Testing COVID-19 vaccines in young children is going to be tricky. Deciding how to approve them and who should get them may be even more difficult.

So far, the vaccines available to Americans ages 12 and up have sailed through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory checks, taking advantage of an accelerated clearance process called an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). 

EUAs set a lower bar for effectiveness, saying the vaccines may be safe and effective based on just a few months of data. 

But with COVID cases plummeting in the United States and children historically seeing far less serious disease than adults, a panel of expert advisors to the FDA was asked to deliberate on Thursday whether the agency could consider vaccines for this age group under the same standard. 

Stated another way: Is COVID an emergency for kids? 

There’s another wrinkle in the mix, too – heart inflammation, which appears to be a very rare emerging adverse event tied to vaccination. It seems to happen more often in teens and young adults. To date, cases of myocarditis and pericarditis appear to be happening in 16 to 30 people for every 1 million doses given. 

But if it is conclusively linked to the shots, some wonder whether it might tip the balance between benefits and risks for kids.

That left some of the experts who sit on the FDA’s advisory committee for vaccines and related biological products urging the FDA to take its time and more thoroughly study the shots before they’re given to millions of children.
 

Vaccine studies different in children?

Clinical studies of the vaccines in teens and adults have thus far relied on some straightforward math. You take two groups of similar people. You give half the vaccine and half a placebo. Then you wait and see which group has more symptomatic infections. To date, the vaccines have dramatically cut the risk of getting severely ill with COVID for every age group tested.

But COVID infections are falling rapidly in the U.S., and that may make it more difficult for researchers to conduct a similar kind of experiment in children.

The FDA is considering different approaches to figure out whether a vaccine would be effective in kids, including something called an “immunobridging trial.” 

In bridging trials, researchers don’t look for infections; rather, they look for proven signs that someone has developed immunity, like antibody levels. Those biomarkers are then compared to the immune responses of younger adults who have demonstrated good protection against infection.

The main advantage of bridging studies is speed. It’s possible to get a snapshot of how the immune system responds to a vaccine within weeks of the final dose.

The drawback is that researchers don’t know exactly what to look for to judge how well the shots are generating protection. 

That’s made even more difficult because kids’ immune systems are still developing, so it may be tough to draw direct parallels to adults.

“We don’t know what the serologic correlate of immunity is now. We don’t know how much antibody you have to get in order to be protected. We don’t know what the role of T cells will be,” said H. Cody Meissner, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center, Boston.

“I have so much sympathy for the FDA because these are enormous problems, and you have to make a decision,” said Dr. Meissner, who is a member of the FDA’s vaccines and related biological products advisory committee.
 

Speed vaccines to market, or gather more data?

The plummeting rate of infections in the United States also means that it may be more difficult for the FDA to justify allowing a vaccine on the market for emergency use for children under age 12.

In its recent advisory committee meeting, the agency asked the panel whether it should consider COVID vaccines for children under an EUA or a biologics license application (BLA), aka full approval. 

A BLA typically means the agency considers a year or two of data on a new product, rather than just 2 months’ worth. Emergency use also allows products on the market under a looser standard – they “may be” safe and effective, instead of has been proven to be safe and effective.

Several committee members said they didn’t feel the United States was still in an emergency with COVID and couldn’t see the FDA allowing a vaccine to be used in kids that wasn’t given the agency’s highest level of scrutiny, particularly with reports of adverse events like myocarditis coming to light.

“I just want to be sure the price we pay for vaccinating millions of children justifies the side effects, and I don’t think we know that yet,” Dr. Meissner said.

Others acknowledged that there was little risk to kids now with infections on the decline but said that picture could change as variants spread, schools reopen, and colder temperatures force people indoors. 

The FDA must decide whether to act based on where we are now or where we could be in a few months.

“I think it’s the million-dollar question right now,” said Hannah Kirking, MD, a medical epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who presented new and unpublished data on COVID’s impact in children to the FDA’s advisory committee.

She said prospective studies tracking the way COVID moves through a household with weekly testing from New York City and Utah had found that children catch and transmit COVID almost as readily as adults. But they don’t usually get as sick as adults do, so their cases are easy to miss. 

She also presented the results of blood tests from samples around the country looking for evidence of past infection. In these seroprevalence studies, about 27% of children under age 17 had antibodies to COVID – the most of any age group. So more than 1 in 4 kids already has some natural immunity.

That means the main benefit of vaccinating children might be the protection of others, while they still bear the risks – however tiny.

Some experts felt that wasn’t enough reason to justify mass distribution of the vaccines to kids, and from a regulatory standpoint, it might not be permissible.

“FDA can only approve a medical product in a population if the benefits outweigh the risks in that population,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research in the University of Maryland’s school of pharmacy, Baltimore.

“If benefits don’t outweigh risks in children, it can’t be indicated for children. Full stop,” said Dr. Doshi, who is also an editor at the BMJ.

He said there’s another way to give children access to vaccines, through an expanded access or compassionate use program. Because most COVID deaths have been in children with underlying health conditions, Dr. Doshi and others said it might make sense to allow expanded access – which would get vaccines to children at high risk for complications – without turning them loose on millions before they are more thoroughly studied.

“It’s not a particularly attractive option for industry, because there’s no money to be made. Your medicine can’t be commercialized under expanded access. The most you can reap is manufacturing cost, which is not a lot,” he said.

Art Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University’s Langone medical center, said the argument for vaccinating children for flu falls along the same lines. The benefit-to-risk ratio is finely balanced in children.  The main value of protecting them is to protect others.

“Flu rarely kills young folks. But you’re really trying to protect old folks and that’s the classic example,” he said.

What’s more, he said the idea that children would take on some risk with a vaccine for little personal benefit is oversimplified.

“Yes, you might get vaccinated to prevent harm to others, but those others are providing benefits to you. It’s not a one-way street. I think that’s a little morally distorted,” Mr. Caplan said. “Being able to keep society open benefits kids and adults alike.”

Other committee members felt like it was too early to sound the all-clear on COVID and said the FDA should authorize vaccines for children as quickly as it had for other age groups.

“We are still, I believe, in an emergency situation. I think that when this virus goes into our children, which is what it’s going to do, that will give it an incubator to change,” said Oveta Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Fuller said that for the good of the world, Americans needed to vaccinate children to prevent the virus from mutating and creating new and potentially more dangerous variants.
 

Weighing risk over safety

Beth Thielen, MD, PhD, pediatric infectious disease specialist and virologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said she had not followed the committee’s discussions, but about once a month she treats kids who are very sick because of the virus – either because of a COVID infection or because of multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), an inflammatory reaction that strikes after infection.

She’s worried about how the virus has already changed. She said the kind of disease she’s seeing in kids now is different than what she saw in the early months of the pandemic.

“In the last couple of months, I’ve actually seen a few cases of severe pulmonary disease, more similar to adult disease in children,” Dr. Thielen said. “I see on the horizon that we could start seeing more significant disease in young people, and then the risks of being unvaccinated go up substantially.” 

But she also knows nobody has a crystal ball, and right now, everything seems to be trending in the right direction with COVID. That makes the risk-to-benefit consideration murkier.

“The question in my mind is, what is the risk of side effects from the vaccine?” she said. “I think we really need to know what the safety profile of vaccine looks like in children because we do have a decent understanding now what risk from disease looks like, because it’s small, but we are seeing it.”

Dr. Thielen said she’ll be keeping an eye on the next meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for more answers.

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

Testing COVID-19 vaccines in young children is going to be tricky. Deciding how to approve them and who should get them may be even more difficult.

So far, the vaccines available to Americans ages 12 and up have sailed through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory checks, taking advantage of an accelerated clearance process called an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). 

EUAs set a lower bar for effectiveness, saying the vaccines may be safe and effective based on just a few months of data. 

But with COVID cases plummeting in the United States and children historically seeing far less serious disease than adults, a panel of expert advisors to the FDA was asked to deliberate on Thursday whether the agency could consider vaccines for this age group under the same standard. 

Stated another way: Is COVID an emergency for kids? 

There’s another wrinkle in the mix, too – heart inflammation, which appears to be a very rare emerging adverse event tied to vaccination. It seems to happen more often in teens and young adults. To date, cases of myocarditis and pericarditis appear to be happening in 16 to 30 people for every 1 million doses given. 

But if it is conclusively linked to the shots, some wonder whether it might tip the balance between benefits and risks for kids.

That left some of the experts who sit on the FDA’s advisory committee for vaccines and related biological products urging the FDA to take its time and more thoroughly study the shots before they’re given to millions of children.
 

Vaccine studies different in children?

Clinical studies of the vaccines in teens and adults have thus far relied on some straightforward math. You take two groups of similar people. You give half the vaccine and half a placebo. Then you wait and see which group has more symptomatic infections. To date, the vaccines have dramatically cut the risk of getting severely ill with COVID for every age group tested.

But COVID infections are falling rapidly in the U.S., and that may make it more difficult for researchers to conduct a similar kind of experiment in children.

The FDA is considering different approaches to figure out whether a vaccine would be effective in kids, including something called an “immunobridging trial.” 

In bridging trials, researchers don’t look for infections; rather, they look for proven signs that someone has developed immunity, like antibody levels. Those biomarkers are then compared to the immune responses of younger adults who have demonstrated good protection against infection.

The main advantage of bridging studies is speed. It’s possible to get a snapshot of how the immune system responds to a vaccine within weeks of the final dose.

The drawback is that researchers don’t know exactly what to look for to judge how well the shots are generating protection. 

That’s made even more difficult because kids’ immune systems are still developing, so it may be tough to draw direct parallels to adults.

“We don’t know what the serologic correlate of immunity is now. We don’t know how much antibody you have to get in order to be protected. We don’t know what the role of T cells will be,” said H. Cody Meissner, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center, Boston.

“I have so much sympathy for the FDA because these are enormous problems, and you have to make a decision,” said Dr. Meissner, who is a member of the FDA’s vaccines and related biological products advisory committee.
 

Speed vaccines to market, or gather more data?

The plummeting rate of infections in the United States also means that it may be more difficult for the FDA to justify allowing a vaccine on the market for emergency use for children under age 12.

In its recent advisory committee meeting, the agency asked the panel whether it should consider COVID vaccines for children under an EUA or a biologics license application (BLA), aka full approval. 

A BLA typically means the agency considers a year or two of data on a new product, rather than just 2 months’ worth. Emergency use also allows products on the market under a looser standard – they “may be” safe and effective, instead of has been proven to be safe and effective.

Several committee members said they didn’t feel the United States was still in an emergency with COVID and couldn’t see the FDA allowing a vaccine to be used in kids that wasn’t given the agency’s highest level of scrutiny, particularly with reports of adverse events like myocarditis coming to light.

“I just want to be sure the price we pay for vaccinating millions of children justifies the side effects, and I don’t think we know that yet,” Dr. Meissner said.

Others acknowledged that there was little risk to kids now with infections on the decline but said that picture could change as variants spread, schools reopen, and colder temperatures force people indoors. 

The FDA must decide whether to act based on where we are now or where we could be in a few months.

“I think it’s the million-dollar question right now,” said Hannah Kirking, MD, a medical epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who presented new and unpublished data on COVID’s impact in children to the FDA’s advisory committee.

She said prospective studies tracking the way COVID moves through a household with weekly testing from New York City and Utah had found that children catch and transmit COVID almost as readily as adults. But they don’t usually get as sick as adults do, so their cases are easy to miss. 

She also presented the results of blood tests from samples around the country looking for evidence of past infection. In these seroprevalence studies, about 27% of children under age 17 had antibodies to COVID – the most of any age group. So more than 1 in 4 kids already has some natural immunity.

That means the main benefit of vaccinating children might be the protection of others, while they still bear the risks – however tiny.

Some experts felt that wasn’t enough reason to justify mass distribution of the vaccines to kids, and from a regulatory standpoint, it might not be permissible.

“FDA can only approve a medical product in a population if the benefits outweigh the risks in that population,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research in the University of Maryland’s school of pharmacy, Baltimore.

“If benefits don’t outweigh risks in children, it can’t be indicated for children. Full stop,” said Dr. Doshi, who is also an editor at the BMJ.

He said there’s another way to give children access to vaccines, through an expanded access or compassionate use program. Because most COVID deaths have been in children with underlying health conditions, Dr. Doshi and others said it might make sense to allow expanded access – which would get vaccines to children at high risk for complications – without turning them loose on millions before they are more thoroughly studied.

“It’s not a particularly attractive option for industry, because there’s no money to be made. Your medicine can’t be commercialized under expanded access. The most you can reap is manufacturing cost, which is not a lot,” he said.

Art Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University’s Langone medical center, said the argument for vaccinating children for flu falls along the same lines. The benefit-to-risk ratio is finely balanced in children.  The main value of protecting them is to protect others.

“Flu rarely kills young folks. But you’re really trying to protect old folks and that’s the classic example,” he said.

What’s more, he said the idea that children would take on some risk with a vaccine for little personal benefit is oversimplified.

“Yes, you might get vaccinated to prevent harm to others, but those others are providing benefits to you. It’s not a one-way street. I think that’s a little morally distorted,” Mr. Caplan said. “Being able to keep society open benefits kids and adults alike.”

Other committee members felt like it was too early to sound the all-clear on COVID and said the FDA should authorize vaccines for children as quickly as it had for other age groups.

“We are still, I believe, in an emergency situation. I think that when this virus goes into our children, which is what it’s going to do, that will give it an incubator to change,” said Oveta Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Fuller said that for the good of the world, Americans needed to vaccinate children to prevent the virus from mutating and creating new and potentially more dangerous variants.
 

Weighing risk over safety

Beth Thielen, MD, PhD, pediatric infectious disease specialist and virologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said she had not followed the committee’s discussions, but about once a month she treats kids who are very sick because of the virus – either because of a COVID infection or because of multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), an inflammatory reaction that strikes after infection.

She’s worried about how the virus has already changed. She said the kind of disease she’s seeing in kids now is different than what she saw in the early months of the pandemic.

“In the last couple of months, I’ve actually seen a few cases of severe pulmonary disease, more similar to adult disease in children,” Dr. Thielen said. “I see on the horizon that we could start seeing more significant disease in young people, and then the risks of being unvaccinated go up substantially.” 

But she also knows nobody has a crystal ball, and right now, everything seems to be trending in the right direction with COVID. That makes the risk-to-benefit consideration murkier.

“The question in my mind is, what is the risk of side effects from the vaccine?” she said. “I think we really need to know what the safety profile of vaccine looks like in children because we do have a decent understanding now what risk from disease looks like, because it’s small, but we are seeing it.”

Dr. Thielen said she’ll be keeping an eye on the next meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for more answers.

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

Testing COVID-19 vaccines in young children is going to be tricky. Deciding how to approve them and who should get them may be even more difficult.

So far, the vaccines available to Americans ages 12 and up have sailed through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory checks, taking advantage of an accelerated clearance process called an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). 

EUAs set a lower bar for effectiveness, saying the vaccines may be safe and effective based on just a few months of data. 

But with COVID cases plummeting in the United States and children historically seeing far less serious disease than adults, a panel of expert advisors to the FDA was asked to deliberate on Thursday whether the agency could consider vaccines for this age group under the same standard. 

Stated another way: Is COVID an emergency for kids? 

There’s another wrinkle in the mix, too – heart inflammation, which appears to be a very rare emerging adverse event tied to vaccination. It seems to happen more often in teens and young adults. To date, cases of myocarditis and pericarditis appear to be happening in 16 to 30 people for every 1 million doses given. 

But if it is conclusively linked to the shots, some wonder whether it might tip the balance between benefits and risks for kids.

That left some of the experts who sit on the FDA’s advisory committee for vaccines and related biological products urging the FDA to take its time and more thoroughly study the shots before they’re given to millions of children.
 

Vaccine studies different in children?

Clinical studies of the vaccines in teens and adults have thus far relied on some straightforward math. You take two groups of similar people. You give half the vaccine and half a placebo. Then you wait and see which group has more symptomatic infections. To date, the vaccines have dramatically cut the risk of getting severely ill with COVID for every age group tested.

But COVID infections are falling rapidly in the U.S., and that may make it more difficult for researchers to conduct a similar kind of experiment in children.

The FDA is considering different approaches to figure out whether a vaccine would be effective in kids, including something called an “immunobridging trial.” 

In bridging trials, researchers don’t look for infections; rather, they look for proven signs that someone has developed immunity, like antibody levels. Those biomarkers are then compared to the immune responses of younger adults who have demonstrated good protection against infection.

The main advantage of bridging studies is speed. It’s possible to get a snapshot of how the immune system responds to a vaccine within weeks of the final dose.

The drawback is that researchers don’t know exactly what to look for to judge how well the shots are generating protection. 

That’s made even more difficult because kids’ immune systems are still developing, so it may be tough to draw direct parallels to adults.

“We don’t know what the serologic correlate of immunity is now. We don’t know how much antibody you have to get in order to be protected. We don’t know what the role of T cells will be,” said H. Cody Meissner, MD, chief of the division of pediatric infectious disease at Tufts Medical Center, Boston.

“I have so much sympathy for the FDA because these are enormous problems, and you have to make a decision,” said Dr. Meissner, who is a member of the FDA’s vaccines and related biological products advisory committee.
 

Speed vaccines to market, or gather more data?

The plummeting rate of infections in the United States also means that it may be more difficult for the FDA to justify allowing a vaccine on the market for emergency use for children under age 12.

In its recent advisory committee meeting, the agency asked the panel whether it should consider COVID vaccines for children under an EUA or a biologics license application (BLA), aka full approval. 

A BLA typically means the agency considers a year or two of data on a new product, rather than just 2 months’ worth. Emergency use also allows products on the market under a looser standard – they “may be” safe and effective, instead of has been proven to be safe and effective.

Several committee members said they didn’t feel the United States was still in an emergency with COVID and couldn’t see the FDA allowing a vaccine to be used in kids that wasn’t given the agency’s highest level of scrutiny, particularly with reports of adverse events like myocarditis coming to light.

“I just want to be sure the price we pay for vaccinating millions of children justifies the side effects, and I don’t think we know that yet,” Dr. Meissner said.

Others acknowledged that there was little risk to kids now with infections on the decline but said that picture could change as variants spread, schools reopen, and colder temperatures force people indoors. 

The FDA must decide whether to act based on where we are now or where we could be in a few months.

“I think it’s the million-dollar question right now,” said Hannah Kirking, MD, a medical epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention who presented new and unpublished data on COVID’s impact in children to the FDA’s advisory committee.

She said prospective studies tracking the way COVID moves through a household with weekly testing from New York City and Utah had found that children catch and transmit COVID almost as readily as adults. But they don’t usually get as sick as adults do, so their cases are easy to miss. 

She also presented the results of blood tests from samples around the country looking for evidence of past infection. In these seroprevalence studies, about 27% of children under age 17 had antibodies to COVID – the most of any age group. So more than 1 in 4 kids already has some natural immunity.

That means the main benefit of vaccinating children might be the protection of others, while they still bear the risks – however tiny.

Some experts felt that wasn’t enough reason to justify mass distribution of the vaccines to kids, and from a regulatory standpoint, it might not be permissible.

“FDA can only approve a medical product in a population if the benefits outweigh the risks in that population,” said Peter Doshi, PhD, assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research in the University of Maryland’s school of pharmacy, Baltimore.

“If benefits don’t outweigh risks in children, it can’t be indicated for children. Full stop,” said Dr. Doshi, who is also an editor at the BMJ.

He said there’s another way to give children access to vaccines, through an expanded access or compassionate use program. Because most COVID deaths have been in children with underlying health conditions, Dr. Doshi and others said it might make sense to allow expanded access – which would get vaccines to children at high risk for complications – without turning them loose on millions before they are more thoroughly studied.

“It’s not a particularly attractive option for industry, because there’s no money to be made. Your medicine can’t be commercialized under expanded access. The most you can reap is manufacturing cost, which is not a lot,” he said.

Art Caplan, a professor of bioethics at New York University’s Langone medical center, said the argument for vaccinating children for flu falls along the same lines. The benefit-to-risk ratio is finely balanced in children.  The main value of protecting them is to protect others.

“Flu rarely kills young folks. But you’re really trying to protect old folks and that’s the classic example,” he said.

What’s more, he said the idea that children would take on some risk with a vaccine for little personal benefit is oversimplified.

“Yes, you might get vaccinated to prevent harm to others, but those others are providing benefits to you. It’s not a one-way street. I think that’s a little morally distorted,” Mr. Caplan said. “Being able to keep society open benefits kids and adults alike.”

Other committee members felt like it was too early to sound the all-clear on COVID and said the FDA should authorize vaccines for children as quickly as it had for other age groups.

“We are still, I believe, in an emergency situation. I think that when this virus goes into our children, which is what it’s going to do, that will give it an incubator to change,” said Oveta Fuller, PhD, associate professor of microbiology and immunology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Fuller said that for the good of the world, Americans needed to vaccinate children to prevent the virus from mutating and creating new and potentially more dangerous variants.
 

Weighing risk over safety

Beth Thielen, MD, PhD, pediatric infectious disease specialist and virologist at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said she had not followed the committee’s discussions, but about once a month she treats kids who are very sick because of the virus – either because of a COVID infection or because of multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MIS-C), an inflammatory reaction that strikes after infection.

She’s worried about how the virus has already changed. She said the kind of disease she’s seeing in kids now is different than what she saw in the early months of the pandemic.

“In the last couple of months, I’ve actually seen a few cases of severe pulmonary disease, more similar to adult disease in children,” Dr. Thielen said. “I see on the horizon that we could start seeing more significant disease in young people, and then the risks of being unvaccinated go up substantially.” 

But she also knows nobody has a crystal ball, and right now, everything seems to be trending in the right direction with COVID. That makes the risk-to-benefit consideration murkier.

“The question in my mind is, what is the risk of side effects from the vaccine?” she said. “I think we really need to know what the safety profile of vaccine looks like in children because we do have a decent understanding now what risk from disease looks like, because it’s small, but we are seeing it.”

Dr. Thielen said she’ll be keeping an eye on the next meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for more answers.

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

Difficulty falling asleep may be predictive of future cognitive impairment in older adults – and depressive symptoms and vascular disease may partially drive this association, new research suggests.

Trouble falling asleep “may be a modifiable risk factor for later-life cognitive impairment and dementia,” said lead author Afsara Zaheed, a PhD candidate in clinical science, department of psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“Patients should also be aware of the importance of insomnia on cognitive functioning so that they can bring up these concerns with their providers early,” she said.

The findings were presented at Virtual SLEEP 2021, the 35th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Poor sleep common with age

As many as one-half of older adults report having poor sleep quality and insomnia, and growing evidence suggests that insomnia may be a unique risk factor for cognitive decline in later life, Ms. Zaheed explained.

To investigate further, the researchers analyzed data on 2,496 adults aged 51 years and older who were participants in the Health and Retirement Study, a longitudinal study of aging in a nationally representative population of older adults.

In 2002, participants were asked how often they had trouble falling asleep, woke up during the night, woke up too early, and were not able to fall asleep again and how often they felt really rested when they woke up in the morning.

In 2016, participants’ cognition was assessed using a battery of neuropsychological tests that gauged episodic memory, executive function, language, visuospatial/construction, and processing speed.

Analyses controlled for sociodemographics, baseline global cognitive performance, and the influence of depressive symptoms and vascular disease.

Compared with other insomnia symptoms, having difficulty falling asleep in 2002 was the main insomnia symptom that was predictive of cognitive impairment 14 years later, in 2016.

More frequent trouble falling asleep was predictive of poorer episodic memory, executive function, language, processing speed, and visuospatial performance.

The associations between sleep initiation and later cognitive impairment were partially explained by depressive symptoms and vascular disease burden for all domains except episodic memory, which was only partially explained by depressive symptoms.
 

Unclear mechanism

Ms. Zaheed said research is needed to uncover neurophysiologic mechanisms underlying the observed associations. “It may be that chronic difficulty with falling asleep is associated with inflammatory or metabolic processes that negatively affect brain structure and function over time,” she said.

“Insomnia has also been linked with higher accumulation of protein aggregates in the brain that disrupt cell communication and are characteristic of late-life disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease,” she added.

“While our project did not directly investigate these potential causal pathways between insomnia and cognition, our results suggest that investigating these potential mechanisms is an important area for future research,” Ms. Zaheed said.

“While additional intervention research is needed to determine whether targeting insomnia in older patients can have lasting cognitive benefits, results from this study suggest that discussing insomnia symptoms at the primary care level may be beneficial for both doctors and patients,” she added.

“By targeting insomnia – for example, through an evidence-based cognitive–behavioral therapy approach – individuals may improve various mental and physical health outcomes in addition to improving their sleep quality,” Ms. Zaheed said.

Reached for comment, Shaheen E. Lakhan, MD, PhD, neurologist in Newton, Massachusetts, said, “There is a strong link between chronic sleep disturbances and cognitive impairment, including dementia.”

“This study further supports this link and specifically calls out initiating sleep (as opposed to staying asleep) as the culprit. It also raises the hypothesis that the link is primarily mediated by depression and vascular disease; however, the verdict is still out,” said Dr. Lakhan.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Ms. Zaheed and Dr. Lakhan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Difficulty falling asleep may be predictive of future cognitive impairment in older adults – and depressive symptoms and vascular disease may partially drive this association, new research suggests.

Trouble falling asleep “may be a modifiable risk factor for later-life cognitive impairment and dementia,” said lead author Afsara Zaheed, a PhD candidate in clinical science, department of psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“Patients should also be aware of the importance of insomnia on cognitive functioning so that they can bring up these concerns with their providers early,” she said.

The findings were presented at Virtual SLEEP 2021, the 35th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Poor sleep common with age

As many as one-half of older adults report having poor sleep quality and insomnia, and growing evidence suggests that insomnia may be a unique risk factor for cognitive decline in later life, Ms. Zaheed explained.

To investigate further, the researchers analyzed data on 2,496 adults aged 51 years and older who were participants in the Health and Retirement Study, a longitudinal study of aging in a nationally representative population of older adults.

In 2002, participants were asked how often they had trouble falling asleep, woke up during the night, woke up too early, and were not able to fall asleep again and how often they felt really rested when they woke up in the morning.

In 2016, participants’ cognition was assessed using a battery of neuropsychological tests that gauged episodic memory, executive function, language, visuospatial/construction, and processing speed.

Analyses controlled for sociodemographics, baseline global cognitive performance, and the influence of depressive symptoms and vascular disease.

Compared with other insomnia symptoms, having difficulty falling asleep in 2002 was the main insomnia symptom that was predictive of cognitive impairment 14 years later, in 2016.

More frequent trouble falling asleep was predictive of poorer episodic memory, executive function, language, processing speed, and visuospatial performance.

The associations between sleep initiation and later cognitive impairment were partially explained by depressive symptoms and vascular disease burden for all domains except episodic memory, which was only partially explained by depressive symptoms.
 

Unclear mechanism

Ms. Zaheed said research is needed to uncover neurophysiologic mechanisms underlying the observed associations. “It may be that chronic difficulty with falling asleep is associated with inflammatory or metabolic processes that negatively affect brain structure and function over time,” she said.

“Insomnia has also been linked with higher accumulation of protein aggregates in the brain that disrupt cell communication and are characteristic of late-life disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease,” she added.

“While our project did not directly investigate these potential causal pathways between insomnia and cognition, our results suggest that investigating these potential mechanisms is an important area for future research,” Ms. Zaheed said.

“While additional intervention research is needed to determine whether targeting insomnia in older patients can have lasting cognitive benefits, results from this study suggest that discussing insomnia symptoms at the primary care level may be beneficial for both doctors and patients,” she added.

“By targeting insomnia – for example, through an evidence-based cognitive–behavioral therapy approach – individuals may improve various mental and physical health outcomes in addition to improving their sleep quality,” Ms. Zaheed said.

Reached for comment, Shaheen E. Lakhan, MD, PhD, neurologist in Newton, Massachusetts, said, “There is a strong link between chronic sleep disturbances and cognitive impairment, including dementia.”

“This study further supports this link and specifically calls out initiating sleep (as opposed to staying asleep) as the culprit. It also raises the hypothesis that the link is primarily mediated by depression and vascular disease; however, the verdict is still out,” said Dr. Lakhan.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Ms. Zaheed and Dr. Lakhan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Difficulty falling asleep may be predictive of future cognitive impairment in older adults – and depressive symptoms and vascular disease may partially drive this association, new research suggests.

Trouble falling asleep “may be a modifiable risk factor for later-life cognitive impairment and dementia,” said lead author Afsara Zaheed, a PhD candidate in clinical science, department of psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

“Patients should also be aware of the importance of insomnia on cognitive functioning so that they can bring up these concerns with their providers early,” she said.

The findings were presented at Virtual SLEEP 2021, the 35th Annual Meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Poor sleep common with age

As many as one-half of older adults report having poor sleep quality and insomnia, and growing evidence suggests that insomnia may be a unique risk factor for cognitive decline in later life, Ms. Zaheed explained.

To investigate further, the researchers analyzed data on 2,496 adults aged 51 years and older who were participants in the Health and Retirement Study, a longitudinal study of aging in a nationally representative population of older adults.

In 2002, participants were asked how often they had trouble falling asleep, woke up during the night, woke up too early, and were not able to fall asleep again and how often they felt really rested when they woke up in the morning.

In 2016, participants’ cognition was assessed using a battery of neuropsychological tests that gauged episodic memory, executive function, language, visuospatial/construction, and processing speed.

Analyses controlled for sociodemographics, baseline global cognitive performance, and the influence of depressive symptoms and vascular disease.

Compared with other insomnia symptoms, having difficulty falling asleep in 2002 was the main insomnia symptom that was predictive of cognitive impairment 14 years later, in 2016.

More frequent trouble falling asleep was predictive of poorer episodic memory, executive function, language, processing speed, and visuospatial performance.

The associations between sleep initiation and later cognitive impairment were partially explained by depressive symptoms and vascular disease burden for all domains except episodic memory, which was only partially explained by depressive symptoms.
 

Unclear mechanism

Ms. Zaheed said research is needed to uncover neurophysiologic mechanisms underlying the observed associations. “It may be that chronic difficulty with falling asleep is associated with inflammatory or metabolic processes that negatively affect brain structure and function over time,” she said.

“Insomnia has also been linked with higher accumulation of protein aggregates in the brain that disrupt cell communication and are characteristic of late-life disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease,” she added.

“While our project did not directly investigate these potential causal pathways between insomnia and cognition, our results suggest that investigating these potential mechanisms is an important area for future research,” Ms. Zaheed said.

“While additional intervention research is needed to determine whether targeting insomnia in older patients can have lasting cognitive benefits, results from this study suggest that discussing insomnia symptoms at the primary care level may be beneficial for both doctors and patients,” she added.

“By targeting insomnia – for example, through an evidence-based cognitive–behavioral therapy approach – individuals may improve various mental and physical health outcomes in addition to improving their sleep quality,” Ms. Zaheed said.

Reached for comment, Shaheen E. Lakhan, MD, PhD, neurologist in Newton, Massachusetts, said, “There is a strong link between chronic sleep disturbances and cognitive impairment, including dementia.”

“This study further supports this link and specifically calls out initiating sleep (as opposed to staying asleep) as the culprit. It also raises the hypothesis that the link is primarily mediated by depression and vascular disease; however, the verdict is still out,” said Dr. Lakhan.

The study was funded by the National Institute on Aging. Ms. Zaheed and Dr. Lakhan have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Insomnia in childhood persists into adulthood and may raise the risk for internalizing disorders in young adults, new research indicates. However, insomnia symptoms in childhood that remit in the transition to adolescence do not confer increased risk of mood or anxiety disorders later on, the study found.

“As insomnia symptoms may precipitate or maintain internalizing disorders, our findings further reinforce the need for early sleep interventions to prevent future mental health disorders,” said lead investigator Julio Fernandez-Mendoza, PhD, associate professor at Penn State University, Hershey.

He presented his research at Virtual SLEEP 2021, the 35th annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Results ‘very clear’

The findings are based on data from the Penn State Child Cohort, a longitudinal, population-based sample of 700 children with a median age of 9 years, including 421 who were followed up 8 years later as adolescents (median age, 16 years) and 502 who were followed up 15 years later as young adults (median age, 24 years).

The data are “very clear that the risk of having internalizing disorders in young adulthood associated with having persistent insomnia symptoms, since childhood through adolescence into young adulthood,” Dr. Fernandez-Mendoza said in his presentation.

A persistent developmental trajectory was associated with a threefold increased risk of adult internalizing disorder (hazard ratio, 3.19).

The risk of having an internalizing disorder in young adulthood associated with newly developing (incident) insomnia symptoms is about twofold higher (HR, 1.94), whereas the risk associated with the waxing and waning pattern of insomnia is 1.5-fold (HR, 1.53) higher and only marginally significant, he reported.

An equally important finding, said Dr. Fernandez-Mendoza, is that those who had remitted insomnia symptoms in the transition to adolescence and throughout young adulthood were not at increased risk of having an internalizing disorder in young adulthood.

“Insomnia symptoms in a persistent manner associated with long-term adverse mental health outcomes, but remission of those insomnia symptoms associated with a good prognosis,” he said.

It’s also important to note, he said, that about 40% of children do not outgrow their insomnia symptoms in the transition to adolescence and are at risk of developing mental health disorders later on during early adulthood.

Reached for comment, Nitun Verma, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, said: “There is a connection with mood and anxiety disorders with sleep, especially insomnia. This is a good reminder that reviewing someone’s sleep habits should always be a part of assessing someone’s mental health.”

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

Insomnia in childhood persists into adulthood and may raise the risk for internalizing disorders in young adults, new research indicates. However, insomnia symptoms in childhood that remit in the transition to adolescence do not confer increased risk of mood or anxiety disorders later on, the study found.

“As insomnia symptoms may precipitate or maintain internalizing disorders, our findings further reinforce the need for early sleep interventions to prevent future mental health disorders,” said lead investigator Julio Fernandez-Mendoza, PhD, associate professor at Penn State University, Hershey.

He presented his research at Virtual SLEEP 2021, the 35th annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Results ‘very clear’

The findings are based on data from the Penn State Child Cohort, a longitudinal, population-based sample of 700 children with a median age of 9 years, including 421 who were followed up 8 years later as adolescents (median age, 16 years) and 502 who were followed up 15 years later as young adults (median age, 24 years).

The data are “very clear that the risk of having internalizing disorders in young adulthood associated with having persistent insomnia symptoms, since childhood through adolescence into young adulthood,” Dr. Fernandez-Mendoza said in his presentation.

A persistent developmental trajectory was associated with a threefold increased risk of adult internalizing disorder (hazard ratio, 3.19).

The risk of having an internalizing disorder in young adulthood associated with newly developing (incident) insomnia symptoms is about twofold higher (HR, 1.94), whereas the risk associated with the waxing and waning pattern of insomnia is 1.5-fold (HR, 1.53) higher and only marginally significant, he reported.

An equally important finding, said Dr. Fernandez-Mendoza, is that those who had remitted insomnia symptoms in the transition to adolescence and throughout young adulthood were not at increased risk of having an internalizing disorder in young adulthood.

“Insomnia symptoms in a persistent manner associated with long-term adverse mental health outcomes, but remission of those insomnia symptoms associated with a good prognosis,” he said.

It’s also important to note, he said, that about 40% of children do not outgrow their insomnia symptoms in the transition to adolescence and are at risk of developing mental health disorders later on during early adulthood.

Reached for comment, Nitun Verma, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, said: “There is a connection with mood and anxiety disorders with sleep, especially insomnia. This is a good reminder that reviewing someone’s sleep habits should always be a part of assessing someone’s mental health.”

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

Insomnia in childhood persists into adulthood and may raise the risk for internalizing disorders in young adults, new research indicates. However, insomnia symptoms in childhood that remit in the transition to adolescence do not confer increased risk of mood or anxiety disorders later on, the study found.

“As insomnia symptoms may precipitate or maintain internalizing disorders, our findings further reinforce the need for early sleep interventions to prevent future mental health disorders,” said lead investigator Julio Fernandez-Mendoza, PhD, associate professor at Penn State University, Hershey.

He presented his research at Virtual SLEEP 2021, the 35th annual meeting of the Associated Professional Sleep Societies.
 

Results ‘very clear’

The findings are based on data from the Penn State Child Cohort, a longitudinal, population-based sample of 700 children with a median age of 9 years, including 421 who were followed up 8 years later as adolescents (median age, 16 years) and 502 who were followed up 15 years later as young adults (median age, 24 years).

The data are “very clear that the risk of having internalizing disorders in young adulthood associated with having persistent insomnia symptoms, since childhood through adolescence into young adulthood,” Dr. Fernandez-Mendoza said in his presentation.

A persistent developmental trajectory was associated with a threefold increased risk of adult internalizing disorder (hazard ratio, 3.19).

The risk of having an internalizing disorder in young adulthood associated with newly developing (incident) insomnia symptoms is about twofold higher (HR, 1.94), whereas the risk associated with the waxing and waning pattern of insomnia is 1.5-fold (HR, 1.53) higher and only marginally significant, he reported.

An equally important finding, said Dr. Fernandez-Mendoza, is that those who had remitted insomnia symptoms in the transition to adolescence and throughout young adulthood were not at increased risk of having an internalizing disorder in young adulthood.

“Insomnia symptoms in a persistent manner associated with long-term adverse mental health outcomes, but remission of those insomnia symptoms associated with a good prognosis,” he said.

It’s also important to note, he said, that about 40% of children do not outgrow their insomnia symptoms in the transition to adolescence and are at risk of developing mental health disorders later on during early adulthood.

Reached for comment, Nitun Verma, MD, a spokesperson for the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, said: “There is a connection with mood and anxiety disorders with sleep, especially insomnia. This is a good reminder that reviewing someone’s sleep habits should always be a part of assessing someone’s mental health.”

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

An in vitro study that used mouse endothelial cells to simulate the blood-brain barrier (BBB) suggests that specific proteins may be involved in destabilization of the protective barrier during a cortical spreading depression (CSD) event.

CSD has been linked to migraine aura, but a connection to pain symptoms is uncertain. “There’s just a lack of knowledge. We don’t understand migraine pathophysiology,” said Michael G. Harrington, MBChB, who was asked to comment on the study.

“The evidence for altered transport across the barrier in cortical spreading depression and the associated aura of migraine is pretty strong. The evidence for regular migraine, not so. In fact, there’s really no strong evidence for leakage in those people, and so it is still unresolved whether this initial cortical spreading depression that occurs in aura then triggers migraine afterwards, because it’s occurring during the aura. And in people who do not have the aura, is there a silent cortical spreading depression phenomenon with some leakage that triggers the migraine? That question is definitely not answered,” said Dr. Harrington, a research professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Leakage of the BBB might allow passage of nociceptive compounds that could trigger migraine. Loss of BBB integrity has also been seen in other central nervous system pain disorders, suggesting that alterations to BBB functioning could have broader implications.

“In this model that we’re using, we’re seeing loss of overall barrier integrity, which lends itself to a whole cascade of further pathological possibilities,” Jared Wahl, a PhD candidate at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview. He presented the research at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

A leaky BBB could allow infiltration of a range of substances, but the potential for such a mechanism in migraine pathology is not well understood.

The researchers specifically investigated the potential role of claudin-5 in the tight junction (TJ) region of the BBB. The decision was made in part because the proteins involved in the BBB are difficult to study, and there is some familiarity with claudin-5, according to Mr. Wahl. ”Of all the proteins that are out there, for claudin-5 (there are) somewhat better techniques and products available to work with, and there’s been some previous research done to show that it’s implicated in blood brain barrier pathology. So it seemed like a good candidate to start with investigating this whole possible pathophysiological link between barrier disruption and migration of pronociceptive substances into the CNS during migraine attacks,” he said. The claudin proteins are also the major components of the tight junctions that seal off gaps between endothelial cells along the BBB.
 

Dynamic changes seen in the in vitro model

To simulate a CSD event, the researchers pulsed cultured cells for 5 minutes with astrocyte-conditioned media, artificial cerebrospinal fluid, KCl, glutamate, altered pH, or adenosine triphosphate (ATP). They used trans endothelial electrical resistance (TEER) to quickly and qualitatively screen for loss of barrier integrity, which is characterized by loss of electrical resistance. To quantify the magnitude of a breach, the researchers applied carbon-14 (C14)–labeled sucrose to one side of the barrier, and determined the amount of labeled sucrose transmitted to the other side of the barrier.

ATP and pH pulses that were outside normal physiological limits led to permeability. The team then used immunocytochemistry assays to visualize the condition of the model BBB, and found discontinuity of the tight junction membranes. Imaging of claudin-5 showed organizational changes within the tight junction, but there was no change in expression level, suggesting that the alterations were due to dynamic reorganization, according to Mr. Wahl.

Transient openings could allow passage of molecules such as bradykinin, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), and substance P, which could go on to affect the trigeminal nerve complex and trigger a migraine. “That’s sort of the crux of a lot of this migraine research, is gluing this physiological (mechanism) to how it is actually activating the CNS. And this is sort of where we’re going with it at the moment,” said Mr. Wahl.
 

Next steps

The researchers next plan to generate a cell line with claudin-5 linked to green fluorescent protein, then use confocal microscopy to image claudin-5 in real time as the BBB model responds to a simulated CSD.

Another important step will be to link physiological findings like those presented by Mr. Wahl to migraine-specific mechanisms. The results from this model will need to be expanded to include more than endothelial cells, especially astrocytes, pericytes, and neurons, as well as organoids, brain slices, or in vivo animal models, according to Dr. Harrington. “I think you could try and block the changes in occludin [another protein in the tight junction] or claudin-5 to see if, under the same provocation, that prevented the changes in a migraine model. That would be a direct way of connecting from CSD to migraine,” said Dr. Harrington.

If BBB disruption is confirmed to play an important role in migraine, and claudin-5 or other specific proteins are confirmed to be the cause, it could have clinical implications. A drug that could prevent those changes in the proteins and prevent a leak in the BBB could be a migraine preventative. “That could help prevent things like nociceptive substances migrating into the CNS, and could possibly be a well-tolerated drug target that doesn’t have the side effects or the overuse problems that a lot of stuff on the market has today,” said Mr. Wahl.

An in vitro study that used mouse endothelial cells to simulate the blood-brain barrier (BBB) suggests that specific proteins may be involved in destabilization of the protective barrier during a cortical spreading depression (CSD) event.

CSD has been linked to migraine aura, but a connection to pain symptoms is uncertain. “There’s just a lack of knowledge. We don’t understand migraine pathophysiology,” said Michael G. Harrington, MBChB, who was asked to comment on the study.

“The evidence for altered transport across the barrier in cortical spreading depression and the associated aura of migraine is pretty strong. The evidence for regular migraine, not so. In fact, there’s really no strong evidence for leakage in those people, and so it is still unresolved whether this initial cortical spreading depression that occurs in aura then triggers migraine afterwards, because it’s occurring during the aura. And in people who do not have the aura, is there a silent cortical spreading depression phenomenon with some leakage that triggers the migraine? That question is definitely not answered,” said Dr. Harrington, a research professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Leakage of the BBB might allow passage of nociceptive compounds that could trigger migraine. Loss of BBB integrity has also been seen in other central nervous system pain disorders, suggesting that alterations to BBB functioning could have broader implications.

“In this model that we’re using, we’re seeing loss of overall barrier integrity, which lends itself to a whole cascade of further pathological possibilities,” Jared Wahl, a PhD candidate at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview. He presented the research at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

A leaky BBB could allow infiltration of a range of substances, but the potential for such a mechanism in migraine pathology is not well understood.

The researchers specifically investigated the potential role of claudin-5 in the tight junction (TJ) region of the BBB. The decision was made in part because the proteins involved in the BBB are difficult to study, and there is some familiarity with claudin-5, according to Mr. Wahl. ”Of all the proteins that are out there, for claudin-5 (there are) somewhat better techniques and products available to work with, and there’s been some previous research done to show that it’s implicated in blood brain barrier pathology. So it seemed like a good candidate to start with investigating this whole possible pathophysiological link between barrier disruption and migration of pronociceptive substances into the CNS during migraine attacks,” he said. The claudin proteins are also the major components of the tight junctions that seal off gaps between endothelial cells along the BBB.
 

Dynamic changes seen in the in vitro model

To simulate a CSD event, the researchers pulsed cultured cells for 5 minutes with astrocyte-conditioned media, artificial cerebrospinal fluid, KCl, glutamate, altered pH, or adenosine triphosphate (ATP). They used trans endothelial electrical resistance (TEER) to quickly and qualitatively screen for loss of barrier integrity, which is characterized by loss of electrical resistance. To quantify the magnitude of a breach, the researchers applied carbon-14 (C14)–labeled sucrose to one side of the barrier, and determined the amount of labeled sucrose transmitted to the other side of the barrier.

ATP and pH pulses that were outside normal physiological limits led to permeability. The team then used immunocytochemistry assays to visualize the condition of the model BBB, and found discontinuity of the tight junction membranes. Imaging of claudin-5 showed organizational changes within the tight junction, but there was no change in expression level, suggesting that the alterations were due to dynamic reorganization, according to Mr. Wahl.

Transient openings could allow passage of molecules such as bradykinin, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), and substance P, which could go on to affect the trigeminal nerve complex and trigger a migraine. “That’s sort of the crux of a lot of this migraine research, is gluing this physiological (mechanism) to how it is actually activating the CNS. And this is sort of where we’re going with it at the moment,” said Mr. Wahl.
 

Next steps

The researchers next plan to generate a cell line with claudin-5 linked to green fluorescent protein, then use confocal microscopy to image claudin-5 in real time as the BBB model responds to a simulated CSD.

Another important step will be to link physiological findings like those presented by Mr. Wahl to migraine-specific mechanisms. The results from this model will need to be expanded to include more than endothelial cells, especially astrocytes, pericytes, and neurons, as well as organoids, brain slices, or in vivo animal models, according to Dr. Harrington. “I think you could try and block the changes in occludin [another protein in the tight junction] or claudin-5 to see if, under the same provocation, that prevented the changes in a migraine model. That would be a direct way of connecting from CSD to migraine,” said Dr. Harrington.

If BBB disruption is confirmed to play an important role in migraine, and claudin-5 or other specific proteins are confirmed to be the cause, it could have clinical implications. A drug that could prevent those changes in the proteins and prevent a leak in the BBB could be a migraine preventative. “That could help prevent things like nociceptive substances migrating into the CNS, and could possibly be a well-tolerated drug target that doesn’t have the side effects or the overuse problems that a lot of stuff on the market has today,” said Mr. Wahl.

An in vitro study that used mouse endothelial cells to simulate the blood-brain barrier (BBB) suggests that specific proteins may be involved in destabilization of the protective barrier during a cortical spreading depression (CSD) event.

CSD has been linked to migraine aura, but a connection to pain symptoms is uncertain. “There’s just a lack of knowledge. We don’t understand migraine pathophysiology,” said Michael G. Harrington, MBChB, who was asked to comment on the study.

“The evidence for altered transport across the barrier in cortical spreading depression and the associated aura of migraine is pretty strong. The evidence for regular migraine, not so. In fact, there’s really no strong evidence for leakage in those people, and so it is still unresolved whether this initial cortical spreading depression that occurs in aura then triggers migraine afterwards, because it’s occurring during the aura. And in people who do not have the aura, is there a silent cortical spreading depression phenomenon with some leakage that triggers the migraine? That question is definitely not answered,” said Dr. Harrington, a research professor of neurology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Leakage of the BBB might allow passage of nociceptive compounds that could trigger migraine. Loss of BBB integrity has also been seen in other central nervous system pain disorders, suggesting that alterations to BBB functioning could have broader implications.

“In this model that we’re using, we’re seeing loss of overall barrier integrity, which lends itself to a whole cascade of further pathological possibilities,” Jared Wahl, a PhD candidate at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview. He presented the research at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.

A leaky BBB could allow infiltration of a range of substances, but the potential for such a mechanism in migraine pathology is not well understood.

The researchers specifically investigated the potential role of claudin-5 in the tight junction (TJ) region of the BBB. The decision was made in part because the proteins involved in the BBB are difficult to study, and there is some familiarity with claudin-5, according to Mr. Wahl. ”Of all the proteins that are out there, for claudin-5 (there are) somewhat better techniques and products available to work with, and there’s been some previous research done to show that it’s implicated in blood brain barrier pathology. So it seemed like a good candidate to start with investigating this whole possible pathophysiological link between barrier disruption and migration of pronociceptive substances into the CNS during migraine attacks,” he said. The claudin proteins are also the major components of the tight junctions that seal off gaps between endothelial cells along the BBB.
 

Dynamic changes seen in the in vitro model

To simulate a CSD event, the researchers pulsed cultured cells for 5 minutes with astrocyte-conditioned media, artificial cerebrospinal fluid, KCl, glutamate, altered pH, or adenosine triphosphate (ATP). They used trans endothelial electrical resistance (TEER) to quickly and qualitatively screen for loss of barrier integrity, which is characterized by loss of electrical resistance. To quantify the magnitude of a breach, the researchers applied carbon-14 (C14)–labeled sucrose to one side of the barrier, and determined the amount of labeled sucrose transmitted to the other side of the barrier.

ATP and pH pulses that were outside normal physiological limits led to permeability. The team then used immunocytochemistry assays to visualize the condition of the model BBB, and found discontinuity of the tight junction membranes. Imaging of claudin-5 showed organizational changes within the tight junction, but there was no change in expression level, suggesting that the alterations were due to dynamic reorganization, according to Mr. Wahl.

Transient openings could allow passage of molecules such as bradykinin, calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP), and substance P, which could go on to affect the trigeminal nerve complex and trigger a migraine. “That’s sort of the crux of a lot of this migraine research, is gluing this physiological (mechanism) to how it is actually activating the CNS. And this is sort of where we’re going with it at the moment,” said Mr. Wahl.
 

Next steps

The researchers next plan to generate a cell line with claudin-5 linked to green fluorescent protein, then use confocal microscopy to image claudin-5 in real time as the BBB model responds to a simulated CSD.

Another important step will be to link physiological findings like those presented by Mr. Wahl to migraine-specific mechanisms. The results from this model will need to be expanded to include more than endothelial cells, especially astrocytes, pericytes, and neurons, as well as organoids, brain slices, or in vivo animal models, according to Dr. Harrington. “I think you could try and block the changes in occludin [another protein in the tight junction] or claudin-5 to see if, under the same provocation, that prevented the changes in a migraine model. That would be a direct way of connecting from CSD to migraine,” said Dr. Harrington.

If BBB disruption is confirmed to play an important role in migraine, and claudin-5 or other specific proteins are confirmed to be the cause, it could have clinical implications. A drug that could prevent those changes in the proteins and prevent a leak in the BBB could be a migraine preventative. “That could help prevent things like nociceptive substances migrating into the CNS, and could possibly be a well-tolerated drug target that doesn’t have the side effects or the overuse problems that a lot of stuff on the market has today,” said Mr. Wahl.

The migraine medication erenumab appears to pose no increased risk of hypertension, easing earlier concerns that this may be one of the drug’s adverse events, an analysis of postmarketing data shows. Nevertheless, investigators noted that more research is needed to confirm that this is the case.

While randomized clinical trials have shown no increased risk of hypertension related to the drug, it has been reported in postmarketing data. However, many of these events occurred in patients with previously documented hypertension or risk factors for the disorder, the investigators noted.

The rate of hypertension adverse events in postmarketing data was 0.144 per 100 person-years. Most such reports described only one instance of elevated blood pressure. In April 2020, the prescribing information for the drug was updated to include a mention of the risk of hypertension.

“Given the limitations of postmarketing reports, including incomplete information, lack of a control arm, and others, additional data are certainly needed to fully characterize the nature, the timing, and the extent to which hypertension is a risk associated with erenumab, and indeed other [calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP)] pathway antagonists,” said study investigator David W. Dodick, MD, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Phoenix.

The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

No increased risk over time

A monoclonal antibody and CGRP antagonist, erenumab is approved in the United States for migraine prevention in adults. CGRP medications are vasodilators, and, therefore, migraine treatments that target this pathway could theoretically have hypertensive effects.

To assess the risk of hypertension in migraine patients treated with erenumab, investigators examined clinical trial and postmarketing data. The analysis included cases with limited information and patients with a different etiology for the development of hypertension.

Using Amgen Clinical Trial data, the researchers performed a pooled safety analysis of four placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2 or 3 studies of the drug. Participants had episodic or chronic migraine and were between ages 18 and 60 years or age 65 years. The doses studied were 70 mg and 140 mg.

In these studies, blood pressure data for each patient were based on an average of at least two measurements taken after patients were in rested state for at least 5 minutes. The position used for blood pressure measurement for each patient was consistent throughout the study.

The investigators also analyzed postmarketing reports of hypertension from May 17, 2018, to Jan. 31, 2020, identified in Amgen Global Safety data.

The pooled studies included 1,043 participants receiving placebo, 893 receiving 70 mg of erenumab, and 507 receiving 140 mg of the drug. During the treatment phase, the incidence of hypertension was 0.9% among controls, 0.8% in the 70-mg group, and 0.2% in the 140-mg group. The proportion of patients who started a new antihypertensive medication was 1.2% in controls, 0.8% in the 70-mg group, and 0.2% in the 140-mg group.

In a long-term, open-label study, patients with episodic migraine received erenumab treatment for up to 5 years. The incidence of hypertension did not increase with time in this population.

The postmarketing data encompassed 245,682 person-years of erenumab exposure. The researchers identified 362 hypertension events (355 cases). The rate of these events was 0.144 per 100 person-years. The exposure-adjusted incidence of hypertension was 1.9 per 100 patient-years for erenumab.

Of the 362 hypertensive events, 158 (43.6%) were in patients with a medical history of hypertension or risk factors for hypertension. Information about the time to onset of hypertension was available for 121 (33.4%) adverse events.

Of this group, 56 (46.2%) occurred within 1 week of erenumab initiation, including 43 (35.5%) that occurred within 1 day. This rapid time to hypertension onset “is inconsistent with the pharmacokinetic profile of once-monthly erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg, which has a peak serum concentration in approximately 6 days,” said Dr. Dodick.
 

Hypertension ‘not a barrier’ to treatment

Commenting on the findings, Richard B. Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe professor and vice chair of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, noted that in theory blocking CGRP could increase blood pressure. However, he noted that the data and clinical experience do not suggest erenumab poses a serious risk.

“I have rarely seen new-onset hypertension with erenumab in the patients treated at our medical center. The few cases I have seen were in older adults with pre-existing hypertension,” he said.

The investigators’ review of clinical trial data together with global safety databases was a strength of their study, said Dr. Lipton. In clinical trials, patients are monitored carefully, and a placebo control group aids in the determination of background rates.

“In the trials, the incidence of new-onset hypertension or hypertension exacerbation was 0.9%, while the placebo rate was 0.2%,” said Dr. Lipton. “The absolute increase in the risk of hypertension was 0.6% or six cases per thousand: A low rate.” But clinical trials enroll carefully selected patients who do not represent the broad group of people treated with erenumab in clinical practice, he added.

The global safety data are more representative of patients who receive erenumab in real-world settings. The weaknesses of these data, though, are the lack of a control group and the incomplete ascertainment of data associated with spontaneous reporting.

Yet both types of studies, with their complementary strengths and weaknesses, indicated low rates of hypertension.

“The low incidence of hypertension, in my view, is not a barrier to the use of erenumab, though checking blood pressure after starting any new migraine therapy is prudent,” Dr. Lipton concluded.

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Dodick had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lipton has consulted for and conducted studies funded by Amgen and by other companies that manufacture CGRP drugs. He has stock options in Biohaven.

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

The migraine medication erenumab appears to pose no increased risk of hypertension, easing earlier concerns that this may be one of the drug’s adverse events, an analysis of postmarketing data shows. Nevertheless, investigators noted that more research is needed to confirm that this is the case.

While randomized clinical trials have shown no increased risk of hypertension related to the drug, it has been reported in postmarketing data. However, many of these events occurred in patients with previously documented hypertension or risk factors for the disorder, the investigators noted.

The rate of hypertension adverse events in postmarketing data was 0.144 per 100 person-years. Most such reports described only one instance of elevated blood pressure. In April 2020, the prescribing information for the drug was updated to include a mention of the risk of hypertension.

“Given the limitations of postmarketing reports, including incomplete information, lack of a control arm, and others, additional data are certainly needed to fully characterize the nature, the timing, and the extent to which hypertension is a risk associated with erenumab, and indeed other [calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP)] pathway antagonists,” said study investigator David W. Dodick, MD, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Phoenix.

The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

No increased risk over time

A monoclonal antibody and CGRP antagonist, erenumab is approved in the United States for migraine prevention in adults. CGRP medications are vasodilators, and, therefore, migraine treatments that target this pathway could theoretically have hypertensive effects.

To assess the risk of hypertension in migraine patients treated with erenumab, investigators examined clinical trial and postmarketing data. The analysis included cases with limited information and patients with a different etiology for the development of hypertension.

Using Amgen Clinical Trial data, the researchers performed a pooled safety analysis of four placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2 or 3 studies of the drug. Participants had episodic or chronic migraine and were between ages 18 and 60 years or age 65 years. The doses studied were 70 mg and 140 mg.

In these studies, blood pressure data for each patient were based on an average of at least two measurements taken after patients were in rested state for at least 5 minutes. The position used for blood pressure measurement for each patient was consistent throughout the study.

The investigators also analyzed postmarketing reports of hypertension from May 17, 2018, to Jan. 31, 2020, identified in Amgen Global Safety data.

The pooled studies included 1,043 participants receiving placebo, 893 receiving 70 mg of erenumab, and 507 receiving 140 mg of the drug. During the treatment phase, the incidence of hypertension was 0.9% among controls, 0.8% in the 70-mg group, and 0.2% in the 140-mg group. The proportion of patients who started a new antihypertensive medication was 1.2% in controls, 0.8% in the 70-mg group, and 0.2% in the 140-mg group.

In a long-term, open-label study, patients with episodic migraine received erenumab treatment for up to 5 years. The incidence of hypertension did not increase with time in this population.

The postmarketing data encompassed 245,682 person-years of erenumab exposure. The researchers identified 362 hypertension events (355 cases). The rate of these events was 0.144 per 100 person-years. The exposure-adjusted incidence of hypertension was 1.9 per 100 patient-years for erenumab.

Of the 362 hypertensive events, 158 (43.6%) were in patients with a medical history of hypertension or risk factors for hypertension. Information about the time to onset of hypertension was available for 121 (33.4%) adverse events.

Of this group, 56 (46.2%) occurred within 1 week of erenumab initiation, including 43 (35.5%) that occurred within 1 day. This rapid time to hypertension onset “is inconsistent with the pharmacokinetic profile of once-monthly erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg, which has a peak serum concentration in approximately 6 days,” said Dr. Dodick.
 

Hypertension ‘not a barrier’ to treatment

Commenting on the findings, Richard B. Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe professor and vice chair of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, noted that in theory blocking CGRP could increase blood pressure. However, he noted that the data and clinical experience do not suggest erenumab poses a serious risk.

“I have rarely seen new-onset hypertension with erenumab in the patients treated at our medical center. The few cases I have seen were in older adults with pre-existing hypertension,” he said.

The investigators’ review of clinical trial data together with global safety databases was a strength of their study, said Dr. Lipton. In clinical trials, patients are monitored carefully, and a placebo control group aids in the determination of background rates.

“In the trials, the incidence of new-onset hypertension or hypertension exacerbation was 0.9%, while the placebo rate was 0.2%,” said Dr. Lipton. “The absolute increase in the risk of hypertension was 0.6% or six cases per thousand: A low rate.” But clinical trials enroll carefully selected patients who do not represent the broad group of people treated with erenumab in clinical practice, he added.

The global safety data are more representative of patients who receive erenumab in real-world settings. The weaknesses of these data, though, are the lack of a control group and the incomplete ascertainment of data associated with spontaneous reporting.

Yet both types of studies, with their complementary strengths and weaknesses, indicated low rates of hypertension.

“The low incidence of hypertension, in my view, is not a barrier to the use of erenumab, though checking blood pressure after starting any new migraine therapy is prudent,” Dr. Lipton concluded.

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Dodick had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lipton has consulted for and conducted studies funded by Amgen and by other companies that manufacture CGRP drugs. He has stock options in Biohaven.

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

The migraine medication erenumab appears to pose no increased risk of hypertension, easing earlier concerns that this may be one of the drug’s adverse events, an analysis of postmarketing data shows. Nevertheless, investigators noted that more research is needed to confirm that this is the case.

While randomized clinical trials have shown no increased risk of hypertension related to the drug, it has been reported in postmarketing data. However, many of these events occurred in patients with previously documented hypertension or risk factors for the disorder, the investigators noted.

The rate of hypertension adverse events in postmarketing data was 0.144 per 100 person-years. Most such reports described only one instance of elevated blood pressure. In April 2020, the prescribing information for the drug was updated to include a mention of the risk of hypertension.

“Given the limitations of postmarketing reports, including incomplete information, lack of a control arm, and others, additional data are certainly needed to fully characterize the nature, the timing, and the extent to which hypertension is a risk associated with erenumab, and indeed other [calcitonin-gene-related peptide (CGRP)] pathway antagonists,” said study investigator David W. Dodick, MD, professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Phoenix.

The findings were presented at the American Headache Society’s 2021 annual meeting.
 

No increased risk over time

A monoclonal antibody and CGRP antagonist, erenumab is approved in the United States for migraine prevention in adults. CGRP medications are vasodilators, and, therefore, migraine treatments that target this pathway could theoretically have hypertensive effects.

To assess the risk of hypertension in migraine patients treated with erenumab, investigators examined clinical trial and postmarketing data. The analysis included cases with limited information and patients with a different etiology for the development of hypertension.

Using Amgen Clinical Trial data, the researchers performed a pooled safety analysis of four placebo-controlled, double-blind phase 2 or 3 studies of the drug. Participants had episodic or chronic migraine and were between ages 18 and 60 years or age 65 years. The doses studied were 70 mg and 140 mg.

In these studies, blood pressure data for each patient were based on an average of at least two measurements taken after patients were in rested state for at least 5 minutes. The position used for blood pressure measurement for each patient was consistent throughout the study.

The investigators also analyzed postmarketing reports of hypertension from May 17, 2018, to Jan. 31, 2020, identified in Amgen Global Safety data.

The pooled studies included 1,043 participants receiving placebo, 893 receiving 70 mg of erenumab, and 507 receiving 140 mg of the drug. During the treatment phase, the incidence of hypertension was 0.9% among controls, 0.8% in the 70-mg group, and 0.2% in the 140-mg group. The proportion of patients who started a new antihypertensive medication was 1.2% in controls, 0.8% in the 70-mg group, and 0.2% in the 140-mg group.

In a long-term, open-label study, patients with episodic migraine received erenumab treatment for up to 5 years. The incidence of hypertension did not increase with time in this population.

The postmarketing data encompassed 245,682 person-years of erenumab exposure. The researchers identified 362 hypertension events (355 cases). The rate of these events was 0.144 per 100 person-years. The exposure-adjusted incidence of hypertension was 1.9 per 100 patient-years for erenumab.

Of the 362 hypertensive events, 158 (43.6%) were in patients with a medical history of hypertension or risk factors for hypertension. Information about the time to onset of hypertension was available for 121 (33.4%) adverse events.

Of this group, 56 (46.2%) occurred within 1 week of erenumab initiation, including 43 (35.5%) that occurred within 1 day. This rapid time to hypertension onset “is inconsistent with the pharmacokinetic profile of once-monthly erenumab 70 mg or 140 mg, which has a peak serum concentration in approximately 6 days,” said Dr. Dodick.
 

Hypertension ‘not a barrier’ to treatment

Commenting on the findings, Richard B. Lipton, MD, Edwin S. Lowe professor and vice chair of neurology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, noted that in theory blocking CGRP could increase blood pressure. However, he noted that the data and clinical experience do not suggest erenumab poses a serious risk.

“I have rarely seen new-onset hypertension with erenumab in the patients treated at our medical center. The few cases I have seen were in older adults with pre-existing hypertension,” he said.

The investigators’ review of clinical trial data together with global safety databases was a strength of their study, said Dr. Lipton. In clinical trials, patients are monitored carefully, and a placebo control group aids in the determination of background rates.

“In the trials, the incidence of new-onset hypertension or hypertension exacerbation was 0.9%, while the placebo rate was 0.2%,” said Dr. Lipton. “The absolute increase in the risk of hypertension was 0.6% or six cases per thousand: A low rate.” But clinical trials enroll carefully selected patients who do not represent the broad group of people treated with erenumab in clinical practice, he added.

The global safety data are more representative of patients who receive erenumab in real-world settings. The weaknesses of these data, though, are the lack of a control group and the incomplete ascertainment of data associated with spontaneous reporting.

Yet both types of studies, with their complementary strengths and weaknesses, indicated low rates of hypertension.

“The low incidence of hypertension, in my view, is not a barrier to the use of erenumab, though checking blood pressure after starting any new migraine therapy is prudent,” Dr. Lipton concluded.

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Dodick had no relevant disclosures. Dr. Lipton has consulted for and conducted studies funded by Amgen and by other companies that manufacture CGRP drugs. He has stock options in Biohaven.

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

Severe complications at 5 years were no different for patients with perforated purulent diverticulitis who underwent laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or colon resection, according to data from 199 individuals treated at 21 hospitals in Norway and Sweden. But it may yet prove appropriate in the right patient.

Acute perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis remains a challenging complication with high morbidity and mortality among patients with diverticular disease, and bowel resection remains the standard of treatment, Najia Azhar, MD, of Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden, and colleagues wrote.

Short-term data suggest that laparoscopic lavage with drainage and antibiotics might be a viable alternative, but long-term data are lacking, they said.

In the Scandinavian Diverticulitis (SCANDIV) trial, published in JAMA Surgery, researchers randomized 101 patients to laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and 98 to colon resection. With 3 patients lost to follow-up, the final analysis included 73 patients who underwent laparoscopic lavage and 69 who underwent resection. The mean age of the lavage patients was 66.4 years, and 39 were men. The mean age of the resection patients was 63.5 years, and 36 were men. The primary outcome was severe complications – excluding stoma reversals and elective sigmoid resections because of recurrence – at an average of 5 years’ follow-up. Secondary outcomes included stoma prevalence, diverticulitis recurrence, and secondary sigmoid resection.

Severe complications were similar for the lavage and resection groups (36% and 35%, respectively), as were the overall mortality rates (32% and 25%, respectively).

The prevalence of stoma was significantly lower in the lavage group, compared with the resection group (8% vs. 33%, P = .002). However, secondary operations (including reversal of stoma) were similar between the lavage and resection groups, performed in 26 lavage patients (36%) versus 24 resection patients (35%).

Diverticulitis recurrence was significantly more common in the lavage, compared with the resection group (21% vs. 4%, P = .004), the researchers noted.

In the laparoscopic lavage group, 30% (n = 21) underwent a sigmoid resection; all but one of these occurred within a year of the index procedure, the researchers wrote. In addition, overall length of hospital stay was similar for both groups.

No significant differences in quality of life were noted between the groups, based on the EuroQoL-5D questionnaire or Cleveland Global Quality of Life scores.
 

Balance secondary pros and cons

Laparoscopic lavage is not common practice today in the United States, the researchers noted. In clinical practice guidelines issued in 2020, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons strongly recommend colectomy over laparoscopic lavage for the treatment of left-sided colonic diverticulitis. However, the European Society of Coloproctology’s guidelines state that laparoscopic lavage is feasible for patients with peritonitis at Hinchey stage III.

The findings of the current study were limited primarily by the exclusion of 50% of eligible patients because of challenges associated with conducting randomized trials in emergency settings, the researchers noted. However, the number of excluded patients and their baseline characteristics after exclusion were very similar in the two groups, and the study represents the largest randomized trial to date to examine long-term outcomes in patients with perforated diverticulitis.

“Laparoscopic lavage is faster and cost-effective but leads to a higher reoperation rate and recurrence rate, often requiring secondary sigmoid resection,” the researchers emphasized. Consequently, patients undergoing lavage should have consented for resection surgery.

The similar rates of severe complications and quality of life scores support laparoscopic lavage as an option for perforated purulent diverticulitis, but shared decision-making will be essential for better optimal patient management, the researchers concluded.
 

Similar outcomes, but unanswered questions

Even though the primary outcome of disease-related morbidity was similar for both groups, “the issue still remains regarding when and how, if ever, this therapeutic approach should be considered for purulent peritonitis,” Kellie E. Cunningham, MD, and Brian S. Zuckerbraun, MD, both of the University of Pittsburgh, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Although laparoscopic lavage has the obvious advantages of avoiding a laparotomy and stoma, previous studies have shown a higher rate of early reoperations and recurrent diverticulitis, despite lower stoma prevalence and equal mortality rates, they said. In addition, “patients who are immunosuppressed or would be expected to have a higher mortality rate with failure to achieve definitive source control should likely not be offered this therapy.”

A “philosophical” argument could be made in favor of laparoscopic lavage based on the potential consequences of early treatment failure, they wrote.

“Although one may consider the need for early reoperation a complication, some would argue it affects the minority of patients, thus avoiding the more morbid procedure with creation of a stoma at the index operation in the majority of patients,” they noted. “Additionally, patients who underwent lavage that subsequently proceed to colectomy would have otherwise been offered this therapy initially at the time of the index operation.”

More research is needed to answer questions such as which, if any, operative findings are associated with failure. In addition, an analysis of long-term cost benefits between the two options should be explored, the authors wrote.

Based on current evidence, shared decision-making is necessary, with individualized care and short and long-term trade-offs taken into account, they wrote.
 

Gastroenterologist perspective: Study fills gap in follow-up data

In an interview, David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, said the study is important because data have been lacking on outcomes of a laparoscopic lavage without a resection.

The findings represent “a major shift” in the growing consensus among surgeons that laparoscopic lavage is a viable option in appropriate patients, he said.

A key issue is the high rate of morbidity in patients who undergo traditional diverticulitis surgery. Complications can include wound infection and poor quality of life associated with stoma, Dr. Johnson said. Consequently, “a nonoperative approach from a patient perspective is certainly refreshing.”

Dr. Johnson said he was surprised by how well the patients fared after lavage given the severity of the diverticulitis in the patient population. However, this may be in part because of the relatively small numbers of patients at highest risk for complications, such as those with diabetes or immunocompromising conditions.

Dr. Johnson also said he was struck by the fact that the adenocarcinomas in the lavage group were diagnosed within the first year after the procedure. “The cancer diagnosis shouldn’t reflect on the lavage group,” but emphasizes the importance of having an earlier colonoscopy, he noted.

Next steps for research might include identifying a standardized endpoint for lavage, and determining how expanded use of the procedure might impact community practice, Dr. Johnson said. In addition, more research is needed to more clearly define patients most likely to benefit from laparoscopic lavage.

The study was supported in part by the department of surgery at Skåne University Hospital, Akershus University Hospital, and a fellowship to one of the study coauthors from the Southeastern Norway Regional Health Authority. Lead author Dr. Azhar disclosed grants from the department of surgery of Skåne University Hospital. Dr. Cunningham and Dr. Zuckerbraun had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Johnson had no relevant financial disclosures.

Severe complications at 5 years were no different for patients with perforated purulent diverticulitis who underwent laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or colon resection, according to data from 199 individuals treated at 21 hospitals in Norway and Sweden. But it may yet prove appropriate in the right patient.

Acute perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis remains a challenging complication with high morbidity and mortality among patients with diverticular disease, and bowel resection remains the standard of treatment, Najia Azhar, MD, of Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden, and colleagues wrote.

Short-term data suggest that laparoscopic lavage with drainage and antibiotics might be a viable alternative, but long-term data are lacking, they said.

In the Scandinavian Diverticulitis (SCANDIV) trial, published in JAMA Surgery, researchers randomized 101 patients to laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and 98 to colon resection. With 3 patients lost to follow-up, the final analysis included 73 patients who underwent laparoscopic lavage and 69 who underwent resection. The mean age of the lavage patients was 66.4 years, and 39 were men. The mean age of the resection patients was 63.5 years, and 36 were men. The primary outcome was severe complications – excluding stoma reversals and elective sigmoid resections because of recurrence – at an average of 5 years’ follow-up. Secondary outcomes included stoma prevalence, diverticulitis recurrence, and secondary sigmoid resection.

Severe complications were similar for the lavage and resection groups (36% and 35%, respectively), as were the overall mortality rates (32% and 25%, respectively).

The prevalence of stoma was significantly lower in the lavage group, compared with the resection group (8% vs. 33%, P = .002). However, secondary operations (including reversal of stoma) were similar between the lavage and resection groups, performed in 26 lavage patients (36%) versus 24 resection patients (35%).

Diverticulitis recurrence was significantly more common in the lavage, compared with the resection group (21% vs. 4%, P = .004), the researchers noted.

In the laparoscopic lavage group, 30% (n = 21) underwent a sigmoid resection; all but one of these occurred within a year of the index procedure, the researchers wrote. In addition, overall length of hospital stay was similar for both groups.

No significant differences in quality of life were noted between the groups, based on the EuroQoL-5D questionnaire or Cleveland Global Quality of Life scores.
 

Balance secondary pros and cons

Laparoscopic lavage is not common practice today in the United States, the researchers noted. In clinical practice guidelines issued in 2020, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons strongly recommend colectomy over laparoscopic lavage for the treatment of left-sided colonic diverticulitis. However, the European Society of Coloproctology’s guidelines state that laparoscopic lavage is feasible for patients with peritonitis at Hinchey stage III.

The findings of the current study were limited primarily by the exclusion of 50% of eligible patients because of challenges associated with conducting randomized trials in emergency settings, the researchers noted. However, the number of excluded patients and their baseline characteristics after exclusion were very similar in the two groups, and the study represents the largest randomized trial to date to examine long-term outcomes in patients with perforated diverticulitis.

“Laparoscopic lavage is faster and cost-effective but leads to a higher reoperation rate and recurrence rate, often requiring secondary sigmoid resection,” the researchers emphasized. Consequently, patients undergoing lavage should have consented for resection surgery.

The similar rates of severe complications and quality of life scores support laparoscopic lavage as an option for perforated purulent diverticulitis, but shared decision-making will be essential for better optimal patient management, the researchers concluded.
 

Similar outcomes, but unanswered questions

Even though the primary outcome of disease-related morbidity was similar for both groups, “the issue still remains regarding when and how, if ever, this therapeutic approach should be considered for purulent peritonitis,” Kellie E. Cunningham, MD, and Brian S. Zuckerbraun, MD, both of the University of Pittsburgh, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Although laparoscopic lavage has the obvious advantages of avoiding a laparotomy and stoma, previous studies have shown a higher rate of early reoperations and recurrent diverticulitis, despite lower stoma prevalence and equal mortality rates, they said. In addition, “patients who are immunosuppressed or would be expected to have a higher mortality rate with failure to achieve definitive source control should likely not be offered this therapy.”

A “philosophical” argument could be made in favor of laparoscopic lavage based on the potential consequences of early treatment failure, they wrote.

“Although one may consider the need for early reoperation a complication, some would argue it affects the minority of patients, thus avoiding the more morbid procedure with creation of a stoma at the index operation in the majority of patients,” they noted. “Additionally, patients who underwent lavage that subsequently proceed to colectomy would have otherwise been offered this therapy initially at the time of the index operation.”

More research is needed to answer questions such as which, if any, operative findings are associated with failure. In addition, an analysis of long-term cost benefits between the two options should be explored, the authors wrote.

Based on current evidence, shared decision-making is necessary, with individualized care and short and long-term trade-offs taken into account, they wrote.
 

Gastroenterologist perspective: Study fills gap in follow-up data

In an interview, David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, said the study is important because data have been lacking on outcomes of a laparoscopic lavage without a resection.

The findings represent “a major shift” in the growing consensus among surgeons that laparoscopic lavage is a viable option in appropriate patients, he said.

A key issue is the high rate of morbidity in patients who undergo traditional diverticulitis surgery. Complications can include wound infection and poor quality of life associated with stoma, Dr. Johnson said. Consequently, “a nonoperative approach from a patient perspective is certainly refreshing.”

Dr. Johnson said he was surprised by how well the patients fared after lavage given the severity of the diverticulitis in the patient population. However, this may be in part because of the relatively small numbers of patients at highest risk for complications, such as those with diabetes or immunocompromising conditions.

Dr. Johnson also said he was struck by the fact that the adenocarcinomas in the lavage group were diagnosed within the first year after the procedure. “The cancer diagnosis shouldn’t reflect on the lavage group,” but emphasizes the importance of having an earlier colonoscopy, he noted.

Next steps for research might include identifying a standardized endpoint for lavage, and determining how expanded use of the procedure might impact community practice, Dr. Johnson said. In addition, more research is needed to more clearly define patients most likely to benefit from laparoscopic lavage.

The study was supported in part by the department of surgery at Skåne University Hospital, Akershus University Hospital, and a fellowship to one of the study coauthors from the Southeastern Norway Regional Health Authority. Lead author Dr. Azhar disclosed grants from the department of surgery of Skåne University Hospital. Dr. Cunningham and Dr. Zuckerbraun had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Johnson had no relevant financial disclosures.

Severe complications at 5 years were no different for patients with perforated purulent diverticulitis who underwent laparoscopic peritoneal lavage or colon resection, according to data from 199 individuals treated at 21 hospitals in Norway and Sweden. But it may yet prove appropriate in the right patient.

Acute perforated diverticulitis with peritonitis remains a challenging complication with high morbidity and mortality among patients with diverticular disease, and bowel resection remains the standard of treatment, Najia Azhar, MD, of Skåne University Hospital, Malmö, Sweden, and colleagues wrote.

Short-term data suggest that laparoscopic lavage with drainage and antibiotics might be a viable alternative, but long-term data are lacking, they said.

In the Scandinavian Diverticulitis (SCANDIV) trial, published in JAMA Surgery, researchers randomized 101 patients to laparoscopic peritoneal lavage and 98 to colon resection. With 3 patients lost to follow-up, the final analysis included 73 patients who underwent laparoscopic lavage and 69 who underwent resection. The mean age of the lavage patients was 66.4 years, and 39 were men. The mean age of the resection patients was 63.5 years, and 36 were men. The primary outcome was severe complications – excluding stoma reversals and elective sigmoid resections because of recurrence – at an average of 5 years’ follow-up. Secondary outcomes included stoma prevalence, diverticulitis recurrence, and secondary sigmoid resection.

Severe complications were similar for the lavage and resection groups (36% and 35%, respectively), as were the overall mortality rates (32% and 25%, respectively).

The prevalence of stoma was significantly lower in the lavage group, compared with the resection group (8% vs. 33%, P = .002). However, secondary operations (including reversal of stoma) were similar between the lavage and resection groups, performed in 26 lavage patients (36%) versus 24 resection patients (35%).

Diverticulitis recurrence was significantly more common in the lavage, compared with the resection group (21% vs. 4%, P = .004), the researchers noted.

In the laparoscopic lavage group, 30% (n = 21) underwent a sigmoid resection; all but one of these occurred within a year of the index procedure, the researchers wrote. In addition, overall length of hospital stay was similar for both groups.

No significant differences in quality of life were noted between the groups, based on the EuroQoL-5D questionnaire or Cleveland Global Quality of Life scores.
 

Balance secondary pros and cons

Laparoscopic lavage is not common practice today in the United States, the researchers noted. In clinical practice guidelines issued in 2020, the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons strongly recommend colectomy over laparoscopic lavage for the treatment of left-sided colonic diverticulitis. However, the European Society of Coloproctology’s guidelines state that laparoscopic lavage is feasible for patients with peritonitis at Hinchey stage III.

The findings of the current study were limited primarily by the exclusion of 50% of eligible patients because of challenges associated with conducting randomized trials in emergency settings, the researchers noted. However, the number of excluded patients and their baseline characteristics after exclusion were very similar in the two groups, and the study represents the largest randomized trial to date to examine long-term outcomes in patients with perforated diverticulitis.

“Laparoscopic lavage is faster and cost-effective but leads to a higher reoperation rate and recurrence rate, often requiring secondary sigmoid resection,” the researchers emphasized. Consequently, patients undergoing lavage should have consented for resection surgery.

The similar rates of severe complications and quality of life scores support laparoscopic lavage as an option for perforated purulent diverticulitis, but shared decision-making will be essential for better optimal patient management, the researchers concluded.
 

Similar outcomes, but unanswered questions

Even though the primary outcome of disease-related morbidity was similar for both groups, “the issue still remains regarding when and how, if ever, this therapeutic approach should be considered for purulent peritonitis,” Kellie E. Cunningham, MD, and Brian S. Zuckerbraun, MD, both of the University of Pittsburgh, wrote in an accompanying editorial.

Although laparoscopic lavage has the obvious advantages of avoiding a laparotomy and stoma, previous studies have shown a higher rate of early reoperations and recurrent diverticulitis, despite lower stoma prevalence and equal mortality rates, they said. In addition, “patients who are immunosuppressed or would be expected to have a higher mortality rate with failure to achieve definitive source control should likely not be offered this therapy.”

A “philosophical” argument could be made in favor of laparoscopic lavage based on the potential consequences of early treatment failure, they wrote.

“Although one may consider the need for early reoperation a complication, some would argue it affects the minority of patients, thus avoiding the more morbid procedure with creation of a stoma at the index operation in the majority of patients,” they noted. “Additionally, patients who underwent lavage that subsequently proceed to colectomy would have otherwise been offered this therapy initially at the time of the index operation.”

More research is needed to answer questions such as which, if any, operative findings are associated with failure. In addition, an analysis of long-term cost benefits between the two options should be explored, the authors wrote.

Based on current evidence, shared decision-making is necessary, with individualized care and short and long-term trade-offs taken into account, they wrote.
 

Gastroenterologist perspective: Study fills gap in follow-up data

In an interview, David A. Johnson, MD, professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia School of Medicine, Norfolk, said the study is important because data have been lacking on outcomes of a laparoscopic lavage without a resection.

The findings represent “a major shift” in the growing consensus among surgeons that laparoscopic lavage is a viable option in appropriate patients, he said.

A key issue is the high rate of morbidity in patients who undergo traditional diverticulitis surgery. Complications can include wound infection and poor quality of life associated with stoma, Dr. Johnson said. Consequently, “a nonoperative approach from a patient perspective is certainly refreshing.”

Dr. Johnson said he was surprised by how well the patients fared after lavage given the severity of the diverticulitis in the patient population. However, this may be in part because of the relatively small numbers of patients at highest risk for complications, such as those with diabetes or immunocompromising conditions.

Dr. Johnson also said he was struck by the fact that the adenocarcinomas in the lavage group were diagnosed within the first year after the procedure. “The cancer diagnosis shouldn’t reflect on the lavage group,” but emphasizes the importance of having an earlier colonoscopy, he noted.

Next steps for research might include identifying a standardized endpoint for lavage, and determining how expanded use of the procedure might impact community practice, Dr. Johnson said. In addition, more research is needed to more clearly define patients most likely to benefit from laparoscopic lavage.

The study was supported in part by the department of surgery at Skåne University Hospital, Akershus University Hospital, and a fellowship to one of the study coauthors from the Southeastern Norway Regional Health Authority. Lead author Dr. Azhar disclosed grants from the department of surgery of Skåne University Hospital. Dr. Cunningham and Dr. Zuckerbraun had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Johnson had no relevant financial disclosures.

As the population of older adults rises, primary osteoporosis has become a problem of public health significance, resulting in more than 2 million fractures and $19 billion in related costs annually in the United States.¹ Despite the availability of effective primary and secondary preventive measures, many older adults do not receive adequate information on bone health from their primary care provider.² Initiation of osteoporosis treatment is low even among patients who have had an osteoporotic fracture: Fewer than one-­quarter of older adults with hip fracture have begun taking osteoporosis medication within 12 months of hospital discharge.³

In this overview of osteoporosis care, we provide information on how to evaluate and manage older adults in primary care settings who are at risk of, or have been given a diagnosis of, primary osteoporosis. The guidance that we offer reflects the most recent updates and recommendations by relevant professional societies.^1,4-7

The nature and scope of an urgent problem

Osteoporosis is a skeletal disorder characterized by low bone mass and deterioration of bone structure that causes bone fragility and increases the risk of fracture.⁸ Operationally, it is defined by the World Health Organization as a bone mineral density (BMD) score below 2.5 SD from the mean value for a young White woman (ie, T-score ≤ –2.5).⁹ Primary osteoporosis is age related and occurs mostly in postmenopausal women and older men, affecting 25% of women and 5% of men ≥ 65 years.¹⁰

An osteoporotic fracture is particularly devastating in an older adult because it can cause pain, reduced mobility, depression, and social isolation and can increase the risk of related mortality.¹ The National Osteoporosis Foundation estimates that 20% of older adults who sustain a hip fracture die within 1 year due to complications of the fracture itself or surgical repair.¹ Therefore, it is of paramount importance to identify patients who are at increased risk of fracture and intervene early.

The National Osteoporosis Foundation estimates that 20% of older adults who sustain a hip fracture die within 1 year due to complications of the fracture itself or surgical repair.

Clinical manifestations

Osteoporosis does not have a primary presentation; rather, disease manifests clinically when a patient develops complications. Often, a fragility fracture is the first sign in an older person.¹¹

A fracture is the most important complication of osteoporosis and can result from low-trauma injury or a fall from standing height—thus, the term “fragility fracture.” Osteoporotic fractures commonly involve the vertebra, hip, and wrist. Hip and extremity fractures can result in limited or lost mobility and depression. Vertebral fractures can be asymptomatic or result in kyphosis and loss of height. Fractures can give rise to pain.

Age and female sexare risk factors

TABLE 1^1,6,10 lists risk factors associated with osteoporosis. Age is the most important; prevalence of osteoporosis increases with age. Other nonmodifiable risk factors include female sex (the disease appears earlier in women who enter menopause prematurely), family history of osteoporosis, and race and ethnicity. Twenty percent of Asian and non-Hispanic White women > 50 years have osteoporosis.¹ A study showed that Mexican Americans are at higher risk of osteoporosis than non-Hispanic Whites; non-Hispanic Blacks are least affected.¹⁰

Other risk factors include low body weight (< 127 lb) and a history of fractures after age 50. Behavioral risk factors include smoking, excessive alcohol intake (> 3 drinks/d), poor nutrition, and a sedentary lifestyle.^1,6

Continue to: Who should be screened?...

Who should be screened?

Screening is generally performed with a clinical evaluation and a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan of BMD. Measurement of BMD is generally recommended for screening all women ≥ 65 years and those < 65 years whose 10-year risk of fracture is equivalent to that of a 65-year-old White woman (see “Assessment of fracture risk” later in the article). For men, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening those with a prior fracture or a secondary risk factor for disease.⁵ However, the National Osteoporosis Foundation recommends screening all men ≥ 70 years and those 50 to 69 years whose risk profile shows heightened risk.^1,4

DXA of the spine and hip is preferred; the distal one-third of the radius (termed “33% radius”) of the nondominant arm can be used when spine and hip BMD cannot be interpreted because of bone changes from the disease process or artifacts, or in certain diseases in which the wrist region shows the earliest change (eg, primary hyperparathyroidism).^6,7

Clinical evaluation includes a detailed history, physical examination, laboratory screening, and assessment for risk of fracture.

❚ History. Explore the presence of risk factors, including fractures in adulthood, falls, medication use, alcohol and tobacco use, family history of osteoporosis, and chronic disease.^6,7

❚ Physical exam. Assess height, including any loss (> 1.5 in) since the patient’s second or third decade of life; kyphosis; frailty; and balance and mobility problems.^4,6,7

❚  Laboratory and imaging studies. Perform basic laboratory testing when DXA is abnormal, including thyroid function, serum calcium, and renal function.^6,12 Radiography of the lateral spine might be necessary, especially when there is kyphosis or loss of height. Assess for vertebral fracture, using lateral spine radiography, when vertebral involvement is suspected.^6,7

❚ Assessment of fracture risk. Fracture risk can be assessed with any of a number of tools, including:

• Simplified Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE): www.medicalalgorithms.com/simplified-calculated-osteoporosis-risk-estimation-tool
• Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI): www.physio-pedia.com/The_Osteoporosis_Risk_Assessment_Instrument_(ORAI)

• Osteoporosis Index of Risk (OSIRIS): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/gye.16.3.245.250?journalCode=igye20
• Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST): www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45516/figure/ch10.f2/
• FRAX tool⁵: www.sheffield.ac.uk/FRAX.

The FRAX tool is widely used. It assesses a patient’s 10-year risk of fracture.

Diagnosis is based on these criteria

Diagnosis of osteoporosis is based on any 1 or more of the following criteria⁶:

• a history of fragility fracture not explained by metabolic bone disease
• T-score ≤ –2.5 (lumbar, hip, femoral neck, or 33% radius)
• a nation-specific FRAX score (in the absence of access to DXA).

❚ Secondary disease. Patients in whom secondary osteoporosis is suspected should undergo laboratory investigation to ascertain the cause; treatment of the underlying pathology might then be required. Evaluation for a secondary cause might include a complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, protein electrophoresis and urinary protein electrophoresis (to rule out myeloproliferative and hematologic diseases), and tests of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D, parathyroid hormone, serum calcium, alkaline phosphatase, 24-hour urinary calcium, sodium, and creatinine.^6,7 Specialized testing for biochemical markers of bone turnover—so-called bone-turnover markers—can be considered as part of the initial evaluation and follow-up, although the tests are not recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (see “Monitoring the efficacy of treatment,” later in the article, for more information about these markers).⁶

Although BMD by DXA remains the gold standard in screening for and diagnosing osteoporosis, a high rate of fracture is seen in patients with certain diseases, such as type 2 diabetes and ankylosing spondylitis, who have a nonosteoporotic low T-score. This raises concerns about the usefulness of BMD for diagnosing osteoporosis in patients who have one of these diseases.^13-16

❚ Pharmacotherapy is recommended in all cases of osteoporosis and osteopenia when risk of fracture is high. Oral bisphosphonates can be used as initial treatment.

❚ Trabecular bone score (TBS), a surrogate bone-quality measure that is calculated based on the spine DXA image, has recently been introduced in clinical practice, and can be used to predict fracture risk in conjunction with BMD assessment by DXA and the FRAX score.¹⁷ TBS provides an indirect index of the trabecular microarchitecture using pixel gray-level variation in lumbar spine DXA images.¹⁸ Three categories of TBS (≤ 1.200, degraded microarchitecture; 1.200-1.350, partially degraded microarchitecture; and > 1.350, normal microarchitecture) have been reported to correspond with a T-score of, respectively, ≤ −2.5; −2.5 to −1.0; and > −1.0.¹⁸ TBS can be used only in patients with a body mass index of 15 to 37.5.^19,20

There is no recommendation for monitoring bone quality using TBS after osteoporosis treatment. Such monitoring is at the clinician’s discretion for appropriate patients who might not show a risk of fracture, based on BMD measurement.

Continue to: Putting preventive measures into practice...

Putting preventive measures into practice

Measures to prevent osteoporosis and preserve bone health (TABLE 2^1,6) are best started in childhood but can be initiated at any age and maintained through the lifespan. Encourage older adults to adopt dietary and behavioral strategies to improve their bone health and prevent fracture. We recommend the following strategies; take each patient’s individual situation into consideration when electing to adopt any of these measures.

❚ Vitamin D. Consider checking the serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and providing supplementation (800-1000 IU daily, the National Osteoporosis Foundation recommends¹) as necessary to maintain the level at 30-50 ng/mL.⁶

❚ Calcium. Encourage a daily dietary calcium intake of 1000-1200 mg. Supplement calcium if you determine that diet does not provide an adequate amount.

❚ Alcohol. Advise patients to limit consumption to < 3 drinks a day.

❚ Tobacco. Advise smoking cessation.

❚ Activity. Encourage an active lifestyle, including regular weight-bearing and balance exercises and resistance exercises such as Pilates, weightlifting, and tai chi. The regimen should be tailored to the patient’s individual situation.

❚ Medical therapy for concomitant illness. When possible, prescribe medications for chronic comorbidities that can also benefit bone health. For example, long-term use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and thiazide diuretics for hypertension are associated with a slower decline in BMD in some populations.^21-23

Tailor treatment to patient’s circumstances

TABLE 3^4,6,24 describes indications for pharmacotherapy in osteoporosis. Pharmacotherapy is recommended in all cases of osteoporosis and osteopenia when fracture risk is high.²⁴

Generally, you should undertake a discussion with the patient of the relative risks and benefits of treatment, taking into account their values and preferences, to come to a shared decision. Tailoring treatment, based on the patient’s distinctive circumstances, through shared decision-making is key to compliance.²⁵

Pharmacotherapy is not indicated in patients whose risk of fracture is low; however, you should reassess such patients every 2 to 4 years.²⁶ Women with a very high BMD might not need to be retested with DXA any sooner than every 10 to 15 years.

There are 3 main classes of first-line pharmacotherapeutic agents for osteoporosis in older adults (TABLE 4^4,6,7,26-41): antiresorptives (bisphosphonates and denosumab), anabolics (teriparatide and abaloparatide), and a monoclonal sclerostin antibody (romosozumab). (TABLE 4^4,6,7,26-41 and the discussion in this section also remark on the selective estrogen-receptor modulator raloxifene, which is used in special clinical circumstances but has been removed from the first line of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy.)

Continue to: Influence of chronic...

Influence of chronic diseaseon bone health

Chronic diseases—hypertension, type 2 diabetes, hyperthyroidism, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and gastroenterologic disorders such as celiac disease and ulcerative colitis—are known to affect bone loss that can hasten osteoporosis.^16,18,21 Furthermore, medications used to treat chronic diseases are known to affect bone health: Some, such as statins, ACE inhibitors, and hydrochlorothiazide, are bone protective; others, such as steroids, pioglitazone, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, accelerate bone loss.^1,14,42,43 It is important to be aware of the effect of a patient’s chronic diseases, and treatments for those diseases, on bone health, to help develop an individualized osteoporosis prevention plan.

Monitoring the efficacy of treatment

Treatment of osteoporosis should not be initiated without baseline measurement of BMD of the spine and hip. Subsequent to establishing that baseline, serial measurement of BMD can be used to (1) determine when treatment needs to be initiated for an untreated patient and (2) assess response in a treated patient. There is no consensus on the interval at which DXA should be repeated for the purpose of monitoring treatment response; frequency depends on the individual’s circumstances and the medication used. Notably, many physicians repeat DXA after 2 years of treatment⁸; however, the American College of Physicians recommends against repeating DXA within the first 5 years of pharmacotherapy in women.²⁴

Patients with suspected vertebral fracture or those with loss of height > 1.5 inches require lateral radiographs of the thoracic and lumbar spine to assess the status of fractures.^4,6

❚ Bone-turnover markers measured in serum can be used to assess treatment efficacy and patient adherence. The formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) and the resorption marker beta C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type 1 collagen (bCTX) are preferred for evaluating bone turnover in the clinical setting. Assessing P1NP and bCTX at baseline and after 3 months of treatment might be effective in monitoring adherence, particularly in patients taking a bisphosphonate.⁴⁴

Pharmacotherapy is not indicated in patients whose risk of fracture is low; however, you should reassess such patients every 2 to 4 years.

Be sure to address fall prevention

It is important to address falls, and how to prevent them, in patients with osteoporosis. Falls can precipitate fracture in older adults with reduced BMD, and fractures are the most common and debilitating manifestation of osteoporosis. Your discussion of falls with patients should include⁴⁵:

• consequences of falls
• cautions about medications that can cloud mental alertness
• use of appropriate footwear
• home safety, such as adequate lighting, removal of floor clutter, and installation of handrails in the bathroom and stairwells and on outside steps.
• having an annual comprehensive eye exam.

Osteoporosis is avoidable and treatable

Earlier research reported various expressions of number needed to treat for medical management of osteoporosis—making it difficult to follow a single number as a reference for gauging the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy.^46,47 However, for older adults of different ethnic and racial backgrounds with multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy, it might be more pragmatic in primary care to establish a model of goal-oriented, individualized care. By focusing on prevention of bone loss, and being mindful that the risk of fracture almost doubles with a decrease of 1 SD in BMD, you can translate numbers to goals of care.⁴⁸

In the United States, approximately one-half of osteoporosis cases in adults ≥ 50 years are managed by primary care providers. As a chronic disease, osteoporosis requires that you, first, provide regular monitoring and assessment, because risk can vary with comorbidities,⁴⁹ and, second, discuss and initiate screening and treatment as appropriate, which can be done annually during a well-care visit.

CORRESPONDENCE

Nahid Rianon, MD, DrPH, Department of Family and Community Medicine, UTHealth McGovern Medical School, 6431 Fannin Street #JJL 324C, Houston, TX, 77030; [email protected]

As the population of older adults rises, primary osteoporosis has become a problem of public health significance, resulting in more than 2 million fractures and $19 billion in related costs annually in the United States.¹ Despite the availability of effective primary and secondary preventive measures, many older adults do not receive adequate information on bone health from their primary care provider.² Initiation of osteoporosis treatment is low even among patients who have had an osteoporotic fracture: Fewer than one-­quarter of older adults with hip fracture have begun taking osteoporosis medication within 12 months of hospital discharge.³

In this overview of osteoporosis care, we provide information on how to evaluate and manage older adults in primary care settings who are at risk of, or have been given a diagnosis of, primary osteoporosis. The guidance that we offer reflects the most recent updates and recommendations by relevant professional societies.^1,4-7

The nature and scope of an urgent problem

Osteoporosis is a skeletal disorder characterized by low bone mass and deterioration of bone structure that causes bone fragility and increases the risk of fracture.⁸ Operationally, it is defined by the World Health Organization as a bone mineral density (BMD) score below 2.5 SD from the mean value for a young White woman (ie, T-score ≤ –2.5).⁹ Primary osteoporosis is age related and occurs mostly in postmenopausal women and older men, affecting 25% of women and 5% of men ≥ 65 years.¹⁰

An osteoporotic fracture is particularly devastating in an older adult because it can cause pain, reduced mobility, depression, and social isolation and can increase the risk of related mortality.¹ The National Osteoporosis Foundation estimates that 20% of older adults who sustain a hip fracture die within 1 year due to complications of the fracture itself or surgical repair.¹ Therefore, it is of paramount importance to identify patients who are at increased risk of fracture and intervene early.

The National Osteoporosis Foundation estimates that 20% of older adults who sustain a hip fracture die within 1 year due to complications of the fracture itself or surgical repair.

Clinical manifestations

Osteoporosis does not have a primary presentation; rather, disease manifests clinically when a patient develops complications. Often, a fragility fracture is the first sign in an older person.¹¹

A fracture is the most important complication of osteoporosis and can result from low-trauma injury or a fall from standing height—thus, the term “fragility fracture.” Osteoporotic fractures commonly involve the vertebra, hip, and wrist. Hip and extremity fractures can result in limited or lost mobility and depression. Vertebral fractures can be asymptomatic or result in kyphosis and loss of height. Fractures can give rise to pain.

Age and female sexare risk factors

TABLE 1^1,6,10 lists risk factors associated with osteoporosis. Age is the most important; prevalence of osteoporosis increases with age. Other nonmodifiable risk factors include female sex (the disease appears earlier in women who enter menopause prematurely), family history of osteoporosis, and race and ethnicity. Twenty percent of Asian and non-Hispanic White women > 50 years have osteoporosis.¹ A study showed that Mexican Americans are at higher risk of osteoporosis than non-Hispanic Whites; non-Hispanic Blacks are least affected.¹⁰

Other risk factors include low body weight (< 127 lb) and a history of fractures after age 50. Behavioral risk factors include smoking, excessive alcohol intake (> 3 drinks/d), poor nutrition, and a sedentary lifestyle.^1,6

Continue to: Who should be screened?...

Who should be screened?

Screening is generally performed with a clinical evaluation and a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan of BMD. Measurement of BMD is generally recommended for screening all women ≥ 65 years and those < 65 years whose 10-year risk of fracture is equivalent to that of a 65-year-old White woman (see “Assessment of fracture risk” later in the article). For men, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening those with a prior fracture or a secondary risk factor for disease.⁵ However, the National Osteoporosis Foundation recommends screening all men ≥ 70 years and those 50 to 69 years whose risk profile shows heightened risk.^1,4

DXA of the spine and hip is preferred; the distal one-third of the radius (termed “33% radius”) of the nondominant arm can be used when spine and hip BMD cannot be interpreted because of bone changes from the disease process or artifacts, or in certain diseases in which the wrist region shows the earliest change (eg, primary hyperparathyroidism).^6,7

Clinical evaluation includes a detailed history, physical examination, laboratory screening, and assessment for risk of fracture.

❚ History. Explore the presence of risk factors, including fractures in adulthood, falls, medication use, alcohol and tobacco use, family history of osteoporosis, and chronic disease.^6,7

❚ Physical exam. Assess height, including any loss (> 1.5 in) since the patient’s second or third decade of life; kyphosis; frailty; and balance and mobility problems.^4,6,7

❚  Laboratory and imaging studies. Perform basic laboratory testing when DXA is abnormal, including thyroid function, serum calcium, and renal function.^6,12 Radiography of the lateral spine might be necessary, especially when there is kyphosis or loss of height. Assess for vertebral fracture, using lateral spine radiography, when vertebral involvement is suspected.^6,7

❚ Assessment of fracture risk. Fracture risk can be assessed with any of a number of tools, including:

• Simplified Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE): www.medicalalgorithms.com/simplified-calculated-osteoporosis-risk-estimation-tool
• Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI): www.physio-pedia.com/The_Osteoporosis_Risk_Assessment_Instrument_(ORAI)

• Osteoporosis Index of Risk (OSIRIS): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/gye.16.3.245.250?journalCode=igye20
• Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST): www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45516/figure/ch10.f2/
• FRAX tool⁵: www.sheffield.ac.uk/FRAX.

The FRAX tool is widely used. It assesses a patient’s 10-year risk of fracture.

Diagnosis is based on these criteria

Diagnosis of osteoporosis is based on any 1 or more of the following criteria⁶:

• a history of fragility fracture not explained by metabolic bone disease
• T-score ≤ –2.5 (lumbar, hip, femoral neck, or 33% radius)
• a nation-specific FRAX score (in the absence of access to DXA).

❚ Secondary disease. Patients in whom secondary osteoporosis is suspected should undergo laboratory investigation to ascertain the cause; treatment of the underlying pathology might then be required. Evaluation for a secondary cause might include a complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, protein electrophoresis and urinary protein electrophoresis (to rule out myeloproliferative and hematologic diseases), and tests of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D, parathyroid hormone, serum calcium, alkaline phosphatase, 24-hour urinary calcium, sodium, and creatinine.^6,7 Specialized testing for biochemical markers of bone turnover—so-called bone-turnover markers—can be considered as part of the initial evaluation and follow-up, although the tests are not recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (see “Monitoring the efficacy of treatment,” later in the article, for more information about these markers).⁶

Although BMD by DXA remains the gold standard in screening for and diagnosing osteoporosis, a high rate of fracture is seen in patients with certain diseases, such as type 2 diabetes and ankylosing spondylitis, who have a nonosteoporotic low T-score. This raises concerns about the usefulness of BMD for diagnosing osteoporosis in patients who have one of these diseases.^13-16

❚ Pharmacotherapy is recommended in all cases of osteoporosis and osteopenia when risk of fracture is high. Oral bisphosphonates can be used as initial treatment.

❚ Trabecular bone score (TBS), a surrogate bone-quality measure that is calculated based on the spine DXA image, has recently been introduced in clinical practice, and can be used to predict fracture risk in conjunction with BMD assessment by DXA and the FRAX score.¹⁷ TBS provides an indirect index of the trabecular microarchitecture using pixel gray-level variation in lumbar spine DXA images.¹⁸ Three categories of TBS (≤ 1.200, degraded microarchitecture; 1.200-1.350, partially degraded microarchitecture; and > 1.350, normal microarchitecture) have been reported to correspond with a T-score of, respectively, ≤ −2.5; −2.5 to −1.0; and > −1.0.¹⁸ TBS can be used only in patients with a body mass index of 15 to 37.5.^19,20

There is no recommendation for monitoring bone quality using TBS after osteoporosis treatment. Such monitoring is at the clinician’s discretion for appropriate patients who might not show a risk of fracture, based on BMD measurement.

Continue to: Putting preventive measures into practice...

Putting preventive measures into practice

Measures to prevent osteoporosis and preserve bone health (TABLE 2^1,6) are best started in childhood but can be initiated at any age and maintained through the lifespan. Encourage older adults to adopt dietary and behavioral strategies to improve their bone health and prevent fracture. We recommend the following strategies; take each patient’s individual situation into consideration when electing to adopt any of these measures.

❚ Vitamin D. Consider checking the serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and providing supplementation (800-1000 IU daily, the National Osteoporosis Foundation recommends¹) as necessary to maintain the level at 30-50 ng/mL.⁶

❚ Calcium. Encourage a daily dietary calcium intake of 1000-1200 mg. Supplement calcium if you determine that diet does not provide an adequate amount.

❚ Alcohol. Advise patients to limit consumption to < 3 drinks a day.

❚ Tobacco. Advise smoking cessation.

❚ Activity. Encourage an active lifestyle, including regular weight-bearing and balance exercises and resistance exercises such as Pilates, weightlifting, and tai chi. The regimen should be tailored to the patient’s individual situation.

❚ Medical therapy for concomitant illness. When possible, prescribe medications for chronic comorbidities that can also benefit bone health. For example, long-term use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and thiazide diuretics for hypertension are associated with a slower decline in BMD in some populations.^21-23

Tailor treatment to patient’s circumstances

TABLE 3^4,6,24 describes indications for pharmacotherapy in osteoporosis. Pharmacotherapy is recommended in all cases of osteoporosis and osteopenia when fracture risk is high.²⁴

Generally, you should undertake a discussion with the patient of the relative risks and benefits of treatment, taking into account their values and preferences, to come to a shared decision. Tailoring treatment, based on the patient’s distinctive circumstances, through shared decision-making is key to compliance.²⁵

Pharmacotherapy is not indicated in patients whose risk of fracture is low; however, you should reassess such patients every 2 to 4 years.²⁶ Women with a very high BMD might not need to be retested with DXA any sooner than every 10 to 15 years.

There are 3 main classes of first-line pharmacotherapeutic agents for osteoporosis in older adults (TABLE 4^4,6,7,26-41): antiresorptives (bisphosphonates and denosumab), anabolics (teriparatide and abaloparatide), and a monoclonal sclerostin antibody (romosozumab). (TABLE 4^4,6,7,26-41 and the discussion in this section also remark on the selective estrogen-receptor modulator raloxifene, which is used in special clinical circumstances but has been removed from the first line of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy.)

Continue to: Influence of chronic...

Influence of chronic diseaseon bone health

Chronic diseases—hypertension, type 2 diabetes, hyperthyroidism, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and gastroenterologic disorders such as celiac disease and ulcerative colitis—are known to affect bone loss that can hasten osteoporosis.^16,18,21 Furthermore, medications used to treat chronic diseases are known to affect bone health: Some, such as statins, ACE inhibitors, and hydrochlorothiazide, are bone protective; others, such as steroids, pioglitazone, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, accelerate bone loss.^1,14,42,43 It is important to be aware of the effect of a patient’s chronic diseases, and treatments for those diseases, on bone health, to help develop an individualized osteoporosis prevention plan.

Monitoring the efficacy of treatment

Treatment of osteoporosis should not be initiated without baseline measurement of BMD of the spine and hip. Subsequent to establishing that baseline, serial measurement of BMD can be used to (1) determine when treatment needs to be initiated for an untreated patient and (2) assess response in a treated patient. There is no consensus on the interval at which DXA should be repeated for the purpose of monitoring treatment response; frequency depends on the individual’s circumstances and the medication used. Notably, many physicians repeat DXA after 2 years of treatment⁸; however, the American College of Physicians recommends against repeating DXA within the first 5 years of pharmacotherapy in women.²⁴

Patients with suspected vertebral fracture or those with loss of height > 1.5 inches require lateral radiographs of the thoracic and lumbar spine to assess the status of fractures.^4,6

❚ Bone-turnover markers measured in serum can be used to assess treatment efficacy and patient adherence. The formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) and the resorption marker beta C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type 1 collagen (bCTX) are preferred for evaluating bone turnover in the clinical setting. Assessing P1NP and bCTX at baseline and after 3 months of treatment might be effective in monitoring adherence, particularly in patients taking a bisphosphonate.⁴⁴

Pharmacotherapy is not indicated in patients whose risk of fracture is low; however, you should reassess such patients every 2 to 4 years.

Be sure to address fall prevention

It is important to address falls, and how to prevent them, in patients with osteoporosis. Falls can precipitate fracture in older adults with reduced BMD, and fractures are the most common and debilitating manifestation of osteoporosis. Your discussion of falls with patients should include⁴⁵:

• consequences of falls
• cautions about medications that can cloud mental alertness
• use of appropriate footwear
• home safety, such as adequate lighting, removal of floor clutter, and installation of handrails in the bathroom and stairwells and on outside steps.
• having an annual comprehensive eye exam.

Osteoporosis is avoidable and treatable

Earlier research reported various expressions of number needed to treat for medical management of osteoporosis—making it difficult to follow a single number as a reference for gauging the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy.^46,47 However, for older adults of different ethnic and racial backgrounds with multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy, it might be more pragmatic in primary care to establish a model of goal-oriented, individualized care. By focusing on prevention of bone loss, and being mindful that the risk of fracture almost doubles with a decrease of 1 SD in BMD, you can translate numbers to goals of care.⁴⁸

In the United States, approximately one-half of osteoporosis cases in adults ≥ 50 years are managed by primary care providers. As a chronic disease, osteoporosis requires that you, first, provide regular monitoring and assessment, because risk can vary with comorbidities,⁴⁹ and, second, discuss and initiate screening and treatment as appropriate, which can be done annually during a well-care visit.

CORRESPONDENCE

Nahid Rianon, MD, DrPH, Department of Family and Community Medicine, UTHealth McGovern Medical School, 6431 Fannin Street #JJL 324C, Houston, TX, 77030; [email protected]

As the population of older adults rises, primary osteoporosis has become a problem of public health significance, resulting in more than 2 million fractures and $19 billion in related costs annually in the United States.¹ Despite the availability of effective primary and secondary preventive measures, many older adults do not receive adequate information on bone health from their primary care provider.² Initiation of osteoporosis treatment is low even among patients who have had an osteoporotic fracture: Fewer than one-­quarter of older adults with hip fracture have begun taking osteoporosis medication within 12 months of hospital discharge.³

In this overview of osteoporosis care, we provide information on how to evaluate and manage older adults in primary care settings who are at risk of, or have been given a diagnosis of, primary osteoporosis. The guidance that we offer reflects the most recent updates and recommendations by relevant professional societies.^1,4-7

The nature and scope of an urgent problem

Osteoporosis is a skeletal disorder characterized by low bone mass and deterioration of bone structure that causes bone fragility and increases the risk of fracture.⁸ Operationally, it is defined by the World Health Organization as a bone mineral density (BMD) score below 2.5 SD from the mean value for a young White woman (ie, T-score ≤ –2.5).⁹ Primary osteoporosis is age related and occurs mostly in postmenopausal women and older men, affecting 25% of women and 5% of men ≥ 65 years.¹⁰

An osteoporotic fracture is particularly devastating in an older adult because it can cause pain, reduced mobility, depression, and social isolation and can increase the risk of related mortality.¹ The National Osteoporosis Foundation estimates that 20% of older adults who sustain a hip fracture die within 1 year due to complications of the fracture itself or surgical repair.¹ Therefore, it is of paramount importance to identify patients who are at increased risk of fracture and intervene early.

The National Osteoporosis Foundation estimates that 20% of older adults who sustain a hip fracture die within 1 year due to complications of the fracture itself or surgical repair.

Clinical manifestations

Osteoporosis does not have a primary presentation; rather, disease manifests clinically when a patient develops complications. Often, a fragility fracture is the first sign in an older person.¹¹

A fracture is the most important complication of osteoporosis and can result from low-trauma injury or a fall from standing height—thus, the term “fragility fracture.” Osteoporotic fractures commonly involve the vertebra, hip, and wrist. Hip and extremity fractures can result in limited or lost mobility and depression. Vertebral fractures can be asymptomatic or result in kyphosis and loss of height. Fractures can give rise to pain.

Age and female sexare risk factors

TABLE 1^1,6,10 lists risk factors associated with osteoporosis. Age is the most important; prevalence of osteoporosis increases with age. Other nonmodifiable risk factors include female sex (the disease appears earlier in women who enter menopause prematurely), family history of osteoporosis, and race and ethnicity. Twenty percent of Asian and non-Hispanic White women > 50 years have osteoporosis.¹ A study showed that Mexican Americans are at higher risk of osteoporosis than non-Hispanic Whites; non-Hispanic Blacks are least affected.¹⁰

Other risk factors include low body weight (< 127 lb) and a history of fractures after age 50. Behavioral risk factors include smoking, excessive alcohol intake (> 3 drinks/d), poor nutrition, and a sedentary lifestyle.^1,6

Continue to: Who should be screened?...

Who should be screened?

Screening is generally performed with a clinical evaluation and a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scan of BMD. Measurement of BMD is generally recommended for screening all women ≥ 65 years and those < 65 years whose 10-year risk of fracture is equivalent to that of a 65-year-old White woman (see “Assessment of fracture risk” later in the article). For men, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening those with a prior fracture or a secondary risk factor for disease.⁵ However, the National Osteoporosis Foundation recommends screening all men ≥ 70 years and those 50 to 69 years whose risk profile shows heightened risk.^1,4

DXA of the spine and hip is preferred; the distal one-third of the radius (termed “33% radius”) of the nondominant arm can be used when spine and hip BMD cannot be interpreted because of bone changes from the disease process or artifacts, or in certain diseases in which the wrist region shows the earliest change (eg, primary hyperparathyroidism).^6,7

Clinical evaluation includes a detailed history, physical examination, laboratory screening, and assessment for risk of fracture.

❚ History. Explore the presence of risk factors, including fractures in adulthood, falls, medication use, alcohol and tobacco use, family history of osteoporosis, and chronic disease.^6,7

❚ Physical exam. Assess height, including any loss (> 1.5 in) since the patient’s second or third decade of life; kyphosis; frailty; and balance and mobility problems.^4,6,7

❚  Laboratory and imaging studies. Perform basic laboratory testing when DXA is abnormal, including thyroid function, serum calcium, and renal function.^6,12 Radiography of the lateral spine might be necessary, especially when there is kyphosis or loss of height. Assess for vertebral fracture, using lateral spine radiography, when vertebral involvement is suspected.^6,7

❚ Assessment of fracture risk. Fracture risk can be assessed with any of a number of tools, including:

• Simplified Calculated Osteoporosis Risk Estimation (SCORE): www.medicalalgorithms.com/simplified-calculated-osteoporosis-risk-estimation-tool
• Osteoporosis Risk Assessment Instrument (ORAI): www.physio-pedia.com/The_Osteoporosis_Risk_Assessment_Instrument_(ORAI)

• Osteoporosis Index of Risk (OSIRIS): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/gye.16.3.245.250?journalCode=igye20
• Osteoporosis Self-Assessment Tool (OST): www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK45516/figure/ch10.f2/
• FRAX tool⁵: www.sheffield.ac.uk/FRAX.

The FRAX tool is widely used. It assesses a patient’s 10-year risk of fracture.

Diagnosis is based on these criteria

Diagnosis of osteoporosis is based on any 1 or more of the following criteria⁶:

• a history of fragility fracture not explained by metabolic bone disease
• T-score ≤ –2.5 (lumbar, hip, femoral neck, or 33% radius)
• a nation-specific FRAX score (in the absence of access to DXA).

❚ Secondary disease. Patients in whom secondary osteoporosis is suspected should undergo laboratory investigation to ascertain the cause; treatment of the underlying pathology might then be required. Evaluation for a secondary cause might include a complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, protein electrophoresis and urinary protein electrophoresis (to rule out myeloproliferative and hematologic diseases), and tests of serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D, parathyroid hormone, serum calcium, alkaline phosphatase, 24-hour urinary calcium, sodium, and creatinine.^6,7 Specialized testing for biochemical markers of bone turnover—so-called bone-turnover markers—can be considered as part of the initial evaluation and follow-up, although the tests are not recommended by the US Preventive Services Task Force (see “Monitoring the efficacy of treatment,” later in the article, for more information about these markers).⁶

Although BMD by DXA remains the gold standard in screening for and diagnosing osteoporosis, a high rate of fracture is seen in patients with certain diseases, such as type 2 diabetes and ankylosing spondylitis, who have a nonosteoporotic low T-score. This raises concerns about the usefulness of BMD for diagnosing osteoporosis in patients who have one of these diseases.^13-16

❚ Pharmacotherapy is recommended in all cases of osteoporosis and osteopenia when risk of fracture is high. Oral bisphosphonates can be used as initial treatment.

❚ Trabecular bone score (TBS), a surrogate bone-quality measure that is calculated based on the spine DXA image, has recently been introduced in clinical practice, and can be used to predict fracture risk in conjunction with BMD assessment by DXA and the FRAX score.¹⁷ TBS provides an indirect index of the trabecular microarchitecture using pixel gray-level variation in lumbar spine DXA images.¹⁸ Three categories of TBS (≤ 1.200, degraded microarchitecture; 1.200-1.350, partially degraded microarchitecture; and > 1.350, normal microarchitecture) have been reported to correspond with a T-score of, respectively, ≤ −2.5; −2.5 to −1.0; and > −1.0.¹⁸ TBS can be used only in patients with a body mass index of 15 to 37.5.^19,20

There is no recommendation for monitoring bone quality using TBS after osteoporosis treatment. Such monitoring is at the clinician’s discretion for appropriate patients who might not show a risk of fracture, based on BMD measurement.

Continue to: Putting preventive measures into practice...

Putting preventive measures into practice

Measures to prevent osteoporosis and preserve bone health (TABLE 2^1,6) are best started in childhood but can be initiated at any age and maintained through the lifespan. Encourage older adults to adopt dietary and behavioral strategies to improve their bone health and prevent fracture. We recommend the following strategies; take each patient’s individual situation into consideration when electing to adopt any of these measures.

❚ Vitamin D. Consider checking the serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D level and providing supplementation (800-1000 IU daily, the National Osteoporosis Foundation recommends¹) as necessary to maintain the level at 30-50 ng/mL.⁶

❚ Calcium. Encourage a daily dietary calcium intake of 1000-1200 mg. Supplement calcium if you determine that diet does not provide an adequate amount.

❚ Alcohol. Advise patients to limit consumption to < 3 drinks a day.

❚ Tobacco. Advise smoking cessation.

❚ Activity. Encourage an active lifestyle, including regular weight-bearing and balance exercises and resistance exercises such as Pilates, weightlifting, and tai chi. The regimen should be tailored to the patient’s individual situation.

❚ Medical therapy for concomitant illness. When possible, prescribe medications for chronic comorbidities that can also benefit bone health. For example, long-term use of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and thiazide diuretics for hypertension are associated with a slower decline in BMD in some populations.^21-23

Tailor treatment to patient’s circumstances

TABLE 3^4,6,24 describes indications for pharmacotherapy in osteoporosis. Pharmacotherapy is recommended in all cases of osteoporosis and osteopenia when fracture risk is high.²⁴

Generally, you should undertake a discussion with the patient of the relative risks and benefits of treatment, taking into account their values and preferences, to come to a shared decision. Tailoring treatment, based on the patient’s distinctive circumstances, through shared decision-making is key to compliance.²⁵

Pharmacotherapy is not indicated in patients whose risk of fracture is low; however, you should reassess such patients every 2 to 4 years.²⁶ Women with a very high BMD might not need to be retested with DXA any sooner than every 10 to 15 years.

There are 3 main classes of first-line pharmacotherapeutic agents for osteoporosis in older adults (TABLE 4^4,6,7,26-41): antiresorptives (bisphosphonates and denosumab), anabolics (teriparatide and abaloparatide), and a monoclonal sclerostin antibody (romosozumab). (TABLE 4^4,6,7,26-41 and the discussion in this section also remark on the selective estrogen-receptor modulator raloxifene, which is used in special clinical circumstances but has been removed from the first line of osteoporosis pharmacotherapy.)

Continue to: Influence of chronic...

Influence of chronic diseaseon bone health

Chronic diseases—hypertension, type 2 diabetes, hyperthyroidism, rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, and gastroenterologic disorders such as celiac disease and ulcerative colitis—are known to affect bone loss that can hasten osteoporosis.^16,18,21 Furthermore, medications used to treat chronic diseases are known to affect bone health: Some, such as statins, ACE inhibitors, and hydrochlorothiazide, are bone protective; others, such as steroids, pioglitazone, and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, accelerate bone loss.^1,14,42,43 It is important to be aware of the effect of a patient’s chronic diseases, and treatments for those diseases, on bone health, to help develop an individualized osteoporosis prevention plan.

Monitoring the efficacy of treatment

Treatment of osteoporosis should not be initiated without baseline measurement of BMD of the spine and hip. Subsequent to establishing that baseline, serial measurement of BMD can be used to (1) determine when treatment needs to be initiated for an untreated patient and (2) assess response in a treated patient. There is no consensus on the interval at which DXA should be repeated for the purpose of monitoring treatment response; frequency depends on the individual’s circumstances and the medication used. Notably, many physicians repeat DXA after 2 years of treatment⁸; however, the American College of Physicians recommends against repeating DXA within the first 5 years of pharmacotherapy in women.²⁴

Patients with suspected vertebral fracture or those with loss of height > 1.5 inches require lateral radiographs of the thoracic and lumbar spine to assess the status of fractures.^4,6

❚ Bone-turnover markers measured in serum can be used to assess treatment efficacy and patient adherence. The formation marker procollagen type I N-terminal propeptide (P1NP) and the resorption marker beta C-terminal cross-linking telopeptide of type 1 collagen (bCTX) are preferred for evaluating bone turnover in the clinical setting. Assessing P1NP and bCTX at baseline and after 3 months of treatment might be effective in monitoring adherence, particularly in patients taking a bisphosphonate.⁴⁴

Pharmacotherapy is not indicated in patients whose risk of fracture is low; however, you should reassess such patients every 2 to 4 years.

Be sure to address fall prevention

It is important to address falls, and how to prevent them, in patients with osteoporosis. Falls can precipitate fracture in older adults with reduced BMD, and fractures are the most common and debilitating manifestation of osteoporosis. Your discussion of falls with patients should include⁴⁵:

• consequences of falls
• cautions about medications that can cloud mental alertness
• use of appropriate footwear
• home safety, such as adequate lighting, removal of floor clutter, and installation of handrails in the bathroom and stairwells and on outside steps.
• having an annual comprehensive eye exam.

Osteoporosis is avoidable and treatable

Earlier research reported various expressions of number needed to treat for medical management of osteoporosis—making it difficult to follow a single number as a reference for gauging the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy.^46,47 However, for older adults of different ethnic and racial backgrounds with multiple comorbidities and polypharmacy, it might be more pragmatic in primary care to establish a model of goal-oriented, individualized care. By focusing on prevention of bone loss, and being mindful that the risk of fracture almost doubles with a decrease of 1 SD in BMD, you can translate numbers to goals of care.⁴⁸

In the United States, approximately one-half of osteoporosis cases in adults ≥ 50 years are managed by primary care providers. As a chronic disease, osteoporosis requires that you, first, provide regular monitoring and assessment, because risk can vary with comorbidities,⁴⁹ and, second, discuss and initiate screening and treatment as appropriate, which can be done annually during a well-care visit.

CORRESPONDENCE

Nahid Rianon, MD, DrPH, Department of Family and Community Medicine, UTHealth McGovern Medical School, 6431 Fannin Street #JJL 324C, Houston, TX, 77030; [email protected]

Managing depression and anxiety in Parkinson’s disease should start with a review of medications and involve multidisciplinary care, according to a recent summary of evidence.

“Depression and anxiety have a complex relationship with the disease and while the exact mechanism for this association is unknown, both disturbances occur with increased prevalence across the disease course and when present earlier in life, increase the risk of PD by about twofold,” wrote Gregory M. Pontone, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

Randomized trials to guide treatment of anxiety and depression in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) are limited, the researchers noted. However, data from a longitudinal study showed that PD patients whose depression remitted spontaneously or responded to treatment were able to attain a level of function similar to that of never-depressed PD patients, Dr. Pontone and colleagues said.

The researchers offered a pair of treatment algorithms to help guide clinicians in managing depression and anxiety in PD. However, a caveat to keep in mind is that “the benefit of antidepressant medications, used for depression or anxiety, can be confounded when motor symptoms are not optimally treated,” the researchers emphasized.

For depression, the researchers advised starting with some lab work; “at a minimum we suggest checking a complete blood count, metabolic panel, TSH, B12, and folate,” they noted. They recommended an antidepressant, cognitive-behavioral therapy, or both, as a first-line treatment, such as monotherapy with selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. They advised titrating the chosen monotherapy to a minimum effective dose over a 2- to 3-week period to assess response.

“We recommend continuing antidepressant therapy for at least 1 year based on literature in non-PD populations and anecdotal clinical experience. At 1 year, if not in remission, consider continuing treatment or augmenting to improve response,” the researchers said.

Based on the current DSM-5 criteria, up to one-third of PD patients have an unspecified anxiety disorder, the researchers said, and they recommended using anxiety rating scales to diagnose anxiety in PD. “Given the high prevalence of atypical anxiety syndromes in PD and their potential association with both motor and nonmotor symptoms of the disease, working with the neurologist to achieve optimal control of PD is an essential first step to alleviating anxiety,” they emphasized.

The researchers also advised addressing comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease, chronic pain, diabetes, gastrointestinal issues, hyperthyroidism, and lung disease, all of which can be associated with anxiety. Once comorbidities are addressed, they advised caution given the lack of evidence for efficacy of both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic anxiety treatments for PD patients. However, first-tier treatment for anxiety could include monotherapy with serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, they said.

PD patients with depression and anxiety also may benefit from nonpharmacologic interventions, including exercise, mindfulness, relaxation therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy the researchers said.

Although the algorithm may not differ significantly from current treatment protocols, it highlights aspects unique to PD patients, the researchers said. In particular, the algorithm shows “that interventions used for motor symptoms, for example, dopamine agonists, may be especially potent for mood in the PD population and that augmentation strategies, such as antipsychotics and lithium, may not be well tolerated given their outsized risk of adverse events in PD,” they said.

“While an article of this kind cannot hope to address the gap in knowledge on comparative efficacy between interventions, it can guide readers on the best strategies for implementation and risk mitigation in PD – essentially focusing more on effectiveness,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Pontone disclosed serving as a consultant for Acadia Pharmaceuticals and Concert Pharmaceuticals.

Managing depression and anxiety in Parkinson’s disease should start with a review of medications and involve multidisciplinary care, according to a recent summary of evidence.

“Depression and anxiety have a complex relationship with the disease and while the exact mechanism for this association is unknown, both disturbances occur with increased prevalence across the disease course and when present earlier in life, increase the risk of PD by about twofold,” wrote Gregory M. Pontone, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

Randomized trials to guide treatment of anxiety and depression in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) are limited, the researchers noted. However, data from a longitudinal study showed that PD patients whose depression remitted spontaneously or responded to treatment were able to attain a level of function similar to that of never-depressed PD patients, Dr. Pontone and colleagues said.

The researchers offered a pair of treatment algorithms to help guide clinicians in managing depression and anxiety in PD. However, a caveat to keep in mind is that “the benefit of antidepressant medications, used for depression or anxiety, can be confounded when motor symptoms are not optimally treated,” the researchers emphasized.

For depression, the researchers advised starting with some lab work; “at a minimum we suggest checking a complete blood count, metabolic panel, TSH, B12, and folate,” they noted. They recommended an antidepressant, cognitive-behavioral therapy, or both, as a first-line treatment, such as monotherapy with selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. They advised titrating the chosen monotherapy to a minimum effective dose over a 2- to 3-week period to assess response.

“We recommend continuing antidepressant therapy for at least 1 year based on literature in non-PD populations and anecdotal clinical experience. At 1 year, if not in remission, consider continuing treatment or augmenting to improve response,” the researchers said.

Based on the current DSM-5 criteria, up to one-third of PD patients have an unspecified anxiety disorder, the researchers said, and they recommended using anxiety rating scales to diagnose anxiety in PD. “Given the high prevalence of atypical anxiety syndromes in PD and their potential association with both motor and nonmotor symptoms of the disease, working with the neurologist to achieve optimal control of PD is an essential first step to alleviating anxiety,” they emphasized.

The researchers also advised addressing comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease, chronic pain, diabetes, gastrointestinal issues, hyperthyroidism, and lung disease, all of which can be associated with anxiety. Once comorbidities are addressed, they advised caution given the lack of evidence for efficacy of both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic anxiety treatments for PD patients. However, first-tier treatment for anxiety could include monotherapy with serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, they said.

PD patients with depression and anxiety also may benefit from nonpharmacologic interventions, including exercise, mindfulness, relaxation therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy the researchers said.

Although the algorithm may not differ significantly from current treatment protocols, it highlights aspects unique to PD patients, the researchers said. In particular, the algorithm shows “that interventions used for motor symptoms, for example, dopamine agonists, may be especially potent for mood in the PD population and that augmentation strategies, such as antipsychotics and lithium, may not be well tolerated given their outsized risk of adverse events in PD,” they said.

“While an article of this kind cannot hope to address the gap in knowledge on comparative efficacy between interventions, it can guide readers on the best strategies for implementation and risk mitigation in PD – essentially focusing more on effectiveness,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Pontone disclosed serving as a consultant for Acadia Pharmaceuticals and Concert Pharmaceuticals.

Managing depression and anxiety in Parkinson’s disease should start with a review of medications and involve multidisciplinary care, according to a recent summary of evidence.

“Depression and anxiety have a complex relationship with the disease and while the exact mechanism for this association is unknown, both disturbances occur with increased prevalence across the disease course and when present earlier in life, increase the risk of PD by about twofold,” wrote Gregory M. Pontone, MD, of Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, and colleagues.

Randomized trials to guide treatment of anxiety and depression in patients with Parkinson’s disease (PD) are limited, the researchers noted. However, data from a longitudinal study showed that PD patients whose depression remitted spontaneously or responded to treatment were able to attain a level of function similar to that of never-depressed PD patients, Dr. Pontone and colleagues said.

The researchers offered a pair of treatment algorithms to help guide clinicians in managing depression and anxiety in PD. However, a caveat to keep in mind is that “the benefit of antidepressant medications, used for depression or anxiety, can be confounded when motor symptoms are not optimally treated,” the researchers emphasized.

For depression, the researchers advised starting with some lab work; “at a minimum we suggest checking a complete blood count, metabolic panel, TSH, B12, and folate,” they noted. They recommended an antidepressant, cognitive-behavioral therapy, or both, as a first-line treatment, such as monotherapy with selective norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. They advised titrating the chosen monotherapy to a minimum effective dose over a 2- to 3-week period to assess response.

“We recommend continuing antidepressant therapy for at least 1 year based on literature in non-PD populations and anecdotal clinical experience. At 1 year, if not in remission, consider continuing treatment or augmenting to improve response,” the researchers said.

Based on the current DSM-5 criteria, up to one-third of PD patients have an unspecified anxiety disorder, the researchers said, and they recommended using anxiety rating scales to diagnose anxiety in PD. “Given the high prevalence of atypical anxiety syndromes in PD and their potential association with both motor and nonmotor symptoms of the disease, working with the neurologist to achieve optimal control of PD is an essential first step to alleviating anxiety,” they emphasized.

The researchers also advised addressing comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease, chronic pain, diabetes, gastrointestinal issues, hyperthyroidism, and lung disease, all of which can be associated with anxiety. Once comorbidities are addressed, they advised caution given the lack of evidence for efficacy of both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic anxiety treatments for PD patients. However, first-tier treatment for anxiety could include monotherapy with serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, they said.

PD patients with depression and anxiety also may benefit from nonpharmacologic interventions, including exercise, mindfulness, relaxation therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy the researchers said.

Although the algorithm may not differ significantly from current treatment protocols, it highlights aspects unique to PD patients, the researchers said. In particular, the algorithm shows “that interventions used for motor symptoms, for example, dopamine agonists, may be especially potent for mood in the PD population and that augmentation strategies, such as antipsychotics and lithium, may not be well tolerated given their outsized risk of adverse events in PD,” they said.

“While an article of this kind cannot hope to address the gap in knowledge on comparative efficacy between interventions, it can guide readers on the best strategies for implementation and risk mitigation in PD – essentially focusing more on effectiveness,” they concluded.

The study received no outside funding. Dr. Pontone disclosed serving as a consultant for Acadia Pharmaceuticals and Concert Pharmaceuticals.

Patients with cirrhosis treated at hospitals with the highest safety-net burden, defined by their proportion of Medicaid or uninsured patients, had a 5% higher mortality rate than patients who were treated at hospitals with the lowest burden, according to a study of over 300,000 patients.

The study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, analyzed inpatient data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database focusing on a 4-year time span between 2012 and 2016. The hospitals were categorized by safety-net burden, which was defined as having either a high, medium, or low number of uninsured patients or patients with Medicaid.

This is the first-known study to evaluate the impact of a hospital’s safety-net burden on hospitalization outcomes in cirrhosis patients, wrote authors Robert J. Wong, MD, MS, of Stanford (Calif.) University and Grishma Hirode, MAS, of the University of Toronto. Previous studies have shown that safety-net hospitals, especially those with a high safety-net burden, have poorer patient outcomes. These hospitals also serve a patient population that is at high risk for chronic liver disease and cirrhosis.

The new analysis included 322,944 individual hospitalizations of patients with cirrhosis. Of these, 57.8% were male, 63.7% were White, 9.9% were Black, and 15.6% were Hispanic. In terms of safety-net burden, 107,446 hospitalizations were at high-burden hospitals, 103,508 were at medium-burden hospitals, and 111,990 hospitalizations were at low-burden hospitals.

Overall, cirrhosis-related hospitalizations in hospitals with the highest burden were found to have significantly greater odds of in-hospital mortality than the lowest tertile hospitals (odds ratio, 1.05, P = .044). The patients were also younger (mean age, 56.7 years vs. 59.8 years in low-burden hospitals). They also had a higher proportion of male patients, minority patients, Hispanic patients, and patients with Medicaid or no insurance.

The odds of hospitalization in the highest tertile hospitals were found to be significantly higher, compared with the middle and lowest tertiles for Blacks and Hispanics, compared with Whites (OR 1.26 and OR 1.63, respectively). Black patients (OR, 1.26; 95%CI, 1.17-1.35; P < .001) and Hispanic patients (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.50-1.78; P< .001) were more likely to be admitted for care at high-burden hospitals (26% to 54%). In-hospital mortality rates among all hospitalizations were 5.95% and the rate did not significantly differ by hospital burden status.

“Despite adjusting for safety-net burden, our study continued to demonstrate ethnic disparities in in-hospital mortality among cirrhosis-related hospitalizations,” the researchers wrote. Overall, the odds of in-hospital mortality were 27% higher in Black patients as compared with White patients.

However, significantly lower mortality was observed in Hispanic patients as compared with White patients (4.9% vs. 6.0%, P < .001), but why this occurred was not entirely clear. “Hispanic patients may be more likely to have NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis]-related cirrhosis, which generally has a slower disease progression, compared with [hepatitis C virus] or alcoholic cirrhosis. As such, it is likely that NASH-cirrhosis Hispanic patients had less severe disease at presentation,” the researchers wrote.
 

Study design has limitations, but shows concerning trends

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to show causality based on the observational study design and cross-sectional nature of the database, the researchers said. The NIS database records individual hospitalizations, not individual patient data which means that it may include repeat hospitalizations from the same patient. In addition, the study was limited by a lack of data on outpatient cirrhosis outcomes and non–liver-related comorbidities.

However, the finding that ethnic minorities with cirrhosis were significantly more likely to be hospitalized in high safety-net hospitals than White patients is concerning, and more research is needed, they said.

“These observations highlight that, while disparities in resources and health care delivery inherent to safety-net health systems may partly explain and provide opportunities to improve cirrhosis hospitalization care, they alone do not explain all of the ethnic disparities in cirrhosis outcomes observed,” they concluded.

The current study was important to conduct at this time because rates of cirrhosis are on the rise, Michael Volk, MD, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health, said in an interview. “Millions of patients receive care in safety-net hospitals across the country.”

Dr. Volk said that he was not surprised by the overall outcomes. “Unfortunately, I expected that patient outcomes would be worse at safety-net hospitals than wealthier hospitals. However, I was surprised that Blacks had higher in-hospital mortality than Whites, even after adjusting for the hospital.”

Dr. Volk echoed the study’s stated limitation of the lack of data to address disparities.

“Additional research is needed to determine whether the higher in-hospital mortality among Blacks is related to biological differences such as differential rates of disease progression, or social differences such as access to outpatient care,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Volk had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with cirrhosis treated at hospitals with the highest safety-net burden, defined by their proportion of Medicaid or uninsured patients, had a 5% higher mortality rate than patients who were treated at hospitals with the lowest burden, according to a study of over 300,000 patients.

The study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, analyzed inpatient data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database focusing on a 4-year time span between 2012 and 2016. The hospitals were categorized by safety-net burden, which was defined as having either a high, medium, or low number of uninsured patients or patients with Medicaid.

This is the first-known study to evaluate the impact of a hospital’s safety-net burden on hospitalization outcomes in cirrhosis patients, wrote authors Robert J. Wong, MD, MS, of Stanford (Calif.) University and Grishma Hirode, MAS, of the University of Toronto. Previous studies have shown that safety-net hospitals, especially those with a high safety-net burden, have poorer patient outcomes. These hospitals also serve a patient population that is at high risk for chronic liver disease and cirrhosis.

The new analysis included 322,944 individual hospitalizations of patients with cirrhosis. Of these, 57.8% were male, 63.7% were White, 9.9% were Black, and 15.6% were Hispanic. In terms of safety-net burden, 107,446 hospitalizations were at high-burden hospitals, 103,508 were at medium-burden hospitals, and 111,990 hospitalizations were at low-burden hospitals.

Overall, cirrhosis-related hospitalizations in hospitals with the highest burden were found to have significantly greater odds of in-hospital mortality than the lowest tertile hospitals (odds ratio, 1.05, P = .044). The patients were also younger (mean age, 56.7 years vs. 59.8 years in low-burden hospitals). They also had a higher proportion of male patients, minority patients, Hispanic patients, and patients with Medicaid or no insurance.

The odds of hospitalization in the highest tertile hospitals were found to be significantly higher, compared with the middle and lowest tertiles for Blacks and Hispanics, compared with Whites (OR 1.26 and OR 1.63, respectively). Black patients (OR, 1.26; 95%CI, 1.17-1.35; P < .001) and Hispanic patients (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.50-1.78; P< .001) were more likely to be admitted for care at high-burden hospitals (26% to 54%). In-hospital mortality rates among all hospitalizations were 5.95% and the rate did not significantly differ by hospital burden status.

“Despite adjusting for safety-net burden, our study continued to demonstrate ethnic disparities in in-hospital mortality among cirrhosis-related hospitalizations,” the researchers wrote. Overall, the odds of in-hospital mortality were 27% higher in Black patients as compared with White patients.

However, significantly lower mortality was observed in Hispanic patients as compared with White patients (4.9% vs. 6.0%, P < .001), but why this occurred was not entirely clear. “Hispanic patients may be more likely to have NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis]-related cirrhosis, which generally has a slower disease progression, compared with [hepatitis C virus] or alcoholic cirrhosis. As such, it is likely that NASH-cirrhosis Hispanic patients had less severe disease at presentation,” the researchers wrote.
 

Study design has limitations, but shows concerning trends

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to show causality based on the observational study design and cross-sectional nature of the database, the researchers said. The NIS database records individual hospitalizations, not individual patient data which means that it may include repeat hospitalizations from the same patient. In addition, the study was limited by a lack of data on outpatient cirrhosis outcomes and non–liver-related comorbidities.

However, the finding that ethnic minorities with cirrhosis were significantly more likely to be hospitalized in high safety-net hospitals than White patients is concerning, and more research is needed, they said.

“These observations highlight that, while disparities in resources and health care delivery inherent to safety-net health systems may partly explain and provide opportunities to improve cirrhosis hospitalization care, they alone do not explain all of the ethnic disparities in cirrhosis outcomes observed,” they concluded.

The current study was important to conduct at this time because rates of cirrhosis are on the rise, Michael Volk, MD, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health, said in an interview. “Millions of patients receive care in safety-net hospitals across the country.”

Dr. Volk said that he was not surprised by the overall outcomes. “Unfortunately, I expected that patient outcomes would be worse at safety-net hospitals than wealthier hospitals. However, I was surprised that Blacks had higher in-hospital mortality than Whites, even after adjusting for the hospital.”

Dr. Volk echoed the study’s stated limitation of the lack of data to address disparities.

“Additional research is needed to determine whether the higher in-hospital mortality among Blacks is related to biological differences such as differential rates of disease progression, or social differences such as access to outpatient care,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Volk had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Patients with cirrhosis treated at hospitals with the highest safety-net burden, defined by their proportion of Medicaid or uninsured patients, had a 5% higher mortality rate than patients who were treated at hospitals with the lowest burden, according to a study of over 300,000 patients.

The study, which was published in the Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology, analyzed inpatient data from the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database focusing on a 4-year time span between 2012 and 2016. The hospitals were categorized by safety-net burden, which was defined as having either a high, medium, or low number of uninsured patients or patients with Medicaid.

This is the first-known study to evaluate the impact of a hospital’s safety-net burden on hospitalization outcomes in cirrhosis patients, wrote authors Robert J. Wong, MD, MS, of Stanford (Calif.) University and Grishma Hirode, MAS, of the University of Toronto. Previous studies have shown that safety-net hospitals, especially those with a high safety-net burden, have poorer patient outcomes. These hospitals also serve a patient population that is at high risk for chronic liver disease and cirrhosis.

The new analysis included 322,944 individual hospitalizations of patients with cirrhosis. Of these, 57.8% were male, 63.7% were White, 9.9% were Black, and 15.6% were Hispanic. In terms of safety-net burden, 107,446 hospitalizations were at high-burden hospitals, 103,508 were at medium-burden hospitals, and 111,990 hospitalizations were at low-burden hospitals.

Overall, cirrhosis-related hospitalizations in hospitals with the highest burden were found to have significantly greater odds of in-hospital mortality than the lowest tertile hospitals (odds ratio, 1.05, P = .044). The patients were also younger (mean age, 56.7 years vs. 59.8 years in low-burden hospitals). They also had a higher proportion of male patients, minority patients, Hispanic patients, and patients with Medicaid or no insurance.

The odds of hospitalization in the highest tertile hospitals were found to be significantly higher, compared with the middle and lowest tertiles for Blacks and Hispanics, compared with Whites (OR 1.26 and OR 1.63, respectively). Black patients (OR, 1.26; 95%CI, 1.17-1.35; P < .001) and Hispanic patients (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.50-1.78; P< .001) were more likely to be admitted for care at high-burden hospitals (26% to 54%). In-hospital mortality rates among all hospitalizations were 5.95% and the rate did not significantly differ by hospital burden status.

“Despite adjusting for safety-net burden, our study continued to demonstrate ethnic disparities in in-hospital mortality among cirrhosis-related hospitalizations,” the researchers wrote. Overall, the odds of in-hospital mortality were 27% higher in Black patients as compared with White patients.

However, significantly lower mortality was observed in Hispanic patients as compared with White patients (4.9% vs. 6.0%, P < .001), but why this occurred was not entirely clear. “Hispanic patients may be more likely to have NASH [nonalcoholic steatohepatitis]-related cirrhosis, which generally has a slower disease progression, compared with [hepatitis C virus] or alcoholic cirrhosis. As such, it is likely that NASH-cirrhosis Hispanic patients had less severe disease at presentation,” the researchers wrote.
 

Study design has limitations, but shows concerning trends

The study findings were limited by several factors including the inability to show causality based on the observational study design and cross-sectional nature of the database, the researchers said. The NIS database records individual hospitalizations, not individual patient data which means that it may include repeat hospitalizations from the same patient. In addition, the study was limited by a lack of data on outpatient cirrhosis outcomes and non–liver-related comorbidities.

However, the finding that ethnic minorities with cirrhosis were significantly more likely to be hospitalized in high safety-net hospitals than White patients is concerning, and more research is needed, they said.

“These observations highlight that, while disparities in resources and health care delivery inherent to safety-net health systems may partly explain and provide opportunities to improve cirrhosis hospitalization care, they alone do not explain all of the ethnic disparities in cirrhosis outcomes observed,” they concluded.

The current study was important to conduct at this time because rates of cirrhosis are on the rise, Michael Volk, MD, of Loma Linda (Calif.) University Health, said in an interview. “Millions of patients receive care in safety-net hospitals across the country.”

Dr. Volk said that he was not surprised by the overall outcomes. “Unfortunately, I expected that patient outcomes would be worse at safety-net hospitals than wealthier hospitals. However, I was surprised that Blacks had higher in-hospital mortality than Whites, even after adjusting for the hospital.”

Dr. Volk echoed the study’s stated limitation of the lack of data to address disparities.

“Additional research is needed to determine whether the higher in-hospital mortality among Blacks is related to biological differences such as differential rates of disease progression, or social differences such as access to outpatient care,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Volk had no relevant financial conflicts to disclose.

Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic therapies continue to be largely reserved for patients who already have adherence issues. But most patients, including first-episode patients, should be considering drugs with this mode of delivery for their broad array of advantages, according to an overview presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

“Due to the perception that long-acting injectables are for coercive applications, patients are not hearing about the many reasons this option might be preferable,” reported Diana Perkins, MD, MPH, professor, department of psychiatry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

According to Dr. Perkins, patients starting treatment for first-episode schizophrenia are particularly unlikely to even hear about injectable therapies even though “these might be the best candidates.”

The advantage of LAI in first-episode patients is that it takes adherence off the table as a risk for treatment failure. Ultimately, many patients educated about LAI in the context of other options, prefer LAI, according to Dr. Perkins, and she provided data to support these assertions.

Of several published articles reporting that patients fail to discuss LAI with patients, one was published last year (J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2020 Jul/Aug;40:346-9). For evidence that patients prefer LAI over pills for antipsychotic treatment, Dr. Perkins cited a study with data from more than 1,400 patients (Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020;14:1093-102).

In this latter analysis, 77% of patients preferred LAI over pills, Dr. Perkins reported at the virtual meeting, presented by MedscapeLive. Moreover, 50% of patients preferred every-3-month injections over monthly injections. For those who preferred LAI, the reasons included the convenience of avoiding daily therapy but also the empowerment derived from feeling healthier from not having to depend on a daily schedule of treatment.
 

LAI has benefits independent of adherence

“Some patients prefer injectables because the daily pills remind them of their illness even when they are feeling well,” Dr. Perkins said.

By eliminating pills and pill bottles, injections also provide a certain degree of confidentiality, said Dr. Perkins. She said that LAI, which avoids the peaks and troughs inherent in pill taking, provides more consistent drug levels even to the degree that doses can sometimes be lowered and adverse events reduced.

Yet, of all the reasons that patients might want to consider LAI, the most compelling is a lower risk of failure from inadequate adherence to daily pills. The evidence that patients do not take daily pills for chronic diseases, whether schizophrenia or any other illness that requires maintenance regimens for persistent disease control, is extensive and overwhelming, according to Dr. Perkins, who cited multiple studies.

For schizophrenia, with a relapsing and remitting pattern of symptoms, poor adherence is a particular risk. When symptoms abate, the cue and motivation for adherence dissipates.

“Most patients with schizophrenia already have some ambivalence about taking their medication. Symptoms are a powerful reminder, but people just forget when the treatment is for prevention,” Dr. Perkins said.

When patients forget their daily pills or when the they decide to skip doses when they feel well, they do not necessarily tell their physicians.
 

Poor adherence often goes unrecognized

“Clinicians are not very good at estimating adherence in their patients,” Dr. Perkins said. While she listed several strategies to help patients adhere to daily pills, she also said that LAI should not be discounted as a means to circumvent this problem altogether.

Importantly, suboptimal adherence by itself places the patient at a high risk for relapse. In one study of partial adherence, delayed doses were associated with increased risk of hospitalization overall, but each increment in further delay led to still more risk (Psychiatr Serv. 2004;55:886-91).

Imperfect adherence to daily pills is very common. In one study evaluating 34,000 veterans with schizophrenia, the proportion with consistently good adherence over the 12 months of study was not quite 40% (J Clin Psychiatry. 2006 Oct;67[10]:1542-50). While most of the remaining were intermittently adherent, more than 15% of the populations was consistently poorly adherent.
 

Simple regimens and adherence closely linked

In general, the simpler the regimen, the greater the adherence, according to Dr. Perkins. For oral therapies, one pill per day is associated with greater adherence than is more than one. LAI, which is even simpler, is consistently associated with a large relative advantage. In one comparative study, 77% were adherent to LAI versus about 30% (P < .001) over a period of 12 months (Ment Health Clin. 2018 Mar 26;8[2]:56-62).

In a large recently published meta-analysis, LAI was associated with objective advantages over oral therapy (Lancet Psychiatry. 2021 May 1;8:[5]387-404). This included a statistically significant lower risk of hospitalizations or relapses for LAI over oral therapy whether the two modes of delivery were compared in randomized controls studies (RR 0.88; P = .033) or cohort studies (RR 0.92; P = .0044).

Overall, clinicians should discard several false assumptions about LAI, including the fact they are not appropriate in first-episode disease and that patients will not elect to take LAI if informed of the choices, according to Dr. Perkins. Rather than just listing LAI among options, Dr. Perkins suggested that clinicians should specifically explain the many advantages.

“When people say I do not like shots, this is not necessarily a no,” she said. If patients understand the potential for a reduced risk of relapse without having to take a daily pill, injections might be preferable whether or not they like shots in particular.

This is not an isolated view among experienced physicians. John M. Kane, MD, chairman of psychiatry, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, N.Y., also sees LAI as method of drug delivery that should be considered widely in schizophrenia.

“I am in complete agreement with Dr. Perkins that long-acting injectable formulations of antipsychotic medications should be presented routinely to patients and families as an option for illness management and relapse prevention,” said Dr. Kane, who was a coauthor of the meta-analysis published in Lancet Psychiatry.

“This would include patients early in the course of illness who currently have an unnecessarily high risk of relapse and hospitalization,” he added.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Perkins has a financial relationship with Alkermes. Dr. Kane has financial relationships with Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Otsuka, Pfizer, and Wyeth.

Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic therapies continue to be largely reserved for patients who already have adherence issues. But most patients, including first-episode patients, should be considering drugs with this mode of delivery for their broad array of advantages, according to an overview presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

“Due to the perception that long-acting injectables are for coercive applications, patients are not hearing about the many reasons this option might be preferable,” reported Diana Perkins, MD, MPH, professor, department of psychiatry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

According to Dr. Perkins, patients starting treatment for first-episode schizophrenia are particularly unlikely to even hear about injectable therapies even though “these might be the best candidates.”

The advantage of LAI in first-episode patients is that it takes adherence off the table as a risk for treatment failure. Ultimately, many patients educated about LAI in the context of other options, prefer LAI, according to Dr. Perkins, and she provided data to support these assertions.

Of several published articles reporting that patients fail to discuss LAI with patients, one was published last year (J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2020 Jul/Aug;40:346-9). For evidence that patients prefer LAI over pills for antipsychotic treatment, Dr. Perkins cited a study with data from more than 1,400 patients (Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020;14:1093-102).

In this latter analysis, 77% of patients preferred LAI over pills, Dr. Perkins reported at the virtual meeting, presented by MedscapeLive. Moreover, 50% of patients preferred every-3-month injections over monthly injections. For those who preferred LAI, the reasons included the convenience of avoiding daily therapy but also the empowerment derived from feeling healthier from not having to depend on a daily schedule of treatment.
 

LAI has benefits independent of adherence

“Some patients prefer injectables because the daily pills remind them of their illness even when they are feeling well,” Dr. Perkins said.

By eliminating pills and pill bottles, injections also provide a certain degree of confidentiality, said Dr. Perkins. She said that LAI, which avoids the peaks and troughs inherent in pill taking, provides more consistent drug levels even to the degree that doses can sometimes be lowered and adverse events reduced.

Yet, of all the reasons that patients might want to consider LAI, the most compelling is a lower risk of failure from inadequate adherence to daily pills. The evidence that patients do not take daily pills for chronic diseases, whether schizophrenia or any other illness that requires maintenance regimens for persistent disease control, is extensive and overwhelming, according to Dr. Perkins, who cited multiple studies.

For schizophrenia, with a relapsing and remitting pattern of symptoms, poor adherence is a particular risk. When symptoms abate, the cue and motivation for adherence dissipates.

“Most patients with schizophrenia already have some ambivalence about taking their medication. Symptoms are a powerful reminder, but people just forget when the treatment is for prevention,” Dr. Perkins said.

When patients forget their daily pills or when the they decide to skip doses when they feel well, they do not necessarily tell their physicians.
 

Poor adherence often goes unrecognized

“Clinicians are not very good at estimating adherence in their patients,” Dr. Perkins said. While she listed several strategies to help patients adhere to daily pills, she also said that LAI should not be discounted as a means to circumvent this problem altogether.

Importantly, suboptimal adherence by itself places the patient at a high risk for relapse. In one study of partial adherence, delayed doses were associated with increased risk of hospitalization overall, but each increment in further delay led to still more risk (Psychiatr Serv. 2004;55:886-91).

Imperfect adherence to daily pills is very common. In one study evaluating 34,000 veterans with schizophrenia, the proportion with consistently good adherence over the 12 months of study was not quite 40% (J Clin Psychiatry. 2006 Oct;67[10]:1542-50). While most of the remaining were intermittently adherent, more than 15% of the populations was consistently poorly adherent.
 

Simple regimens and adherence closely linked

In general, the simpler the regimen, the greater the adherence, according to Dr. Perkins. For oral therapies, one pill per day is associated with greater adherence than is more than one. LAI, which is even simpler, is consistently associated with a large relative advantage. In one comparative study, 77% were adherent to LAI versus about 30% (P < .001) over a period of 12 months (Ment Health Clin. 2018 Mar 26;8[2]:56-62).

In a large recently published meta-analysis, LAI was associated with objective advantages over oral therapy (Lancet Psychiatry. 2021 May 1;8:[5]387-404). This included a statistically significant lower risk of hospitalizations or relapses for LAI over oral therapy whether the two modes of delivery were compared in randomized controls studies (RR 0.88; P = .033) or cohort studies (RR 0.92; P = .0044).

Overall, clinicians should discard several false assumptions about LAI, including the fact they are not appropriate in first-episode disease and that patients will not elect to take LAI if informed of the choices, according to Dr. Perkins. Rather than just listing LAI among options, Dr. Perkins suggested that clinicians should specifically explain the many advantages.

“When people say I do not like shots, this is not necessarily a no,” she said. If patients understand the potential for a reduced risk of relapse without having to take a daily pill, injections might be preferable whether or not they like shots in particular.

This is not an isolated view among experienced physicians. John M. Kane, MD, chairman of psychiatry, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, N.Y., also sees LAI as method of drug delivery that should be considered widely in schizophrenia.

“I am in complete agreement with Dr. Perkins that long-acting injectable formulations of antipsychotic medications should be presented routinely to patients and families as an option for illness management and relapse prevention,” said Dr. Kane, who was a coauthor of the meta-analysis published in Lancet Psychiatry.

“This would include patients early in the course of illness who currently have an unnecessarily high risk of relapse and hospitalization,” he added.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Perkins has a financial relationship with Alkermes. Dr. Kane has financial relationships with Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Otsuka, Pfizer, and Wyeth.

Long-acting injectable (LAI) antipsychotic therapies continue to be largely reserved for patients who already have adherence issues. But most patients, including first-episode patients, should be considering drugs with this mode of delivery for their broad array of advantages, according to an overview presented by Current Psychiatry and the American Academy of Clinical Psychiatrists.

“Due to the perception that long-acting injectables are for coercive applications, patients are not hearing about the many reasons this option might be preferable,” reported Diana Perkins, MD, MPH, professor, department of psychiatry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

According to Dr. Perkins, patients starting treatment for first-episode schizophrenia are particularly unlikely to even hear about injectable therapies even though “these might be the best candidates.”

The advantage of LAI in first-episode patients is that it takes adherence off the table as a risk for treatment failure. Ultimately, many patients educated about LAI in the context of other options, prefer LAI, according to Dr. Perkins, and she provided data to support these assertions.

Of several published articles reporting that patients fail to discuss LAI with patients, one was published last year (J Clin Psychopharmacol. 2020 Jul/Aug;40:346-9). For evidence that patients prefer LAI over pills for antipsychotic treatment, Dr. Perkins cited a study with data from more than 1,400 patients (Patient Prefer Adherence. 2020;14:1093-102).

In this latter analysis, 77% of patients preferred LAI over pills, Dr. Perkins reported at the virtual meeting, presented by MedscapeLive. Moreover, 50% of patients preferred every-3-month injections over monthly injections. For those who preferred LAI, the reasons included the convenience of avoiding daily therapy but also the empowerment derived from feeling healthier from not having to depend on a daily schedule of treatment.
 

LAI has benefits independent of adherence

“Some patients prefer injectables because the daily pills remind them of their illness even when they are feeling well,” Dr. Perkins said.

By eliminating pills and pill bottles, injections also provide a certain degree of confidentiality, said Dr. Perkins. She said that LAI, which avoids the peaks and troughs inherent in pill taking, provides more consistent drug levels even to the degree that doses can sometimes be lowered and adverse events reduced.

Yet, of all the reasons that patients might want to consider LAI, the most compelling is a lower risk of failure from inadequate adherence to daily pills. The evidence that patients do not take daily pills for chronic diseases, whether schizophrenia or any other illness that requires maintenance regimens for persistent disease control, is extensive and overwhelming, according to Dr. Perkins, who cited multiple studies.

For schizophrenia, with a relapsing and remitting pattern of symptoms, poor adherence is a particular risk. When symptoms abate, the cue and motivation for adherence dissipates.

“Most patients with schizophrenia already have some ambivalence about taking their medication. Symptoms are a powerful reminder, but people just forget when the treatment is for prevention,” Dr. Perkins said.

When patients forget their daily pills or when the they decide to skip doses when they feel well, they do not necessarily tell their physicians.
 

Poor adherence often goes unrecognized

“Clinicians are not very good at estimating adherence in their patients,” Dr. Perkins said. While she listed several strategies to help patients adhere to daily pills, she also said that LAI should not be discounted as a means to circumvent this problem altogether.

Importantly, suboptimal adherence by itself places the patient at a high risk for relapse. In one study of partial adherence, delayed doses were associated with increased risk of hospitalization overall, but each increment in further delay led to still more risk (Psychiatr Serv. 2004;55:886-91).

Imperfect adherence to daily pills is very common. In one study evaluating 34,000 veterans with schizophrenia, the proportion with consistently good adherence over the 12 months of study was not quite 40% (J Clin Psychiatry. 2006 Oct;67[10]:1542-50). While most of the remaining were intermittently adherent, more than 15% of the populations was consistently poorly adherent.
 

Simple regimens and adherence closely linked

In general, the simpler the regimen, the greater the adherence, according to Dr. Perkins. For oral therapies, one pill per day is associated with greater adherence than is more than one. LAI, which is even simpler, is consistently associated with a large relative advantage. In one comparative study, 77% were adherent to LAI versus about 30% (P < .001) over a period of 12 months (Ment Health Clin. 2018 Mar 26;8[2]:56-62).

In a large recently published meta-analysis, LAI was associated with objective advantages over oral therapy (Lancet Psychiatry. 2021 May 1;8:[5]387-404). This included a statistically significant lower risk of hospitalizations or relapses for LAI over oral therapy whether the two modes of delivery were compared in randomized controls studies (RR 0.88; P = .033) or cohort studies (RR 0.92; P = .0044).

Overall, clinicians should discard several false assumptions about LAI, including the fact they are not appropriate in first-episode disease and that patients will not elect to take LAI if informed of the choices, according to Dr. Perkins. Rather than just listing LAI among options, Dr. Perkins suggested that clinicians should specifically explain the many advantages.

“When people say I do not like shots, this is not necessarily a no,” she said. If patients understand the potential for a reduced risk of relapse without having to take a daily pill, injections might be preferable whether or not they like shots in particular.

This is not an isolated view among experienced physicians. John M. Kane, MD, chairman of psychiatry, Zucker Hillside Hospital, Northwell Health, Glen Oaks, N.Y., also sees LAI as method of drug delivery that should be considered widely in schizophrenia.

“I am in complete agreement with Dr. Perkins that long-acting injectable formulations of antipsychotic medications should be presented routinely to patients and families as an option for illness management and relapse prevention,” said Dr. Kane, who was a coauthor of the meta-analysis published in Lancet Psychiatry.

“This would include patients early in the course of illness who currently have an unnecessarily high risk of relapse and hospitalization,” he added.

MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Perkins has a financial relationship with Alkermes. Dr. Kane has financial relationships with Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, Lilly, Otsuka, Pfizer, and Wyeth.