Benzodiazepines (BZDs) have been on the market primarily as anxiolytics and hypnotics since 1960 where they – being much safer – gradually replaced the far more toxic drugs such as barbiturates, meprobamate, and chloral hydrate. However, after some time, it was realized that some patients developed addiction and tolerance to BZD, and during the last decades, the regulation of BZD has been rather tight. This has been followed by a marked decrease in prescriptions of BZD to patients. At the same time, studies on potential health hazards associated with BZD emerged. Thus, BZD has been associated with increased mortality and risk of traffic accidents, falls, hip fractures, cancer, cognitive decline, and dementia, but most studies have been hampered by inappropriate adjustment for factors associated with the selection of patient into treatment 1. Due to the cognitive disturbances associated with BZD, additional studies of the potential long-term effect on cognition and dementia seem relevant. In the present issue of Acta, a timely, well-performed, register-based nested case–control study finds that BZD use was associated with modestly increased odds of Alzheimer's disease 2 with no clear dose–response relationship or difference between different types of BZD. The authors do take precautions though by assuming there was ‘no uncontrolled bias or confounding’. Thus, they introduce a time lag of 5 years to reduce the possibility of reverse causality (protopathic bias). Also, they reduce indication bias by accounting for ‘combination BZD that are indicated for a larger variety of symptoms (such as gastrointestinal cramps, dizziness and muscle tension) than traditional BZDs’. Furthermore, the authors adjust for socioeconomic position, several comorbidities, and other medication. However, to limit residual confounding, it is important that covariates are included with sufficient detail 3 and it is puzzling why the authors lump all psychiatric diagnosis in one category instead of a more detailed adjustment for diseases strongly associated with BZD and dementia such as depression and anxiety 4, 5. The lack of dose–response relation is also surprising given the large range of exposure from those who once purchased BZD to heavy long-term users. This broad definition of exposure is also reflected by a very high number of exposed among both cases (40%) and controls (37%). More than 50 years ago, Hill proposed nine criteria for causation, which are still considered to be relevant and applicable to pharmacoepidemiology 6. The criteria include strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experimental evidence, and analogy. If these criteria are applied on the existing evidence of an effect of BZD on most of the above health outcomes including dementia, none of them seems to be fulfilled. Thus, one may wonder what leads to the final statement in the paper: ‘BZDRs should be avoided if possible and threshold for prescribing should be high enough due to overall adverse effect profile of the BZDRs’. While this may be well advised if given to users and their doctors, it will not be due to risk of dementia but probably more due to risk of habituation. And if the advice is directed to the health authorities, as a further encouragement to chase BZD using patients and their doctors, they might be barking up the wrong tree. Most guidelines recommend use of BZD drugs for only a few weeks. However, most anxiety disorders, sleep disorders, and psychiatric disorders with symptom-anxiety (or as residual symptom following first-line treatments) last longer. Comforting then to know that, by far, most patients who are prescribed BZD are short-term or intermittent users 7. Also, even though habituation can be a problem in some patients and real misuse in much fewer, not all patients experience withdrawal when quitting. Further, the statement that BZD does not have long-term effect is not based on long-term studies. Rather it is based on lack of them. In fact, when studied long term, they seem to work long term 8, 9. Even if the relation between BZD and dementia shown in the present paper is causal and we use the risk estimates to calculate the population attributable risk, for example, for the Danish population, it will show that <0.1% of dementia cases would be prevented if BZD was eliminated, whereas the corresponding risks for low education, hearing loss, smoking, and depression have been estimated to be 9, 5, 8, and 4% respectively 4. None.
Read full abstract