MDedge Psychiatry

More mental and/or substance use disorders are ranked among the top-five diagnoses for hospitalized men and women aged 18-44 years than for any other age group, according to a recent report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

In 2018, schizophrenia spectrum/other psychotic disorder was the leading primary diagnosis for inpatient stays (251.2 per 100,000 population) in men aged 18-44, while depressive disorders were the third-most common (195.0 stays per 100,000) and alcohol-related disorders were fifth at 153.2 per 100,000, Kimberly W. McDermott, PhD, and Marc Roemer, MS, said in an AHRQ statistical brief.

Prevalence was somewhat lower in women aged 18-44 years, with two mental illnesses appearing among the top five nonmaternal diagnoses: Depressive disorders were second at 222.5 stays per 100,000 and bipolar and related disorders were fourth at 142.0 per 100,000. The leading primary diagnosis in women in 2018 was septicemia, which was the most common cause overall in the age group at a rate of 279.3 per 100,000, the investigators reported.

There were no mental and/or substance use disorders in the top five primary diagnoses for any of the other adult age groups – 45-64, 65-74, and ≥75 – included in the report. Septicemia was the leading diagnosis for men in all three groups and for women in two of three (45-64 and ≥75), with osteoarthritis first among women aged 65-74 years, they said.

There was one mental illness among the top-five diagnoses for children under age 18 years, as depressive disorders were the most common reason for stays in girls (176.6 per 100,000 population) and the fifth most common for boys (74.0 per 100,000), said Dr. McDermott of IBM Watson Health and Mr. Roemer of AHRQ.

Septicemia was the leading nonmaternal, nonneonatal diagnosis for all inpatient stays and all ages in 2018 with a rate of 679.5 per 100,000, followed by heart failure (347.9), osteoarthritis (345.5), pneumonia not related to tuberculosis (226.8), and diabetes mellitus (207.8), based on data from the National Inpatient Sample.

Depressive disorders were most common mental health diagnosis in those admitted to hospitals and the 12th most common diagnosis overall; schizophrenia, in 16th place overall, was the only other mental illness among the top 20, the investigators said.

“This information can help establish national health priorities, initiatives, and action plans,” Dr. McDermott and Mr. Roemer wrote, and “at the hospital level, administrators can use diagnosis-related information to inform planning and resource allocation, such as optimizing subspecialty services or units for the care of high-priority conditions.”

[email protected]

More mental and/or substance use disorders are ranked among the top-five diagnoses for hospitalized men and women aged 18-44 years than for any other age group, according to a recent report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

In 2018, schizophrenia spectrum/other psychotic disorder was the leading primary diagnosis for inpatient stays (251.2 per 100,000 population) in men aged 18-44, while depressive disorders were the third-most common (195.0 stays per 100,000) and alcohol-related disorders were fifth at 153.2 per 100,000, Kimberly W. McDermott, PhD, and Marc Roemer, MS, said in an AHRQ statistical brief.

Prevalence was somewhat lower in women aged 18-44 years, with two mental illnesses appearing among the top five nonmaternal diagnoses: Depressive disorders were second at 222.5 stays per 100,000 and bipolar and related disorders were fourth at 142.0 per 100,000. The leading primary diagnosis in women in 2018 was septicemia, which was the most common cause overall in the age group at a rate of 279.3 per 100,000, the investigators reported.

There were no mental and/or substance use disorders in the top five primary diagnoses for any of the other adult age groups – 45-64, 65-74, and ≥75 – included in the report. Septicemia was the leading diagnosis for men in all three groups and for women in two of three (45-64 and ≥75), with osteoarthritis first among women aged 65-74 years, they said.

There was one mental illness among the top-five diagnoses for children under age 18 years, as depressive disorders were the most common reason for stays in girls (176.6 per 100,000 population) and the fifth most common for boys (74.0 per 100,000), said Dr. McDermott of IBM Watson Health and Mr. Roemer of AHRQ.

Septicemia was the leading nonmaternal, nonneonatal diagnosis for all inpatient stays and all ages in 2018 with a rate of 679.5 per 100,000, followed by heart failure (347.9), osteoarthritis (345.5), pneumonia not related to tuberculosis (226.8), and diabetes mellitus (207.8), based on data from the National Inpatient Sample.

Depressive disorders were most common mental health diagnosis in those admitted to hospitals and the 12th most common diagnosis overall; schizophrenia, in 16th place overall, was the only other mental illness among the top 20, the investigators said.

“This information can help establish national health priorities, initiatives, and action plans,” Dr. McDermott and Mr. Roemer wrote, and “at the hospital level, administrators can use diagnosis-related information to inform planning and resource allocation, such as optimizing subspecialty services or units for the care of high-priority conditions.”

[email protected]

More mental and/or substance use disorders are ranked among the top-five diagnoses for hospitalized men and women aged 18-44 years than for any other age group, according to a recent report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

In 2018, schizophrenia spectrum/other psychotic disorder was the leading primary diagnosis for inpatient stays (251.2 per 100,000 population) in men aged 18-44, while depressive disorders were the third-most common (195.0 stays per 100,000) and alcohol-related disorders were fifth at 153.2 per 100,000, Kimberly W. McDermott, PhD, and Marc Roemer, MS, said in an AHRQ statistical brief.

Prevalence was somewhat lower in women aged 18-44 years, with two mental illnesses appearing among the top five nonmaternal diagnoses: Depressive disorders were second at 222.5 stays per 100,000 and bipolar and related disorders were fourth at 142.0 per 100,000. The leading primary diagnosis in women in 2018 was septicemia, which was the most common cause overall in the age group at a rate of 279.3 per 100,000, the investigators reported.

There were no mental and/or substance use disorders in the top five primary diagnoses for any of the other adult age groups – 45-64, 65-74, and ≥75 – included in the report. Septicemia was the leading diagnosis for men in all three groups and for women in two of three (45-64 and ≥75), with osteoarthritis first among women aged 65-74 years, they said.

There was one mental illness among the top-five diagnoses for children under age 18 years, as depressive disorders were the most common reason for stays in girls (176.6 per 100,000 population) and the fifth most common for boys (74.0 per 100,000), said Dr. McDermott of IBM Watson Health and Mr. Roemer of AHRQ.

Septicemia was the leading nonmaternal, nonneonatal diagnosis for all inpatient stays and all ages in 2018 with a rate of 679.5 per 100,000, followed by heart failure (347.9), osteoarthritis (345.5), pneumonia not related to tuberculosis (226.8), and diabetes mellitus (207.8), based on data from the National Inpatient Sample.

Depressive disorders were most common mental health diagnosis in those admitted to hospitals and the 12th most common diagnosis overall; schizophrenia, in 16th place overall, was the only other mental illness among the top 20, the investigators said.

“This information can help establish national health priorities, initiatives, and action plans,” Dr. McDermott and Mr. Roemer wrote, and “at the hospital level, administrators can use diagnosis-related information to inform planning and resource allocation, such as optimizing subspecialty services or units for the care of high-priority conditions.”

[email protected]

Sleep patterns may influence risk of dementia, even decades before the onset of symptoms, according to a new analysis of data from the Whitehall II cohort study.

Previous work had identified links between short sleep duration and dementia risk, but few studies examined sleep habits long before onset of dementia. Those that did produced inconsistent results, according to Séverine Sabia, PhD, who is a research associate at Inserm (France) and the University College London.

“One potential reason for these inconstancies is the large range of ages of the study populations, and the small number of participants within each sleep duration group. The novelty of our study is to examine this association among almost 8,000 participants with a follow-up of 30 years, using repeated measures of sleep duration starting in midlife to consider sleep duration at specific ages,” Dr. Sabia said in an interview. She presented the research at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Those previous studies found a U-shaped association between sleep duration and dementia risk, with lowest risk associated with 7-8 hours of sleep, but greater risk for shorter and longer durations. However, because the studies had follow-up periods shorter than 10 years, they are at greater risk of reverse causation bias. Longer follow-up studies tended to have small sample sizes or to focus on older adults.

The longer follow-up in the current study makes for a more compelling case, said Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of Scientific Programs & Outreach for the Alzheimer’s Association. Observations of short or long sleep closer to the onset of symptoms could just be a warning sign of dementia. “But looking at age 50, age 60 ... if you’re seeing those relationships, then it’s less likely that it is just purely prodromal,” said Dr. Sexton. But it still doesn’t necessarily confirm causation. “It could also be a risk factor,” Dr. Sexton added.
 

Multifactorial risk

Dr. Sabia also noted that the magnitude of risk was similar to that seen with smoking or obesity, and many factors play a role in dementia risk. “Even if the risk of dementia was 30% higher in those with persistent short sleep duration, in absolute terms, the percentage of those with persistent short duration who developed dementia was 8%, and 6% in those with persistent sleep duration of 7 hours. Dementia is a multifactorial disease, which means that several factors are likely to influence its onset. Sleep duration is one of them, but if a person has poor sleep and does not manage to increase it, there are other important prevention measures. It is important to keep a healthy lifestyle and cardiometabolic measures in the normal range. All together it is likely to be beneficial for brain health in later life,” she said.

Dr. Sexton agreed. “With sleep we’re still trying to tease apart what aspect of sleep is important. Is it the sleep duration? Is it the quality of sleep? Is it certain sleep stages?” she said.

Regardless of sleep’s potential influence on dementia risk, both Dr. Sexton and Dr. Sabia noted the importance of sleep for general health. “These types of problems are very prevalent, so it’s good for people to be aware of them. And then if they notice any problems with their sleep, or any changes, to go and see their health care provider, and to be discussing them, and then to be investigating the cause, and to see whether changes in sleep hygiene and treatments for insomnia could address these sleep problems,” said Dr. Sexton.
 

Decades of data

During the Whitehall II study, researchers assessed average sleep duration (“How many hours of sleep do you have on an average weeknight?”) six times over 30 years of follow-up. Dr. Sabia’s group extracted self-reported sleep duration data at ages 50, 60, and 70. Short sleep duration was defined as fewer than 5 hours, or 6 hours. Normal sleep duration was defined as 7 hours. Long duration was defined as 8 hours or more.

A questioner during the Q&A period noted that this grouping is a little unusual. Many studies define 7-8 hours as normal. Dr. Sabia answered that they were unable to examine periods of 9 hours or more due to the nature of the data, and the lowest associated risk was found at 7 hours.

The researchers analyzed data from 7,959 participants (33.0% women). At age 50, compared with 7 hours of sleep, 6 or few hours of sleep was associated with a higher risk of dementia over the ensuing 25 years of follow-up (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.48). The same was true at age 60 (15 years of follow-up HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.10-1.72). There was a trend at age 70 (8 years follow-up; HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.98-1.57). For 8 or more hours of sleep, there were trends toward increased risk at age 50 (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.98-1.60). Long sleep at age 60 and 70 was associated with heightened risk, but the confidence intervals were well outside statistical significance.

Twenty percent of participants had persistent short sleep over the course of follow-up, 37% had persistent normal sleep, and 7% had persistent long sleep. Seven percent of participants experienced a change from normal sleep to short sleep, 16% had a change from short sleep to normal sleep, and 13% had a change from normal sleep to long sleep.

Persistent short sleep between age 50 and 70 was associated with a 30% increased risk of dementia (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.00-1.69). There were no statistically significant associations between dementia risk and any of the changing sleep pattern groups.

Dr. Sabia and Dr. Sexton have no relevant financial disclosures.

Sleep patterns may influence risk of dementia, even decades before the onset of symptoms, according to a new analysis of data from the Whitehall II cohort study.

Previous work had identified links between short sleep duration and dementia risk, but few studies examined sleep habits long before onset of dementia. Those that did produced inconsistent results, according to Séverine Sabia, PhD, who is a research associate at Inserm (France) and the University College London.

“One potential reason for these inconstancies is the large range of ages of the study populations, and the small number of participants within each sleep duration group. The novelty of our study is to examine this association among almost 8,000 participants with a follow-up of 30 years, using repeated measures of sleep duration starting in midlife to consider sleep duration at specific ages,” Dr. Sabia said in an interview. She presented the research at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Those previous studies found a U-shaped association between sleep duration and dementia risk, with lowest risk associated with 7-8 hours of sleep, but greater risk for shorter and longer durations. However, because the studies had follow-up periods shorter than 10 years, they are at greater risk of reverse causation bias. Longer follow-up studies tended to have small sample sizes or to focus on older adults.

The longer follow-up in the current study makes for a more compelling case, said Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of Scientific Programs & Outreach for the Alzheimer’s Association. Observations of short or long sleep closer to the onset of symptoms could just be a warning sign of dementia. “But looking at age 50, age 60 ... if you’re seeing those relationships, then it’s less likely that it is just purely prodromal,” said Dr. Sexton. But it still doesn’t necessarily confirm causation. “It could also be a risk factor,” Dr. Sexton added.
 

Multifactorial risk

Dr. Sabia also noted that the magnitude of risk was similar to that seen with smoking or obesity, and many factors play a role in dementia risk. “Even if the risk of dementia was 30% higher in those with persistent short sleep duration, in absolute terms, the percentage of those with persistent short duration who developed dementia was 8%, and 6% in those with persistent sleep duration of 7 hours. Dementia is a multifactorial disease, which means that several factors are likely to influence its onset. Sleep duration is one of them, but if a person has poor sleep and does not manage to increase it, there are other important prevention measures. It is important to keep a healthy lifestyle and cardiometabolic measures in the normal range. All together it is likely to be beneficial for brain health in later life,” she said.

Dr. Sexton agreed. “With sleep we’re still trying to tease apart what aspect of sleep is important. Is it the sleep duration? Is it the quality of sleep? Is it certain sleep stages?” she said.

Regardless of sleep’s potential influence on dementia risk, both Dr. Sexton and Dr. Sabia noted the importance of sleep for general health. “These types of problems are very prevalent, so it’s good for people to be aware of them. And then if they notice any problems with their sleep, or any changes, to go and see their health care provider, and to be discussing them, and then to be investigating the cause, and to see whether changes in sleep hygiene and treatments for insomnia could address these sleep problems,” said Dr. Sexton.
 

Decades of data

During the Whitehall II study, researchers assessed average sleep duration (“How many hours of sleep do you have on an average weeknight?”) six times over 30 years of follow-up. Dr. Sabia’s group extracted self-reported sleep duration data at ages 50, 60, and 70. Short sleep duration was defined as fewer than 5 hours, or 6 hours. Normal sleep duration was defined as 7 hours. Long duration was defined as 8 hours or more.

A questioner during the Q&A period noted that this grouping is a little unusual. Many studies define 7-8 hours as normal. Dr. Sabia answered that they were unable to examine periods of 9 hours or more due to the nature of the data, and the lowest associated risk was found at 7 hours.

The researchers analyzed data from 7,959 participants (33.0% women). At age 50, compared with 7 hours of sleep, 6 or few hours of sleep was associated with a higher risk of dementia over the ensuing 25 years of follow-up (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.48). The same was true at age 60 (15 years of follow-up HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.10-1.72). There was a trend at age 70 (8 years follow-up; HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.98-1.57). For 8 or more hours of sleep, there were trends toward increased risk at age 50 (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.98-1.60). Long sleep at age 60 and 70 was associated with heightened risk, but the confidence intervals were well outside statistical significance.

Twenty percent of participants had persistent short sleep over the course of follow-up, 37% had persistent normal sleep, and 7% had persistent long sleep. Seven percent of participants experienced a change from normal sleep to short sleep, 16% had a change from short sleep to normal sleep, and 13% had a change from normal sleep to long sleep.

Persistent short sleep between age 50 and 70 was associated with a 30% increased risk of dementia (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.00-1.69). There were no statistically significant associations between dementia risk and any of the changing sleep pattern groups.

Dr. Sabia and Dr. Sexton have no relevant financial disclosures.

Sleep patterns may influence risk of dementia, even decades before the onset of symptoms, according to a new analysis of data from the Whitehall II cohort study.

Previous work had identified links between short sleep duration and dementia risk, but few studies examined sleep habits long before onset of dementia. Those that did produced inconsistent results, according to Séverine Sabia, PhD, who is a research associate at Inserm (France) and the University College London.

“One potential reason for these inconstancies is the large range of ages of the study populations, and the small number of participants within each sleep duration group. The novelty of our study is to examine this association among almost 8,000 participants with a follow-up of 30 years, using repeated measures of sleep duration starting in midlife to consider sleep duration at specific ages,” Dr. Sabia said in an interview. She presented the research at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Those previous studies found a U-shaped association between sleep duration and dementia risk, with lowest risk associated with 7-8 hours of sleep, but greater risk for shorter and longer durations. However, because the studies had follow-up periods shorter than 10 years, they are at greater risk of reverse causation bias. Longer follow-up studies tended to have small sample sizes or to focus on older adults.

The longer follow-up in the current study makes for a more compelling case, said Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of Scientific Programs & Outreach for the Alzheimer’s Association. Observations of short or long sleep closer to the onset of symptoms could just be a warning sign of dementia. “But looking at age 50, age 60 ... if you’re seeing those relationships, then it’s less likely that it is just purely prodromal,” said Dr. Sexton. But it still doesn’t necessarily confirm causation. “It could also be a risk factor,” Dr. Sexton added.
 

Multifactorial risk

Dr. Sabia also noted that the magnitude of risk was similar to that seen with smoking or obesity, and many factors play a role in dementia risk. “Even if the risk of dementia was 30% higher in those with persistent short sleep duration, in absolute terms, the percentage of those with persistent short duration who developed dementia was 8%, and 6% in those with persistent sleep duration of 7 hours. Dementia is a multifactorial disease, which means that several factors are likely to influence its onset. Sleep duration is one of them, but if a person has poor sleep and does not manage to increase it, there are other important prevention measures. It is important to keep a healthy lifestyle and cardiometabolic measures in the normal range. All together it is likely to be beneficial for brain health in later life,” she said.

Dr. Sexton agreed. “With sleep we’re still trying to tease apart what aspect of sleep is important. Is it the sleep duration? Is it the quality of sleep? Is it certain sleep stages?” she said.

Regardless of sleep’s potential influence on dementia risk, both Dr. Sexton and Dr. Sabia noted the importance of sleep for general health. “These types of problems are very prevalent, so it’s good for people to be aware of them. And then if they notice any problems with their sleep, or any changes, to go and see their health care provider, and to be discussing them, and then to be investigating the cause, and to see whether changes in sleep hygiene and treatments for insomnia could address these sleep problems,” said Dr. Sexton.
 

Decades of data

During the Whitehall II study, researchers assessed average sleep duration (“How many hours of sleep do you have on an average weeknight?”) six times over 30 years of follow-up. Dr. Sabia’s group extracted self-reported sleep duration data at ages 50, 60, and 70. Short sleep duration was defined as fewer than 5 hours, or 6 hours. Normal sleep duration was defined as 7 hours. Long duration was defined as 8 hours or more.

A questioner during the Q&A period noted that this grouping is a little unusual. Many studies define 7-8 hours as normal. Dr. Sabia answered that they were unable to examine periods of 9 hours or more due to the nature of the data, and the lowest associated risk was found at 7 hours.

The researchers analyzed data from 7,959 participants (33.0% women). At age 50, compared with 7 hours of sleep, 6 or few hours of sleep was associated with a higher risk of dementia over the ensuing 25 years of follow-up (hazard ratio [HR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.48). The same was true at age 60 (15 years of follow-up HR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.10-1.72). There was a trend at age 70 (8 years follow-up; HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.98-1.57). For 8 or more hours of sleep, there were trends toward increased risk at age 50 (HR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.98-1.60). Long sleep at age 60 and 70 was associated with heightened risk, but the confidence intervals were well outside statistical significance.

Twenty percent of participants had persistent short sleep over the course of follow-up, 37% had persistent normal sleep, and 7% had persistent long sleep. Seven percent of participants experienced a change from normal sleep to short sleep, 16% had a change from short sleep to normal sleep, and 13% had a change from normal sleep to long sleep.

Persistent short sleep between age 50 and 70 was associated with a 30% increased risk of dementia (HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.00-1.69). There were no statistically significant associations between dementia risk and any of the changing sleep pattern groups.

Dr. Sabia and Dr. Sexton have no relevant financial disclosures.

More children admitted to hospitals in 2018 had acute bronchitis than any other diagnosis, according to a recent report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

About 7% (99,000) of the 1.47 million nonmaternal, nonneonatal hospital stays in children aged 0-17 years involved a primary diagnosis of acute bronchitis in 2018, representing the leading cause of admissions in boys (154.7 stays per 100,000 population) and the second-leading diagnosis in girls (113.1 stays per 100,000), Kimberly W. McDermott, PhD, and Marc Roemer, MS, said in a statistical brief.

Depressive disorders were the most common primary diagnosis in girls, with a rate of 176.7 stays per 100,000, and the second-leading diagnosis overall, although the rate was less than half that (74.0 per 100,000) in boys. Two other respiratory conditions, asthma and pneumonia, were among the top five for both girls and boys, as was epilepsy, they reported.

The combined rate for all diagnoses was slightly higher for boys, 2,051 per 100,000, compared with 1,922 for girls, they said based on data from the National Inpatient Sample.

“Identifying the most frequent primary conditions for which patients are admitted to the hospital is important to the implementation and improvement of health care delivery, quality initiatives, and health policy,” said Dr. McDermott of IBM Watson Health and Mr. Roemer of the AHRQ.

[email protected]

More children admitted to hospitals in 2018 had acute bronchitis than any other diagnosis, according to a recent report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

About 7% (99,000) of the 1.47 million nonmaternal, nonneonatal hospital stays in children aged 0-17 years involved a primary diagnosis of acute bronchitis in 2018, representing the leading cause of admissions in boys (154.7 stays per 100,000 population) and the second-leading diagnosis in girls (113.1 stays per 100,000), Kimberly W. McDermott, PhD, and Marc Roemer, MS, said in a statistical brief.

Depressive disorders were the most common primary diagnosis in girls, with a rate of 176.7 stays per 100,000, and the second-leading diagnosis overall, although the rate was less than half that (74.0 per 100,000) in boys. Two other respiratory conditions, asthma and pneumonia, were among the top five for both girls and boys, as was epilepsy, they reported.

The combined rate for all diagnoses was slightly higher for boys, 2,051 per 100,000, compared with 1,922 for girls, they said based on data from the National Inpatient Sample.

“Identifying the most frequent primary conditions for which patients are admitted to the hospital is important to the implementation and improvement of health care delivery, quality initiatives, and health policy,” said Dr. McDermott of IBM Watson Health and Mr. Roemer of the AHRQ.

[email protected]

More children admitted to hospitals in 2018 had acute bronchitis than any other diagnosis, according to a recent report from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

About 7% (99,000) of the 1.47 million nonmaternal, nonneonatal hospital stays in children aged 0-17 years involved a primary diagnosis of acute bronchitis in 2018, representing the leading cause of admissions in boys (154.7 stays per 100,000 population) and the second-leading diagnosis in girls (113.1 stays per 100,000), Kimberly W. McDermott, PhD, and Marc Roemer, MS, said in a statistical brief.

Depressive disorders were the most common primary diagnosis in girls, with a rate of 176.7 stays per 100,000, and the second-leading diagnosis overall, although the rate was less than half that (74.0 per 100,000) in boys. Two other respiratory conditions, asthma and pneumonia, were among the top five for both girls and boys, as was epilepsy, they reported.

The combined rate for all diagnoses was slightly higher for boys, 2,051 per 100,000, compared with 1,922 for girls, they said based on data from the National Inpatient Sample.

“Identifying the most frequent primary conditions for which patients are admitted to the hospital is important to the implementation and improvement of health care delivery, quality initiatives, and health policy,” said Dr. McDermott of IBM Watson Health and Mr. Roemer of the AHRQ.

[email protected]

After Sept. 11, 2001, and the subsequent long war in Iraq and Afghanistan, both mental health providers and the general public focused on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, after almost 20 years of war and the COVID-19 epidemic, attention waned away from military service members and PTSD.

COVID-19–related PTSD and the hearings on the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol have reignited interest in PTSD diagnosis and treatment. Testimony from police officers at the House select committee hearing about their experiences during the assault and PTSD was harrowing. One of the police officers had also served in Iraq, perhaps leading to “layered PTSD” – symptoms from war abroad and at home.

Thus, I thought a brief review of updates about diagnosis and treatment would be useful. Note: These are my opinions based on my extensive experience and do not represent the official opinion of my employer (MedStar Health).

PTSD was first classified as a disorder in 1980, based mainly on the experiences of military service members in Vietnam, as well as sexual assault victims and disaster survivors. Readers may look elsewhere for a fuller history of the disorder.

However, in brief, we have evolved from strict reliance on a variety of symptoms in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) to a more global determination of the experience of trauma and related symptoms of distress. We still rely for diagnosis on trauma-related anxiety and depression symptoms, such as nightmare, flashbacks, numbness, and disassociation.

Treatment has evolved. Patients may benefit from treatment even if they do not meet all the PTSD criteria. As many of my colleagues who treat patients have said, “if it smells like PTSD, treat it like PTSD.”

What is the most effective treatment? The literature declares that evidence-based treatments include two selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (Zoloft and Paxil) and several psychotherapies. The psychotherapies include cognitive-behavioral therapies, exposure therapy, and EMDR (eye movement desensitization reprocessing).

The problem is that many patients cannot tolerate these therapies. SSRIs do have side effects, the most distressing being sexual dysfunction. Many service members do not enter the psychotherapies, or they drop out of trials, because they cannot tolerate the reimagining of their trauma.

I now counsel patients about the “three buckets” of treatment. The first bucket is medication, which as a psychiatrist is what I focus on. The second bucket is psychotherapy as discussed above. The third bucket is “everything else.”

“Everything else” includes a variety of methods the patients can use to reduce symptoms of anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms: exercising; deep breathing through the nose; doing yoga; doing meditation; playing or working with animals; gardening; and engaging in other activities that “self sooth.” I also recommend always doing “small acts of kindness” for others. I myself contribute to food banks and bring cookies or watermelons to the staff at my hospital.

Why is this approach useful? A menu of options gives control back to the patient. It provides activities that can reduce anxiety. Thinking about caring for others helps patients get out of their own “swamp of distress.”

We do live in very difficult times. We’re coping with COVID-19 Delta variant, attacks on the Capitol, and gun violence. I have not yet mentioned climate change, which is extremely frightening to many of us. So all providers need to be aware of all the strategies at our disposal to treat anxiety, depression, and PTSD.
 

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center. She has no conflicts of interest.

After Sept. 11, 2001, and the subsequent long war in Iraq and Afghanistan, both mental health providers and the general public focused on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, after almost 20 years of war and the COVID-19 epidemic, attention waned away from military service members and PTSD.

COVID-19–related PTSD and the hearings on the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol have reignited interest in PTSD diagnosis and treatment. Testimony from police officers at the House select committee hearing about their experiences during the assault and PTSD was harrowing. One of the police officers had also served in Iraq, perhaps leading to “layered PTSD” – symptoms from war abroad and at home.

Thus, I thought a brief review of updates about diagnosis and treatment would be useful. Note: These are my opinions based on my extensive experience and do not represent the official opinion of my employer (MedStar Health).

PTSD was first classified as a disorder in 1980, based mainly on the experiences of military service members in Vietnam, as well as sexual assault victims and disaster survivors. Readers may look elsewhere for a fuller history of the disorder.

However, in brief, we have evolved from strict reliance on a variety of symptoms in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) to a more global determination of the experience of trauma and related symptoms of distress. We still rely for diagnosis on trauma-related anxiety and depression symptoms, such as nightmare, flashbacks, numbness, and disassociation.

Treatment has evolved. Patients may benefit from treatment even if they do not meet all the PTSD criteria. As many of my colleagues who treat patients have said, “if it smells like PTSD, treat it like PTSD.”

What is the most effective treatment? The literature declares that evidence-based treatments include two selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (Zoloft and Paxil) and several psychotherapies. The psychotherapies include cognitive-behavioral therapies, exposure therapy, and EMDR (eye movement desensitization reprocessing).

The problem is that many patients cannot tolerate these therapies. SSRIs do have side effects, the most distressing being sexual dysfunction. Many service members do not enter the psychotherapies, or they drop out of trials, because they cannot tolerate the reimagining of their trauma.

I now counsel patients about the “three buckets” of treatment. The first bucket is medication, which as a psychiatrist is what I focus on. The second bucket is psychotherapy as discussed above. The third bucket is “everything else.”

“Everything else” includes a variety of methods the patients can use to reduce symptoms of anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms: exercising; deep breathing through the nose; doing yoga; doing meditation; playing or working with animals; gardening; and engaging in other activities that “self sooth.” I also recommend always doing “small acts of kindness” for others. I myself contribute to food banks and bring cookies or watermelons to the staff at my hospital.

Why is this approach useful? A menu of options gives control back to the patient. It provides activities that can reduce anxiety. Thinking about caring for others helps patients get out of their own “swamp of distress.”

We do live in very difficult times. We’re coping with COVID-19 Delta variant, attacks on the Capitol, and gun violence. I have not yet mentioned climate change, which is extremely frightening to many of us. So all providers need to be aware of all the strategies at our disposal to treat anxiety, depression, and PTSD.
 

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center. She has no conflicts of interest.

After Sept. 11, 2001, and the subsequent long war in Iraq and Afghanistan, both mental health providers and the general public focused on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). However, after almost 20 years of war and the COVID-19 epidemic, attention waned away from military service members and PTSD.

COVID-19–related PTSD and the hearings on the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol have reignited interest in PTSD diagnosis and treatment. Testimony from police officers at the House select committee hearing about their experiences during the assault and PTSD was harrowing. One of the police officers had also served in Iraq, perhaps leading to “layered PTSD” – symptoms from war abroad and at home.

Thus, I thought a brief review of updates about diagnosis and treatment would be useful. Note: These are my opinions based on my extensive experience and do not represent the official opinion of my employer (MedStar Health).

PTSD was first classified as a disorder in 1980, based mainly on the experiences of military service members in Vietnam, as well as sexual assault victims and disaster survivors. Readers may look elsewhere for a fuller history of the disorder.

However, in brief, we have evolved from strict reliance on a variety of symptoms in the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) to a more global determination of the experience of trauma and related symptoms of distress. We still rely for diagnosis on trauma-related anxiety and depression symptoms, such as nightmare, flashbacks, numbness, and disassociation.

Treatment has evolved. Patients may benefit from treatment even if they do not meet all the PTSD criteria. As many of my colleagues who treat patients have said, “if it smells like PTSD, treat it like PTSD.”

What is the most effective treatment? The literature declares that evidence-based treatments include two selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (Zoloft and Paxil) and several psychotherapies. The psychotherapies include cognitive-behavioral therapies, exposure therapy, and EMDR (eye movement desensitization reprocessing).

The problem is that many patients cannot tolerate these therapies. SSRIs do have side effects, the most distressing being sexual dysfunction. Many service members do not enter the psychotherapies, or they drop out of trials, because they cannot tolerate the reimagining of their trauma.

I now counsel patients about the “three buckets” of treatment. The first bucket is medication, which as a psychiatrist is what I focus on. The second bucket is psychotherapy as discussed above. The third bucket is “everything else.”

“Everything else” includes a variety of methods the patients can use to reduce symptoms of anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms: exercising; deep breathing through the nose; doing yoga; doing meditation; playing or working with animals; gardening; and engaging in other activities that “self sooth.” I also recommend always doing “small acts of kindness” for others. I myself contribute to food banks and bring cookies or watermelons to the staff at my hospital.

Why is this approach useful? A menu of options gives control back to the patient. It provides activities that can reduce anxiety. Thinking about caring for others helps patients get out of their own “swamp of distress.”

We do live in very difficult times. We’re coping with COVID-19 Delta variant, attacks on the Capitol, and gun violence. I have not yet mentioned climate change, which is extremely frightening to many of us. So all providers need to be aware of all the strategies at our disposal to treat anxiety, depression, and PTSD.
 

Dr. Ritchie is chair of psychiatry at Medstar Washington (D.C.) Hospital Center. She has no conflicts of interest.

Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration established its accelerated drug approval pathway 28 years ago, more than 2 in 5 drugs granted fast-track approval have not been confirmed clinically effective as required, an in-depth investigation published in The BMJ has determined.

“Despite the pathway’s good intentions to accelerate ‘the availability of drugs that treat serious diseases,’ experts are concerned that it is now being exploited – to the detriment of patients, who may be prescribed a drug that offers little benefit and possible harm, and to taxpayers,” writes Elisabeth Mahase, clinical reporter at The BMJ, who carried out the analysis.

The FDA’s accelerated approval pathway is intended to provide earlier access to drugs for serious diseases when there is lingering uncertainty at the time of approval regarding the drug’s ultimate clinical benefit.
 

Required studies rarely completed

As part of this fast-track pathway, drug manufacturers must conduct postapproval, phase 4 confirmatory trials to verify the anticipated clinical benefit. If these trials indicate no benefit, FDA approval can be withdrawn.

However, the analysis of FDA data shows once they are approved drugs are rarely taken off the market.

The BMJ investigation that analyzed data up to the end of 2020 shows that 112 of the 253 (44%) medications granted accelerated approval have not been confirmed to be effective.

In addition, 24 (21%) of these questionable drugs have been on the market for more than 5 years and some have been on the market for more than 20 years – often with a hefty price tag.

Furthermore, only 16 drugs approved through the accelerated approval process have ever been withdrawn, and most were shown to be ineffective, but in some cases the confirmatory trials were never done, Ms. Mahase reports.

For example, the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib (Celebrex), which was granted accelerated approval in 1999 for the treatment of familial adenomatous polyposis, was on the market for 12 years before the FDA finally asked Pfizer to voluntarily withdraw it for this indication because efficacy trials were never completed.

As part of The BMJ’s investigation, Ms. Mahase asked manufacturers of the 24 drugs that have remained on the market for more than 5 years whether they had conducted the required phase 4 confirmatory trials. Six of the drugs had been withdrawn, approved, or postponed.

Of the remaining 18 drugs, the manufacturers provided the relevant trial information for only six. Only four drugmakers had started to recruit patients; two said they were still in discussion with the FDA over the final trial design.

“These products routinely have side effects, but the benefit information is a lot less certain. That’s what we’re concerned about – that we may have drugs on the market that don’t have any benefits, but certainly predictably have harms associated with them,” Huseyin Naci, PhD, MHS, with the London School of Economics, comments in the report.
 

Call for reform

As reported by this news organization, a 2015 report by the General Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the FDA does not do an effective job of tracking the clinical efficacy or the safety of drugs with expedited approval after they hit the market.

In April of this year, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) cited a lack of “credible threats” to withdraw approval if companies don’t do confirmatory trials – meaning drugmakers have little incentive to do the trials.

“There are some instances where the companies really do seem to be taking advantage of the accelerated approval pathway and are using it in a way that makes it harder to get at the truth about whether these products really are safe and effective,” Rachel Sachs, JD, MPH, Washington University, St. Louis, said in The BMJ article.

In addition, the authors of a recent viewpoint article in JAMA Internal Medicine assert the recent approval of the controversial anti-amyloid drug aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) shows that the accelerated approval pathway needs to be reformed.

Despite the concerns, Ms. Mahase said all experts who spoke to The BMJ believe the accelerated approval pathway is still useful and can be beneficial to patients, although some changes are needed.

One effective reform might be to have confirmatory trials designed, and even started, as part of accelerated approval.

“One important piece of the puzzle is for the FDA itself to be tougher on these companies, to hold them to the bargain that they have agreed to, and to take action when the company has not met their obligations,” Ms. Sachs told the journal.

An FDA spokesperson told the BMJ that the agency is “committed to working with sponsors to ensure that confirmatory studies are completed in a timely manner.”

“We expect sponsors to commit all resources needed to move trials forward as effectively as possible, with the aim of completing trials as soon as is feasible, while assuring the quality of the data and the robustness of the results,” the agency said.

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

Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration established its accelerated drug approval pathway 28 years ago, more than 2 in 5 drugs granted fast-track approval have not been confirmed clinically effective as required, an in-depth investigation published in The BMJ has determined.

“Despite the pathway’s good intentions to accelerate ‘the availability of drugs that treat serious diseases,’ experts are concerned that it is now being exploited – to the detriment of patients, who may be prescribed a drug that offers little benefit and possible harm, and to taxpayers,” writes Elisabeth Mahase, clinical reporter at The BMJ, who carried out the analysis.

The FDA’s accelerated approval pathway is intended to provide earlier access to drugs for serious diseases when there is lingering uncertainty at the time of approval regarding the drug’s ultimate clinical benefit.
 

Required studies rarely completed

As part of this fast-track pathway, drug manufacturers must conduct postapproval, phase 4 confirmatory trials to verify the anticipated clinical benefit. If these trials indicate no benefit, FDA approval can be withdrawn.

However, the analysis of FDA data shows once they are approved drugs are rarely taken off the market.

The BMJ investigation that analyzed data up to the end of 2020 shows that 112 of the 253 (44%) medications granted accelerated approval have not been confirmed to be effective.

In addition, 24 (21%) of these questionable drugs have been on the market for more than 5 years and some have been on the market for more than 20 years – often with a hefty price tag.

Furthermore, only 16 drugs approved through the accelerated approval process have ever been withdrawn, and most were shown to be ineffective, but in some cases the confirmatory trials were never done, Ms. Mahase reports.

For example, the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib (Celebrex), which was granted accelerated approval in 1999 for the treatment of familial adenomatous polyposis, was on the market for 12 years before the FDA finally asked Pfizer to voluntarily withdraw it for this indication because efficacy trials were never completed.

As part of The BMJ’s investigation, Ms. Mahase asked manufacturers of the 24 drugs that have remained on the market for more than 5 years whether they had conducted the required phase 4 confirmatory trials. Six of the drugs had been withdrawn, approved, or postponed.

Of the remaining 18 drugs, the manufacturers provided the relevant trial information for only six. Only four drugmakers had started to recruit patients; two said they were still in discussion with the FDA over the final trial design.

“These products routinely have side effects, but the benefit information is a lot less certain. That’s what we’re concerned about – that we may have drugs on the market that don’t have any benefits, but certainly predictably have harms associated with them,” Huseyin Naci, PhD, MHS, with the London School of Economics, comments in the report.
 

Call for reform

As reported by this news organization, a 2015 report by the General Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the FDA does not do an effective job of tracking the clinical efficacy or the safety of drugs with expedited approval after they hit the market.

In April of this year, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) cited a lack of “credible threats” to withdraw approval if companies don’t do confirmatory trials – meaning drugmakers have little incentive to do the trials.

“There are some instances where the companies really do seem to be taking advantage of the accelerated approval pathway and are using it in a way that makes it harder to get at the truth about whether these products really are safe and effective,” Rachel Sachs, JD, MPH, Washington University, St. Louis, said in The BMJ article.

In addition, the authors of a recent viewpoint article in JAMA Internal Medicine assert the recent approval of the controversial anti-amyloid drug aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) shows that the accelerated approval pathway needs to be reformed.

Despite the concerns, Ms. Mahase said all experts who spoke to The BMJ believe the accelerated approval pathway is still useful and can be beneficial to patients, although some changes are needed.

One effective reform might be to have confirmatory trials designed, and even started, as part of accelerated approval.

“One important piece of the puzzle is for the FDA itself to be tougher on these companies, to hold them to the bargain that they have agreed to, and to take action when the company has not met their obligations,” Ms. Sachs told the journal.

An FDA spokesperson told the BMJ that the agency is “committed to working with sponsors to ensure that confirmatory studies are completed in a timely manner.”

“We expect sponsors to commit all resources needed to move trials forward as effectively as possible, with the aim of completing trials as soon as is feasible, while assuring the quality of the data and the robustness of the results,” the agency said.

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

Since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration established its accelerated drug approval pathway 28 years ago, more than 2 in 5 drugs granted fast-track approval have not been confirmed clinically effective as required, an in-depth investigation published in The BMJ has determined.

“Despite the pathway’s good intentions to accelerate ‘the availability of drugs that treat serious diseases,’ experts are concerned that it is now being exploited – to the detriment of patients, who may be prescribed a drug that offers little benefit and possible harm, and to taxpayers,” writes Elisabeth Mahase, clinical reporter at The BMJ, who carried out the analysis.

The FDA’s accelerated approval pathway is intended to provide earlier access to drugs for serious diseases when there is lingering uncertainty at the time of approval regarding the drug’s ultimate clinical benefit.
 

Required studies rarely completed

As part of this fast-track pathway, drug manufacturers must conduct postapproval, phase 4 confirmatory trials to verify the anticipated clinical benefit. If these trials indicate no benefit, FDA approval can be withdrawn.

However, the analysis of FDA data shows once they are approved drugs are rarely taken off the market.

The BMJ investigation that analyzed data up to the end of 2020 shows that 112 of the 253 (44%) medications granted accelerated approval have not been confirmed to be effective.

In addition, 24 (21%) of these questionable drugs have been on the market for more than 5 years and some have been on the market for more than 20 years – often with a hefty price tag.

Furthermore, only 16 drugs approved through the accelerated approval process have ever been withdrawn, and most were shown to be ineffective, but in some cases the confirmatory trials were never done, Ms. Mahase reports.

For example, the COX-2 inhibitor celecoxib (Celebrex), which was granted accelerated approval in 1999 for the treatment of familial adenomatous polyposis, was on the market for 12 years before the FDA finally asked Pfizer to voluntarily withdraw it for this indication because efficacy trials were never completed.

As part of The BMJ’s investigation, Ms. Mahase asked manufacturers of the 24 drugs that have remained on the market for more than 5 years whether they had conducted the required phase 4 confirmatory trials. Six of the drugs had been withdrawn, approved, or postponed.

Of the remaining 18 drugs, the manufacturers provided the relevant trial information for only six. Only four drugmakers had started to recruit patients; two said they were still in discussion with the FDA over the final trial design.

“These products routinely have side effects, but the benefit information is a lot less certain. That’s what we’re concerned about – that we may have drugs on the market that don’t have any benefits, but certainly predictably have harms associated with them,” Huseyin Naci, PhD, MHS, with the London School of Economics, comments in the report.
 

Call for reform

As reported by this news organization, a 2015 report by the General Accountability Office (GAO) concluded that the FDA does not do an effective job of tracking the clinical efficacy or the safety of drugs with expedited approval after they hit the market.

In April of this year, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) cited a lack of “credible threats” to withdraw approval if companies don’t do confirmatory trials – meaning drugmakers have little incentive to do the trials.

“There are some instances where the companies really do seem to be taking advantage of the accelerated approval pathway and are using it in a way that makes it harder to get at the truth about whether these products really are safe and effective,” Rachel Sachs, JD, MPH, Washington University, St. Louis, said in The BMJ article.

In addition, the authors of a recent viewpoint article in JAMA Internal Medicine assert the recent approval of the controversial anti-amyloid drug aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen) shows that the accelerated approval pathway needs to be reformed.

Despite the concerns, Ms. Mahase said all experts who spoke to The BMJ believe the accelerated approval pathway is still useful and can be beneficial to patients, although some changes are needed.

One effective reform might be to have confirmatory trials designed, and even started, as part of accelerated approval.

“One important piece of the puzzle is for the FDA itself to be tougher on these companies, to hold them to the bargain that they have agreed to, and to take action when the company has not met their obligations,” Ms. Sachs told the journal.

An FDA spokesperson told the BMJ that the agency is “committed to working with sponsors to ensure that confirmatory studies are completed in a timely manner.”

“We expect sponsors to commit all resources needed to move trials forward as effectively as possible, with the aim of completing trials as soon as is feasible, while assuring the quality of the data and the robustness of the results,” the agency said.

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

A proinflammatory diet, as measured by the dietary inflammatory index (DII), is associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia, although not Alzheimer’s disease, according to a new analysis of longitudinal data from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort.

The lack of an association with Alzheimer’s disease was a surprise because amyloid-beta prompts microglia and astrocytes to release markers of systemic inflammation, according to Debora Melo van Lent, PhD, who is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Texas Health San Antonio – Glenn Biggs Institute for Alzheimer’s and Neurodegenerative Diseases. “We expected to see a relationship between higher DII scores and an increased risk for incident Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Melo van Lent, who presented the findings at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Dr. Melo van Lent added that the most likely explanation is that the study was underpowered to produce a positive association, and the team is conducting further study in a larger population.
 

A modifiable risk factor

The study is the first to look at all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease dementia and their association with DII, Dr. Melo van Lent said.

“As diet is a modifiable risk factor, we can actually do something about it. If we take a closer look at five components of the DII which are most anti-inflammatory, these components are present in green leafy vegetables, vegetables, fruit, soy, whole grains, and green and black tea. Most of these components are included in the Mediterranean diet. When we look at the three most proinflammatory components, they are present in high caloric products; such as butter or margarine, pastries and sweets, fried snacks, and red or processed meat. These components are present in ‘Western diets,’ which are discouraged,” said Dr. Melo van Lent.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,486 participants who were free of dementia, stroke, or other neurologic diseases at baseline. They analyzed DII scores both in a continuous range and divided into quartiles, using the first quartile as a reference.

The mean age of participants was 69 years, and 53% were women. During follow-up, 11.3% developed AD dementia, and 14.8% developed non-AD dementia.

In the continuous model, DII was associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia after adjusting for age, sex, APOE E4 status, body mass index, smoking, physical activity index score, total energy intake, lipid-lowering medications, and total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio (hazard ratio, 1.18; P =.001). In the quartile analysis, after adjustments, compared with quartile 1, there was an increased risk of all-cause dementia for those in quartile 3 (HR, 1.69; P =.020) and quartile 4 (HR, 1.84; P =.013).

In the continuous analysis, after adjustments, there was an association between DII score and Alzheimer’s dementia (HR, 1.15; P =.020). In the quartile analysis, no associations were significant, though there was a trend of quartile 4 versus quartile 1 (HR, 1.65; P =.077).

The researchers found no significant interactions between higher DII scores and sex, the APOE E4 allele, or physical activity with respect to all-cause dementia or Alzheimer’s dementia.
 

Intertwined variables

The results were interesting, but cause and effect relationships can be difficult to tease out from such a study, according to Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Sexton noted that individuals who eat well are more likely to have energy to exercise, which could in turn help them to sleep better, and all of those factors could be involved in reducing dementia risk. “They’re all kind of intertwined. So in this study, they were taking into account physical activity, but they can’t take into account every single variable. It’s important for them to be followed up by randomized control trials.”

Dr. Sexton also referenced the U.S. Pointer study being conducted by the Alzheimer’s Association, which is examining various interventions related to diet, physical activity, and cognitive stimulation. “Whether intervening and improving people’s health behaviors then goes on to reduce their risk for dementia is a key question. We still need more results from studies to be reporting out before we get definitive answers,” she said.

The study was funded by the ASPEN Rhoads Research Foundation. Dr. Melo van Lent and Dr. Sexton have no relevant financial disclosures.

A proinflammatory diet, as measured by the dietary inflammatory index (DII), is associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia, although not Alzheimer’s disease, according to a new analysis of longitudinal data from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort.

The lack of an association with Alzheimer’s disease was a surprise because amyloid-beta prompts microglia and astrocytes to release markers of systemic inflammation, according to Debora Melo van Lent, PhD, who is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Texas Health San Antonio – Glenn Biggs Institute for Alzheimer’s and Neurodegenerative Diseases. “We expected to see a relationship between higher DII scores and an increased risk for incident Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Melo van Lent, who presented the findings at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Dr. Melo van Lent added that the most likely explanation is that the study was underpowered to produce a positive association, and the team is conducting further study in a larger population.
 

A modifiable risk factor

The study is the first to look at all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease dementia and their association with DII, Dr. Melo van Lent said.

“As diet is a modifiable risk factor, we can actually do something about it. If we take a closer look at five components of the DII which are most anti-inflammatory, these components are present in green leafy vegetables, vegetables, fruit, soy, whole grains, and green and black tea. Most of these components are included in the Mediterranean diet. When we look at the three most proinflammatory components, they are present in high caloric products; such as butter or margarine, pastries and sweets, fried snacks, and red or processed meat. These components are present in ‘Western diets,’ which are discouraged,” said Dr. Melo van Lent.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,486 participants who were free of dementia, stroke, or other neurologic diseases at baseline. They analyzed DII scores both in a continuous range and divided into quartiles, using the first quartile as a reference.

The mean age of participants was 69 years, and 53% were women. During follow-up, 11.3% developed AD dementia, and 14.8% developed non-AD dementia.

In the continuous model, DII was associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia after adjusting for age, sex, APOE E4 status, body mass index, smoking, physical activity index score, total energy intake, lipid-lowering medications, and total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio (hazard ratio, 1.18; P =.001). In the quartile analysis, after adjustments, compared with quartile 1, there was an increased risk of all-cause dementia for those in quartile 3 (HR, 1.69; P =.020) and quartile 4 (HR, 1.84; P =.013).

In the continuous analysis, after adjustments, there was an association between DII score and Alzheimer’s dementia (HR, 1.15; P =.020). In the quartile analysis, no associations were significant, though there was a trend of quartile 4 versus quartile 1 (HR, 1.65; P =.077).

The researchers found no significant interactions between higher DII scores and sex, the APOE E4 allele, or physical activity with respect to all-cause dementia or Alzheimer’s dementia.
 

Intertwined variables

The results were interesting, but cause and effect relationships can be difficult to tease out from such a study, according to Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Sexton noted that individuals who eat well are more likely to have energy to exercise, which could in turn help them to sleep better, and all of those factors could be involved in reducing dementia risk. “They’re all kind of intertwined. So in this study, they were taking into account physical activity, but they can’t take into account every single variable. It’s important for them to be followed up by randomized control trials.”

Dr. Sexton also referenced the U.S. Pointer study being conducted by the Alzheimer’s Association, which is examining various interventions related to diet, physical activity, and cognitive stimulation. “Whether intervening and improving people’s health behaviors then goes on to reduce their risk for dementia is a key question. We still need more results from studies to be reporting out before we get definitive answers,” she said.

The study was funded by the ASPEN Rhoads Research Foundation. Dr. Melo van Lent and Dr. Sexton have no relevant financial disclosures.

A proinflammatory diet, as measured by the dietary inflammatory index (DII), is associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia, although not Alzheimer’s disease, according to a new analysis of longitudinal data from the Framingham Heart Study Offspring Cohort.

The lack of an association with Alzheimer’s disease was a surprise because amyloid-beta prompts microglia and astrocytes to release markers of systemic inflammation, according to Debora Melo van Lent, PhD, who is a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Texas Health San Antonio – Glenn Biggs Institute for Alzheimer’s and Neurodegenerative Diseases. “We expected to see a relationship between higher DII scores and an increased risk for incident Alzheimer’s disease,” said Dr. Melo van Lent, who presented the findings at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

Dr. Melo van Lent added that the most likely explanation is that the study was underpowered to produce a positive association, and the team is conducting further study in a larger population.
 

A modifiable risk factor

The study is the first to look at all-cause dementia and Alzheimer’s disease dementia and their association with DII, Dr. Melo van Lent said.

“As diet is a modifiable risk factor, we can actually do something about it. If we take a closer look at five components of the DII which are most anti-inflammatory, these components are present in green leafy vegetables, vegetables, fruit, soy, whole grains, and green and black tea. Most of these components are included in the Mediterranean diet. When we look at the three most proinflammatory components, they are present in high caloric products; such as butter or margarine, pastries and sweets, fried snacks, and red or processed meat. These components are present in ‘Western diets,’ which are discouraged,” said Dr. Melo van Lent.

The researchers analyzed data from 1,486 participants who were free of dementia, stroke, or other neurologic diseases at baseline. They analyzed DII scores both in a continuous range and divided into quartiles, using the first quartile as a reference.

The mean age of participants was 69 years, and 53% were women. During follow-up, 11.3% developed AD dementia, and 14.8% developed non-AD dementia.

In the continuous model, DII was associated with increased risk of all-cause dementia after adjusting for age, sex, APOE E4 status, body mass index, smoking, physical activity index score, total energy intake, lipid-lowering medications, and total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio (hazard ratio, 1.18; P =.001). In the quartile analysis, after adjustments, compared with quartile 1, there was an increased risk of all-cause dementia for those in quartile 3 (HR, 1.69; P =.020) and quartile 4 (HR, 1.84; P =.013).

In the continuous analysis, after adjustments, there was an association between DII score and Alzheimer’s dementia (HR, 1.15; P =.020). In the quartile analysis, no associations were significant, though there was a trend of quartile 4 versus quartile 1 (HR, 1.65; P =.077).

The researchers found no significant interactions between higher DII scores and sex, the APOE E4 allele, or physical activity with respect to all-cause dementia or Alzheimer’s dementia.
 

Intertwined variables

The results were interesting, but cause and effect relationships can be difficult to tease out from such a study, according to Claire Sexton, DPhil, director of scientific programs and outreach at the Alzheimer’s Association, who was asked to comment on the study. Dr. Sexton noted that individuals who eat well are more likely to have energy to exercise, which could in turn help them to sleep better, and all of those factors could be involved in reducing dementia risk. “They’re all kind of intertwined. So in this study, they were taking into account physical activity, but they can’t take into account every single variable. It’s important for them to be followed up by randomized control trials.”

Dr. Sexton also referenced the U.S. Pointer study being conducted by the Alzheimer’s Association, which is examining various interventions related to diet, physical activity, and cognitive stimulation. “Whether intervening and improving people’s health behaviors then goes on to reduce their risk for dementia is a key question. We still need more results from studies to be reporting out before we get definitive answers,” she said.

The study was funded by the ASPEN Rhoads Research Foundation. Dr. Melo van Lent and Dr. Sexton have no relevant financial disclosures.

The global prevalence of young-onset dementia is significantly higher than previously thought. Results of a large meta-analysis show that currently 3.9 million individuals are living with young-onset dementia. Among these patients, symptoms of the disease start before age 65.

Recent global young-onset dementia estimates have ranged from 42.3 to 54.0 per 100,000 population, the researchers noted. However, the new study, which included 74 global studies with 2.7 million participants, shows that the global age-standardized prevalence of young-onset dementia is 119.00 per 100,000 among individuals aged 30-64 years; there was little difference in prevalence between men and women. On the basis of the latest population estimates, these new prevalence data imply that there are approximately 175,000 persons with young-onset dementia in the United States.

Although the new global estimate of young-onset dementia is higher than previously thought, “it is still probably an underestimation owing to lack of high-quality data. This should raise awareness for policy makers and health care professionals to organize more and better care for this subgroup of individuals with dementia,” wrote the investigators, with first author Stevie Hendriks, MSc, Maastricht (the Netherlands) University, and the Young-Onset Dementia Epidemiology Study Group.

The study was published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Neurology.
 

‘Essential’ data

Young-onset dementia is exceedingly rare in those aged 30-63 years (1.1 per 100,000) but is more prevalent at age 60-64 years (77.4 per 100,000). “Our findings fit the general observation that prevalence of dementia increases exponentially from 60 years of age onward,” they wrote.

The prevalence of young-onset dementia was similar in men and women, lower in the United States than in Europe, highest in upper- to middle-income countries, and highest for Alzheimer’s disease, followed by vascular dementia and frontotemporal dementia.

Monitoring the prevalence of young-onset dementia is “essential” to adequately plan and organize health services, the investigators noted.

To ensure more accurate prevalence estimates in the future, “efforts should be made to conduct more cohort studies and to standardize procedures and reporting of prevalence studies. In addition, more data are needed from low-income countries as well as studies that include younger age ranges,” they said.
 

New insights

In an accompanying editorial, David S. Knopman, MD, department of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that the study provides new insights into an “underappreciated problem.”.

Young-onset dementia is a “particularly disheartening diagnosis because it affects individuals in their prime years, in the midst of their careers, and while raising families,” Dr. Knopman wrote.

“Most dementia care is geared for older patients, and as a consequence, services are rarely available to address the needs of someone diagnosed with dementia in their 50s who has dependent children at home and a spouse who must continue working. Understanding the prevalence and incidence of young-onset dementia is a first step in addressing this challenge,” Dr. Knopman wrote.

He noted that the authors of this analysis have “done a service to the dementia community by collecting and analyzing the dozens of individual studies of young-onset dementia.

“The product, a rationally derived estimate of dementia prevalence across the population aged 30-64 years, provides a basis for initiating more efforts to improve methods for timely diagnosis and to address the unique needs of patients with young-onset dementia,” Dr. Knopman concluded.

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

The global prevalence of young-onset dementia is significantly higher than previously thought. Results of a large meta-analysis show that currently 3.9 million individuals are living with young-onset dementia. Among these patients, symptoms of the disease start before age 65.

Recent global young-onset dementia estimates have ranged from 42.3 to 54.0 per 100,000 population, the researchers noted. However, the new study, which included 74 global studies with 2.7 million participants, shows that the global age-standardized prevalence of young-onset dementia is 119.00 per 100,000 among individuals aged 30-64 years; there was little difference in prevalence between men and women. On the basis of the latest population estimates, these new prevalence data imply that there are approximately 175,000 persons with young-onset dementia in the United States.

Although the new global estimate of young-onset dementia is higher than previously thought, “it is still probably an underestimation owing to lack of high-quality data. This should raise awareness for policy makers and health care professionals to organize more and better care for this subgroup of individuals with dementia,” wrote the investigators, with first author Stevie Hendriks, MSc, Maastricht (the Netherlands) University, and the Young-Onset Dementia Epidemiology Study Group.

The study was published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Neurology.
 

‘Essential’ data

Young-onset dementia is exceedingly rare in those aged 30-63 years (1.1 per 100,000) but is more prevalent at age 60-64 years (77.4 per 100,000). “Our findings fit the general observation that prevalence of dementia increases exponentially from 60 years of age onward,” they wrote.

The prevalence of young-onset dementia was similar in men and women, lower in the United States than in Europe, highest in upper- to middle-income countries, and highest for Alzheimer’s disease, followed by vascular dementia and frontotemporal dementia.

Monitoring the prevalence of young-onset dementia is “essential” to adequately plan and organize health services, the investigators noted.

To ensure more accurate prevalence estimates in the future, “efforts should be made to conduct more cohort studies and to standardize procedures and reporting of prevalence studies. In addition, more data are needed from low-income countries as well as studies that include younger age ranges,” they said.
 

New insights

In an accompanying editorial, David S. Knopman, MD, department of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that the study provides new insights into an “underappreciated problem.”.

Young-onset dementia is a “particularly disheartening diagnosis because it affects individuals in their prime years, in the midst of their careers, and while raising families,” Dr. Knopman wrote.

“Most dementia care is geared for older patients, and as a consequence, services are rarely available to address the needs of someone diagnosed with dementia in their 50s who has dependent children at home and a spouse who must continue working. Understanding the prevalence and incidence of young-onset dementia is a first step in addressing this challenge,” Dr. Knopman wrote.

He noted that the authors of this analysis have “done a service to the dementia community by collecting and analyzing the dozens of individual studies of young-onset dementia.

“The product, a rationally derived estimate of dementia prevalence across the population aged 30-64 years, provides a basis for initiating more efforts to improve methods for timely diagnosis and to address the unique needs of patients with young-onset dementia,” Dr. Knopman concluded.

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

The global prevalence of young-onset dementia is significantly higher than previously thought. Results of a large meta-analysis show that currently 3.9 million individuals are living with young-onset dementia. Among these patients, symptoms of the disease start before age 65.

Recent global young-onset dementia estimates have ranged from 42.3 to 54.0 per 100,000 population, the researchers noted. However, the new study, which included 74 global studies with 2.7 million participants, shows that the global age-standardized prevalence of young-onset dementia is 119.00 per 100,000 among individuals aged 30-64 years; there was little difference in prevalence between men and women. On the basis of the latest population estimates, these new prevalence data imply that there are approximately 175,000 persons with young-onset dementia in the United States.

Although the new global estimate of young-onset dementia is higher than previously thought, “it is still probably an underestimation owing to lack of high-quality data. This should raise awareness for policy makers and health care professionals to organize more and better care for this subgroup of individuals with dementia,” wrote the investigators, with first author Stevie Hendriks, MSc, Maastricht (the Netherlands) University, and the Young-Onset Dementia Epidemiology Study Group.

The study was published online July 19, 2021, in JAMA Neurology.
 

‘Essential’ data

Young-onset dementia is exceedingly rare in those aged 30-63 years (1.1 per 100,000) but is more prevalent at age 60-64 years (77.4 per 100,000). “Our findings fit the general observation that prevalence of dementia increases exponentially from 60 years of age onward,” they wrote.

The prevalence of young-onset dementia was similar in men and women, lower in the United States than in Europe, highest in upper- to middle-income countries, and highest for Alzheimer’s disease, followed by vascular dementia and frontotemporal dementia.

Monitoring the prevalence of young-onset dementia is “essential” to adequately plan and organize health services, the investigators noted.

To ensure more accurate prevalence estimates in the future, “efforts should be made to conduct more cohort studies and to standardize procedures and reporting of prevalence studies. In addition, more data are needed from low-income countries as well as studies that include younger age ranges,” they said.
 

New insights

In an accompanying editorial, David S. Knopman, MD, department of neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., noted that the study provides new insights into an “underappreciated problem.”.

Young-onset dementia is a “particularly disheartening diagnosis because it affects individuals in their prime years, in the midst of their careers, and while raising families,” Dr. Knopman wrote.

“Most dementia care is geared for older patients, and as a consequence, services are rarely available to address the needs of someone diagnosed with dementia in their 50s who has dependent children at home and a spouse who must continue working. Understanding the prevalence and incidence of young-onset dementia is a first step in addressing this challenge,” Dr. Knopman wrote.

He noted that the authors of this analysis have “done a service to the dementia community by collecting and analyzing the dozens of individual studies of young-onset dementia.

“The product, a rationally derived estimate of dementia prevalence across the population aged 30-64 years, provides a basis for initiating more efforts to improve methods for timely diagnosis and to address the unique needs of patients with young-onset dementia,” Dr. Knopman concluded.

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

About one-third of U.S. adults struggled with medical debt during the pandemic, according to data from a Commonwealth Fund survey released July 16.

Despite the passage of four major relief bills in 2020 and 2021 and federal efforts to offset pandemic- and job-related coverage loss, many people continued to face financial challenges, especially those with a low income and those who are Black or Latino.

The survey, which included responses from 5,450 adults, revealed that 10% of adults aged 19-64 were uninsured during the first half of 2021, a rate lower than what was recorded in 2020 and 2019 in both federal and private surveys. However, uninsured rates were highest among those with low income, those younger than 50 years old, and Black and Latino adults.

For most adults who lost employee health insurance, the coverage gap was relatively brief, with 54% saying their coverage gap lasted 3-4 months. Only 16% of adults said coverage gaps lasted a year or longer.

“The good news is that this survey is suggesting that the coverage losses during the pandemic may have been offset by federal efforts to help people get and maintain health insurance coverage,” lead author Sara Collins, PhD, Commonwealth Fund vice president for health care coverage, access, and tracking, said in an interview.

“The bad news is that a third of Americans continue to struggle with medical bills and medical debt, even among those who have health insurance coverage,” Dr. Collins added.

Indeed, the survey found that about one-third of insured adults reported a medical bill problem or that they were paying off medical debt, as did approximately half of those who were uninsured. Medical debt caused 35% of respondents to use up most or all of their savings to pay it off.

Meanwhile, 27% of adults said medical bills left them unable to pay for necessities such as food, heat, or rent. What surprised Dr. Collins was that 43% of adults said they received a lower credit rating as a result of their medical debt, and 35% said they had taken on more credit card debt to pay off these bills.

“The fact that it’s bleeding over into people’s financial security in terms of their credit scores, I think is something that really needs to be looked at by policymakers,” Dr. Collins said.

When analyzed by race/ethnicity, the researchers found that 55% of Black adults and 44% of Latino/Hispanic adults reported medical bills and debt problems, compared with 32% of White adults. In addition, 47% of those living below the poverty line also reported problems with medical bills.

According to the survey, 45% of respondents were directly affected by the pandemic in at least one of three ways – testing positive or getting sick from COVID-19, losing income, or losing employer coverage – with Black and Latinx adults and those with lower incomes at greater risk.

George Abraham, MD, president of the American College of Physicians, said the Commonwealth Fund’s findings were not surprising because it has always been known that underrepresented populations struggle for access to care because of socioeconomic factors. He said these populations were more vulnerable in terms of more severe infections and disease burden during the pandemic.

“[This study] validates what primary care physicians have been saying all along in regard to our patients’ access to care and their ability to cover health care costs,” said Dr. Abraham, who was not involved with the study. “This will hopefully be an eye-opener and wake-up call that reiterates that we still do not have equitable access to care and vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected.”

He believes that, although people are insured, many of them may contend with medical debt when they fall ill because they can’t afford the premiums.

“Even though they may have been registered for health coverage, they may not have active coverage at the time of illness simply because they weren’t able to make their last premium payments because they’ve been down, because they lost their job, or whatever else,” Dr. Abraham explained. “On paper, they appear to have health care coverage. But in reality, clearly, that coverage does not match their needs or it’s not affordable.”

For Dr. Abraham, the study emphasizes the need to continue support for health care reform, including pricing it so that insurance is available for those with fewer socioeconomic resources.

Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, medical director of the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies, Washington, said high-deductible health plans need to be “reined in” because they can lead to greater debt, particularly among vulnerable populations.

“Hopefully this will encourage policymakers to look more closely at the problem of medical debt as a contributing factor to financial instability,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “Federal relief is important, so is expanding access to comprehensive, affordable health care coverage.”

Dr. Collins said there should also be a way to raise awareness of the health care marketplace and coverage options so that people have an easier time getting insured.

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

About one-third of U.S. adults struggled with medical debt during the pandemic, according to data from a Commonwealth Fund survey released July 16.

Despite the passage of four major relief bills in 2020 and 2021 and federal efforts to offset pandemic- and job-related coverage loss, many people continued to face financial challenges, especially those with a low income and those who are Black or Latino.

The survey, which included responses from 5,450 adults, revealed that 10% of adults aged 19-64 were uninsured during the first half of 2021, a rate lower than what was recorded in 2020 and 2019 in both federal and private surveys. However, uninsured rates were highest among those with low income, those younger than 50 years old, and Black and Latino adults.

For most adults who lost employee health insurance, the coverage gap was relatively brief, with 54% saying their coverage gap lasted 3-4 months. Only 16% of adults said coverage gaps lasted a year or longer.

“The good news is that this survey is suggesting that the coverage losses during the pandemic may have been offset by federal efforts to help people get and maintain health insurance coverage,” lead author Sara Collins, PhD, Commonwealth Fund vice president for health care coverage, access, and tracking, said in an interview.

“The bad news is that a third of Americans continue to struggle with medical bills and medical debt, even among those who have health insurance coverage,” Dr. Collins added.

Indeed, the survey found that about one-third of insured adults reported a medical bill problem or that they were paying off medical debt, as did approximately half of those who were uninsured. Medical debt caused 35% of respondents to use up most or all of their savings to pay it off.

Meanwhile, 27% of adults said medical bills left them unable to pay for necessities such as food, heat, or rent. What surprised Dr. Collins was that 43% of adults said they received a lower credit rating as a result of their medical debt, and 35% said they had taken on more credit card debt to pay off these bills.

“The fact that it’s bleeding over into people’s financial security in terms of their credit scores, I think is something that really needs to be looked at by policymakers,” Dr. Collins said.

When analyzed by race/ethnicity, the researchers found that 55% of Black adults and 44% of Latino/Hispanic adults reported medical bills and debt problems, compared with 32% of White adults. In addition, 47% of those living below the poverty line also reported problems with medical bills.

According to the survey, 45% of respondents were directly affected by the pandemic in at least one of three ways – testing positive or getting sick from COVID-19, losing income, or losing employer coverage – with Black and Latinx adults and those with lower incomes at greater risk.

George Abraham, MD, president of the American College of Physicians, said the Commonwealth Fund’s findings were not surprising because it has always been known that underrepresented populations struggle for access to care because of socioeconomic factors. He said these populations were more vulnerable in terms of more severe infections and disease burden during the pandemic.

“[This study] validates what primary care physicians have been saying all along in regard to our patients’ access to care and their ability to cover health care costs,” said Dr. Abraham, who was not involved with the study. “This will hopefully be an eye-opener and wake-up call that reiterates that we still do not have equitable access to care and vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected.”

He believes that, although people are insured, many of them may contend with medical debt when they fall ill because they can’t afford the premiums.

“Even though they may have been registered for health coverage, they may not have active coverage at the time of illness simply because they weren’t able to make their last premium payments because they’ve been down, because they lost their job, or whatever else,” Dr. Abraham explained. “On paper, they appear to have health care coverage. But in reality, clearly, that coverage does not match their needs or it’s not affordable.”

For Dr. Abraham, the study emphasizes the need to continue support for health care reform, including pricing it so that insurance is available for those with fewer socioeconomic resources.

Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, medical director of the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies, Washington, said high-deductible health plans need to be “reined in” because they can lead to greater debt, particularly among vulnerable populations.

“Hopefully this will encourage policymakers to look more closely at the problem of medical debt as a contributing factor to financial instability,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “Federal relief is important, so is expanding access to comprehensive, affordable health care coverage.”

Dr. Collins said there should also be a way to raise awareness of the health care marketplace and coverage options so that people have an easier time getting insured.

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

About one-third of U.S. adults struggled with medical debt during the pandemic, according to data from a Commonwealth Fund survey released July 16.

Despite the passage of four major relief bills in 2020 and 2021 and federal efforts to offset pandemic- and job-related coverage loss, many people continued to face financial challenges, especially those with a low income and those who are Black or Latino.

The survey, which included responses from 5,450 adults, revealed that 10% of adults aged 19-64 were uninsured during the first half of 2021, a rate lower than what was recorded in 2020 and 2019 in both federal and private surveys. However, uninsured rates were highest among those with low income, those younger than 50 years old, and Black and Latino adults.

For most adults who lost employee health insurance, the coverage gap was relatively brief, with 54% saying their coverage gap lasted 3-4 months. Only 16% of adults said coverage gaps lasted a year or longer.

“The good news is that this survey is suggesting that the coverage losses during the pandemic may have been offset by federal efforts to help people get and maintain health insurance coverage,” lead author Sara Collins, PhD, Commonwealth Fund vice president for health care coverage, access, and tracking, said in an interview.

“The bad news is that a third of Americans continue to struggle with medical bills and medical debt, even among those who have health insurance coverage,” Dr. Collins added.

Indeed, the survey found that about one-third of insured adults reported a medical bill problem or that they were paying off medical debt, as did approximately half of those who were uninsured. Medical debt caused 35% of respondents to use up most or all of their savings to pay it off.

Meanwhile, 27% of adults said medical bills left them unable to pay for necessities such as food, heat, or rent. What surprised Dr. Collins was that 43% of adults said they received a lower credit rating as a result of their medical debt, and 35% said they had taken on more credit card debt to pay off these bills.

“The fact that it’s bleeding over into people’s financial security in terms of their credit scores, I think is something that really needs to be looked at by policymakers,” Dr. Collins said.

When analyzed by race/ethnicity, the researchers found that 55% of Black adults and 44% of Latino/Hispanic adults reported medical bills and debt problems, compared with 32% of White adults. In addition, 47% of those living below the poverty line also reported problems with medical bills.

According to the survey, 45% of respondents were directly affected by the pandemic in at least one of three ways – testing positive or getting sick from COVID-19, losing income, or losing employer coverage – with Black and Latinx adults and those with lower incomes at greater risk.

George Abraham, MD, president of the American College of Physicians, said the Commonwealth Fund’s findings were not surprising because it has always been known that underrepresented populations struggle for access to care because of socioeconomic factors. He said these populations were more vulnerable in terms of more severe infections and disease burden during the pandemic.

“[This study] validates what primary care physicians have been saying all along in regard to our patients’ access to care and their ability to cover health care costs,” said Dr. Abraham, who was not involved with the study. “This will hopefully be an eye-opener and wake-up call that reiterates that we still do not have equitable access to care and vulnerable populations are disproportionately affected.”

He believes that, although people are insured, many of them may contend with medical debt when they fall ill because they can’t afford the premiums.

“Even though they may have been registered for health coverage, they may not have active coverage at the time of illness simply because they weren’t able to make their last premium payments because they’ve been down, because they lost their job, or whatever else,” Dr. Abraham explained. “On paper, they appear to have health care coverage. But in reality, clearly, that coverage does not match their needs or it’s not affordable.”

For Dr. Abraham, the study emphasizes the need to continue support for health care reform, including pricing it so that insurance is available for those with fewer socioeconomic resources.

Yalda Jabbarpour, MD, medical director of the Robert Graham Center for Policy Studies, Washington, said high-deductible health plans need to be “reined in” because they can lead to greater debt, particularly among vulnerable populations.

“Hopefully this will encourage policymakers to look more closely at the problem of medical debt as a contributing factor to financial instability,” Dr. Jabbarpour said. “Federal relief is important, so is expanding access to comprehensive, affordable health care coverage.”

Dr. Collins said there should also be a way to raise awareness of the health care marketplace and coverage options so that people have an easier time getting insured.

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

Adult women with acne describe significant impacts on their lived experience of acne, including concerns about appearance, mental and emotional health consequences, and disruption to their personal and professional lives, results from a qualitative study demonstrated.

“Nearly 50% of women experience acne in their 20s, and 35% experience acne in their 30s,” the study’s corresponding author, John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, formerly of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. “While several qualitative studies have examined acne in adolescence, the lived experience of adult female acne has not been explored in detail and prior studies have included relatively few patients. As a result, we conducted a series of semistructured interviews among adult women with acne to examine the lived experience of adult acne and its treatment.”

For the study, published online July 28, 2021, in JAMA Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri and colleagues conducted voluntary, confidential phone interviews with 50 women aged between 18 and 40 years with moderate to severe acne who were recruited from the University of Pennsylvania Health System and from a private dermatology clinic in Cincinnati. They used free listing and open-ended, semistructured interviews to elicit opinions from the women on how acne affected their lives; their experience with acne treatments, dermatologists, and health care systems; as well as their views on treatment success.

The mean age of the participants was 28 years and 48% were white (10% were Black, 8% were Asian, 4% were more than one race, and the rest abstained from answering this question; 10% said they were Hispanic).

More than three-quarters (78%) reported prior treatment with topical retinoids, followed by spironolactone (70%), topical antibiotics (43%), combined oral contraceptives (43%), and isotretinoin (41%). During the free-listing part of interviews, where the women reported the first words that came to their mind when asked about success of treatment and adverse effects, the most important terms expressed related to treatment success were clear skin, no scarring, and no acne. The most important terms related to treatment adverse effects were dryness, redness, and burning.

In the semistructured interview portion of the study, the main themes expressed were acne-related concerns about appearance, including feeling less confident at work; mental and emotional health, including feelings of depression, anxiety, depression, and low self-worth during acne breakouts; and everyday life impact, including the notion that acne affected how other people perceived them. The other main themes included successful treatment, with clear skin and having a manageable number of lesions being desirable outcomes; and interactions with health care, including varied experiences with dermatologists. The researchers observed that most participants did not think oral antibiotics were appropriate treatments for their acne, specifically because of limited long-term effectiveness.

“Many patients described frustration with finding a dermatologist with whom they were comfortable and with identifying effective treatments for their acne,” the authors wrote. “In contrast, those who thought their dermatologist listened to their concerns and individualized their treatment plan reported higher levels of satisfaction.”

In an interview, Dr. Barbieri, who is now with the department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that he was surprised by how many patients expressed interest in nonantibiotic treatments for acne, “given that oral antibiotics are by far the most commonly prescribed systemic treatment for acne.”

Moreover, he added, “although I have experienced many patients being hesitant about isotretinoin, I was surprised by how strong patients’ concerns were about isotretinoin side effects. Unfortunately, there are many misconceptions about isotretinoin that limit use of this treatment that can be highly effective and safe for the appropriate patient.”

In an accompanying editorial, dermatologists Diane M. Thiboutot, MD and Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, with Penn State University, Hershey, and Alison M. Layton, MB, ChB, with the Harrogate Foundation Trust, Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England, wrote that the findings from the study “resonate with those recently reported in several international studies that examine the impacts of acne, how patients assess treatment success, and what is important to measure from a patient and health care professional perspective in a clinical trial for acne.”

A large systematic review on the impact of acne on patients, conducted by the Acne Core Outcomes Research Network (ACORN), found that “appearance-related concerns and negative psychosocial effects were found to be a major impact of acne,” they noted. “Surprisingly, only 22 of the 473 studies identified in this review included qualitative data gathered from patient interviews. It is encouraging to see the concordance between the concerns voiced by the participants in the current study and those identified from the literature review, wherein a variety of methods were used to assess acne impacts.”

For his part, Dr. Barbieri said that the study findings “justify the importance of having a discussion with patients about their unique lived experience of acne and individualizing treatment to their specific needs. Patient reported outcome measures could be a useful adjunctive tool to capture these impacts on quality of life.”

This study was funded by grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he received partial salary support through a Pfizer Fellowship in Dermatology Patient Oriented Research grant to the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Thiboutot reported receiving consultant fees from Galderma and Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr. Layton reported receiving unrestricted educational presentation, advisory board, and consultancy fees from Galderma Honoraria; unrestricted educational presentation and advisory board honoraria from Leo; advisory board honoraria from Novartis and Mylan; consultancy honoraria from Procter and Gamble and Meda; grants from Galderma; and consultancy and advisory board honoraria from Origimm outside the submitted work.

[email protected]

Adult women with acne describe significant impacts on their lived experience of acne, including concerns about appearance, mental and emotional health consequences, and disruption to their personal and professional lives, results from a qualitative study demonstrated.

“Nearly 50% of women experience acne in their 20s, and 35% experience acne in their 30s,” the study’s corresponding author, John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, formerly of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. “While several qualitative studies have examined acne in adolescence, the lived experience of adult female acne has not been explored in detail and prior studies have included relatively few patients. As a result, we conducted a series of semistructured interviews among adult women with acne to examine the lived experience of adult acne and its treatment.”

For the study, published online July 28, 2021, in JAMA Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri and colleagues conducted voluntary, confidential phone interviews with 50 women aged between 18 and 40 years with moderate to severe acne who were recruited from the University of Pennsylvania Health System and from a private dermatology clinic in Cincinnati. They used free listing and open-ended, semistructured interviews to elicit opinions from the women on how acne affected their lives; their experience with acne treatments, dermatologists, and health care systems; as well as their views on treatment success.

The mean age of the participants was 28 years and 48% were white (10% were Black, 8% were Asian, 4% were more than one race, and the rest abstained from answering this question; 10% said they were Hispanic).

More than three-quarters (78%) reported prior treatment with topical retinoids, followed by spironolactone (70%), topical antibiotics (43%), combined oral contraceptives (43%), and isotretinoin (41%). During the free-listing part of interviews, where the women reported the first words that came to their mind when asked about success of treatment and adverse effects, the most important terms expressed related to treatment success were clear skin, no scarring, and no acne. The most important terms related to treatment adverse effects were dryness, redness, and burning.

In the semistructured interview portion of the study, the main themes expressed were acne-related concerns about appearance, including feeling less confident at work; mental and emotional health, including feelings of depression, anxiety, depression, and low self-worth during acne breakouts; and everyday life impact, including the notion that acne affected how other people perceived them. The other main themes included successful treatment, with clear skin and having a manageable number of lesions being desirable outcomes; and interactions with health care, including varied experiences with dermatologists. The researchers observed that most participants did not think oral antibiotics were appropriate treatments for their acne, specifically because of limited long-term effectiveness.

“Many patients described frustration with finding a dermatologist with whom they were comfortable and with identifying effective treatments for their acne,” the authors wrote. “In contrast, those who thought their dermatologist listened to their concerns and individualized their treatment plan reported higher levels of satisfaction.”

In an interview, Dr. Barbieri, who is now with the department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that he was surprised by how many patients expressed interest in nonantibiotic treatments for acne, “given that oral antibiotics are by far the most commonly prescribed systemic treatment for acne.”

Moreover, he added, “although I have experienced many patients being hesitant about isotretinoin, I was surprised by how strong patients’ concerns were about isotretinoin side effects. Unfortunately, there are many misconceptions about isotretinoin that limit use of this treatment that can be highly effective and safe for the appropriate patient.”

In an accompanying editorial, dermatologists Diane M. Thiboutot, MD and Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, with Penn State University, Hershey, and Alison M. Layton, MB, ChB, with the Harrogate Foundation Trust, Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England, wrote that the findings from the study “resonate with those recently reported in several international studies that examine the impacts of acne, how patients assess treatment success, and what is important to measure from a patient and health care professional perspective in a clinical trial for acne.”

A large systematic review on the impact of acne on patients, conducted by the Acne Core Outcomes Research Network (ACORN), found that “appearance-related concerns and negative psychosocial effects were found to be a major impact of acne,” they noted. “Surprisingly, only 22 of the 473 studies identified in this review included qualitative data gathered from patient interviews. It is encouraging to see the concordance between the concerns voiced by the participants in the current study and those identified from the literature review, wherein a variety of methods were used to assess acne impacts.”

For his part, Dr. Barbieri said that the study findings “justify the importance of having a discussion with patients about their unique lived experience of acne and individualizing treatment to their specific needs. Patient reported outcome measures could be a useful adjunctive tool to capture these impacts on quality of life.”

This study was funded by grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he received partial salary support through a Pfizer Fellowship in Dermatology Patient Oriented Research grant to the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Thiboutot reported receiving consultant fees from Galderma and Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr. Layton reported receiving unrestricted educational presentation, advisory board, and consultancy fees from Galderma Honoraria; unrestricted educational presentation and advisory board honoraria from Leo; advisory board honoraria from Novartis and Mylan; consultancy honoraria from Procter and Gamble and Meda; grants from Galderma; and consultancy and advisory board honoraria from Origimm outside the submitted work.

[email protected]

Adult women with acne describe significant impacts on their lived experience of acne, including concerns about appearance, mental and emotional health consequences, and disruption to their personal and professional lives, results from a qualitative study demonstrated.

“Nearly 50% of women experience acne in their 20s, and 35% experience acne in their 30s,” the study’s corresponding author, John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, formerly of the department of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, told this news organization. “While several qualitative studies have examined acne in adolescence, the lived experience of adult female acne has not been explored in detail and prior studies have included relatively few patients. As a result, we conducted a series of semistructured interviews among adult women with acne to examine the lived experience of adult acne and its treatment.”

For the study, published online July 28, 2021, in JAMA Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri and colleagues conducted voluntary, confidential phone interviews with 50 women aged between 18 and 40 years with moderate to severe acne who were recruited from the University of Pennsylvania Health System and from a private dermatology clinic in Cincinnati. They used free listing and open-ended, semistructured interviews to elicit opinions from the women on how acne affected their lives; their experience with acne treatments, dermatologists, and health care systems; as well as their views on treatment success.

The mean age of the participants was 28 years and 48% were white (10% were Black, 8% were Asian, 4% were more than one race, and the rest abstained from answering this question; 10% said they were Hispanic).

More than three-quarters (78%) reported prior treatment with topical retinoids, followed by spironolactone (70%), topical antibiotics (43%), combined oral contraceptives (43%), and isotretinoin (41%). During the free-listing part of interviews, where the women reported the first words that came to their mind when asked about success of treatment and adverse effects, the most important terms expressed related to treatment success were clear skin, no scarring, and no acne. The most important terms related to treatment adverse effects were dryness, redness, and burning.

In the semistructured interview portion of the study, the main themes expressed were acne-related concerns about appearance, including feeling less confident at work; mental and emotional health, including feelings of depression, anxiety, depression, and low self-worth during acne breakouts; and everyday life impact, including the notion that acne affected how other people perceived them. The other main themes included successful treatment, with clear skin and having a manageable number of lesions being desirable outcomes; and interactions with health care, including varied experiences with dermatologists. The researchers observed that most participants did not think oral antibiotics were appropriate treatments for their acne, specifically because of limited long-term effectiveness.

“Many patients described frustration with finding a dermatologist with whom they were comfortable and with identifying effective treatments for their acne,” the authors wrote. “In contrast, those who thought their dermatologist listened to their concerns and individualized their treatment plan reported higher levels of satisfaction.”

In an interview, Dr. Barbieri, who is now with the department of dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said that he was surprised by how many patients expressed interest in nonantibiotic treatments for acne, “given that oral antibiotics are by far the most commonly prescribed systemic treatment for acne.”

Moreover, he added, “although I have experienced many patients being hesitant about isotretinoin, I was surprised by how strong patients’ concerns were about isotretinoin side effects. Unfortunately, there are many misconceptions about isotretinoin that limit use of this treatment that can be highly effective and safe for the appropriate patient.”

In an accompanying editorial, dermatologists Diane M. Thiboutot, MD and Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, with Penn State University, Hershey, and Alison M. Layton, MB, ChB, with the Harrogate Foundation Trust, Harrogate, North Yorkshire, England, wrote that the findings from the study “resonate with those recently reported in several international studies that examine the impacts of acne, how patients assess treatment success, and what is important to measure from a patient and health care professional perspective in a clinical trial for acne.”

A large systematic review on the impact of acne on patients, conducted by the Acne Core Outcomes Research Network (ACORN), found that “appearance-related concerns and negative psychosocial effects were found to be a major impact of acne,” they noted. “Surprisingly, only 22 of the 473 studies identified in this review included qualitative data gathered from patient interviews. It is encouraging to see the concordance between the concerns voiced by the participants in the current study and those identified from the literature review, wherein a variety of methods were used to assess acne impacts.”

For his part, Dr. Barbieri said that the study findings “justify the importance of having a discussion with patients about their unique lived experience of acne and individualizing treatment to their specific needs. Patient reported outcome measures could be a useful adjunctive tool to capture these impacts on quality of life.”

This study was funded by grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he received partial salary support through a Pfizer Fellowship in Dermatology Patient Oriented Research grant to the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Thiboutot reported receiving consultant fees from Galderma and Novartis outside the submitted work. Dr. Layton reported receiving unrestricted educational presentation, advisory board, and consultancy fees from Galderma Honoraria; unrestricted educational presentation and advisory board honoraria from Leo; advisory board honoraria from Novartis and Mylan; consultancy honoraria from Procter and Gamble and Meda; grants from Galderma; and consultancy and advisory board honoraria from Origimm outside the submitted work.

[email protected]

Plasma biomarkers such as amyloid-beta 40 and 42, phosphorylated tau 181 and 217, and neurofilament light hold great promise for diagnosing and determining a prognosis for Alzheimer’s disease. Such tests are likely to be widely available in the near future.

But work remains to be done to translate findings from academic studies to the more general population. A key consideration is that plasma levels of these biomarkers could be affected by other conditions, which could in turn skew test results, according to Michelle Mielke, PhD, who spoke on the topic at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

“The markers, which we’ve published on as well, look really promising. But they have primarily been looked at in more specialty clinics or memory clinics, and have not been examined in the general community. The goal of this presentation was really just to take a look at this in the community, in older individuals that have multiple comorbidities, and to understand what factors might affect the levels of these markers. Because as we do go forward and develop cut points, we are going to have to consider these aspects,” said Dr. Mielke in an interview. She is a professor of epidemiology and neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
 

Case in point

To illustrate the point, Dr. Mielke presented data from her group, which analyzed P-tau 181 and P-tau 217 data from 1,329 Mayo clinic patients. Of that total, 1,161 were cognitively unimpaired (CU), 153 had mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 15 had dementia. The median age was 67, 55% were male, and 26% had the APOE e4 allele.

After adjustment for age and sex, there were statistically significantly elevated levels of both biomarkers among patients who had tested positive for amyloid and patients who had had a stroke or myocardial infarction, and in the presence of chronic kidney disease (CKD). There also was a trend towards an increase of biomarker levels with increasing body mass index. The differences remained even after the analysis was restricted to individuals who were amyloid negative.

The researchers then looked more closely at the impact of CKD, stroke, and MI on P-tau cut points and the ability to predict abnormal amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) scans. They defined an abnormal range as 1.96 standard deviation units beyond the mean among amyloid-negative individuals who are cognitively impaired. They excluded subjects with those risk factors and then established new cut points in the absence of the factors. The approach led to a significant change for the cutoff of P-tau 181 values, from 1.57 pg/mL or greater for individuals without stroke, MI, or CKD, and 1.75 pg/mL or greater for individuals with one such factor. There was little difference in the cutoff value for P-tau 217, from 0.25 pg/mL to 0.26 pg/mL.

Among people without a history of stroke, MI, or CKD, a P-tau 181 cutoff of 1.57 pg/mL or greater had an area under the receiving operating characteristic (AUROC) value of 0.717 (95% confidence interval, 0.691-0.744), compared with an AUROC of 0.687 (95% CI, 0.662-0.712) at a cutoff of 1.75 pg/mL or greater among people with those conditions. For P-tau 217, the values were 0.737 pg/mL (95% CI, 0.712-0.762) and 0.724 pg/mL (95% CI, 0.699-0.748), respectively.

“The sensitivity was better when they excluded those individuals with these conditions. Specificity was slightly, but not significantly, lower,” said Dr. Mielke during her talk.
 

Other considerations

Dr. Mielke added that it will be important to account for these and other factors when applying biomarkers in community settings, but they should also be considered in the context of health care disparities. Stroke, MI, and CKD are more common in African Americans, for example, suggesting that there could be racial differences in biomarker levels, though she said the difference in biomarker levels would be more likely attributable to the underlying comorbidities than race per se. “As shown, these factors can affect the consideration of an accuracy of cut points for clinical use. So I think future discussions will be needed as to how best to determine the cut points, and how to base them off of (different) populations,” said Dr. Mielke.

These sorts of refinements are important, according to Christopher Weber, PhD, who was asked for comment. “We have learned the importance of an early and accurate diagnosis. The blood test is a biomarker that does detect the hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease sometimes up to decades before symptoms even appear,” said Dr. Weber, who is director of Global Science Initiatives at the Alzheimer’s Association.

But “there’s a lot more that we need to learn regarding when exactly to use them, who they’re appropriate for. And I think validation is the key to these blood biomarkers,” Dr. Weber added.

Dr. Mielke has been a consultant with the Brain Protection Company and Biogen. Dr. Weber has no relevant financial disclosures.

Plasma biomarkers such as amyloid-beta 40 and 42, phosphorylated tau 181 and 217, and neurofilament light hold great promise for diagnosing and determining a prognosis for Alzheimer’s disease. Such tests are likely to be widely available in the near future.

But work remains to be done to translate findings from academic studies to the more general population. A key consideration is that plasma levels of these biomarkers could be affected by other conditions, which could in turn skew test results, according to Michelle Mielke, PhD, who spoke on the topic at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

“The markers, which we’ve published on as well, look really promising. But they have primarily been looked at in more specialty clinics or memory clinics, and have not been examined in the general community. The goal of this presentation was really just to take a look at this in the community, in older individuals that have multiple comorbidities, and to understand what factors might affect the levels of these markers. Because as we do go forward and develop cut points, we are going to have to consider these aspects,” said Dr. Mielke in an interview. She is a professor of epidemiology and neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
 

Case in point

To illustrate the point, Dr. Mielke presented data from her group, which analyzed P-tau 181 and P-tau 217 data from 1,329 Mayo clinic patients. Of that total, 1,161 were cognitively unimpaired (CU), 153 had mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 15 had dementia. The median age was 67, 55% were male, and 26% had the APOE e4 allele.

After adjustment for age and sex, there were statistically significantly elevated levels of both biomarkers among patients who had tested positive for amyloid and patients who had had a stroke or myocardial infarction, and in the presence of chronic kidney disease (CKD). There also was a trend towards an increase of biomarker levels with increasing body mass index. The differences remained even after the analysis was restricted to individuals who were amyloid negative.

The researchers then looked more closely at the impact of CKD, stroke, and MI on P-tau cut points and the ability to predict abnormal amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) scans. They defined an abnormal range as 1.96 standard deviation units beyond the mean among amyloid-negative individuals who are cognitively impaired. They excluded subjects with those risk factors and then established new cut points in the absence of the factors. The approach led to a significant change for the cutoff of P-tau 181 values, from 1.57 pg/mL or greater for individuals without stroke, MI, or CKD, and 1.75 pg/mL or greater for individuals with one such factor. There was little difference in the cutoff value for P-tau 217, from 0.25 pg/mL to 0.26 pg/mL.

Among people without a history of stroke, MI, or CKD, a P-tau 181 cutoff of 1.57 pg/mL or greater had an area under the receiving operating characteristic (AUROC) value of 0.717 (95% confidence interval, 0.691-0.744), compared with an AUROC of 0.687 (95% CI, 0.662-0.712) at a cutoff of 1.75 pg/mL or greater among people with those conditions. For P-tau 217, the values were 0.737 pg/mL (95% CI, 0.712-0.762) and 0.724 pg/mL (95% CI, 0.699-0.748), respectively.

“The sensitivity was better when they excluded those individuals with these conditions. Specificity was slightly, but not significantly, lower,” said Dr. Mielke during her talk.
 

Other considerations

Dr. Mielke added that it will be important to account for these and other factors when applying biomarkers in community settings, but they should also be considered in the context of health care disparities. Stroke, MI, and CKD are more common in African Americans, for example, suggesting that there could be racial differences in biomarker levels, though she said the difference in biomarker levels would be more likely attributable to the underlying comorbidities than race per se. “As shown, these factors can affect the consideration of an accuracy of cut points for clinical use. So I think future discussions will be needed as to how best to determine the cut points, and how to base them off of (different) populations,” said Dr. Mielke.

These sorts of refinements are important, according to Christopher Weber, PhD, who was asked for comment. “We have learned the importance of an early and accurate diagnosis. The blood test is a biomarker that does detect the hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease sometimes up to decades before symptoms even appear,” said Dr. Weber, who is director of Global Science Initiatives at the Alzheimer’s Association.

But “there’s a lot more that we need to learn regarding when exactly to use them, who they’re appropriate for. And I think validation is the key to these blood biomarkers,” Dr. Weber added.

Dr. Mielke has been a consultant with the Brain Protection Company and Biogen. Dr. Weber has no relevant financial disclosures.

Plasma biomarkers such as amyloid-beta 40 and 42, phosphorylated tau 181 and 217, and neurofilament light hold great promise for diagnosing and determining a prognosis for Alzheimer’s disease. Such tests are likely to be widely available in the near future.

But work remains to be done to translate findings from academic studies to the more general population. A key consideration is that plasma levels of these biomarkers could be affected by other conditions, which could in turn skew test results, according to Michelle Mielke, PhD, who spoke on the topic at the 2021 Alzheimer’s Association International Conference.

“The markers, which we’ve published on as well, look really promising. But they have primarily been looked at in more specialty clinics or memory clinics, and have not been examined in the general community. The goal of this presentation was really just to take a look at this in the community, in older individuals that have multiple comorbidities, and to understand what factors might affect the levels of these markers. Because as we do go forward and develop cut points, we are going to have to consider these aspects,” said Dr. Mielke in an interview. She is a professor of epidemiology and neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
 

Case in point

To illustrate the point, Dr. Mielke presented data from her group, which analyzed P-tau 181 and P-tau 217 data from 1,329 Mayo clinic patients. Of that total, 1,161 were cognitively unimpaired (CU), 153 had mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and 15 had dementia. The median age was 67, 55% were male, and 26% had the APOE e4 allele.

After adjustment for age and sex, there were statistically significantly elevated levels of both biomarkers among patients who had tested positive for amyloid and patients who had had a stroke or myocardial infarction, and in the presence of chronic kidney disease (CKD). There also was a trend towards an increase of biomarker levels with increasing body mass index. The differences remained even after the analysis was restricted to individuals who were amyloid negative.

The researchers then looked more closely at the impact of CKD, stroke, and MI on P-tau cut points and the ability to predict abnormal amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) scans. They defined an abnormal range as 1.96 standard deviation units beyond the mean among amyloid-negative individuals who are cognitively impaired. They excluded subjects with those risk factors and then established new cut points in the absence of the factors. The approach led to a significant change for the cutoff of P-tau 181 values, from 1.57 pg/mL or greater for individuals without stroke, MI, or CKD, and 1.75 pg/mL or greater for individuals with one such factor. There was little difference in the cutoff value for P-tau 217, from 0.25 pg/mL to 0.26 pg/mL.

Among people without a history of stroke, MI, or CKD, a P-tau 181 cutoff of 1.57 pg/mL or greater had an area under the receiving operating characteristic (AUROC) value of 0.717 (95% confidence interval, 0.691-0.744), compared with an AUROC of 0.687 (95% CI, 0.662-0.712) at a cutoff of 1.75 pg/mL or greater among people with those conditions. For P-tau 217, the values were 0.737 pg/mL (95% CI, 0.712-0.762) and 0.724 pg/mL (95% CI, 0.699-0.748), respectively.

“The sensitivity was better when they excluded those individuals with these conditions. Specificity was slightly, but not significantly, lower,” said Dr. Mielke during her talk.
 

Other considerations

Dr. Mielke added that it will be important to account for these and other factors when applying biomarkers in community settings, but they should also be considered in the context of health care disparities. Stroke, MI, and CKD are more common in African Americans, for example, suggesting that there could be racial differences in biomarker levels, though she said the difference in biomarker levels would be more likely attributable to the underlying comorbidities than race per se. “As shown, these factors can affect the consideration of an accuracy of cut points for clinical use. So I think future discussions will be needed as to how best to determine the cut points, and how to base them off of (different) populations,” said Dr. Mielke.

These sorts of refinements are important, according to Christopher Weber, PhD, who was asked for comment. “We have learned the importance of an early and accurate diagnosis. The blood test is a biomarker that does detect the hallmarks of Alzheimer’s disease sometimes up to decades before symptoms even appear,” said Dr. Weber, who is director of Global Science Initiatives at the Alzheimer’s Association.

But “there’s a lot more that we need to learn regarding when exactly to use them, who they’re appropriate for. And I think validation is the key to these blood biomarkers,” Dr. Weber added.

Dr. Mielke has been a consultant with the Brain Protection Company and Biogen. Dr. Weber has no relevant financial disclosures.