MDedge Neurology

The Trump administration is sticking with a plan to boost certain Medicare pay for many primary care and other specialties focused heavily on office visits while lowering that for other groups to balance these increased costs.

On Aug. 4, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted on the Federal Register draft versions of two of its major annual payment measures: the physician fee schedule and the payment rule for hospital outpatient services. On Aug. 3, the CMS informally posted a copy of the physician fee schedule on its own website, allowing medical groups to begin reading the more than 1,300-page rule.

Federal officials normally use annual Medicare payment rules to make many revisions to policies as well as adjust reimbursement.

The draft 2021 physician fee schedule, for example, calls for broadening the authority of clinicians other than physicians to authorize testing of people enrolled in Medicare.

The CMS intends to allow nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and certain other health care professionals to more widely supervise diagnostic psychological and neuropsychological tests, in keeping with applicable state laws.

The draft 2021 hospital outpatient rule proposes a gradual changeover to allow more procedures to be performed on an outpatient basis. This shift could save money for Medicare as well as for the people enrolled in the giant federal health program who need these services, the CMS explained.

Medicare would begin with a change in status for almost 300 musculoskeletal-related services, making them eligible for payment in the hospital outpatient setting when appropriate, CMS wrote in a fact sheet.

The initial reaction to Medicare’s proposed 2021 rules centered on its planned redistribution of funds among medical specialties. The CMS had outlined this plan last year. It is part of longstanding efforts to boost pay for primary care specialists and other physicians whose practice centers more around office visits than procedures.

There is broad support in health policy circles for raising pay for these specialties, but there also are strong objections to the cuts the CMS plans to offset the cost of rising pay for some fields.

Susan R. Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association, addressed both of these ideas in an AMA news release on the proposed 2021 physician fee schedule. The increase in pay for office visits, covered under evaluation and management services (E/M), stems from recommendations on resource costs from the AMA/Specialty Society RVS Update Committee, Dr. Bailey said.

“Unfortunately, these office visit payment increases, and a multitude of other new CMS proposed payment increases, are required by statute to be offset by payment reductions to other services, through an unsustainable reduction of nearly 11% to the Medicare conversion factor,” Dr. Bailey explained.

In the news release, Dr. Bailey asked Congress to waive Medicare’s budget-neutrality requirements to allow increases without the cuts.

“Physicians are already experiencing substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19, so these pay cuts could not come at a worse time,” she said.

Winners and losers

The CMS details the possible winners and losers in its payment reshuffle in Table 90 of the proposed 2021 physician fee schedule. In the proposed rule, CMS notes in the draft that these figures are based upon estimates of aggregate allowed charges across all services furnished by physicians and other clinicians.

“Therefore, they are averages, and may not necessarily be representative of what is happening to the particular services furnished by a single practitioner within any given specialty,” the CMS said.

Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 draft rule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (17%), family practice (13%), general practice (8%), geriatrics (4%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (8%), rheumatology (16%), and urology (8%).

In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–9%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–7%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–7%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–11%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).

An umbrella group, the Surgical Care Coalition, on Aug. 3 had a quick statement ready about the CMS proposal. Writing on behalf of the group was David B. Hoyt, MD, executive director of the American College of Surgeons.

“Today’s proposed rule ignores both patients and the surgeons who care for them. The middle of a pandemic is no time for cuts to any form of health care, but today’s announcement moves ahead as if nothing has changed,” Hoyt said in the statement. “The Surgical Care Coalition believes no physician should see payment cuts that will reduce patients’ access to care.”

The Surgical Care Coalition already has been asking Congress to waive budget-neutrality requirements. Making a similar request Aug. 4 in a unified statement were the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA), and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA).

“Our organizations call on Congress and CMS to advance well-reasoned fee schedule payment policies and waive budget neutrality,” the groups said. “While APTA, AOTA, and ASHA do not oppose payment increases for primary care physicians, we believe these increases can be implemented without imposing payment reductions on other providers.”
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Trump administration is sticking with a plan to boost certain Medicare pay for many primary care and other specialties focused heavily on office visits while lowering that for other groups to balance these increased costs.

On Aug. 4, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted on the Federal Register draft versions of two of its major annual payment measures: the physician fee schedule and the payment rule for hospital outpatient services. On Aug. 3, the CMS informally posted a copy of the physician fee schedule on its own website, allowing medical groups to begin reading the more than 1,300-page rule.

Federal officials normally use annual Medicare payment rules to make many revisions to policies as well as adjust reimbursement.

The draft 2021 physician fee schedule, for example, calls for broadening the authority of clinicians other than physicians to authorize testing of people enrolled in Medicare.

The CMS intends to allow nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and certain other health care professionals to more widely supervise diagnostic psychological and neuropsychological tests, in keeping with applicable state laws.

The draft 2021 hospital outpatient rule proposes a gradual changeover to allow more procedures to be performed on an outpatient basis. This shift could save money for Medicare as well as for the people enrolled in the giant federal health program who need these services, the CMS explained.

Medicare would begin with a change in status for almost 300 musculoskeletal-related services, making them eligible for payment in the hospital outpatient setting when appropriate, CMS wrote in a fact sheet.

The initial reaction to Medicare’s proposed 2021 rules centered on its planned redistribution of funds among medical specialties. The CMS had outlined this plan last year. It is part of longstanding efforts to boost pay for primary care specialists and other physicians whose practice centers more around office visits than procedures.

There is broad support in health policy circles for raising pay for these specialties, but there also are strong objections to the cuts the CMS plans to offset the cost of rising pay for some fields.

Susan R. Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association, addressed both of these ideas in an AMA news release on the proposed 2021 physician fee schedule. The increase in pay for office visits, covered under evaluation and management services (E/M), stems from recommendations on resource costs from the AMA/Specialty Society RVS Update Committee, Dr. Bailey said.

“Unfortunately, these office visit payment increases, and a multitude of other new CMS proposed payment increases, are required by statute to be offset by payment reductions to other services, through an unsustainable reduction of nearly 11% to the Medicare conversion factor,” Dr. Bailey explained.

In the news release, Dr. Bailey asked Congress to waive Medicare’s budget-neutrality requirements to allow increases without the cuts.

“Physicians are already experiencing substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19, so these pay cuts could not come at a worse time,” she said.

Winners and losers

The CMS details the possible winners and losers in its payment reshuffle in Table 90 of the proposed 2021 physician fee schedule. In the proposed rule, CMS notes in the draft that these figures are based upon estimates of aggregate allowed charges across all services furnished by physicians and other clinicians.

“Therefore, they are averages, and may not necessarily be representative of what is happening to the particular services furnished by a single practitioner within any given specialty,” the CMS said.

Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 draft rule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (17%), family practice (13%), general practice (8%), geriatrics (4%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (8%), rheumatology (16%), and urology (8%).

In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–9%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–7%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–7%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–11%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).

An umbrella group, the Surgical Care Coalition, on Aug. 3 had a quick statement ready about the CMS proposal. Writing on behalf of the group was David B. Hoyt, MD, executive director of the American College of Surgeons.

“Today’s proposed rule ignores both patients and the surgeons who care for them. The middle of a pandemic is no time for cuts to any form of health care, but today’s announcement moves ahead as if nothing has changed,” Hoyt said in the statement. “The Surgical Care Coalition believes no physician should see payment cuts that will reduce patients’ access to care.”

The Surgical Care Coalition already has been asking Congress to waive budget-neutrality requirements. Making a similar request Aug. 4 in a unified statement were the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA), and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA).

“Our organizations call on Congress and CMS to advance well-reasoned fee schedule payment policies and waive budget neutrality,” the groups said. “While APTA, AOTA, and ASHA do not oppose payment increases for primary care physicians, we believe these increases can be implemented without imposing payment reductions on other providers.”
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The Trump administration is sticking with a plan to boost certain Medicare pay for many primary care and other specialties focused heavily on office visits while lowering that for other groups to balance these increased costs.

On Aug. 4, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted on the Federal Register draft versions of two of its major annual payment measures: the physician fee schedule and the payment rule for hospital outpatient services. On Aug. 3, the CMS informally posted a copy of the physician fee schedule on its own website, allowing medical groups to begin reading the more than 1,300-page rule.

Federal officials normally use annual Medicare payment rules to make many revisions to policies as well as adjust reimbursement.

The draft 2021 physician fee schedule, for example, calls for broadening the authority of clinicians other than physicians to authorize testing of people enrolled in Medicare.

The CMS intends to allow nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and certain other health care professionals to more widely supervise diagnostic psychological and neuropsychological tests, in keeping with applicable state laws.

The draft 2021 hospital outpatient rule proposes a gradual changeover to allow more procedures to be performed on an outpatient basis. This shift could save money for Medicare as well as for the people enrolled in the giant federal health program who need these services, the CMS explained.

Medicare would begin with a change in status for almost 300 musculoskeletal-related services, making them eligible for payment in the hospital outpatient setting when appropriate, CMS wrote in a fact sheet.

The initial reaction to Medicare’s proposed 2021 rules centered on its planned redistribution of funds among medical specialties. The CMS had outlined this plan last year. It is part of longstanding efforts to boost pay for primary care specialists and other physicians whose practice centers more around office visits than procedures.

There is broad support in health policy circles for raising pay for these specialties, but there also are strong objections to the cuts the CMS plans to offset the cost of rising pay for some fields.

Susan R. Bailey, MD, president of the American Medical Association, addressed both of these ideas in an AMA news release on the proposed 2021 physician fee schedule. The increase in pay for office visits, covered under evaluation and management services (E/M), stems from recommendations on resource costs from the AMA/Specialty Society RVS Update Committee, Dr. Bailey said.

“Unfortunately, these office visit payment increases, and a multitude of other new CMS proposed payment increases, are required by statute to be offset by payment reductions to other services, through an unsustainable reduction of nearly 11% to the Medicare conversion factor,” Dr. Bailey explained.

In the news release, Dr. Bailey asked Congress to waive Medicare’s budget-neutrality requirements to allow increases without the cuts.

“Physicians are already experiencing substantial economic hardships due to COVID-19, so these pay cuts could not come at a worse time,” she said.

Winners and losers

The CMS details the possible winners and losers in its payment reshuffle in Table 90 of the proposed 2021 physician fee schedule. In the proposed rule, CMS notes in the draft that these figures are based upon estimates of aggregate allowed charges across all services furnished by physicians and other clinicians.

“Therefore, they are averages, and may not necessarily be representative of what is happening to the particular services furnished by a single practitioner within any given specialty,” the CMS said.

Specialties in line for increases under the 2021 draft rule include allergy/immunology (9%), endocrinology (17%), family practice (13%), general practice (8%), geriatrics (4%), hematology/oncology (14%), internal medicine (4%), nephrology (6%), physician assistants (8%), psychiatry (8%), rheumatology (16%), and urology (8%).

In line for cuts would be anesthesiology (–8%), cardiac surgery (–9%), emergency medicine (–6%), general surgery (–7%), infectious disease (–4%), neurosurgery (–7%), physical/occupational therapy (–9%), plastic surgery (–7%), radiology (–11%), and thoracic surgery (–8%).

An umbrella group, the Surgical Care Coalition, on Aug. 3 had a quick statement ready about the CMS proposal. Writing on behalf of the group was David B. Hoyt, MD, executive director of the American College of Surgeons.

“Today’s proposed rule ignores both patients and the surgeons who care for them. The middle of a pandemic is no time for cuts to any form of health care, but today’s announcement moves ahead as if nothing has changed,” Hoyt said in the statement. “The Surgical Care Coalition believes no physician should see payment cuts that will reduce patients’ access to care.”

The Surgical Care Coalition already has been asking Congress to waive budget-neutrality requirements. Making a similar request Aug. 4 in a unified statement were the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA), and the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA).

“Our organizations call on Congress and CMS to advance well-reasoned fee schedule payment policies and waive budget neutrality,” the groups said. “While APTA, AOTA, and ASHA do not oppose payment increases for primary care physicians, we believe these increases can be implemented without imposing payment reductions on other providers.”
 

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Hospital costs for the nation’s 35.8 million inpatient stays in 2017 totaled $434.2 billion, for an average of $11,700 per stay, according to a recent analysis from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The single most expensive inpatient condition that year, representing about 8.8% of all hospital costs, was septicemia at $38.2 billion, nearly double the $19.9 billion spent on the next most expensive condition, osteoarthritis, Lan Liang, PhD, of the AHRQ, and associates said in a statistical brief.

These figures “represent the hospital’s costs to produce the services – not the amount paid for services by payers – and they do not include separately billed physician fees associated with the hospitalization,” they noted.

Third in overall cost for 2017 but first in total number of stays were live-born infants, with 3.7 million admissions costing just under $16 billion. Hospital costs for acute myocardial infarction ($14.3 billion) made it the fourth most expensive condition, with heart failure fifth at $13.6 billion, based on data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s National Inpatient Sample.

The 20 most expensive conditions, which also included coronary atherosclerosis, pneumonia, renal failure, and lower-limb fracture, accounted for close to 47% of all hospital costs and over 43% of all stays in 2017. The total amount spent by hospitals that year, $1.1 trillion, constituted nearly a third of all health care expenditures and was 4.7% higher than in 2016, Dr. Liang and associates reported.

“Although this growth represented deceleration, compared with the 5.8% increase between 2014 and 2015, the consistent year-to-year rise in hospital-related expenses remains a central concern among policymakers,” they wrote.

[email protected]

Hospital costs for the nation’s 35.8 million inpatient stays in 2017 totaled $434.2 billion, for an average of $11,700 per stay, according to a recent analysis from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The single most expensive inpatient condition that year, representing about 8.8% of all hospital costs, was septicemia at $38.2 billion, nearly double the $19.9 billion spent on the next most expensive condition, osteoarthritis, Lan Liang, PhD, of the AHRQ, and associates said in a statistical brief.

These figures “represent the hospital’s costs to produce the services – not the amount paid for services by payers – and they do not include separately billed physician fees associated with the hospitalization,” they noted.

Third in overall cost for 2017 but first in total number of stays were live-born infants, with 3.7 million admissions costing just under $16 billion. Hospital costs for acute myocardial infarction ($14.3 billion) made it the fourth most expensive condition, with heart failure fifth at $13.6 billion, based on data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s National Inpatient Sample.

The 20 most expensive conditions, which also included coronary atherosclerosis, pneumonia, renal failure, and lower-limb fracture, accounted for close to 47% of all hospital costs and over 43% of all stays in 2017. The total amount spent by hospitals that year, $1.1 trillion, constituted nearly a third of all health care expenditures and was 4.7% higher than in 2016, Dr. Liang and associates reported.

“Although this growth represented deceleration, compared with the 5.8% increase between 2014 and 2015, the consistent year-to-year rise in hospital-related expenses remains a central concern among policymakers,” they wrote.

[email protected]

Hospital costs for the nation’s 35.8 million inpatient stays in 2017 totaled $434.2 billion, for an average of $11,700 per stay, according to a recent analysis from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The single most expensive inpatient condition that year, representing about 8.8% of all hospital costs, was septicemia at $38.2 billion, nearly double the $19.9 billion spent on the next most expensive condition, osteoarthritis, Lan Liang, PhD, of the AHRQ, and associates said in a statistical brief.

These figures “represent the hospital’s costs to produce the services – not the amount paid for services by payers – and they do not include separately billed physician fees associated with the hospitalization,” they noted.

Third in overall cost for 2017 but first in total number of stays were live-born infants, with 3.7 million admissions costing just under $16 billion. Hospital costs for acute myocardial infarction ($14.3 billion) made it the fourth most expensive condition, with heart failure fifth at $13.6 billion, based on data from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project’s National Inpatient Sample.

The 20 most expensive conditions, which also included coronary atherosclerosis, pneumonia, renal failure, and lower-limb fracture, accounted for close to 47% of all hospital costs and over 43% of all stays in 2017. The total amount spent by hospitals that year, $1.1 trillion, constituted nearly a third of all health care expenditures and was 4.7% higher than in 2016, Dr. Liang and associates reported.

“Although this growth represented deceleration, compared with the 5.8% increase between 2014 and 2015, the consistent year-to-year rise in hospital-related expenses remains a central concern among policymakers,” they wrote.

[email protected]

Evidence for a link between cannabis use and cardiovascular health remains unsupported, and the potential risks outweigh any potential benefits, according to a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

American Heart Association

The increased legalization of cannabis and cannabis products in the United States has driven medical professionals to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cannabis in relation to health conditions, wrote Robert L. Page II, PharmD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.

In a statement published in Circulation, the researchers noted that although cannabis has been shown to relieve pain and other symptoms in certain conditions, clinicians in the United States have been limited from studying its health effects because of federal law restrictions. “Cannabis remains a schedule I controlled substance, deeming no accepted medical use, a high potential for abuse, and an unacceptable safety profile,” the researchers wrote.

The statement addresses issues with the use of cannabis by individuals with cardiovascular disease or those at increased risk. Observational studies have shown no cardiovascular benefits associated with cannabis, the writers noted. The most common chemicals in cannabis include THC (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) and CBD (cannabidiol).

Some research has shown associations between CBD cardiovascular features including lower blood pressure and reduced inflammation, the writers noted. However, THC, the component of cannabis associated with a “high” or intoxication, has been associated with heart rhythm abnormalities. The writers cited data suggesting an increased risk of heart attacks, atrial fibrillation and heart failure, although more research is needed.

The statement outlines common cannabis formulations including plant-based, extracts, crystalline forms, edible products, and tinctures. In addition, the statement notes that synthetic cannabis products are marketed and used in the United States without subject to regulation.

“Over the past 5 years, we have seen a surge in cannabis use, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic here in Colorado, especially among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. Page said in an interview. Because of the surge, health care practitioners need to familiarize themselves with not only the benefits, but risks associated with cannabis use regardless of the formulation,” he said. As heart disease remains a leading cause of death in the United States, understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with cannabis is crucial at this time.

Dr. Page noted that popular attitudes about cannabis could pose risks to users’ cardiovascular health. “One leading misconception about cannabis is because it is ‘natural’ it must be safe,” Dr. Page said. “As with all medications, cannabis has side effects, some of which can be cardiovascular in nature,” he said. “Significant drug-drug interactions can occur as CBD and THC, both found in cannabis, inhibit CYP3A4, which metabolizes a large number of medications used to treat many cardiovascular conditions,” he noted.

“Unfortunately, much of the published data is observational in nature due to the federal restrictions on cannabis as a schedule I drug,” said Dr. Page. “Nonetheless, safety signals have emerged regarding cannabis use and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Carefully designed prospective short- and long-term studies regarding cannabis use and cardiovascular safety are needed,” he emphasized.

Areas in particular need of additional research include the cardiovascular effects of cannabis in several vulnerable populations such as adolescents, older adults, pregnant women, transplant recipients, and those with underlying cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Page.

“Nonetheless, based on the safety signals described within this Clinical Science Statement, an open discussion regarding the risks of using cannabis needs to occur between patient and health care providers,” he said. “Furthermore, patients must be transparent regarding their cannabis use with their cardiologist and primary care provider. The cannabis story will continue to evolve and is a rapidly moving/changing target,” he said.

“Whether cannabis use is a definitive risk factor for cardiovascular disease as with tobacco use is still unknown, and both acute and long-term studies are desperately needed to address this issue,” he said.

Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Page et al. Circulation. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000883.

Evidence for a link between cannabis use and cardiovascular health remains unsupported, and the potential risks outweigh any potential benefits, according to a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

American Heart Association

The increased legalization of cannabis and cannabis products in the United States has driven medical professionals to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cannabis in relation to health conditions, wrote Robert L. Page II, PharmD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.

In a statement published in Circulation, the researchers noted that although cannabis has been shown to relieve pain and other symptoms in certain conditions, clinicians in the United States have been limited from studying its health effects because of federal law restrictions. “Cannabis remains a schedule I controlled substance, deeming no accepted medical use, a high potential for abuse, and an unacceptable safety profile,” the researchers wrote.

The statement addresses issues with the use of cannabis by individuals with cardiovascular disease or those at increased risk. Observational studies have shown no cardiovascular benefits associated with cannabis, the writers noted. The most common chemicals in cannabis include THC (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) and CBD (cannabidiol).

Some research has shown associations between CBD cardiovascular features including lower blood pressure and reduced inflammation, the writers noted. However, THC, the component of cannabis associated with a “high” or intoxication, has been associated with heart rhythm abnormalities. The writers cited data suggesting an increased risk of heart attacks, atrial fibrillation and heart failure, although more research is needed.

The statement outlines common cannabis formulations including plant-based, extracts, crystalline forms, edible products, and tinctures. In addition, the statement notes that synthetic cannabis products are marketed and used in the United States without subject to regulation.

“Over the past 5 years, we have seen a surge in cannabis use, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic here in Colorado, especially among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. Page said in an interview. Because of the surge, health care practitioners need to familiarize themselves with not only the benefits, but risks associated with cannabis use regardless of the formulation,” he said. As heart disease remains a leading cause of death in the United States, understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with cannabis is crucial at this time.

Dr. Page noted that popular attitudes about cannabis could pose risks to users’ cardiovascular health. “One leading misconception about cannabis is because it is ‘natural’ it must be safe,” Dr. Page said. “As with all medications, cannabis has side effects, some of which can be cardiovascular in nature,” he said. “Significant drug-drug interactions can occur as CBD and THC, both found in cannabis, inhibit CYP3A4, which metabolizes a large number of medications used to treat many cardiovascular conditions,” he noted.

“Unfortunately, much of the published data is observational in nature due to the federal restrictions on cannabis as a schedule I drug,” said Dr. Page. “Nonetheless, safety signals have emerged regarding cannabis use and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Carefully designed prospective short- and long-term studies regarding cannabis use and cardiovascular safety are needed,” he emphasized.

Areas in particular need of additional research include the cardiovascular effects of cannabis in several vulnerable populations such as adolescents, older adults, pregnant women, transplant recipients, and those with underlying cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Page.

“Nonetheless, based on the safety signals described within this Clinical Science Statement, an open discussion regarding the risks of using cannabis needs to occur between patient and health care providers,” he said. “Furthermore, patients must be transparent regarding their cannabis use with their cardiologist and primary care provider. The cannabis story will continue to evolve and is a rapidly moving/changing target,” he said.

“Whether cannabis use is a definitive risk factor for cardiovascular disease as with tobacco use is still unknown, and both acute and long-term studies are desperately needed to address this issue,” he said.

Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Page et al. Circulation. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000883.

Evidence for a link between cannabis use and cardiovascular health remains unsupported, and the potential risks outweigh any potential benefits, according to a scientific statement from the American Heart Association.

American Heart Association

The increased legalization of cannabis and cannabis products in the United States has driven medical professionals to evaluate the safety and efficacy of cannabis in relation to health conditions, wrote Robert L. Page II, PharmD, of the University of Colorado, Aurora, and colleagues.

In a statement published in Circulation, the researchers noted that although cannabis has been shown to relieve pain and other symptoms in certain conditions, clinicians in the United States have been limited from studying its health effects because of federal law restrictions. “Cannabis remains a schedule I controlled substance, deeming no accepted medical use, a high potential for abuse, and an unacceptable safety profile,” the researchers wrote.

The statement addresses issues with the use of cannabis by individuals with cardiovascular disease or those at increased risk. Observational studies have shown no cardiovascular benefits associated with cannabis, the writers noted. The most common chemicals in cannabis include THC (tetrahydrocannabinolic acid) and CBD (cannabidiol).

Some research has shown associations between CBD cardiovascular features including lower blood pressure and reduced inflammation, the writers noted. However, THC, the component of cannabis associated with a “high” or intoxication, has been associated with heart rhythm abnormalities. The writers cited data suggesting an increased risk of heart attacks, atrial fibrillation and heart failure, although more research is needed.

The statement outlines common cannabis formulations including plant-based, extracts, crystalline forms, edible products, and tinctures. In addition, the statement notes that synthetic cannabis products are marketed and used in the United States without subject to regulation.

“Over the past 5 years, we have seen a surge in cannabis use, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic here in Colorado, especially among adolescents and young adults,” Dr. Page said in an interview. Because of the surge, health care practitioners need to familiarize themselves with not only the benefits, but risks associated with cannabis use regardless of the formulation,” he said. As heart disease remains a leading cause of death in the United States, understanding the cardiovascular risks associated with cannabis is crucial at this time.

Dr. Page noted that popular attitudes about cannabis could pose risks to users’ cardiovascular health. “One leading misconception about cannabis is because it is ‘natural’ it must be safe,” Dr. Page said. “As with all medications, cannabis has side effects, some of which can be cardiovascular in nature,” he said. “Significant drug-drug interactions can occur as CBD and THC, both found in cannabis, inhibit CYP3A4, which metabolizes a large number of medications used to treat many cardiovascular conditions,” he noted.

“Unfortunately, much of the published data is observational in nature due to the federal restrictions on cannabis as a schedule I drug,” said Dr. Page. “Nonetheless, safety signals have emerged regarding cannabis use and adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including myocardial infarction, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation. Carefully designed prospective short- and long-term studies regarding cannabis use and cardiovascular safety are needed,” he emphasized.

Areas in particular need of additional research include the cardiovascular effects of cannabis in several vulnerable populations such as adolescents, older adults, pregnant women, transplant recipients, and those with underlying cardiovascular disease, said Dr. Page.

“Nonetheless, based on the safety signals described within this Clinical Science Statement, an open discussion regarding the risks of using cannabis needs to occur between patient and health care providers,” he said. “Furthermore, patients must be transparent regarding their cannabis use with their cardiologist and primary care provider. The cannabis story will continue to evolve and is a rapidly moving/changing target,” he said.

“Whether cannabis use is a definitive risk factor for cardiovascular disease as with tobacco use is still unknown, and both acute and long-term studies are desperately needed to address this issue,” he said.

Dr. Page had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Page et al. Circulation. 2020 Aug 5. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000883.

For some palliative care professionals, the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in viral hot spots like New York City, represents a “moment” that could lead to greater awareness of what this service offers to seriously ill patients in a crisis.

They say it has provided an opportunity to show what palliative care teams can contribute to the difficult circumstances of patients with severe symptoms, isolated and alone in quarantined hospitals, with poor survival rates, perhaps sedated for extended stays on scarce ventilators – and for their family members, who are able to visit them only virtually via telephone or tablet.

But it has also highlighted gaps – including insufficient staffing for some palliative care teams. Hospitalists and other clinicians in the hospital need to learn the basics of primary palliative care, such as how to communicate bad news, initiate goals of care conversations, and address common symptoms of serious illness, such as pain. That way, they could shoulder more of the demand for this kind of care when palliative care specialists are in short supply.

Hospitalists, some of whom also have pursued a specialization in palliative care, have played key roles in clarifying and redefining the new role for palliative care, whom it is meant for, and who should provide it. Central to this new role is the greater use of telemedicine – for talking to hospitalized patients without increasing viral exposure, for linking up with family members who can’t visit their loved ones in the hospital, and for helping frontline hospital staff who need a palliative care consultation – or just a chance to debrief on what they are seeing.

A pandemic wake-up call

Elizabeth Gundersen, MD, FHM, FAAHPM, director of the hospice and palliative medicine fellowship program at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton, practiced hospital medicine for 10 years before pursuing a fellowship in hospice and palliative medicine and working as an academic palliative medicine physician. She calls the pandemic a wake-up call for gaps in care and all the things that weren’t working well in the health care system.

“Now we are seeing more clearly what’s lacking – or broken – and what we will carry forward from this experience into the post-COVID world,” she said. Some hospitalists do palliative care very well, and others don’t feel as comfortable in having these difficult conversations with patients. But in the uncertain course of the virus they get thrust into it.

Although FAU’s associated hospitals were not as inundated with COVID-19 patients in the early weeks of the pandemic as were other regions, the volume of other patients plummeted, Dr. Gundersen said, adding that “there’s still been incredible intensity and worry about the virus. For me, the basic role of palliative care hasn’t changed, and the phrase I have always used when introducing myself – ‘we’re an extra layer of support for the patient and family’ – still holds true,” she said.

“I try to make it clear to people that palliative care is not synonymous with end-of-life care. We don’t want people to think that a palliative care referral implies imminent death. The goal is not to get more people to have a do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) order, but to determine the patient and family’s treatment goals and whether a DNAR order fits those goals.”

The tough conversations

Dr. Gundersen is cochair of SHM’s Palliative Care Special Interest Group, along with Rab Razzak, MD, clinical director of palliative medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, one of the hospitals affiliated with Case Western University in Cleveland. (Connect with them on Twitter: @Top_Gundersen and @rabrazzak.)

Kim Fatica, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center

Dr. Razzak also transitioned from hospital medicine to palliative medicine 10 years ago. “As a hospitalist, I enjoyed the tough conversations and bringing the human element into my health care interactions,” he explained. “To me, palliative care is a philosophy of care that puts the person we call the patient at the center of the interaction, while we try to figure out how to best care for them as a person.”

When the pandemic hit, University Hospitals made 20 ICU beds available for COVID-19 patients, Dr. Razzak said. This unit has since been full but not overflowing, while overall hospital census went down. The palliative care team at the hospital includes four inpatient doctors, nurse practitioners, and a chaplain, as well as an outpatient team primarily focused on oncology.

“In some settings, palliative care has been at the forefront of difficult conversations, when things aren’t going well for the patient and there’s much uncertainty,” Dr. Razzak said. The interface between hospital medicine and palliative care can be complementary, he added. “We talk about primary palliative care, which we want every discipline to be able to do – lead meaningful conversations, help manage symptoms.”

The take-home message for hospitalists, he said, is to get training in how to have these discussions, using such resources as VitalTalk (https://www.vitaltalk.org/), a nonprofit organization that disseminates education in communication skills for difficult conversations, and the Center to Advance Palliative Care (www.capc.org) at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “Once you’ve mastered the conversation, it will get easier. But ask for help when you need it, and learn how to know when you need it.”

Dr. Gundersen added that hospital medicine groups and palliative care teams could reach out to each other and talk about what they did in the crisis and how they can work together in the future. She recommends frequent ongoing support and collaboration that could range from formal conferences or training sessions to informal team interactions, perhaps with sandwiches in the doctor’s lounge – provided that there’s room for social distancing. She has recently started giving talks in the community and grand rounds presentations in hospitals about palliative care.
 

Other approaches and applications

In New York City, the initial epicenter for the pandemic in the United States, the adult palliative care service of Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) experienced a sevenfold increase in consultation requests at the apex of the crisis, said its director, Craig Blinderman, MD. That demand was impossible to meet with existing staff. So Dr. Blinderman and colleagues established a virtual consultation model, recruiting and deploying volunteer out-of-state palliative care specialists to staff it.

An eight-bed palliative care unit was opened at CUMC for COVID-19 patients whose surrogates had opted not to initiate or continue intubation or life-sustaining treatments. This helped to relieve some of the pressures on the ICUs while making it possible for in-person visits to the hospice unit by families – in full PPE. Palliative care staff were embedded in various units in the hospital.

A palliative care response team composed of a hospice and palliative medicine fellow and four psychiatry residents or fellows, based in the emergency department and with supervision from the palliative care team, provided time-critical goals of care conversations with families using telemedicine – and a forum for listening to their suffering. Dr. Blinderman and colleagues also have found time to write up their experience for medical journals.^1,2

There’s no reason to think that hospitalists, with a little basic training, couldn’t be having these same goals of care conversations, Dr. Blinderman said. “But the fact that hospitalists, at the pandemic’s peak, along with ICU doctors, were seeing an unprecedented magnitude of dying on a daily basis generated a lot of moral distress for them.”

Palliative care professionals, because they engage with these issues in a different way, may be somewhat better equipped to deal with the sheer emotional demands when so many are dying, as at the peak of the surge in New York. “We don’t see dying as a failure on our part but an opportunity to relieve suffering,” Dr. Blinderman said. And the palliative care field also emphasizes the importance of self-care for its practitioners.

“How do we meet the incredible palliative care needs in the epicenter of a pandemic? That question also applies to other kinds of crises we could imagine, for example, climate-related disasters,” Dr. Blinderman said. “What lessons have we learned about the value of palliative care and how to start incorporating it more integrally into the delivery of hospital care? Here we showed that we could work collaboratively with our colleagues at other major medical centers, bringing together their expertise to help us when we didn’t have the bandwidth to meet the demand,” he said.
 

Scripts can help

“Also, it won’t make sense to just go back to normal (after the crisis fades),” Dr. Blinderman said. “We need to take a close look at how our society is functioning in the wake of the pandemic and the ways the health care system has failed us. We have learned that we’re all interconnected and we need to work together to serve our communities – locally and nationally – applying basic distributive justice.”

Could there be, for example, a national infrastructure for mobilizing and deploying palliative care resources to areas of greatest need, similar to what was done in New York?

At Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, a number of palliative care clinicians at the system’s hospitals worked together to develop scripts designed to help other clinicians start goals of care conversations with patients and families, for use in the hospital as well as in outpatient primary care and other settings, with results integrated into the system’s electronic health record.

Front-line clinicians may not have the time to ask for formal consults from palliative care because of high volume and rapidly changing patient status, explained Eytan Szmuilowicz, MD, director of the section of palliative medicine at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Or they may not have access to specialty-level palliative care in their settings.

The scripts are aimed at primary care, emergency physicians, and hospitalists needing to consider critical care placement or attempted resuscitation and to ICU clinicians helping families make decisions about life-sustaining treatments. They also can help facilitate advance care planning discussions. An example is “CALMER,” a six-step mnemonic guide to promote goals of care discussions with hospitalized patients. For more information on these scripts, contact Dr. Szmuilowicz: [email protected].

Eerily quiet

The COVID-19 crisis has been quite a whirlwind for hospital medicine, said Jeanie Youngwerth, MD, a hospitalist and program director of the palliative care service at the University of Colorado in Denver, which was a significant viral hotspot early on.

“When it first started, things seemed to change almost overnight – starting on Friday, March 13. People had to take action right away to develop work flows and the technology to allow us to see as many patients as possible,” she said. By the time Monday came, it was a whole new ballgame.

Dr. Youngwerth and two colleagues worked quickly to develop inpatient telemedicine capacity where none existed. “We knew we would not be going into patients’ rooms, but most of our team showed up in the hospital to work with the primary care teams. Our job was to see what we could do that actually made a difference,” she said.

“The hospital became a very strange place. You’d walk down the hallway and it was eerily quiet. Everybody you came across was being so nice to each other.” Televisits became a powerful way to bring the human connection back to medical care.

“What we learned from families was that they were thirsting to have some kind of connection with their loved one, and to be able to talk about their loved one and who they were as a person,” she said. “We’d contact the family through video visits and then, when the family meeting ended, the nurse would bring an iPad into the patient’s room so the family could see their loved one on a ventilator. They would immediately start communicating with their loved one, praying aloud, singing, playing music. It would make a huge difference for the family – and for the staff.”
 

References

1. Nakagawa S et al. Pandemic palliative care consultations spanning state and institutional borders. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16643.

2. Lee J Abrukin L, Flores S. Early intervention of palliative care in the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2713.

For some palliative care professionals, the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in viral hot spots like New York City, represents a “moment” that could lead to greater awareness of what this service offers to seriously ill patients in a crisis.

They say it has provided an opportunity to show what palliative care teams can contribute to the difficult circumstances of patients with severe symptoms, isolated and alone in quarantined hospitals, with poor survival rates, perhaps sedated for extended stays on scarce ventilators – and for their family members, who are able to visit them only virtually via telephone or tablet.

But it has also highlighted gaps – including insufficient staffing for some palliative care teams. Hospitalists and other clinicians in the hospital need to learn the basics of primary palliative care, such as how to communicate bad news, initiate goals of care conversations, and address common symptoms of serious illness, such as pain. That way, they could shoulder more of the demand for this kind of care when palliative care specialists are in short supply.

Hospitalists, some of whom also have pursued a specialization in palliative care, have played key roles in clarifying and redefining the new role for palliative care, whom it is meant for, and who should provide it. Central to this new role is the greater use of telemedicine – for talking to hospitalized patients without increasing viral exposure, for linking up with family members who can’t visit their loved ones in the hospital, and for helping frontline hospital staff who need a palliative care consultation – or just a chance to debrief on what they are seeing.

A pandemic wake-up call

Elizabeth Gundersen, MD, FHM, FAAHPM, director of the hospice and palliative medicine fellowship program at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton, practiced hospital medicine for 10 years before pursuing a fellowship in hospice and palliative medicine and working as an academic palliative medicine physician. She calls the pandemic a wake-up call for gaps in care and all the things that weren’t working well in the health care system.

“Now we are seeing more clearly what’s lacking – or broken – and what we will carry forward from this experience into the post-COVID world,” she said. Some hospitalists do palliative care very well, and others don’t feel as comfortable in having these difficult conversations with patients. But in the uncertain course of the virus they get thrust into it.

Although FAU’s associated hospitals were not as inundated with COVID-19 patients in the early weeks of the pandemic as were other regions, the volume of other patients plummeted, Dr. Gundersen said, adding that “there’s still been incredible intensity and worry about the virus. For me, the basic role of palliative care hasn’t changed, and the phrase I have always used when introducing myself – ‘we’re an extra layer of support for the patient and family’ – still holds true,” she said.

“I try to make it clear to people that palliative care is not synonymous with end-of-life care. We don’t want people to think that a palliative care referral implies imminent death. The goal is not to get more people to have a do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) order, but to determine the patient and family’s treatment goals and whether a DNAR order fits those goals.”

The tough conversations

Dr. Gundersen is cochair of SHM’s Palliative Care Special Interest Group, along with Rab Razzak, MD, clinical director of palliative medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, one of the hospitals affiliated with Case Western University in Cleveland. (Connect with them on Twitter: @Top_Gundersen and @rabrazzak.)

Kim Fatica, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center

Dr. Razzak also transitioned from hospital medicine to palliative medicine 10 years ago. “As a hospitalist, I enjoyed the tough conversations and bringing the human element into my health care interactions,” he explained. “To me, palliative care is a philosophy of care that puts the person we call the patient at the center of the interaction, while we try to figure out how to best care for them as a person.”

When the pandemic hit, University Hospitals made 20 ICU beds available for COVID-19 patients, Dr. Razzak said. This unit has since been full but not overflowing, while overall hospital census went down. The palliative care team at the hospital includes four inpatient doctors, nurse practitioners, and a chaplain, as well as an outpatient team primarily focused on oncology.

“In some settings, palliative care has been at the forefront of difficult conversations, when things aren’t going well for the patient and there’s much uncertainty,” Dr. Razzak said. The interface between hospital medicine and palliative care can be complementary, he added. “We talk about primary palliative care, which we want every discipline to be able to do – lead meaningful conversations, help manage symptoms.”

The take-home message for hospitalists, he said, is to get training in how to have these discussions, using such resources as VitalTalk (https://www.vitaltalk.org/), a nonprofit organization that disseminates education in communication skills for difficult conversations, and the Center to Advance Palliative Care (www.capc.org) at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “Once you’ve mastered the conversation, it will get easier. But ask for help when you need it, and learn how to know when you need it.”

Dr. Gundersen added that hospital medicine groups and palliative care teams could reach out to each other and talk about what they did in the crisis and how they can work together in the future. She recommends frequent ongoing support and collaboration that could range from formal conferences or training sessions to informal team interactions, perhaps with sandwiches in the doctor’s lounge – provided that there’s room for social distancing. She has recently started giving talks in the community and grand rounds presentations in hospitals about palliative care.
 

Other approaches and applications

In New York City, the initial epicenter for the pandemic in the United States, the adult palliative care service of Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) experienced a sevenfold increase in consultation requests at the apex of the crisis, said its director, Craig Blinderman, MD. That demand was impossible to meet with existing staff. So Dr. Blinderman and colleagues established a virtual consultation model, recruiting and deploying volunteer out-of-state palliative care specialists to staff it.

An eight-bed palliative care unit was opened at CUMC for COVID-19 patients whose surrogates had opted not to initiate or continue intubation or life-sustaining treatments. This helped to relieve some of the pressures on the ICUs while making it possible for in-person visits to the hospice unit by families – in full PPE. Palliative care staff were embedded in various units in the hospital.

A palliative care response team composed of a hospice and palliative medicine fellow and four psychiatry residents or fellows, based in the emergency department and with supervision from the palliative care team, provided time-critical goals of care conversations with families using telemedicine – and a forum for listening to their suffering. Dr. Blinderman and colleagues also have found time to write up their experience for medical journals.^1,2

There’s no reason to think that hospitalists, with a little basic training, couldn’t be having these same goals of care conversations, Dr. Blinderman said. “But the fact that hospitalists, at the pandemic’s peak, along with ICU doctors, were seeing an unprecedented magnitude of dying on a daily basis generated a lot of moral distress for them.”

Palliative care professionals, because they engage with these issues in a different way, may be somewhat better equipped to deal with the sheer emotional demands when so many are dying, as at the peak of the surge in New York. “We don’t see dying as a failure on our part but an opportunity to relieve suffering,” Dr. Blinderman said. And the palliative care field also emphasizes the importance of self-care for its practitioners.

“How do we meet the incredible palliative care needs in the epicenter of a pandemic? That question also applies to other kinds of crises we could imagine, for example, climate-related disasters,” Dr. Blinderman said. “What lessons have we learned about the value of palliative care and how to start incorporating it more integrally into the delivery of hospital care? Here we showed that we could work collaboratively with our colleagues at other major medical centers, bringing together their expertise to help us when we didn’t have the bandwidth to meet the demand,” he said.
 

Scripts can help

“Also, it won’t make sense to just go back to normal (after the crisis fades),” Dr. Blinderman said. “We need to take a close look at how our society is functioning in the wake of the pandemic and the ways the health care system has failed us. We have learned that we’re all interconnected and we need to work together to serve our communities – locally and nationally – applying basic distributive justice.”

Could there be, for example, a national infrastructure for mobilizing and deploying palliative care resources to areas of greatest need, similar to what was done in New York?

At Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, a number of palliative care clinicians at the system’s hospitals worked together to develop scripts designed to help other clinicians start goals of care conversations with patients and families, for use in the hospital as well as in outpatient primary care and other settings, with results integrated into the system’s electronic health record.

Front-line clinicians may not have the time to ask for formal consults from palliative care because of high volume and rapidly changing patient status, explained Eytan Szmuilowicz, MD, director of the section of palliative medicine at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Or they may not have access to specialty-level palliative care in their settings.

The scripts are aimed at primary care, emergency physicians, and hospitalists needing to consider critical care placement or attempted resuscitation and to ICU clinicians helping families make decisions about life-sustaining treatments. They also can help facilitate advance care planning discussions. An example is “CALMER,” a six-step mnemonic guide to promote goals of care discussions with hospitalized patients. For more information on these scripts, contact Dr. Szmuilowicz: [email protected].

Eerily quiet

The COVID-19 crisis has been quite a whirlwind for hospital medicine, said Jeanie Youngwerth, MD, a hospitalist and program director of the palliative care service at the University of Colorado in Denver, which was a significant viral hotspot early on.

“When it first started, things seemed to change almost overnight – starting on Friday, March 13. People had to take action right away to develop work flows and the technology to allow us to see as many patients as possible,” she said. By the time Monday came, it was a whole new ballgame.

Dr. Youngwerth and two colleagues worked quickly to develop inpatient telemedicine capacity where none existed. “We knew we would not be going into patients’ rooms, but most of our team showed up in the hospital to work with the primary care teams. Our job was to see what we could do that actually made a difference,” she said.

“The hospital became a very strange place. You’d walk down the hallway and it was eerily quiet. Everybody you came across was being so nice to each other.” Televisits became a powerful way to bring the human connection back to medical care.

“What we learned from families was that they were thirsting to have some kind of connection with their loved one, and to be able to talk about their loved one and who they were as a person,” she said. “We’d contact the family through video visits and then, when the family meeting ended, the nurse would bring an iPad into the patient’s room so the family could see their loved one on a ventilator. They would immediately start communicating with their loved one, praying aloud, singing, playing music. It would make a huge difference for the family – and for the staff.”
 

References

1. Nakagawa S et al. Pandemic palliative care consultations spanning state and institutional borders. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16643.

2. Lee J Abrukin L, Flores S. Early intervention of palliative care in the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2713.

For some palliative care professionals, the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in viral hot spots like New York City, represents a “moment” that could lead to greater awareness of what this service offers to seriously ill patients in a crisis.

They say it has provided an opportunity to show what palliative care teams can contribute to the difficult circumstances of patients with severe symptoms, isolated and alone in quarantined hospitals, with poor survival rates, perhaps sedated for extended stays on scarce ventilators – and for their family members, who are able to visit them only virtually via telephone or tablet.

But it has also highlighted gaps – including insufficient staffing for some palliative care teams. Hospitalists and other clinicians in the hospital need to learn the basics of primary palliative care, such as how to communicate bad news, initiate goals of care conversations, and address common symptoms of serious illness, such as pain. That way, they could shoulder more of the demand for this kind of care when palliative care specialists are in short supply.

Hospitalists, some of whom also have pursued a specialization in palliative care, have played key roles in clarifying and redefining the new role for palliative care, whom it is meant for, and who should provide it. Central to this new role is the greater use of telemedicine – for talking to hospitalized patients without increasing viral exposure, for linking up with family members who can’t visit their loved ones in the hospital, and for helping frontline hospital staff who need a palliative care consultation – or just a chance to debrief on what they are seeing.

A pandemic wake-up call

Elizabeth Gundersen, MD, FHM, FAAHPM, director of the hospice and palliative medicine fellowship program at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in Boca Raton, practiced hospital medicine for 10 years before pursuing a fellowship in hospice and palliative medicine and working as an academic palliative medicine physician. She calls the pandemic a wake-up call for gaps in care and all the things that weren’t working well in the health care system.

“Now we are seeing more clearly what’s lacking – or broken – and what we will carry forward from this experience into the post-COVID world,” she said. Some hospitalists do palliative care very well, and others don’t feel as comfortable in having these difficult conversations with patients. But in the uncertain course of the virus they get thrust into it.

Although FAU’s associated hospitals were not as inundated with COVID-19 patients in the early weeks of the pandemic as were other regions, the volume of other patients plummeted, Dr. Gundersen said, adding that “there’s still been incredible intensity and worry about the virus. For me, the basic role of palliative care hasn’t changed, and the phrase I have always used when introducing myself – ‘we’re an extra layer of support for the patient and family’ – still holds true,” she said.

“I try to make it clear to people that palliative care is not synonymous with end-of-life care. We don’t want people to think that a palliative care referral implies imminent death. The goal is not to get more people to have a do not attempt resuscitation (DNAR) order, but to determine the patient and family’s treatment goals and whether a DNAR order fits those goals.”

The tough conversations

Dr. Gundersen is cochair of SHM’s Palliative Care Special Interest Group, along with Rab Razzak, MD, clinical director of palliative medicine at University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, one of the hospitals affiliated with Case Western University in Cleveland. (Connect with them on Twitter: @Top_Gundersen and @rabrazzak.)

Kim Fatica, University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center

Dr. Razzak also transitioned from hospital medicine to palliative medicine 10 years ago. “As a hospitalist, I enjoyed the tough conversations and bringing the human element into my health care interactions,” he explained. “To me, palliative care is a philosophy of care that puts the person we call the patient at the center of the interaction, while we try to figure out how to best care for them as a person.”

When the pandemic hit, University Hospitals made 20 ICU beds available for COVID-19 patients, Dr. Razzak said. This unit has since been full but not overflowing, while overall hospital census went down. The palliative care team at the hospital includes four inpatient doctors, nurse practitioners, and a chaplain, as well as an outpatient team primarily focused on oncology.

“In some settings, palliative care has been at the forefront of difficult conversations, when things aren’t going well for the patient and there’s much uncertainty,” Dr. Razzak said. The interface between hospital medicine and palliative care can be complementary, he added. “We talk about primary palliative care, which we want every discipline to be able to do – lead meaningful conversations, help manage symptoms.”

The take-home message for hospitalists, he said, is to get training in how to have these discussions, using such resources as VitalTalk (https://www.vitaltalk.org/), a nonprofit organization that disseminates education in communication skills for difficult conversations, and the Center to Advance Palliative Care (www.capc.org) at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City. “Once you’ve mastered the conversation, it will get easier. But ask for help when you need it, and learn how to know when you need it.”

Dr. Gundersen added that hospital medicine groups and palliative care teams could reach out to each other and talk about what they did in the crisis and how they can work together in the future. She recommends frequent ongoing support and collaboration that could range from formal conferences or training sessions to informal team interactions, perhaps with sandwiches in the doctor’s lounge – provided that there’s room for social distancing. She has recently started giving talks in the community and grand rounds presentations in hospitals about palliative care.
 

Other approaches and applications

In New York City, the initial epicenter for the pandemic in the United States, the adult palliative care service of Columbia University Medical Center (CUMC) experienced a sevenfold increase in consultation requests at the apex of the crisis, said its director, Craig Blinderman, MD. That demand was impossible to meet with existing staff. So Dr. Blinderman and colleagues established a virtual consultation model, recruiting and deploying volunteer out-of-state palliative care specialists to staff it.

An eight-bed palliative care unit was opened at CUMC for COVID-19 patients whose surrogates had opted not to initiate or continue intubation or life-sustaining treatments. This helped to relieve some of the pressures on the ICUs while making it possible for in-person visits to the hospice unit by families – in full PPE. Palliative care staff were embedded in various units in the hospital.

A palliative care response team composed of a hospice and palliative medicine fellow and four psychiatry residents or fellows, based in the emergency department and with supervision from the palliative care team, provided time-critical goals of care conversations with families using telemedicine – and a forum for listening to their suffering. Dr. Blinderman and colleagues also have found time to write up their experience for medical journals.^1,2

There’s no reason to think that hospitalists, with a little basic training, couldn’t be having these same goals of care conversations, Dr. Blinderman said. “But the fact that hospitalists, at the pandemic’s peak, along with ICU doctors, were seeing an unprecedented magnitude of dying on a daily basis generated a lot of moral distress for them.”

Palliative care professionals, because they engage with these issues in a different way, may be somewhat better equipped to deal with the sheer emotional demands when so many are dying, as at the peak of the surge in New York. “We don’t see dying as a failure on our part but an opportunity to relieve suffering,” Dr. Blinderman said. And the palliative care field also emphasizes the importance of self-care for its practitioners.

“How do we meet the incredible palliative care needs in the epicenter of a pandemic? That question also applies to other kinds of crises we could imagine, for example, climate-related disasters,” Dr. Blinderman said. “What lessons have we learned about the value of palliative care and how to start incorporating it more integrally into the delivery of hospital care? Here we showed that we could work collaboratively with our colleagues at other major medical centers, bringing together their expertise to help us when we didn’t have the bandwidth to meet the demand,” he said.
 

Scripts can help

“Also, it won’t make sense to just go back to normal (after the crisis fades),” Dr. Blinderman said. “We need to take a close look at how our society is functioning in the wake of the pandemic and the ways the health care system has failed us. We have learned that we’re all interconnected and we need to work together to serve our communities – locally and nationally – applying basic distributive justice.”

Could there be, for example, a national infrastructure for mobilizing and deploying palliative care resources to areas of greatest need, similar to what was done in New York?

At Northwestern Medicine in Chicago, a number of palliative care clinicians at the system’s hospitals worked together to develop scripts designed to help other clinicians start goals of care conversations with patients and families, for use in the hospital as well as in outpatient primary care and other settings, with results integrated into the system’s electronic health record.

Front-line clinicians may not have the time to ask for formal consults from palliative care because of high volume and rapidly changing patient status, explained Eytan Szmuilowicz, MD, director of the section of palliative medicine at Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Or they may not have access to specialty-level palliative care in their settings.

The scripts are aimed at primary care, emergency physicians, and hospitalists needing to consider critical care placement or attempted resuscitation and to ICU clinicians helping families make decisions about life-sustaining treatments. They also can help facilitate advance care planning discussions. An example is “CALMER,” a six-step mnemonic guide to promote goals of care discussions with hospitalized patients. For more information on these scripts, contact Dr. Szmuilowicz: [email protected].

Eerily quiet

The COVID-19 crisis has been quite a whirlwind for hospital medicine, said Jeanie Youngwerth, MD, a hospitalist and program director of the palliative care service at the University of Colorado in Denver, which was a significant viral hotspot early on.

“When it first started, things seemed to change almost overnight – starting on Friday, March 13. People had to take action right away to develop work flows and the technology to allow us to see as many patients as possible,” she said. By the time Monday came, it was a whole new ballgame.

Dr. Youngwerth and two colleagues worked quickly to develop inpatient telemedicine capacity where none existed. “We knew we would not be going into patients’ rooms, but most of our team showed up in the hospital to work with the primary care teams. Our job was to see what we could do that actually made a difference,” she said.

“The hospital became a very strange place. You’d walk down the hallway and it was eerily quiet. Everybody you came across was being so nice to each other.” Televisits became a powerful way to bring the human connection back to medical care.

“What we learned from families was that they were thirsting to have some kind of connection with their loved one, and to be able to talk about their loved one and who they were as a person,” she said. “We’d contact the family through video visits and then, when the family meeting ended, the nurse would bring an iPad into the patient’s room so the family could see their loved one on a ventilator. They would immediately start communicating with their loved one, praying aloud, singing, playing music. It would make a huge difference for the family – and for the staff.”
 

References

1. Nakagawa S et al. Pandemic palliative care consultations spanning state and institutional borders. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 May 22. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16643.

2. Lee J Abrukin L, Flores S. Early intervention of palliative care in the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Intern Med. 2020 Jun 5. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2713.

The cannabidiol (CBD) oral solution Epidiolex has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the new indication of treatment of seizures associated with tuberous sclerosis complex in patients 1 year of age and older.

The drug was approved by the FDA in 2018 for the treatment of seizures associated with two rare and severe forms of epilepsy, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

This is the only FDA-approved drug that contains a purified drug substance derived from cannabis. It is also the second FDA approval of a drug for the treatment of seizures associated with tuberous sclerosis complex.

CBD is a chemical component of the cannabis sativa plant, but it does not cause intoxication or euphoria (the “high”) that comes from tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is the primary psychoactive component of cannabis.

“The FDA continues to believe the drug approval process represents the best way to make new medicines, including any drugs derived from cannabis, available to patients in need of appropriate medical therapy such as the treatment of seizures associated with these rare conditions,” Douglas Throckmorton, MD, deputy center director for regulatory programs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in an agency press release.

“This paradigm ensures new therapies are safe, effective, and manufactured to a high quality that provides uniform and reliable dosing for patients,” Dr. Throckmorton said.

He added that the FDA is committed to supporting research on the potential medical uses of cannabis-derived products.
 

Rare genetic disease

Tuberous sclerosis complex is a rare genetic disease that causes benign tumors to grow in the brain and other parts of the body, such as the eyes, heart, kidneys, lungs, and skin.

It usually affects the central nervous system and can result in a combination of symptoms, including seizures, developmental delay, and behavioral problems. The signs and symptoms of the condition, as well as the severity of symptoms, vary widely. The disease affects about 1 in 6,000 individuals.

The effectiveness of Epidiolex in the treatment of seizures associated with tuberous sclerosis complex was established in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which 148 patients of a total of 224 in the study received the active drug, the FDA noted.

Results showed that for patients treated with CBD, there was a significantly greater reduction in seizure frequency during the treatment period than for patients who received placebo.

This effect was seen within 8 weeks and remained consistent throughout the 16-week treatment period.

The most common side effects that occurred in CBD-treated participants were diarrhea, elevated liver enzyme levels, decreased appetite, sleepiness, fever, and vomiting. Additional side effects that have been reported with the product include liver injury, decreased weight, anemia, and increased creatinine level.

As is true for all drugs that currently treat epilepsy, including Epidiolex, the most serious risks may include an increase in suicidal thoughts and behavior or thoughts of self-harm, the FDA reports.

Patients, their caregivers, and their families should be advised to monitor for any unusual changes in mood or behavior, such as worsening depression or suicidal thoughts or behavior. They should report behaviors of concern immediately to health care providers, the agency notes.

It also points out that Epidiolex can cause liver injury, of which most cases are generally mild. However, there is a risk for rare but more severe liver injury. More severe liver injury can cause nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, fatigue, anorexia, jaundice, and/or dark urine.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The cannabidiol (CBD) oral solution Epidiolex has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the new indication of treatment of seizures associated with tuberous sclerosis complex in patients 1 year of age and older.

The drug was approved by the FDA in 2018 for the treatment of seizures associated with two rare and severe forms of epilepsy, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

This is the only FDA-approved drug that contains a purified drug substance derived from cannabis. It is also the second FDA approval of a drug for the treatment of seizures associated with tuberous sclerosis complex.

CBD is a chemical component of the cannabis sativa plant, but it does not cause intoxication or euphoria (the “high”) that comes from tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is the primary psychoactive component of cannabis.

“The FDA continues to believe the drug approval process represents the best way to make new medicines, including any drugs derived from cannabis, available to patients in need of appropriate medical therapy such as the treatment of seizures associated with these rare conditions,” Douglas Throckmorton, MD, deputy center director for regulatory programs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in an agency press release.

“This paradigm ensures new therapies are safe, effective, and manufactured to a high quality that provides uniform and reliable dosing for patients,” Dr. Throckmorton said.

He added that the FDA is committed to supporting research on the potential medical uses of cannabis-derived products.
 

Rare genetic disease

Tuberous sclerosis complex is a rare genetic disease that causes benign tumors to grow in the brain and other parts of the body, such as the eyes, heart, kidneys, lungs, and skin.

It usually affects the central nervous system and can result in a combination of symptoms, including seizures, developmental delay, and behavioral problems. The signs and symptoms of the condition, as well as the severity of symptoms, vary widely. The disease affects about 1 in 6,000 individuals.

The effectiveness of Epidiolex in the treatment of seizures associated with tuberous sclerosis complex was established in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which 148 patients of a total of 224 in the study received the active drug, the FDA noted.

Results showed that for patients treated with CBD, there was a significantly greater reduction in seizure frequency during the treatment period than for patients who received placebo.

This effect was seen within 8 weeks and remained consistent throughout the 16-week treatment period.

The most common side effects that occurred in CBD-treated participants were diarrhea, elevated liver enzyme levels, decreased appetite, sleepiness, fever, and vomiting. Additional side effects that have been reported with the product include liver injury, decreased weight, anemia, and increased creatinine level.

As is true for all drugs that currently treat epilepsy, including Epidiolex, the most serious risks may include an increase in suicidal thoughts and behavior or thoughts of self-harm, the FDA reports.

Patients, their caregivers, and their families should be advised to monitor for any unusual changes in mood or behavior, such as worsening depression or suicidal thoughts or behavior. They should report behaviors of concern immediately to health care providers, the agency notes.

It also points out that Epidiolex can cause liver injury, of which most cases are generally mild. However, there is a risk for rare but more severe liver injury. More severe liver injury can cause nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, fatigue, anorexia, jaundice, and/or dark urine.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The cannabidiol (CBD) oral solution Epidiolex has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the new indication of treatment of seizures associated with tuberous sclerosis complex in patients 1 year of age and older.

The drug was approved by the FDA in 2018 for the treatment of seizures associated with two rare and severe forms of epilepsy, Lennox-Gastaut syndrome and Dravet syndrome, as reported by Medscape Medical News.

This is the only FDA-approved drug that contains a purified drug substance derived from cannabis. It is also the second FDA approval of a drug for the treatment of seizures associated with tuberous sclerosis complex.

CBD is a chemical component of the cannabis sativa plant, but it does not cause intoxication or euphoria (the “high”) that comes from tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), which is the primary psychoactive component of cannabis.

“The FDA continues to believe the drug approval process represents the best way to make new medicines, including any drugs derived from cannabis, available to patients in need of appropriate medical therapy such as the treatment of seizures associated with these rare conditions,” Douglas Throckmorton, MD, deputy center director for regulatory programs in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in an agency press release.

“This paradigm ensures new therapies are safe, effective, and manufactured to a high quality that provides uniform and reliable dosing for patients,” Dr. Throckmorton said.

He added that the FDA is committed to supporting research on the potential medical uses of cannabis-derived products.
 

Rare genetic disease

Tuberous sclerosis complex is a rare genetic disease that causes benign tumors to grow in the brain and other parts of the body, such as the eyes, heart, kidneys, lungs, and skin.

It usually affects the central nervous system and can result in a combination of symptoms, including seizures, developmental delay, and behavioral problems. The signs and symptoms of the condition, as well as the severity of symptoms, vary widely. The disease affects about 1 in 6,000 individuals.

The effectiveness of Epidiolex in the treatment of seizures associated with tuberous sclerosis complex was established in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in which 148 patients of a total of 224 in the study received the active drug, the FDA noted.

Results showed that for patients treated with CBD, there was a significantly greater reduction in seizure frequency during the treatment period than for patients who received placebo.

This effect was seen within 8 weeks and remained consistent throughout the 16-week treatment period.

The most common side effects that occurred in CBD-treated participants were diarrhea, elevated liver enzyme levels, decreased appetite, sleepiness, fever, and vomiting. Additional side effects that have been reported with the product include liver injury, decreased weight, anemia, and increased creatinine level.

As is true for all drugs that currently treat epilepsy, including Epidiolex, the most serious risks may include an increase in suicidal thoughts and behavior or thoughts of self-harm, the FDA reports.

Patients, their caregivers, and their families should be advised to monitor for any unusual changes in mood or behavior, such as worsening depression or suicidal thoughts or behavior. They should report behaviors of concern immediately to health care providers, the agency notes.

It also points out that Epidiolex can cause liver injury, of which most cases are generally mild. However, there is a risk for rare but more severe liver injury. More severe liver injury can cause nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, fatigue, anorexia, jaundice, and/or dark urine.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The state of health care in Massachusetts makes it the state for health care in 2020, according to the personal finance website WalletHub.

The Bay State finds itself at the top of the company’s annual ranking of state health care systems this year after finishing second in 2019 to Minnesota, which is now ranked second. Rhode Island is third this year, followed by Washington, D.C., and North Dakota, WalletHub reported Aug. 3.

The inclusion of Washington, D.C., allowed Georgia to finish 51st out of 50 states, just below the quartet of Louisiana (50th), Alabama (49th), North Carolina (48th), and Mississippi (47th). Alaska, which occupied the bottom spot in 2019, moved up to 42nd this year, the analysis showed.

The rankings are based on 44 (up from 43 last year) metrics that are grouped into three broad categories: cost (6 metrics), access (24 metrics), and outcomes (14 metrics). The one new measure added for 2020? That would be health infrastructure for coronavirus, which is itself based on a different WalletHub ranking.

Massachusetts’ top finish this year was driven by strong showings in such metrics as average monthly insurance premium (first), physicians per capita (second), insured children (first) and adults (first), and infant mortality rate (fourth). The state was 1st overall in outcomes and 4th in access but only 20th in cost, the company said.

Positive signs among the lowest-ranked states include Louisiana’s 18th-place finish in access, ahead of such top 10 states as Iowa and Hawaii, and Mississippi’s 17th in cost, which is higher than four of the states in the top 10, including Massachusetts, WalletHub said in the report.

Data for the analysis came from 22 different sources, including the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Telemedicine Association.

[email protected]

The state of health care in Massachusetts makes it the state for health care in 2020, according to the personal finance website WalletHub.

The Bay State finds itself at the top of the company’s annual ranking of state health care systems this year after finishing second in 2019 to Minnesota, which is now ranked second. Rhode Island is third this year, followed by Washington, D.C., and North Dakota, WalletHub reported Aug. 3.

The inclusion of Washington, D.C., allowed Georgia to finish 51st out of 50 states, just below the quartet of Louisiana (50th), Alabama (49th), North Carolina (48th), and Mississippi (47th). Alaska, which occupied the bottom spot in 2019, moved up to 42nd this year, the analysis showed.

The rankings are based on 44 (up from 43 last year) metrics that are grouped into three broad categories: cost (6 metrics), access (24 metrics), and outcomes (14 metrics). The one new measure added for 2020? That would be health infrastructure for coronavirus, which is itself based on a different WalletHub ranking.

Massachusetts’ top finish this year was driven by strong showings in such metrics as average monthly insurance premium (first), physicians per capita (second), insured children (first) and adults (first), and infant mortality rate (fourth). The state was 1st overall in outcomes and 4th in access but only 20th in cost, the company said.

Positive signs among the lowest-ranked states include Louisiana’s 18th-place finish in access, ahead of such top 10 states as Iowa and Hawaii, and Mississippi’s 17th in cost, which is higher than four of the states in the top 10, including Massachusetts, WalletHub said in the report.

Data for the analysis came from 22 different sources, including the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Telemedicine Association.

[email protected]

The state of health care in Massachusetts makes it the state for health care in 2020, according to the personal finance website WalletHub.

The Bay State finds itself at the top of the company’s annual ranking of state health care systems this year after finishing second in 2019 to Minnesota, which is now ranked second. Rhode Island is third this year, followed by Washington, D.C., and North Dakota, WalletHub reported Aug. 3.

The inclusion of Washington, D.C., allowed Georgia to finish 51st out of 50 states, just below the quartet of Louisiana (50th), Alabama (49th), North Carolina (48th), and Mississippi (47th). Alaska, which occupied the bottom spot in 2019, moved up to 42nd this year, the analysis showed.

The rankings are based on 44 (up from 43 last year) metrics that are grouped into three broad categories: cost (6 metrics), access (24 metrics), and outcomes (14 metrics). The one new measure added for 2020? That would be health infrastructure for coronavirus, which is itself based on a different WalletHub ranking.

Massachusetts’ top finish this year was driven by strong showings in such metrics as average monthly insurance premium (first), physicians per capita (second), insured children (first) and adults (first), and infant mortality rate (fourth). The state was 1st overall in outcomes and 4th in access but only 20th in cost, the company said.

Positive signs among the lowest-ranked states include Louisiana’s 18th-place finish in access, ahead of such top 10 states as Iowa and Hawaii, and Mississippi’s 17th in cost, which is higher than four of the states in the top 10, including Massachusetts, WalletHub said in the report.

Data for the analysis came from 22 different sources, including the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Association of American Medical Colleges, and the American Telemedicine Association.

[email protected]

Plasma exchange with albumin replacement may be effective for slowing down symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, new research suggests. Results from the phase 2b/3 AMBAR study showed that the treatment, which aims to remove amyloid-beta (Abeta) from plasma, was associated with a 60% decrease in functional and cognitive decline in patients with moderate Alzheimer’s disease.

The reduction in cognitive decline uncovered by the study is more striking than that reported for other investigational treatments targeting Abeta, such as monoclonal antibodies, said coinvestigator Antonio Páez, MD, medical director of the AMBAR program, Alzheimer’s Research Group, Grifols, Barcelona.

The results “open a new path for the development of plasma protein replacement therapies not only in Alzheimer’s disease but also in other degenerative diseases that we are planning to investigate,” Dr. Páez said.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and were simultaneously published in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
 

Removing amyloid

Plasma exchange treatments, which have been available for several decades, are used to treat a range of neurologic, immunologic, and metabolic disorders. The treatment involves plasmapheresis, whereby plasma is separated from blood cells (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, etc) and toxic substances are removed. The albumin in plasma, to which plasma Abeta is bound, is replaced with a fresh commercial albumin product made from plasma from healthy donors.

“Our initial hypothesis was that, by removing albumin together with Abeta and substituting it with newer albumin periodically, we may be removing Abeta from the cerebrospinal fluid and eventually from the brain,” Dr. Páez said.

The AMBAR study included 347 men and women aged 55-85 years with probable Alzheimer’s disease dementia who were enrolled at 41 sites in Spain and the United States. All were diagnosed with mild Alzheimer’s disease, as shown by a baseline Mini-Mental State Examination score of 22-26, or moderate Alzheimer’s disease, having a baseline MMSE score of 18-21.

Investigators randomly assigned the participants to four groups; one group received placebo, and each of the other three treatment arms received different doses of albumin and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) replacement.

During the first 6-week study phase, patients received weekly sham or conventional plasma exchange treatments of 2.5-3 liters of plasma, which Dr. Páez referred to as the “intensive-treatment phase to remove as much Abeta as possible.”

This was followed by a 12-month maintenance phase, which involved monthly low-volume (700-800 mL) plasma exchange or sham treatments.

Although the volume of plasma removed was the same in all three active-treatment groups, the amount of albumin and IVIg that was subsequently replaced varied. In one group, the same amount of albumin and IVIg that was removed was replaced; in another, half the amount removed was replaced; and in the third, only albumin was replaced.

The researchers collected cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples at baseline and after each treatment period. They assessed Abeta40, Abeta42, total tau, and phosphorylated-tau biomarkers.

The two primary outcomes were change from baseline to 14 months in scores on the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) scale and the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog).
 

Symptom reduction

Results showed a reduction in the progression of symptoms in the plasma exchange–treated patients for both primary endpoints.

The ADCS-ADL showed 52% less decline in the plasma exchange–treated group, compared with the placebo group (P = .03); the ADAS-Cog showed 66% less decline (P = 0.06). In the moderate group, both endpoints showed 61% less decline (P = .002 and .05, respectively).

There were no clear differences between the three active-treatment groups, “suggesting that any of them could be considered for further investigation,” said Dr. Páez.

Differences in baseline demographic characteristics did not appear to have an influence on the outcomes. ADAS-Cog was more than twice as effective as some candidate monoclonal antibodies targeting Abeta that are being investigated for Alzheimer’s disease, Dr. Páez noted.

Although the plasma exchange approach is relatively invasive, so too are monoclonal antibody therapies that are infused intravenously through a pump, he said. In addition, a low-volume plasma exchange maintenance treatment takes less than 2 hours, which is on a par with some monoclonal antibody treatments.
 

Key secondary outcomes

For both primary outcomes, changes were found in those with moderate but not mild Alzheimer’s disease, possibly because the ADAS-Cog was designed for patients with more severe symptoms and may not be sensitive enough for patients with better cognitive performance, said Dr. Páez.

However, the difference between mild and moderate Alzheimer’s disease did not hold up in post hoc analyses that included additional baseline characteristics, including amyloid and APOE e4 status.

“We observed that both mild and moderate subjects performed better than placebo even in the two coprimary endpoints,” Dr. Páez said. “It suggested that the differences between mild and moderate patients was not so apparent.”

The study’s key secondary outcomes included scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-sb) and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) scales. Treated patients scored better than the placebo group on both the CDR-sb (71% less decline, P = .002) and the ADCS-CGIC (100% less decline, P < .0001) scales.

For disease biomarkers in the moderate Alzheimer’s disease study population, levels of CSF Abeta42 and tau protein remained stable in the treated patients. In the placebo group, Abeta42 was decreased and tau protein increased. Dr. Páez explained that, if amyloid in the brain comes from the CSF, this process may take some time.

The findings suggest that more than one mechanism may be involved in the plasma exchange approach, such as changes in oxidation status and inflammatory mediators, the investigators noted.
 

Safety profile

About 28% of the participants dropped out of the study, which the researchers note is a rate similar to that reported in studies of solanezumab and other treatments in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. “The high percentage (72%) of patients who completed the study further supports that this procedure is feasible in mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease,” the investigators wrote.

Overall, adverse events were similar to the known safety profile of plasma exchange procedures for other indications. The two most common adverse events were catheter local reactions and hypotension.

Almost 90% of the apheresis procedures were “uneventful,” the researchers reported. Two patients (0.6%) died during the study, which is similar to the low mortality rates reported elsewhere.

However, the investigators stressed that, because many patients with Alzheimer’s disease are in fragile health, plasma exchange treatments should be undertaken with caution, because of its invasive nature.

Dr. Páez noted that a possible limitation of this treatment approach is the availability of plasma for manufacturing plasma products. In the future, this plasma exchange approach might be combined with current and future Alzheimer’s disease therapies.

They are currently in discussions with the American Society for Apheresis, which develops guidelines for plasma exchange. After additional research, the investigators hope to eventually receive Food and Drug Administration approval of plasma exchange with albumin replacement as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.
 

Speculative, yet reasonable approach

Commenting on the research findings, Pierre N. Tariot, MD, director of Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona, both in Phoenix, said the study is “meaningful and large enough” to “come close” to determining whether the therapy is safe and effective. “The fundamental rationale for this experimental approach, while speculative, is reasonable and certainly seems to be worth testing,” said Dr. Tariot, who was not involved with the research.

However, “there’s a decent chance” that not all trial participants had Alzheimer’s disease. Although some CSF amyloid measures suggest levels consistent with AD, “this is not conclusive,” he said.

In addition, “there’s a slightly low rate of apolipoprotein E4 allele carriage [in the current study], compared with most Alzheimer’s disease trials,” Dr. Tariot said.

He also pointed out that the trial failed to show statistical significance on both coprimary outcomes. “It’s unclear what health authorities, if presented with these data, would decide to do with the file.”

Although it was “encouraging” that secondary endpoints were supportive, the fact that they had greater statistical significance than some of the other objective measures “raises at least the potential for partial unblinding as a result of side effects,” said Dr. Tariot. It is also unclear why changes would be more evident in the moderate subpopulation.

The study was funded by Grifols. Dr. Páez is an employee of Grifols. Dr. Tariot reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Plasma exchange with albumin replacement may be effective for slowing down symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, new research suggests. Results from the phase 2b/3 AMBAR study showed that the treatment, which aims to remove amyloid-beta (Abeta) from plasma, was associated with a 60% decrease in functional and cognitive decline in patients with moderate Alzheimer’s disease.

The reduction in cognitive decline uncovered by the study is more striking than that reported for other investigational treatments targeting Abeta, such as monoclonal antibodies, said coinvestigator Antonio Páez, MD, medical director of the AMBAR program, Alzheimer’s Research Group, Grifols, Barcelona.

The results “open a new path for the development of plasma protein replacement therapies not only in Alzheimer’s disease but also in other degenerative diseases that we are planning to investigate,” Dr. Páez said.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and were simultaneously published in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
 

Removing amyloid

Plasma exchange treatments, which have been available for several decades, are used to treat a range of neurologic, immunologic, and metabolic disorders. The treatment involves plasmapheresis, whereby plasma is separated from blood cells (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, etc) and toxic substances are removed. The albumin in plasma, to which plasma Abeta is bound, is replaced with a fresh commercial albumin product made from plasma from healthy donors.

“Our initial hypothesis was that, by removing albumin together with Abeta and substituting it with newer albumin periodically, we may be removing Abeta from the cerebrospinal fluid and eventually from the brain,” Dr. Páez said.

The AMBAR study included 347 men and women aged 55-85 years with probable Alzheimer’s disease dementia who were enrolled at 41 sites in Spain and the United States. All were diagnosed with mild Alzheimer’s disease, as shown by a baseline Mini-Mental State Examination score of 22-26, or moderate Alzheimer’s disease, having a baseline MMSE score of 18-21.

Investigators randomly assigned the participants to four groups; one group received placebo, and each of the other three treatment arms received different doses of albumin and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) replacement.

During the first 6-week study phase, patients received weekly sham or conventional plasma exchange treatments of 2.5-3 liters of plasma, which Dr. Páez referred to as the “intensive-treatment phase to remove as much Abeta as possible.”

This was followed by a 12-month maintenance phase, which involved monthly low-volume (700-800 mL) plasma exchange or sham treatments.

Although the volume of plasma removed was the same in all three active-treatment groups, the amount of albumin and IVIg that was subsequently replaced varied. In one group, the same amount of albumin and IVIg that was removed was replaced; in another, half the amount removed was replaced; and in the third, only albumin was replaced.

The researchers collected cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples at baseline and after each treatment period. They assessed Abeta40, Abeta42, total tau, and phosphorylated-tau biomarkers.

The two primary outcomes were change from baseline to 14 months in scores on the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) scale and the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog).
 

Symptom reduction

Results showed a reduction in the progression of symptoms in the plasma exchange–treated patients for both primary endpoints.

The ADCS-ADL showed 52% less decline in the plasma exchange–treated group, compared with the placebo group (P = .03); the ADAS-Cog showed 66% less decline (P = 0.06). In the moderate group, both endpoints showed 61% less decline (P = .002 and .05, respectively).

There were no clear differences between the three active-treatment groups, “suggesting that any of them could be considered for further investigation,” said Dr. Páez.

Differences in baseline demographic characteristics did not appear to have an influence on the outcomes. ADAS-Cog was more than twice as effective as some candidate monoclonal antibodies targeting Abeta that are being investigated for Alzheimer’s disease, Dr. Páez noted.

Although the plasma exchange approach is relatively invasive, so too are monoclonal antibody therapies that are infused intravenously through a pump, he said. In addition, a low-volume plasma exchange maintenance treatment takes less than 2 hours, which is on a par with some monoclonal antibody treatments.
 

Key secondary outcomes

For both primary outcomes, changes were found in those with moderate but not mild Alzheimer’s disease, possibly because the ADAS-Cog was designed for patients with more severe symptoms and may not be sensitive enough for patients with better cognitive performance, said Dr. Páez.

However, the difference between mild and moderate Alzheimer’s disease did not hold up in post hoc analyses that included additional baseline characteristics, including amyloid and APOE e4 status.

“We observed that both mild and moderate subjects performed better than placebo even in the two coprimary endpoints,” Dr. Páez said. “It suggested that the differences between mild and moderate patients was not so apparent.”

The study’s key secondary outcomes included scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-sb) and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) scales. Treated patients scored better than the placebo group on both the CDR-sb (71% less decline, P = .002) and the ADCS-CGIC (100% less decline, P < .0001) scales.

For disease biomarkers in the moderate Alzheimer’s disease study population, levels of CSF Abeta42 and tau protein remained stable in the treated patients. In the placebo group, Abeta42 was decreased and tau protein increased. Dr. Páez explained that, if amyloid in the brain comes from the CSF, this process may take some time.

The findings suggest that more than one mechanism may be involved in the plasma exchange approach, such as changes in oxidation status and inflammatory mediators, the investigators noted.
 

Safety profile

About 28% of the participants dropped out of the study, which the researchers note is a rate similar to that reported in studies of solanezumab and other treatments in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. “The high percentage (72%) of patients who completed the study further supports that this procedure is feasible in mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease,” the investigators wrote.

Overall, adverse events were similar to the known safety profile of plasma exchange procedures for other indications. The two most common adverse events were catheter local reactions and hypotension.

Almost 90% of the apheresis procedures were “uneventful,” the researchers reported. Two patients (0.6%) died during the study, which is similar to the low mortality rates reported elsewhere.

However, the investigators stressed that, because many patients with Alzheimer’s disease are in fragile health, plasma exchange treatments should be undertaken with caution, because of its invasive nature.

Dr. Páez noted that a possible limitation of this treatment approach is the availability of plasma for manufacturing plasma products. In the future, this plasma exchange approach might be combined with current and future Alzheimer’s disease therapies.

They are currently in discussions with the American Society for Apheresis, which develops guidelines for plasma exchange. After additional research, the investigators hope to eventually receive Food and Drug Administration approval of plasma exchange with albumin replacement as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.
 

Speculative, yet reasonable approach

Commenting on the research findings, Pierre N. Tariot, MD, director of Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona, both in Phoenix, said the study is “meaningful and large enough” to “come close” to determining whether the therapy is safe and effective. “The fundamental rationale for this experimental approach, while speculative, is reasonable and certainly seems to be worth testing,” said Dr. Tariot, who was not involved with the research.

However, “there’s a decent chance” that not all trial participants had Alzheimer’s disease. Although some CSF amyloid measures suggest levels consistent with AD, “this is not conclusive,” he said.

In addition, “there’s a slightly low rate of apolipoprotein E4 allele carriage [in the current study], compared with most Alzheimer’s disease trials,” Dr. Tariot said.

He also pointed out that the trial failed to show statistical significance on both coprimary outcomes. “It’s unclear what health authorities, if presented with these data, would decide to do with the file.”

Although it was “encouraging” that secondary endpoints were supportive, the fact that they had greater statistical significance than some of the other objective measures “raises at least the potential for partial unblinding as a result of side effects,” said Dr. Tariot. It is also unclear why changes would be more evident in the moderate subpopulation.

The study was funded by Grifols. Dr. Páez is an employee of Grifols. Dr. Tariot reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Plasma exchange with albumin replacement may be effective for slowing down symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, new research suggests. Results from the phase 2b/3 AMBAR study showed that the treatment, which aims to remove amyloid-beta (Abeta) from plasma, was associated with a 60% decrease in functional and cognitive decline in patients with moderate Alzheimer’s disease.

The reduction in cognitive decline uncovered by the study is more striking than that reported for other investigational treatments targeting Abeta, such as monoclonal antibodies, said coinvestigator Antonio Páez, MD, medical director of the AMBAR program, Alzheimer’s Research Group, Grifols, Barcelona.

The results “open a new path for the development of plasma protein replacement therapies not only in Alzheimer’s disease but also in other degenerative diseases that we are planning to investigate,” Dr. Páez said.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference and were simultaneously published in Alzheimer’s and Dementia.
 

Removing amyloid

Plasma exchange treatments, which have been available for several decades, are used to treat a range of neurologic, immunologic, and metabolic disorders. The treatment involves plasmapheresis, whereby plasma is separated from blood cells (red blood cells, white blood cells, platelets, etc) and toxic substances are removed. The albumin in plasma, to which plasma Abeta is bound, is replaced with a fresh commercial albumin product made from plasma from healthy donors.

“Our initial hypothesis was that, by removing albumin together with Abeta and substituting it with newer albumin periodically, we may be removing Abeta from the cerebrospinal fluid and eventually from the brain,” Dr. Páez said.

The AMBAR study included 347 men and women aged 55-85 years with probable Alzheimer’s disease dementia who were enrolled at 41 sites in Spain and the United States. All were diagnosed with mild Alzheimer’s disease, as shown by a baseline Mini-Mental State Examination score of 22-26, or moderate Alzheimer’s disease, having a baseline MMSE score of 18-21.

Investigators randomly assigned the participants to four groups; one group received placebo, and each of the other three treatment arms received different doses of albumin and intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) replacement.

During the first 6-week study phase, patients received weekly sham or conventional plasma exchange treatments of 2.5-3 liters of plasma, which Dr. Páez referred to as the “intensive-treatment phase to remove as much Abeta as possible.”

This was followed by a 12-month maintenance phase, which involved monthly low-volume (700-800 mL) plasma exchange or sham treatments.

Although the volume of plasma removed was the same in all three active-treatment groups, the amount of albumin and IVIg that was subsequently replaced varied. In one group, the same amount of albumin and IVIg that was removed was replaced; in another, half the amount removed was replaced; and in the third, only albumin was replaced.

The researchers collected cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples at baseline and after each treatment period. They assessed Abeta40, Abeta42, total tau, and phosphorylated-tau biomarkers.

The two primary outcomes were change from baseline to 14 months in scores on the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Activities of Daily Living (ADCS-ADL) scale and the Alzheimer’s Disease Assessment Scale–Cognitive Subscale (ADAS-Cog).
 

Symptom reduction

Results showed a reduction in the progression of symptoms in the plasma exchange–treated patients for both primary endpoints.

The ADCS-ADL showed 52% less decline in the plasma exchange–treated group, compared with the placebo group (P = .03); the ADAS-Cog showed 66% less decline (P = 0.06). In the moderate group, both endpoints showed 61% less decline (P = .002 and .05, respectively).

There were no clear differences between the three active-treatment groups, “suggesting that any of them could be considered for further investigation,” said Dr. Páez.

Differences in baseline demographic characteristics did not appear to have an influence on the outcomes. ADAS-Cog was more than twice as effective as some candidate monoclonal antibodies targeting Abeta that are being investigated for Alzheimer’s disease, Dr. Páez noted.

Although the plasma exchange approach is relatively invasive, so too are monoclonal antibody therapies that are infused intravenously through a pump, he said. In addition, a low-volume plasma exchange maintenance treatment takes less than 2 hours, which is on a par with some monoclonal antibody treatments.
 

Key secondary outcomes

For both primary outcomes, changes were found in those with moderate but not mild Alzheimer’s disease, possibly because the ADAS-Cog was designed for patients with more severe symptoms and may not be sensitive enough for patients with better cognitive performance, said Dr. Páez.

However, the difference between mild and moderate Alzheimer’s disease did not hold up in post hoc analyses that included additional baseline characteristics, including amyloid and APOE e4 status.

“We observed that both mild and moderate subjects performed better than placebo even in the two coprimary endpoints,” Dr. Páez said. “It suggested that the differences between mild and moderate patients was not so apparent.”

The study’s key secondary outcomes included scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Sum of Boxes (CDR-sb) and the Alzheimer’s Disease Cooperative Study–Clinical Global Impression of Change (ADCS-CGIC) scales. Treated patients scored better than the placebo group on both the CDR-sb (71% less decline, P = .002) and the ADCS-CGIC (100% less decline, P < .0001) scales.

For disease biomarkers in the moderate Alzheimer’s disease study population, levels of CSF Abeta42 and tau protein remained stable in the treated patients. In the placebo group, Abeta42 was decreased and tau protein increased. Dr. Páez explained that, if amyloid in the brain comes from the CSF, this process may take some time.

The findings suggest that more than one mechanism may be involved in the plasma exchange approach, such as changes in oxidation status and inflammatory mediators, the investigators noted.
 

Safety profile

About 28% of the participants dropped out of the study, which the researchers note is a rate similar to that reported in studies of solanezumab and other treatments in patients with Alzheimer’s disease. “The high percentage (72%) of patients who completed the study further supports that this procedure is feasible in mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease,” the investigators wrote.

Overall, adverse events were similar to the known safety profile of plasma exchange procedures for other indications. The two most common adverse events were catheter local reactions and hypotension.

Almost 90% of the apheresis procedures were “uneventful,” the researchers reported. Two patients (0.6%) died during the study, which is similar to the low mortality rates reported elsewhere.

However, the investigators stressed that, because many patients with Alzheimer’s disease are in fragile health, plasma exchange treatments should be undertaken with caution, because of its invasive nature.

Dr. Páez noted that a possible limitation of this treatment approach is the availability of plasma for manufacturing plasma products. In the future, this plasma exchange approach might be combined with current and future Alzheimer’s disease therapies.

They are currently in discussions with the American Society for Apheresis, which develops guidelines for plasma exchange. After additional research, the investigators hope to eventually receive Food and Drug Administration approval of plasma exchange with albumin replacement as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.
 

Speculative, yet reasonable approach

Commenting on the research findings, Pierre N. Tariot, MD, director of Banner Alzheimer’s Institute and research professor of psychiatry at the University of Arizona, both in Phoenix, said the study is “meaningful and large enough” to “come close” to determining whether the therapy is safe and effective. “The fundamental rationale for this experimental approach, while speculative, is reasonable and certainly seems to be worth testing,” said Dr. Tariot, who was not involved with the research.

However, “there’s a decent chance” that not all trial participants had Alzheimer’s disease. Although some CSF amyloid measures suggest levels consistent with AD, “this is not conclusive,” he said.

In addition, “there’s a slightly low rate of apolipoprotein E4 allele carriage [in the current study], compared with most Alzheimer’s disease trials,” Dr. Tariot said.

He also pointed out that the trial failed to show statistical significance on both coprimary outcomes. “It’s unclear what health authorities, if presented with these data, would decide to do with the file.”

Although it was “encouraging” that secondary endpoints were supportive, the fact that they had greater statistical significance than some of the other objective measures “raises at least the potential for partial unblinding as a result of side effects,” said Dr. Tariot. It is also unclear why changes would be more evident in the moderate subpopulation.

The study was funded by Grifols. Dr. Páez is an employee of Grifols. Dr. Tariot reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.

The research will track and evaluate the short- and long-term impact of the novel coronavirus on the brain, including cognition, behavior, and function. The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.

“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
 

‘Frightening’ headlines

As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.

The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.

She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
 

New recommendations

Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:

• Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
• Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
• Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
• Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)

“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”

Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”

Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.

With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.

Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.

The research will track and evaluate the short- and long-term impact of the novel coronavirus on the brain, including cognition, behavior, and function. The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.

“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
 

‘Frightening’ headlines

As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.

The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.

She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
 

New recommendations

Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:

• Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
• Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
• Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
• Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)

“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”

Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”

Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.

With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.

Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

At its annual meeting, the Alzheimer’s Association announced the launch of a global study to examine the impact of COVID-19 on the brain, as well as policy recommendations to better address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term care facilities. The study will be led by researchers at the Alzheimer’s Association and the University of Texas Health, San Antonio, with participation from more than 30 countries and technical guidance from the World Health Organization.

The research will track and evaluate the short- and long-term impact of the novel coronavirus on the brain, including cognition, behavior, and function. The target sample size is 20,000-40,000 total participants.

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, announced the study’s launch during a COVID-19–focused panel discussion at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.

“To build a strong foundation for this research, we will align with existing studies, such as the Framingham Heart Study, and clinicians from around the world on how the data are going to be collected, obtained, and shared. We are going to have cross-study collaborations to understand the impact of the virus on the brain directly,” said Dr. Carrillo. “We will have some very good data to present next year at AAIC.”
 

‘Frightening’ headlines

As previously reported, mounting evidence suggests that SARS-CoV-2 invades the central nervous system, causing a wide range of neurologic and neuropsychiatric complications, including stroke, psychosis, altered mental state, and dementia-like syndrome. It’s likely that “dementia does not increase the risk for COVID-19, just like dementia does not increase risk for the flu. But increased age, being in a long-term care setting, and common health conditions that often accompany dementia may increase the risk,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Panel member Beth Kallmyer, MSW, vice president of care and support at the Alzheimer’s Association, spoke about the ongoing challenges long-term care facilities are facing during the pandemic. “You’ve all seen the headlines, and they’re frightening, frankly,” she said. An estimated 59,000 residents and employees of long-term care have died as a result of COVID-19, which is 42% of all U.S. deaths.

The long-term care community is being impacted at “significantly greater rates than the rest of society and yet we don’t have things in place to protect them. We also know that individuals living with dementia make up a large percentage of those that are living in long-term care,” Ms. Kallmyer said.

She noted that infection control is always a challenge in long-term care settings, but infection control during a pandemic “takes it to a whole other level.” Quarantining is hard for anyone, “but when you layer dementia on top of that we have a real challenge.” One long-term care provider told Ms. Kallmyer that “we might be saving them from COVID, but we’re losing them to social isolation and cognitive decline.”
 

New recommendations

Ms. Kallmyer outlined new policy recommendations from the Alzheimer’s Association to address the COVID-19 crisis in long-term and community-based care settings. They include:

• Testing every resident, employee, and visitor each time they leave and come back, so residents would not need to be confined to their own rooms
• Having a single portal that is easy and efficient for reporting cases
• Developing “surge activation” protocols to respond to hot spots, including the possibility of “strike teams” that go in and help during an outbreak
• Making sure all long-term care providers have full access to all needed personal protective equipment (PPE)

“Five months in and long-term care providers still don’t have adequate PPE. This is unacceptable,” said Ms. Kallmyer. “We have to be able to provide them with PPE.”

Panel member Gregory A. Jicha, MD, PhD, Sanders-Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, spoke about the critical need to continue Alzheimer’s disease research during the pandemic, noting that the number of promising targets for Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias has “never been higher or more comprehensive.”

Measures to ensure safety of researchers and participants include screening for symptoms (50% effective), social distancing (93% effective), minimizing exposure time (50% effective), limiting staff to 50% (50% effective), cloth/paper masks (80% effective), and testing (99.25% effective), Dr. Jicha noted.

With no safety measures in place, the risk of getting COVID-19 from a research visit is 1 in 20; when all these safety measures are combined, the risk is 1 in over 1.5 million, so “we can essentially eradicate or minimize the risks for COVID to less that of a lightning strike,” he said.

Dr. Carrillo, Ms. Kallmyer, and Dr. Jicha disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Middle-aged individuals who have sleep apnea or who get 9 or more hours of sleep at night have more than double the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease within about 6 years, new research suggests. A U.K. Biobank study of more than 500,000 individuals also showed that excessive daytime sleepiness was associated with increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

“Addressing sleep problems in middle-age may play a role in improving brain health,” said lead author Lei Gao, MD, assistant professor of anesthesia at Harvard Medical School and associate scientist in the division of sleep and circadian disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.
 

Intricately linked

Sleep disturbances are common and on the rise around the world. In recent years, researchers have become increasingly aware of the intricate link between sleep health and brain health, Dr. Gao noted.

The current study included 502,538 individuals from the U.K. Biobank (mean age, 57 years) who were free from Alzheimer’s disease at baseline. They were followed for up to 12 years. The participants self-reported sleep traits, including hours of nighttime sleep, daytime sleepiness, sleep apnea diagnosis, snoring, and napping. Researchers determined Alzheimer’s disease diagnoses from hospital admissions and from death registries.

In addition to adjusting for age, sex, education, and ethnicity, the full model adjusted for socioeconomic status, body mass index, physical activity, smoking and alcohol use, cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, neurological diseases, respiratory diseases, depression/anxiety, and medication use. Over the course of a mean follow-up of 6.4 years, 932 participants developed Alzheimer’s disease.
 

Complex disorder

Compared with those who got an average of 6-9 hours of sleep per night, those getting more than 9 hours had a higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease (hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.56-2.67; P < .001). Having sleep apnea also raised the risk significantly (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.23-3.42; P = .006), as did daytime sleepiness (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.03; P = .001).

Dr. Gao noted that daytime sleepiness and sleep apnea remained predictive after controlling for sleep duration. “In fact, all three sleep traits remained associated with Alzheimer’s disease within the same model, suggesting some degree of independence.”

Interestingly, snoring, which is a common symptom of sleep apnea, was not linked to Alzheimer’s disease risk. The “vast majority” of people who snore don’t meet criteria for a diagnosis of sleep apnea, which was particularly true for this large cohort of relatively healthy study participants, Dr. Gao noted.

“Sleep apnea is a complex, multisystemic sleep disorder associated with obesity, high blood pressure, and often other heart problems,” he said.

He added that, as an anesthesiologist, he is particularly wary if patients have this condition, “given their increased risk for airway difficulties, adverse cardiac events, postoperative respiratory complications, and confusion or delirium, which is also associated with higher risk for eventual Alzheimer’s disease and death.”

These multisystemic factors may be driving the link to Alzheimer’s disease. “We certainly need to address this better as the population ages and obesity rates rise,” Dr. Gao said.
 

No association with napping

Unlike another of Dr. Gao’s studies that was conducted in a much older population, napping was not a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease in the current study’s younger participants. It could be that the impacts of different sleep traits on health outcome change with age, Dr. Gao said, or this could represent a limitation of using self-reported sleep measures as opposed to objective and/or quantitative measures, such as actigraphy. The reasons for napping, which differ around the world with the habit being common in certain parts, may also help explain differences in observed associations.

Although the investigators tried to control for comorbidities and medication use, there “most certainly” could be a reverse causation at work. For example, sleeping too much could be both a cause and a symptom of dementia. Dr. Gao noted that sleep disturbances often become more prevalent with dementia, and sleeping too much or complaining of daytime sleepiness may be a result of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Even if there is a reverse causation, however, the average time to Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis was over 6 years in this study. “This may be a significant window of time to intervene,” he said.

To improve sleep health, he recommends going to bed and waking at similar times every day, avoiding caffeine or alcohol close to bedtime, limiting screen time before bed, dimming lights, and reducing noise.

It’s also important to have sleep apnea treated. “While more studies are needed, it’s generally believed that addressing the pauses in breathing, the apnea episodes, will help reduce cardiovascular health risks such as obesity, high blood pressure and heart failure. All are known to be strongly linked to dementia risk,” Dr. Gao said.

Results from an assessment of 100,000 actigraphy records from a subset of the same population are expected soon and will add objective confirmation of these self-reported results, he added.
 

Unique, powerful

Commenting on the findings, Alberto Ramos, MD, associate professor of clinical neurology and research director of the sleep medicine program at the University of Miami, called the study “unique” and “powerful” because of its prospective design and large sample size.

“Another strength of the study was that it included a population-based sample as opposed to one from a memory or sleep clinic where people already have symptoms or are already sick,” said Dr. Ramos, who was not involved with the research.

In addition, while most studies that have linked sleep disturbances with dementia risk have been in older adults, this study’s population was middle-aged to start out, he noted.

Dr. Gao and Dr. Ramos reported no relevant financial relationships. Although Dr. Gao’s lab receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, the BrightFocus Foundation, the University of Manchester, the Medical Biodynamics Program, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and the Broad Institute, the study itself does not have its own specific funding.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Middle-aged individuals who have sleep apnea or who get 9 or more hours of sleep at night have more than double the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease within about 6 years, new research suggests. A U.K. Biobank study of more than 500,000 individuals also showed that excessive daytime sleepiness was associated with increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

“Addressing sleep problems in middle-age may play a role in improving brain health,” said lead author Lei Gao, MD, assistant professor of anesthesia at Harvard Medical School and associate scientist in the division of sleep and circadian disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.
 

Intricately linked

Sleep disturbances are common and on the rise around the world. In recent years, researchers have become increasingly aware of the intricate link between sleep health and brain health, Dr. Gao noted.

The current study included 502,538 individuals from the U.K. Biobank (mean age, 57 years) who were free from Alzheimer’s disease at baseline. They were followed for up to 12 years. The participants self-reported sleep traits, including hours of nighttime sleep, daytime sleepiness, sleep apnea diagnosis, snoring, and napping. Researchers determined Alzheimer’s disease diagnoses from hospital admissions and from death registries.

In addition to adjusting for age, sex, education, and ethnicity, the full model adjusted for socioeconomic status, body mass index, physical activity, smoking and alcohol use, cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, neurological diseases, respiratory diseases, depression/anxiety, and medication use. Over the course of a mean follow-up of 6.4 years, 932 participants developed Alzheimer’s disease.
 

Complex disorder

Compared with those who got an average of 6-9 hours of sleep per night, those getting more than 9 hours had a higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease (hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.56-2.67; P < .001). Having sleep apnea also raised the risk significantly (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.23-3.42; P = .006), as did daytime sleepiness (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.03; P = .001).

Dr. Gao noted that daytime sleepiness and sleep apnea remained predictive after controlling for sleep duration. “In fact, all three sleep traits remained associated with Alzheimer’s disease within the same model, suggesting some degree of independence.”

Interestingly, snoring, which is a common symptom of sleep apnea, was not linked to Alzheimer’s disease risk. The “vast majority” of people who snore don’t meet criteria for a diagnosis of sleep apnea, which was particularly true for this large cohort of relatively healthy study participants, Dr. Gao noted.

“Sleep apnea is a complex, multisystemic sleep disorder associated with obesity, high blood pressure, and often other heart problems,” he said.

He added that, as an anesthesiologist, he is particularly wary if patients have this condition, “given their increased risk for airway difficulties, adverse cardiac events, postoperative respiratory complications, and confusion or delirium, which is also associated with higher risk for eventual Alzheimer’s disease and death.”

These multisystemic factors may be driving the link to Alzheimer’s disease. “We certainly need to address this better as the population ages and obesity rates rise,” Dr. Gao said.
 

No association with napping

Unlike another of Dr. Gao’s studies that was conducted in a much older population, napping was not a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease in the current study’s younger participants. It could be that the impacts of different sleep traits on health outcome change with age, Dr. Gao said, or this could represent a limitation of using self-reported sleep measures as opposed to objective and/or quantitative measures, such as actigraphy. The reasons for napping, which differ around the world with the habit being common in certain parts, may also help explain differences in observed associations.

Although the investigators tried to control for comorbidities and medication use, there “most certainly” could be a reverse causation at work. For example, sleeping too much could be both a cause and a symptom of dementia. Dr. Gao noted that sleep disturbances often become more prevalent with dementia, and sleeping too much or complaining of daytime sleepiness may be a result of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Even if there is a reverse causation, however, the average time to Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis was over 6 years in this study. “This may be a significant window of time to intervene,” he said.

To improve sleep health, he recommends going to bed and waking at similar times every day, avoiding caffeine or alcohol close to bedtime, limiting screen time before bed, dimming lights, and reducing noise.

It’s also important to have sleep apnea treated. “While more studies are needed, it’s generally believed that addressing the pauses in breathing, the apnea episodes, will help reduce cardiovascular health risks such as obesity, high blood pressure and heart failure. All are known to be strongly linked to dementia risk,” Dr. Gao said.

Results from an assessment of 100,000 actigraphy records from a subset of the same population are expected soon and will add objective confirmation of these self-reported results, he added.
 

Unique, powerful

Commenting on the findings, Alberto Ramos, MD, associate professor of clinical neurology and research director of the sleep medicine program at the University of Miami, called the study “unique” and “powerful” because of its prospective design and large sample size.

“Another strength of the study was that it included a population-based sample as opposed to one from a memory or sleep clinic where people already have symptoms or are already sick,” said Dr. Ramos, who was not involved with the research.

In addition, while most studies that have linked sleep disturbances with dementia risk have been in older adults, this study’s population was middle-aged to start out, he noted.

Dr. Gao and Dr. Ramos reported no relevant financial relationships. Although Dr. Gao’s lab receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, the BrightFocus Foundation, the University of Manchester, the Medical Biodynamics Program, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and the Broad Institute, the study itself does not have its own specific funding.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Middle-aged individuals who have sleep apnea or who get 9 or more hours of sleep at night have more than double the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease within about 6 years, new research suggests. A U.K. Biobank study of more than 500,000 individuals also showed that excessive daytime sleepiness was associated with increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease.

“Addressing sleep problems in middle-age may play a role in improving brain health,” said lead author Lei Gao, MD, assistant professor of anesthesia at Harvard Medical School and associate scientist in the division of sleep and circadian disorders at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference 2020.
 

Intricately linked

Sleep disturbances are common and on the rise around the world. In recent years, researchers have become increasingly aware of the intricate link between sleep health and brain health, Dr. Gao noted.

The current study included 502,538 individuals from the U.K. Biobank (mean age, 57 years) who were free from Alzheimer’s disease at baseline. They were followed for up to 12 years. The participants self-reported sleep traits, including hours of nighttime sleep, daytime sleepiness, sleep apnea diagnosis, snoring, and napping. Researchers determined Alzheimer’s disease diagnoses from hospital admissions and from death registries.

In addition to adjusting for age, sex, education, and ethnicity, the full model adjusted for socioeconomic status, body mass index, physical activity, smoking and alcohol use, cardiovascular diseases and risk factors, neurological diseases, respiratory diseases, depression/anxiety, and medication use. Over the course of a mean follow-up of 6.4 years, 932 participants developed Alzheimer’s disease.
 

Complex disorder

Compared with those who got an average of 6-9 hours of sleep per night, those getting more than 9 hours had a higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease (hazard ratio, 2.04; 95% confidence interval, 1.56-2.67; P < .001). Having sleep apnea also raised the risk significantly (HR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.23-3.42; P = .006), as did daytime sleepiness (HR, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.18-2.03; P = .001).

Dr. Gao noted that daytime sleepiness and sleep apnea remained predictive after controlling for sleep duration. “In fact, all three sleep traits remained associated with Alzheimer’s disease within the same model, suggesting some degree of independence.”

Interestingly, snoring, which is a common symptom of sleep apnea, was not linked to Alzheimer’s disease risk. The “vast majority” of people who snore don’t meet criteria for a diagnosis of sleep apnea, which was particularly true for this large cohort of relatively healthy study participants, Dr. Gao noted.

“Sleep apnea is a complex, multisystemic sleep disorder associated with obesity, high blood pressure, and often other heart problems,” he said.

He added that, as an anesthesiologist, he is particularly wary if patients have this condition, “given their increased risk for airway difficulties, adverse cardiac events, postoperative respiratory complications, and confusion or delirium, which is also associated with higher risk for eventual Alzheimer’s disease and death.”

These multisystemic factors may be driving the link to Alzheimer’s disease. “We certainly need to address this better as the population ages and obesity rates rise,” Dr. Gao said.
 

No association with napping

Unlike another of Dr. Gao’s studies that was conducted in a much older population, napping was not a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease in the current study’s younger participants. It could be that the impacts of different sleep traits on health outcome change with age, Dr. Gao said, or this could represent a limitation of using self-reported sleep measures as opposed to objective and/or quantitative measures, such as actigraphy. The reasons for napping, which differ around the world with the habit being common in certain parts, may also help explain differences in observed associations.

Although the investigators tried to control for comorbidities and medication use, there “most certainly” could be a reverse causation at work. For example, sleeping too much could be both a cause and a symptom of dementia. Dr. Gao noted that sleep disturbances often become more prevalent with dementia, and sleeping too much or complaining of daytime sleepiness may be a result of preclinical Alzheimer’s disease. Even if there is a reverse causation, however, the average time to Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis was over 6 years in this study. “This may be a significant window of time to intervene,” he said.

To improve sleep health, he recommends going to bed and waking at similar times every day, avoiding caffeine or alcohol close to bedtime, limiting screen time before bed, dimming lights, and reducing noise.

It’s also important to have sleep apnea treated. “While more studies are needed, it’s generally believed that addressing the pauses in breathing, the apnea episodes, will help reduce cardiovascular health risks such as obesity, high blood pressure and heart failure. All are known to be strongly linked to dementia risk,” Dr. Gao said.

Results from an assessment of 100,000 actigraphy records from a subset of the same population are expected soon and will add objective confirmation of these self-reported results, he added.
 

Unique, powerful

Commenting on the findings, Alberto Ramos, MD, associate professor of clinical neurology and research director of the sleep medicine program at the University of Miami, called the study “unique” and “powerful” because of its prospective design and large sample size.

“Another strength of the study was that it included a population-based sample as opposed to one from a memory or sleep clinic where people already have symptoms or are already sick,” said Dr. Ramos, who was not involved with the research.

In addition, while most studies that have linked sleep disturbances with dementia risk have been in older adults, this study’s population was middle-aged to start out, he noted.

Dr. Gao and Dr. Ramos reported no relevant financial relationships. Although Dr. Gao’s lab receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, the BrightFocus Foundation, the University of Manchester, the Medical Biodynamics Program, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and the Broad Institute, the study itself does not have its own specific funding.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Infection increases mortality risk among patients with dementia, new research suggests. A large, registry-based cohort study showed that those with dementia had a greater than sixfold increased risk of dying after acquiring any infection than those without dementia or an infection.

“This is the first study to our knowledge to show that increased mortality is observed across all infection types in people with dementia and that increased mortality is seen both short and long term,” said coinvestigator Janet Janbek, a PhD student at the Danish Dementia Research Center, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Large Danish cohort

The investigators analyzed data from Danish national health registries for nearly 1.5 million individuals aged 65 years and older who had visited the hospital with an infection. There were 575,260 deaths during more than 12.7 million person-years of follow-up.

Patients with dementia who also had a hospital visit for infection died at a 6.5 times higher rate than participants without dementia or an infection. Those with either dementia alone or infection-related contacts alone had a threefold increased rate of death.

The mortality rate was highest within the first 30 days following the hospital visit for infection. However, the rate remained elevated for 10 years after the initial infection-related hospital visit.

Mortality rates from all infections, including major infections, such as sepsis, down to minor ear infections were elevated in patients with dementia, compared with people who did not have dementia or an infection-related hospital visit.

Ms. Janbek said there are several possible explanations for the association of infection and increased mortality risk in those with dementia. “After a hospital contact with a severe infection, people with dementia may become more reliant on external care, become more frail, and have declined functional levels, which might explain the observed association.”

It might also be that patients with dementia have more severe infections than those without dementia at the time of hospital contact, possibly because of delayed diagnosis, which could explain the higher mortality rates, said Ms. Janbek.

“It is also plausible that infections play a role in worsening dementia and subsequently lead to increased mortality,” she noted.

“Clinicians and health care personnel need to pay closer attention to infections of all types in people with dementia, and steps toward better clinical management and improved posthospital care need to be explored and undertaken. We need to identify possible preventive measures and targeted interventions in people with dementia and infections,” Ms. Janbek said.
 

‘Interesting observation’

Commenting on the study, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, said it presents “an interesting observation.” However, “we can’t make any direct assumptions from this research per se about infections and dementia and whether they are causative in any way,” noted Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved with the study.

Instead, the study highlighted the importance of “taking care of our overall health and making sure that individuals that might be vulnerable to infection, like those who are already living with dementia, are getting the best care possible,” she said.

Ms. Janbek and Dr. Edelmayer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Infection increases mortality risk among patients with dementia, new research suggests. A large, registry-based cohort study showed that those with dementia had a greater than sixfold increased risk of dying after acquiring any infection than those without dementia or an infection.

“This is the first study to our knowledge to show that increased mortality is observed across all infection types in people with dementia and that increased mortality is seen both short and long term,” said coinvestigator Janet Janbek, a PhD student at the Danish Dementia Research Center, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Large Danish cohort

The investigators analyzed data from Danish national health registries for nearly 1.5 million individuals aged 65 years and older who had visited the hospital with an infection. There were 575,260 deaths during more than 12.7 million person-years of follow-up.

Patients with dementia who also had a hospital visit for infection died at a 6.5 times higher rate than participants without dementia or an infection. Those with either dementia alone or infection-related contacts alone had a threefold increased rate of death.

The mortality rate was highest within the first 30 days following the hospital visit for infection. However, the rate remained elevated for 10 years after the initial infection-related hospital visit.

Mortality rates from all infections, including major infections, such as sepsis, down to minor ear infections were elevated in patients with dementia, compared with people who did not have dementia or an infection-related hospital visit.

Ms. Janbek said there are several possible explanations for the association of infection and increased mortality risk in those with dementia. “After a hospital contact with a severe infection, people with dementia may become more reliant on external care, become more frail, and have declined functional levels, which might explain the observed association.”

It might also be that patients with dementia have more severe infections than those without dementia at the time of hospital contact, possibly because of delayed diagnosis, which could explain the higher mortality rates, said Ms. Janbek.

“It is also plausible that infections play a role in worsening dementia and subsequently lead to increased mortality,” she noted.

“Clinicians and health care personnel need to pay closer attention to infections of all types in people with dementia, and steps toward better clinical management and improved posthospital care need to be explored and undertaken. We need to identify possible preventive measures and targeted interventions in people with dementia and infections,” Ms. Janbek said.
 

‘Interesting observation’

Commenting on the study, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, said it presents “an interesting observation.” However, “we can’t make any direct assumptions from this research per se about infections and dementia and whether they are causative in any way,” noted Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved with the study.

Instead, the study highlighted the importance of “taking care of our overall health and making sure that individuals that might be vulnerable to infection, like those who are already living with dementia, are getting the best care possible,” she said.

Ms. Janbek and Dr. Edelmayer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Infection increases mortality risk among patients with dementia, new research suggests. A large, registry-based cohort study showed that those with dementia had a greater than sixfold increased risk of dying after acquiring any infection than those without dementia or an infection.

“This is the first study to our knowledge to show that increased mortality is observed across all infection types in people with dementia and that increased mortality is seen both short and long term,” said coinvestigator Janet Janbek, a PhD student at the Danish Dementia Research Center, Rigshospitalet, University of Copenhagen.

The findings were presented at the virtual annual meeting of the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Large Danish cohort

The investigators analyzed data from Danish national health registries for nearly 1.5 million individuals aged 65 years and older who had visited the hospital with an infection. There were 575,260 deaths during more than 12.7 million person-years of follow-up.

Patients with dementia who also had a hospital visit for infection died at a 6.5 times higher rate than participants without dementia or an infection. Those with either dementia alone or infection-related contacts alone had a threefold increased rate of death.

The mortality rate was highest within the first 30 days following the hospital visit for infection. However, the rate remained elevated for 10 years after the initial infection-related hospital visit.

Mortality rates from all infections, including major infections, such as sepsis, down to minor ear infections were elevated in patients with dementia, compared with people who did not have dementia or an infection-related hospital visit.

Ms. Janbek said there are several possible explanations for the association of infection and increased mortality risk in those with dementia. “After a hospital contact with a severe infection, people with dementia may become more reliant on external care, become more frail, and have declined functional levels, which might explain the observed association.”

It might also be that patients with dementia have more severe infections than those without dementia at the time of hospital contact, possibly because of delayed diagnosis, which could explain the higher mortality rates, said Ms. Janbek.

“It is also plausible that infections play a role in worsening dementia and subsequently lead to increased mortality,” she noted.

“Clinicians and health care personnel need to pay closer attention to infections of all types in people with dementia, and steps toward better clinical management and improved posthospital care need to be explored and undertaken. We need to identify possible preventive measures and targeted interventions in people with dementia and infections,” Ms. Janbek said.
 

‘Interesting observation’

Commenting on the study, Rebecca M. Edelmayer, PhD, director of scientific engagement for the Alzheimer’s Association, said it presents “an interesting observation.” However, “we can’t make any direct assumptions from this research per se about infections and dementia and whether they are causative in any way,” noted Dr. Edelmayer, who was not involved with the study.

Instead, the study highlighted the importance of “taking care of our overall health and making sure that individuals that might be vulnerable to infection, like those who are already living with dementia, are getting the best care possible,” she said.

Ms. Janbek and Dr. Edelmayer have reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.