The use of anticholinergic drugs has been associated with adverse health outcomes. However, their effects cannot be completely separated from the effects of general polypharmacy using standard methods. The objective of this study was to explore the extent to which the detrimental health effects attributed to anticholinergic burden measured by anticholinergic burden scales (ABS) were distinct from those of polypharmacy. We compared observed effects of ABS against simulated effects of generated pseudoscales intended to measure polypharmacy using UK Biobank primary care data. We randomly sampled from 525 anticholinergic and non-anticholinergic drugs prescribed in the year 2015 to ~200,000 participants with an average age of 65 years. We then created 1,000 pseudoscales, the score of which was designed to represent the strength of the background effect of polypharmacy, differentiating pseudoscales constructed to capture either general polypharmacy or putative anticholinergic polypharmacy, and exhibiting similar distributional properties to 23 real-world ABS (statistical equivalence). We performed individual logistic regressions for each scale to estimate associations between ABS scales and pseudoscales, respectively, and risk of death, dementia, or delirium. Across outcomes, odds ratios for anticholinergic-polypharmacy pseudoscales were on average 0.03-0.05 greater than those of general-polypharmacy pseudoscales. The number of drugs composing the scales was correlated with the size of adverse effects for both pseudoscales (r=~0.5, p<0.001) and ABS (r=~0.7, p<0.001). In total, 50-90% of ABS showed stronger effects than the majority of pseudoscales. ABS exhibited stronger associations with the studied adverse health outcomes than would be expected from polypharmacy alone (range of differences in odds ratios: -0.05 to 0.20). Most existing ABS capture more variance in the association with death, dementia, and delirium than polypharmacy alone, but with varying degrees of strength.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

JM is funded by the College of Medicine and Veterinary Medicine towards Wellcome grant 108890/B/15/Z. AKL is funded by the European Research Council under the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant number 803239).

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

The North West Multi-centre Research Ethics Committee (MREC) gave approval to UK Biobank as a Research Tissue Bank (RTB); UK Biobank data access to JM was granted under application number 10279.

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data used in the present study are available to researchers with access to the UK Biobank dataset, which is available for a fee upon request from UK Biobank.