User login
Hospitalists play key role in advance care planning
Advance care planning (ACP) is a process that supports adults at any age or stage of health in understanding and sharing their personal values, life goals, and preferences for future medical care, according to Meredith A. MacMartin, MD, director of inpatient palliative care at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.
ACP “is really about planning for care in advance,” and in many ways, the inpatient setting is uniquely suited to this process, Dr. MacMartin said in a presentation at SHM Converge 2021, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “The key part is the advance part. You want conversations to happen before the care is actually needed,” she said.
Dr. MacMartin emphasized the importance of distinguishing between ACP and advance directives (ADs). ACP is a process, whereas ADs are documentation, “ideally of the content of advance care planning discussions,” she explained. ACP involves discussion about what is important to the patients, their goals, what information is helpful for them, and whether their current care is aligned with their goals, Dr. MacMartin said. ADs might involve a designated power of attorney for health care, a living will, and, in some states, specific clinician-signed orders regarding resuscitation or transport to hospital.
ACP is “more than whether a patient wants CPR [cardiopulmonary resuscitation] or not,” said Dr. MacMartin. ACP matters because it helps ensure that the care a patient receives aligns with the patient’s wishes and values, she said. ACP increases the likelihood that patients will die in their preferred locations, it allows them to discuss their wishes and prepare for decline, and it relieves family members of the burden of decision making, she said. From a hospital perspective, data show that use of an ACP can decrease intensive care unit (ICU) utilization and overall health care costs. “Often, when people are given the opportunity to express their wishes, they get less unnecessary care,” Dr. MacMartin noted.
Although ACP often takes place in an outpatient setting, hospitalists are in a unique position to conduct some ACP conversations with their patients, Dr. MacMartin said. “Hospitalists are available” and are physically present at least once a day, so there is a pragmatic advantage. Also, some data suggest that patients may feel more comfortable having ACP conversations with a hospitalist than with a primary care provider with whom they have a long-standing relationship, Dr. MacMartin added.
Another important advantage of ACP in the hospital setting is that, “as hospitalists, you are the expert on inpatient illness; you know what sick looks like, and you have a unique perspective on prognostication that may be harder to recreate in the outpatient setting,” Dr. MacMartin said.
Barriers to ACP include patient identification, logistics, attitudes
Settings in which ACP is appropriate include those in which a patient is undergoing “sentinel hospitalization,” meaning that the patient is at a transition point in the disease course. Examples are a patient newly diagnosed with metastatic solid cancer, a patient with progressive chronic kidney disease who is considering hemodialysis, or a patient who receives treatment in the ICU for longer than 7 days, Dr. MacMartin said.
Guidelines for identifying patients who might benefit from ACP include the use of the “surprise question” (“would you be surprised if this patient dies in the next year?”) as well as functional status assessments using tools such as the Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status or the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, said Dr. MacMartin. Some studies suggest that any hospitalized patient older than 65 years should have an ACP discussion, she added.
Time pressure remains a significant barrier to ACP conversations. Some strategies to overcome this problem include enlisting help from other specialists, particularly social workers, Dr. MacMartin said. Social workers report a higher comfort level for talking to patients about death than any other medical specialty; “this is something they want to be doing,” she said. Also, the possibility of reimbursement may act as a buffer to create more time to have ACP conversations with patients, she noted.
Addressing clinicians’ discomfort with ACP conversations can be “a tougher nut to crack,” Dr. MacMartin acknowledged. Clinicians report that they don’t want to cause their patients distress, and some report that having conversations about end-of-life care is distressing for them as well. Some of these barriers can be overcome with skills training, including use of a prepared guideline or framework to help increase the comfort level for both clinicians and patients, said Dr. MacMartin.
A look ahead: Training strategies and COVID-19 impact
“For hospitalists interested in developing their ACP skills, I highly recommend two resources,” Dr. MacMartin said in an interview. “The Serious Illness Conversation Guide, from Ariadne Labs, is an excellent tool for any clinician to guide discussion about a patient’s goals and values,” she said.
“For clinicians wanting to build or improve their communication, including advance care planning discussions but also topics like responding to patient’s emotions, VitalTalk training offers a deeper dive into core communications skills,” she added.
“If your hospital has a palliative care team, they may also have more local resources available to you. To learn more about billing for ACP discussions, I recommend starting with your institutional billing and coding group, as these practices vary some between practices, and they will be able to provide the best guidance for clinicians. These are new codes that aren’t yet being very widely used so it’s a chance to innovate,” Dr. MacMartin noted.
“The hospital setting is an opportunity for patients to reflect on their health, both present and in the future, with a physician who has expertise in acute illness and prognostication and who is available for discussion on a daily basis during the hospitalization,” Dr. MacMartin emphasized.
As for whether the COVID-19 pandemic has affected ACP in the inpatient setting, the data are limited, but more information is forthcoming, Dr. MacMartin said. “In my personal experience and in talking to colleagues elsewhere, the pandemic has highlighted the need for ACP in some ways, as we have tried to ensure that people who wouldn’t want things like intensive care are identified early,” she said. “I hope that some of the workflows developed to identify patients who should get ACP in the hospital stay in practice and are strengthened over time,” she added.
Dr. MacMartin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Advance care planning (ACP) is a process that supports adults at any age or stage of health in understanding and sharing their personal values, life goals, and preferences for future medical care, according to Meredith A. MacMartin, MD, director of inpatient palliative care at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.
ACP “is really about planning for care in advance,” and in many ways, the inpatient setting is uniquely suited to this process, Dr. MacMartin said in a presentation at SHM Converge 2021, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “The key part is the advance part. You want conversations to happen before the care is actually needed,” she said.
Dr. MacMartin emphasized the importance of distinguishing between ACP and advance directives (ADs). ACP is a process, whereas ADs are documentation, “ideally of the content of advance care planning discussions,” she explained. ACP involves discussion about what is important to the patients, their goals, what information is helpful for them, and whether their current care is aligned with their goals, Dr. MacMartin said. ADs might involve a designated power of attorney for health care, a living will, and, in some states, specific clinician-signed orders regarding resuscitation or transport to hospital.
ACP is “more than whether a patient wants CPR [cardiopulmonary resuscitation] or not,” said Dr. MacMartin. ACP matters because it helps ensure that the care a patient receives aligns with the patient’s wishes and values, she said. ACP increases the likelihood that patients will die in their preferred locations, it allows them to discuss their wishes and prepare for decline, and it relieves family members of the burden of decision making, she said. From a hospital perspective, data show that use of an ACP can decrease intensive care unit (ICU) utilization and overall health care costs. “Often, when people are given the opportunity to express their wishes, they get less unnecessary care,” Dr. MacMartin noted.
Although ACP often takes place in an outpatient setting, hospitalists are in a unique position to conduct some ACP conversations with their patients, Dr. MacMartin said. “Hospitalists are available” and are physically present at least once a day, so there is a pragmatic advantage. Also, some data suggest that patients may feel more comfortable having ACP conversations with a hospitalist than with a primary care provider with whom they have a long-standing relationship, Dr. MacMartin added.
Another important advantage of ACP in the hospital setting is that, “as hospitalists, you are the expert on inpatient illness; you know what sick looks like, and you have a unique perspective on prognostication that may be harder to recreate in the outpatient setting,” Dr. MacMartin said.
Barriers to ACP include patient identification, logistics, attitudes
Settings in which ACP is appropriate include those in which a patient is undergoing “sentinel hospitalization,” meaning that the patient is at a transition point in the disease course. Examples are a patient newly diagnosed with metastatic solid cancer, a patient with progressive chronic kidney disease who is considering hemodialysis, or a patient who receives treatment in the ICU for longer than 7 days, Dr. MacMartin said.
Guidelines for identifying patients who might benefit from ACP include the use of the “surprise question” (“would you be surprised if this patient dies in the next year?”) as well as functional status assessments using tools such as the Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status or the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, said Dr. MacMartin. Some studies suggest that any hospitalized patient older than 65 years should have an ACP discussion, she added.
Time pressure remains a significant barrier to ACP conversations. Some strategies to overcome this problem include enlisting help from other specialists, particularly social workers, Dr. MacMartin said. Social workers report a higher comfort level for talking to patients about death than any other medical specialty; “this is something they want to be doing,” she said. Also, the possibility of reimbursement may act as a buffer to create more time to have ACP conversations with patients, she noted.
Addressing clinicians’ discomfort with ACP conversations can be “a tougher nut to crack,” Dr. MacMartin acknowledged. Clinicians report that they don’t want to cause their patients distress, and some report that having conversations about end-of-life care is distressing for them as well. Some of these barriers can be overcome with skills training, including use of a prepared guideline or framework to help increase the comfort level for both clinicians and patients, said Dr. MacMartin.
A look ahead: Training strategies and COVID-19 impact
“For hospitalists interested in developing their ACP skills, I highly recommend two resources,” Dr. MacMartin said in an interview. “The Serious Illness Conversation Guide, from Ariadne Labs, is an excellent tool for any clinician to guide discussion about a patient’s goals and values,” she said.
“For clinicians wanting to build or improve their communication, including advance care planning discussions but also topics like responding to patient’s emotions, VitalTalk training offers a deeper dive into core communications skills,” she added.
“If your hospital has a palliative care team, they may also have more local resources available to you. To learn more about billing for ACP discussions, I recommend starting with your institutional billing and coding group, as these practices vary some between practices, and they will be able to provide the best guidance for clinicians. These are new codes that aren’t yet being very widely used so it’s a chance to innovate,” Dr. MacMartin noted.
“The hospital setting is an opportunity for patients to reflect on their health, both present and in the future, with a physician who has expertise in acute illness and prognostication and who is available for discussion on a daily basis during the hospitalization,” Dr. MacMartin emphasized.
As for whether the COVID-19 pandemic has affected ACP in the inpatient setting, the data are limited, but more information is forthcoming, Dr. MacMartin said. “In my personal experience and in talking to colleagues elsewhere, the pandemic has highlighted the need for ACP in some ways, as we have tried to ensure that people who wouldn’t want things like intensive care are identified early,” she said. “I hope that some of the workflows developed to identify patients who should get ACP in the hospital stay in practice and are strengthened over time,” she added.
Dr. MacMartin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Advance care planning (ACP) is a process that supports adults at any age or stage of health in understanding and sharing their personal values, life goals, and preferences for future medical care, according to Meredith A. MacMartin, MD, director of inpatient palliative care at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H.
ACP “is really about planning for care in advance,” and in many ways, the inpatient setting is uniquely suited to this process, Dr. MacMartin said in a presentation at SHM Converge 2021, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. “The key part is the advance part. You want conversations to happen before the care is actually needed,” she said.
Dr. MacMartin emphasized the importance of distinguishing between ACP and advance directives (ADs). ACP is a process, whereas ADs are documentation, “ideally of the content of advance care planning discussions,” she explained. ACP involves discussion about what is important to the patients, their goals, what information is helpful for them, and whether their current care is aligned with their goals, Dr. MacMartin said. ADs might involve a designated power of attorney for health care, a living will, and, in some states, specific clinician-signed orders regarding resuscitation or transport to hospital.
ACP is “more than whether a patient wants CPR [cardiopulmonary resuscitation] or not,” said Dr. MacMartin. ACP matters because it helps ensure that the care a patient receives aligns with the patient’s wishes and values, she said. ACP increases the likelihood that patients will die in their preferred locations, it allows them to discuss their wishes and prepare for decline, and it relieves family members of the burden of decision making, she said. From a hospital perspective, data show that use of an ACP can decrease intensive care unit (ICU) utilization and overall health care costs. “Often, when people are given the opportunity to express their wishes, they get less unnecessary care,” Dr. MacMartin noted.
Although ACP often takes place in an outpatient setting, hospitalists are in a unique position to conduct some ACP conversations with their patients, Dr. MacMartin said. “Hospitalists are available” and are physically present at least once a day, so there is a pragmatic advantage. Also, some data suggest that patients may feel more comfortable having ACP conversations with a hospitalist than with a primary care provider with whom they have a long-standing relationship, Dr. MacMartin added.
Another important advantage of ACP in the hospital setting is that, “as hospitalists, you are the expert on inpatient illness; you know what sick looks like, and you have a unique perspective on prognostication that may be harder to recreate in the outpatient setting,” Dr. MacMartin said.
Barriers to ACP include patient identification, logistics, attitudes
Settings in which ACP is appropriate include those in which a patient is undergoing “sentinel hospitalization,” meaning that the patient is at a transition point in the disease course. Examples are a patient newly diagnosed with metastatic solid cancer, a patient with progressive chronic kidney disease who is considering hemodialysis, or a patient who receives treatment in the ICU for longer than 7 days, Dr. MacMartin said.
Guidelines for identifying patients who might benefit from ACP include the use of the “surprise question” (“would you be surprised if this patient dies in the next year?”) as well as functional status assessments using tools such as the Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status or the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group score, said Dr. MacMartin. Some studies suggest that any hospitalized patient older than 65 years should have an ACP discussion, she added.
Time pressure remains a significant barrier to ACP conversations. Some strategies to overcome this problem include enlisting help from other specialists, particularly social workers, Dr. MacMartin said. Social workers report a higher comfort level for talking to patients about death than any other medical specialty; “this is something they want to be doing,” she said. Also, the possibility of reimbursement may act as a buffer to create more time to have ACP conversations with patients, she noted.
Addressing clinicians’ discomfort with ACP conversations can be “a tougher nut to crack,” Dr. MacMartin acknowledged. Clinicians report that they don’t want to cause their patients distress, and some report that having conversations about end-of-life care is distressing for them as well. Some of these barriers can be overcome with skills training, including use of a prepared guideline or framework to help increase the comfort level for both clinicians and patients, said Dr. MacMartin.
A look ahead: Training strategies and COVID-19 impact
“For hospitalists interested in developing their ACP skills, I highly recommend two resources,” Dr. MacMartin said in an interview. “The Serious Illness Conversation Guide, from Ariadne Labs, is an excellent tool for any clinician to guide discussion about a patient’s goals and values,” she said.
“For clinicians wanting to build or improve their communication, including advance care planning discussions but also topics like responding to patient’s emotions, VitalTalk training offers a deeper dive into core communications skills,” she added.
“If your hospital has a palliative care team, they may also have more local resources available to you. To learn more about billing for ACP discussions, I recommend starting with your institutional billing and coding group, as these practices vary some between practices, and they will be able to provide the best guidance for clinicians. These are new codes that aren’t yet being very widely used so it’s a chance to innovate,” Dr. MacMartin noted.
“The hospital setting is an opportunity for patients to reflect on their health, both present and in the future, with a physician who has expertise in acute illness and prognostication and who is available for discussion on a daily basis during the hospitalization,” Dr. MacMartin emphasized.
As for whether the COVID-19 pandemic has affected ACP in the inpatient setting, the data are limited, but more information is forthcoming, Dr. MacMartin said. “In my personal experience and in talking to colleagues elsewhere, the pandemic has highlighted the need for ACP in some ways, as we have tried to ensure that people who wouldn’t want things like intensive care are identified early,” she said. “I hope that some of the workflows developed to identify patients who should get ACP in the hospital stay in practice and are strengthened over time,” she added.
Dr. MacMartin has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM SHM CONVERGE 2021
Daily cup of coffee cuts type 2 diabetes risk by about 5%
Drinking one cup of coffee each day lowered individual risk for developing type 2 diabetes 4%-6%, according to data from a pair of large, population-based cohorts.
Coffee had previously been associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, said Carolina Ochoa-Rosales, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. However, the potential impact of coffee consumption on the subclinical inflammation associated with type 2 diabetes has not been well studied, she said.
In a study presented at the American Heart Association’s virtual Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health meeting, Dr. Ochoa-Rosales and colleagues reviewed information for men and women who were enrolled in the UK Biobank Study (145,368) and in the Rotterdam Study (7,172).
Coffee consumption assessment was based on interviews, while diabetes incidence was based on fasting glucose measures, general medical records, and pharmacy records of type 2 diabetes drugs.
The researchers used a Cox proportional hazard model to determine the association between coffee and type 2 diabetes, controlling for sociodemographic, health, and lifestyle factors.
Overall, an increase of one coffee cup a day was associated with a 4%-6% reduced risk of type 2 diabetes (hazard ratios, 0.94 for the Rotterdam Study and 0.96 for the UK Biobank study). The effects appeared strongest in drinkers of filtered or ground coffee vs. those who reported drinking mainly instant coffee, she added.
Also, an increase in coffee consumption of one cup a day was linked to lower levels of longitudinally assessed homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), with lower C reactive protein (CRP) and higher levels of adiponectin, Dr. Ochoa-Rosales said.
Levels of CRP and adiponectin may contribute to the association between coffee consumption and diabetes risk, she said. In a mediation analysis, CRP levels mediated roughly 3%-9% of the effect of coffee on type 2 diabetes risk; some effect was observed for adiponectin, but did not reach statistical significance, she added.
The study findings were limited by the lack of control for all potential confounding variables, and the results must be interpreted cautiously, Dr. Ochoa-Rosales said. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and suggest that coffee’s beneficial effects on lowering type 2 diabetes risk are partially mediated by improvements in systemic inflammation, she concluded. “Other mediators that we did not investigate may also play a role,” she said.
Large cohort adds credibility
Although the associations between coffee and type 2 diabetes have been previously reported, “this study offers important findings due to the carefully standardized analyses on these two major data sources,” Linda Van Horn, PhD, RD, said in an interview.
But what makes this study different is that “these investigators hypothesized that this association could be due to an anti-inflammatory benefit,” she said.
The take-home message for clinicians is that drinking moderate amounts of filtered coffee offers a potentially reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Van Horn, of Northwestern University, Chicago. However, additional research is needed to account for the total amount of coffee per day, and whether additions such as cream or sugar or other additives make a difference in outcomes, she added.
“Also, the risk vs. benefit of drinking coffee over the life course, including childhood, pregnancy, and older age, with possible adverse drug-nutrient interactions, remain unexplored,” she noted.
Dr. Ochoa-Rosales disclosed study funding from the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee but had no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Van Horn had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Drinking one cup of coffee each day lowered individual risk for developing type 2 diabetes 4%-6%, according to data from a pair of large, population-based cohorts.
Coffee had previously been associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, said Carolina Ochoa-Rosales, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. However, the potential impact of coffee consumption on the subclinical inflammation associated with type 2 diabetes has not been well studied, she said.
In a study presented at the American Heart Association’s virtual Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health meeting, Dr. Ochoa-Rosales and colleagues reviewed information for men and women who were enrolled in the UK Biobank Study (145,368) and in the Rotterdam Study (7,172).
Coffee consumption assessment was based on interviews, while diabetes incidence was based on fasting glucose measures, general medical records, and pharmacy records of type 2 diabetes drugs.
The researchers used a Cox proportional hazard model to determine the association between coffee and type 2 diabetes, controlling for sociodemographic, health, and lifestyle factors.
Overall, an increase of one coffee cup a day was associated with a 4%-6% reduced risk of type 2 diabetes (hazard ratios, 0.94 for the Rotterdam Study and 0.96 for the UK Biobank study). The effects appeared strongest in drinkers of filtered or ground coffee vs. those who reported drinking mainly instant coffee, she added.
Also, an increase in coffee consumption of one cup a day was linked to lower levels of longitudinally assessed homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), with lower C reactive protein (CRP) and higher levels of adiponectin, Dr. Ochoa-Rosales said.
Levels of CRP and adiponectin may contribute to the association between coffee consumption and diabetes risk, she said. In a mediation analysis, CRP levels mediated roughly 3%-9% of the effect of coffee on type 2 diabetes risk; some effect was observed for adiponectin, but did not reach statistical significance, she added.
The study findings were limited by the lack of control for all potential confounding variables, and the results must be interpreted cautiously, Dr. Ochoa-Rosales said. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and suggest that coffee’s beneficial effects on lowering type 2 diabetes risk are partially mediated by improvements in systemic inflammation, she concluded. “Other mediators that we did not investigate may also play a role,” she said.
Large cohort adds credibility
Although the associations between coffee and type 2 diabetes have been previously reported, “this study offers important findings due to the carefully standardized analyses on these two major data sources,” Linda Van Horn, PhD, RD, said in an interview.
But what makes this study different is that “these investigators hypothesized that this association could be due to an anti-inflammatory benefit,” she said.
The take-home message for clinicians is that drinking moderate amounts of filtered coffee offers a potentially reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Van Horn, of Northwestern University, Chicago. However, additional research is needed to account for the total amount of coffee per day, and whether additions such as cream or sugar or other additives make a difference in outcomes, she added.
“Also, the risk vs. benefit of drinking coffee over the life course, including childhood, pregnancy, and older age, with possible adverse drug-nutrient interactions, remain unexplored,” she noted.
Dr. Ochoa-Rosales disclosed study funding from the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee but had no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Van Horn had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Drinking one cup of coffee each day lowered individual risk for developing type 2 diabetes 4%-6%, according to data from a pair of large, population-based cohorts.
Coffee had previously been associated with a lower risk of type 2 diabetes, said Carolina Ochoa-Rosales, PhD, of Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands. However, the potential impact of coffee consumption on the subclinical inflammation associated with type 2 diabetes has not been well studied, she said.
In a study presented at the American Heart Association’s virtual Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle & Cardiometabolic Health meeting, Dr. Ochoa-Rosales and colleagues reviewed information for men and women who were enrolled in the UK Biobank Study (145,368) and in the Rotterdam Study (7,172).
Coffee consumption assessment was based on interviews, while diabetes incidence was based on fasting glucose measures, general medical records, and pharmacy records of type 2 diabetes drugs.
The researchers used a Cox proportional hazard model to determine the association between coffee and type 2 diabetes, controlling for sociodemographic, health, and lifestyle factors.
Overall, an increase of one coffee cup a day was associated with a 4%-6% reduced risk of type 2 diabetes (hazard ratios, 0.94 for the Rotterdam Study and 0.96 for the UK Biobank study). The effects appeared strongest in drinkers of filtered or ground coffee vs. those who reported drinking mainly instant coffee, she added.
Also, an increase in coffee consumption of one cup a day was linked to lower levels of longitudinally assessed homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance (HOMA-IR), with lower C reactive protein (CRP) and higher levels of adiponectin, Dr. Ochoa-Rosales said.
Levels of CRP and adiponectin may contribute to the association between coffee consumption and diabetes risk, she said. In a mediation analysis, CRP levels mediated roughly 3%-9% of the effect of coffee on type 2 diabetes risk; some effect was observed for adiponectin, but did not reach statistical significance, she added.
The study findings were limited by the lack of control for all potential confounding variables, and the results must be interpreted cautiously, Dr. Ochoa-Rosales said. However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and suggest that coffee’s beneficial effects on lowering type 2 diabetes risk are partially mediated by improvements in systemic inflammation, she concluded. “Other mediators that we did not investigate may also play a role,” she said.
Large cohort adds credibility
Although the associations between coffee and type 2 diabetes have been previously reported, “this study offers important findings due to the carefully standardized analyses on these two major data sources,” Linda Van Horn, PhD, RD, said in an interview.
But what makes this study different is that “these investigators hypothesized that this association could be due to an anti-inflammatory benefit,” she said.
The take-home message for clinicians is that drinking moderate amounts of filtered coffee offers a potentially reduced risk of developing type 2 diabetes, said Dr. Van Horn, of Northwestern University, Chicago. However, additional research is needed to account for the total amount of coffee per day, and whether additions such as cream or sugar or other additives make a difference in outcomes, she added.
“Also, the risk vs. benefit of drinking coffee over the life course, including childhood, pregnancy, and older age, with possible adverse drug-nutrient interactions, remain unexplored,” she noted.
Dr. Ochoa-Rosales disclosed study funding from the Institute for Scientific Information on Coffee but had no other financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Van Horn had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM EPI/LIFESTYLE 2021
The more drinking, the higher the risk of heart disease, especially in those genetically predisposed
Cardiovascular disease risk is associated with alcohol intake in general, but variations in risk exist with levels of intake, based on data from a genetic-based assessment of more than 300,000 individuals.
Previous studies have identified the “J-shaped model” of alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease, Kiran J. Biddinger of the Broad Institute, Cambridge, Mass., and colleagues said. The J-shaped model suggests that light alcohol intake, defined as one to two drinks per day, appears to reduce cardiovascular disease risk, while heavy alcohol intake, defined as about five drinks per day, increases cardiovascular disease risk, Mr. Biddenger said. However, most studies of the association between alcohol and cardiovascular disease risk are observational, and subject to confounders such as the impact of healthy lifestyle behaviors.
To better assess causality, the researchers used a genetics technique known as Mendelian randomization.
“Some individuals are genetically predisposed to drink more alcohol than others, based on the random allocation of alleles,” he explained. This genetic risk should not be associated with confounding variables such as vegetable consumption or physical activity.
In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, sponsored by the American Heart Association, the researchers analyzed genetic and lifestyle data from 371,463 participants in the U.K. Biobank, a population-based study of more than 500,000 individuals in the United Kingdom. The researchers used traditional and nonlinear genetic approaches to assess causality between alcohol consumption and cardiovascular disease.
Overall, study participants averaged 9.2 drinks per week. A total of 121,708 (32.8%) had hypertension, and 27,667 (7.5%) had coronary artery disease. The researchers found that individuals who consumed light to moderate amounts of alcohol also lived healthier lifestyles, and had a lower body mass index and higher levels of physical activity than did those who abstained from alcohol. Light to moderate drinkers also had higher vegetable consumption, lower red meat consumption, were less likely to smoke, and had higher self-reported overall health ratings, compared with abstainers.
The researchers then applied Mendelian randomization analyses, creating a genetic proxy and finding that individuals who were predisposed to drink more alcohol had a higher risk of cardiovascular disease.
Traditional and nonlinear Mendelian randomization using quadratic associations showed consistently increased risk of cardiovascular disease with increased alcohol consumption, and this risk increased dramatically for the heaviest drinkers. Compared with individuals who abstained, alcohol consumption of 7, 14, 21, and 28 drinks per week was associated, respectively, with 1.2-, 1.7-, 3.4-, and 8.9-fold odds of hypertension, and 1.2-, 2.3-, 6.2-, and 25.9-fold odds of coronary artery disease.
Notably, an increase of one standard deviation in genetic predisposition for alcohol consumption was associated with a 1.28-fold increase in hypertension, as well as significantly increased risk of coronary artery disease (odds ratio, 1.38), MI (OR, 1.37), stroke (OR, 1.26), heart failure (OR, 1.34), and atrial fibrillation (OR, 1.24).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to detect specific benefits associated with moderate alcohol consumption. However, the results suggest that, although all amounts of alcohol intake convey some increase in cardiovascular disease risk, “recommendations around alcohol use should reflect this nuanced relationship,” Mr. Biddinger said.
Distinctive study design supports association
Studies examining the association of alcohol consumption with cardiovascular (CVD) outcomes have been mostly observational in nature because of ethical considerations, Anna Kucharska-Newton, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. “Results of those studies have not been conclusive, and more research is needed. This study takes advantage of the ‘natural experiment’ of the randomized distribution of genetic variants associated with alcohol consumption,” said Dr. Kucharska-Newton, who served as moderator for the session at the meeting when the study was presented. “This method is similar to a randomized clinical trial and as such is less subject to confounding and potential reverse causality than an observational study..
“The findings confirm data from previous studies, including published data based on the UK Biobank study and the FinnGen registry of genetic data,” said Dr. Kucharska-Newton. “Findings from that study are largely supportive, suggesting that alcohol intake is associated with increased risk of coronary artery disease, an association that is sustained following adjustment for smoking.
“What the present study adds is an elegant presentation of the nonlinearity in that association. However, in contrast to the earlier study that included participants who reported drinking 1-2 drinks per week, Mr. Biddinger and colleagues examined effects among those drinking 7-28 drinks per week, making generalization to light to moderate drinkers [the majority] difficult,” she noted.
As for clinical implications, “assessment of habitual drinking is an important element in routine clinical care.” Dr. Kucharska-Newton noted. “Alcohol intake of seven or more drinks per week is associated exponentially with increased risk of coronary artery disease and, as other data suggest, increased levels of CVD risk factors. Therefore, CVD risk factor control is of particular importance in this population.
“Additional research in populations of ancestry other than White European is very much needed,” Dr. Kucharska-Newton emphasized. “Replication of the analyses presented by Mr. Biddinger and colleagues in different cohorts would strengthen inferences from this study. Extension of study findings to clinically manifest CVD would provide more relevant take-home messages. However, prior studies, based on Mendelian randomization protocols, suggest that adjustment for lifestyle factors attenuates the association of alcohol intake with adverse clinical CVD outcomes.”
Mr. Biddinger had no financial conflicts to disclose, but several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including Novartis, Regeneron, Bayer, Quest Diagnostics, Corvidia, Pfizer, Verve Therapeutics, and Medgenome. Dr. Kucharska-Newton had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Cardiovascular disease risk is associated with alcohol intake in general, but variations in risk exist with levels of intake, based on data from a genetic-based assessment of more than 300,000 individuals.
Previous studies have identified the “J-shaped model” of alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease, Kiran J. Biddinger of the Broad Institute, Cambridge, Mass., and colleagues said. The J-shaped model suggests that light alcohol intake, defined as one to two drinks per day, appears to reduce cardiovascular disease risk, while heavy alcohol intake, defined as about five drinks per day, increases cardiovascular disease risk, Mr. Biddenger said. However, most studies of the association between alcohol and cardiovascular disease risk are observational, and subject to confounders such as the impact of healthy lifestyle behaviors.
To better assess causality, the researchers used a genetics technique known as Mendelian randomization.
“Some individuals are genetically predisposed to drink more alcohol than others, based on the random allocation of alleles,” he explained. This genetic risk should not be associated with confounding variables such as vegetable consumption or physical activity.
In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, sponsored by the American Heart Association, the researchers analyzed genetic and lifestyle data from 371,463 participants in the U.K. Biobank, a population-based study of more than 500,000 individuals in the United Kingdom. The researchers used traditional and nonlinear genetic approaches to assess causality between alcohol consumption and cardiovascular disease.
Overall, study participants averaged 9.2 drinks per week. A total of 121,708 (32.8%) had hypertension, and 27,667 (7.5%) had coronary artery disease. The researchers found that individuals who consumed light to moderate amounts of alcohol also lived healthier lifestyles, and had a lower body mass index and higher levels of physical activity than did those who abstained from alcohol. Light to moderate drinkers also had higher vegetable consumption, lower red meat consumption, were less likely to smoke, and had higher self-reported overall health ratings, compared with abstainers.
The researchers then applied Mendelian randomization analyses, creating a genetic proxy and finding that individuals who were predisposed to drink more alcohol had a higher risk of cardiovascular disease.
Traditional and nonlinear Mendelian randomization using quadratic associations showed consistently increased risk of cardiovascular disease with increased alcohol consumption, and this risk increased dramatically for the heaviest drinkers. Compared with individuals who abstained, alcohol consumption of 7, 14, 21, and 28 drinks per week was associated, respectively, with 1.2-, 1.7-, 3.4-, and 8.9-fold odds of hypertension, and 1.2-, 2.3-, 6.2-, and 25.9-fold odds of coronary artery disease.
Notably, an increase of one standard deviation in genetic predisposition for alcohol consumption was associated with a 1.28-fold increase in hypertension, as well as significantly increased risk of coronary artery disease (odds ratio, 1.38), MI (OR, 1.37), stroke (OR, 1.26), heart failure (OR, 1.34), and atrial fibrillation (OR, 1.24).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to detect specific benefits associated with moderate alcohol consumption. However, the results suggest that, although all amounts of alcohol intake convey some increase in cardiovascular disease risk, “recommendations around alcohol use should reflect this nuanced relationship,” Mr. Biddinger said.
Distinctive study design supports association
Studies examining the association of alcohol consumption with cardiovascular (CVD) outcomes have been mostly observational in nature because of ethical considerations, Anna Kucharska-Newton, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. “Results of those studies have not been conclusive, and more research is needed. This study takes advantage of the ‘natural experiment’ of the randomized distribution of genetic variants associated with alcohol consumption,” said Dr. Kucharska-Newton, who served as moderator for the session at the meeting when the study was presented. “This method is similar to a randomized clinical trial and as such is less subject to confounding and potential reverse causality than an observational study..
“The findings confirm data from previous studies, including published data based on the UK Biobank study and the FinnGen registry of genetic data,” said Dr. Kucharska-Newton. “Findings from that study are largely supportive, suggesting that alcohol intake is associated with increased risk of coronary artery disease, an association that is sustained following adjustment for smoking.
“What the present study adds is an elegant presentation of the nonlinearity in that association. However, in contrast to the earlier study that included participants who reported drinking 1-2 drinks per week, Mr. Biddinger and colleagues examined effects among those drinking 7-28 drinks per week, making generalization to light to moderate drinkers [the majority] difficult,” she noted.
As for clinical implications, “assessment of habitual drinking is an important element in routine clinical care.” Dr. Kucharska-Newton noted. “Alcohol intake of seven or more drinks per week is associated exponentially with increased risk of coronary artery disease and, as other data suggest, increased levels of CVD risk factors. Therefore, CVD risk factor control is of particular importance in this population.
“Additional research in populations of ancestry other than White European is very much needed,” Dr. Kucharska-Newton emphasized. “Replication of the analyses presented by Mr. Biddinger and colleagues in different cohorts would strengthen inferences from this study. Extension of study findings to clinically manifest CVD would provide more relevant take-home messages. However, prior studies, based on Mendelian randomization protocols, suggest that adjustment for lifestyle factors attenuates the association of alcohol intake with adverse clinical CVD outcomes.”
Mr. Biddinger had no financial conflicts to disclose, but several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including Novartis, Regeneron, Bayer, Quest Diagnostics, Corvidia, Pfizer, Verve Therapeutics, and Medgenome. Dr. Kucharska-Newton had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Cardiovascular disease risk is associated with alcohol intake in general, but variations in risk exist with levels of intake, based on data from a genetic-based assessment of more than 300,000 individuals.
Previous studies have identified the “J-shaped model” of alcohol intake and cardiovascular disease, Kiran J. Biddinger of the Broad Institute, Cambridge, Mass., and colleagues said. The J-shaped model suggests that light alcohol intake, defined as one to two drinks per day, appears to reduce cardiovascular disease risk, while heavy alcohol intake, defined as about five drinks per day, increases cardiovascular disease risk, Mr. Biddenger said. However, most studies of the association between alcohol and cardiovascular disease risk are observational, and subject to confounders such as the impact of healthy lifestyle behaviors.
To better assess causality, the researchers used a genetics technique known as Mendelian randomization.
“Some individuals are genetically predisposed to drink more alcohol than others, based on the random allocation of alleles,” he explained. This genetic risk should not be associated with confounding variables such as vegetable consumption or physical activity.
In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting, sponsored by the American Heart Association, the researchers analyzed genetic and lifestyle data from 371,463 participants in the U.K. Biobank, a population-based study of more than 500,000 individuals in the United Kingdom. The researchers used traditional and nonlinear genetic approaches to assess causality between alcohol consumption and cardiovascular disease.
Overall, study participants averaged 9.2 drinks per week. A total of 121,708 (32.8%) had hypertension, and 27,667 (7.5%) had coronary artery disease. The researchers found that individuals who consumed light to moderate amounts of alcohol also lived healthier lifestyles, and had a lower body mass index and higher levels of physical activity than did those who abstained from alcohol. Light to moderate drinkers also had higher vegetable consumption, lower red meat consumption, were less likely to smoke, and had higher self-reported overall health ratings, compared with abstainers.
The researchers then applied Mendelian randomization analyses, creating a genetic proxy and finding that individuals who were predisposed to drink more alcohol had a higher risk of cardiovascular disease.
Traditional and nonlinear Mendelian randomization using quadratic associations showed consistently increased risk of cardiovascular disease with increased alcohol consumption, and this risk increased dramatically for the heaviest drinkers. Compared with individuals who abstained, alcohol consumption of 7, 14, 21, and 28 drinks per week was associated, respectively, with 1.2-, 1.7-, 3.4-, and 8.9-fold odds of hypertension, and 1.2-, 2.3-, 6.2-, and 25.9-fold odds of coronary artery disease.
Notably, an increase of one standard deviation in genetic predisposition for alcohol consumption was associated with a 1.28-fold increase in hypertension, as well as significantly increased risk of coronary artery disease (odds ratio, 1.38), MI (OR, 1.37), stroke (OR, 1.26), heart failure (OR, 1.34), and atrial fibrillation (OR, 1.24).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the inability to detect specific benefits associated with moderate alcohol consumption. However, the results suggest that, although all amounts of alcohol intake convey some increase in cardiovascular disease risk, “recommendations around alcohol use should reflect this nuanced relationship,” Mr. Biddinger said.
Distinctive study design supports association
Studies examining the association of alcohol consumption with cardiovascular (CVD) outcomes have been mostly observational in nature because of ethical considerations, Anna Kucharska-Newton, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said in an interview. “Results of those studies have not been conclusive, and more research is needed. This study takes advantage of the ‘natural experiment’ of the randomized distribution of genetic variants associated with alcohol consumption,” said Dr. Kucharska-Newton, who served as moderator for the session at the meeting when the study was presented. “This method is similar to a randomized clinical trial and as such is less subject to confounding and potential reverse causality than an observational study..
“The findings confirm data from previous studies, including published data based on the UK Biobank study and the FinnGen registry of genetic data,” said Dr. Kucharska-Newton. “Findings from that study are largely supportive, suggesting that alcohol intake is associated with increased risk of coronary artery disease, an association that is sustained following adjustment for smoking.
“What the present study adds is an elegant presentation of the nonlinearity in that association. However, in contrast to the earlier study that included participants who reported drinking 1-2 drinks per week, Mr. Biddinger and colleagues examined effects among those drinking 7-28 drinks per week, making generalization to light to moderate drinkers [the majority] difficult,” she noted.
As for clinical implications, “assessment of habitual drinking is an important element in routine clinical care.” Dr. Kucharska-Newton noted. “Alcohol intake of seven or more drinks per week is associated exponentially with increased risk of coronary artery disease and, as other data suggest, increased levels of CVD risk factors. Therefore, CVD risk factor control is of particular importance in this population.
“Additional research in populations of ancestry other than White European is very much needed,” Dr. Kucharska-Newton emphasized. “Replication of the analyses presented by Mr. Biddinger and colleagues in different cohorts would strengthen inferences from this study. Extension of study findings to clinically manifest CVD would provide more relevant take-home messages. However, prior studies, based on Mendelian randomization protocols, suggest that adjustment for lifestyle factors attenuates the association of alcohol intake with adverse clinical CVD outcomes.”
Mr. Biddinger had no financial conflicts to disclose, but several coauthors disclosed relationships with companies including Novartis, Regeneron, Bayer, Quest Diagnostics, Corvidia, Pfizer, Verve Therapeutics, and Medgenome. Dr. Kucharska-Newton had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM EPI LIFESTYLE
IBD rates rising among Medicare patients
The prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease increased significantly among Americans aged 67 years and older from 2001 to 2018, based on data from more than 25 million Medicare beneficiaries.
The worldwide prevalence – or rate of existing cases – of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) increased from 3.7 million in 1990 to 6.8 million in 2017, wrote Fang Xu, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues. “As the prevalence increases with age group, it is important to understand the disease epidemiology among the older population,” they said.
In a study published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the researchers reviewed 2018 Medicare data for 25.1 million beneficiaries aged 67 years and older to assess prevalence trends overall and by race and ethnicity. Over the study period, the study population ranged from 23.7 million persons in 2009 to 25.6 million persons in 2018. The incidence – or rate of new cases – of IBD peaks at 15-29 years of age, but approximately 10%-15% of new cases develop in adults aged 60 years and older, so the prevalence of IBD overall is expected to increase over time with the aging of the U.S. population, the researchers said.
In this population of beneficiaries, 0.40% overall had a Crohn’s disease diagnosis and 0.64% had an ulcerative colitis diagnosis. The prevalence for both diseases was consistently highest among non-Hispanic Whites, the researchers noted. In addition, the prevalence of Crohn’s disease was highest among younger beneficiaries, while the prevalence of ulcerative colitis was highest among those aged 75-84 years. Other factors associated with higher IBD prevalence were female gender and residence in large fringe metropolitan counties.
The overall age-adjusted prevalence of Crohn’s disease increased over time with an annual percentage change (APC) of 3.4%, and the overall age-adjusted prevalence of ulcerative colitis increased with an APC of 2.8%. When the researchers examined subgroups of race and ethnicity, the annual increases were higher for non-Hispanic Blacks for both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, with APCs of 5.0% and 3.5%, respectively. “The potential rapid increase of disease prevalence in certain racial and ethnic minority groups indicates the need for tailored disease management strategies in these populations,” the researchers noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of socioeconomic data, the potential for coding errors related to Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, and the lack of generalizability to all older adults in the United States, the researchers noted. However, “Medicare data are a useful resource to monitor prevalence of IBD over time, understand its prevalence among older adults, assess differences by demographic and geographic characteristics, and have rich information to study health care use,” they concluded.
Consider the younger population
The data from the study need to be considered in the context of an accumulation of patients with IBD, and the distinction between incidence and prevalence, Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.
The overall incidence of IBD is much greater in younger individuals (approximately ages 15-29 years) compared with older adults, he said. Patients with IBD don’t die of it; they grow old with it. Consequently, the prevalence in the Medicare population increases over time, he explained.
The data may be of interest to the practicing clinician, but would be most useful to hospital and Medicare administrators in terms of planning for an increase in the number of older adults surviving into older adulthood with IBD who will require care, he noted.
The researchers and Dr. Hanauer had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.
The prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease increased significantly among Americans aged 67 years and older from 2001 to 2018, based on data from more than 25 million Medicare beneficiaries.
The worldwide prevalence – or rate of existing cases – of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) increased from 3.7 million in 1990 to 6.8 million in 2017, wrote Fang Xu, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues. “As the prevalence increases with age group, it is important to understand the disease epidemiology among the older population,” they said.
In a study published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the researchers reviewed 2018 Medicare data for 25.1 million beneficiaries aged 67 years and older to assess prevalence trends overall and by race and ethnicity. Over the study period, the study population ranged from 23.7 million persons in 2009 to 25.6 million persons in 2018. The incidence – or rate of new cases – of IBD peaks at 15-29 years of age, but approximately 10%-15% of new cases develop in adults aged 60 years and older, so the prevalence of IBD overall is expected to increase over time with the aging of the U.S. population, the researchers said.
In this population of beneficiaries, 0.40% overall had a Crohn’s disease diagnosis and 0.64% had an ulcerative colitis diagnosis. The prevalence for both diseases was consistently highest among non-Hispanic Whites, the researchers noted. In addition, the prevalence of Crohn’s disease was highest among younger beneficiaries, while the prevalence of ulcerative colitis was highest among those aged 75-84 years. Other factors associated with higher IBD prevalence were female gender and residence in large fringe metropolitan counties.
The overall age-adjusted prevalence of Crohn’s disease increased over time with an annual percentage change (APC) of 3.4%, and the overall age-adjusted prevalence of ulcerative colitis increased with an APC of 2.8%. When the researchers examined subgroups of race and ethnicity, the annual increases were higher for non-Hispanic Blacks for both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, with APCs of 5.0% and 3.5%, respectively. “The potential rapid increase of disease prevalence in certain racial and ethnic minority groups indicates the need for tailored disease management strategies in these populations,” the researchers noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of socioeconomic data, the potential for coding errors related to Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, and the lack of generalizability to all older adults in the United States, the researchers noted. However, “Medicare data are a useful resource to monitor prevalence of IBD over time, understand its prevalence among older adults, assess differences by demographic and geographic characteristics, and have rich information to study health care use,” they concluded.
Consider the younger population
The data from the study need to be considered in the context of an accumulation of patients with IBD, and the distinction between incidence and prevalence, Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.
The overall incidence of IBD is much greater in younger individuals (approximately ages 15-29 years) compared with older adults, he said. Patients with IBD don’t die of it; they grow old with it. Consequently, the prevalence in the Medicare population increases over time, he explained.
The data may be of interest to the practicing clinician, but would be most useful to hospital and Medicare administrators in terms of planning for an increase in the number of older adults surviving into older adulthood with IBD who will require care, he noted.
The researchers and Dr. Hanauer had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.
The prevalence of inflammatory bowel disease increased significantly among Americans aged 67 years and older from 2001 to 2018, based on data from more than 25 million Medicare beneficiaries.
The worldwide prevalence – or rate of existing cases – of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) increased from 3.7 million in 1990 to 6.8 million in 2017, wrote Fang Xu, PhD, of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and colleagues. “As the prevalence increases with age group, it is important to understand the disease epidemiology among the older population,” they said.
In a study published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, the researchers reviewed 2018 Medicare data for 25.1 million beneficiaries aged 67 years and older to assess prevalence trends overall and by race and ethnicity. Over the study period, the study population ranged from 23.7 million persons in 2009 to 25.6 million persons in 2018. The incidence – or rate of new cases – of IBD peaks at 15-29 years of age, but approximately 10%-15% of new cases develop in adults aged 60 years and older, so the prevalence of IBD overall is expected to increase over time with the aging of the U.S. population, the researchers said.
In this population of beneficiaries, 0.40% overall had a Crohn’s disease diagnosis and 0.64% had an ulcerative colitis diagnosis. The prevalence for both diseases was consistently highest among non-Hispanic Whites, the researchers noted. In addition, the prevalence of Crohn’s disease was highest among younger beneficiaries, while the prevalence of ulcerative colitis was highest among those aged 75-84 years. Other factors associated with higher IBD prevalence were female gender and residence in large fringe metropolitan counties.
The overall age-adjusted prevalence of Crohn’s disease increased over time with an annual percentage change (APC) of 3.4%, and the overall age-adjusted prevalence of ulcerative colitis increased with an APC of 2.8%. When the researchers examined subgroups of race and ethnicity, the annual increases were higher for non-Hispanic Blacks for both Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, with APCs of 5.0% and 3.5%, respectively. “The potential rapid increase of disease prevalence in certain racial and ethnic minority groups indicates the need for tailored disease management strategies in these populations,” the researchers noted.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the lack of socioeconomic data, the potential for coding errors related to Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis, and the lack of generalizability to all older adults in the United States, the researchers noted. However, “Medicare data are a useful resource to monitor prevalence of IBD over time, understand its prevalence among older adults, assess differences by demographic and geographic characteristics, and have rich information to study health care use,” they concluded.
Consider the younger population
The data from the study need to be considered in the context of an accumulation of patients with IBD, and the distinction between incidence and prevalence, Stephen B. Hanauer, MD, of Northwestern University, Chicago, said in an interview.
The overall incidence of IBD is much greater in younger individuals (approximately ages 15-29 years) compared with older adults, he said. Patients with IBD don’t die of it; they grow old with it. Consequently, the prevalence in the Medicare population increases over time, he explained.
The data may be of interest to the practicing clinician, but would be most useful to hospital and Medicare administrators in terms of planning for an increase in the number of older adults surviving into older adulthood with IBD who will require care, he noted.
The researchers and Dr. Hanauer had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Help your patients better understand their IBD treatment options by sharing AGA’s patient education, “Living with IBD,” in the AGA GI Patient Center at www.gastro.org/IBD.
FROM MMWR
Young adults with epilepsy face higher mental illness risks
Young adults with epilepsy experience higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality, compared with their counterparts in the general population, a new study shows.
The findings, based on a study of 144 young adults with epilepsy (YAWE), was published recently in Epilepsy & Behavior.
“People with epilepsy (PWE) are at a significantly higher risk of experiencing mental health difficulties, compared with healthy controls and individuals with other [long-term conditions] such as asthma and diabetes,” according to Rachel Batchelor, MSc, and Michelle D. Taylor, PhD, of the University of London (England) in Surrey.
Young adulthood, which encompasses people aged 18-25 years, has been identified as “a peak age of onset for anxiety and depression,” but mental health in young adults with epilepsy in particular has not been well studied, they wrote.
The survey measured current mental health symptoms, including anxiety, depression, and suicidality, as well as sociodemographic and epilepsy-related factors, coping strategies, and social support (Epilepsy Behav. 2021 May;118:107911. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2021.107911).
The average age of the respondents was 21.6 years, 61% were female, and 88% were of White British ethnicity. A total of 88 participants were single, 48 were in a relationship, and 8 were married or engaged. About one-third (38%) worked full-time, and 28.5% were full-time university students, 18.8% worked part-time, and 8.3% were unemployed and not students. The average age of seizure onset was 12.4 years.
Overall, 116 (80.6%) of the survey respondents met the criteria for anxiety, 110 (76.4%) for depression, and 51 (35.4%) for suicidality.
Ratings of all three of these conditions were significantly higher in females, compared with males, the researchers noted. Anxiety, depression, and suicidality also were rated higher for individuals who waited more than 1 year vs. less than 1 year for an epilepsy diagnosis from the time of seizure onset, for those suffering from anti-seizure medication side effects vs. no side effects, and for those with comorbid conditions vs. no comorbid conditions.
Avoidant-focused coping strategies were positively correlated with anxiety, depression, and suicidality, while problem-focused coping and meaning-focused coping were negatively correlated, the researchers said. In addition, those who reported greater levels of support from friends had lower rates of anxiety and depression, and those who reported greater levels of support from family had lower rates of suicidality.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively homogenous population, and the absence of data on current anxiety and depression medications and additional professional support, the researchers noted.
However, the results extend the research on mental health in people with epilepsy, and the study is the first known to focus on the young adult population with epilepsy, they said.
“The high rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality underscore the need for better integration of mental health provision into epilepsy care,” the researchers wrote. “While it would be premature to base recommendations for treating anxiety, depression, and suicidality in YAWE on the current study, investigating the efficacy of psychological interventions (for example, [acceptance and commitment therapy], [compassion-focused therapy], peer support, and family-based [therapy]) designed to address the psychosocial variables shown to independently predict mental health outcomes in YAWE would be worthy future research avenues,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding, and the researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.
Young adults with epilepsy experience higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality, compared with their counterparts in the general population, a new study shows.
The findings, based on a study of 144 young adults with epilepsy (YAWE), was published recently in Epilepsy & Behavior.
“People with epilepsy (PWE) are at a significantly higher risk of experiencing mental health difficulties, compared with healthy controls and individuals with other [long-term conditions] such as asthma and diabetes,” according to Rachel Batchelor, MSc, and Michelle D. Taylor, PhD, of the University of London (England) in Surrey.
Young adulthood, which encompasses people aged 18-25 years, has been identified as “a peak age of onset for anxiety and depression,” but mental health in young adults with epilepsy in particular has not been well studied, they wrote.
The survey measured current mental health symptoms, including anxiety, depression, and suicidality, as well as sociodemographic and epilepsy-related factors, coping strategies, and social support (Epilepsy Behav. 2021 May;118:107911. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2021.107911).
The average age of the respondents was 21.6 years, 61% were female, and 88% were of White British ethnicity. A total of 88 participants were single, 48 were in a relationship, and 8 were married or engaged. About one-third (38%) worked full-time, and 28.5% were full-time university students, 18.8% worked part-time, and 8.3% were unemployed and not students. The average age of seizure onset was 12.4 years.
Overall, 116 (80.6%) of the survey respondents met the criteria for anxiety, 110 (76.4%) for depression, and 51 (35.4%) for suicidality.
Ratings of all three of these conditions were significantly higher in females, compared with males, the researchers noted. Anxiety, depression, and suicidality also were rated higher for individuals who waited more than 1 year vs. less than 1 year for an epilepsy diagnosis from the time of seizure onset, for those suffering from anti-seizure medication side effects vs. no side effects, and for those with comorbid conditions vs. no comorbid conditions.
Avoidant-focused coping strategies were positively correlated with anxiety, depression, and suicidality, while problem-focused coping and meaning-focused coping were negatively correlated, the researchers said. In addition, those who reported greater levels of support from friends had lower rates of anxiety and depression, and those who reported greater levels of support from family had lower rates of suicidality.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively homogenous population, and the absence of data on current anxiety and depression medications and additional professional support, the researchers noted.
However, the results extend the research on mental health in people with epilepsy, and the study is the first known to focus on the young adult population with epilepsy, they said.
“The high rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality underscore the need for better integration of mental health provision into epilepsy care,” the researchers wrote. “While it would be premature to base recommendations for treating anxiety, depression, and suicidality in YAWE on the current study, investigating the efficacy of psychological interventions (for example, [acceptance and commitment therapy], [compassion-focused therapy], peer support, and family-based [therapy]) designed to address the psychosocial variables shown to independently predict mental health outcomes in YAWE would be worthy future research avenues,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding, and the researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.
Young adults with epilepsy experience higher rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality, compared with their counterparts in the general population, a new study shows.
The findings, based on a study of 144 young adults with epilepsy (YAWE), was published recently in Epilepsy & Behavior.
“People with epilepsy (PWE) are at a significantly higher risk of experiencing mental health difficulties, compared with healthy controls and individuals with other [long-term conditions] such as asthma and diabetes,” according to Rachel Batchelor, MSc, and Michelle D. Taylor, PhD, of the University of London (England) in Surrey.
Young adulthood, which encompasses people aged 18-25 years, has been identified as “a peak age of onset for anxiety and depression,” but mental health in young adults with epilepsy in particular has not been well studied, they wrote.
The survey measured current mental health symptoms, including anxiety, depression, and suicidality, as well as sociodemographic and epilepsy-related factors, coping strategies, and social support (Epilepsy Behav. 2021 May;118:107911. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2021.107911).
The average age of the respondents was 21.6 years, 61% were female, and 88% were of White British ethnicity. A total of 88 participants were single, 48 were in a relationship, and 8 were married or engaged. About one-third (38%) worked full-time, and 28.5% were full-time university students, 18.8% worked part-time, and 8.3% were unemployed and not students. The average age of seizure onset was 12.4 years.
Overall, 116 (80.6%) of the survey respondents met the criteria for anxiety, 110 (76.4%) for depression, and 51 (35.4%) for suicidality.
Ratings of all three of these conditions were significantly higher in females, compared with males, the researchers noted. Anxiety, depression, and suicidality also were rated higher for individuals who waited more than 1 year vs. less than 1 year for an epilepsy diagnosis from the time of seizure onset, for those suffering from anti-seizure medication side effects vs. no side effects, and for those with comorbid conditions vs. no comorbid conditions.
Avoidant-focused coping strategies were positively correlated with anxiety, depression, and suicidality, while problem-focused coping and meaning-focused coping were negatively correlated, the researchers said. In addition, those who reported greater levels of support from friends had lower rates of anxiety and depression, and those who reported greater levels of support from family had lower rates of suicidality.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively homogenous population, and the absence of data on current anxiety and depression medications and additional professional support, the researchers noted.
However, the results extend the research on mental health in people with epilepsy, and the study is the first known to focus on the young adult population with epilepsy, they said.
“The high rates of anxiety, depression, and suicidality underscore the need for better integration of mental health provision into epilepsy care,” the researchers wrote. “While it would be premature to base recommendations for treating anxiety, depression, and suicidality in YAWE on the current study, investigating the efficacy of psychological interventions (for example, [acceptance and commitment therapy], [compassion-focused therapy], peer support, and family-based [therapy]) designed to address the psychosocial variables shown to independently predict mental health outcomes in YAWE would be worthy future research avenues,” they concluded.
The study received no outside funding, and the researchers disclosed no financial conflicts.
FROM EPILEPSY & BEHAVIOR
Psychosis, depression tied to neurodegeneration in Parkinson’s
Depression and psychosis are significantly associated with neuronal loss and gliosis – but not with Lewy body scores – in Parkinson’s disease, data from analyses of the brains of 175 patients suggest.
Previous research has suggested a link between neuronal loss and depression in Parkinson’s disease (PD) but the impact of Lewy bodies has not been well studied, Nicole Mercado Fischer, MPH, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.
Evaluating Lewy body scores and neuronal loss/gliosis in the substantia nigra pars compacta (SN) and locus coeruleus (LC) could increase understanding of pathophysiology in PD, they said.
In a study published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, the researchers analyzed the brains of 175 individuals with a primary diagnosis of PD.
A total of 98 participants had diagnoses of psychosis, 88 had depression, and 55 had anxiety. The average age of onset for PD was 62.4 years; 67.4% of the subjects were male, and 97.8% were White. The mean duration of illness was 16 years, and the average age at death was 78 years.
Psychosis was significantly associated with severe neuronal loss and gliosis in both the LC and SN (P = .048 and P = .042, respectively). Depression was significantly associated with severe neuronal loss in the SN (P = .042) but not in the LC. Anxiety was not associated with severe neuronal loss in either brain region. These results remained significant after a multivariate analysis, the researchers noted. However, Lewy body scores were not associated with any neuropsychiatric symptom, and severity of neuronal loss and gliosis was not correlated with Lewy body scores.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and inability to collect pathology data for all patients, the researchers noted. Also, in some cases, the collection of clinical data and observation of brain tissue pathology took place years apart, and the researchers did not assess medication records.
However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and “further support the notion that in vivo clinical symptoms of PD are either not caused by Lewy body pathology or that the relationship is confounded by the time of autopsy,” they said. and eventually by using new functional imaging techniques in vivo.”
The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two coauthors were supported in part by the National Institutes of Health.
Depression and psychosis are significantly associated with neuronal loss and gliosis – but not with Lewy body scores – in Parkinson’s disease, data from analyses of the brains of 175 patients suggest.
Previous research has suggested a link between neuronal loss and depression in Parkinson’s disease (PD) but the impact of Lewy bodies has not been well studied, Nicole Mercado Fischer, MPH, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.
Evaluating Lewy body scores and neuronal loss/gliosis in the substantia nigra pars compacta (SN) and locus coeruleus (LC) could increase understanding of pathophysiology in PD, they said.
In a study published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, the researchers analyzed the brains of 175 individuals with a primary diagnosis of PD.
A total of 98 participants had diagnoses of psychosis, 88 had depression, and 55 had anxiety. The average age of onset for PD was 62.4 years; 67.4% of the subjects were male, and 97.8% were White. The mean duration of illness was 16 years, and the average age at death was 78 years.
Psychosis was significantly associated with severe neuronal loss and gliosis in both the LC and SN (P = .048 and P = .042, respectively). Depression was significantly associated with severe neuronal loss in the SN (P = .042) but not in the LC. Anxiety was not associated with severe neuronal loss in either brain region. These results remained significant after a multivariate analysis, the researchers noted. However, Lewy body scores were not associated with any neuropsychiatric symptom, and severity of neuronal loss and gliosis was not correlated with Lewy body scores.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and inability to collect pathology data for all patients, the researchers noted. Also, in some cases, the collection of clinical data and observation of brain tissue pathology took place years apart, and the researchers did not assess medication records.
However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and “further support the notion that in vivo clinical symptoms of PD are either not caused by Lewy body pathology or that the relationship is confounded by the time of autopsy,” they said. and eventually by using new functional imaging techniques in vivo.”
The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two coauthors were supported in part by the National Institutes of Health.
Depression and psychosis are significantly associated with neuronal loss and gliosis – but not with Lewy body scores – in Parkinson’s disease, data from analyses of the brains of 175 patients suggest.
Previous research has suggested a link between neuronal loss and depression in Parkinson’s disease (PD) but the impact of Lewy bodies has not been well studied, Nicole Mercado Fischer, MPH, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues wrote.
Evaluating Lewy body scores and neuronal loss/gliosis in the substantia nigra pars compacta (SN) and locus coeruleus (LC) could increase understanding of pathophysiology in PD, they said.
In a study published in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, the researchers analyzed the brains of 175 individuals with a primary diagnosis of PD.
A total of 98 participants had diagnoses of psychosis, 88 had depression, and 55 had anxiety. The average age of onset for PD was 62.4 years; 67.4% of the subjects were male, and 97.8% were White. The mean duration of illness was 16 years, and the average age at death was 78 years.
Psychosis was significantly associated with severe neuronal loss and gliosis in both the LC and SN (P = .048 and P = .042, respectively). Depression was significantly associated with severe neuronal loss in the SN (P = .042) but not in the LC. Anxiety was not associated with severe neuronal loss in either brain region. These results remained significant after a multivariate analysis, the researchers noted. However, Lewy body scores were not associated with any neuropsychiatric symptom, and severity of neuronal loss and gliosis was not correlated with Lewy body scores.
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the retrospective design and inability to collect pathology data for all patients, the researchers noted. Also, in some cases, the collection of clinical data and observation of brain tissue pathology took place years apart, and the researchers did not assess medication records.
However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and “further support the notion that in vivo clinical symptoms of PD are either not caused by Lewy body pathology or that the relationship is confounded by the time of autopsy,” they said. and eventually by using new functional imaging techniques in vivo.”
The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Two coauthors were supported in part by the National Institutes of Health.
FROM THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY
Prevalence of psychiatric disorders higher in adult cerebral palsy patients
Adults with cerebral palsy, especially those with intellectual disabilities, are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, compared with the general population, a review of seven datasets shows.
The body of literature on psychiatric issues in children with cerebral palsy (CP) is increasing, but population-based studies of psychiatric issues in adults with CP have been limited in number and in scope. Most of those studies focus mainly on anxiety and depression, rather than on other issues such as psychosis or schizophrenia, Carly A. McMorris, PhD, of the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues wrote.
In a retrospective, cross-sectional study published in Research in Developmental Disabilities, the researchers reviewed information from five health data sets, one registry, and census data for adults aged 18-64 years with a CP diagnosis living in Ontario, including those with and without diagnosed intellectual disabilities (ID) and a comparison group of individuals in the general population. The researchers examined the proportion of individuals with a psychiatric disorder in each of four groups: total CP, CP without ID, CP with ID, and the general population.
The study participants included 9,388 individuals with CP, 4,767 individuals with CP and ID, and a general population of 2,757,744 individuals. About half of the participants were male, and at least 85% lived in urban areas.
Overall, compared with the general population group, over a 2-year period (33.7 % vs. 24.7%). Also, the CP group was more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, schizophrenia, personality disorder, or bipolar disorder, compared with the general population. Individuals with CP were significantly more likely to suffer from mood or affective disorders, and depression and anxiety disorders, compared with the general population, but less likely to suffer from substance use disorders.
When the data were assessed by ID status, disorders such as psychotic disorders, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia were six times more common among individuals with CP and ID, compared with the general population (adjusted prevalence ratios, 6.26 and 6.46, respectively).
Individuals with CP and ID also had a notably higher prevalence of bipolar disorder (confidence interval, 2.06-2.89) and personality disorder, compared with the general population (aPR, 2.44 and 4.22, respectively), but this subgroup also was less likely than the general population to engage in substance use (aPR, 0.44).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of universal definitions for some of the conditions studied, potential misclassification of ID, the inclusion of data on specific psychiatric diagnoses but not elevated symptoms, and by the challenges of diagnosing psychiatric disorders in individuals with ID, the researchers noted.
However, “the present study contributes important information to the existing literature, highlighting that psychiatric issues are common in adults with CP, similar to what has been reported in children and youth,” they said. “Further research is needed to determine the validity and reliability of mental health assessment measures for this population, the efficacy of evidence-based psychotherapeutic approaches ... and the underlying causes or mechanisms of psychiatric issues in individuals with CP.”
The findings also highlight the need for health care clinicians to screen for psychiatric issues in CP patients, they said.
The study was supported in part by the Province of Ontario research grants and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no disclosures.
Adults with cerebral palsy, especially those with intellectual disabilities, are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, compared with the general population, a review of seven datasets shows.
The body of literature on psychiatric issues in children with cerebral palsy (CP) is increasing, but population-based studies of psychiatric issues in adults with CP have been limited in number and in scope. Most of those studies focus mainly on anxiety and depression, rather than on other issues such as psychosis or schizophrenia, Carly A. McMorris, PhD, of the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues wrote.
In a retrospective, cross-sectional study published in Research in Developmental Disabilities, the researchers reviewed information from five health data sets, one registry, and census data for adults aged 18-64 years with a CP diagnosis living in Ontario, including those with and without diagnosed intellectual disabilities (ID) and a comparison group of individuals in the general population. The researchers examined the proportion of individuals with a psychiatric disorder in each of four groups: total CP, CP without ID, CP with ID, and the general population.
The study participants included 9,388 individuals with CP, 4,767 individuals with CP and ID, and a general population of 2,757,744 individuals. About half of the participants were male, and at least 85% lived in urban areas.
Overall, compared with the general population group, over a 2-year period (33.7 % vs. 24.7%). Also, the CP group was more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, schizophrenia, personality disorder, or bipolar disorder, compared with the general population. Individuals with CP were significantly more likely to suffer from mood or affective disorders, and depression and anxiety disorders, compared with the general population, but less likely to suffer from substance use disorders.
When the data were assessed by ID status, disorders such as psychotic disorders, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia were six times more common among individuals with CP and ID, compared with the general population (adjusted prevalence ratios, 6.26 and 6.46, respectively).
Individuals with CP and ID also had a notably higher prevalence of bipolar disorder (confidence interval, 2.06-2.89) and personality disorder, compared with the general population (aPR, 2.44 and 4.22, respectively), but this subgroup also was less likely than the general population to engage in substance use (aPR, 0.44).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of universal definitions for some of the conditions studied, potential misclassification of ID, the inclusion of data on specific psychiatric diagnoses but not elevated symptoms, and by the challenges of diagnosing psychiatric disorders in individuals with ID, the researchers noted.
However, “the present study contributes important information to the existing literature, highlighting that psychiatric issues are common in adults with CP, similar to what has been reported in children and youth,” they said. “Further research is needed to determine the validity and reliability of mental health assessment measures for this population, the efficacy of evidence-based psychotherapeutic approaches ... and the underlying causes or mechanisms of psychiatric issues in individuals with CP.”
The findings also highlight the need for health care clinicians to screen for psychiatric issues in CP patients, they said.
The study was supported in part by the Province of Ontario research grants and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no disclosures.
Adults with cerebral palsy, especially those with intellectual disabilities, are significantly more likely to be diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder, compared with the general population, a review of seven datasets shows.
The body of literature on psychiatric issues in children with cerebral palsy (CP) is increasing, but population-based studies of psychiatric issues in adults with CP have been limited in number and in scope. Most of those studies focus mainly on anxiety and depression, rather than on other issues such as psychosis or schizophrenia, Carly A. McMorris, PhD, of the University of Calgary (Alta.) and colleagues wrote.
In a retrospective, cross-sectional study published in Research in Developmental Disabilities, the researchers reviewed information from five health data sets, one registry, and census data for adults aged 18-64 years with a CP diagnosis living in Ontario, including those with and without diagnosed intellectual disabilities (ID) and a comparison group of individuals in the general population. The researchers examined the proportion of individuals with a psychiatric disorder in each of four groups: total CP, CP without ID, CP with ID, and the general population.
The study participants included 9,388 individuals with CP, 4,767 individuals with CP and ID, and a general population of 2,757,744 individuals. About half of the participants were male, and at least 85% lived in urban areas.
Overall, compared with the general population group, over a 2-year period (33.7 % vs. 24.7%). Also, the CP group was more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with a psychotic disorder, schizophrenia, personality disorder, or bipolar disorder, compared with the general population. Individuals with CP were significantly more likely to suffer from mood or affective disorders, and depression and anxiety disorders, compared with the general population, but less likely to suffer from substance use disorders.
When the data were assessed by ID status, disorders such as psychotic disorders, bipolar disorders, and schizophrenia were six times more common among individuals with CP and ID, compared with the general population (adjusted prevalence ratios, 6.26 and 6.46, respectively).
Individuals with CP and ID also had a notably higher prevalence of bipolar disorder (confidence interval, 2.06-2.89) and personality disorder, compared with the general population (aPR, 2.44 and 4.22, respectively), but this subgroup also was less likely than the general population to engage in substance use (aPR, 0.44).
The study findings were limited by several factors, including the absence of universal definitions for some of the conditions studied, potential misclassification of ID, the inclusion of data on specific psychiatric diagnoses but not elevated symptoms, and by the challenges of diagnosing psychiatric disorders in individuals with ID, the researchers noted.
However, “the present study contributes important information to the existing literature, highlighting that psychiatric issues are common in adults with CP, similar to what has been reported in children and youth,” they said. “Further research is needed to determine the validity and reliability of mental health assessment measures for this population, the efficacy of evidence-based psychotherapeutic approaches ... and the underlying causes or mechanisms of psychiatric issues in individuals with CP.”
The findings also highlight the need for health care clinicians to screen for psychiatric issues in CP patients, they said.
The study was supported in part by the Province of Ontario research grants and the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The researchers had no disclosures.
FROM RESEARCH IN DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
Healthy lifestyle can reduce dementia risk despite family history
Individuals at increased risk for dementia because of family history can reduce that risk by adopting healthy lifestyle behaviors, data from more than 300,000 adults aged 50-73 years suggest.
Having a parent or sibling with dementia can increase a person’s risk of developing dementia themselves by nearly 75%, compared with someone with no first-degree family history of dementia, according to Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, of Iowa State University, Ames, and colleagues.
In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association, the researchers reviewed information for 302,239 men and women who were enrolled in the U.K. Biobank, a population-based study of more than 500,000 individuals in the United Kingdom, between 2006 and 2010.
The study participants had no evidence of dementia at baseline, and completed questionnaires about family history and lifestyle. The questions included details about six healthy lifestyle behaviors: eating a healthy diet, engaging in at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week, sleeping 6-9 hours each night, drinking alcohol in moderation, not smoking, and maintaining a body mass index below the obese level (less than 30 kg/m2).
The researchers identified 1,698 participants (0.6%) who developed dementia over an average follow-up period of 8 years. Those with a family history (first-degree relative) of dementia had a 70% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who had no such family history.
Overall, individuals who engaged in all six healthy behaviors reduced their risk of dementia by about half, compared with those who engaged in two or fewer healthy behaviors. Engaging in three healthy behaviors reduced the risk of dementia by 30%, compared with engaging in two or fewer healthy behaviors, and this association held after controlling not only for family history of dementia, but also for other dementia risk factors such as age, sex, race, and education level, as well as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and the presence of type 2 diabetes.
Similarly, among participants with a family history of dementia, those who engaged in three healthy lifestyle behaviors showed a 25%-35% reduction in dementia risk, compared with those who engaged in two or fewer healthy behaviors.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove that lifestyle can cause or prevent dementia, only to show an association, the researchers noted. Also, the findings were limited by the reliance on self-reports, rather than genetic data, to confirm familial dementia.
However, the findings were strengthened by the large sample size, and the results suggest that a healthy lifestyle can impact cognitive health, and support the value of encouraging healthy behaviors in general, and especially among individuals with a family history of dementia, they said.
Small changes may promote prevention
The study is important now because, as the population ages, many individuals have a family member who has had dementia, said lead author Dr. Brellenthin, in an interview. “It’s important to understand how lifestyle behaviors affect the risk of dementia when it runs in families,” she said.
Dr. Brellenthin said she was surprised by some of the findings. “It was surprising to see that the risk of dementia was reduced with just three healthy behaviors [but was further reduced as you added more behaviors] compared to two or fewer behaviors. However, it was not surprising to see that these same lifestyle behaviors that tend to be good for the heart and body are also good for the brain.”
The evidence that following just three healthy behaviors can reduce the risk of dementia by 25%-35% for individuals with a familial history of dementia has clinical implications, Dr. Brellenthin said. “Many people are already following some of these behaviors like not smoking, so it might be possible to focus on adding just one more behavior, like getting enough sleep, and going from there.”
Commenting on the study, AHA President Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, said that the study “tells us that, yes, family history is important [in determining the risk of dementia], and much of that may be driven by genetic factors, but some of that impact can be mitigated or decreased by engaging in those important behaviors that we know are good to maintain brain health.
“The tricky thing, of course, is getting people to engage in these behaviors. That’s where a lot of work in the future will be: changing people’s behavior to become more healthy, and figuring out exactly which behaviors may be the easiest to engage in and be most likely to have public health impact,” added Dr. Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University and attending neurologist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.
The study received no outside funding, but the was research was conducted using the U.K. Biobank resources. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Individuals at increased risk for dementia because of family history can reduce that risk by adopting healthy lifestyle behaviors, data from more than 300,000 adults aged 50-73 years suggest.
Having a parent or sibling with dementia can increase a person’s risk of developing dementia themselves by nearly 75%, compared with someone with no first-degree family history of dementia, according to Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, of Iowa State University, Ames, and colleagues.
In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association, the researchers reviewed information for 302,239 men and women who were enrolled in the U.K. Biobank, a population-based study of more than 500,000 individuals in the United Kingdom, between 2006 and 2010.
The study participants had no evidence of dementia at baseline, and completed questionnaires about family history and lifestyle. The questions included details about six healthy lifestyle behaviors: eating a healthy diet, engaging in at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week, sleeping 6-9 hours each night, drinking alcohol in moderation, not smoking, and maintaining a body mass index below the obese level (less than 30 kg/m2).
The researchers identified 1,698 participants (0.6%) who developed dementia over an average follow-up period of 8 years. Those with a family history (first-degree relative) of dementia had a 70% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who had no such family history.
Overall, individuals who engaged in all six healthy behaviors reduced their risk of dementia by about half, compared with those who engaged in two or fewer healthy behaviors. Engaging in three healthy behaviors reduced the risk of dementia by 30%, compared with engaging in two or fewer healthy behaviors, and this association held after controlling not only for family history of dementia, but also for other dementia risk factors such as age, sex, race, and education level, as well as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and the presence of type 2 diabetes.
Similarly, among participants with a family history of dementia, those who engaged in three healthy lifestyle behaviors showed a 25%-35% reduction in dementia risk, compared with those who engaged in two or fewer healthy behaviors.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove that lifestyle can cause or prevent dementia, only to show an association, the researchers noted. Also, the findings were limited by the reliance on self-reports, rather than genetic data, to confirm familial dementia.
However, the findings were strengthened by the large sample size, and the results suggest that a healthy lifestyle can impact cognitive health, and support the value of encouraging healthy behaviors in general, and especially among individuals with a family history of dementia, they said.
Small changes may promote prevention
The study is important now because, as the population ages, many individuals have a family member who has had dementia, said lead author Dr. Brellenthin, in an interview. “It’s important to understand how lifestyle behaviors affect the risk of dementia when it runs in families,” she said.
Dr. Brellenthin said she was surprised by some of the findings. “It was surprising to see that the risk of dementia was reduced with just three healthy behaviors [but was further reduced as you added more behaviors] compared to two or fewer behaviors. However, it was not surprising to see that these same lifestyle behaviors that tend to be good for the heart and body are also good for the brain.”
The evidence that following just three healthy behaviors can reduce the risk of dementia by 25%-35% for individuals with a familial history of dementia has clinical implications, Dr. Brellenthin said. “Many people are already following some of these behaviors like not smoking, so it might be possible to focus on adding just one more behavior, like getting enough sleep, and going from there.”
Commenting on the study, AHA President Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, said that the study “tells us that, yes, family history is important [in determining the risk of dementia], and much of that may be driven by genetic factors, but some of that impact can be mitigated or decreased by engaging in those important behaviors that we know are good to maintain brain health.
“The tricky thing, of course, is getting people to engage in these behaviors. That’s where a lot of work in the future will be: changing people’s behavior to become more healthy, and figuring out exactly which behaviors may be the easiest to engage in and be most likely to have public health impact,” added Dr. Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University and attending neurologist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.
The study received no outside funding, but the was research was conducted using the U.K. Biobank resources. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
Individuals at increased risk for dementia because of family history can reduce that risk by adopting healthy lifestyle behaviors, data from more than 300,000 adults aged 50-73 years suggest.
Having a parent or sibling with dementia can increase a person’s risk of developing dementia themselves by nearly 75%, compared with someone with no first-degree family history of dementia, according to Angelique Brellenthin, PhD, of Iowa State University, Ames, and colleagues.
In a study presented at the Epidemiology and Prevention/Lifestyle and Cardiometabolic Health meeting sponsored by the American Heart Association, the researchers reviewed information for 302,239 men and women who were enrolled in the U.K. Biobank, a population-based study of more than 500,000 individuals in the United Kingdom, between 2006 and 2010.
The study participants had no evidence of dementia at baseline, and completed questionnaires about family history and lifestyle. The questions included details about six healthy lifestyle behaviors: eating a healthy diet, engaging in at least 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity per week, sleeping 6-9 hours each night, drinking alcohol in moderation, not smoking, and maintaining a body mass index below the obese level (less than 30 kg/m2).
The researchers identified 1,698 participants (0.6%) who developed dementia over an average follow-up period of 8 years. Those with a family history (first-degree relative) of dementia had a 70% increased risk of dementia, compared with those who had no such family history.
Overall, individuals who engaged in all six healthy behaviors reduced their risk of dementia by about half, compared with those who engaged in two or fewer healthy behaviors. Engaging in three healthy behaviors reduced the risk of dementia by 30%, compared with engaging in two or fewer healthy behaviors, and this association held after controlling not only for family history of dementia, but also for other dementia risk factors such as age, sex, race, and education level, as well as high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and the presence of type 2 diabetes.
Similarly, among participants with a family history of dementia, those who engaged in three healthy lifestyle behaviors showed a 25%-35% reduction in dementia risk, compared with those who engaged in two or fewer healthy behaviors.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to prove that lifestyle can cause or prevent dementia, only to show an association, the researchers noted. Also, the findings were limited by the reliance on self-reports, rather than genetic data, to confirm familial dementia.
However, the findings were strengthened by the large sample size, and the results suggest that a healthy lifestyle can impact cognitive health, and support the value of encouraging healthy behaviors in general, and especially among individuals with a family history of dementia, they said.
Small changes may promote prevention
The study is important now because, as the population ages, many individuals have a family member who has had dementia, said lead author Dr. Brellenthin, in an interview. “It’s important to understand how lifestyle behaviors affect the risk of dementia when it runs in families,” she said.
Dr. Brellenthin said she was surprised by some of the findings. “It was surprising to see that the risk of dementia was reduced with just three healthy behaviors [but was further reduced as you added more behaviors] compared to two or fewer behaviors. However, it was not surprising to see that these same lifestyle behaviors that tend to be good for the heart and body are also good for the brain.”
The evidence that following just three healthy behaviors can reduce the risk of dementia by 25%-35% for individuals with a familial history of dementia has clinical implications, Dr. Brellenthin said. “Many people are already following some of these behaviors like not smoking, so it might be possible to focus on adding just one more behavior, like getting enough sleep, and going from there.”
Commenting on the study, AHA President Mitchell S. V. Elkind, MD, said that the study “tells us that, yes, family history is important [in determining the risk of dementia], and much of that may be driven by genetic factors, but some of that impact can be mitigated or decreased by engaging in those important behaviors that we know are good to maintain brain health.
“The tricky thing, of course, is getting people to engage in these behaviors. That’s where a lot of work in the future will be: changing people’s behavior to become more healthy, and figuring out exactly which behaviors may be the easiest to engage in and be most likely to have public health impact,” added Dr. Elkind, professor of neurology and epidemiology at Columbia University and attending neurologist at New York–Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York.
The study received no outside funding, but the was research was conducted using the U.K. Biobank resources. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM EPI/LIFESTYLE 2021
Care of post–acute COVID-19 patients requires multidisciplinary collaboration
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, a population of patients has arisen with a range of symptoms and complications after surviving the acute phase of illness, according to Mezgebe Berhe, MD, of Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas.
Different terms have been used to describe this condition, including post COVID, long COVID, chronic COVID, and long-haulers, Dr. Berhe said in a presentation at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. However, the current medical consensus for a definition is post–acute COVID-19 syndrome.
Acute COVID-19 generally lasts for about 4 weeks after the onset of symptoms, and post–acute COVID-19 is generally defined as “persistent symptoms and/or delayed or long-term complications beyond 4 weeks from the onset of symptoms,” he said. The postacute period may be broken into a subacute phase with symptoms and abnormalities present from 4-12 weeks beyond the acute phase, and then a chronic or post–acute COVID-19 syndrome, with symptoms and abnormalities present beyond 12 weeks after the onset of acute COVID-19.
Patients in the subacute or post–COVID-19 phase of illness are polymerase chain reaction negative and may have multiorgan symptomatology, said Dr. Berhe. Physical symptoms include fatigue, decline in quality of life, joint pain, and muscle weakness; reported mental symptoms include anxiety and depression; sleep disturbance; PTSD; cognitive disturbance (described by patients as “brain fog”); and headaches.
Pulmonary symptoms in post–acute COVID-19 patients include dyspnea, cough, and persistent oxygen requirements; patients also have reported palpitations and chest pain. Thromboembolism, chronic kidney disease, and hair loss also have been reported in COVID-19 patients in the postacute period.
What studies show
Early reports on postacute consequences of COVID-19 have been reported in published studies from the United States, Europe, and China, and the current treatment recommendations are based on findings from these studies, Dr. Berhe said.
In an observational cohort study from 38 hospitals in Michigan, researchers assessed 60-day outcomes for 1,250 COVID-19 patients who were discharged alive from the hospital. The researchers used medical record abstraction and telephone surveys to assess long-term symptoms. Overall, 6.7% of the patients died and 15.1% required hospital readmission. A total of 488 patients completed the telephone survey. Of these, 32.6% reported persistent symptoms, 18.9% reported new or worsening symptoms, 22.9% reported dyspnea while walking up stairs, 15.4% reported a cough, and 13.1% reported a persistent loss of taste or smell.
Data from multiple countries in Europe have shown similar prevalence of post–acute COVID-19 syndrome, but Dr. Berhe highlighted an Italian study in which 87% of 143 patients discharged from hospitals after acute COVID-19 reported at least one symptom at 60 day. “A decline in quality of life, as measured by the EuroQol visual analog scale, was reported by 44.1% of patients” in the Italian study, Dr. Berhe noted.
In a prospective cohort study conducted in Wuhan, China, researchers conducted a comprehensive in-person evaluation of symptoms in 1,733 COVID-19 patients at 6 months from symptom onset, and found that 76% reported at least one symptom, said Dr. Berhe. “Similar to other studies, muscle weakness and fatigue were the most common symptoms, followed by sleep problems and anxiety/depression.
Dr. Berhe also cited a literature review published in Clinical Infectious Diseases that addressed COVID-19 in children; in one study of postacute COVID-19, approximately 12% of children had 5 weeks’ prevalence of persistent symptoms, compared with 22% of adults. This finding should remind clinicians that “Children can have devastating persistent symptoms following acute COVID-19 disease,” Dr. Berhe said.
In the post–acute COVID clinic
“Multidisciplinary collaboration is essential to provide integrated outpatient care to survivors of acute COVID-19,” Dr. Berhe said. Such collaboration includes pulmonary and cardiovascular symptom assessment through virtual or in-person follow-up at 4-6 weeks and at 12 weeks after hospital discharge. For those with dyspnea and persistent oxygen requirements at 12 weeks, consider the 6-minute walk test, pulmonary function test, chest x-ray, pulmonary embolism work-up, echocardiogram, and high-resolution CT of the chest as indicated.
With regard to neuropsychiatry, patients should be screened for anxiety, depression, PTSD, sleep disturbance, and cognitive impairment, said Dr. Berhe.
For hematology, “consider extended thromboprophylaxis for high-risk survivors based on shared decision-making,” he said. The incidence of thrombotic events post COVID is less than 5% so you have to be very selective and they should be in the highest-risk category.
COVID-19 patients with acute kidney infections should have a follow-up with a nephrologist soon after hospital discharge, he added.
From a primary care standpoint, early rehabilitation and patient education are important for managing symptoms; also consider recommending patient enrollment in research studies, Dr. Berhe said.
Dr. Berhe has been involved in multiple clinical trials of treating acute COVID-19 patients, but had no financial conflicts to disclose.
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, a population of patients has arisen with a range of symptoms and complications after surviving the acute phase of illness, according to Mezgebe Berhe, MD, of Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas.
Different terms have been used to describe this condition, including post COVID, long COVID, chronic COVID, and long-haulers, Dr. Berhe said in a presentation at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. However, the current medical consensus for a definition is post–acute COVID-19 syndrome.
Acute COVID-19 generally lasts for about 4 weeks after the onset of symptoms, and post–acute COVID-19 is generally defined as “persistent symptoms and/or delayed or long-term complications beyond 4 weeks from the onset of symptoms,” he said. The postacute period may be broken into a subacute phase with symptoms and abnormalities present from 4-12 weeks beyond the acute phase, and then a chronic or post–acute COVID-19 syndrome, with symptoms and abnormalities present beyond 12 weeks after the onset of acute COVID-19.
Patients in the subacute or post–COVID-19 phase of illness are polymerase chain reaction negative and may have multiorgan symptomatology, said Dr. Berhe. Physical symptoms include fatigue, decline in quality of life, joint pain, and muscle weakness; reported mental symptoms include anxiety and depression; sleep disturbance; PTSD; cognitive disturbance (described by patients as “brain fog”); and headaches.
Pulmonary symptoms in post–acute COVID-19 patients include dyspnea, cough, and persistent oxygen requirements; patients also have reported palpitations and chest pain. Thromboembolism, chronic kidney disease, and hair loss also have been reported in COVID-19 patients in the postacute period.
What studies show
Early reports on postacute consequences of COVID-19 have been reported in published studies from the United States, Europe, and China, and the current treatment recommendations are based on findings from these studies, Dr. Berhe said.
In an observational cohort study from 38 hospitals in Michigan, researchers assessed 60-day outcomes for 1,250 COVID-19 patients who were discharged alive from the hospital. The researchers used medical record abstraction and telephone surveys to assess long-term symptoms. Overall, 6.7% of the patients died and 15.1% required hospital readmission. A total of 488 patients completed the telephone survey. Of these, 32.6% reported persistent symptoms, 18.9% reported new or worsening symptoms, 22.9% reported dyspnea while walking up stairs, 15.4% reported a cough, and 13.1% reported a persistent loss of taste or smell.
Data from multiple countries in Europe have shown similar prevalence of post–acute COVID-19 syndrome, but Dr. Berhe highlighted an Italian study in which 87% of 143 patients discharged from hospitals after acute COVID-19 reported at least one symptom at 60 day. “A decline in quality of life, as measured by the EuroQol visual analog scale, was reported by 44.1% of patients” in the Italian study, Dr. Berhe noted.
In a prospective cohort study conducted in Wuhan, China, researchers conducted a comprehensive in-person evaluation of symptoms in 1,733 COVID-19 patients at 6 months from symptom onset, and found that 76% reported at least one symptom, said Dr. Berhe. “Similar to other studies, muscle weakness and fatigue were the most common symptoms, followed by sleep problems and anxiety/depression.
Dr. Berhe also cited a literature review published in Clinical Infectious Diseases that addressed COVID-19 in children; in one study of postacute COVID-19, approximately 12% of children had 5 weeks’ prevalence of persistent symptoms, compared with 22% of adults. This finding should remind clinicians that “Children can have devastating persistent symptoms following acute COVID-19 disease,” Dr. Berhe said.
In the post–acute COVID clinic
“Multidisciplinary collaboration is essential to provide integrated outpatient care to survivors of acute COVID-19,” Dr. Berhe said. Such collaboration includes pulmonary and cardiovascular symptom assessment through virtual or in-person follow-up at 4-6 weeks and at 12 weeks after hospital discharge. For those with dyspnea and persistent oxygen requirements at 12 weeks, consider the 6-minute walk test, pulmonary function test, chest x-ray, pulmonary embolism work-up, echocardiogram, and high-resolution CT of the chest as indicated.
With regard to neuropsychiatry, patients should be screened for anxiety, depression, PTSD, sleep disturbance, and cognitive impairment, said Dr. Berhe.
For hematology, “consider extended thromboprophylaxis for high-risk survivors based on shared decision-making,” he said. The incidence of thrombotic events post COVID is less than 5% so you have to be very selective and they should be in the highest-risk category.
COVID-19 patients with acute kidney infections should have a follow-up with a nephrologist soon after hospital discharge, he added.
From a primary care standpoint, early rehabilitation and patient education are important for managing symptoms; also consider recommending patient enrollment in research studies, Dr. Berhe said.
Dr. Berhe has been involved in multiple clinical trials of treating acute COVID-19 patients, but had no financial conflicts to disclose.
In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, a population of patients has arisen with a range of symptoms and complications after surviving the acute phase of illness, according to Mezgebe Berhe, MD, of Baylor University Medical Center, Dallas.
Different terms have been used to describe this condition, including post COVID, long COVID, chronic COVID, and long-haulers, Dr. Berhe said in a presentation at SHM Converge, the annual conference of the Society of Hospital Medicine. However, the current medical consensus for a definition is post–acute COVID-19 syndrome.
Acute COVID-19 generally lasts for about 4 weeks after the onset of symptoms, and post–acute COVID-19 is generally defined as “persistent symptoms and/or delayed or long-term complications beyond 4 weeks from the onset of symptoms,” he said. The postacute period may be broken into a subacute phase with symptoms and abnormalities present from 4-12 weeks beyond the acute phase, and then a chronic or post–acute COVID-19 syndrome, with symptoms and abnormalities present beyond 12 weeks after the onset of acute COVID-19.
Patients in the subacute or post–COVID-19 phase of illness are polymerase chain reaction negative and may have multiorgan symptomatology, said Dr. Berhe. Physical symptoms include fatigue, decline in quality of life, joint pain, and muscle weakness; reported mental symptoms include anxiety and depression; sleep disturbance; PTSD; cognitive disturbance (described by patients as “brain fog”); and headaches.
Pulmonary symptoms in post–acute COVID-19 patients include dyspnea, cough, and persistent oxygen requirements; patients also have reported palpitations and chest pain. Thromboembolism, chronic kidney disease, and hair loss also have been reported in COVID-19 patients in the postacute period.
What studies show
Early reports on postacute consequences of COVID-19 have been reported in published studies from the United States, Europe, and China, and the current treatment recommendations are based on findings from these studies, Dr. Berhe said.
In an observational cohort study from 38 hospitals in Michigan, researchers assessed 60-day outcomes for 1,250 COVID-19 patients who were discharged alive from the hospital. The researchers used medical record abstraction and telephone surveys to assess long-term symptoms. Overall, 6.7% of the patients died and 15.1% required hospital readmission. A total of 488 patients completed the telephone survey. Of these, 32.6% reported persistent symptoms, 18.9% reported new or worsening symptoms, 22.9% reported dyspnea while walking up stairs, 15.4% reported a cough, and 13.1% reported a persistent loss of taste or smell.
Data from multiple countries in Europe have shown similar prevalence of post–acute COVID-19 syndrome, but Dr. Berhe highlighted an Italian study in which 87% of 143 patients discharged from hospitals after acute COVID-19 reported at least one symptom at 60 day. “A decline in quality of life, as measured by the EuroQol visual analog scale, was reported by 44.1% of patients” in the Italian study, Dr. Berhe noted.
In a prospective cohort study conducted in Wuhan, China, researchers conducted a comprehensive in-person evaluation of symptoms in 1,733 COVID-19 patients at 6 months from symptom onset, and found that 76% reported at least one symptom, said Dr. Berhe. “Similar to other studies, muscle weakness and fatigue were the most common symptoms, followed by sleep problems and anxiety/depression.
Dr. Berhe also cited a literature review published in Clinical Infectious Diseases that addressed COVID-19 in children; in one study of postacute COVID-19, approximately 12% of children had 5 weeks’ prevalence of persistent symptoms, compared with 22% of adults. This finding should remind clinicians that “Children can have devastating persistent symptoms following acute COVID-19 disease,” Dr. Berhe said.
In the post–acute COVID clinic
“Multidisciplinary collaboration is essential to provide integrated outpatient care to survivors of acute COVID-19,” Dr. Berhe said. Such collaboration includes pulmonary and cardiovascular symptom assessment through virtual or in-person follow-up at 4-6 weeks and at 12 weeks after hospital discharge. For those with dyspnea and persistent oxygen requirements at 12 weeks, consider the 6-minute walk test, pulmonary function test, chest x-ray, pulmonary embolism work-up, echocardiogram, and high-resolution CT of the chest as indicated.
With regard to neuropsychiatry, patients should be screened for anxiety, depression, PTSD, sleep disturbance, and cognitive impairment, said Dr. Berhe.
For hematology, “consider extended thromboprophylaxis for high-risk survivors based on shared decision-making,” he said. The incidence of thrombotic events post COVID is less than 5% so you have to be very selective and they should be in the highest-risk category.
COVID-19 patients with acute kidney infections should have a follow-up with a nephrologist soon after hospital discharge, he added.
From a primary care standpoint, early rehabilitation and patient education are important for managing symptoms; also consider recommending patient enrollment in research studies, Dr. Berhe said.
Dr. Berhe has been involved in multiple clinical trials of treating acute COVID-19 patients, but had no financial conflicts to disclose.
FROM SHM CONVERGE 2021
Quick and easy parenting assessment could prevent adverse events
A parenting assessment can add value to a clinic visit by facilitating conversations about discipline and potentially mitigating adverse childhood experiences, based on survey data from 167 health care providers.
“Some of the most modifiable adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are unhealthy parenting behaviors,” according to Amber J. Cooke, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues. “Despite the widespread use of standardized health assessment tools in pediatrics, a gap in services is that parenting assessments are not routinely administered,” they said.
In a study presented at the virtual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, the researchers assessed clinicians’ perspectives on the use of the Quick Parenting Assessment (QPA), a validated 13-item parent support tool designed to identify children exposed to unhealthy parenting practices such as yelling, threatening, humiliating language, and physical punishment.
The researchers surveyed clinicians about how they integrated the QPA into a 15-month or 30-month well-child visit. Clinicians were trained to review the QPA and respond to parents during the visit.
Overall, the health care providers reported that the QPA could be reviewed with parents in less than 3 minutes for more than 80% of encounters.
The QPA takes approximately 1 minute for parents or caregivers to complete. Participating clinicians underwent training to learn how to interpret and respond to the QPA, and responded to a survey based on their inclusion of it in clinical visits. Key factors measured in the survey included the time needed for the clinician to review the QPA with the parent; whether the QPA increased clinicians’ objectivity about the level of support needed for the caregivers, whether the QPA affected communications with the caregiver about parenting, and whether the QPA added value to the well-child visit.
The survey respondents included resident physicians, nurse practitioners, and attending physicians. Approximately 75% of the providers said they were able to review the QPA in 1 minute or less; approximately 24% took 1-5 minutes, and less than 1% took longer than 5 minutes.
A majority of respondents (79%) said that the parent or caregiver was receptive to the QPA, and 74% said that the QPA facilitated communications with caregivers about parenting. In addition, 61% and 60% said the QPA improved the quality and value, respectively, of the visit, and 64% of the respondents said that the QPA increased their objectivity in assessing the level of support needed by caregivers.
Responses were similar, but slightly higher, in each category when the researchers compared providers who reviewed three or more QPAs with parents to those who reviewed less than three QPAs with parents.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single clinic site serving primarily low-income families, which might affect the generalizability of the results, the researchers noted. A lack of data on all QPA encounters might result in a participation bias as well, they said.
However, the results support the feasibility of the QPA, and clinical implications include mitigating ACEs, preventing child abuse, and enhancing the value of the well-child visit, they said. Next steps for research include integrating the QPA into 5-year and 8-year well-child visits, they concluded.
Data support value of parenting assessment screening tool
“In order to be useful, a screening tool has to be validated, not add significant time to the well-child visit, and result in useful data for the clinician to more effectively serve their families,” Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said in an interview. “The Quick Parenting Assessment Screen was developed at Vanderbilt, is free for clinicians to use, and takes an average of 1 minute to assess,” she noted. “This poster highlights a study that was done by residents and attendings at Vanderbilt who administered the tool to caregivers attending their well child clinics.”
Dr. Boulter explained the study was important because “there is increased emphasis on the social determinants of health within the context of well child care, and discipline is one aspect of significance in the assessment of adverse childhood experiences,” she said. “The practitioners overall felt that the tool improved communication with their caregivers, which increased the quality of the visit. It was also surprising that 79% of the providers noted that the caregiver was receptive to the assessment tool,” Dr. Boulter added.
“In general, this tool offers clinicians a quick overview of disciplinary practices in the households of their patients. It would be useful, as a next step, to expand the testing to a wider socioeconomic population of families,” she concluded.
The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.
A parenting assessment can add value to a clinic visit by facilitating conversations about discipline and potentially mitigating adverse childhood experiences, based on survey data from 167 health care providers.
“Some of the most modifiable adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are unhealthy parenting behaviors,” according to Amber J. Cooke, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues. “Despite the widespread use of standardized health assessment tools in pediatrics, a gap in services is that parenting assessments are not routinely administered,” they said.
In a study presented at the virtual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, the researchers assessed clinicians’ perspectives on the use of the Quick Parenting Assessment (QPA), a validated 13-item parent support tool designed to identify children exposed to unhealthy parenting practices such as yelling, threatening, humiliating language, and physical punishment.
The researchers surveyed clinicians about how they integrated the QPA into a 15-month or 30-month well-child visit. Clinicians were trained to review the QPA and respond to parents during the visit.
Overall, the health care providers reported that the QPA could be reviewed with parents in less than 3 minutes for more than 80% of encounters.
The QPA takes approximately 1 minute for parents or caregivers to complete. Participating clinicians underwent training to learn how to interpret and respond to the QPA, and responded to a survey based on their inclusion of it in clinical visits. Key factors measured in the survey included the time needed for the clinician to review the QPA with the parent; whether the QPA increased clinicians’ objectivity about the level of support needed for the caregivers, whether the QPA affected communications with the caregiver about parenting, and whether the QPA added value to the well-child visit.
The survey respondents included resident physicians, nurse practitioners, and attending physicians. Approximately 75% of the providers said they were able to review the QPA in 1 minute or less; approximately 24% took 1-5 minutes, and less than 1% took longer than 5 minutes.
A majority of respondents (79%) said that the parent or caregiver was receptive to the QPA, and 74% said that the QPA facilitated communications with caregivers about parenting. In addition, 61% and 60% said the QPA improved the quality and value, respectively, of the visit, and 64% of the respondents said that the QPA increased their objectivity in assessing the level of support needed by caregivers.
Responses were similar, but slightly higher, in each category when the researchers compared providers who reviewed three or more QPAs with parents to those who reviewed less than three QPAs with parents.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single clinic site serving primarily low-income families, which might affect the generalizability of the results, the researchers noted. A lack of data on all QPA encounters might result in a participation bias as well, they said.
However, the results support the feasibility of the QPA, and clinical implications include mitigating ACEs, preventing child abuse, and enhancing the value of the well-child visit, they said. Next steps for research include integrating the QPA into 5-year and 8-year well-child visits, they concluded.
Data support value of parenting assessment screening tool
“In order to be useful, a screening tool has to be validated, not add significant time to the well-child visit, and result in useful data for the clinician to more effectively serve their families,” Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said in an interview. “The Quick Parenting Assessment Screen was developed at Vanderbilt, is free for clinicians to use, and takes an average of 1 minute to assess,” she noted. “This poster highlights a study that was done by residents and attendings at Vanderbilt who administered the tool to caregivers attending their well child clinics.”
Dr. Boulter explained the study was important because “there is increased emphasis on the social determinants of health within the context of well child care, and discipline is one aspect of significance in the assessment of adverse childhood experiences,” she said. “The practitioners overall felt that the tool improved communication with their caregivers, which increased the quality of the visit. It was also surprising that 79% of the providers noted that the caregiver was receptive to the assessment tool,” Dr. Boulter added.
“In general, this tool offers clinicians a quick overview of disciplinary practices in the households of their patients. It would be useful, as a next step, to expand the testing to a wider socioeconomic population of families,” she concluded.
The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.
A parenting assessment can add value to a clinic visit by facilitating conversations about discipline and potentially mitigating adverse childhood experiences, based on survey data from 167 health care providers.
“Some of the most modifiable adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are unhealthy parenting behaviors,” according to Amber J. Cooke, MD, of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn., and colleagues. “Despite the widespread use of standardized health assessment tools in pediatrics, a gap in services is that parenting assessments are not routinely administered,” they said.
In a study presented at the virtual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Societies, the researchers assessed clinicians’ perspectives on the use of the Quick Parenting Assessment (QPA), a validated 13-item parent support tool designed to identify children exposed to unhealthy parenting practices such as yelling, threatening, humiliating language, and physical punishment.
The researchers surveyed clinicians about how they integrated the QPA into a 15-month or 30-month well-child visit. Clinicians were trained to review the QPA and respond to parents during the visit.
Overall, the health care providers reported that the QPA could be reviewed with parents in less than 3 minutes for more than 80% of encounters.
The QPA takes approximately 1 minute for parents or caregivers to complete. Participating clinicians underwent training to learn how to interpret and respond to the QPA, and responded to a survey based on their inclusion of it in clinical visits. Key factors measured in the survey included the time needed for the clinician to review the QPA with the parent; whether the QPA increased clinicians’ objectivity about the level of support needed for the caregivers, whether the QPA affected communications with the caregiver about parenting, and whether the QPA added value to the well-child visit.
The survey respondents included resident physicians, nurse practitioners, and attending physicians. Approximately 75% of the providers said they were able to review the QPA in 1 minute or less; approximately 24% took 1-5 minutes, and less than 1% took longer than 5 minutes.
A majority of respondents (79%) said that the parent or caregiver was receptive to the QPA, and 74% said that the QPA facilitated communications with caregivers about parenting. In addition, 61% and 60% said the QPA improved the quality and value, respectively, of the visit, and 64% of the respondents said that the QPA increased their objectivity in assessing the level of support needed by caregivers.
Responses were similar, but slightly higher, in each category when the researchers compared providers who reviewed three or more QPAs with parents to those who reviewed less than three QPAs with parents.
The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of data from a single clinic site serving primarily low-income families, which might affect the generalizability of the results, the researchers noted. A lack of data on all QPA encounters might result in a participation bias as well, they said.
However, the results support the feasibility of the QPA, and clinical implications include mitigating ACEs, preventing child abuse, and enhancing the value of the well-child visit, they said. Next steps for research include integrating the QPA into 5-year and 8-year well-child visits, they concluded.
Data support value of parenting assessment screening tool
“In order to be useful, a screening tool has to be validated, not add significant time to the well-child visit, and result in useful data for the clinician to more effectively serve their families,” Suzanne C. Boulter, MD, of the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, N.H., said in an interview. “The Quick Parenting Assessment Screen was developed at Vanderbilt, is free for clinicians to use, and takes an average of 1 minute to assess,” she noted. “This poster highlights a study that was done by residents and attendings at Vanderbilt who administered the tool to caregivers attending their well child clinics.”
Dr. Boulter explained the study was important because “there is increased emphasis on the social determinants of health within the context of well child care, and discipline is one aspect of significance in the assessment of adverse childhood experiences,” she said. “The practitioners overall felt that the tool improved communication with their caregivers, which increased the quality of the visit. It was also surprising that 79% of the providers noted that the caregiver was receptive to the assessment tool,” Dr. Boulter added.
“In general, this tool offers clinicians a quick overview of disciplinary practices in the households of their patients. It would be useful, as a next step, to expand the testing to a wider socioeconomic population of families,” she concluded.
The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Boulter had no financial conflicts to disclose, but serves on the Pediatric News Editorial Advisory Board.
FROM PAS 2021