong Anticholinergics and Incident Dementia: A Prospective Cohort Study

Open access

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Many medications have anticholinergic effects. In general, anticholinergic-induced cognitive impairment is considered reversible on discontinuation of anticholinergic therapy. However, a few studies suggest that anticholinergics may be associated with an increased risk for dementia. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether cumulative anticholinergic use is associated with a higher risk for incident dementia. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective population-based cohort study using data from the Adult Changes in Thought study in Group Health, an integrated health care delivery system in Seattle, Washington. We included 3434 participants 65 years or older with no dementia at study entry. Initial recruitment occurred from 1994 through 1996 and from 2000 through 2003. Beginning in 2004, continuous replacement for deaths occurred. All participants were followed up every 2 years. Data through September 30, 2012, were included in these analyses. EXPOSURES: Computerized pharmacy dispensing data were used to ascertain cumulative anticholinergic exposure, which was defined as the total standardized daily doses (TSDDs) dispensed in the past 10 years. The most recent 12 months of use was excluded to avoid use related to prodromal symptoms. Cumulative exposure was updated as participants were followed up over time. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incident dementia and Alzheimer disease using standard diagnostic criteria. Statistical analysis used Cox proportional hazards regression models adjusted for demographic characteristics, health behaviors, and health status, including comorbidities. RESULTS: The most common anticholinergic classes used were tricyclic antidepressants, first-generation antihistamines, and bladder antimuscarinics. During a mean follow-up of 7.3 years, 797 participants (23.2%) developed dementia (637 of these [79.9%] developed Alzheimer disease). A 10-year cumulative dose-response relationship was observed for dementia and Alzheimer disease (test for trend, P < .001). For dementia, adjusted hazard ratios for cumulative anticholinergic use compared with nonuse were 0.92 (95% CI, 0.74-1.16) for TSDDs of 1 to 90; 1.19 (95% CI, 0.94-1.51) for TSDDs of 91 to 365; 1.23 (95% CI, 0.94-1.62) for TSDDs of 366 to 1095; and 1.54 (95% CI, 1.21-1.96) for TSDDs greater than 1095. A similar pattern of results was noted for Alzheimer disease. Results were robust in secondary, sensitivity, and post hoc analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Higher cumulative anticholinergic use is associated with an increased risk for dementia. Efforts to increase awareness among health care professionals and older adults about this potential medication-related risk are important to minimize anticholinergic use over time.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a prospective cohort of 3,434 older adults, higher 10-year cumulative use of strong anticholinergic medications was associated with increased incident dementia and Alzheimer disease, with a dose-response trend. The highest exposure category (>1095 total standardized daily doses) had adjusted HR 1.54 for dementia and 1.63 for Alzheimer disease versus non-use.

Key findings

  • Over a mean follow-up of 7.3 years, 797 participants (23%) developed dementia, of whom 637 (80%) had possible or probable Alzheimer disease.
  • A 10-year cumulative dose-response relationship was observed for both dementia and Alzheimer disease (test for trend, p<0.001). Adjusted HRs for dementia versus non-use were 0.92 (95% CI, 0.74-1.16) for 1-90 TSDD; 1.19 (95% CI, 0.94-1.51) for 91-365 TSDD; 1.23 (95% CI, 0.94-1.62) for 366-1095 TSDD; and 1.54 (95% CI, 1.21-1.96) for >1095 TSDD.
  • For Alzheimer disease, the highest exposure category had adjusted HR 1.63 (95% CI, 1.24-2.14) versus non-use.
  • The most common anticholinergic drug classes used were tricyclic antidepressants, first-generation antihistamines, and bladder antimuscarinics, together accounting for over 90% of all anticholinergic exposure. Results were robust in secondary, sensitivity, and post-hoc analyses, with no significant interactions by sex, age at entry, or APOE ε4 genotype.

Methods

  • Prospective population-based cohort study using Adult Changes in Thought Study data at Group Health, Seattle, Washington. The sample included 3,434 participants aged 65 and older with no dementia at study entry, at least 10 years of health plan enrollment before entry, and at least one follow-up visit.
  • Exposure was ascertained from computerized pharmacy dispensing data for medications with strong anticholinergic activity. Cumulative exposure was measured as total standardized daily doses (TSDD) over the past 10 years, excluding the most recent 12 months, and was time-varying.
  • Cox proportional hazards models with age as the time scale estimated hazard ratios for incident dementia and Alzheimer disease, adjusted for demographic factors, health behaviors, health status, comorbidities, and medical indications associated with anticholinergic use.

Limitations

  • The paper states that several methods exist for estimating anticholinergic burden with no single gold standard; it focused on high-potency anticholinergics, and misclassification is possible because some first-generation antihistamines are available over the counter.
  • The paper notes possible unmeasured or residual confounding, that prescription fills do not guarantee medication consumption, and that generalizability is unknown and findings need replication in samples with greater numbers of minorities.
  • Evident from the text: this is an observational cohort study, so causality cannot be established; the sample was 91% white, which further limits generalizability.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.7663

Cites

53 of 53 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

11 of 38 cited sources checked · 7 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 26 claims

  • Probably not a substantial claim. 18
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 11
24 of 24
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Prescription dispensing data accurately reflect actual anticholinergic medication consumption.

    “Our exposure measure relied on prescription fills and does not guarantee that the medication was consumed.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 10-year cumulative exposure window is sufficient to capture the relevant etiologic period for dementia.

    “The current study sample was limited to participants with at least 10 years of GH health plan enrollment prior to study entry to permit sufficient and equal ascertainment of cumulative anticholinergic exposure.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The date of dementia diagnosis midpoint accurately estimates dementia onset.

    “The date of dementia diagnosis was assigned as the midpoint between the ACT study visit where the diagnosis was made and the preceding visit.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Complete case analysis excluding individuals with missing covariates does not introduce bias.

    “We conducted a complete case analysis, excluding individuals with missing covariates.”
4 of 4

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 52 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–1,000 of 1,153

Metadata

Authors
Gray, S. L., Anderson, M. L., Dublin, S., Hanlon, J. T., Hubbard, R., Walker, R., Yu, O., Crane, P. K., & Larson, E. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
Venue
JAMA Internal Medicine
Published
2015-03-01
Volume
175
Issue
3
Pages
401
ISSN
2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2168499550
Cited by
1,111
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 81 · 2025: 102 · 2024: 100 · 2023: 83 · 2022: 98 · 2021: 89 · 2020: 151 · 2019: 113 · 2018: 84 · 2017: 79 · 2016: 79 · 2015: 51
FWCI
48.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01ag037451-05, 5k07ag033174-05)
  • National Institute on Aging (R01-AG037451, R01AG027017, U01AG00678, U01AG006781, K07‐AG033174, AG021885, R03AG042930, Z01AG000678, P30AG024827, T32AG021885)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Pharmaceutical Practices and Patient Outcomes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology (medical) › Cholinesterase and Neurodegenerative Diseases
Keywords
anticholinergic agents, cumulative drug exposure, dementia risk, Alzheimer's disease, tricyclic antidepressants, antihistamines, antimuscarinic agents, dose-response relationship, older adults, drug safety, Adult Changes in Thought study, pharmacy dispensing data, comorbidities, polypharmacy
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Alzheimer Disease, Antidepressive Agents, Tricyclic, Dementia, Female, Histamine H1 Antagonists, Humans, Male, Prospective Studies, Cohort Studies, Cholinergic Antagonists, Muscarinic Antagonists

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review