Geriatrics

One of the hardest tasks of a clinician is applying evidence from trials to the person in your office. At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, the surprising and unexpected results of the FRAIL-AF trial confirm the massive challenge of evidence translation.

FRAIL-AF investigators set out to study the question of whether frail, elderly patients with atrial fibrillation who were doing well with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) should be switched to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC).

Senior author Geert-Jan Geersing, MD, PhD, from the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), told me that frustration led him to design this study. He was frustrated that colleagues assumed that evidence in nonfrail patients can always be translated to frail patients. 

Dr. Geersing offered two reasons why common wisdom may be wrong. First was that the large DOAC versus warfarin trials included few elderly patients with frailty. Second, first author Linda Joosten, MD, made it clear in her presentation that frailty is a lot more than aging. It is a clinical syndrome, which entails a “high burden of comorbidities, dependency on others, and a reduced ability to resist stressors.”
 

The FRAIL-AF trial

The investigators recruited elderly, frail patients with fibrillation who were treated with VKAs and had stable international normalized ratios from outpatient clinics throughout the Netherlands. They screened about 2,600 patients and enrolled nearly 1,400. Most were excluded for not being frail.

Half the group was randomized to switching to a DOAC – drug choice was left to the treating clinician – and the other half remained on VKAs. Patients were 83 years of age on average with a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4. All four classes of DOAC were used in the switching arm.

The primary endpoint was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, whichever came first, accounting for death as a competing risk. Follow-up was 1 year.
 

The results for switching to DOAC vs. VKA

Dr. Joosten started her presentation with this: “The results turned out to be different than we expected.” The authors designed the trial with the idea that switching to DOACs would be superior in safety to remaining on VKAs.

But the trial was halted after an interim analysis found a rate of major bleeding in the switching arm of 15.3% versus 9.4% in the arm staying on VKA (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.32; P = .0012).

The Kaplan-Meier event curves reveal that the excess risk of bleeding occurred after 100 days and increased with time. This argued against an early effect from transitioning the drugs.

An analysis looking at specific DOAC drugs revealed similar hazards for the two most common ones used – apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Thrombotic events were a secondary endpoint and were low in absolute numbers, 2.4% versus 2.0%, for remaining on VKA and switching to DOAC, respectively (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.60-2.61).

The time in therapeutic range in FRAIL-AF was similar to that in the seminal DOAC trials.
 

Comments

Three reasons lead me to choose FRAIL-AF as the most important study from the 2023 ESC congress.

First is the specific lesson about switching drugs. Note that FRAIL-AF did not address the question of starting anticoagulation. The trial results show that if you have a frail older patient who is doing well on VKA, don’t change to a DOAC. That is important to know, but it is not what gives this study its heft.

The second reason centers on the investigators choice to do this trial. Dr. Geersing had a feeling that common wisdom was wrong. He did not try to persuade colleagues with anecdote or plausibility or meta-analyses of observational studies. He set out to answer a question in the correct way – with a randomized trial.

This is the path forward in medicine. I’ve often heard proponents of observational research declare that many topics in medicine cannot be studied with trials. I could hear people arguing that it’s not feasible to study mostly home-bound, elderly frail patients. And the fact that there exist so few trials in this space would support that argument.

But the FRAIL-AF authors showed that it is possible. This is the kind of science that medicine should celebrate. There were no soft endpoints, financial conflicts, or spin. If medical science had science as its incentive, rather than attention, FRAIL-AF easily wins top honors.

The third reason FRAIL-AF is so important is that it teaches us the humility required in translating evidence in our clinics. I like to say evidence is what separates doctors from palm readers. But using this evidence requires thinking hard about how average effects in trial environments apply to our patient.

Yes, of course, there is clear evidence from tens of thousands of patients in the DOAC versus warfarin trials, that, for those patients, on average, DOACs compare favorably with VKA. The average age of patients in these trials was 70-73 years; the average age in FRAIL-AF was 83 years. And that is just age. A substudy of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial found that only 360 of more than 20,000 patients in the trial had severe frailty.

FRAIL-AF clearly shows how cautious we should be in applying evidence gathered in younger, healthier patients to older, more vulnerable patients. That lesson extends to nearly every common therapy in medicine today. It also casts great doubt on the soft-thinking idea of using evidence from trials to derive quality metrics. As if the nuance of evidence translation can be captured in an electronic health record.

The skillful use of evidence will be one of the main challenges of the next generation of clinicians. Thanks to advances in medical science, more patients will live long enough to become frail. And the so-called “guideline-directed” therapies may not apply to them.

Dr. Joosten, Dr. Geersing, and the FRAIL-AF team have taught us specific lessons about anticoagulation, but their greatest contribution has been to demonstrate the value of humility in science and the practice of evidence-based medicine.

If you treat patients, no trial at this meeting is more important.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

One of the hardest tasks of a clinician is applying evidence from trials to the person in your office. At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, the surprising and unexpected results of the FRAIL-AF trial confirm the massive challenge of evidence translation.

FRAIL-AF investigators set out to study the question of whether frail, elderly patients with atrial fibrillation who were doing well with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) should be switched to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC).

Senior author Geert-Jan Geersing, MD, PhD, from the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), told me that frustration led him to design this study. He was frustrated that colleagues assumed that evidence in nonfrail patients can always be translated to frail patients. 

Dr. Geersing offered two reasons why common wisdom may be wrong. First was that the large DOAC versus warfarin trials included few elderly patients with frailty. Second, first author Linda Joosten, MD, made it clear in her presentation that frailty is a lot more than aging. It is a clinical syndrome, which entails a “high burden of comorbidities, dependency on others, and a reduced ability to resist stressors.”
 

The FRAIL-AF trial

The investigators recruited elderly, frail patients with fibrillation who were treated with VKAs and had stable international normalized ratios from outpatient clinics throughout the Netherlands. They screened about 2,600 patients and enrolled nearly 1,400. Most were excluded for not being frail.

Half the group was randomized to switching to a DOAC – drug choice was left to the treating clinician – and the other half remained on VKAs. Patients were 83 years of age on average with a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4. All four classes of DOAC were used in the switching arm.

The primary endpoint was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, whichever came first, accounting for death as a competing risk. Follow-up was 1 year.
 

The results for switching to DOAC vs. VKA

Dr. Joosten started her presentation with this: “The results turned out to be different than we expected.” The authors designed the trial with the idea that switching to DOACs would be superior in safety to remaining on VKAs.

But the trial was halted after an interim analysis found a rate of major bleeding in the switching arm of 15.3% versus 9.4% in the arm staying on VKA (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.32; P = .0012).

The Kaplan-Meier event curves reveal that the excess risk of bleeding occurred after 100 days and increased with time. This argued against an early effect from transitioning the drugs.

An analysis looking at specific DOAC drugs revealed similar hazards for the two most common ones used – apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Thrombotic events were a secondary endpoint and were low in absolute numbers, 2.4% versus 2.0%, for remaining on VKA and switching to DOAC, respectively (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.60-2.61).

The time in therapeutic range in FRAIL-AF was similar to that in the seminal DOAC trials.
 

Comments

Three reasons lead me to choose FRAIL-AF as the most important study from the 2023 ESC congress.

First is the specific lesson about switching drugs. Note that FRAIL-AF did not address the question of starting anticoagulation. The trial results show that if you have a frail older patient who is doing well on VKA, don’t change to a DOAC. That is important to know, but it is not what gives this study its heft.

The second reason centers on the investigators choice to do this trial. Dr. Geersing had a feeling that common wisdom was wrong. He did not try to persuade colleagues with anecdote or plausibility or meta-analyses of observational studies. He set out to answer a question in the correct way – with a randomized trial.

This is the path forward in medicine. I’ve often heard proponents of observational research declare that many topics in medicine cannot be studied with trials. I could hear people arguing that it’s not feasible to study mostly home-bound, elderly frail patients. And the fact that there exist so few trials in this space would support that argument.

But the FRAIL-AF authors showed that it is possible. This is the kind of science that medicine should celebrate. There were no soft endpoints, financial conflicts, or spin. If medical science had science as its incentive, rather than attention, FRAIL-AF easily wins top honors.

The third reason FRAIL-AF is so important is that it teaches us the humility required in translating evidence in our clinics. I like to say evidence is what separates doctors from palm readers. But using this evidence requires thinking hard about how average effects in trial environments apply to our patient.

Yes, of course, there is clear evidence from tens of thousands of patients in the DOAC versus warfarin trials, that, for those patients, on average, DOACs compare favorably with VKA. The average age of patients in these trials was 70-73 years; the average age in FRAIL-AF was 83 years. And that is just age. A substudy of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial found that only 360 of more than 20,000 patients in the trial had severe frailty.

FRAIL-AF clearly shows how cautious we should be in applying evidence gathered in younger, healthier patients to older, more vulnerable patients. That lesson extends to nearly every common therapy in medicine today. It also casts great doubt on the soft-thinking idea of using evidence from trials to derive quality metrics. As if the nuance of evidence translation can be captured in an electronic health record.

The skillful use of evidence will be one of the main challenges of the next generation of clinicians. Thanks to advances in medical science, more patients will live long enough to become frail. And the so-called “guideline-directed” therapies may not apply to them.

Dr. Joosten, Dr. Geersing, and the FRAIL-AF team have taught us specific lessons about anticoagulation, but their greatest contribution has been to demonstrate the value of humility in science and the practice of evidence-based medicine.

If you treat patients, no trial at this meeting is more important.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

One of the hardest tasks of a clinician is applying evidence from trials to the person in your office. At the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, the surprising and unexpected results of the FRAIL-AF trial confirm the massive challenge of evidence translation.

FRAIL-AF investigators set out to study the question of whether frail, elderly patients with atrial fibrillation who were doing well with vitamin K antagonists (VKA) should be switched to direct-acting oral anticoagulants (DOAC).

Senior author Geert-Jan Geersing, MD, PhD, from the University Medical Center Utrecht (the Netherlands), told me that frustration led him to design this study. He was frustrated that colleagues assumed that evidence in nonfrail patients can always be translated to frail patients. 

Dr. Geersing offered two reasons why common wisdom may be wrong. First was that the large DOAC versus warfarin trials included few elderly patients with frailty. Second, first author Linda Joosten, MD, made it clear in her presentation that frailty is a lot more than aging. It is a clinical syndrome, which entails a “high burden of comorbidities, dependency on others, and a reduced ability to resist stressors.”
 

The FRAIL-AF trial

The investigators recruited elderly, frail patients with fibrillation who were treated with VKAs and had stable international normalized ratios from outpatient clinics throughout the Netherlands. They screened about 2,600 patients and enrolled nearly 1,400. Most were excluded for not being frail.

Half the group was randomized to switching to a DOAC – drug choice was left to the treating clinician – and the other half remained on VKAs. Patients were 83 years of age on average with a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4. All four classes of DOAC were used in the switching arm.

The primary endpoint was major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, whichever came first, accounting for death as a competing risk. Follow-up was 1 year.
 

The results for switching to DOAC vs. VKA

Dr. Joosten started her presentation with this: “The results turned out to be different than we expected.” The authors designed the trial with the idea that switching to DOACs would be superior in safety to remaining on VKAs.

But the trial was halted after an interim analysis found a rate of major bleeding in the switching arm of 15.3% versus 9.4% in the arm staying on VKA (hazard ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-2.32; P = .0012).

The Kaplan-Meier event curves reveal that the excess risk of bleeding occurred after 100 days and increased with time. This argued against an early effect from transitioning the drugs.

An analysis looking at specific DOAC drugs revealed similar hazards for the two most common ones used – apixaban and rivaroxaban.

Thrombotic events were a secondary endpoint and were low in absolute numbers, 2.4% versus 2.0%, for remaining on VKA and switching to DOAC, respectively (HR, 1.26; 95% CI, 0.60-2.61).

The time in therapeutic range in FRAIL-AF was similar to that in the seminal DOAC trials.
 

Comments

Three reasons lead me to choose FRAIL-AF as the most important study from the 2023 ESC congress.

First is the specific lesson about switching drugs. Note that FRAIL-AF did not address the question of starting anticoagulation. The trial results show that if you have a frail older patient who is doing well on VKA, don’t change to a DOAC. That is important to know, but it is not what gives this study its heft.

The second reason centers on the investigators choice to do this trial. Dr. Geersing had a feeling that common wisdom was wrong. He did not try to persuade colleagues with anecdote or plausibility or meta-analyses of observational studies. He set out to answer a question in the correct way – with a randomized trial.

This is the path forward in medicine. I’ve often heard proponents of observational research declare that many topics in medicine cannot be studied with trials. I could hear people arguing that it’s not feasible to study mostly home-bound, elderly frail patients. And the fact that there exist so few trials in this space would support that argument.

But the FRAIL-AF authors showed that it is possible. This is the kind of science that medicine should celebrate. There were no soft endpoints, financial conflicts, or spin. If medical science had science as its incentive, rather than attention, FRAIL-AF easily wins top honors.

The third reason FRAIL-AF is so important is that it teaches us the humility required in translating evidence in our clinics. I like to say evidence is what separates doctors from palm readers. But using this evidence requires thinking hard about how average effects in trial environments apply to our patient.

Yes, of course, there is clear evidence from tens of thousands of patients in the DOAC versus warfarin trials, that, for those patients, on average, DOACs compare favorably with VKA. The average age of patients in these trials was 70-73 years; the average age in FRAIL-AF was 83 years. And that is just age. A substudy of the ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 trial found that only 360 of more than 20,000 patients in the trial had severe frailty.

FRAIL-AF clearly shows how cautious we should be in applying evidence gathered in younger, healthier patients to older, more vulnerable patients. That lesson extends to nearly every common therapy in medicine today. It also casts great doubt on the soft-thinking idea of using evidence from trials to derive quality metrics. As if the nuance of evidence translation can be captured in an electronic health record.

The skillful use of evidence will be one of the main challenges of the next generation of clinicians. Thanks to advances in medical science, more patients will live long enough to become frail. And the so-called “guideline-directed” therapies may not apply to them.

Dr. Joosten, Dr. Geersing, and the FRAIL-AF team have taught us specific lessons about anticoagulation, but their greatest contribution has been to demonstrate the value of humility in science and the practice of evidence-based medicine.

If you treat patients, no trial at this meeting is more important.

Dr. Mandrola is a clinical electrophysiologist at Baptist Medical Associates, Louisville, Ky. He reported no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

For many years, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was thought of as a disorder of childhood; however, it is now increasingly being recognized as a chronic, lifelong disorder that persists into adulthood in approximately two-thirds of patients.¹ While our knowledge about ADHD in adults has increased, most research in this population focused on young or middle-aged adults; less is known about ADHD in older adults. Older adults with ADHD may be newly diagnosed at any point in their lives, or not at all.² Because ADHD may present differently in older adults than in children or young adults, and because it may impair domains of life in different ways, a closer look at late-life ADHD is needed. This article summarizes the literature on the prevalence, impairment, diagnosis, and treatment of ADHD in adults age >60.

Challenges in determining the prevalence

Few studies have examined the age-specific prevalence of ADHD among older adults.³ Compared with childhood ADHD, adult ADHD is relatively neglected in epidemiological studies, largely due to the absence of well-established, validated diagnostic criteria.^1,4 Some experts have noted that DSM-5’s ADHD criteria were designed for diagnosing children, and the children-focused symptom threshold may not be useful for adults because ADHD symptoms decline substantially with age.² One study evaluating DSM-5 ADHD criteria in young adults (N = 4,000, age 18 to 19) found ADHD was better diagnosed when the required number of clinically relevant inattention and hyperactivity symptoms was reduced from 6 to 5 for each category.⁵ They also found the DSM-5 age-at-onset criterion of symptoms present before age 12 had a significant effect on ADHD prevalence, reducing the rate from 23.7% (95% CI, 22.38 to 25.02) to 5.4% (95% CI, 13.99 to 16.21).⁵ This suggests that strict usage of DSM-5 criteria may underestimate the prevalence of ADHD in adults, because ADHD symptoms may not be detected in childhood, or self-reporting of childhood ADHD symptoms in older adults may be unreliable due to aging processes that compromise memory and recall. These findings also indicate that fewer ADHD symptoms are needed to impair functioning in older age.

Determining the prevalence of ADHD among older adults is further complicated by individuals who report symptoms consistent with an ADHD diagnosis despite having never received this diagnosis during childhood.^6-8 This may be due to the considerable number of children who meet ADHD criteria but do not get a diagnosis due to limited access to health care.⁹ Thus, many studies separately analyze the syndromatic (with a childhood onset) and symptomatic (regardless of childhood onset) persistence of ADHD. One epidemiological meta-analysis found the 2020 prevalence of syndromatic ADHD in adults age >60 was 0.77% and the prevalence of symptomatic ADHD was 4.51%, which translates to 7.91 million and 46.36 million affected older adults, respectively.⁸ Other research has reported higher rates among older adults.^6,7,10 The variations among this research may be attributed to the use of different diagnostic tools/criteria, study populations, sampling methods, or DSM versions. Heterogeneity among this research also further supports the idea that the prevalence of ADHD is heavily dependent on how one defines and diagnoses the disorder.

Reasons for late-life ADHD diagnosis

There are many reasons a patient may not be diagnosed with ADHD until they are an older adult.¹¹ In addition to socioeconomic barriers to health care access, members of different ethnic groups exhibit differences in help-seeking behaviors; children may belong to a culture that does not traditionally seek health care even when symptoms are evident.^6,9 Therefore, individuals may not receive a diagnosis until adulthood. Some experts have discussed the similarity of ADHD to other neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism spectrum disorder or social communication disorder, where ADHD symptoms may not manifest until stressors at critical points in life exceed an individual’s capacity to compensate.²

The life transition model contextualizes ADHD as being associated with demand/resource imbalances that come and go throughout life, resulting in variability in the degree of functional impairment ADHD symptoms cause in older adults.^2,12 Hypothetically, events in late life—such as the death of a spouse or retirement—can remove essential support structures in the lives of high-functioning individuals with ADHD. As a result, such events surpass these individuals’ ability to cope, resulting in a late-life manifestation of ADHD.

The plausibility of late-onset ADHD

In recent years, many studies identifying ADHD in adults have been published,^2,10,12-15 including some that discuss adult ADHD that spontaneously appears without childhood symptoms (ie, late-onset ADHD).^2,4,12 Research of late-onset ADHD attracts attention because the data it presents challenge the current rationale that ADHD symptoms should be present before age 12, as defined by DSM-5 criteria. While most reports of late-onset ADHD pertain to younger adults, little evidence exists to reinforce the concept; to date just 1 study has reported cases of late-onset ADHD in older adults (n = 7, age 51 to 59).¹¹ In this study, Sasaki et al¹¹ acknowledged the strong possibility their cases may be late manifestations of long-standing ADHD. Late-onset ADHD is further challenged by findings that 95% of individuals initially diagnosed with late-onset ADHD can be excluded from the diagnosis with further detailed assessment that accounts for co-occurring mental disorders and substance use.¹⁶ This suggests false positive cases of late-onset ADHD may be a symptom of narrow clinical assessment that fails to encompass other aspects of a patient’s psychiatric profile, rather than an atypical ADHD presentation.

Comorbidity and psychosocial functioning

ADHD symptoms and diagnosis in older adults are associated with clinically relevant levels of depression and anxiety. The Dutch Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA) examined 1,494 older adults (age 55 to 85) using the Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults version 2.0.¹⁰ The 231 individuals identified as having symptoms of ADHD reported clinically relevant levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms. ADHD was significantly associated with these comorbid symptoms.

Continue to: Little is known regarding...

Little is known regarding the manifestation of symptoms of ADHD in older age and the difficulties these older adults face. Older adults with ADHD are more often divorced and report more loneliness than older adults without this disorder, which suggests loneliness in older age may be more pressing for the older ADHD population.¹⁷ ADHD in older adults has also been associated with poor quality-of-life measures, including moderate to severe problems in mobility, self-care, usual activity, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression (Table 1^14,17).

Qualitative research has described a domino effect of a lifetime of living with ADHD. In one American study, older adults with ADHD (N = 24, age 60 to 74) reported experiencing a tangible, accumulated impact from ADHD on their finances and long-term relationships with family, friends, and coworkers.¹³ Another study utilizing the Dutch LASA data examined how ADHD may impact patient’s lives among participants who were unaware of their diagnosis.¹⁸ One-half of patients reported low self-esteem, overstepping boundaries, and feeling different from others. When compared to younger adults with ADHD, older adults report significantly greater impairments in productivity and a worse life outlook.¹⁹

Differential diagnosis

When assessing whether an older adult has ADHD, it is important to consider other potential causes of their symptoms (Table 2^11,15,20-23). The differential diagnosis includes impaired vision and hearing as well as medical illness (vitamin B12 deficiency, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, hyperparathyroidism, and infectious diseases such as herpes simplex virus or syphilis).^11,15,20-23 Neurological causes include brain tumors, traumatic brain injuries, postconcussive syndrome, stroke, and neurocognitive disorders.^11,15,20-23 Other potential causes include obstructive sleep apnea, mood disorders, substance use disorders, and medication adverse effects (especially with polypharmacy).^11,15,20-23 In this population, other causes are often responsible for “late-manifestation ADHD symptoms.”^1,15 Neurocognitive disorders and other psychiatric conditions are especially difficult to differentiate from ADHD.

In older adults, ADHD symptoms include frontal-executive impairments, inattentiveness, difficulty with organization or multitasking, forgetfulness, and challenges involving activities of daily living or socialization that can appear to be a mild or major neurocognitive disorder (Table 3^11,24,25). This includes major neuro­cognitive disorder due to Alzheimer’s disease, Lewy body disease, and vascular disease.^2,26 However, frontotemporal lobar degeneration is reported to have more symptom overlap with ADHD.^21,22,26,27 A way to differentiate between neurocognitive disorders and ADHD in older adults is to consider that patients with neurocognitive disorders often progress to visual hallucinations and more extreme personality changes than would be expected in ADHD.¹¹ Each disease also has its own identifiable characteristics. Extreme changes in memory are often Alzheimer’s disease, personality changes suggest fronto­temporal lobar degeneration, stepwise decline is classic for vascular disease, and parkinsonian features may indicate dementia with Lewy bodies.²¹ In addition, the onset of ADHD usually occurs in childhood and can be traced throughout the lifespan,² whereas neurocognitive diseases usually appear for the first time in later life.^2,28 There are nuances in the nature of forgetfulness that can distinguish ADHD from neurocognitive disorders. For instance, the forgetfulness in early-onset Alzheimer’s disease involves “the lack of episodic memories,” while in contrast ADHD is thought to be “forgetfulness due to inadvertence.”¹¹ Furthermore, patients with neurocognitive disorders are reported to have more severe symptoms and an inability to explain why, whereas those with ADHD have a steady level of symptoms and can provide a more comprehensive story.²⁴ Two recent studies have shown that weak performance on language tests is more indicative of a neuro­degenerative process than of ADHD.^29,30 Research has suggested that if an older adult shows a sudden, acute onset of ADHD-like symptoms, this is most likely reflective of cognitive decline or a mood disorder such as depression.^2,15,24

Several other psychiatric conditions share many symptoms with ADHD. Overlapping symptomology between ADHD and mood and anxiety disorders presents challenges.²⁷ Emotional dysregulation is a feature of adult ADHD, and this often causes a mood disorder to be diagnosed without considering other possible explanations.^{21,22,27,31-34} Features of mania can overlap with ADHD symptoms, including psychomotor agitation, talkativeness, and distractibility.²⁷ Several other disorders also include distractibility, such as depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders.³⁵ Depression and anxiety can be an outcome of untreated ADHD, or can co-occur with ADHD.^21-23,27 ADHD can also co-occur with bipolar disorder (BD), substance use disorders, and personality disorders (borderline and antisocial personality disorder) (Figure 1^21-23,27,35). One suggested method of establishing an appropriate diagnosis is to study the efficacy of the treatment retrospectively. For example, if a patient is presumed to have depression and they do not respond to several selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, this may be undetected ADHD.²⁷ In addition, the argument about the chronicity of the symptoms should also be considered. ADHD symptoms are pervasive whereas BD symptoms are episodic.³⁵ Depression can be chronic; however, there are often discrete major depressive episodes. It is important to have a clear timeline of the patient’s symptoms. Ask about age of onset, because in theory, ADHD is supposed to start in childhood.²² It is sometimes difficult to ascertain this information because many older adults grew up during a time where ADHD was not a recognized diagnosis.²¹

Continue to: Diagnosis and workup

Diagnosis and workup

The key aspects of diagnosing ADHD are the interview based on DSM-5 criteria, exclusion of other diagnoses, and collateral information. Research has shown that clinical interviews and longitudinal family histories provide critical information that can differentiate ADHD from other psychiatric conditions.³⁵ DSM-5 criteria are adjusted for adults: 5 out of 9 criteria for inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity must be fulfilled, as opposed to 6 out of 9 in children age <17.^21,31,36 However, no criteria are specific for older adults.³⁷ Since the differential diagnosis involves multiple entities, it is important to follow DSM-5 criteria for ADHD, which include eliminating other conditions that can explain these symptoms.¹⁵ Additionally, in DSM-5, the age-of-onset threshold for ADHD diagnosis was increased from 7 and younger to 12 and younger, addressing criticism that the previous cutoff was too restrictive.^24,31 The age of onset of childhood symptoms can be challenging to verify in older adults. Older patients can have unreliable memories and their childhood records are not always available.^2,20 In this population, childhood symptoms are mainly underreported but sometimes overreported.^10,38 However, to establish a diagnosis, the patient should have experienced some symptoms of the disorder within their first 50 years of life, including having impaired functionality in multiple settings.^15,26 The goal is to establish the chronicity of this condition to distinguish it from other psychiatric conditions.²² Overall, using DSM-5 criteria without any modifications may lead to underdiagnosis of ADHD in adults.²³ At this time, however, DSM-5 remains the main criteria used to make a diagnosis.

While tools to assist in screening and diagnosing ADHD have been validated in adults, none have been validated specifically for older adults.²² Structured diagnostic interviews to diagnose ADHD include³⁹:

• Adult ADHD Clinical Diagnostic Scale version 1.2
• ADHD Lifespan Functioning interview
• Conners’ Adult ADHD Diagnostic interview for DSM-IV
• Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults version 2.0
• Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5.

ADHD symptom measures that can be used for screening and to look at treatment response include³⁹:

• ADHD Rating Scale 5
• Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale Symptom Checklist
• Barkley Adult ADHD Rating Scale IV
• Barkley Quick-Check for Adult ADHD Diagnosis
• Young ADHD Questionnaire
• RATE Scales.

Adult ADHD inventories consider problems that adults with ADHD face. These include³⁹:

• Brown Attention Deficit Disorders Scales—Adult version
• Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales
• Wender-Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Scale.

Since these scales were not designed for older adults, they may miss nuances in this population.⁴⁰

Continue to: It can be particularly...

It can be particularly perplexing to diagnose ADHD in older adults because the other possible causes of the symptoms are vast. During the interview, it is important to ask questions that may rule out other psychiatric, neurologic, and medical conditions.²¹ Screen for other diagnoses, and include questions about a patient’s sleep history to rule out obstructive sleep apnea.²¹ To screen for other psychiatric conditions, the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview 5.0.0 may be used.²² Other tools include the Saint Louis University AMSAD screen for depression, the Geriatric Depression Scale, and the Beck Anxiety Inventory.^28,41 To screen for cognitive functioning, the Saint Louis University Mental Status Exam, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, or Mini-Mental State Examination can be used.^22,28,42,43 Once screening is performed, a physical and neurologic examination is the best next step.²⁶ Additionally, laboratory data and imaging can rule out other conditions; however, these are not routinely performed to diagnose ADHD.

Laboratory tests should include a comprehensive metabolic panel, complete blood count, thyroid-stimulating hormone level, B12/folate level, and possibly a vitamin D level.^11,36 These tests cover several conditions that may mimic ADHD. Brain MRI is not routinely recommended for diagnosing ADHD, though it may be useful because some research has found brain structural differences in individuals with ADHD.^28,44,45 Neurocognitive disorders have notable MRI findings that distinguish them from ADHD and each other.²⁴ If there is significant concern for neurocognitive disorders, more specific tests can be employed, such as CSF studies, to look for phosphorylated tau and beta amyloid markers.¹¹

Ask about family history (first-degree relative with ADHD) and obtain collateral information to make sure no other diagnoses are overlooked. Family history can help diagnose this disorder in older adults because there is evidence that ADHD runs in families.^2,25 This evidence would ideally come from someone who has known the patient their entire life, such as a sibling or parent.²⁴ The collateral information will be especially helpful to discern the chronicity of the patient’s symptoms, which would point toward a diagnosis of ADHD. To summarize (Figure 2):

• obtain a thorough interview that may be supported by a screening tool
• rule out other conditions
• conduct a physical examination
• obtain laboratory results
• collect collateral information
• obtain neuroimaging if necessary.

Treatment

ADHD symptoms can be treated with medications and psychotherapy. Research has shown the efficacy of ADHD medications in older adults, demonstrating that treatment leads to better functioning in multiple settings and decreases the risk for developing comorbid psychiatric conditions (mood disorder, substance use disorders).^25,27 Symptoms that improve with medication include attention, concentration, self-efficacy, functioning, self-esteem, psychomotor agitation, mood, energy, and procrastination.^21,31,46 If a patient with ADHD also has other psychiatric diagnoses, treat the most impairing disorder first.²² This often means mood disorders and substance use disorders must be remedied before ADHD is treated.²¹

Medication options include stimulants and nonstimulants. First-line treatments are stimulant medications, including methylphenidate, amphetamines, and mixed amphetamine salts.^{12,22,27,31,35} Stimulants have shown significant efficacy in older adults, although the American Geriatrics Society’s Beers Criteria list stimulants as potentially inappropriate for older adults.³³ Adults show significant improvement with methylphenidate.^21,23,47 In an observational study, Michielsen et al⁴⁶ found stimulants were safe and efficacious in older adults if patients are carefully monitored for adverse effects, especially cardiovascular changes. Second-line treatments include the nonstimulant atomoxetine.^12,22,27,31 Clonidine and guanfacine are FDA-approved for treating ADHD in children, but not approved for adults.²⁶ There is little evidence for other treatments, such as bupropion.^12,22,27 All of these medications have adverse effects, which are especially important to consider in older adults, who experience age-related physiological changes.

Continue to: Medications for ADHD symptoms...

Medications for ADHD symptoms are thought to act via catecholaminergic mechanisms.²¹ As a result, adverse effects of stimulants can include headache, appetite suppression, nausea, difficulty sleeping, tremor, blurred vision, agitation, psychosis, increased heart rate, arrhythmia, and hypertension.^22,27,32-34 Especially in older adults, adverse effects such as reduced appetite, disrupted sleep, or increased blood pressure or heart rate may be harmful.^21,23 Using caffeine or pseudoephedrine can exacerbate these adverse effects.²¹ Atomoxetine’s adverse effects include appetite suppression, insomnia, dizziness, anxiety, agitation, fatigue, dry mouth, constipation, nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, and increased heart rate or blood pressure.^27,32,35 Genitourinary adverse effects have also been reported, including priapism (rare), decreased libido, and urinary hesitancy and retention.^26,32 Before any medication is initiated, it is important to conduct a physical and neurologic examination and a detailed clinical interview.

Before starting medication, as with any medical treatment, conduct a risk vs benefit analysis. Record baseline values for the patient’s heart rate, blood pressure, and weight.^23,26,27,31 During the interview, screen for family and personal cardiovascular conditions,^27,33 and obtain an electrocardiogram for any patient with cardiovascular risks.^23,26,27,31 Once the patient is deemed to be an appropriate candidate for pharmacologic treatment, begin with low doses and titrate the medication slowly until reaching a therapeutic level.^23,48

Medications should be combined with psychotherapy (eg, cognitive-behavioral therapy or dialectical behavioral therapy) and other lifestyle changes (exercise, mindfulness, support groups).^{18,22,23,27,31,49} Psychotherapy can help patients come to terms with receiving an ADHD diagnosis later in life and help with organization and socialization.^12,50 Pharmacologic treatments are thought to be helpful with attention challenges and emotional instability.⁵⁰ Taken together, medications and behavioral interventions can help individuals experience an improved quality of life.

Future directions

Given the relatively recent interest in ADHD in older adults, there are several areas that need further research. For future editions of DSM, it may be prudent to consider establishing ADHD criteria specific to older adults. Research has also shown the need for clear diagnostic and validated tools for older adults.⁸ Few analyses have been undertaken regarding pharmacotherapy for this population. Randomized controlled clinical trials are needed.^23,37,48 More research about the relative utility of psychotherapy and behavioral interventions would also be useful, given their potential to improve the quality of life for older adults with ADHD.

Bottom Line

Although generally thought of as a disorder of childhood, attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has substantial effects in older adults. When the condition is appropriately diagnosed, pharmacologic treatment and psychotherapy are associated with improved quality of life for older patients with ADHD.

Related Resources

• Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Living with ADHD: A lifespan disorder. https://chadd.org/for-adults/living-with-adhd-a-lifespan-disorder/
• Attention Deficit Disorder Association. Support groups for adults. https://add.org/adhd-support-groups/

Drug Brand Names

Amphetamine/dextroamphetamine • Adderall
Atomoxetine • Straterra
Bupropion • Wellbutrin
Clonidine • Catapres
Guanfacine • Intuniv
Methylphenidate • Ritalin

For many years, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was thought of as a disorder of childhood; however, it is now increasingly being recognized as a chronic, lifelong disorder that persists into adulthood in approximately two-thirds of patients.¹ While our knowledge about ADHD in adults has increased, most research in this population focused on young or middle-aged adults; less is known about ADHD in older adults. Older adults with ADHD may be newly diagnosed at any point in their lives, or not at all.² Because ADHD may present differently in older adults than in children or young adults, and because it may impair domains of life in different ways, a closer look at late-life ADHD is needed. This article summarizes the literature on the prevalence, impairment, diagnosis, and treatment of ADHD in adults age >60.

Challenges in determining the prevalence

Few studies have examined the age-specific prevalence of ADHD among older adults.³ Compared with childhood ADHD, adult ADHD is relatively neglected in epidemiological studies, largely due to the absence of well-established, validated diagnostic criteria.^1,4 Some experts have noted that DSM-5’s ADHD criteria were designed for diagnosing children, and the children-focused symptom threshold may not be useful for adults because ADHD symptoms decline substantially with age.² One study evaluating DSM-5 ADHD criteria in young adults (N = 4,000, age 18 to 19) found ADHD was better diagnosed when the required number of clinically relevant inattention and hyperactivity symptoms was reduced from 6 to 5 for each category.⁵ They also found the DSM-5 age-at-onset criterion of symptoms present before age 12 had a significant effect on ADHD prevalence, reducing the rate from 23.7% (95% CI, 22.38 to 25.02) to 5.4% (95% CI, 13.99 to 16.21).⁵ This suggests that strict usage of DSM-5 criteria may underestimate the prevalence of ADHD in adults, because ADHD symptoms may not be detected in childhood, or self-reporting of childhood ADHD symptoms in older adults may be unreliable due to aging processes that compromise memory and recall. These findings also indicate that fewer ADHD symptoms are needed to impair functioning in older age.

Determining the prevalence of ADHD among older adults is further complicated by individuals who report symptoms consistent with an ADHD diagnosis despite having never received this diagnosis during childhood.^6-8 This may be due to the considerable number of children who meet ADHD criteria but do not get a diagnosis due to limited access to health care.⁹ Thus, many studies separately analyze the syndromatic (with a childhood onset) and symptomatic (regardless of childhood onset) persistence of ADHD. One epidemiological meta-analysis found the 2020 prevalence of syndromatic ADHD in adults age >60 was 0.77% and the prevalence of symptomatic ADHD was 4.51%, which translates to 7.91 million and 46.36 million affected older adults, respectively.⁸ Other research has reported higher rates among older adults.^6,7,10 The variations among this research may be attributed to the use of different diagnostic tools/criteria, study populations, sampling methods, or DSM versions. Heterogeneity among this research also further supports the idea that the prevalence of ADHD is heavily dependent on how one defines and diagnoses the disorder.

Reasons for late-life ADHD diagnosis

There are many reasons a patient may not be diagnosed with ADHD until they are an older adult.¹¹ In addition to socioeconomic barriers to health care access, members of different ethnic groups exhibit differences in help-seeking behaviors; children may belong to a culture that does not traditionally seek health care even when symptoms are evident.^6,9 Therefore, individuals may not receive a diagnosis until adulthood. Some experts have discussed the similarity of ADHD to other neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism spectrum disorder or social communication disorder, where ADHD symptoms may not manifest until stressors at critical points in life exceed an individual’s capacity to compensate.²

The life transition model contextualizes ADHD as being associated with demand/resource imbalances that come and go throughout life, resulting in variability in the degree of functional impairment ADHD symptoms cause in older adults.^2,12 Hypothetically, events in late life—such as the death of a spouse or retirement—can remove essential support structures in the lives of high-functioning individuals with ADHD. As a result, such events surpass these individuals’ ability to cope, resulting in a late-life manifestation of ADHD.

The plausibility of late-onset ADHD

In recent years, many studies identifying ADHD in adults have been published,^2,10,12-15 including some that discuss adult ADHD that spontaneously appears without childhood symptoms (ie, late-onset ADHD).^2,4,12 Research of late-onset ADHD attracts attention because the data it presents challenge the current rationale that ADHD symptoms should be present before age 12, as defined by DSM-5 criteria. While most reports of late-onset ADHD pertain to younger adults, little evidence exists to reinforce the concept; to date just 1 study has reported cases of late-onset ADHD in older adults (n = 7, age 51 to 59).¹¹ In this study, Sasaki et al¹¹ acknowledged the strong possibility their cases may be late manifestations of long-standing ADHD. Late-onset ADHD is further challenged by findings that 95% of individuals initially diagnosed with late-onset ADHD can be excluded from the diagnosis with further detailed assessment that accounts for co-occurring mental disorders and substance use.¹⁶ This suggests false positive cases of late-onset ADHD may be a symptom of narrow clinical assessment that fails to encompass other aspects of a patient’s psychiatric profile, rather than an atypical ADHD presentation.

Comorbidity and psychosocial functioning

ADHD symptoms and diagnosis in older adults are associated with clinically relevant levels of depression and anxiety. The Dutch Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA) examined 1,494 older adults (age 55 to 85) using the Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults version 2.0.¹⁰ The 231 individuals identified as having symptoms of ADHD reported clinically relevant levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms. ADHD was significantly associated with these comorbid symptoms.

Continue to: Little is known regarding...

Little is known regarding the manifestation of symptoms of ADHD in older age and the difficulties these older adults face. Older adults with ADHD are more often divorced and report more loneliness than older adults without this disorder, which suggests loneliness in older age may be more pressing for the older ADHD population.¹⁷ ADHD in older adults has also been associated with poor quality-of-life measures, including moderate to severe problems in mobility, self-care, usual activity, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression (Table 1^14,17).

Qualitative research has described a domino effect of a lifetime of living with ADHD. In one American study, older adults with ADHD (N = 24, age 60 to 74) reported experiencing a tangible, accumulated impact from ADHD on their finances and long-term relationships with family, friends, and coworkers.¹³ Another study utilizing the Dutch LASA data examined how ADHD may impact patient’s lives among participants who were unaware of their diagnosis.¹⁸ One-half of patients reported low self-esteem, overstepping boundaries, and feeling different from others. When compared to younger adults with ADHD, older adults report significantly greater impairments in productivity and a worse life outlook.¹⁹

Differential diagnosis

When assessing whether an older adult has ADHD, it is important to consider other potential causes of their symptoms (Table 2^11,15,20-23). The differential diagnosis includes impaired vision and hearing as well as medical illness (vitamin B12 deficiency, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, hyperparathyroidism, and infectious diseases such as herpes simplex virus or syphilis).^11,15,20-23 Neurological causes include brain tumors, traumatic brain injuries, postconcussive syndrome, stroke, and neurocognitive disorders.^11,15,20-23 Other potential causes include obstructive sleep apnea, mood disorders, substance use disorders, and medication adverse effects (especially with polypharmacy).^11,15,20-23 In this population, other causes are often responsible for “late-manifestation ADHD symptoms.”^1,15 Neurocognitive disorders and other psychiatric conditions are especially difficult to differentiate from ADHD.

In older adults, ADHD symptoms include frontal-executive impairments, inattentiveness, difficulty with organization or multitasking, forgetfulness, and challenges involving activities of daily living or socialization that can appear to be a mild or major neurocognitive disorder (Table 3^11,24,25). This includes major neuro­cognitive disorder due to Alzheimer’s disease, Lewy body disease, and vascular disease.^2,26 However, frontotemporal lobar degeneration is reported to have more symptom overlap with ADHD.^21,22,26,27 A way to differentiate between neurocognitive disorders and ADHD in older adults is to consider that patients with neurocognitive disorders often progress to visual hallucinations and more extreme personality changes than would be expected in ADHD.¹¹ Each disease also has its own identifiable characteristics. Extreme changes in memory are often Alzheimer’s disease, personality changes suggest fronto­temporal lobar degeneration, stepwise decline is classic for vascular disease, and parkinsonian features may indicate dementia with Lewy bodies.²¹ In addition, the onset of ADHD usually occurs in childhood and can be traced throughout the lifespan,² whereas neurocognitive diseases usually appear for the first time in later life.^2,28 There are nuances in the nature of forgetfulness that can distinguish ADHD from neurocognitive disorders. For instance, the forgetfulness in early-onset Alzheimer’s disease involves “the lack of episodic memories,” while in contrast ADHD is thought to be “forgetfulness due to inadvertence.”¹¹ Furthermore, patients with neurocognitive disorders are reported to have more severe symptoms and an inability to explain why, whereas those with ADHD have a steady level of symptoms and can provide a more comprehensive story.²⁴ Two recent studies have shown that weak performance on language tests is more indicative of a neuro­degenerative process than of ADHD.^29,30 Research has suggested that if an older adult shows a sudden, acute onset of ADHD-like symptoms, this is most likely reflective of cognitive decline or a mood disorder such as depression.^2,15,24

Several other psychiatric conditions share many symptoms with ADHD. Overlapping symptomology between ADHD and mood and anxiety disorders presents challenges.²⁷ Emotional dysregulation is a feature of adult ADHD, and this often causes a mood disorder to be diagnosed without considering other possible explanations.^{21,22,27,31-34} Features of mania can overlap with ADHD symptoms, including psychomotor agitation, talkativeness, and distractibility.²⁷ Several other disorders also include distractibility, such as depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders.³⁵ Depression and anxiety can be an outcome of untreated ADHD, or can co-occur with ADHD.^21-23,27 ADHD can also co-occur with bipolar disorder (BD), substance use disorders, and personality disorders (borderline and antisocial personality disorder) (Figure 1^21-23,27,35). One suggested method of establishing an appropriate diagnosis is to study the efficacy of the treatment retrospectively. For example, if a patient is presumed to have depression and they do not respond to several selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, this may be undetected ADHD.²⁷ In addition, the argument about the chronicity of the symptoms should also be considered. ADHD symptoms are pervasive whereas BD symptoms are episodic.³⁵ Depression can be chronic; however, there are often discrete major depressive episodes. It is important to have a clear timeline of the patient’s symptoms. Ask about age of onset, because in theory, ADHD is supposed to start in childhood.²² It is sometimes difficult to ascertain this information because many older adults grew up during a time where ADHD was not a recognized diagnosis.²¹

Continue to: Diagnosis and workup

Diagnosis and workup

The key aspects of diagnosing ADHD are the interview based on DSM-5 criteria, exclusion of other diagnoses, and collateral information. Research has shown that clinical interviews and longitudinal family histories provide critical information that can differentiate ADHD from other psychiatric conditions.³⁵ DSM-5 criteria are adjusted for adults: 5 out of 9 criteria for inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity must be fulfilled, as opposed to 6 out of 9 in children age <17.^21,31,36 However, no criteria are specific for older adults.³⁷ Since the differential diagnosis involves multiple entities, it is important to follow DSM-5 criteria for ADHD, which include eliminating other conditions that can explain these symptoms.¹⁵ Additionally, in DSM-5, the age-of-onset threshold for ADHD diagnosis was increased from 7 and younger to 12 and younger, addressing criticism that the previous cutoff was too restrictive.^24,31 The age of onset of childhood symptoms can be challenging to verify in older adults. Older patients can have unreliable memories and their childhood records are not always available.^2,20 In this population, childhood symptoms are mainly underreported but sometimes overreported.^10,38 However, to establish a diagnosis, the patient should have experienced some symptoms of the disorder within their first 50 years of life, including having impaired functionality in multiple settings.^15,26 The goal is to establish the chronicity of this condition to distinguish it from other psychiatric conditions.²² Overall, using DSM-5 criteria without any modifications may lead to underdiagnosis of ADHD in adults.²³ At this time, however, DSM-5 remains the main criteria used to make a diagnosis.

While tools to assist in screening and diagnosing ADHD have been validated in adults, none have been validated specifically for older adults.²² Structured diagnostic interviews to diagnose ADHD include³⁹:

• Adult ADHD Clinical Diagnostic Scale version 1.2
• ADHD Lifespan Functioning interview
• Conners’ Adult ADHD Diagnostic interview for DSM-IV
• Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults version 2.0
• Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5.

ADHD symptom measures that can be used for screening and to look at treatment response include³⁹:

• ADHD Rating Scale 5
• Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale Symptom Checklist
• Barkley Adult ADHD Rating Scale IV
• Barkley Quick-Check for Adult ADHD Diagnosis
• Young ADHD Questionnaire
• RATE Scales.

Adult ADHD inventories consider problems that adults with ADHD face. These include³⁹:

• Brown Attention Deficit Disorders Scales—Adult version
• Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales
• Wender-Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Scale.

Since these scales were not designed for older adults, they may miss nuances in this population.⁴⁰

Continue to: It can be particularly...

It can be particularly perplexing to diagnose ADHD in older adults because the other possible causes of the symptoms are vast. During the interview, it is important to ask questions that may rule out other psychiatric, neurologic, and medical conditions.²¹ Screen for other diagnoses, and include questions about a patient’s sleep history to rule out obstructive sleep apnea.²¹ To screen for other psychiatric conditions, the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview 5.0.0 may be used.²² Other tools include the Saint Louis University AMSAD screen for depression, the Geriatric Depression Scale, and the Beck Anxiety Inventory.^28,41 To screen for cognitive functioning, the Saint Louis University Mental Status Exam, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, or Mini-Mental State Examination can be used.^22,28,42,43 Once screening is performed, a physical and neurologic examination is the best next step.²⁶ Additionally, laboratory data and imaging can rule out other conditions; however, these are not routinely performed to diagnose ADHD.

Laboratory tests should include a comprehensive metabolic panel, complete blood count, thyroid-stimulating hormone level, B12/folate level, and possibly a vitamin D level.^11,36 These tests cover several conditions that may mimic ADHD. Brain MRI is not routinely recommended for diagnosing ADHD, though it may be useful because some research has found brain structural differences in individuals with ADHD.^28,44,45 Neurocognitive disorders have notable MRI findings that distinguish them from ADHD and each other.²⁴ If there is significant concern for neurocognitive disorders, more specific tests can be employed, such as CSF studies, to look for phosphorylated tau and beta amyloid markers.¹¹

Ask about family history (first-degree relative with ADHD) and obtain collateral information to make sure no other diagnoses are overlooked. Family history can help diagnose this disorder in older adults because there is evidence that ADHD runs in families.^2,25 This evidence would ideally come from someone who has known the patient their entire life, such as a sibling or parent.²⁴ The collateral information will be especially helpful to discern the chronicity of the patient’s symptoms, which would point toward a diagnosis of ADHD. To summarize (Figure 2):

• obtain a thorough interview that may be supported by a screening tool
• rule out other conditions
• conduct a physical examination
• obtain laboratory results
• collect collateral information
• obtain neuroimaging if necessary.

Treatment

ADHD symptoms can be treated with medications and psychotherapy. Research has shown the efficacy of ADHD medications in older adults, demonstrating that treatment leads to better functioning in multiple settings and decreases the risk for developing comorbid psychiatric conditions (mood disorder, substance use disorders).^25,27 Symptoms that improve with medication include attention, concentration, self-efficacy, functioning, self-esteem, psychomotor agitation, mood, energy, and procrastination.^21,31,46 If a patient with ADHD also has other psychiatric diagnoses, treat the most impairing disorder first.²² This often means mood disorders and substance use disorders must be remedied before ADHD is treated.²¹

Medication options include stimulants and nonstimulants. First-line treatments are stimulant medications, including methylphenidate, amphetamines, and mixed amphetamine salts.^{12,22,27,31,35} Stimulants have shown significant efficacy in older adults, although the American Geriatrics Society’s Beers Criteria list stimulants as potentially inappropriate for older adults.³³ Adults show significant improvement with methylphenidate.^21,23,47 In an observational study, Michielsen et al⁴⁶ found stimulants were safe and efficacious in older adults if patients are carefully monitored for adverse effects, especially cardiovascular changes. Second-line treatments include the nonstimulant atomoxetine.^12,22,27,31 Clonidine and guanfacine are FDA-approved for treating ADHD in children, but not approved for adults.²⁶ There is little evidence for other treatments, such as bupropion.^12,22,27 All of these medications have adverse effects, which are especially important to consider in older adults, who experience age-related physiological changes.

Continue to: Medications for ADHD symptoms...

Medications for ADHD symptoms are thought to act via catecholaminergic mechanisms.²¹ As a result, adverse effects of stimulants can include headache, appetite suppression, nausea, difficulty sleeping, tremor, blurred vision, agitation, psychosis, increased heart rate, arrhythmia, and hypertension.^22,27,32-34 Especially in older adults, adverse effects such as reduced appetite, disrupted sleep, or increased blood pressure or heart rate may be harmful.^21,23 Using caffeine or pseudoephedrine can exacerbate these adverse effects.²¹ Atomoxetine’s adverse effects include appetite suppression, insomnia, dizziness, anxiety, agitation, fatigue, dry mouth, constipation, nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, and increased heart rate or blood pressure.^27,32,35 Genitourinary adverse effects have also been reported, including priapism (rare), decreased libido, and urinary hesitancy and retention.^26,32 Before any medication is initiated, it is important to conduct a physical and neurologic examination and a detailed clinical interview.

Before starting medication, as with any medical treatment, conduct a risk vs benefit analysis. Record baseline values for the patient’s heart rate, blood pressure, and weight.^23,26,27,31 During the interview, screen for family and personal cardiovascular conditions,^27,33 and obtain an electrocardiogram for any patient with cardiovascular risks.^23,26,27,31 Once the patient is deemed to be an appropriate candidate for pharmacologic treatment, begin with low doses and titrate the medication slowly until reaching a therapeutic level.^23,48

Medications should be combined with psychotherapy (eg, cognitive-behavioral therapy or dialectical behavioral therapy) and other lifestyle changes (exercise, mindfulness, support groups).^{18,22,23,27,31,49} Psychotherapy can help patients come to terms with receiving an ADHD diagnosis later in life and help with organization and socialization.^12,50 Pharmacologic treatments are thought to be helpful with attention challenges and emotional instability.⁵⁰ Taken together, medications and behavioral interventions can help individuals experience an improved quality of life.

Future directions

Given the relatively recent interest in ADHD in older adults, there are several areas that need further research. For future editions of DSM, it may be prudent to consider establishing ADHD criteria specific to older adults. Research has also shown the need for clear diagnostic and validated tools for older adults.⁸ Few analyses have been undertaken regarding pharmacotherapy for this population. Randomized controlled clinical trials are needed.^23,37,48 More research about the relative utility of psychotherapy and behavioral interventions would also be useful, given their potential to improve the quality of life for older adults with ADHD.

Bottom Line

Although generally thought of as a disorder of childhood, attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has substantial effects in older adults. When the condition is appropriately diagnosed, pharmacologic treatment and psychotherapy are associated with improved quality of life for older patients with ADHD.

Related Resources

• Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Living with ADHD: A lifespan disorder. https://chadd.org/for-adults/living-with-adhd-a-lifespan-disorder/
• Attention Deficit Disorder Association. Support groups for adults. https://add.org/adhd-support-groups/

Drug Brand Names

Amphetamine/dextroamphetamine • Adderall
Atomoxetine • Straterra
Bupropion • Wellbutrin
Clonidine • Catapres
Guanfacine • Intuniv
Methylphenidate • Ritalin

For many years, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was thought of as a disorder of childhood; however, it is now increasingly being recognized as a chronic, lifelong disorder that persists into adulthood in approximately two-thirds of patients.¹ While our knowledge about ADHD in adults has increased, most research in this population focused on young or middle-aged adults; less is known about ADHD in older adults. Older adults with ADHD may be newly diagnosed at any point in their lives, or not at all.² Because ADHD may present differently in older adults than in children or young adults, and because it may impair domains of life in different ways, a closer look at late-life ADHD is needed. This article summarizes the literature on the prevalence, impairment, diagnosis, and treatment of ADHD in adults age >60.

Challenges in determining the prevalence

Few studies have examined the age-specific prevalence of ADHD among older adults.³ Compared with childhood ADHD, adult ADHD is relatively neglected in epidemiological studies, largely due to the absence of well-established, validated diagnostic criteria.^1,4 Some experts have noted that DSM-5’s ADHD criteria were designed for diagnosing children, and the children-focused symptom threshold may not be useful for adults because ADHD symptoms decline substantially with age.² One study evaluating DSM-5 ADHD criteria in young adults (N = 4,000, age 18 to 19) found ADHD was better diagnosed when the required number of clinically relevant inattention and hyperactivity symptoms was reduced from 6 to 5 for each category.⁵ They also found the DSM-5 age-at-onset criterion of symptoms present before age 12 had a significant effect on ADHD prevalence, reducing the rate from 23.7% (95% CI, 22.38 to 25.02) to 5.4% (95% CI, 13.99 to 16.21).⁵ This suggests that strict usage of DSM-5 criteria may underestimate the prevalence of ADHD in adults, because ADHD symptoms may not be detected in childhood, or self-reporting of childhood ADHD symptoms in older adults may be unreliable due to aging processes that compromise memory and recall. These findings also indicate that fewer ADHD symptoms are needed to impair functioning in older age.

Determining the prevalence of ADHD among older adults is further complicated by individuals who report symptoms consistent with an ADHD diagnosis despite having never received this diagnosis during childhood.^6-8 This may be due to the considerable number of children who meet ADHD criteria but do not get a diagnosis due to limited access to health care.⁹ Thus, many studies separately analyze the syndromatic (with a childhood onset) and symptomatic (regardless of childhood onset) persistence of ADHD. One epidemiological meta-analysis found the 2020 prevalence of syndromatic ADHD in adults age >60 was 0.77% and the prevalence of symptomatic ADHD was 4.51%, which translates to 7.91 million and 46.36 million affected older adults, respectively.⁸ Other research has reported higher rates among older adults.^6,7,10 The variations among this research may be attributed to the use of different diagnostic tools/criteria, study populations, sampling methods, or DSM versions. Heterogeneity among this research also further supports the idea that the prevalence of ADHD is heavily dependent on how one defines and diagnoses the disorder.

Reasons for late-life ADHD diagnosis

There are many reasons a patient may not be diagnosed with ADHD until they are an older adult.¹¹ In addition to socioeconomic barriers to health care access, members of different ethnic groups exhibit differences in help-seeking behaviors; children may belong to a culture that does not traditionally seek health care even when symptoms are evident.^6,9 Therefore, individuals may not receive a diagnosis until adulthood. Some experts have discussed the similarity of ADHD to other neurodevelopmental disorders, such as autism spectrum disorder or social communication disorder, where ADHD symptoms may not manifest until stressors at critical points in life exceed an individual’s capacity to compensate.²

The life transition model contextualizes ADHD as being associated with demand/resource imbalances that come and go throughout life, resulting in variability in the degree of functional impairment ADHD symptoms cause in older adults.^2,12 Hypothetically, events in late life—such as the death of a spouse or retirement—can remove essential support structures in the lives of high-functioning individuals with ADHD. As a result, such events surpass these individuals’ ability to cope, resulting in a late-life manifestation of ADHD.

The plausibility of late-onset ADHD

In recent years, many studies identifying ADHD in adults have been published,^2,10,12-15 including some that discuss adult ADHD that spontaneously appears without childhood symptoms (ie, late-onset ADHD).^2,4,12 Research of late-onset ADHD attracts attention because the data it presents challenge the current rationale that ADHD symptoms should be present before age 12, as defined by DSM-5 criteria. While most reports of late-onset ADHD pertain to younger adults, little evidence exists to reinforce the concept; to date just 1 study has reported cases of late-onset ADHD in older adults (n = 7, age 51 to 59).¹¹ In this study, Sasaki et al¹¹ acknowledged the strong possibility their cases may be late manifestations of long-standing ADHD. Late-onset ADHD is further challenged by findings that 95% of individuals initially diagnosed with late-onset ADHD can be excluded from the diagnosis with further detailed assessment that accounts for co-occurring mental disorders and substance use.¹⁶ This suggests false positive cases of late-onset ADHD may be a symptom of narrow clinical assessment that fails to encompass other aspects of a patient’s psychiatric profile, rather than an atypical ADHD presentation.

Comorbidity and psychosocial functioning

ADHD symptoms and diagnosis in older adults are associated with clinically relevant levels of depression and anxiety. The Dutch Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam (LASA) examined 1,494 older adults (age 55 to 85) using the Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults version 2.0.¹⁰ The 231 individuals identified as having symptoms of ADHD reported clinically relevant levels of depressive and anxiety symptoms. ADHD was significantly associated with these comorbid symptoms.

Continue to: Little is known regarding...

Little is known regarding the manifestation of symptoms of ADHD in older age and the difficulties these older adults face. Older adults with ADHD are more often divorced and report more loneliness than older adults without this disorder, which suggests loneliness in older age may be more pressing for the older ADHD population.¹⁷ ADHD in older adults has also been associated with poor quality-of-life measures, including moderate to severe problems in mobility, self-care, usual activity, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression (Table 1^14,17).

Qualitative research has described a domino effect of a lifetime of living with ADHD. In one American study, older adults with ADHD (N = 24, age 60 to 74) reported experiencing a tangible, accumulated impact from ADHD on their finances and long-term relationships with family, friends, and coworkers.¹³ Another study utilizing the Dutch LASA data examined how ADHD may impact patient’s lives among participants who were unaware of their diagnosis.¹⁸ One-half of patients reported low self-esteem, overstepping boundaries, and feeling different from others. When compared to younger adults with ADHD, older adults report significantly greater impairments in productivity and a worse life outlook.¹⁹

Differential diagnosis

When assessing whether an older adult has ADHD, it is important to consider other potential causes of their symptoms (Table 2^11,15,20-23). The differential diagnosis includes impaired vision and hearing as well as medical illness (vitamin B12 deficiency, hyperthyroidism, hypothyroidism, hyperparathyroidism, and infectious diseases such as herpes simplex virus or syphilis).^11,15,20-23 Neurological causes include brain tumors, traumatic brain injuries, postconcussive syndrome, stroke, and neurocognitive disorders.^11,15,20-23 Other potential causes include obstructive sleep apnea, mood disorders, substance use disorders, and medication adverse effects (especially with polypharmacy).^11,15,20-23 In this population, other causes are often responsible for “late-manifestation ADHD symptoms.”^1,15 Neurocognitive disorders and other psychiatric conditions are especially difficult to differentiate from ADHD.

In older adults, ADHD symptoms include frontal-executive impairments, inattentiveness, difficulty with organization or multitasking, forgetfulness, and challenges involving activities of daily living or socialization that can appear to be a mild or major neurocognitive disorder (Table 3^11,24,25). This includes major neuro­cognitive disorder due to Alzheimer’s disease, Lewy body disease, and vascular disease.^2,26 However, frontotemporal lobar degeneration is reported to have more symptom overlap with ADHD.^21,22,26,27 A way to differentiate between neurocognitive disorders and ADHD in older adults is to consider that patients with neurocognitive disorders often progress to visual hallucinations and more extreme personality changes than would be expected in ADHD.¹¹ Each disease also has its own identifiable characteristics. Extreme changes in memory are often Alzheimer’s disease, personality changes suggest fronto­temporal lobar degeneration, stepwise decline is classic for vascular disease, and parkinsonian features may indicate dementia with Lewy bodies.²¹ In addition, the onset of ADHD usually occurs in childhood and can be traced throughout the lifespan,² whereas neurocognitive diseases usually appear for the first time in later life.^2,28 There are nuances in the nature of forgetfulness that can distinguish ADHD from neurocognitive disorders. For instance, the forgetfulness in early-onset Alzheimer’s disease involves “the lack of episodic memories,” while in contrast ADHD is thought to be “forgetfulness due to inadvertence.”¹¹ Furthermore, patients with neurocognitive disorders are reported to have more severe symptoms and an inability to explain why, whereas those with ADHD have a steady level of symptoms and can provide a more comprehensive story.²⁴ Two recent studies have shown that weak performance on language tests is more indicative of a neuro­degenerative process than of ADHD.^29,30 Research has suggested that if an older adult shows a sudden, acute onset of ADHD-like symptoms, this is most likely reflective of cognitive decline or a mood disorder such as depression.^2,15,24

Several other psychiatric conditions share many symptoms with ADHD. Overlapping symptomology between ADHD and mood and anxiety disorders presents challenges.²⁷ Emotional dysregulation is a feature of adult ADHD, and this often causes a mood disorder to be diagnosed without considering other possible explanations.^{21,22,27,31-34} Features of mania can overlap with ADHD symptoms, including psychomotor agitation, talkativeness, and distractibility.²⁷ Several other disorders also include distractibility, such as depression, anxiety, and substance use disorders.³⁵ Depression and anxiety can be an outcome of untreated ADHD, or can co-occur with ADHD.^21-23,27 ADHD can also co-occur with bipolar disorder (BD), substance use disorders, and personality disorders (borderline and antisocial personality disorder) (Figure 1^21-23,27,35). One suggested method of establishing an appropriate diagnosis is to study the efficacy of the treatment retrospectively. For example, if a patient is presumed to have depression and they do not respond to several selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, this may be undetected ADHD.²⁷ In addition, the argument about the chronicity of the symptoms should also be considered. ADHD symptoms are pervasive whereas BD symptoms are episodic.³⁵ Depression can be chronic; however, there are often discrete major depressive episodes. It is important to have a clear timeline of the patient’s symptoms. Ask about age of onset, because in theory, ADHD is supposed to start in childhood.²² It is sometimes difficult to ascertain this information because many older adults grew up during a time where ADHD was not a recognized diagnosis.²¹

Continue to: Diagnosis and workup

Diagnosis and workup

The key aspects of diagnosing ADHD are the interview based on DSM-5 criteria, exclusion of other diagnoses, and collateral information. Research has shown that clinical interviews and longitudinal family histories provide critical information that can differentiate ADHD from other psychiatric conditions.³⁵ DSM-5 criteria are adjusted for adults: 5 out of 9 criteria for inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity must be fulfilled, as opposed to 6 out of 9 in children age <17.^21,31,36 However, no criteria are specific for older adults.³⁷ Since the differential diagnosis involves multiple entities, it is important to follow DSM-5 criteria for ADHD, which include eliminating other conditions that can explain these symptoms.¹⁵ Additionally, in DSM-5, the age-of-onset threshold for ADHD diagnosis was increased from 7 and younger to 12 and younger, addressing criticism that the previous cutoff was too restrictive.^24,31 The age of onset of childhood symptoms can be challenging to verify in older adults. Older patients can have unreliable memories and their childhood records are not always available.^2,20 In this population, childhood symptoms are mainly underreported but sometimes overreported.^10,38 However, to establish a diagnosis, the patient should have experienced some symptoms of the disorder within their first 50 years of life, including having impaired functionality in multiple settings.^15,26 The goal is to establish the chronicity of this condition to distinguish it from other psychiatric conditions.²² Overall, using DSM-5 criteria without any modifications may lead to underdiagnosis of ADHD in adults.²³ At this time, however, DSM-5 remains the main criteria used to make a diagnosis.

While tools to assist in screening and diagnosing ADHD have been validated in adults, none have been validated specifically for older adults.²² Structured diagnostic interviews to diagnose ADHD include³⁹:

• Adult ADHD Clinical Diagnostic Scale version 1.2
• ADHD Lifespan Functioning interview
• Conners’ Adult ADHD Diagnostic interview for DSM-IV
• Diagnostic Interview for ADHD in Adults version 2.0
• Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5.

ADHD symptom measures that can be used for screening and to look at treatment response include³⁹:

• ADHD Rating Scale 5
• Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale Symptom Checklist
• Barkley Adult ADHD Rating Scale IV
• Barkley Quick-Check for Adult ADHD Diagnosis
• Young ADHD Questionnaire
• RATE Scales.

Adult ADHD inventories consider problems that adults with ADHD face. These include³⁹:

• Brown Attention Deficit Disorders Scales—Adult version
• Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scales
• Wender-Reimherr Adult Attention Deficit Disorder Scale.

Since these scales were not designed for older adults, they may miss nuances in this population.⁴⁰

Continue to: It can be particularly...

It can be particularly perplexing to diagnose ADHD in older adults because the other possible causes of the symptoms are vast. During the interview, it is important to ask questions that may rule out other psychiatric, neurologic, and medical conditions.²¹ Screen for other diagnoses, and include questions about a patient’s sleep history to rule out obstructive sleep apnea.²¹ To screen for other psychiatric conditions, the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview 5.0.0 may be used.²² Other tools include the Saint Louis University AMSAD screen for depression, the Geriatric Depression Scale, and the Beck Anxiety Inventory.^28,41 To screen for cognitive functioning, the Saint Louis University Mental Status Exam, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, or Mini-Mental State Examination can be used.^22,28,42,43 Once screening is performed, a physical and neurologic examination is the best next step.²⁶ Additionally, laboratory data and imaging can rule out other conditions; however, these are not routinely performed to diagnose ADHD.

Laboratory tests should include a comprehensive metabolic panel, complete blood count, thyroid-stimulating hormone level, B12/folate level, and possibly a vitamin D level.^11,36 These tests cover several conditions that may mimic ADHD. Brain MRI is not routinely recommended for diagnosing ADHD, though it may be useful because some research has found brain structural differences in individuals with ADHD.^28,44,45 Neurocognitive disorders have notable MRI findings that distinguish them from ADHD and each other.²⁴ If there is significant concern for neurocognitive disorders, more specific tests can be employed, such as CSF studies, to look for phosphorylated tau and beta amyloid markers.¹¹

Ask about family history (first-degree relative with ADHD) and obtain collateral information to make sure no other diagnoses are overlooked. Family history can help diagnose this disorder in older adults because there is evidence that ADHD runs in families.^2,25 This evidence would ideally come from someone who has known the patient their entire life, such as a sibling or parent.²⁴ The collateral information will be especially helpful to discern the chronicity of the patient’s symptoms, which would point toward a diagnosis of ADHD. To summarize (Figure 2):

• obtain a thorough interview that may be supported by a screening tool
• rule out other conditions
• conduct a physical examination
• obtain laboratory results
• collect collateral information
• obtain neuroimaging if necessary.

Treatment

ADHD symptoms can be treated with medications and psychotherapy. Research has shown the efficacy of ADHD medications in older adults, demonstrating that treatment leads to better functioning in multiple settings and decreases the risk for developing comorbid psychiatric conditions (mood disorder, substance use disorders).^25,27 Symptoms that improve with medication include attention, concentration, self-efficacy, functioning, self-esteem, psychomotor agitation, mood, energy, and procrastination.^21,31,46 If a patient with ADHD also has other psychiatric diagnoses, treat the most impairing disorder first.²² This often means mood disorders and substance use disorders must be remedied before ADHD is treated.²¹

Medication options include stimulants and nonstimulants. First-line treatments are stimulant medications, including methylphenidate, amphetamines, and mixed amphetamine salts.^{12,22,27,31,35} Stimulants have shown significant efficacy in older adults, although the American Geriatrics Society’s Beers Criteria list stimulants as potentially inappropriate for older adults.³³ Adults show significant improvement with methylphenidate.^21,23,47 In an observational study, Michielsen et al⁴⁶ found stimulants were safe and efficacious in older adults if patients are carefully monitored for adverse effects, especially cardiovascular changes. Second-line treatments include the nonstimulant atomoxetine.^12,22,27,31 Clonidine and guanfacine are FDA-approved for treating ADHD in children, but not approved for adults.²⁶ There is little evidence for other treatments, such as bupropion.^12,22,27 All of these medications have adverse effects, which are especially important to consider in older adults, who experience age-related physiological changes.

Continue to: Medications for ADHD symptoms...

Medications for ADHD symptoms are thought to act via catecholaminergic mechanisms.²¹ As a result, adverse effects of stimulants can include headache, appetite suppression, nausea, difficulty sleeping, tremor, blurred vision, agitation, psychosis, increased heart rate, arrhythmia, and hypertension.^22,27,32-34 Especially in older adults, adverse effects such as reduced appetite, disrupted sleep, or increased blood pressure or heart rate may be harmful.^21,23 Using caffeine or pseudoephedrine can exacerbate these adverse effects.²¹ Atomoxetine’s adverse effects include appetite suppression, insomnia, dizziness, anxiety, agitation, fatigue, dry mouth, constipation, nausea, vomiting, dyspepsia, and increased heart rate or blood pressure.^27,32,35 Genitourinary adverse effects have also been reported, including priapism (rare), decreased libido, and urinary hesitancy and retention.^26,32 Before any medication is initiated, it is important to conduct a physical and neurologic examination and a detailed clinical interview.

Before starting medication, as with any medical treatment, conduct a risk vs benefit analysis. Record baseline values for the patient’s heart rate, blood pressure, and weight.^23,26,27,31 During the interview, screen for family and personal cardiovascular conditions,^27,33 and obtain an electrocardiogram for any patient with cardiovascular risks.^23,26,27,31 Once the patient is deemed to be an appropriate candidate for pharmacologic treatment, begin with low doses and titrate the medication slowly until reaching a therapeutic level.^23,48

Medications should be combined with psychotherapy (eg, cognitive-behavioral therapy or dialectical behavioral therapy) and other lifestyle changes (exercise, mindfulness, support groups).^{18,22,23,27,31,49} Psychotherapy can help patients come to terms with receiving an ADHD diagnosis later in life and help with organization and socialization.^12,50 Pharmacologic treatments are thought to be helpful with attention challenges and emotional instability.⁵⁰ Taken together, medications and behavioral interventions can help individuals experience an improved quality of life.

Future directions

Given the relatively recent interest in ADHD in older adults, there are several areas that need further research. For future editions of DSM, it may be prudent to consider establishing ADHD criteria specific to older adults. Research has also shown the need for clear diagnostic and validated tools for older adults.⁸ Few analyses have been undertaken regarding pharmacotherapy for this population. Randomized controlled clinical trials are needed.^23,37,48 More research about the relative utility of psychotherapy and behavioral interventions would also be useful, given their potential to improve the quality of life for older adults with ADHD.

Bottom Line

Although generally thought of as a disorder of childhood, attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has substantial effects in older adults. When the condition is appropriately diagnosed, pharmacologic treatment and psychotherapy are associated with improved quality of life for older patients with ADHD.

Related Resources

• Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Living with ADHD: A lifespan disorder. https://chadd.org/for-adults/living-with-adhd-a-lifespan-disorder/
• Attention Deficit Disorder Association. Support groups for adults. https://add.org/adhd-support-groups/

Drug Brand Names

Amphetamine/dextroamphetamine • Adderall
Atomoxetine • Straterra
Bupropion • Wellbutrin
Clonidine • Catapres
Guanfacine • Intuniv
Methylphenidate • Ritalin

Weight loss of at least 5% over a 3-year period was associated with significantly increased mortality in women at age 90, 95, and 100 years compared with those whose weight remained stable, based on data from more than 50,000 individuals.

Previous studies of later-life weight changes and mortality have yielded inconsistent results driven by considerations of weight loss intentionality, and data on older adults in particular are limited, wrote Aladdin H. Shadyab, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journals of Gerontology: Medical Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from the Women’s Health Initiative, a prospective study of factors affecting chronic disease development in postmenopausal women. The study population included 54,437 women who entered the WHI between 1993 and 1998 at ages 50-79 years. The mean baseline age was 69.8 years; 89.5% of the participants were White, 5.7% were Black, 2.7% were Asian, 2.5% were Hispanic/Latino, and the remaining 1.0% were multiracial, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, or unknown.

The primary outcomes were the associations of short-term (3-year) and long-term (10-year) weight changes with survival to ages 90, 95, and 100 years.

A total of 30,647 women survived to at least 90 years (56.3%).

Overall, women with a short-term weight loss of 5% or more of body weight were 33% less likely to survive to age 90 years, 35% less likely to survive to age 95 years, and 38% less likely to survive to age 100 years than were those whose weight remained stable (odds ratios, 0.67, 0.65, and 0.62, respectively).

The associations were stronger in cases of unintentional short-term weight loss. Intentional weight loss from baseline to year 3 was associated with 17% lower odds of survival to age 90 compared to stable weight (OR, 0.83), but unintentional weight loss was associated with 51% lower odds of survival to age 90 (OR, 0.49).

Similarly, women with 10-year weight loss of at least 5% were 40% less likely to survive to 90 years and 49% less likely to survive to 95 years (OR, 0.60 and OR, 0.51, respectively). The sample size was too small to assess the relation of 10-year weight loss with survival to 100 years, and intentionality was not assessed for 10-year weight changes.

By contrast, weight gain of at least 5% had no significant effect on survival to ages 90, 95, or 100 years, but stable weight over time increased the odds of living to ages 90 to 100 years by 1.2-fold to 2-fold compared to either intentional or unintentional weight loss of at least 5%.

The trends in results were similar across body weight categories (normal weight, overweight, and obese as defined by body mass index). Baseline age and smoking status had no significant effect on the results.

Some of the proportion of self-reported intentional weight loss in the study population may have been unintentional, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

“It is important to note that perceived intentionality of weight loss may be influenced by the many societal pressures to lose weight, especially among women, and therefore overestimate the behavioral changes underlying experienced weight loss in older adults,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the potential for inaccurate self-reported weight loss intention, and the likelihood that the mean older age of the population at baseline (older than 60 years) meant that they were more likely to live longer regardless of weight changes, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the primarily White study population, and other residual confounding factors such as ill health that might drive weight loss, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and long follow-up period, and suggest that “blanket recommendations for weight loss in older women are unlikely to lead to better survival at advanced ages,” they concluded.
 

Data support weight monitoring

The investigators acknowledged that their data do not affect clinical recommendations for moderate weight loss in older women to improve health outcomes, especially in those with overweight or obesity, but instead “support close monitoring of the amount and speed of weight loss, particularly when unintentional, as an indicator of underlying poor health and predictor of decreased lifespan in older women.”

Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, agreed with this conclusion. The current study suggests that when older women lose a significant amount of weight unintentionally, it could be a sign of failing health, he said.

Weight gain or loss in old age is very different from weight issues in younger people, where clinicians may be encouraging weight loss to improve health outcomes, Dr. Skolnik said in an interview.

A key take-home message for clinicians, in addition to monitoring weight in older patients, is to emphasize nutrition for individuals in their 80s, 90s, and beyond, he said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Shadyab had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Skolnik had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

Weight loss of at least 5% over a 3-year period was associated with significantly increased mortality in women at age 90, 95, and 100 years compared with those whose weight remained stable, based on data from more than 50,000 individuals.

Previous studies of later-life weight changes and mortality have yielded inconsistent results driven by considerations of weight loss intentionality, and data on older adults in particular are limited, wrote Aladdin H. Shadyab, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journals of Gerontology: Medical Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from the Women’s Health Initiative, a prospective study of factors affecting chronic disease development in postmenopausal women. The study population included 54,437 women who entered the WHI between 1993 and 1998 at ages 50-79 years. The mean baseline age was 69.8 years; 89.5% of the participants were White, 5.7% were Black, 2.7% were Asian, 2.5% were Hispanic/Latino, and the remaining 1.0% were multiracial, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, or unknown.

The primary outcomes were the associations of short-term (3-year) and long-term (10-year) weight changes with survival to ages 90, 95, and 100 years.

A total of 30,647 women survived to at least 90 years (56.3%).

Overall, women with a short-term weight loss of 5% or more of body weight were 33% less likely to survive to age 90 years, 35% less likely to survive to age 95 years, and 38% less likely to survive to age 100 years than were those whose weight remained stable (odds ratios, 0.67, 0.65, and 0.62, respectively).

The associations were stronger in cases of unintentional short-term weight loss. Intentional weight loss from baseline to year 3 was associated with 17% lower odds of survival to age 90 compared to stable weight (OR, 0.83), but unintentional weight loss was associated with 51% lower odds of survival to age 90 (OR, 0.49).

Similarly, women with 10-year weight loss of at least 5% were 40% less likely to survive to 90 years and 49% less likely to survive to 95 years (OR, 0.60 and OR, 0.51, respectively). The sample size was too small to assess the relation of 10-year weight loss with survival to 100 years, and intentionality was not assessed for 10-year weight changes.

By contrast, weight gain of at least 5% had no significant effect on survival to ages 90, 95, or 100 years, but stable weight over time increased the odds of living to ages 90 to 100 years by 1.2-fold to 2-fold compared to either intentional or unintentional weight loss of at least 5%.

The trends in results were similar across body weight categories (normal weight, overweight, and obese as defined by body mass index). Baseline age and smoking status had no significant effect on the results.

Some of the proportion of self-reported intentional weight loss in the study population may have been unintentional, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

“It is important to note that perceived intentionality of weight loss may be influenced by the many societal pressures to lose weight, especially among women, and therefore overestimate the behavioral changes underlying experienced weight loss in older adults,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the potential for inaccurate self-reported weight loss intention, and the likelihood that the mean older age of the population at baseline (older than 60 years) meant that they were more likely to live longer regardless of weight changes, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the primarily White study population, and other residual confounding factors such as ill health that might drive weight loss, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and long follow-up period, and suggest that “blanket recommendations for weight loss in older women are unlikely to lead to better survival at advanced ages,” they concluded.
 

Data support weight monitoring

The investigators acknowledged that their data do not affect clinical recommendations for moderate weight loss in older women to improve health outcomes, especially in those with overweight or obesity, but instead “support close monitoring of the amount and speed of weight loss, particularly when unintentional, as an indicator of underlying poor health and predictor of decreased lifespan in older women.”

Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, agreed with this conclusion. The current study suggests that when older women lose a significant amount of weight unintentionally, it could be a sign of failing health, he said.

Weight gain or loss in old age is very different from weight issues in younger people, where clinicians may be encouraging weight loss to improve health outcomes, Dr. Skolnik said in an interview.

A key take-home message for clinicians, in addition to monitoring weight in older patients, is to emphasize nutrition for individuals in their 80s, 90s, and beyond, he said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Shadyab had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Skolnik had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

Weight loss of at least 5% over a 3-year period was associated with significantly increased mortality in women at age 90, 95, and 100 years compared with those whose weight remained stable, based on data from more than 50,000 individuals.

Previous studies of later-life weight changes and mortality have yielded inconsistent results driven by considerations of weight loss intentionality, and data on older adults in particular are limited, wrote Aladdin H. Shadyab, PhD, of the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues.

In a study published in the Journals of Gerontology: Medical Sciences, the researchers reviewed data from the Women’s Health Initiative, a prospective study of factors affecting chronic disease development in postmenopausal women. The study population included 54,437 women who entered the WHI between 1993 and 1998 at ages 50-79 years. The mean baseline age was 69.8 years; 89.5% of the participants were White, 5.7% were Black, 2.7% were Asian, 2.5% were Hispanic/Latino, and the remaining 1.0% were multiracial, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, or unknown.

The primary outcomes were the associations of short-term (3-year) and long-term (10-year) weight changes with survival to ages 90, 95, and 100 years.

A total of 30,647 women survived to at least 90 years (56.3%).

Overall, women with a short-term weight loss of 5% or more of body weight were 33% less likely to survive to age 90 years, 35% less likely to survive to age 95 years, and 38% less likely to survive to age 100 years than were those whose weight remained stable (odds ratios, 0.67, 0.65, and 0.62, respectively).

The associations were stronger in cases of unintentional short-term weight loss. Intentional weight loss from baseline to year 3 was associated with 17% lower odds of survival to age 90 compared to stable weight (OR, 0.83), but unintentional weight loss was associated with 51% lower odds of survival to age 90 (OR, 0.49).

Similarly, women with 10-year weight loss of at least 5% were 40% less likely to survive to 90 years and 49% less likely to survive to 95 years (OR, 0.60 and OR, 0.51, respectively). The sample size was too small to assess the relation of 10-year weight loss with survival to 100 years, and intentionality was not assessed for 10-year weight changes.

By contrast, weight gain of at least 5% had no significant effect on survival to ages 90, 95, or 100 years, but stable weight over time increased the odds of living to ages 90 to 100 years by 1.2-fold to 2-fold compared to either intentional or unintentional weight loss of at least 5%.

The trends in results were similar across body weight categories (normal weight, overweight, and obese as defined by body mass index). Baseline age and smoking status had no significant effect on the results.

Some of the proportion of self-reported intentional weight loss in the study population may have been unintentional, the researchers wrote in their discussion.

“It is important to note that perceived intentionality of weight loss may be influenced by the many societal pressures to lose weight, especially among women, and therefore overestimate the behavioral changes underlying experienced weight loss in older adults,” they said.

The findings were limited by several factors including the potential for inaccurate self-reported weight loss intention, and the likelihood that the mean older age of the population at baseline (older than 60 years) meant that they were more likely to live longer regardless of weight changes, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the primarily White study population, and other residual confounding factors such as ill health that might drive weight loss, the researchers noted.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and long follow-up period, and suggest that “blanket recommendations for weight loss in older women are unlikely to lead to better survival at advanced ages,” they concluded.
 

Data support weight monitoring

The investigators acknowledged that their data do not affect clinical recommendations for moderate weight loss in older women to improve health outcomes, especially in those with overweight or obesity, but instead “support close monitoring of the amount and speed of weight loss, particularly when unintentional, as an indicator of underlying poor health and predictor of decreased lifespan in older women.”

Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, agreed with this conclusion. The current study suggests that when older women lose a significant amount of weight unintentionally, it could be a sign of failing health, he said.

Weight gain or loss in old age is very different from weight issues in younger people, where clinicians may be encouraging weight loss to improve health outcomes, Dr. Skolnik said in an interview.

A key take-home message for clinicians, in addition to monitoring weight in older patients, is to emphasize nutrition for individuals in their 80s, 90s, and beyond, he said.

The study was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Shadyab had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Skolnik had no financial conflicts to disclose and serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

Changes in retinal tissues known to be associated with Parkinson’s disease (PD) may occur up to 7 years before clinical symptoms of the disease appear, a new study suggests. 

Researchers used artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze data from two population-level data sets and the world’s largest database of retinal images and associated clinical data to detect the retinal changes in patients with PD and in healthy individuals who developed the disease years later. 

Prior research had shown that PD is associated with a thinning of the ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) in the retina, something that investigators confirmed in this new study. But they also identified changes in the inner nuclear layer (INL), which is a new finding. 

The study is the largest to date on retinal markers in PD and the first to show these changes in living patients.

“I think we are still several years away from converting these findings into individual level prediction for patients,” lead author, Siegfried Wagner, MD, MsC, Honorary Clinical Senior Research Fellow at Moorfields Eye Hospital and University College of London Institute of Ophthalmology in London, told this news organization. “The most important takeaway is that there are observable differences in the retina of individuals who go on to develop Parkinson’s disease.”

The findings were published online in Neurology. 
 

Another look at OCT

Researchers used data from retinal eye scans taken by optical coherence tomography (OCT), a noninvasive three-dimensional imaging technology that is widely used by opticians. 

Other studies have used OCT to detect retinal changes in multiple sclerosis and cognitive decline. 

For this research, investigators identified markers in people with PD using ophthalmic imaging data from 700 patients and 105,770 controls who participated in the retrospective AlzEye study. 

After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, hypertension, and diabetes, individuals with PD had significantly thinner GCIPL and reduced thickness of the INL.

To evaluate retinal changes in patients before a PD diagnosis, researchers then turned to 50,405 participants in the UK Biobank with no history of PD who received a retinal scan as part of their baseline visit. Of that group, 53 were diagnosed with PD during the study period. 

Researchers found an association between new diagnoses of PD and reduced thickness of the GCIPL (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; P = .002) and thinner INL, especially at the inferior subfield (HR, 0.66; P = .002). That association persisted even in people whose clinical symptoms developed within 2 years of the retinal scan. 

“We wonder if the reduced INL thickness is indicating a direct dopaminergic impairment occurring within the inner retina,” Dr. Wagner said. “Dopaminergic amacrine cells only account for a small proportion of the cells in this layer but previous work in the laboratory shows observable abnormalities in Parkinson’s disease.”
 

Too early for diagnostics?

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Gilbert, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer, American Parkinson Disease Association, noted that the changes in the retinal thickness identified in the study were too small to be useful in the clinic as a screening tool for early PD. 

“In order for that to happen, the specificity and sensitivity needs to be established,” she said. “Both specificity and sensitivity need to be high enough so that the test can be used to give clinically meaningful results – and reliably tell an individual with PD that he or she does have the disease and individual without PD that he or she doesn’t have the disease.”

Authors of an accompanying editorial agreed. Valeria Koska, MD, and Philipp Albrecht, MD, both of Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf in Germany, noted that though the effect sizes of retinal changes were small, the study “sets new standards for the role of retinal morphology as potential biomarker in neurodegenerative disease.”

The study was funded by Fight for Sight UK, Medical Research Council, UK Research & Innovation, Basque Health Department, and the Wellcome Trust Study. Dr. Wagner reported funding from the Medical Research Council and the Rank Prize. Dr. Gilbert is employed by the American Parkinson Disease Association. Dr. Albrecht has received grant and personal fees and nonfinancial support from Allergan, Biogen, Celgene, Ipsen, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Merz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Roche, and Teva, outside the submitted work. Dr. Koska reported no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Changes in retinal tissues known to be associated with Parkinson’s disease (PD) may occur up to 7 years before clinical symptoms of the disease appear, a new study suggests. 

Researchers used artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze data from two population-level data sets and the world’s largest database of retinal images and associated clinical data to detect the retinal changes in patients with PD and in healthy individuals who developed the disease years later. 

Prior research had shown that PD is associated with a thinning of the ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) in the retina, something that investigators confirmed in this new study. But they also identified changes in the inner nuclear layer (INL), which is a new finding. 

The study is the largest to date on retinal markers in PD and the first to show these changes in living patients.

“I think we are still several years away from converting these findings into individual level prediction for patients,” lead author, Siegfried Wagner, MD, MsC, Honorary Clinical Senior Research Fellow at Moorfields Eye Hospital and University College of London Institute of Ophthalmology in London, told this news organization. “The most important takeaway is that there are observable differences in the retina of individuals who go on to develop Parkinson’s disease.”

The findings were published online in Neurology. 
 

Another look at OCT

Researchers used data from retinal eye scans taken by optical coherence tomography (OCT), a noninvasive three-dimensional imaging technology that is widely used by opticians. 

Other studies have used OCT to detect retinal changes in multiple sclerosis and cognitive decline. 

For this research, investigators identified markers in people with PD using ophthalmic imaging data from 700 patients and 105,770 controls who participated in the retrospective AlzEye study. 

After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, hypertension, and diabetes, individuals with PD had significantly thinner GCIPL and reduced thickness of the INL.

To evaluate retinal changes in patients before a PD diagnosis, researchers then turned to 50,405 participants in the UK Biobank with no history of PD who received a retinal scan as part of their baseline visit. Of that group, 53 were diagnosed with PD during the study period. 

Researchers found an association between new diagnoses of PD and reduced thickness of the GCIPL (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; P = .002) and thinner INL, especially at the inferior subfield (HR, 0.66; P = .002). That association persisted even in people whose clinical symptoms developed within 2 years of the retinal scan. 

“We wonder if the reduced INL thickness is indicating a direct dopaminergic impairment occurring within the inner retina,” Dr. Wagner said. “Dopaminergic amacrine cells only account for a small proportion of the cells in this layer but previous work in the laboratory shows observable abnormalities in Parkinson’s disease.”
 

Too early for diagnostics?

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Gilbert, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer, American Parkinson Disease Association, noted that the changes in the retinal thickness identified in the study were too small to be useful in the clinic as a screening tool for early PD. 

“In order for that to happen, the specificity and sensitivity needs to be established,” she said. “Both specificity and sensitivity need to be high enough so that the test can be used to give clinically meaningful results – and reliably tell an individual with PD that he or she does have the disease and individual without PD that he or she doesn’t have the disease.”

Authors of an accompanying editorial agreed. Valeria Koska, MD, and Philipp Albrecht, MD, both of Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf in Germany, noted that though the effect sizes of retinal changes were small, the study “sets new standards for the role of retinal morphology as potential biomarker in neurodegenerative disease.”

The study was funded by Fight for Sight UK, Medical Research Council, UK Research & Innovation, Basque Health Department, and the Wellcome Trust Study. Dr. Wagner reported funding from the Medical Research Council and the Rank Prize. Dr. Gilbert is employed by the American Parkinson Disease Association. Dr. Albrecht has received grant and personal fees and nonfinancial support from Allergan, Biogen, Celgene, Ipsen, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Merz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Roche, and Teva, outside the submitted work. Dr. Koska reported no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Changes in retinal tissues known to be associated with Parkinson’s disease (PD) may occur up to 7 years before clinical symptoms of the disease appear, a new study suggests. 

Researchers used artificial intelligence (AI) to analyze data from two population-level data sets and the world’s largest database of retinal images and associated clinical data to detect the retinal changes in patients with PD and in healthy individuals who developed the disease years later. 

Prior research had shown that PD is associated with a thinning of the ganglion cell-inner plexiform layer (GCIPL) in the retina, something that investigators confirmed in this new study. But they also identified changes in the inner nuclear layer (INL), which is a new finding. 

The study is the largest to date on retinal markers in PD and the first to show these changes in living patients.

“I think we are still several years away from converting these findings into individual level prediction for patients,” lead author, Siegfried Wagner, MD, MsC, Honorary Clinical Senior Research Fellow at Moorfields Eye Hospital and University College of London Institute of Ophthalmology in London, told this news organization. “The most important takeaway is that there are observable differences in the retina of individuals who go on to develop Parkinson’s disease.”

The findings were published online in Neurology. 
 

Another look at OCT

Researchers used data from retinal eye scans taken by optical coherence tomography (OCT), a noninvasive three-dimensional imaging technology that is widely used by opticians. 

Other studies have used OCT to detect retinal changes in multiple sclerosis and cognitive decline. 

For this research, investigators identified markers in people with PD using ophthalmic imaging data from 700 patients and 105,770 controls who participated in the retrospective AlzEye study. 

After adjustment for age, sex, ethnicity, hypertension, and diabetes, individuals with PD had significantly thinner GCIPL and reduced thickness of the INL.

To evaluate retinal changes in patients before a PD diagnosis, researchers then turned to 50,405 participants in the UK Biobank with no history of PD who received a retinal scan as part of their baseline visit. Of that group, 53 were diagnosed with PD during the study period. 

Researchers found an association between new diagnoses of PD and reduced thickness of the GCIPL (hazard ratio [HR], 0.62; P = .002) and thinner INL, especially at the inferior subfield (HR, 0.66; P = .002). That association persisted even in people whose clinical symptoms developed within 2 years of the retinal scan. 

“We wonder if the reduced INL thickness is indicating a direct dopaminergic impairment occurring within the inner retina,” Dr. Wagner said. “Dopaminergic amacrine cells only account for a small proportion of the cells in this layer but previous work in the laboratory shows observable abnormalities in Parkinson’s disease.”
 

Too early for diagnostics?

Commenting on the findings, Rebecca Gilbert, MD, PhD, chief scientific officer, American Parkinson Disease Association, noted that the changes in the retinal thickness identified in the study were too small to be useful in the clinic as a screening tool for early PD. 

“In order for that to happen, the specificity and sensitivity needs to be established,” she said. “Both specificity and sensitivity need to be high enough so that the test can be used to give clinically meaningful results – and reliably tell an individual with PD that he or she does have the disease and individual without PD that he or she doesn’t have the disease.”

Authors of an accompanying editorial agreed. Valeria Koska, MD, and Philipp Albrecht, MD, both of Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf in Germany, noted that though the effect sizes of retinal changes were small, the study “sets new standards for the role of retinal morphology as potential biomarker in neurodegenerative disease.”

The study was funded by Fight for Sight UK, Medical Research Council, UK Research & Innovation, Basque Health Department, and the Wellcome Trust Study. Dr. Wagner reported funding from the Medical Research Council and the Rank Prize. Dr. Gilbert is employed by the American Parkinson Disease Association. Dr. Albrecht has received grant and personal fees and nonfinancial support from Allergan, Biogen, Celgene, Ipsen, Janssen Cilag, Merck, Merz Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Roche, and Teva, outside the submitted work. Dr. Koska reported no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians may be missing opportunities to reduce harmful polypharmacy in elderly patients with newly diagnosed dementia, investigators for a large study of Medicare beneficiaries reported.

They found that those with an incident dementia diagnosis were somewhat more likely to initiate central nervous system–active medications and slightly more likely to discontinue cardiometabolic and anticholinergic medications, compared with controls.

According to the authors, time of diagnosis can be a potential inflexion point for deprescribing long-term medications with high safety risks, limited likelihood of benefit, or possible association with impaired cognition.

“Understanding the chronology of medication changes following a first dementia diagnosis may identify targets for deprescribing interventions to reduce preventable medication-related harms, said Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, of the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our results provide a baseline to inform efforts to rethink the clinical approach to medication use at the time of a new dementia diagnosis.”

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are diagnosed annually with Alzheimer’s and related dementias, the authors pointed out, and the majority have multiple other chronic conditions. Worsening cognitive impairment may alter the risk-benefit balance of medications taken for these conditions.

Matched cohort study

The sample consisted of adults 67 years or older enrolled in traditional Medicare and Medicare Part D. Patients with an initial incident dementia diagnosis between January 2012 and December 2018 were matched with controls (as of last doctor’s office visit) based on demographics, geographic location, and baseline medication count. Data were analyzed from 2021 to June 2023.

The study included 266,675 adults with incident dementia and 266,675 controls. In both groups, 65.1% were 80 years or older (mean age, 82.2) and 67.8% were female. At baseline, patients with incident dementia were more likely than controls to use CNS-active medications (54.32% vs. 48.39%) and anticholinergic medications (17.79% vs. 15.96%) and less likely to use most cardiometabolic medications (for example, antidiabetics, 31.19% vs. 36.45%).

Immediately following the index diagnosis, the dementia cohort had greater increases in the mean number of medications used: 0.41 vs. –0.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.66) and in the proportion using CNS-active medications (absolute change, 3.44% vs. 0.79%; 95% CI, 0.85%-4.45%). The rise was because of an increased use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.

The affected cohort showed a modestly greater decline in anticholinergic medications: quarterly change in use: −0.53% vs. −0.21% (95% CI, −0.55% to −0.08%); and in most cardiometabolic medications: for example, quarterly change in antihypertensive use: –0.84% vs. –0.40% (95% CI, –0.64% to –0.25%). Still, a year post diagnosis, 75.2% of dementia patients were using five or more medications, for a 2.8% increase.

The drug classes with the steepest rate of discontinuation – such as lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications – had low risks for adverse drug events, while higher-risk classes – such as insulins and antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents – had smaller or no reductions in use.

While the findings point to opportunities to reduce polypharmacy by deprescribing long-term medications of dubious benefit, interventions to reduce polypharmacy and inappropriate medications have been modestly successful for patients without dementia, the authors said. But the recent OPTIMIZE trial, an educational effort aimed at primary care clinicians and patients with cognitive impairment, reduced neither polypharmacy nor potentially inappropriate medications.

Luke D. Kim, MD, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, agreed that seniors with dementia can benefit from reassessment of their pharmacologic therapies. “Older adults in general are more prone to have side effects from medications as their renal and hepatic clearance and metabolism are different and lower than those of younger individuals. But they tend to take multiple medications owing to more comorbidities,” said Dr. Kim, who was not involved in the study. “While all older adults need to be more careful about medication management, those with dementia need an even more careful approach as they have diminished cognitive reserve and risk more potential harm from medications.” 

The authors noted that since decision-making models aligned with patient priorities for older adults without dementia led to reductions in overall medication use, that may be a path forward in populations with dementia.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. The authors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kim disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

Physicians may be missing opportunities to reduce harmful polypharmacy in elderly patients with newly diagnosed dementia, investigators for a large study of Medicare beneficiaries reported.

They found that those with an incident dementia diagnosis were somewhat more likely to initiate central nervous system–active medications and slightly more likely to discontinue cardiometabolic and anticholinergic medications, compared with controls.

According to the authors, time of diagnosis can be a potential inflexion point for deprescribing long-term medications with high safety risks, limited likelihood of benefit, or possible association with impaired cognition.

“Understanding the chronology of medication changes following a first dementia diagnosis may identify targets for deprescribing interventions to reduce preventable medication-related harms, said Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, of the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our results provide a baseline to inform efforts to rethink the clinical approach to medication use at the time of a new dementia diagnosis.”

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are diagnosed annually with Alzheimer’s and related dementias, the authors pointed out, and the majority have multiple other chronic conditions. Worsening cognitive impairment may alter the risk-benefit balance of medications taken for these conditions.

Matched cohort study

The sample consisted of adults 67 years or older enrolled in traditional Medicare and Medicare Part D. Patients with an initial incident dementia diagnosis between January 2012 and December 2018 were matched with controls (as of last doctor’s office visit) based on demographics, geographic location, and baseline medication count. Data were analyzed from 2021 to June 2023.

The study included 266,675 adults with incident dementia and 266,675 controls. In both groups, 65.1% were 80 years or older (mean age, 82.2) and 67.8% were female. At baseline, patients with incident dementia were more likely than controls to use CNS-active medications (54.32% vs. 48.39%) and anticholinergic medications (17.79% vs. 15.96%) and less likely to use most cardiometabolic medications (for example, antidiabetics, 31.19% vs. 36.45%).

Immediately following the index diagnosis, the dementia cohort had greater increases in the mean number of medications used: 0.41 vs. –0.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.66) and in the proportion using CNS-active medications (absolute change, 3.44% vs. 0.79%; 95% CI, 0.85%-4.45%). The rise was because of an increased use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.

The affected cohort showed a modestly greater decline in anticholinergic medications: quarterly change in use: −0.53% vs. −0.21% (95% CI, −0.55% to −0.08%); and in most cardiometabolic medications: for example, quarterly change in antihypertensive use: –0.84% vs. –0.40% (95% CI, –0.64% to –0.25%). Still, a year post diagnosis, 75.2% of dementia patients were using five or more medications, for a 2.8% increase.

The drug classes with the steepest rate of discontinuation – such as lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications – had low risks for adverse drug events, while higher-risk classes – such as insulins and antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents – had smaller or no reductions in use.

While the findings point to opportunities to reduce polypharmacy by deprescribing long-term medications of dubious benefit, interventions to reduce polypharmacy and inappropriate medications have been modestly successful for patients without dementia, the authors said. But the recent OPTIMIZE trial, an educational effort aimed at primary care clinicians and patients with cognitive impairment, reduced neither polypharmacy nor potentially inappropriate medications.

Luke D. Kim, MD, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, agreed that seniors with dementia can benefit from reassessment of their pharmacologic therapies. “Older adults in general are more prone to have side effects from medications as their renal and hepatic clearance and metabolism are different and lower than those of younger individuals. But they tend to take multiple medications owing to more comorbidities,” said Dr. Kim, who was not involved in the study. “While all older adults need to be more careful about medication management, those with dementia need an even more careful approach as they have diminished cognitive reserve and risk more potential harm from medications.” 

The authors noted that since decision-making models aligned with patient priorities for older adults without dementia led to reductions in overall medication use, that may be a path forward in populations with dementia.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. The authors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kim disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

Physicians may be missing opportunities to reduce harmful polypharmacy in elderly patients with newly diagnosed dementia, investigators for a large study of Medicare beneficiaries reported.

They found that those with an incident dementia diagnosis were somewhat more likely to initiate central nervous system–active medications and slightly more likely to discontinue cardiometabolic and anticholinergic medications, compared with controls.

According to the authors, time of diagnosis can be a potential inflexion point for deprescribing long-term medications with high safety risks, limited likelihood of benefit, or possible association with impaired cognition.

“Understanding the chronology of medication changes following a first dementia diagnosis may identify targets for deprescribing interventions to reduce preventable medication-related harms, said Timothy S. Anderson, MD, MAS, of the division of general medicine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Our results provide a baseline to inform efforts to rethink the clinical approach to medication use at the time of a new dementia diagnosis.”

Hundreds of thousands of Americans are diagnosed annually with Alzheimer’s and related dementias, the authors pointed out, and the majority have multiple other chronic conditions. Worsening cognitive impairment may alter the risk-benefit balance of medications taken for these conditions.

Matched cohort study

The sample consisted of adults 67 years or older enrolled in traditional Medicare and Medicare Part D. Patients with an initial incident dementia diagnosis between January 2012 and December 2018 were matched with controls (as of last doctor’s office visit) based on demographics, geographic location, and baseline medication count. Data were analyzed from 2021 to June 2023.

The study included 266,675 adults with incident dementia and 266,675 controls. In both groups, 65.1% were 80 years or older (mean age, 82.2) and 67.8% were female. At baseline, patients with incident dementia were more likely than controls to use CNS-active medications (54.32% vs. 48.39%) and anticholinergic medications (17.79% vs. 15.96%) and less likely to use most cardiometabolic medications (for example, antidiabetics, 31.19% vs. 36.45%).

Immediately following the index diagnosis, the dementia cohort had greater increases in the mean number of medications used: 0.41 vs. –0.06 (95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.66) and in the proportion using CNS-active medications (absolute change, 3.44% vs. 0.79%; 95% CI, 0.85%-4.45%). The rise was because of an increased use of antipsychotics, antidepressants, and antiepileptics.

The affected cohort showed a modestly greater decline in anticholinergic medications: quarterly change in use: −0.53% vs. −0.21% (95% CI, −0.55% to −0.08%); and in most cardiometabolic medications: for example, quarterly change in antihypertensive use: –0.84% vs. –0.40% (95% CI, –0.64% to –0.25%). Still, a year post diagnosis, 75.2% of dementia patients were using five or more medications, for a 2.8% increase.

The drug classes with the steepest rate of discontinuation – such as lipid-lowering and antihypertensive medications – had low risks for adverse drug events, while higher-risk classes – such as insulins and antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents – had smaller or no reductions in use.

While the findings point to opportunities to reduce polypharmacy by deprescribing long-term medications of dubious benefit, interventions to reduce polypharmacy and inappropriate medications have been modestly successful for patients without dementia, the authors said. But the recent OPTIMIZE trial, an educational effort aimed at primary care clinicians and patients with cognitive impairment, reduced neither polypharmacy nor potentially inappropriate medications.

Luke D. Kim, MD, a geriatrician at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio, agreed that seniors with dementia can benefit from reassessment of their pharmacologic therapies. “Older adults in general are more prone to have side effects from medications as their renal and hepatic clearance and metabolism are different and lower than those of younger individuals. But they tend to take multiple medications owing to more comorbidities,” said Dr. Kim, who was not involved in the study. “While all older adults need to be more careful about medication management, those with dementia need an even more careful approach as they have diminished cognitive reserve and risk more potential harm from medications.” 

The authors noted that since decision-making models aligned with patient priorities for older adults without dementia led to reductions in overall medication use, that may be a path forward in populations with dementia.

The study was supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health. The authors had no competing interests to disclose. Dr. Kim disclosed no competing interests relevant to his comments.

Only a small fraction of older adults in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) meet eligibility criteria to receive treatment with newly approved antiamyloid drugs, largely because of the presence of medical conditions or neuroimaging findings, new research shows. 

Applying the clinical trial criteria, only about 8%-17% of amyloid-positive individuals with early AD would be eligible for lecanemab (Leqembi), and even fewer, 5%-9%, would be eligible for aducanumab (Aduhelm), the researchers found.

This study highlights the “limited suitability” of most adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia with elevated brain amyloid for treatment with these anti–beta amyloid monoclonal antibodies, write Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, and colleagues with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The study was published online in Neurology 

The authors of an accompanying editorial write that this study “provides an important estimate of treatment eligibility for amyloid-lowering monoclonal antibodies for early AD to help health systems make realistic plans for providing these treatments.”
 

More real-world data needed

Dr. Vassilaki and colleagues applied eligibility criteria for lecanemab and aducanumab to 237 older adults with MCI or mild dementia and increased brain amyloid burden from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA). Their mean age was 80.9 years, 55% were men, and most were White. 

After applying lecanemab’s inclusion criteria, less than half of the study population was eligible to receive treatment (112 of 237, or 47%). 

A total of 21 people were excluded because of a body mass index less than 17 or greater than or equal to 35; 48 due to a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) global score other than 0.5 or 1.0; 46 because they did not meet WMS-R Logical Memory II scores for age; 8 because of a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score outside the bounds of 22-30; and two because of a CDR memory score less than 0.5. 

Applying lecanemab’s exclusion criteria further narrowed the number of eligible participants from 112 to 19 (8% of 237). 

Notable exclusions included cardiopulmonary contraindications, central nervous system–related exclusions such as brain cancer, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy or brain injury, imaging findings, and history of cancer. 

The results were similar for aducanumab, with 104 of the 237 participants (44%) meeting the trial’s inclusion criteria. Applying aducanumab’s exclusion criteria further reduced the number of eligible participants to 12 (5% of 237).

A sensitivity analysis including participants with MCI, without CDR global, MMSE, or WMS-R Logical Memory II score restrictions, resulted in a somewhat higher percentage of eligible participants (17.4% for lecanemab and 8.9% for aducanumab). 
 

Shared decision-making

“Clinicians and health systems should be aware that by applying the clinical trial criteria, a smaller percentage might be eligible for these treatments than originally anticipated,” Dr. Vassilaki told this news organization. To help clinicians, there are published recommendations for the appropriate use of these treatments, she noted. 

Given that clinical trial participants are typically healthier than the general population, Dr. Vassilaki said that research is needed to examine the safety and efficacy of antiamyloid therapies in larger, more diverse populations as well as in less healthy populations, before these therapies may be more widely available to people with AD. 

“We can take advantage of the postmarketing surveillance of side effects, and also enrollment of patients receiving these treatments to registries could provide us with data useful for any necessary adjustment to drug use,” Dr. Vassilaki told this news organization. 
 

‘Sharp focus’

This study “brings the issue of eligibility for amyloid-lowering antibody treatment into sharp focus,” Matthew Howe, MD, PhD, with Butler Hospital Memory & Aging Program, Providence, R.I., and colleagues note in their editorial. 

“The results underscore the importance of careful patient selection to help identify patients most likely to benefit from treatment and exclude those at risk for serious outcomes,” they write. 

They also write that appropriate use recommendations for lecanemab and aducanumab “will be revisited as more real-world data emerge, especially about safety.”

For now, clinicians “must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” they add. 

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki has consulted for F. Hoffmann-La Roche and has equity ownership in Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no conflicts of interest. 

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

Only a small fraction of older adults in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) meet eligibility criteria to receive treatment with newly approved antiamyloid drugs, largely because of the presence of medical conditions or neuroimaging findings, new research shows. 

Applying the clinical trial criteria, only about 8%-17% of amyloid-positive individuals with early AD would be eligible for lecanemab (Leqembi), and even fewer, 5%-9%, would be eligible for aducanumab (Aduhelm), the researchers found.

This study highlights the “limited suitability” of most adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia with elevated brain amyloid for treatment with these anti–beta amyloid monoclonal antibodies, write Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, and colleagues with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The study was published online in Neurology 

The authors of an accompanying editorial write that this study “provides an important estimate of treatment eligibility for amyloid-lowering monoclonal antibodies for early AD to help health systems make realistic plans for providing these treatments.”
 

More real-world data needed

Dr. Vassilaki and colleagues applied eligibility criteria for lecanemab and aducanumab to 237 older adults with MCI or mild dementia and increased brain amyloid burden from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA). Their mean age was 80.9 years, 55% were men, and most were White. 

After applying lecanemab’s inclusion criteria, less than half of the study population was eligible to receive treatment (112 of 237, or 47%). 

A total of 21 people were excluded because of a body mass index less than 17 or greater than or equal to 35; 48 due to a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) global score other than 0.5 or 1.0; 46 because they did not meet WMS-R Logical Memory II scores for age; 8 because of a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score outside the bounds of 22-30; and two because of a CDR memory score less than 0.5. 

Applying lecanemab’s exclusion criteria further narrowed the number of eligible participants from 112 to 19 (8% of 237). 

Notable exclusions included cardiopulmonary contraindications, central nervous system–related exclusions such as brain cancer, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy or brain injury, imaging findings, and history of cancer. 

The results were similar for aducanumab, with 104 of the 237 participants (44%) meeting the trial’s inclusion criteria. Applying aducanumab’s exclusion criteria further reduced the number of eligible participants to 12 (5% of 237).

A sensitivity analysis including participants with MCI, without CDR global, MMSE, or WMS-R Logical Memory II score restrictions, resulted in a somewhat higher percentage of eligible participants (17.4% for lecanemab and 8.9% for aducanumab). 
 

Shared decision-making

“Clinicians and health systems should be aware that by applying the clinical trial criteria, a smaller percentage might be eligible for these treatments than originally anticipated,” Dr. Vassilaki told this news organization. To help clinicians, there are published recommendations for the appropriate use of these treatments, she noted. 

Given that clinical trial participants are typically healthier than the general population, Dr. Vassilaki said that research is needed to examine the safety and efficacy of antiamyloid therapies in larger, more diverse populations as well as in less healthy populations, before these therapies may be more widely available to people with AD. 

“We can take advantage of the postmarketing surveillance of side effects, and also enrollment of patients receiving these treatments to registries could provide us with data useful for any necessary adjustment to drug use,” Dr. Vassilaki told this news organization. 
 

‘Sharp focus’

This study “brings the issue of eligibility for amyloid-lowering antibody treatment into sharp focus,” Matthew Howe, MD, PhD, with Butler Hospital Memory & Aging Program, Providence, R.I., and colleagues note in their editorial. 

“The results underscore the importance of careful patient selection to help identify patients most likely to benefit from treatment and exclude those at risk for serious outcomes,” they write. 

They also write that appropriate use recommendations for lecanemab and aducanumab “will be revisited as more real-world data emerge, especially about safety.”

For now, clinicians “must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” they add. 

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki has consulted for F. Hoffmann-La Roche and has equity ownership in Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no conflicts of interest. 

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

Only a small fraction of older adults in the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease (AD) meet eligibility criteria to receive treatment with newly approved antiamyloid drugs, largely because of the presence of medical conditions or neuroimaging findings, new research shows. 

Applying the clinical trial criteria, only about 8%-17% of amyloid-positive individuals with early AD would be eligible for lecanemab (Leqembi), and even fewer, 5%-9%, would be eligible for aducanumab (Aduhelm), the researchers found.

This study highlights the “limited suitability” of most adults with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia with elevated brain amyloid for treatment with these anti–beta amyloid monoclonal antibodies, write Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, and colleagues with Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

The study was published online in Neurology 

The authors of an accompanying editorial write that this study “provides an important estimate of treatment eligibility for amyloid-lowering monoclonal antibodies for early AD to help health systems make realistic plans for providing these treatments.”
 

More real-world data needed

Dr. Vassilaki and colleagues applied eligibility criteria for lecanemab and aducanumab to 237 older adults with MCI or mild dementia and increased brain amyloid burden from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA). Their mean age was 80.9 years, 55% were men, and most were White. 

After applying lecanemab’s inclusion criteria, less than half of the study population was eligible to receive treatment (112 of 237, or 47%). 

A total of 21 people were excluded because of a body mass index less than 17 or greater than or equal to 35; 48 due to a Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) global score other than 0.5 or 1.0; 46 because they did not meet WMS-R Logical Memory II scores for age; 8 because of a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score outside the bounds of 22-30; and two because of a CDR memory score less than 0.5. 

Applying lecanemab’s exclusion criteria further narrowed the number of eligible participants from 112 to 19 (8% of 237). 

Notable exclusions included cardiopulmonary contraindications, central nervous system–related exclusions such as brain cancer, Parkinson’s disease, epilepsy or brain injury, imaging findings, and history of cancer. 

The results were similar for aducanumab, with 104 of the 237 participants (44%) meeting the trial’s inclusion criteria. Applying aducanumab’s exclusion criteria further reduced the number of eligible participants to 12 (5% of 237).

A sensitivity analysis including participants with MCI, without CDR global, MMSE, or WMS-R Logical Memory II score restrictions, resulted in a somewhat higher percentage of eligible participants (17.4% for lecanemab and 8.9% for aducanumab). 
 

Shared decision-making

“Clinicians and health systems should be aware that by applying the clinical trial criteria, a smaller percentage might be eligible for these treatments than originally anticipated,” Dr. Vassilaki told this news organization. To help clinicians, there are published recommendations for the appropriate use of these treatments, she noted. 

Given that clinical trial participants are typically healthier than the general population, Dr. Vassilaki said that research is needed to examine the safety and efficacy of antiamyloid therapies in larger, more diverse populations as well as in less healthy populations, before these therapies may be more widely available to people with AD. 

“We can take advantage of the postmarketing surveillance of side effects, and also enrollment of patients receiving these treatments to registries could provide us with data useful for any necessary adjustment to drug use,” Dr. Vassilaki told this news organization. 
 

‘Sharp focus’

This study “brings the issue of eligibility for amyloid-lowering antibody treatment into sharp focus,” Matthew Howe, MD, PhD, with Butler Hospital Memory & Aging Program, Providence, R.I., and colleagues note in their editorial. 

“The results underscore the importance of careful patient selection to help identify patients most likely to benefit from treatment and exclude those at risk for serious outcomes,” they write. 

They also write that appropriate use recommendations for lecanemab and aducanumab “will be revisited as more real-world data emerge, especially about safety.”

For now, clinicians “must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” they add. 

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki has consulted for F. Hoffmann-La Roche and has equity ownership in Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no conflicts of interest. 

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

Every 4 years, an interprofessional panel of experts from the American Geriatrics Society provides updated guidelines on safe prescribing of medications in older adults, known as the Beers Criteria. A 2023 update was released in May 2023 after panel review of more 1,500 clinical trials and research studies published since the last update.

Anticoagulants

Notable changes to the 2023 guidelines include updated recommendations for anticoagulation. Warfarin should be avoided as initial therapy for venous thromboembolism or nonvalvular atrial fibrillation unless there are contraindications to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or other substantial barriers to use.

Rivaroxaban should also be avoided, and dabigatran used with caution in favor of apixaban, which is felt to have a better safety profile in older adults. Rivaroxaban may be considered if once daily dosing is deemed to be more clinically appropriate. Financial barriers regarding drug coverage and formulary options were acknowledged as a significant barrier to equitable access to preferred direct oral anticoagulants in older adults.
 

Diabetes medication

Regarding diabetes management, short-acting sulfonylureas should be avoided in addition to long-acting sulfonylureas, because of the increased risk of hypoglycemia, and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in older adults. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors as an entire class are recommended to be used with caution, as older adults are at higher risk of euglycemic ketoacidosis and urogenital infections, particularly in women in the first month of initiating treatment.

Like DOACs, the panel acknowledged that financial considerations may lead to limited options for oral diabetic treatment. In circumstances where a sulfonylurea is used, short-acting forms are preferred over long acting to reduce the risk of prolonged hypoglycemia.
 

Aspirin for primary prevention

Alongside the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guideline update in 2022 regarding aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke, the Beer’s Criteria recommend against initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in older adults. Ticagrelor and prasugrel should be used with caution because of the increased risk of major bleeding in older adults over the age of 75, compared with clopidogrel. If prasugrel is used, a lower dose of 5 mg is recommended, in line with guidelines by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association.

Pain medication

For pain management, the Beer’s Criteria updated recommendations to avoid NSAIDs, particularly when used in combination with steroids or anticoagulants. The panel highlights that even short-term use of NSAIDs is high risk when used in combination with steroids or anticoagulants. If no other alternatives are possible, patients should be placed on a proton pump inhibitor or misoprostol while taking NSAIDs.

Baclofen should be avoided in older adults with renal insufficiency (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²) because of the increased risk of encephalopathy, and when used, should be given at the lowest effective dose with close monitoring for mental status changes.
 

Androgen and estrogen replacement therapy

For androgen replacement therapy, the panel notes that testosterone supplementation should be avoided because of cardiovascular risks unless there is confirmed hypogonadism. The panel revised their recommendation on the basis of emerging data that a history of prostate cancer is not an absolute contraindication for exogenous testosterone. A risk versus benefit discussion about exogenous testosterone should be had with a medical oncologist or urologist in those with a history of prostate cancer.

Regarding estrogen, systemic formulations should not be initiated in women over the age of 60 because of increased risk of cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and dementia. In women with a history of breast cancer, vaginal estrogens are generally felt to be safe to use at low doses, such as less than 25 mcg twice weekly.

Dr. Wang is a geriatrician and general internist at Harborview Medical Center, Seattle.

Every 4 years, an interprofessional panel of experts from the American Geriatrics Society provides updated guidelines on safe prescribing of medications in older adults, known as the Beers Criteria. A 2023 update was released in May 2023 after panel review of more 1,500 clinical trials and research studies published since the last update.

Anticoagulants

Notable changes to the 2023 guidelines include updated recommendations for anticoagulation. Warfarin should be avoided as initial therapy for venous thromboembolism or nonvalvular atrial fibrillation unless there are contraindications to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or other substantial barriers to use.

Rivaroxaban should also be avoided, and dabigatran used with caution in favor of apixaban, which is felt to have a better safety profile in older adults. Rivaroxaban may be considered if once daily dosing is deemed to be more clinically appropriate. Financial barriers regarding drug coverage and formulary options were acknowledged as a significant barrier to equitable access to preferred direct oral anticoagulants in older adults.
 

Diabetes medication

Regarding diabetes management, short-acting sulfonylureas should be avoided in addition to long-acting sulfonylureas, because of the increased risk of hypoglycemia, and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in older adults. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors as an entire class are recommended to be used with caution, as older adults are at higher risk of euglycemic ketoacidosis and urogenital infections, particularly in women in the first month of initiating treatment.

Like DOACs, the panel acknowledged that financial considerations may lead to limited options for oral diabetic treatment. In circumstances where a sulfonylurea is used, short-acting forms are preferred over long acting to reduce the risk of prolonged hypoglycemia.
 

Aspirin for primary prevention

Alongside the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guideline update in 2022 regarding aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke, the Beer’s Criteria recommend against initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in older adults. Ticagrelor and prasugrel should be used with caution because of the increased risk of major bleeding in older adults over the age of 75, compared with clopidogrel. If prasugrel is used, a lower dose of 5 mg is recommended, in line with guidelines by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association.

Pain medication

For pain management, the Beer’s Criteria updated recommendations to avoid NSAIDs, particularly when used in combination with steroids or anticoagulants. The panel highlights that even short-term use of NSAIDs is high risk when used in combination with steroids or anticoagulants. If no other alternatives are possible, patients should be placed on a proton pump inhibitor or misoprostol while taking NSAIDs.

Baclofen should be avoided in older adults with renal insufficiency (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²) because of the increased risk of encephalopathy, and when used, should be given at the lowest effective dose with close monitoring for mental status changes.
 

Androgen and estrogen replacement therapy

For androgen replacement therapy, the panel notes that testosterone supplementation should be avoided because of cardiovascular risks unless there is confirmed hypogonadism. The panel revised their recommendation on the basis of emerging data that a history of prostate cancer is not an absolute contraindication for exogenous testosterone. A risk versus benefit discussion about exogenous testosterone should be had with a medical oncologist or urologist in those with a history of prostate cancer.

Regarding estrogen, systemic formulations should not be initiated in women over the age of 60 because of increased risk of cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and dementia. In women with a history of breast cancer, vaginal estrogens are generally felt to be safe to use at low doses, such as less than 25 mcg twice weekly.

Dr. Wang is a geriatrician and general internist at Harborview Medical Center, Seattle.

Every 4 years, an interprofessional panel of experts from the American Geriatrics Society provides updated guidelines on safe prescribing of medications in older adults, known as the Beers Criteria. A 2023 update was released in May 2023 after panel review of more 1,500 clinical trials and research studies published since the last update.

Anticoagulants

Notable changes to the 2023 guidelines include updated recommendations for anticoagulation. Warfarin should be avoided as initial therapy for venous thromboembolism or nonvalvular atrial fibrillation unless there are contraindications to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) or other substantial barriers to use.

Rivaroxaban should also be avoided, and dabigatran used with caution in favor of apixaban, which is felt to have a better safety profile in older adults. Rivaroxaban may be considered if once daily dosing is deemed to be more clinically appropriate. Financial barriers regarding drug coverage and formulary options were acknowledged as a significant barrier to equitable access to preferred direct oral anticoagulants in older adults.
 

Diabetes medication

Regarding diabetes management, short-acting sulfonylureas should be avoided in addition to long-acting sulfonylureas, because of the increased risk of hypoglycemia, and cardiovascular and all-cause mortality in older adults. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors as an entire class are recommended to be used with caution, as older adults are at higher risk of euglycemic ketoacidosis and urogenital infections, particularly in women in the first month of initiating treatment.

Like DOACs, the panel acknowledged that financial considerations may lead to limited options for oral diabetic treatment. In circumstances where a sulfonylurea is used, short-acting forms are preferred over long acting to reduce the risk of prolonged hypoglycemia.
 

Aspirin for primary prevention

Alongside the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guideline update in 2022 regarding aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and stroke, the Beer’s Criteria recommend against initiation of aspirin for primary prevention in older adults. Ticagrelor and prasugrel should be used with caution because of the increased risk of major bleeding in older adults over the age of 75, compared with clopidogrel. If prasugrel is used, a lower dose of 5 mg is recommended, in line with guidelines by the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association.

Pain medication

For pain management, the Beer’s Criteria updated recommendations to avoid NSAIDs, particularly when used in combination with steroids or anticoagulants. The panel highlights that even short-term use of NSAIDs is high risk when used in combination with steroids or anticoagulants. If no other alternatives are possible, patients should be placed on a proton pump inhibitor or misoprostol while taking NSAIDs.

Baclofen should be avoided in older adults with renal insufficiency (estimated glomerular filtration rate < 60 mL/min per 1.73 m²) because of the increased risk of encephalopathy, and when used, should be given at the lowest effective dose with close monitoring for mental status changes.
 

Androgen and estrogen replacement therapy

For androgen replacement therapy, the panel notes that testosterone supplementation should be avoided because of cardiovascular risks unless there is confirmed hypogonadism. The panel revised their recommendation on the basis of emerging data that a history of prostate cancer is not an absolute contraindication for exogenous testosterone. A risk versus benefit discussion about exogenous testosterone should be had with a medical oncologist or urologist in those with a history of prostate cancer.

Regarding estrogen, systemic formulations should not be initiated in women over the age of 60 because of increased risk of cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and dementia. In women with a history of breast cancer, vaginal estrogens are generally felt to be safe to use at low doses, such as less than 25 mcg twice weekly.

Dr. Wang is a geriatrician and general internist at Harborview Medical Center, Seattle.

The anti–amyloid-beta monoclonal antibodies lecanemab and aducanumab have introduced a new class of drugs for targeting early stage Alzheimer’s disease, but fewer than 10% of older adults with early signs of the disease would meet eligibility requirements to receive either treatment, a cross sectional study has found.

Reporting in the journal Neurology, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and the University of Chicago found that only a small percentage of patients in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease would meet the clinical trial eligibility requirements of either agent.

Mayo Clinic

“Our study results show only a small percentage of people with early Alzheimer’s disease may be eligible to receive treatment, mostly due to chronic health conditions and brain scan abnormalities common in older adults,” said lead researcher Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
 

Applying clinical trial exclusion criteria to a broader population

The study included 237 people aged 50-90, 222 who had MCI and 15 with mild dementia, and whose brain scans showed increased amounts of amyloid-beta plaques. Average age of the participants was 80.9 years and 97.5% were White (99.6% not Hispanic or Latino).

The researchers then looked at the eligibility criteria for the pivotal clinical trials for lecanemab, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in January this year, and aducanumab, which the FDA cleared in 2021. Both drugs received FDA accelerated approval.

For lecanemab, clinical trial inclusion required specific scores for the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (other than 0.5 or 1.0), Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-R) Logical Memory II (which varied with age group), or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (22 to 30). A body mass index between 17 and 35 kg/m² was also an inclusion criteria. Only 112 people, or 47%, met the inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria included a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, Parkinson’s disease, or brain injury, or a positive brain scan. When the exclusion criteria were applied, only 19 people, or 8%, qualified for the lecanemab trial.

When the researchers modified the exclusion criteria to include all study participants with MCI but not applying results from additional cognitive tests, 17.4% of MCSA patients would have been eligible for the lecanemab trial.

Aducanumab clinical trial inclusion criteria were a CDR global score other than 0.5 and an MMSE below 24, with an age cutoff of 85 years. Only 104 of the MCSA population, or 44%, met the clinical trial criteria. When the researchers applied the exclusion criteria for cardiovascular disease, central nervous system-related exclusions (such as brain cancer or epilepsy), a history of cancer, or brain scan abnormalities, they found that only 12 people, or 5%, would have been eligible for an aducanumab trial.

“Clinical trials often have strict eligibility criteria and could exclude those with other conditions that could be common in older adults,” Dr. Vassilaki said in emailed comments. “Thus, we wanted to examine if we apply these criteria to a study that recruits participants from the community, how many of the individuals in the early symptomatic stages, mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, would be eligible for the treatment.”

Dr. Vassilaki said these drugs need to be studied in larger, more diverse populations, as well as in less healthy populations, before they’re more widely available to people with Alzheimer’s disease. “In addition,” she said, “we can learn more from the postmarketing surveillance of side effects and also from registries of patients receiving these treatments.”

One limitation of the study Dr. Vassilaki pointed out is the overwhelmingly White population. Evaluating the clinical trial eligibility criteria in more diverse populations is crucial, she said.
 

Estimating the number of patients who would qualify for treatment

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Howes, MD, of Butler Hospital and Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote that the study findings provide health systems planning to offer amyloid-lowering antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease an estimate of how many patients would be eligible for the treatments. “Providers must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” the commentators wrote.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation, and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki disclosed relationships with F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no relevant disclosures.
 

The anti–amyloid-beta monoclonal antibodies lecanemab and aducanumab have introduced a new class of drugs for targeting early stage Alzheimer’s disease, but fewer than 10% of older adults with early signs of the disease would meet eligibility requirements to receive either treatment, a cross sectional study has found.

Reporting in the journal Neurology, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and the University of Chicago found that only a small percentage of patients in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease would meet the clinical trial eligibility requirements of either agent.

Mayo Clinic

“Our study results show only a small percentage of people with early Alzheimer’s disease may be eligible to receive treatment, mostly due to chronic health conditions and brain scan abnormalities common in older adults,” said lead researcher Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
 

Applying clinical trial exclusion criteria to a broader population

The study included 237 people aged 50-90, 222 who had MCI and 15 with mild dementia, and whose brain scans showed increased amounts of amyloid-beta plaques. Average age of the participants was 80.9 years and 97.5% were White (99.6% not Hispanic or Latino).

The researchers then looked at the eligibility criteria for the pivotal clinical trials for lecanemab, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in January this year, and aducanumab, which the FDA cleared in 2021. Both drugs received FDA accelerated approval.

For lecanemab, clinical trial inclusion required specific scores for the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (other than 0.5 or 1.0), Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-R) Logical Memory II (which varied with age group), or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (22 to 30). A body mass index between 17 and 35 kg/m² was also an inclusion criteria. Only 112 people, or 47%, met the inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria included a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, Parkinson’s disease, or brain injury, or a positive brain scan. When the exclusion criteria were applied, only 19 people, or 8%, qualified for the lecanemab trial.

When the researchers modified the exclusion criteria to include all study participants with MCI but not applying results from additional cognitive tests, 17.4% of MCSA patients would have been eligible for the lecanemab trial.

Aducanumab clinical trial inclusion criteria were a CDR global score other than 0.5 and an MMSE below 24, with an age cutoff of 85 years. Only 104 of the MCSA population, or 44%, met the clinical trial criteria. When the researchers applied the exclusion criteria for cardiovascular disease, central nervous system-related exclusions (such as brain cancer or epilepsy), a history of cancer, or brain scan abnormalities, they found that only 12 people, or 5%, would have been eligible for an aducanumab trial.

“Clinical trials often have strict eligibility criteria and could exclude those with other conditions that could be common in older adults,” Dr. Vassilaki said in emailed comments. “Thus, we wanted to examine if we apply these criteria to a study that recruits participants from the community, how many of the individuals in the early symptomatic stages, mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, would be eligible for the treatment.”

Dr. Vassilaki said these drugs need to be studied in larger, more diverse populations, as well as in less healthy populations, before they’re more widely available to people with Alzheimer’s disease. “In addition,” she said, “we can learn more from the postmarketing surveillance of side effects and also from registries of patients receiving these treatments.”

One limitation of the study Dr. Vassilaki pointed out is the overwhelmingly White population. Evaluating the clinical trial eligibility criteria in more diverse populations is crucial, she said.
 

Estimating the number of patients who would qualify for treatment

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Howes, MD, of Butler Hospital and Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote that the study findings provide health systems planning to offer amyloid-lowering antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease an estimate of how many patients would be eligible for the treatments. “Providers must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” the commentators wrote.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation, and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki disclosed relationships with F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no relevant disclosures.
 

The anti–amyloid-beta monoclonal antibodies lecanemab and aducanumab have introduced a new class of drugs for targeting early stage Alzheimer’s disease, but fewer than 10% of older adults with early signs of the disease would meet eligibility requirements to receive either treatment, a cross sectional study has found.

Reporting in the journal Neurology, researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and the University of Chicago found that only a small percentage of patients in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging (MCSA) with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease would meet the clinical trial eligibility requirements of either agent.

Mayo Clinic

“Our study results show only a small percentage of people with early Alzheimer’s disease may be eligible to receive treatment, mostly due to chronic health conditions and brain scan abnormalities common in older adults,” said lead researcher Maria Vassilaki, MD, PhD, an epidemiologist at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
 

Applying clinical trial exclusion criteria to a broader population

The study included 237 people aged 50-90, 222 who had MCI and 15 with mild dementia, and whose brain scans showed increased amounts of amyloid-beta plaques. Average age of the participants was 80.9 years and 97.5% were White (99.6% not Hispanic or Latino).

The researchers then looked at the eligibility criteria for the pivotal clinical trials for lecanemab, which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in January this year, and aducanumab, which the FDA cleared in 2021. Both drugs received FDA accelerated approval.

For lecanemab, clinical trial inclusion required specific scores for the Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR) (other than 0.5 or 1.0), Wechsler Memory Scale (WMS-R) Logical Memory II (which varied with age group), or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) (22 to 30). A body mass index between 17 and 35 kg/m² was also an inclusion criteria. Only 112 people, or 47%, met the inclusion criteria. Exclusion criteria included a history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, Parkinson’s disease, or brain injury, or a positive brain scan. When the exclusion criteria were applied, only 19 people, or 8%, qualified for the lecanemab trial.

When the researchers modified the exclusion criteria to include all study participants with MCI but not applying results from additional cognitive tests, 17.4% of MCSA patients would have been eligible for the lecanemab trial.

Aducanumab clinical trial inclusion criteria were a CDR global score other than 0.5 and an MMSE below 24, with an age cutoff of 85 years. Only 104 of the MCSA population, or 44%, met the clinical trial criteria. When the researchers applied the exclusion criteria for cardiovascular disease, central nervous system-related exclusions (such as brain cancer or epilepsy), a history of cancer, or brain scan abnormalities, they found that only 12 people, or 5%, would have been eligible for an aducanumab trial.

“Clinical trials often have strict eligibility criteria and could exclude those with other conditions that could be common in older adults,” Dr. Vassilaki said in emailed comments. “Thus, we wanted to examine if we apply these criteria to a study that recruits participants from the community, how many of the individuals in the early symptomatic stages, mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease, would be eligible for the treatment.”

Dr. Vassilaki said these drugs need to be studied in larger, more diverse populations, as well as in less healthy populations, before they’re more widely available to people with Alzheimer’s disease. “In addition,” she said, “we can learn more from the postmarketing surveillance of side effects and also from registries of patients receiving these treatments.”

One limitation of the study Dr. Vassilaki pointed out is the overwhelmingly White population. Evaluating the clinical trial eligibility criteria in more diverse populations is crucial, she said.
 

Estimating the number of patients who would qualify for treatment

In an accompanying commentary, Matthew Howes, MD, of Butler Hospital and Brown University in Providence, R.I., and colleagues wrote that the study findings provide health systems planning to offer amyloid-lowering antibodies for Alzheimer’s disease an estimate of how many patients would be eligible for the treatments. “Providers must exercise clinical judgment in selecting patients for treatment with shared decision-making with patients and families,” the commentators wrote.

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute on Aging, the Alexander Family Alzheimer’s Disease Research Professorship of the Mayo Clinic, the Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, the Liston Award, the GHR Foundation, and the Schuler Foundation. Dr. Vassilaki disclosed relationships with F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Abbott Laboratories, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, and Amgen. Dr. Howe has no relevant disclosures.
 

Women who continued breast cancer screenings when they reached age 70 had no lower chance of dying from the disease, and just getting a mammogram could instead set them on a path toward unnecessary risks, according to a new study from Yale University.

The findings, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest that between 31% and 54% of all breast cancer diagnoses in women aged 70 years and older could be considered overdiagnoses, meaning that the cancer found during the screening would not have caused symptoms in a person’s lifetime. (For context, the average life expectancy of a woman in the U.S. is 79 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.) 

Overdiagnosis can be harmful because it carries the risks of complications from overtreatment, plus financial and emotional hardships and unnecessary use of limited resources.

For the study, researchers analyzed data for 54,635 women aged 70 and older and compared the rate of breast cancer diagnosis and death among women who did and did not have mammograms during a 15-year follow-up period. 

The rate of breast cancer in the study among women aged 70-74 was 6% for women who were screened and 4% for women who were not screened. The researchers estimated that 31% of the cases were potentially overdiagnosed. Among women aged 75-84, breast cancer was found in 5% of women who were screened, compared to less than 3% of unscreened women. Their estimated overdiagnosis rate was 47%. Finally, 3% of women aged 85 and older who were screened had breast cancer detected, compared with 1% of women in the unscreened group. For the older group, the overdiagnosis rate was 54%.

Yale University

“While our study focused on overdiagnosis, it is important to acknowledge that overdiagnosis is just one of many considerations when deciding whether to continue screening,” researcher and Yale assistant professor of medicine Ilana Richman, MD, said in a statement. “A patient’s preferences and values, personal risk factors, and the overall balance of risks and benefits from screening are also important to take into account when making screening decisions.”

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

Women who continued breast cancer screenings when they reached age 70 had no lower chance of dying from the disease, and just getting a mammogram could instead set them on a path toward unnecessary risks, according to a new study from Yale University.

The findings, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest that between 31% and 54% of all breast cancer diagnoses in women aged 70 years and older could be considered overdiagnoses, meaning that the cancer found during the screening would not have caused symptoms in a person’s lifetime. (For context, the average life expectancy of a woman in the U.S. is 79 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.) 

Overdiagnosis can be harmful because it carries the risks of complications from overtreatment, plus financial and emotional hardships and unnecessary use of limited resources.

For the study, researchers analyzed data for 54,635 women aged 70 and older and compared the rate of breast cancer diagnosis and death among women who did and did not have mammograms during a 15-year follow-up period. 

The rate of breast cancer in the study among women aged 70-74 was 6% for women who were screened and 4% for women who were not screened. The researchers estimated that 31% of the cases were potentially overdiagnosed. Among women aged 75-84, breast cancer was found in 5% of women who were screened, compared to less than 3% of unscreened women. Their estimated overdiagnosis rate was 47%. Finally, 3% of women aged 85 and older who were screened had breast cancer detected, compared with 1% of women in the unscreened group. For the older group, the overdiagnosis rate was 54%.

Yale University

“While our study focused on overdiagnosis, it is important to acknowledge that overdiagnosis is just one of many considerations when deciding whether to continue screening,” researcher and Yale assistant professor of medicine Ilana Richman, MD, said in a statement. “A patient’s preferences and values, personal risk factors, and the overall balance of risks and benefits from screening are also important to take into account when making screening decisions.”

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

Women who continued breast cancer screenings when they reached age 70 had no lower chance of dying from the disease, and just getting a mammogram could instead set them on a path toward unnecessary risks, according to a new study from Yale University.

The findings, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest that between 31% and 54% of all breast cancer diagnoses in women aged 70 years and older could be considered overdiagnoses, meaning that the cancer found during the screening would not have caused symptoms in a person’s lifetime. (For context, the average life expectancy of a woman in the U.S. is 79 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.) 

Overdiagnosis can be harmful because it carries the risks of complications from overtreatment, plus financial and emotional hardships and unnecessary use of limited resources.

For the study, researchers analyzed data for 54,635 women aged 70 and older and compared the rate of breast cancer diagnosis and death among women who did and did not have mammograms during a 15-year follow-up period. 

The rate of breast cancer in the study among women aged 70-74 was 6% for women who were screened and 4% for women who were not screened. The researchers estimated that 31% of the cases were potentially overdiagnosed. Among women aged 75-84, breast cancer was found in 5% of women who were screened, compared to less than 3% of unscreened women. Their estimated overdiagnosis rate was 47%. Finally, 3% of women aged 85 and older who were screened had breast cancer detected, compared with 1% of women in the unscreened group. For the older group, the overdiagnosis rate was 54%.

Yale University

“While our study focused on overdiagnosis, it is important to acknowledge that overdiagnosis is just one of many considerations when deciding whether to continue screening,” researcher and Yale assistant professor of medicine Ilana Richman, MD, said in a statement. “A patient’s preferences and values, personal risk factors, and the overall balance of risks and benefits from screening are also important to take into account when making screening decisions.”

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

Measuring levels of the synaptic protein NPTX2 in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) may serve as an early predictor of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) years before symptoms appear, new research indicates.

“Our study shows that low NPTX2 levels are predictive of MCI symptom onset more than 7 years in advance, including among individuals who are in late middle age,” said study investigator Anja Soldan, PhD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

NPTX2 is still considered an “emerging biomarker” because knowledge about this protein is limited, Dr. Soldan noted.

Prior studies have shown that levels of NPTX2 are lower in people with MCI and dementia than in those with normal cognition and that low levels of this protein in people with MCI are associated with an increased risk of developing dementia.

“Our study extends these prior findings by showing that low protein levels are also associated with the onset of MCI symptoms,” Dr. Soldan said.

The study was published online in Annals of Neurology.
 

New therapeutic target?

The researchers measured NPTX2, as well as amyloid beta 42/40, phosphorylated (p)-tau181, and total (t)-tau in CSF collected longitudinally from 269 cognitively normal adults from the BIOCARD study.

The average age at baseline was 57.7 years. Nearly all were White, 59% were women, most were college educated, and three-quarters had a close relative with Alzheimer’s disease.

During a mean follow-up average of 16 years, 77 participants progressed to MCI or dementia within or after 7 years of baseline measurements.

In Cox regression models, lower baseline NPTX2 levels were associated with an earlier time to MCI symptom onset (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .023). This association was significant for progression within 7 years (P = .036) and after 7 years from baseline (P = .001), the investigators reported.

Adults who progressed to MCI had, on average, about 15% lower levels of NPTX2 at baseline, compared with adults who remained cognitively normal.

Baseline NPTX2 levels improved prediction of time to MCI symptom onset after accounting for baseline Alzheimer’s disease biomarker levels (P < .01), and NPTX2 did not interact with the CSF Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers or APOE-ε4 genetic status.

Higher baseline levels of p-tau181 and t-tau were associated with higher baseline NPTX2 levels (both P < .001) and with greater declines in NPTX2 over time, suggesting that NPTX2 may decline in response to tau pathology, the investigators suggested.

Dr. Soldan said NPTX2 may be “a novel target” for developing new therapeutics for Alzheimer’s disease and other dementing and neurodegenerative disorders, as it is not an Alzheimer’s disease–specific protein.

“Efforts are underway for developing a sensitive way to measure NPTX2 brain levels in blood, which could then help clinicians identify individuals at greatest risk for cognitive decline,” she explained.

“Other next steps are to examine how changes in NPTX2 over time relate to changes in brain structure and function and to identify factors that alter levels of NPTX2, including genetic factors and potentially modifiable lifestyle factors,” Dr. Soldan said.

“If having higher levels of NPTX2 in the brain provides some resilience against developing symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, it would be great if we could somehow increase levels of the protein,” she noted.
 

Caveats, cautionary notes

Commenting on this research, Christopher Weber, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of global science initiatives, said, “Research has shown that when NPTX2 levels are low, it may lead to weaker connections between neurons and could potentially affect cognitive functions, including memory and learning.”

“This new study found an association between lower levels of NPTX2 in CSF and earlier time to MCI symptom onset, and when combined with other established Alzheimer’s biomarkers, they found that NPTX2 improved the prediction of Alzheimer’s symptom onset,” Dr. Weber said.

“This is in line with previous research that suggests NPTX2 levels are associated with an increased risk of progression from MCI to Alzheimer’s dementia,” Dr. Weber said.

However, he noted some limitations of the study. “Participants were primarily White [and] highly educated, and therefore findings may not be generalizable to a real-world population,” he cautioned.

Dr. Weber said it’s also important to note that NPTX2 is not considered an Alzheimer’s-specific biomarker but rather a marker of synaptic activity and neurodegeneration. “The exact role of NPTX2 in predicting dementia is unknown,” Dr. Weber said.

He said that more studies with larger, more diverse cohorts are needed to fully understand its significance as a biomarker or therapeutic target for neurodegenerative diseases, as well as to develop a blood test for NPTX2.  

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Soldan and Dr. Weber report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Measuring levels of the synaptic protein NPTX2 in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) may serve as an early predictor of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) years before symptoms appear, new research indicates.

“Our study shows that low NPTX2 levels are predictive of MCI symptom onset more than 7 years in advance, including among individuals who are in late middle age,” said study investigator Anja Soldan, PhD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

NPTX2 is still considered an “emerging biomarker” because knowledge about this protein is limited, Dr. Soldan noted.

Prior studies have shown that levels of NPTX2 are lower in people with MCI and dementia than in those with normal cognition and that low levels of this protein in people with MCI are associated with an increased risk of developing dementia.

“Our study extends these prior findings by showing that low protein levels are also associated with the onset of MCI symptoms,” Dr. Soldan said.

The study was published online in Annals of Neurology.
 

New therapeutic target?

The researchers measured NPTX2, as well as amyloid beta 42/40, phosphorylated (p)-tau181, and total (t)-tau in CSF collected longitudinally from 269 cognitively normal adults from the BIOCARD study.

The average age at baseline was 57.7 years. Nearly all were White, 59% were women, most were college educated, and three-quarters had a close relative with Alzheimer’s disease.

During a mean follow-up average of 16 years, 77 participants progressed to MCI or dementia within or after 7 years of baseline measurements.

In Cox regression models, lower baseline NPTX2 levels were associated with an earlier time to MCI symptom onset (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .023). This association was significant for progression within 7 years (P = .036) and after 7 years from baseline (P = .001), the investigators reported.

Adults who progressed to MCI had, on average, about 15% lower levels of NPTX2 at baseline, compared with adults who remained cognitively normal.

Baseline NPTX2 levels improved prediction of time to MCI symptom onset after accounting for baseline Alzheimer’s disease biomarker levels (P < .01), and NPTX2 did not interact with the CSF Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers or APOE-ε4 genetic status.

Higher baseline levels of p-tau181 and t-tau were associated with higher baseline NPTX2 levels (both P < .001) and with greater declines in NPTX2 over time, suggesting that NPTX2 may decline in response to tau pathology, the investigators suggested.

Dr. Soldan said NPTX2 may be “a novel target” for developing new therapeutics for Alzheimer’s disease and other dementing and neurodegenerative disorders, as it is not an Alzheimer’s disease–specific protein.

“Efforts are underway for developing a sensitive way to measure NPTX2 brain levels in blood, which could then help clinicians identify individuals at greatest risk for cognitive decline,” she explained.

“Other next steps are to examine how changes in NPTX2 over time relate to changes in brain structure and function and to identify factors that alter levels of NPTX2, including genetic factors and potentially modifiable lifestyle factors,” Dr. Soldan said.

“If having higher levels of NPTX2 in the brain provides some resilience against developing symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, it would be great if we could somehow increase levels of the protein,” she noted.
 

Caveats, cautionary notes

Commenting on this research, Christopher Weber, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of global science initiatives, said, “Research has shown that when NPTX2 levels are low, it may lead to weaker connections between neurons and could potentially affect cognitive functions, including memory and learning.”

“This new study found an association between lower levels of NPTX2 in CSF and earlier time to MCI symptom onset, and when combined with other established Alzheimer’s biomarkers, they found that NPTX2 improved the prediction of Alzheimer’s symptom onset,” Dr. Weber said.

“This is in line with previous research that suggests NPTX2 levels are associated with an increased risk of progression from MCI to Alzheimer’s dementia,” Dr. Weber said.

However, he noted some limitations of the study. “Participants were primarily White [and] highly educated, and therefore findings may not be generalizable to a real-world population,” he cautioned.

Dr. Weber said it’s also important to note that NPTX2 is not considered an Alzheimer’s-specific biomarker but rather a marker of synaptic activity and neurodegeneration. “The exact role of NPTX2 in predicting dementia is unknown,” Dr. Weber said.

He said that more studies with larger, more diverse cohorts are needed to fully understand its significance as a biomarker or therapeutic target for neurodegenerative diseases, as well as to develop a blood test for NPTX2.  

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Soldan and Dr. Weber report no relevant financial relationships.

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

Measuring levels of the synaptic protein NPTX2 in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) may serve as an early predictor of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) years before symptoms appear, new research indicates.

“Our study shows that low NPTX2 levels are predictive of MCI symptom onset more than 7 years in advance, including among individuals who are in late middle age,” said study investigator Anja Soldan, PhD, associate professor of neurology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore.

NPTX2 is still considered an “emerging biomarker” because knowledge about this protein is limited, Dr. Soldan noted.

Prior studies have shown that levels of NPTX2 are lower in people with MCI and dementia than in those with normal cognition and that low levels of this protein in people with MCI are associated with an increased risk of developing dementia.

“Our study extends these prior findings by showing that low protein levels are also associated with the onset of MCI symptoms,” Dr. Soldan said.

The study was published online in Annals of Neurology.
 

New therapeutic target?

The researchers measured NPTX2, as well as amyloid beta 42/40, phosphorylated (p)-tau181, and total (t)-tau in CSF collected longitudinally from 269 cognitively normal adults from the BIOCARD study.

The average age at baseline was 57.7 years. Nearly all were White, 59% were women, most were college educated, and three-quarters had a close relative with Alzheimer’s disease.

During a mean follow-up average of 16 years, 77 participants progressed to MCI or dementia within or after 7 years of baseline measurements.

In Cox regression models, lower baseline NPTX2 levels were associated with an earlier time to MCI symptom onset (hazard ratio, 0.76; P = .023). This association was significant for progression within 7 years (P = .036) and after 7 years from baseline (P = .001), the investigators reported.

Adults who progressed to MCI had, on average, about 15% lower levels of NPTX2 at baseline, compared with adults who remained cognitively normal.

Baseline NPTX2 levels improved prediction of time to MCI symptom onset after accounting for baseline Alzheimer’s disease biomarker levels (P < .01), and NPTX2 did not interact with the CSF Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers or APOE-ε4 genetic status.

Higher baseline levels of p-tau181 and t-tau were associated with higher baseline NPTX2 levels (both P < .001) and with greater declines in NPTX2 over time, suggesting that NPTX2 may decline in response to tau pathology, the investigators suggested.

Dr. Soldan said NPTX2 may be “a novel target” for developing new therapeutics for Alzheimer’s disease and other dementing and neurodegenerative disorders, as it is not an Alzheimer’s disease–specific protein.

“Efforts are underway for developing a sensitive way to measure NPTX2 brain levels in blood, which could then help clinicians identify individuals at greatest risk for cognitive decline,” she explained.

“Other next steps are to examine how changes in NPTX2 over time relate to changes in brain structure and function and to identify factors that alter levels of NPTX2, including genetic factors and potentially modifiable lifestyle factors,” Dr. Soldan said.

“If having higher levels of NPTX2 in the brain provides some resilience against developing symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease, it would be great if we could somehow increase levels of the protein,” she noted.
 

Caveats, cautionary notes

Commenting on this research, Christopher Weber, PhD, Alzheimer’s Association director of global science initiatives, said, “Research has shown that when NPTX2 levels are low, it may lead to weaker connections between neurons and could potentially affect cognitive functions, including memory and learning.”

“This new study found an association between lower levels of NPTX2 in CSF and earlier time to MCI symptom onset, and when combined with other established Alzheimer’s biomarkers, they found that NPTX2 improved the prediction of Alzheimer’s symptom onset,” Dr. Weber said.

“This is in line with previous research that suggests NPTX2 levels are associated with an increased risk of progression from MCI to Alzheimer’s dementia,” Dr. Weber said.

However, he noted some limitations of the study. “Participants were primarily White [and] highly educated, and therefore findings may not be generalizable to a real-world population,” he cautioned.

Dr. Weber said it’s also important to note that NPTX2 is not considered an Alzheimer’s-specific biomarker but rather a marker of synaptic activity and neurodegeneration. “The exact role of NPTX2 in predicting dementia is unknown,” Dr. Weber said.

He said that more studies with larger, more diverse cohorts are needed to fully understand its significance as a biomarker or therapeutic target for neurodegenerative diseases, as well as to develop a blood test for NPTX2.  

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Soldan and Dr. Weber report no relevant financial relationships.

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