Cognitive decline, care burden, and where the medication list sits

For facility ownership and management

Care intensity rises as cognition declines. That is true, it is measurable, and it is more complicated than it is usually quoted as being. This page sets out what the evidence actually supports, what it does not, and where the medication list sits in the middle of it.

Care intensity and cognitive decline: the gradient, and its three qualifications

The intuition is that a resident with worse cognition consumes more care. Broadly the evidence supports that. Three findings complicate it enough that a facility acting on the simple version would plan badly.

What the care-time studies found

• In a prospective cohort of 690 residents across 47 Norwegian nursing homes followed every six months for three years, each one-point rise on the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes was independently associated with 2.52 additional hours of direct care per month (95% CI 0.61 to 4.43). Physical self-maintenance added 3.25 hours per point, and psychotic symptoms 3.37 hours.
• In a repeated cross-sectional study of 4,599 Swedish nursing home residents across two waves five years apart, total measured resource use was 7.12 hours per resident per day in 2013–14 and 7.83 in 2018–19.
• In 75 Dutch residents with moderate to severe dementia, global cognition alone explained 60% of the variance in ability to perform activities of daily living, and a model including apathy, physical endurance, comorbidity count and cognition explained 66% of care dependency.

Qualification one: the daily-hours figures are not comparable to each other

Published estimates of direct care time in nursing homes differ more than five-fold — from roughly 1.8 hours per resident per day in one German series to about 2.5 in the Norwegian cohort to nearly 8 in the Swedish data and around 10 in an older Swedish study. The difference is not practice. It is whether supervision time in shared areas is counted, and the researchers using these instruments say so themselves.

There is no pooled estimate of care hours by dementia stage. We searched for a systematic review synthesizing it and none exists. Any single “hours per day” figure quoted as the number is quoting one study’s counting convention.

Qualification two: inside a nursing home, ADL dependency is the more reliable driver

In the Swedish two-wave study, the association between cognitive score and total care time was significant in the first wave and disappeared in the second (B = −0.009, p = 0.805), with a significant interaction between waves. Katz ADL dependency, by contrast, was strongly and consistently associated at both waves. Cognition and dependency travel together and each adds burden over the other — but dependency is the more stably measured and more consistently predictive of the two.

Qualification three: the cost gradient is largely a composition effect

A meta-analysis of 113 studies covering 318,936 people with dementia across 17 European countries, with all costs converted to 2021 euros, reports the familiar steep gradient — roughly a doubling from mild to moderate and a tripling from mild to severe in Southern Europe, with smaller increases elsewhere. Then it says the thing that almost never travels with the headline: when examined within each care setting, the relationship between severity and cost is clear in the community but less consistent for institutionalized patients, and a major part of the population-level increase is driven by a higher rate of institutionalization rather than by higher spending per resident.

A Swedish national registry cohort of 31,951 people with Alzheimer disease, in 2021 kronor over 2013–2020 data, shows the same structure: costs rose steeply across severity, but the increase was concentrated in institutional and social care, while inpatient and drug costs were similar across all severity stages and outpatient costs decreased.

So “dementia costs more as it worsens” is a true statement about a population and a misleading one about a building. Neither of those studies is American, and cost structures do not transfer between health systems — we publish no US equivalent because we could not source one to this standard.

What drives care time over and above cognition

Neuropsychiatric symptoms do, and this is the best-evidenced part of the whole subject. In the 4,599-resident Swedish analysis, adjusting for cognitive score, ADL dependency, age, sex and dementia-unit residence, seven of twelve symptom domains remained independently associated with total care time.

Symptom domain	Additional care time per NPI-NH point	p
Aberrant motor behavior — wandering, restlessness, repetition	0.306 hours/day	<0.001
Sleep and night-time behaviors	0.170 hours/day	<0.001
Irritability	0.153 hours/day	0.002
Hallucinations	0.139 hours/day	0.009
Delusions	0.116 hours/day	0.030
Anxiety	0.112 hours/day	0.040
Agitation and aggression	0.075 hours/day	0.165 — not significant

Agitation and aggression was not significantly associated with total care time. Aberrant motor behavior was, by a wide margin. The same pattern appeared in the Norwegian cohort, where psychotic and affective symptoms were independently significant and agitation was not. Not every study agrees — one Norwegian analysis of 723 residents did find agitation significant — but the assumption that aggression is the main driver of staff workload is not well supported, and it is the assumption most likely to be treated with an antipsychotic.

Transfers and hospitalization: the evidence runs opposite to the assumption

• Among 132,753 US nursing home residents, mild cognitive impairment carried up to 15% higher odds of an emergency department visit than no impairment — while advanced dementia carried an adjusted odds ratio of 0.60 (95% CI 0.55 to 0.65), a 40% reduction.
• In 112,412 US Medicare beneficiaries in nursing facilities, emergency department visit rates decreased as impairment severity increased.
• Among 37,998 newly admitted Canadian residents, moderate and severe cognitive impairment predicted decreased hospitalization, while moderate to severe functional impairment predicted increased hospitalization. The two dissociate.
• In 25,653 Ontario residents, severe cognitive impairment was protective against repeat emergency visits (adjusted odds ratio 0.92, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99).
• A systematic review of end-of-life hospitalization found all but one included study reported that residents with dementia were hospitalized less often. It also found hospitalization in the last 30 days of life ranging from 8.0% in the Netherlands to 51.3% in Germany — cross-country variation that dwarfs any resident-level effect.

The one place the burden story does hold for transfers is neuropsychiatric symptoms. A systematic review of 23 studies found high-strength evidence that neuropsychiatric symptoms, comorbidity count and previous transfers were positively associated with emergency department attendance — while living in a care home was negatively associated. Again: the symptoms, not the cognitive stage.

What does rise with advanced dementia is burdensome intervention near the end of life. In a prospective cohort of 323 nursing home residents with advanced dementia, 40.7% underwent at least one burdensome intervention in the last three months of life — hospitalization, emergency visit, parenteral therapy or tube feeding.

And the arrow runs both ways. In 20,698 US residents, infection-related hospitalization was followed by measurable cognitive decline — mean Cognitive Function Scale score rose 0.06 points in the first quarter afterward, with an 18% relative increase in the prevalence of severe impairment, persisting six quarters or more. Any causal language here has to acknowledge that.

The cascade that matters most: sedation, falls, hip fracture

This is where the medication list stops being an administrative question. The chain has four links and the evidence quality differs at each one, so we state them separately.

Link one — sedating medications are associated with falls and fractures

Strong, consistent, and mechanistically unsurprising. All of the following are observational, and all concentrate the risk around starting the drug.

• Benzodiazepines: pooled relative risk of hip fracture 1.34 (95% CI 1.26 to 1.44) across 33 studies and 169,660 hip-fracture cases, rising to 1.83 in current users, with no elevation in past users.
• Z-drugs: pooled relative risk 1.90 (95% CI 1.68 to 2.13) — higher than benzodiazepines at 1.52 in the same review, with the greatest risk in newly prescribed patients.
• In the nursing home, measured directly: in 594 long-stay US residents of mean age 87.5, fall risk was roughly 3.8 times higher in the 24 hours after a benzodiazepine was started (odds ratio 3.79, 95% CI 1.10 to 13.00).
• Opioids: hazard ratio 4.9 (95% CI 3.5 to 6.9) for hip, humerus, ulna or wrist fracture in 12,436 opioid initiators with arthritis, mean age 81, versus NSAID initiators — concentrated in the first two weeks.
• Antipsychotics: fracture incidence rate ratios of 1.97 to 2.98 in the first 30 days after initiation, in a nationwide cohort of 1,540,915 Danes aged 65 and over.

Link two and three — what a hip fracture costs a person

In a retrospective review of 833 hip fracture patients at an Irish urban trauma center, 20.5% had died within one year. In a prospective cohort of 480 hip fracture patients in the Netherlands, only 24% had returned to their pre-fracture level of instrumental activities of daily living at three months, and only 29% at twelve months — meaning roughly seven in ten never got back to where they started.

Link four — and the limit of what that licenses

So a sedating medication with no current indication sits upstream of a catastrophic outcome. That is a real argument and it is the strongest one on this site for reviewing these drugs.

Cognition: three different claims, three different levels of certainty

“Medication affects thinking” collapses three statements that deserve to be separated, because they are not equally well established.

1. Some drugs impair cognition during use — by design, not by accident

For several of the most commonly prescribed classes in this population, cognitive impairment while the drug is being taken is a direct pharmacological consequence of the mechanism. This is not a contested trial outcome.

• Benzodiazepines — including the ones sold as sleeping tablets. They are positive allosteric modulators at the GABA-A receptor, and the memory effect is mediated substantially through α1- and α5-containing subtypes. They impair the acquisition of new memory while leaving memory already formed before the dose intact — which is why the effect is anterograde amnesia, and why midazolam is given during procedures precisely to produce it. Removing the drug removes that ongoing impairment. Benzodiazepines, and which sleeping tablets are benzodiazepines.
• Gabapentinoids bind the α2δ subunit of voltage-activated calcium channels, reducing excitatory neurotransmitter release. The FDA-approved labeling reports somnolence, dizziness and ataxia at greater rates than placebo, and warns of driving impairment. That is sedation and psychomotor slowing — not the specific amnesia benzodiazepines produce, and it should not be described in those terms. Gabapentinoids.
• Anticholinergic drugs — including tricyclic antidepressants and some other antidepressants — act by muscarinic blockade, a different mechanism again, with a smaller and more hedged effect estimate. Anticholinergic burden.

The mechanisms are different and they are additive. A resident on temazepam, amitriptyline and gabapentin is carrying three separate routes to cognitive impairment at once, and no single line on the list looks responsible. That is why the Beers threshold for central nervous system polypharmacy — three or more CNS-active medications — is a property of the list rather than of any drug on it. In 211,783 long-stay US nursing home residents aged 65 and over, 23.2% met it, with gabapentin the agent most frequently involved.

2. Whether cognition recovers after long-term use is the open question

This is where the certainty ends, and the honest answer is “partly, slowly, and probably not completely.”

A meta-analysis of long-term benzodiazepine users found impairment across all twelve cognitive domains examined, with a mean weighted effect size of −0.74 and no confidence interval crossing zero, in users averaging around ten years of use. Its companion meta-analysis of what happens after withdrawal found that users “do show recovery of function in many areas,” while “there remains a significant impairment in most areas of cognition” compared with controls — and that the data “did not support full restitution of function, at least in the first 6 months.”

The best age-appropriate trial randomized 104 long-term benzodiazepine hypnotic users aged 65 and over, double-blind and placebo-controlled, in UK general practice. Sixty percent had taken them continuously for more than ten years and 27% for more than twenty. Eighty percent had successfully withdrawn at six months, withdrawers showed relative improvement on several cognitive and psychomotor tasks at 24 or 52 weeks, and withdrawers and continuers did not differ in sleep. The authors’ own description of the size of the effect: “some subtle cognitive advantages.” Note the timescale — half a year to a year, not weeks.

3. “Deprescribing improves memory” as a general claim — still refused

It does not survive contact with the trial evidence, and this site will not make it.

• A 2026 umbrella review of 27 systematic reviews found clinical outcomes including cognition “inconsistently reported and rarely improved.”
• The Cochrane review of anticholinergic deprescribing found three trials and 299 participants at very low certainty, and concluded it “cannot support or refute” the hypothesis. The cleanest trial in it cut anticholinergic burden decisively — median score fell two units, p < 0.0001 — and produced no cognitive improvement at all (CERAD immediate recall difference 0.54 words, 95% CI −0.91 to 2.05, p = 0.48).
• The Cochrane review of antipsychotic withdrawal found low-certainty evidence of little or no effect on cognitive function across five trials and 365 participants.

One observational study points the other way and deserves reporting: a target-trial-emulation cohort of 12,644 US veterans in long-term care found antihypertensive deprescribing associated with 12% lower odds of cognitive decline per 12-week period (odds ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.99), and 16% lower in residents with dementia. It is not randomized, and its authors say more data are needed.

Stroke and cardiac risk: a risk removed, not a benefit delivered

The regulatory position is unambiguous. On April 11, 2005 the FDA issued a public health advisory on deaths with atypical antipsychotics in elderly patients with behavioral disturbances — fifteen of seventeen placebo-controlled trials showed numerical increases in mortality — and asked for a boxed warning. On June 16, 2008 it extended the same boxed warning to the conventional agents.

Beyond the mortality box, current FDA-approved labeling carries a separate cerebrovascular warning. The risperidone label states verbatim that “in placebo-controlled trials, there was a significantly higher incidence of cerebrovascular adverse events in patients treated with risperidone compared to patients treated with placebo,” in patients of mean age 85. The aripiprazole label reports “a statistically significant dose response relationship for cerebrovascular adverse events” in its fixed-dose study.

Stroke — the strongest figure, and its qualifications

A self-controlled case series of 6,790 UK patients with incident stroke — a design in which each patient is their own control, eliminating all fixed between-person confounding — found a rate ratio during exposed periods of 1.73 (95% CI 1.60 to 1.87) for any antipsychotic, and 3.50 (95% CI 2.97 to 4.12) in patients with dementia against 1.41 in those without. At trial level, a network meta-analysis of 17 randomized trials in 5,373 patients with dementia found risperidone (odds ratio 3.85) and olanzapine (4.28) each roughly quadrupled the odds of a cerebrovascular adverse event versus placebo.

Three qualifications belong with those numbers, and leaving them out would be the same error this site refuses elsewhere.

• Risk is concentrated at initiation, not in chronic use. In 26,157 elderly antipsychotic users, the odds ratio was 9.9 (95% CI 5.7 to 17.2) in the first week and fell to 1.0 (0.7 to 1.3) after three months. Cumulative exposure was not associated with risk at all.
• Some of the observational signal is reverse causation. A self-controlled case series in Australian veterans found stroke risk was already elevated in the week before the first antipsychotic was dispensed (incidence rate ratio 7.2, 95% CI 5.3 to 9.8) — antipsychotics being started for post-stroke delirium.
• The endpoint changes the answer. A methodological review of 44 studies found a two- to three-fold increase when all cerebrovascular events are counted, and no association when the endpoint is stroke requiring hospitalization. A 2026 meta-analysis of people living with dementia found mortality clearly elevated (pooled hazard ratio 1.32, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.56) but cerebrovascular events attenuated and non-significant (1.77, 0.92 to 3.42).

Myocardial infarction — weaker and more mixed. We say so.

We looked, because the question is reasonable. The evidence does not support presenting MI as an established antipsychotic harm in this population.

• The largest disease-specific synthesis — 29 observational studies — found no association with MI: pooled cohort hazard ratio 1.29 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.90), pooled case-control 1.07 (0.94 to 1.23).
• An umbrella review grading six outcomes placed MI in the weakest tier — class III, very low certainty — despite a large point estimate. A big odds ratio with a poor evidence grade is exactly the thing a clinical page should name rather than quote.
• A methods paper using this literature as its worked example concluded that including short-exposure studies “may lead to an exaggerated risk for myocardial infarction.”
• The one credible dementia-specific finding is modest and time-limited: among 37,138 community-dwelling cholinesterase-inhibitor users, the hazard ratio after starting an antipsychotic was 2.19 (95% CI 1.11 to 4.32) at 30 days, 1.62 at 60 days, 1.36 at 90 days, and 1.15 (0.89 to 1.47) at one year. The authors called it exactly that.

Verdict: the stroke signal is real and the MI signal is not established. We publish the time-limited early finding and nothing stronger.

The finding that makes the deprescribing case cleanly

In a cohort of 44,218 typical and 46,089 atypical antipsychotic users against 186,600 matched non-users, sudden cardiac death risk was roughly doubled and clearly dose-related — and former users showed no significantly increased risk (1.13, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.30). It is a property of current exposure, and it goes away when the exposure does. That is the shape of the argument this page is making, stated by the data rather than by us.

Where this meets chemical restraint

A sedative or antipsychotic used to manage behavior rather than to treat a diagnosed condition is a chemical restraint. Everything above converges on it: it carries the stroke and mortality risk, it carries the sedation that sits upstream of a fall, it produces the quietness that gets recorded as decline, and it does not reliably reduce the care burden it was reached for — recall that agitation and aggression was not significantly associated with total care time in the largest adjusted analysis.

The Cochrane evidence on reducing physical restraint in long-term care — 11 studies, 19,003 participants — found that organizational programs building a least-restraint policy into the institution probably reduce restraint use (relative risk 0.86, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.94; belt restraint 0.54, 0.40 to 0.73), while staff education alone had an uncertain effect on very low-certainty evidence.

Common questions

Does a resident with worse dementia cost us more?

On the published evidence, care time rises with severity, but the cost gradient seen across whole populations is driven substantially by more people moving into institutional care rather than by higher spending per resident — and within institutions the gradient is inconsistent. We publish no US figure because we could not source one to this standard, and no projection for any individual facility. How to read a prevalence figure.

Will residents with advanced dementia send us to the emergency room more often?

The evidence says the opposite — five independent datasets and a systematic review find that transfers fall as cognitive impairment deepens, while functional impairment and neuropsychiatric symptoms push them up. What does rise in advanced dementia is burdensome intervention near the end of life. Adopting the framework.

If we reduce sedating medications, will we have fewer hip fractures?

Nobody can promise that, and this site will not. Sedating drugs are strongly associated with falls and fractures while they are being taken, most sharply in the days after starting. But trials of deprescribing programs have not shown a reduction in fall rates. The honest reason to review the drug is that it should not be there without a current reason. Deprescribing and falls.

Would my resident remember more if she came off her sleeping tablet?

If the tablet is a benzodiazepine — temazepam, triazolam, flurazepam, estazolam and quazepam all are — then it is impairing the formation of new memories while it is being taken, and that is pharmacology rather than a side effect. Removing it removes that ongoing impairment. How much of the longer-term deficit recovers after years of use is genuinely uncertain: the trial evidence in older adults shows real but, in the authors’ own word, “subtle” gains measured at six to twelve months. Benzodiazepines.

Back to the facility track.

References

1. Vossius C, Selbæk G, Šaltytė Benth J, Wimo A, Bergh S. The use of direct care in nursing home residents: A longitudinal cohort study over 3 years. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2019;34(2):337–351. PMID 30430646 · DOI 10.1002/gps.5026.
2. Privosnik L, Baxter R, Corneliusson L, Lövheim H, Sköldunger A. Resource Use in Swedish Nursing Homes: A Repeated Cross-Sectional Follow-Up Study. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2026;41(6):e70228. PMID 42250257 · DOI 10.1002/gps.70228.
3. Luttenberger K, Graessel E. Recording care time in nursing homes: development and validation of the “RUD-FOCA” (Resource Utilization in Dementia — Formal Care). International Psychogeriatrics. 2010;22(8):1291–1300. PMID 20478097 · DOI 10.1017/S1041610210000487.
4. Henskens M, Nauta IM, Drost KT, Milders MV, Scherder EJA. Predictors of care dependency in nursing home residents with moderate to severe dementia: A cross-sectional study. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2019;92:47–54. PMID 30703703 · DOI 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2018.12.005.
5. Björk S, Juthberg C, Lindkvist M, et al. Exploring the prevalence and variance of cognitive impairment, pain, neuropsychiatric symptoms and ADL dependency among persons living in nursing homes; a cross-sectional study. BMC Geriatrics. 2016;16(1):154. PMID 27549203 · DOI 10.1186/s12877-016-0328-9.
6. Vislapuu M, Berge LI, Angeles RC, et al. Factors associated with formal and informal resource utilization in nursing home patients with and without dementia: cross-sectional analyses from the COSMOS trial. BMC Health Services Research. 2022;22(1):1306. PMID 36324159 · DOI 10.1186/s12913-022-08675-y.
7. Haro JM, Kahle-Wrobleski K, Bruno G, et al. Analysis of burden in caregivers of people with Alzheimer’s disease using self-report and supervision hours. The Journal of Nutrition, Health & Aging. 2014;18(7):677–684. PMID 25226106 · DOI 10.1007/s12603-014-0500-x.
8. Rapp T, Andrieu S, Chartier F, et al. Resource Use and Cost of Alzheimer’s Disease in France: 18-Month Results from the GERAS Observational Study. Value in Health. 2018;21(3):295–303. PMID 29566836 · DOI 10.1016/j.jval.2017.09.019.
9. Jönsson L, Tate A, Frisell O, Wimo A. The Costs of Dementia in Europe: An Updated Review and Meta-analysis. PharmacoEconomics. 2023;41(1):59–75. PMID 36376775 · DOI 10.1007/s40273-022-01212-z.
10. Aye S, Frisell O, Zetterberg H, et al. Costs of Care in Relation to Alzheimer’s Disease Severity in Sweden: A National Registry-Based Cohort Study. PharmacoEconomics. 2024;43(2):153–169. PMID 39485581 · DOI 10.1007/s40273-024-01443-2.
11. Stephens CE, Newcomer R, Blegen M, Miller B, Harrington C. Emergency department use by nursing home residents: effect of severity of cognitive impairment. The Gerontologist. 2012;52(3):383–393. PMID 22056961 · DOI 10.1093/geront/gnr109.
12. Stephens CE, Newcomer R, Blegen M, Miller B, Harrington C. The effects of cognitive impairment on nursing home residents’ emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Alzheimer’s & Dementia. 2014;10(6):835–843. PMID 25028060 · DOI 10.1016/j.jalz.2014.03.010.
13. McArthur C, Rostami M, Saarela O, Suria MO, Feng C, Berg K. Resident-Level Factors Associated with Hospitalization Rates for Newly Admitted Long-Term Care Residents in Canada: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Canadian Journal on Aging. 2019;38(4):441–448. PMID 30761965 · DOI 10.1017/S0714980818000715.
14. Gruneir A, Cigsar C, Wang X, et al. Repeat emergency department visits by nursing home residents: a cohort study using health administrative data. BMC Geriatrics. 2018;18(1):157. PMID 29976135 · DOI 10.1186/s12877-018-0854-8.
15. Williamson LE, Evans CJ, Cripps RL, Leniz J, Yorganci E, Sleeman KE. Factors Associated With Emergency Department Visits by People With Dementia Near the End of Life: A Systematic Review. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2021;22(10):2046–2055.e35. PMID 34273269 · DOI 10.1016/j.jamda.2021.06.012.
16. Hoffmann F, Strautmann A, Allers K. Hospitalization at the end of life among nursing home residents with dementia: a systematic review. BMC Palliative Care. 2019;18(1):77. PMID 31506100 · DOI 10.1186/s12904-019-0462-1.
17. Mitchell SL, Teno JM, Kiely DK, et al. The clinical course of advanced dementia. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2009;361(16):1529–1538. PMID 19828530 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa0902234.
18. Gracner T, Agarwal M, Murali KP, et al. Association of Infection-Related Hospitalization With Cognitive Impairment Among Nursing Home Residents. JAMA Network Open. 2021;4(4):e217528. PMID 33890988 · DOI 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.7528.
19. Poly TN, Islam MM, Yang HC, Li YJ. Association between benzodiazepines use and risk of hip fracture in the elderly people: A meta-analysis of observational studies. Joint Bone Spine. 2020;87(3):241–249. PMID 31778821 · DOI 10.1016/j.jbspin.2019.11.003.
20. Donnelly K, Bracchi R, Hewitt J, Routledge PA, Carter B. Benzodiazepines, Z-drugs and the risk of hip fracture: A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12(4):e0174730. PMID 28448593 · DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0174730.
21. Berry SD, Placide SG, Mostofsky E, et al. Antipsychotic and Benzodiazepine Drug Changes Affect Acute Falls Risk Differently in the Nursing Home. The Journals of Gerontology Series A. 2016;71(2):273–278. PMID 26248560 · DOI 10.1093/gerona/glv091.
22. Miller M, Stürmer T, Azrael D, Levin R, Solomon DH. Opioid analgesics and the risk of fractures in older adults with arthritis. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2011;59(3):430–438. PMID 21391934 · DOI 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03318.x.
23. Torstensson M, Leth-Møller K, Andersson C, Torp-Pedersen C, Gislason GH, Holm EA. Danish register-based study on the association between specific antipsychotic drugs and fractures in elderly individuals. Age and Ageing. 2017;46(2):258–264. PMID 27932365 · DOI 10.1093/ageing/afw209.
24. Ferris H, Merron G, Coughlan T. 1 year mortality after hip fracture in an Irish urban trauma centre. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders. 2023;24(1):487. PMID 37312089 · DOI 10.1186/s12891-023-06605-5.
25. Moerman S, Mathijssen NMC, Tuinebreijer WE, Nelissen RGHH, Vochteloo AJH. Less than one-third of hip fracture patients return to their prefracture level of instrumental activities of daily living in a prospective cohort study of 480 patients. Geriatrics & Gerontology International. 2018;18(8):1244–1248. PMID 30004174 · DOI 10.1111/ggi.13471.
26. Lee J, Negm A, Peters R, Wong EKC, Holbrook A. Deprescribing fall-risk increasing drugs (FRIDs) for the prevention of falls and fall-related complications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2021;11(2):e035978. PMID 33568364 · DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035978.
27. Dyer SM, Kwok WS, Suen J, et al. Interventions for preventing falls in older people in care facilities. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2025;8(8):CD016064. PMID 40832852 · DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD016064.
28. Savić MM, Obradović DI, Ugrešić ND, Bokonjić DR. Memory effects of benzodiazepines: memory stages and types versus binding-site subtypes. Neural Plasticity. 2005;12(4):289–298. PMID 16444900 · DOI 10.1155/NP.2005.289.
29. Barker MJ, Greenwood KM, Jackson M, Crowe SF. Cognitive effects of long-term benzodiazepine use: a meta-analysis. CNS Drugs. 2004;18(1):37–48. PMID 14731058 · DOI 10.2165/00023210-200418010-00004.
30. Barker MJ, Greenwood KM, Jackson M, Crowe SF. Persistence of cognitive effects after withdrawal from long-term benzodiazepine use: a meta-analysis. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. 2004;19(3):437–454. PMID 15033227 · DOI 10.1016/S0887-6177(03)00096-9.
31. Curran HV, Collins R, Fletcher S, Kee SCY, Woods B, Iliffe S. Older adults and withdrawal from benzodiazepine hypnotics in general practice: effects on cognitive function, sleep, mood and quality of life. Psychological Medicine. 2003;33(7):1223–1237. PMID 14580077 · DOI 10.1017/s0033291703008213.
32. O’Hara-Veintimilla K, Páez-García S, Ramirez-Triana J, Torres-Tello K, Verhelst-Forero P, Borda MG. Safety and effectiveness of strategies to deprescribe chronic benzodiazepine receptor agonist use in older adults: a systematic review. Age and Ageing. 2026;55(5):afag112. PMID 42089738 · DOI 10.1093/ageing/afag112.
33. Parke-Davis, Division of Pfizer Inc. NEURONTIN (gabapentin) capsules, tablets and oral solution — FDA-approved prescribing information. DailyMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine. 2026. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=ee9ad9ed-6d9f-4ee1-9d7f-cfad438df388.
34. Jung H, Liu SH, Hume AL, et al. The Prevalence of Central Nervous System-Active Polypharmacy in US Nursing Homes. Journal of the American Medical Directors Association. 2026;27(6):106178. PMID 41895707 · DOI 10.1016/j.jamda.2026.106178.
35. By the 2023 American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria Update Expert Panel. American Geriatrics Society 2023 updated AGS Beers Criteria for potentially inappropriate medication use in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. 2023;71(7):2052–2081. PMID 37139824 · DOI 10.1111/jgs.18372.
36. García Álvarez Á, Riera Serra P, Ricci-Cabello I, et al. Effectiveness and safety of focused deprescribing interventions targeting specific drug classes in older adults across clinical settings: an umbrella systematic literature review. Age and Ageing. 2026;55(8):afag243. PMID 42607278 · DOI 10.1093/ageing/afag243.
37. Taylor-Rowan M, Alharthi AA, Noel-Storr AH, Myint PK, Stewart C, McCleery J, Quinn TJ. Anticholinergic deprescribing interventions for reducing risk of cognitive decline or dementia in older adults with and without prior cognitive impairment. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2023;12(12):CD015405. PMID 38063254 · DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD015405.pub2.
38. Kersten H, Molden E, Tolo IK, Skovlund E, Engedal K, Wyller TB. Cognitive effects of reducing anticholinergic drug burden in a frail elderly population: a randomized controlled trial. The Journals of Gerontology Series A. 2013;68(3):271–278. PMID 22982689 · DOI 10.1093/gerona/gls176.
39. Van Leeuwen E, Petrovic M, van Driel ML, et al. Withdrawal versus continuation of long-term antipsychotic drug use for behavioural and psychological symptoms in older people with dementia. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2018;3(3):CD007726. PMID 29605970 · DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD007726.pub3.
40. Jing B, Liu X, Graham LA, et al. Deprescribing of Antihypertensive Medications and Cognitive Function in Nursing Home Residents. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2024;184(11):1347–1355. PMID 39312220 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2024.4851.
41. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Public Health Advisory: Deaths with Antipsychotics in Elderly Patients with Behavioral Disturbances. April 11, 2005. fda.gov. 2005. https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170406045738/https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm053171.htm.
42. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Information for Healthcare Professionals: Conventional Antipsychotics. June 16, 2008. fda.gov. 2008. https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170112031213/http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/ucm124830.htm.
43. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. RISPERDAL (risperidone) tablets, orally disintegrating tablets and oral solution — FDA-approved prescribing information, §5.2 Cerebrovascular Adverse Reactions. DailyMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine. 2026. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=7e117c7e-02fc-4343-92a1-230061dfc5e0.
44. Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. ABILIFY (aripiprazole) tablets — FDA-approved prescribing information, §5.2 Cerebrovascular Adverse Events, Including Stroke. DailyMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine. 2025. https://dailymed.nlm.nih.gov/dailymed/drugInfo.cfm?setid=c040bd1d-45b7-49f2-93ea-aed7220b30ac.
45. Douglas IJ, Smeeth L. Exposure to antipsychotics and risk of stroke: self controlled case series study. BMJ. 2008;337:a1227. PMID 18755769 · DOI 10.1136/bmj.a1227.
46. Yunusa I, Alsumali A, Garba AE, Regestein QR, Eguale T. Assessment of Reported Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Atypical Antipsychotics in the Treatment of Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia: A Network Meta-analysis. JAMA Network Open. 2019;2(3):e190828. PMID 30901041 · DOI 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.0828.
47. Kleijer BC, van Marum RJ, Egberts ACG, Jansen PAF, Knol W, Heerdink ER. Risk of cerebrovascular events in elderly users of antipsychotics. Journal of Psychopharmacology. 2009;23(8):909–914. PMID 18635700 · DOI 10.1177/0269881108093583.
48. Pratt NL, Roughead EE, Ramsay E, Salter A, Ryan P. Risk of hospitalization for stroke associated with antipsychotic use in the elderly: a self-controlled case series. Drugs & Aging. 2010;27(11):885–893. PMID 20964462 · DOI 10.2165/11584490-000000000-00000.
49. Pratt N, Roughead EE, Salter A, Ryan P. Choice of observational study design impacts on measurement of antipsychotic risks in the elderly: a systematic review. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2012;12:72. PMID 22682666 · DOI 10.1186/1471-2288-12-72.
50. Thant PE, Zenker A, Jarl J, et al. The consequences of antipsychotic medication use for people living with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2026;17:1817609. PMID 42179989 · DOI 10.3389/fpsyt.2026.1817609.
51. Zivkovic S, Koh CH, Kaza N, Jackson CA. Antipsychotic drug use and risk of stroke and myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Psychiatry. 2019;19(1):189. PMID 31221107 · DOI 10.1186/s12888-019-2177-5.
52. Papola D, Ostuzzi G, Gastaldon C, et al. Antipsychotic use and risk of life-threatening medical events: umbrella review of observational studies. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 2019;140(3):227–243. PMID 31264708 · DOI 10.1111/acps.13066.
53. Pariente A, Fourrier-Réglat A, Ducruet T, et al. Antipsychotic use and myocardial infarction in older patients with treated dementia. Archives of Internal Medicine. 2012;172(8):648–653. PMID 22450214 · DOI 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.28.
54. Ray WA, Chung CP, Murray KT, Hall K, Stein CM. Atypical antipsychotic drugs and the risk of sudden cardiac death. The New England Journal of Medicine. 2009;360(3):225–235. PMID 19144938 · DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa0806994.
55. Möhler R, Richter T, Köpke S, Meyer G. Interventions for preventing and reducing the use of physical restraints for older people in all long-term care settings. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2023;7(7):CD007546. PMID 37500094 · DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD007546.pub3.

Bibliographic records on this page were retrieved from PubMed. Regulatory text was read from FDA-approved labeling on DailyMed. Every reference links to its DOI or PubMed record.

Written and medically reviewed by Dr. Gurpreet Singh Padda, MD, MBA, MHP, founder and medical director of DWARAA. Last reviewed August 21, 2026. This page is educational. DWARAA does not prescribe, deprescribe, diagnose or treat.