Geriatrics

The highly anticipated Alzheimer’s drug lecanemab was granted accelerated approval status on Jan. 6 by the FDA, offering hope where there has been little for patients and their families affected by the devastating disease.

More than 6 million people in the United States live with Alzheimer’s.

It’s not a cure, but the drug, given intravenously every 2 weeks, has shown moderate positive effects in clinical trials in slowing early-stage disease.

But many are wary. As explained in an editorial in the journal The Lancet, “The Alzheimer’s disease community has become accustomed to false hope, disappointment, and controversy.”

Some worry about lecanemab’s safety as some people in clinical trials experienced serious side effects of bleeding and swelling in the brain. Scientists recently attributed a third death to lecanemab, brand name Leqembi, though the drugmaker disputed the medication was the cause.

So what should patients and their families make of this news? Here we answer some of the top questions surrounding the drug.
 

What does the FDA action mean?

The FDA granted accelerated approval to Leqembi after it showed positive trial results in slowing the progression of early-stage disease.

The FDA can grant accelerated approval for drugs that treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need while drugs continue to be studied in larger trials.

With the FDA approval in hand, doctors can now prescribe the medication.

Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, the Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, says that with the FDA’s move, ramping up manufacturing – and eventually nationwide distribution and implementation – will take some time.

“Ask your doctor about availability,” she says. “The main issue is that, without insurance and Medicare coverage of this class of treatments, access for those who could benefit from the newly approved treatment will only be available to those who can pay out-of-pocket. Without coverage, people simply won’t be able to get the treatment.”

The Washington Post reports that with accelerated approval, drugmaker Eisai is expected to immediately apply for full FDA approval, which wouldn’t be likely to come before later this year. Full approval could help clear the path for Medicare coverage of the drug.
 

Potential benefit?

Those who got Leqembi in a clinical trial for 18 months experienced 27% less decline in memory and thinking relative to the group who got a placebo. It also reduced amyloid in the brain, the sticky protein that builds up in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s and is considered a hallmark of the disease.

Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, says, “It’s the first phase 3 study in our field of a disease-modifying drug where the clinical efficacy was very clear.”
 

Concerns about side effects

The drug has raised safety concerns as it has been linked with certain serious adverse events, including brain swelling and bleeding. In the trial, 14% of patients who received the drug experienced side effects that included brain swelling and bleeding, compared with about 11% in the placebo group.

Scientists have reportedly linked three deaths during the clinical trial to lecanemab, though it is unclear whether it caused the deaths.

Dr. Fillit notes that the first two people who died were on blood thinners when they received lecanemab.

“There are things about the use of the drug in the real world that we need to work out, especially in the context of people with comorbidities,” he says.

The third death is a little different, Dr. Fillit says. The patient, who had a stroke, showed signs of vasculitis, or inflammation of the blood vessels.

“We don’t know exactly what happened, but we do know it was very, very rare” among the people involved in the trials, he says.

Dr. Edelmayer says that the most common reported side effects during the trials were infusion-related reactions, headache, and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). According to the FDA, these abnormalities “are known to occur with antibodies of this class. ARIA usually does not have symptoms, although serious and life-threatening events rarely may occur.”

The FDA has added these as warnings to the drug’s label, describing the possible infusion-related reactions as flu-like symptoms, nausea, vomiting, and changes in blood pressure.
 

How much will it cost?

Eisai says that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.

In a draft report released in December, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said a price ranging from $8,500 to $20,600 a year would make the drug cost-effective. While the group has no authority to set prices, many large health insurers consider its reports when they negotiate prices and some drugmakers take into account ICER’s recommendations when setting prices.

An editorial in The Lancet last month warns that the cost will likely be “prohibitive” for low- and middle-income countries and many health systems don’t have the infrastructure for a widespread rollout.
 

Will Medicare cover it?

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which runs Medicare, which covers most people with Alzheimer’s, has indicated it won’t broadly cover amyloid-lowering drugs until the drug gets full U.S. approval based on clinical benefits, as opposed to accelerated approval.

That means people would have to pay thousands out of pocket at first to get it.

The CMS decision effectively denies Medicare coverage of fast-tracked FDA-approved medications for Alzheimer’s disease unless the person is enrolled in an approved clinical trial.

On Dec. 19, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request asking CMS to remove the trial-only requirement and provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s treatments.

CMS says in a statement issued after the announcement: “Because Eisai’s product, lecanemab, was granted accelerated approval by the FDA, it falls under CMS’s existing national coverage determination. CMS is examining available information and may reconsider its current coverage based on this review.”

“If lecanemab subsequently receives traditional FDA approval, CMS would provide broader coverage,” the statement says.
 

Who benefits most from this drug?

Lecanemab is a treatment for people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease who have amyloid in their brain. This means people with other types of dementia, or those in the later stages of Alzheimer’s disease, are not likely to improve with this drug.

Who makes lecanemab?  

Japan-based Eisai is developing the drug, a monoclonal antibody, in collaboration with the U.S. company Biogen.

What’s the Alzheimer’s Association’s view?

The association urged accelerated FDA approval. In a statement, it says it “welcomes and is further encouraged” by the clinical trial results.

It says data published in the New England Journal of Medicine confirms lecanemab “can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease.”

“We are energized at the progress we are seeing in the research pipeline. The science is telling us that although antiamyloid treatments are not a cure – they are not going to be the end of treating Alzheimer’s – they are certainly the beginning,” Dr. Edelmayer says.
 

Are there alternatives?

The FDA gave accelerated approval to Biogen to produce another drug for Alzheimer’s, Aduhelm (aducanemab), in 2021, but the move was controversial as the drug’s effectiveness was widely questioned. It has since largely been pulled from the market.

Aduhelm had been the first approved early-stage Alzheimer’s treatment since 2003.

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

The highly anticipated Alzheimer’s drug lecanemab was granted accelerated approval status on Jan. 6 by the FDA, offering hope where there has been little for patients and their families affected by the devastating disease.

More than 6 million people in the United States live with Alzheimer’s.

It’s not a cure, but the drug, given intravenously every 2 weeks, has shown moderate positive effects in clinical trials in slowing early-stage disease.

But many are wary. As explained in an editorial in the journal The Lancet, “The Alzheimer’s disease community has become accustomed to false hope, disappointment, and controversy.”

Some worry about lecanemab’s safety as some people in clinical trials experienced serious side effects of bleeding and swelling in the brain. Scientists recently attributed a third death to lecanemab, brand name Leqembi, though the drugmaker disputed the medication was the cause.

So what should patients and their families make of this news? Here we answer some of the top questions surrounding the drug.
 

What does the FDA action mean?

The FDA granted accelerated approval to Leqembi after it showed positive trial results in slowing the progression of early-stage disease.

The FDA can grant accelerated approval for drugs that treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need while drugs continue to be studied in larger trials.

With the FDA approval in hand, doctors can now prescribe the medication.

Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, the Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, says that with the FDA’s move, ramping up manufacturing – and eventually nationwide distribution and implementation – will take some time.

“Ask your doctor about availability,” she says. “The main issue is that, without insurance and Medicare coverage of this class of treatments, access for those who could benefit from the newly approved treatment will only be available to those who can pay out-of-pocket. Without coverage, people simply won’t be able to get the treatment.”

The Washington Post reports that with accelerated approval, drugmaker Eisai is expected to immediately apply for full FDA approval, which wouldn’t be likely to come before later this year. Full approval could help clear the path for Medicare coverage of the drug.
 

Potential benefit?

Those who got Leqembi in a clinical trial for 18 months experienced 27% less decline in memory and thinking relative to the group who got a placebo. It also reduced amyloid in the brain, the sticky protein that builds up in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s and is considered a hallmark of the disease.

Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, says, “It’s the first phase 3 study in our field of a disease-modifying drug where the clinical efficacy was very clear.”
 

Concerns about side effects

The drug has raised safety concerns as it has been linked with certain serious adverse events, including brain swelling and bleeding. In the trial, 14% of patients who received the drug experienced side effects that included brain swelling and bleeding, compared with about 11% in the placebo group.

Scientists have reportedly linked three deaths during the clinical trial to lecanemab, though it is unclear whether it caused the deaths.

Dr. Fillit notes that the first two people who died were on blood thinners when they received lecanemab.

“There are things about the use of the drug in the real world that we need to work out, especially in the context of people with comorbidities,” he says.

The third death is a little different, Dr. Fillit says. The patient, who had a stroke, showed signs of vasculitis, or inflammation of the blood vessels.

“We don’t know exactly what happened, but we do know it was very, very rare” among the people involved in the trials, he says.

Dr. Edelmayer says that the most common reported side effects during the trials were infusion-related reactions, headache, and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). According to the FDA, these abnormalities “are known to occur with antibodies of this class. ARIA usually does not have symptoms, although serious and life-threatening events rarely may occur.”

The FDA has added these as warnings to the drug’s label, describing the possible infusion-related reactions as flu-like symptoms, nausea, vomiting, and changes in blood pressure.
 

How much will it cost?

Eisai says that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.

In a draft report released in December, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said a price ranging from $8,500 to $20,600 a year would make the drug cost-effective. While the group has no authority to set prices, many large health insurers consider its reports when they negotiate prices and some drugmakers take into account ICER’s recommendations when setting prices.

An editorial in The Lancet last month warns that the cost will likely be “prohibitive” for low- and middle-income countries and many health systems don’t have the infrastructure for a widespread rollout.
 

Will Medicare cover it?

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which runs Medicare, which covers most people with Alzheimer’s, has indicated it won’t broadly cover amyloid-lowering drugs until the drug gets full U.S. approval based on clinical benefits, as opposed to accelerated approval.

That means people would have to pay thousands out of pocket at first to get it.

The CMS decision effectively denies Medicare coverage of fast-tracked FDA-approved medications for Alzheimer’s disease unless the person is enrolled in an approved clinical trial.

On Dec. 19, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request asking CMS to remove the trial-only requirement and provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s treatments.

CMS says in a statement issued after the announcement: “Because Eisai’s product, lecanemab, was granted accelerated approval by the FDA, it falls under CMS’s existing national coverage determination. CMS is examining available information and may reconsider its current coverage based on this review.”

“If lecanemab subsequently receives traditional FDA approval, CMS would provide broader coverage,” the statement says.
 

Who benefits most from this drug?

Lecanemab is a treatment for people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease who have amyloid in their brain. This means people with other types of dementia, or those in the later stages of Alzheimer’s disease, are not likely to improve with this drug.

Who makes lecanemab?  

Japan-based Eisai is developing the drug, a monoclonal antibody, in collaboration with the U.S. company Biogen.

What’s the Alzheimer’s Association’s view?

The association urged accelerated FDA approval. In a statement, it says it “welcomes and is further encouraged” by the clinical trial results.

It says data published in the New England Journal of Medicine confirms lecanemab “can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease.”

“We are energized at the progress we are seeing in the research pipeline. The science is telling us that although antiamyloid treatments are not a cure – they are not going to be the end of treating Alzheimer’s – they are certainly the beginning,” Dr. Edelmayer says.
 

Are there alternatives?

The FDA gave accelerated approval to Biogen to produce another drug for Alzheimer’s, Aduhelm (aducanemab), in 2021, but the move was controversial as the drug’s effectiveness was widely questioned. It has since largely been pulled from the market.

Aduhelm had been the first approved early-stage Alzheimer’s treatment since 2003.

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

The highly anticipated Alzheimer’s drug lecanemab was granted accelerated approval status on Jan. 6 by the FDA, offering hope where there has been little for patients and their families affected by the devastating disease.

More than 6 million people in the United States live with Alzheimer’s.

It’s not a cure, but the drug, given intravenously every 2 weeks, has shown moderate positive effects in clinical trials in slowing early-stage disease.

But many are wary. As explained in an editorial in the journal The Lancet, “The Alzheimer’s disease community has become accustomed to false hope, disappointment, and controversy.”

Some worry about lecanemab’s safety as some people in clinical trials experienced serious side effects of bleeding and swelling in the brain. Scientists recently attributed a third death to lecanemab, brand name Leqembi, though the drugmaker disputed the medication was the cause.

So what should patients and their families make of this news? Here we answer some of the top questions surrounding the drug.
 

What does the FDA action mean?

The FDA granted accelerated approval to Leqembi after it showed positive trial results in slowing the progression of early-stage disease.

The FDA can grant accelerated approval for drugs that treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need while drugs continue to be studied in larger trials.

With the FDA approval in hand, doctors can now prescribe the medication.

Rebecca Edelmayer, PhD, the Alzheimer’s Association senior director of scientific engagement, says that with the FDA’s move, ramping up manufacturing – and eventually nationwide distribution and implementation – will take some time.

“Ask your doctor about availability,” she says. “The main issue is that, without insurance and Medicare coverage of this class of treatments, access for those who could benefit from the newly approved treatment will only be available to those who can pay out-of-pocket. Without coverage, people simply won’t be able to get the treatment.”

The Washington Post reports that with accelerated approval, drugmaker Eisai is expected to immediately apply for full FDA approval, which wouldn’t be likely to come before later this year. Full approval could help clear the path for Medicare coverage of the drug.
 

Potential benefit?

Those who got Leqembi in a clinical trial for 18 months experienced 27% less decline in memory and thinking relative to the group who got a placebo. It also reduced amyloid in the brain, the sticky protein that builds up in the brains of people with Alzheimer’s and is considered a hallmark of the disease.

Howard Fillit, MD, cofounder and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, says, “It’s the first phase 3 study in our field of a disease-modifying drug where the clinical efficacy was very clear.”
 

Concerns about side effects

The drug has raised safety concerns as it has been linked with certain serious adverse events, including brain swelling and bleeding. In the trial, 14% of patients who received the drug experienced side effects that included brain swelling and bleeding, compared with about 11% in the placebo group.

Scientists have reportedly linked three deaths during the clinical trial to lecanemab, though it is unclear whether it caused the deaths.

Dr. Fillit notes that the first two people who died were on blood thinners when they received lecanemab.

“There are things about the use of the drug in the real world that we need to work out, especially in the context of people with comorbidities,” he says.

The third death is a little different, Dr. Fillit says. The patient, who had a stroke, showed signs of vasculitis, or inflammation of the blood vessels.

“We don’t know exactly what happened, but we do know it was very, very rare” among the people involved in the trials, he says.

Dr. Edelmayer says that the most common reported side effects during the trials were infusion-related reactions, headache, and amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA). According to the FDA, these abnormalities “are known to occur with antibodies of this class. ARIA usually does not have symptoms, although serious and life-threatening events rarely may occur.”

The FDA has added these as warnings to the drug’s label, describing the possible infusion-related reactions as flu-like symptoms, nausea, vomiting, and changes in blood pressure.
 

How much will it cost?

Eisai says that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.

In a draft report released in December, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review said a price ranging from $8,500 to $20,600 a year would make the drug cost-effective. While the group has no authority to set prices, many large health insurers consider its reports when they negotiate prices and some drugmakers take into account ICER’s recommendations when setting prices.

An editorial in The Lancet last month warns that the cost will likely be “prohibitive” for low- and middle-income countries and many health systems don’t have the infrastructure for a widespread rollout.
 

Will Medicare cover it?

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which runs Medicare, which covers most people with Alzheimer’s, has indicated it won’t broadly cover amyloid-lowering drugs until the drug gets full U.S. approval based on clinical benefits, as opposed to accelerated approval.

That means people would have to pay thousands out of pocket at first to get it.

The CMS decision effectively denies Medicare coverage of fast-tracked FDA-approved medications for Alzheimer’s disease unless the person is enrolled in an approved clinical trial.

On Dec. 19, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request asking CMS to remove the trial-only requirement and provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s treatments.

CMS says in a statement issued after the announcement: “Because Eisai’s product, lecanemab, was granted accelerated approval by the FDA, it falls under CMS’s existing national coverage determination. CMS is examining available information and may reconsider its current coverage based on this review.”

“If lecanemab subsequently receives traditional FDA approval, CMS would provide broader coverage,” the statement says.
 

Who benefits most from this drug?

Lecanemab is a treatment for people with early-stage Alzheimer’s disease who have amyloid in their brain. This means people with other types of dementia, or those in the later stages of Alzheimer’s disease, are not likely to improve with this drug.

Who makes lecanemab?  

Japan-based Eisai is developing the drug, a monoclonal antibody, in collaboration with the U.S. company Biogen.

What’s the Alzheimer’s Association’s view?

The association urged accelerated FDA approval. In a statement, it says it “welcomes and is further encouraged” by the clinical trial results.

It says data published in the New England Journal of Medicine confirms lecanemab “can meaningfully change the course of the disease for people in the earliest stages of Alzheimer’s disease.”

“We are energized at the progress we are seeing in the research pipeline. The science is telling us that although antiamyloid treatments are not a cure – they are not going to be the end of treating Alzheimer’s – they are certainly the beginning,” Dr. Edelmayer says.
 

Are there alternatives?

The FDA gave accelerated approval to Biogen to produce another drug for Alzheimer’s, Aduhelm (aducanemab), in 2021, but the move was controversial as the drug’s effectiveness was widely questioned. It has since largely been pulled from the market.

Aduhelm had been the first approved early-stage Alzheimer’s treatment since 2003.

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

The oral antibiotic linezolid does not increase risk for serotonin syndrome in patients taking antidepressants, new research suggests – contradicting a U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2020 warning.

Results from a study that included more than 1,100 patients who were prescribed linezolid, about 20% of whom were also taking antidepressants, showed that serotonin syndrome occurred in fewer than 0.5% of participants – and that the percentage was actually lower among those who took antidepressants, compared with those who did not.

A comparison of participants who took antidepressants to propensity-matched patients who did not take antidepressants showed similar rates of altered mental status, hospitalization, and death between the two groups.

“In this cohort study of older patients who were prescribed linezolid, serotonin syndrome occurred rarely [and] concurrent antidepressants did not significantly increase the risk of serotonin syndrome,” Anthony Bai, MD, division of infectious diseases, department of medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and colleagues write.

“These findings suggested that linezolid is likely safe for patients receiving antidepressants. Nevertheless, prescribers should remain vigilant for this potential drug interaction,” they warn.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Scarce data

Linezolid, a synthetic oxazolidinone antibiotic active against resistant gram-positive bacteria, has bioavailability of 100%, “making it ideal as first-line or step-down oral antibiotic therapy for bacteremia and pneumonia as well as skin and soft tissue infections,” the researchers write.

However, they note its use has been “limited because of concerns of drug interactions,” since it can reversibly inhibit monoamine oxidase (MAO).

Thus, “coadministration with antidepressants, such as nonselective MAO inhibitors, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and bupropion, may precipitate serotonin syndrome,” they write.

The investigators note that many patients who were taking antidepressants and who also needed linezolid for an infection “could not receive it because of this relative contraindication.” They add that data on the risk of serotonin syndrome associated with linezolid are “scarce” and are based largely on case reports or case series from passive surveillance.

Although a previous review of linezolid trials found “no conclusive evidence” that it increased risk for serotonin syndrome in patients taking serotonergic medication, data on patients outside of trials “are lacking.” In addition, an observational study suggested that an increased risk had a small sample size that “likely led to imprecise estimates with a wide CI and inconclusive results,” the researchers write.

Therefore, they sought to fill the knowledge gap by retrospectively analyzing data drawn from the ICES database, an independent nonprofit research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health. This was done in order to “estimate the incidence of serotonin syndrome and how this risk changes because of concomitant antidepressant use in patients receiving linezolid treatment,” they write.

The study included a convenience sample of Ontario-based adults (n = 1,134, 52.5% men) who were dispensed oral linezolid 600 mg twice daily between Oct. 1, 2014, and Jan. 1, 2021. All patients were followed for 30 days.

Of these participants, 19% were also taking antidepressants. Close to half (47.9%) were taking an SSRI, 16.7% were taking an SNRI, 7% were taking a tricyclic antidepressant, and 3.3% were taking a norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor.

Patients were divided into groups on the basis of age: 66-69 years (19.8%), 70-79 years (41.7%), and 80 years or older (38.4%).
 

Reassuring findings

Serotonin syndrome occurred in fewer than six patients (< .5%), although the exact numbers were not reported, owing to patient privacy concerns. However, on the basis of fewer than six events, the investigators calculated the risk difference for serotonin syndrome as ranging from −0.5% to 2.3%.

Fewer patients who were taking antidepressants experienced serotonin syndrome, compared with those who were not taking antidepressants.

The investigators estimated a propensity score for antidepressant use that incorporated several patient baseline characteristics, including age, sex, rural home address, Charlson Comorbidity Index, estimated glomerular filtration rate, history of substance use disorder, and days of use of linezolid and other serotonergic medications. They then matched patients who were not taking antidepressants with those who were taking antidepressants (n = 166 each).

The adjusted risk difference for serotonin syndrome was lower in the antidepressant group than in the no-antidepressant group (−1.2%; 95% confidence interval, −2.9% to 0.5%).

“Within this 95% CI, the worst-case scenario would be a 0.5% increase in the risk of serotonin syndrome due to antidepressants, which is equivalent to a number needed to harm of 200,” the researchers write.

For secondary outcomes, they found “similar rates” of altered mental status or confusion, hospitalization, and death within 30 days between the two propensity score–matched groups.

The investigators note that their findings have “limitations, due to the nature of retrospective observational studies.” Moreover, these types of studies are “not efficient because they often focus on a particular adverse event.”

Future research should move beyond observational studies to phase 4 studies, which would “prospectively monitor for all types of adverse events,” they write.

Still, “while waiting for higher-quality evidence, our study adds to the existing evidence for the safety of linezolid even in the context of concomitant antidepressants,” the researchers note.

“Based on the existing evidence, clinicians should be reassured that it appears safe to prescribe oral linezolid to patients taking antidepressants, especially if there are limited antibiotic options or alternative antibiotic options would be inferior,” they add.
 

‘Consequential relevance’

Commenting on the study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, associate chief of geriatric psychiatry and director of digital psychiatry translation at McLean Hospital, Boston, noted that although studies of drug interactions across age groups “may not accurately reflect the rates of risk for older adults,” the current study focused on linezolid use among older patients.

“One may expect higher rates of serotonin syndrome in older adults, who generally tend to be more sensitive to adverse reactions,” said Dr. Vahia, who is also director of the Technology and Aging Lab at McLean and was not involved with the current research.

“However, the study finds the risk to be low with a number needed to harm of 200,” Dr. Vahia said.

“This retrospective epidemiologic study does not shed light on why this number may be lower than expected, but it has consequential relevance in clinical practice for the management of severe infections among older adults using antidepressants,” he added.

The study was funded by a Queen’s University Research Initiation Grant. Dr. Bai and three of the four other investigators report no relevant financial relationships. Coinvestigator Mark Loeb, MD, reports having received personal fees from the Paladin Labs Advisory Committee, the International Centre for Professional Development in Health and Medicine Advisory Committee, and the Sunovion Advisory Committee outside the submitted work. Dr. Vahia serves as a consultant for Otsuka, has a research collaboration with Emerald Innovations, and receives honorarium as editor for The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.

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

The oral antibiotic linezolid does not increase risk for serotonin syndrome in patients taking antidepressants, new research suggests – contradicting a U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2020 warning.

Results from a study that included more than 1,100 patients who were prescribed linezolid, about 20% of whom were also taking antidepressants, showed that serotonin syndrome occurred in fewer than 0.5% of participants – and that the percentage was actually lower among those who took antidepressants, compared with those who did not.

A comparison of participants who took antidepressants to propensity-matched patients who did not take antidepressants showed similar rates of altered mental status, hospitalization, and death between the two groups.

“In this cohort study of older patients who were prescribed linezolid, serotonin syndrome occurred rarely [and] concurrent antidepressants did not significantly increase the risk of serotonin syndrome,” Anthony Bai, MD, division of infectious diseases, department of medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and colleagues write.

“These findings suggested that linezolid is likely safe for patients receiving antidepressants. Nevertheless, prescribers should remain vigilant for this potential drug interaction,” they warn.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Scarce data

Linezolid, a synthetic oxazolidinone antibiotic active against resistant gram-positive bacteria, has bioavailability of 100%, “making it ideal as first-line or step-down oral antibiotic therapy for bacteremia and pneumonia as well as skin and soft tissue infections,” the researchers write.

However, they note its use has been “limited because of concerns of drug interactions,” since it can reversibly inhibit monoamine oxidase (MAO).

Thus, “coadministration with antidepressants, such as nonselective MAO inhibitors, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and bupropion, may precipitate serotonin syndrome,” they write.

The investigators note that many patients who were taking antidepressants and who also needed linezolid for an infection “could not receive it because of this relative contraindication.” They add that data on the risk of serotonin syndrome associated with linezolid are “scarce” and are based largely on case reports or case series from passive surveillance.

Although a previous review of linezolid trials found “no conclusive evidence” that it increased risk for serotonin syndrome in patients taking serotonergic medication, data on patients outside of trials “are lacking.” In addition, an observational study suggested that an increased risk had a small sample size that “likely led to imprecise estimates with a wide CI and inconclusive results,” the researchers write.

Therefore, they sought to fill the knowledge gap by retrospectively analyzing data drawn from the ICES database, an independent nonprofit research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health. This was done in order to “estimate the incidence of serotonin syndrome and how this risk changes because of concomitant antidepressant use in patients receiving linezolid treatment,” they write.

The study included a convenience sample of Ontario-based adults (n = 1,134, 52.5% men) who were dispensed oral linezolid 600 mg twice daily between Oct. 1, 2014, and Jan. 1, 2021. All patients were followed for 30 days.

Of these participants, 19% were also taking antidepressants. Close to half (47.9%) were taking an SSRI, 16.7% were taking an SNRI, 7% were taking a tricyclic antidepressant, and 3.3% were taking a norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor.

Patients were divided into groups on the basis of age: 66-69 years (19.8%), 70-79 years (41.7%), and 80 years or older (38.4%).
 

Reassuring findings

Serotonin syndrome occurred in fewer than six patients (< .5%), although the exact numbers were not reported, owing to patient privacy concerns. However, on the basis of fewer than six events, the investigators calculated the risk difference for serotonin syndrome as ranging from −0.5% to 2.3%.

Fewer patients who were taking antidepressants experienced serotonin syndrome, compared with those who were not taking antidepressants.

The investigators estimated a propensity score for antidepressant use that incorporated several patient baseline characteristics, including age, sex, rural home address, Charlson Comorbidity Index, estimated glomerular filtration rate, history of substance use disorder, and days of use of linezolid and other serotonergic medications. They then matched patients who were not taking antidepressants with those who were taking antidepressants (n = 166 each).

The adjusted risk difference for serotonin syndrome was lower in the antidepressant group than in the no-antidepressant group (−1.2%; 95% confidence interval, −2.9% to 0.5%).

“Within this 95% CI, the worst-case scenario would be a 0.5% increase in the risk of serotonin syndrome due to antidepressants, which is equivalent to a number needed to harm of 200,” the researchers write.

For secondary outcomes, they found “similar rates” of altered mental status or confusion, hospitalization, and death within 30 days between the two propensity score–matched groups.

The investigators note that their findings have “limitations, due to the nature of retrospective observational studies.” Moreover, these types of studies are “not efficient because they often focus on a particular adverse event.”

Future research should move beyond observational studies to phase 4 studies, which would “prospectively monitor for all types of adverse events,” they write.

Still, “while waiting for higher-quality evidence, our study adds to the existing evidence for the safety of linezolid even in the context of concomitant antidepressants,” the researchers note.

“Based on the existing evidence, clinicians should be reassured that it appears safe to prescribe oral linezolid to patients taking antidepressants, especially if there are limited antibiotic options or alternative antibiotic options would be inferior,” they add.
 

‘Consequential relevance’

Commenting on the study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, associate chief of geriatric psychiatry and director of digital psychiatry translation at McLean Hospital, Boston, noted that although studies of drug interactions across age groups “may not accurately reflect the rates of risk for older adults,” the current study focused on linezolid use among older patients.

“One may expect higher rates of serotonin syndrome in older adults, who generally tend to be more sensitive to adverse reactions,” said Dr. Vahia, who is also director of the Technology and Aging Lab at McLean and was not involved with the current research.

“However, the study finds the risk to be low with a number needed to harm of 200,” Dr. Vahia said.

“This retrospective epidemiologic study does not shed light on why this number may be lower than expected, but it has consequential relevance in clinical practice for the management of severe infections among older adults using antidepressants,” he added.

The study was funded by a Queen’s University Research Initiation Grant. Dr. Bai and three of the four other investigators report no relevant financial relationships. Coinvestigator Mark Loeb, MD, reports having received personal fees from the Paladin Labs Advisory Committee, the International Centre for Professional Development in Health and Medicine Advisory Committee, and the Sunovion Advisory Committee outside the submitted work. Dr. Vahia serves as a consultant for Otsuka, has a research collaboration with Emerald Innovations, and receives honorarium as editor for The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.

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

The oral antibiotic linezolid does not increase risk for serotonin syndrome in patients taking antidepressants, new research suggests – contradicting a U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2020 warning.

Results from a study that included more than 1,100 patients who were prescribed linezolid, about 20% of whom were also taking antidepressants, showed that serotonin syndrome occurred in fewer than 0.5% of participants – and that the percentage was actually lower among those who took antidepressants, compared with those who did not.

A comparison of participants who took antidepressants to propensity-matched patients who did not take antidepressants showed similar rates of altered mental status, hospitalization, and death between the two groups.

“In this cohort study of older patients who were prescribed linezolid, serotonin syndrome occurred rarely [and] concurrent antidepressants did not significantly increase the risk of serotonin syndrome,” Anthony Bai, MD, division of infectious diseases, department of medicine, Queen’s University, Kingston, Ont., and colleagues write.

“These findings suggested that linezolid is likely safe for patients receiving antidepressants. Nevertheless, prescribers should remain vigilant for this potential drug interaction,” they warn.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Scarce data

Linezolid, a synthetic oxazolidinone antibiotic active against resistant gram-positive bacteria, has bioavailability of 100%, “making it ideal as first-line or step-down oral antibiotic therapy for bacteremia and pneumonia as well as skin and soft tissue infections,” the researchers write.

However, they note its use has been “limited because of concerns of drug interactions,” since it can reversibly inhibit monoamine oxidase (MAO).

Thus, “coadministration with antidepressants, such as nonselective MAO inhibitors, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs), and bupropion, may precipitate serotonin syndrome,” they write.

The investigators note that many patients who were taking antidepressants and who also needed linezolid for an infection “could not receive it because of this relative contraindication.” They add that data on the risk of serotonin syndrome associated with linezolid are “scarce” and are based largely on case reports or case series from passive surveillance.

Although a previous review of linezolid trials found “no conclusive evidence” that it increased risk for serotonin syndrome in patients taking serotonergic medication, data on patients outside of trials “are lacking.” In addition, an observational study suggested that an increased risk had a small sample size that “likely led to imprecise estimates with a wide CI and inconclusive results,” the researchers write.

Therefore, they sought to fill the knowledge gap by retrospectively analyzing data drawn from the ICES database, an independent nonprofit research institute funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health. This was done in order to “estimate the incidence of serotonin syndrome and how this risk changes because of concomitant antidepressant use in patients receiving linezolid treatment,” they write.

The study included a convenience sample of Ontario-based adults (n = 1,134, 52.5% men) who were dispensed oral linezolid 600 mg twice daily between Oct. 1, 2014, and Jan. 1, 2021. All patients were followed for 30 days.

Of these participants, 19% were also taking antidepressants. Close to half (47.9%) were taking an SSRI, 16.7% were taking an SNRI, 7% were taking a tricyclic antidepressant, and 3.3% were taking a norepinephrine and dopamine reuptake inhibitor.

Patients were divided into groups on the basis of age: 66-69 years (19.8%), 70-79 years (41.7%), and 80 years or older (38.4%).
 

Reassuring findings

Serotonin syndrome occurred in fewer than six patients (< .5%), although the exact numbers were not reported, owing to patient privacy concerns. However, on the basis of fewer than six events, the investigators calculated the risk difference for serotonin syndrome as ranging from −0.5% to 2.3%.

Fewer patients who were taking antidepressants experienced serotonin syndrome, compared with those who were not taking antidepressants.

The investigators estimated a propensity score for antidepressant use that incorporated several patient baseline characteristics, including age, sex, rural home address, Charlson Comorbidity Index, estimated glomerular filtration rate, history of substance use disorder, and days of use of linezolid and other serotonergic medications. They then matched patients who were not taking antidepressants with those who were taking antidepressants (n = 166 each).

The adjusted risk difference for serotonin syndrome was lower in the antidepressant group than in the no-antidepressant group (−1.2%; 95% confidence interval, −2.9% to 0.5%).

“Within this 95% CI, the worst-case scenario would be a 0.5% increase in the risk of serotonin syndrome due to antidepressants, which is equivalent to a number needed to harm of 200,” the researchers write.

For secondary outcomes, they found “similar rates” of altered mental status or confusion, hospitalization, and death within 30 days between the two propensity score–matched groups.

The investigators note that their findings have “limitations, due to the nature of retrospective observational studies.” Moreover, these types of studies are “not efficient because they often focus on a particular adverse event.”

Future research should move beyond observational studies to phase 4 studies, which would “prospectively monitor for all types of adverse events,” they write.

Still, “while waiting for higher-quality evidence, our study adds to the existing evidence for the safety of linezolid even in the context of concomitant antidepressants,” the researchers note.

“Based on the existing evidence, clinicians should be reassured that it appears safe to prescribe oral linezolid to patients taking antidepressants, especially if there are limited antibiotic options or alternative antibiotic options would be inferior,” they add.
 

‘Consequential relevance’

Commenting on the study, Ipsit Vahia, MD, associate chief of geriatric psychiatry and director of digital psychiatry translation at McLean Hospital, Boston, noted that although studies of drug interactions across age groups “may not accurately reflect the rates of risk for older adults,” the current study focused on linezolid use among older patients.

“One may expect higher rates of serotonin syndrome in older adults, who generally tend to be more sensitive to adverse reactions,” said Dr. Vahia, who is also director of the Technology and Aging Lab at McLean and was not involved with the current research.

“However, the study finds the risk to be low with a number needed to harm of 200,” Dr. Vahia said.

“This retrospective epidemiologic study does not shed light on why this number may be lower than expected, but it has consequential relevance in clinical practice for the management of severe infections among older adults using antidepressants,” he added.

The study was funded by a Queen’s University Research Initiation Grant. Dr. Bai and three of the four other investigators report no relevant financial relationships. Coinvestigator Mark Loeb, MD, reports having received personal fees from the Paladin Labs Advisory Committee, the International Centre for Professional Development in Health and Medicine Advisory Committee, and the Sunovion Advisory Committee outside the submitted work. Dr. Vahia serves as a consultant for Otsuka, has a research collaboration with Emerald Innovations, and receives honorarium as editor for The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti–amyloid-beta protofibril antibody lecanemab (Leqembi, Eisai) for the treatment of early Alzheimer’s disease.

Like its controversial cousin aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen/Eisai), lecanemab was approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway, which can be used to fast-track a drug that provides a meaningful therapeutic advantage over existing treatments for a serious or life-threatening illness.

Unlike aducanumab, however, there was no formal FDA advisory committee meeting on lecanemab prior to approval.

“Alzheimer’s disease immeasurably incapacitates the lives of those who suffer from it and has devastating effects on their loved ones,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the Office of Neuroscience in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

“This treatment option is the latest therapy to target and affect the underlying disease process of Alzheimer’s, instead of only treating the symptoms of the disease,” Dr. Dunn added.

Eisai has reported that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.

Modest benefit, adverse events

The FDA noted, “The labeling states that treatment with Leqembi should be initiated in patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia stage of disease, the population in which treatment was studied in clinical trials.”

The agency approved the treatment on the basis of findings from the CLARITY AD trial, which showed modest cognitive benefit for patients with early AD – but at a cost of increased risk for amyloid-related edema and effusions.

The trial enrolled 1,795 adults with mild cognitive impairment or early Alzheimer’s disease in whom amyloid pathology in the brain had been confirmed. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

After 18 months of treatment, lecanemab slowed cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo, as measured by the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB). This was an absolute difference of 0.45 points (change from baseline, 1.21 for lecanemab vs. 1.66 with placebo; P < .001).

While the results are “welcome news,” a 0.45-point difference on the CDR-SB might not be clinically meaningful, authors of a recent editorial in The Lancet cautioned.

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities that manifest as edema or microhemorrhages also occurred in one in five patients taking lecanemab.

In addition, a newly published case report in The New England Journal of Medicine describes a patient with Alzheimer’s disease who was taking lecanemab and who died after experiencing numerous intracerebral hemorrhages during treatment with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) for acute ischemic stroke.

“The findings raise the possibility of cerebral hemorrhages and necrotizing vasculopathy associated with tPA infusion in a patient with cerebrovascular amyloid who had received lecanemab,” the authors wrote.
 

Alzheimer’s Association reaction

Still, in anticipation of accelerated approval of lecanemab and the antiamyloid drug donanemab (Eli Lilly), which the FDA has also fast-tracked, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request last month with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services asking that it provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s disease treatments.

In a letter addressed to CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the association asked the agency to remove the requirements for “coverage with evidence development” in its national coverage determination for FDA-approved antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies.

“Each day matters when it comes to slowing the progression of this disease,” Joanne Pike, DrPH, president and CEO for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in a news release at the time.

“The current CMS policy to severely limit access to these treatments eliminates people’s options, is resulting in continued irreversible disease progression, and contributes to greater health inequities. That’s not acceptable,” Dr. Pike added.

After news of today’s approval was released, Dr. Pike noted in a new release, “The Alzheimer’s Association welcomes and celebrates this action by the FDA. We now have a second approved treatment that changes the course of Alzheimer’s disease in a meaningful way for people in the early stages of the disease.”

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Association, called today’s approval “a milestone achievement.”

“The progress we’ve seen in not only this class of treatments but also in the diversification of treatment types and targets over the past few years is exciting and provides real hope to those impacted by this devastating disease,” Dr. Carrillo said.
 

Critical issues

Commenting on the approval, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and chief medical officer at Linus Health, said FDA approval of lecanemab and its adoption in the clinic represent a “very exciting development and prospect; but arguably some critical issues need to be considered.”

He noted that the health care system “is not currently prepared to cope with the challenges and demands of lecanemab,” as well as future pharmacologic agents.

“First, we need better workflows to identify suitable patients who can most benefit from this treatment,” said Dr. Pascual-Leone. He added that beyond identification of cognitive difficulties, amyloid status will need to be determined.

“Presently, this requires expensive and invasive tests,” such as positron-emission tomography scans or lumbar punctures for cerebrospinal fluid analysis. However, these are not fully covered by insurance companies and would be challenging to fully scale, he noted.

“In addition to screening, health systems will need to resolve the logistics challenges around the administration of lecanemab with twice-monthly infusions and the need for careful longitudinal evaluations for potential side effects,” said Dr. Pascual-Leone.

“While lecanemab may represent the first disease-modifying therapy widely available for early Alzheimer’s disease, the likely more promising approach is the addition of other therapies to lecanemab as part of a multi-intervention strategy combining pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions,” he added.

Dr. Pascual-Leone has served as a paid member on scientific advisory boards for Neuroelectrics, Magstim, TetraNeuron, Skin2Neuron, MedRhythms, and Hearts Radiant and is a cofounder of TI Solutions and Linus Health.

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

This article was updated 1/9/23.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti–amyloid-beta protofibril antibody lecanemab (Leqembi, Eisai) for the treatment of early Alzheimer’s disease.

Like its controversial cousin aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen/Eisai), lecanemab was approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway, which can be used to fast-track a drug that provides a meaningful therapeutic advantage over existing treatments for a serious or life-threatening illness.

Unlike aducanumab, however, there was no formal FDA advisory committee meeting on lecanemab prior to approval.

“Alzheimer’s disease immeasurably incapacitates the lives of those who suffer from it and has devastating effects on their loved ones,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the Office of Neuroscience in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

“This treatment option is the latest therapy to target and affect the underlying disease process of Alzheimer’s, instead of only treating the symptoms of the disease,” Dr. Dunn added.

Eisai has reported that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.

Modest benefit, adverse events

The FDA noted, “The labeling states that treatment with Leqembi should be initiated in patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia stage of disease, the population in which treatment was studied in clinical trials.”

The agency approved the treatment on the basis of findings from the CLARITY AD trial, which showed modest cognitive benefit for patients with early AD – but at a cost of increased risk for amyloid-related edema and effusions.

The trial enrolled 1,795 adults with mild cognitive impairment or early Alzheimer’s disease in whom amyloid pathology in the brain had been confirmed. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

After 18 months of treatment, lecanemab slowed cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo, as measured by the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB). This was an absolute difference of 0.45 points (change from baseline, 1.21 for lecanemab vs. 1.66 with placebo; P < .001).

While the results are “welcome news,” a 0.45-point difference on the CDR-SB might not be clinically meaningful, authors of a recent editorial in The Lancet cautioned.

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities that manifest as edema or microhemorrhages also occurred in one in five patients taking lecanemab.

In addition, a newly published case report in The New England Journal of Medicine describes a patient with Alzheimer’s disease who was taking lecanemab and who died after experiencing numerous intracerebral hemorrhages during treatment with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) for acute ischemic stroke.

“The findings raise the possibility of cerebral hemorrhages and necrotizing vasculopathy associated with tPA infusion in a patient with cerebrovascular amyloid who had received lecanemab,” the authors wrote.
 

Alzheimer’s Association reaction

Still, in anticipation of accelerated approval of lecanemab and the antiamyloid drug donanemab (Eli Lilly), which the FDA has also fast-tracked, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request last month with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services asking that it provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s disease treatments.

In a letter addressed to CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the association asked the agency to remove the requirements for “coverage with evidence development” in its national coverage determination for FDA-approved antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies.

“Each day matters when it comes to slowing the progression of this disease,” Joanne Pike, DrPH, president and CEO for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in a news release at the time.

“The current CMS policy to severely limit access to these treatments eliminates people’s options, is resulting in continued irreversible disease progression, and contributes to greater health inequities. That’s not acceptable,” Dr. Pike added.

After news of today’s approval was released, Dr. Pike noted in a new release, “The Alzheimer’s Association welcomes and celebrates this action by the FDA. We now have a second approved treatment that changes the course of Alzheimer’s disease in a meaningful way for people in the early stages of the disease.”

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Association, called today’s approval “a milestone achievement.”

“The progress we’ve seen in not only this class of treatments but also in the diversification of treatment types and targets over the past few years is exciting and provides real hope to those impacted by this devastating disease,” Dr. Carrillo said.
 

Critical issues

Commenting on the approval, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and chief medical officer at Linus Health, said FDA approval of lecanemab and its adoption in the clinic represent a “very exciting development and prospect; but arguably some critical issues need to be considered.”

He noted that the health care system “is not currently prepared to cope with the challenges and demands of lecanemab,” as well as future pharmacologic agents.

“First, we need better workflows to identify suitable patients who can most benefit from this treatment,” said Dr. Pascual-Leone. He added that beyond identification of cognitive difficulties, amyloid status will need to be determined.

“Presently, this requires expensive and invasive tests,” such as positron-emission tomography scans or lumbar punctures for cerebrospinal fluid analysis. However, these are not fully covered by insurance companies and would be challenging to fully scale, he noted.

“In addition to screening, health systems will need to resolve the logistics challenges around the administration of lecanemab with twice-monthly infusions and the need for careful longitudinal evaluations for potential side effects,” said Dr. Pascual-Leone.

“While lecanemab may represent the first disease-modifying therapy widely available for early Alzheimer’s disease, the likely more promising approach is the addition of other therapies to lecanemab as part of a multi-intervention strategy combining pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions,” he added.

Dr. Pascual-Leone has served as a paid member on scientific advisory boards for Neuroelectrics, Magstim, TetraNeuron, Skin2Neuron, MedRhythms, and Hearts Radiant and is a cofounder of TI Solutions and Linus Health.

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

This article was updated 1/9/23.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the anti–amyloid-beta protofibril antibody lecanemab (Leqembi, Eisai) for the treatment of early Alzheimer’s disease.

Like its controversial cousin aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen/Eisai), lecanemab was approved under the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway, which can be used to fast-track a drug that provides a meaningful therapeutic advantage over existing treatments for a serious or life-threatening illness.

Unlike aducanumab, however, there was no formal FDA advisory committee meeting on lecanemab prior to approval.

“Alzheimer’s disease immeasurably incapacitates the lives of those who suffer from it and has devastating effects on their loved ones,” Billy Dunn, MD, director of the Office of Neuroscience in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a press release.

“This treatment option is the latest therapy to target and affect the underlying disease process of Alzheimer’s, instead of only treating the symptoms of the disease,” Dr. Dunn added.

Eisai has reported that lecanemab will cost $26,500 a year.

Modest benefit, adverse events

The FDA noted, “The labeling states that treatment with Leqembi should be initiated in patients with mild cognitive impairment or mild dementia stage of disease, the population in which treatment was studied in clinical trials.”

The agency approved the treatment on the basis of findings from the CLARITY AD trial, which showed modest cognitive benefit for patients with early AD – but at a cost of increased risk for amyloid-related edema and effusions.

The trial enrolled 1,795 adults with mild cognitive impairment or early Alzheimer’s disease in whom amyloid pathology in the brain had been confirmed. Treatment consisted of lecanemab 10 mg/kg biweekly or matching placebo.

After 18 months of treatment, lecanemab slowed cognitive decline by 27%, compared with placebo, as measured by the Clinical Dementia Rating–Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB). This was an absolute difference of 0.45 points (change from baseline, 1.21 for lecanemab vs. 1.66 with placebo; P < .001).

While the results are “welcome news,” a 0.45-point difference on the CDR-SB might not be clinically meaningful, authors of a recent editorial in The Lancet cautioned.

Amyloid-related imaging abnormalities that manifest as edema or microhemorrhages also occurred in one in five patients taking lecanemab.

In addition, a newly published case report in The New England Journal of Medicine describes a patient with Alzheimer’s disease who was taking lecanemab and who died after experiencing numerous intracerebral hemorrhages during treatment with tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) for acute ischemic stroke.

“The findings raise the possibility of cerebral hemorrhages and necrotizing vasculopathy associated with tPA infusion in a patient with cerebrovascular amyloid who had received lecanemab,” the authors wrote.
 

Alzheimer’s Association reaction

Still, in anticipation of accelerated approval of lecanemab and the antiamyloid drug donanemab (Eli Lilly), which the FDA has also fast-tracked, the Alzheimer’s Association filed a formal request last month with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services asking that it provide full and unrestricted coverage for FDA-approved Alzheimer’s disease treatments.

In a letter addressed to CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, the association asked the agency to remove the requirements for “coverage with evidence development” in its national coverage determination for FDA-approved antiamyloid monoclonal antibodies.

“Each day matters when it comes to slowing the progression of this disease,” Joanne Pike, DrPH, president and CEO for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in a news release at the time.

“The current CMS policy to severely limit access to these treatments eliminates people’s options, is resulting in continued irreversible disease progression, and contributes to greater health inequities. That’s not acceptable,” Dr. Pike added.

After news of today’s approval was released, Dr. Pike noted in a new release, “The Alzheimer’s Association welcomes and celebrates this action by the FDA. We now have a second approved treatment that changes the course of Alzheimer’s disease in a meaningful way for people in the early stages of the disease.”

Maria C. Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer at the Alzheimer’s Association, called today’s approval “a milestone achievement.”

“The progress we’ve seen in not only this class of treatments but also in the diversification of treatment types and targets over the past few years is exciting and provides real hope to those impacted by this devastating disease,” Dr. Carrillo said.
 

Critical issues

Commenting on the approval, Alvaro Pascual-Leone, MD, PhD, professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and chief medical officer at Linus Health, said FDA approval of lecanemab and its adoption in the clinic represent a “very exciting development and prospect; but arguably some critical issues need to be considered.”

He noted that the health care system “is not currently prepared to cope with the challenges and demands of lecanemab,” as well as future pharmacologic agents.

“First, we need better workflows to identify suitable patients who can most benefit from this treatment,” said Dr. Pascual-Leone. He added that beyond identification of cognitive difficulties, amyloid status will need to be determined.

“Presently, this requires expensive and invasive tests,” such as positron-emission tomography scans or lumbar punctures for cerebrospinal fluid analysis. However, these are not fully covered by insurance companies and would be challenging to fully scale, he noted.

“In addition to screening, health systems will need to resolve the logistics challenges around the administration of lecanemab with twice-monthly infusions and the need for careful longitudinal evaluations for potential side effects,” said Dr. Pascual-Leone.

“While lecanemab may represent the first disease-modifying therapy widely available for early Alzheimer’s disease, the likely more promising approach is the addition of other therapies to lecanemab as part of a multi-intervention strategy combining pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions,” he added.

Dr. Pascual-Leone has served as a paid member on scientific advisory boards for Neuroelectrics, Magstim, TetraNeuron, Skin2Neuron, MedRhythms, and Hearts Radiant and is a cofounder of TI Solutions and Linus Health.

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

This article was updated 1/9/23.

Researchers have found a genetic link between the risk for COVID-19 infection and the leading cause of vision loss among people age 50 and older, age-related macular degeneration. 

The findings show that COVID and AMD were associated with variations in what is called the PDGFB gene, which has a role in new blood vessel formation and is linked to abnormal blood vessel changes that occur in AMD. The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine. The analysis included genetic data from more than 16,000 people with AMD, more than 50,000 people with COVID, plus control groups.

Age-related macular degeneration is a vision problem that occurs when a part of the retina – the macula – is damaged, according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology. The result is that central vision is lost, but peripheral vision remains normal, so it is difficult to see fine details. For example, a person with AMD can see a clock’s numbers but not its hands. 

“Our analysis lends credence to previously reported clinical studies that found those with AMD have a higher risk for COVID-19 infection and severe disease, and that this increased risk may have a genetic basis,” Boston University researcher Lindsay Farrer, PhD, chief of biomedical genetics, explained in a news release.

Previous research has shown that people with AMD have a 25% increased risk of respiratory failure or death due to COVID, which is higher than other well-known risk factors such as type 2 diabetes (21%) or obesity (13%), according to the news release.

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

Researchers have found a genetic link between the risk for COVID-19 infection and the leading cause of vision loss among people age 50 and older, age-related macular degeneration. 

The findings show that COVID and AMD were associated with variations in what is called the PDGFB gene, which has a role in new blood vessel formation and is linked to abnormal blood vessel changes that occur in AMD. The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine. The analysis included genetic data from more than 16,000 people with AMD, more than 50,000 people with COVID, plus control groups.

Age-related macular degeneration is a vision problem that occurs when a part of the retina – the macula – is damaged, according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology. The result is that central vision is lost, but peripheral vision remains normal, so it is difficult to see fine details. For example, a person with AMD can see a clock’s numbers but not its hands. 

“Our analysis lends credence to previously reported clinical studies that found those with AMD have a higher risk for COVID-19 infection and severe disease, and that this increased risk may have a genetic basis,” Boston University researcher Lindsay Farrer, PhD, chief of biomedical genetics, explained in a news release.

Previous research has shown that people with AMD have a 25% increased risk of respiratory failure or death due to COVID, which is higher than other well-known risk factors such as type 2 diabetes (21%) or obesity (13%), according to the news release.

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

Researchers have found a genetic link between the risk for COVID-19 infection and the leading cause of vision loss among people age 50 and older, age-related macular degeneration. 

The findings show that COVID and AMD were associated with variations in what is called the PDGFB gene, which has a role in new blood vessel formation and is linked to abnormal blood vessel changes that occur in AMD. The study was published in the Journal of Clinical Medicine. The analysis included genetic data from more than 16,000 people with AMD, more than 50,000 people with COVID, plus control groups.

Age-related macular degeneration is a vision problem that occurs when a part of the retina – the macula – is damaged, according to the American Academy of Ophthalmology. The result is that central vision is lost, but peripheral vision remains normal, so it is difficult to see fine details. For example, a person with AMD can see a clock’s numbers but not its hands. 

“Our analysis lends credence to previously reported clinical studies that found those with AMD have a higher risk for COVID-19 infection and severe disease, and that this increased risk may have a genetic basis,” Boston University researcher Lindsay Farrer, PhD, chief of biomedical genetics, explained in a news release.

Previous research has shown that people with AMD have a 25% increased risk of respiratory failure or death due to COVID, which is higher than other well-known risk factors such as type 2 diabetes (21%) or obesity (13%), according to the news release.

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

The administration of IV ketamine over the course of 2 months can improve treatment resistant depression (TRD) and executive function in older adults, findings from a new pilot study suggest.

Results showed nearly 50% of participants responded to ketamine and 25% achieved complete remission from TRD, as measured by scores on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

“Our pilot study suggests that IV ketamine is well-tolerated, safe, and associated with improvement in late-life TRD,” co-investigator Marie Anne Gebara, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, told this news organization.

Dr. Gebara pointed out the treatment “may not be appropriate for all patients with TRD,” such as those with a history of psychotic symptoms or uncontrolled hypertension; but “it appears to be a promising option.”

The findings were published online in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Lack of data in seniors

Although ketamine has been shown in prior research to rapidly reduce suicidal ideation in adults, there has been a lack of data on its efficacy and safety in older adults, the current investigators note.

“Almost 50% of older adults suffering from depression have TRD, which is a leading cause of disability, excess mortality from suicide, and dementia,” Dr. Gebara said.

She added that after two failed trials of antidepressants, “older adults have few evidence-based choices: aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, or electroconvulsive therapy. Novel treatments with rapid benefit are needed as long-term outcomes are poor and recurrence rates are high.”

Dr. Gebara and colleagues at five sites (Columbia University, New York State Psychiatric Institute, University of Toronto, University of Pittsburgh, and Washington University in St. Louis) each enrolled five participants aged 60 and older into the pilot study between October 2020 and November 2021, for a total of 25 participants (mean age, 71 years).

Each participant was recruited from patient registries or referred by behavioral health or primary care providers and diagnosed with TRD, which was defined as an episode of major depressive disorder without psychotic features that persisted despite two or more trials of antidepressants including at least one evidence-based second-line treatment.

Participants had to take an oral antidepressant dosage for at least 1 month prior to the start of the IV ketamine infusions, and continue their antidepressant for the length of the trial.

They received IV ketamine twice weekly for 4 weeks. The dosage was weight-dependent.

At the end of the 4 weeks, participants who achieved a MADRS total score of less than 10 or had a 30% or greater reduction from their baseline MADRS score entered another 4-week phase of the trial. This phase consisted of once-weekly administration of IV ketamine.
 

Larger plans

Results showed 15 of the 25 participants (60%) experienced a 30% or higher reduction in MADRS scores in the first phase of the study. The mean change in MADRS total score from the beginning to the end of the first phase was a decrease of 9.4 points (P < .01).

At the end of the continuation phase, half (48%) met criteria for response and 27% met criteria for remission.

After ketamine administration, the researchers also found an improvement in Fluid Cognition Composite Score (Cohen’s d value = .61), indicating a medium to large effect size, and in three measures of executive function.

Overall, adverse events were rare and did not keep patients from participating in the study, the investigators note. Five of the 25 participants reported infusion-induced hypertension that was transient.

Study limitations cited include the small sample size and the absence of randomization and placebo control or comparison treatment.

“We were very pleased with these findings because they establish the safety of this novel intervention in older adults,” Dr. Gebara said.

“After establishing safety and tolerability, we can plan for larger, randomized controlled trials that will allow us to determine the effectiveness of IV ketamine for older adults with TRD,” she added.
 

Multiple mechanisms

In a comment, Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University and director of the Yale Depression Research Program, New Haven, Conn., noted multiple mechanisms likely contribute to the antidepressant effects of ketamine.

Dr. Sanacora has independently researched the effects of ketamine but was not involved with the current study.

“Much of the work to date has focused on the drug’s proximal effects on the glutamatergic neurotransmitter system and the resulting enhancement of adaptive neuroplasticity in several brain regions,” he said.

“However, there is also evidence to suggest other neurotransmitter systems and possibly even neuroinflammatory regulators are also contributing to the effect,” Dr. Sanacora added.

He noted that these mechanisms are also likely amplified by the “hope, optimism, expectations, and improved medical management overall that are known to be associated with treatments that require close monitoring and follow-up with health care providers.”

Dr. Gebara noted that “internal/department funds at each site” were used to support the study. She also reported receiving support from Otsuka US. Disclosures for the other investigators are listed in the original article. Dr. Sanacora has reported having “no major direct conflicts” with the study.

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

The administration of IV ketamine over the course of 2 months can improve treatment resistant depression (TRD) and executive function in older adults, findings from a new pilot study suggest.

Results showed nearly 50% of participants responded to ketamine and 25% achieved complete remission from TRD, as measured by scores on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

“Our pilot study suggests that IV ketamine is well-tolerated, safe, and associated with improvement in late-life TRD,” co-investigator Marie Anne Gebara, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, told this news organization.

Dr. Gebara pointed out the treatment “may not be appropriate for all patients with TRD,” such as those with a history of psychotic symptoms or uncontrolled hypertension; but “it appears to be a promising option.”

The findings were published online in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Lack of data in seniors

Although ketamine has been shown in prior research to rapidly reduce suicidal ideation in adults, there has been a lack of data on its efficacy and safety in older adults, the current investigators note.

“Almost 50% of older adults suffering from depression have TRD, which is a leading cause of disability, excess mortality from suicide, and dementia,” Dr. Gebara said.

She added that after two failed trials of antidepressants, “older adults have few evidence-based choices: aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, or electroconvulsive therapy. Novel treatments with rapid benefit are needed as long-term outcomes are poor and recurrence rates are high.”

Dr. Gebara and colleagues at five sites (Columbia University, New York State Psychiatric Institute, University of Toronto, University of Pittsburgh, and Washington University in St. Louis) each enrolled five participants aged 60 and older into the pilot study between October 2020 and November 2021, for a total of 25 participants (mean age, 71 years).

Each participant was recruited from patient registries or referred by behavioral health or primary care providers and diagnosed with TRD, which was defined as an episode of major depressive disorder without psychotic features that persisted despite two or more trials of antidepressants including at least one evidence-based second-line treatment.

Participants had to take an oral antidepressant dosage for at least 1 month prior to the start of the IV ketamine infusions, and continue their antidepressant for the length of the trial.

They received IV ketamine twice weekly for 4 weeks. The dosage was weight-dependent.

At the end of the 4 weeks, participants who achieved a MADRS total score of less than 10 or had a 30% or greater reduction from their baseline MADRS score entered another 4-week phase of the trial. This phase consisted of once-weekly administration of IV ketamine.
 

Larger plans

Results showed 15 of the 25 participants (60%) experienced a 30% or higher reduction in MADRS scores in the first phase of the study. The mean change in MADRS total score from the beginning to the end of the first phase was a decrease of 9.4 points (P < .01).

At the end of the continuation phase, half (48%) met criteria for response and 27% met criteria for remission.

After ketamine administration, the researchers also found an improvement in Fluid Cognition Composite Score (Cohen’s d value = .61), indicating a medium to large effect size, and in three measures of executive function.

Overall, adverse events were rare and did not keep patients from participating in the study, the investigators note. Five of the 25 participants reported infusion-induced hypertension that was transient.

Study limitations cited include the small sample size and the absence of randomization and placebo control or comparison treatment.

“We were very pleased with these findings because they establish the safety of this novel intervention in older adults,” Dr. Gebara said.

“After establishing safety and tolerability, we can plan for larger, randomized controlled trials that will allow us to determine the effectiveness of IV ketamine for older adults with TRD,” she added.
 

Multiple mechanisms

In a comment, Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University and director of the Yale Depression Research Program, New Haven, Conn., noted multiple mechanisms likely contribute to the antidepressant effects of ketamine.

Dr. Sanacora has independently researched the effects of ketamine but was not involved with the current study.

“Much of the work to date has focused on the drug’s proximal effects on the glutamatergic neurotransmitter system and the resulting enhancement of adaptive neuroplasticity in several brain regions,” he said.

“However, there is also evidence to suggest other neurotransmitter systems and possibly even neuroinflammatory regulators are also contributing to the effect,” Dr. Sanacora added.

He noted that these mechanisms are also likely amplified by the “hope, optimism, expectations, and improved medical management overall that are known to be associated with treatments that require close monitoring and follow-up with health care providers.”

Dr. Gebara noted that “internal/department funds at each site” were used to support the study. She also reported receiving support from Otsuka US. Disclosures for the other investigators are listed in the original article. Dr. Sanacora has reported having “no major direct conflicts” with the study.

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

The administration of IV ketamine over the course of 2 months can improve treatment resistant depression (TRD) and executive function in older adults, findings from a new pilot study suggest.

Results showed nearly 50% of participants responded to ketamine and 25% achieved complete remission from TRD, as measured by scores on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS).

“Our pilot study suggests that IV ketamine is well-tolerated, safe, and associated with improvement in late-life TRD,” co-investigator Marie Anne Gebara, MD, assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, told this news organization.

Dr. Gebara pointed out the treatment “may not be appropriate for all patients with TRD,” such as those with a history of psychotic symptoms or uncontrolled hypertension; but “it appears to be a promising option.”

The findings were published online in the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Lack of data in seniors

Although ketamine has been shown in prior research to rapidly reduce suicidal ideation in adults, there has been a lack of data on its efficacy and safety in older adults, the current investigators note.

“Almost 50% of older adults suffering from depression have TRD, which is a leading cause of disability, excess mortality from suicide, and dementia,” Dr. Gebara said.

She added that after two failed trials of antidepressants, “older adults have few evidence-based choices: aripiprazole or bupropion augmentation, transcranial magnetic stimulation, or electroconvulsive therapy. Novel treatments with rapid benefit are needed as long-term outcomes are poor and recurrence rates are high.”

Dr. Gebara and colleagues at five sites (Columbia University, New York State Psychiatric Institute, University of Toronto, University of Pittsburgh, and Washington University in St. Louis) each enrolled five participants aged 60 and older into the pilot study between October 2020 and November 2021, for a total of 25 participants (mean age, 71 years).

Each participant was recruited from patient registries or referred by behavioral health or primary care providers and diagnosed with TRD, which was defined as an episode of major depressive disorder without psychotic features that persisted despite two or more trials of antidepressants including at least one evidence-based second-line treatment.

Participants had to take an oral antidepressant dosage for at least 1 month prior to the start of the IV ketamine infusions, and continue their antidepressant for the length of the trial.

They received IV ketamine twice weekly for 4 weeks. The dosage was weight-dependent.

At the end of the 4 weeks, participants who achieved a MADRS total score of less than 10 or had a 30% or greater reduction from their baseline MADRS score entered another 4-week phase of the trial. This phase consisted of once-weekly administration of IV ketamine.
 

Larger plans

Results showed 15 of the 25 participants (60%) experienced a 30% or higher reduction in MADRS scores in the first phase of the study. The mean change in MADRS total score from the beginning to the end of the first phase was a decrease of 9.4 points (P < .01).

At the end of the continuation phase, half (48%) met criteria for response and 27% met criteria for remission.

After ketamine administration, the researchers also found an improvement in Fluid Cognition Composite Score (Cohen’s d value = .61), indicating a medium to large effect size, and in three measures of executive function.

Overall, adverse events were rare and did not keep patients from participating in the study, the investigators note. Five of the 25 participants reported infusion-induced hypertension that was transient.

Study limitations cited include the small sample size and the absence of randomization and placebo control or comparison treatment.

“We were very pleased with these findings because they establish the safety of this novel intervention in older adults,” Dr. Gebara said.

“After establishing safety and tolerability, we can plan for larger, randomized controlled trials that will allow us to determine the effectiveness of IV ketamine for older adults with TRD,” she added.
 

Multiple mechanisms

In a comment, Gerard Sanacora, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry at Yale University and director of the Yale Depression Research Program, New Haven, Conn., noted multiple mechanisms likely contribute to the antidepressant effects of ketamine.

Dr. Sanacora has independently researched the effects of ketamine but was not involved with the current study.

“Much of the work to date has focused on the drug’s proximal effects on the glutamatergic neurotransmitter system and the resulting enhancement of adaptive neuroplasticity in several brain regions,” he said.

“However, there is also evidence to suggest other neurotransmitter systems and possibly even neuroinflammatory regulators are also contributing to the effect,” Dr. Sanacora added.

He noted that these mechanisms are also likely amplified by the “hope, optimism, expectations, and improved medical management overall that are known to be associated with treatments that require close monitoring and follow-up with health care providers.”

Dr. Gebara noted that “internal/department funds at each site” were used to support the study. She also reported receiving support from Otsuka US. Disclosures for the other investigators are listed in the original article. Dr. Sanacora has reported having “no major direct conflicts” with the study.

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

The standard nonsurgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse does not appear to work as well as surgery to correct the problem, Dutch researchers have found. 

Pelvic organ prolapse is an uncomfortable condition, causing a troublesome vaginal bulge, often accompanied by urinary, bowel, or sexual dysfunction. Between 3% and 6% of women develop symptomatic prolapse, with the highest incidence in women aged 60-69 years – a fast-growing demographic.

Although many women choose surgical treatment, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women be offered a vaginal pessary as a noninvasive alternative, despite inconsistent data from observational studies on their effectiveness.

Lisa van der Vaart, MD, a doctoral student in ob.gyn. at the University of Amsterdam and the lead author of the new study, published in JAMA, said that differences in outcome measures, small sample size, and lack of long-term follow-up have bedeviled previous comparisons of the two techniques.

“We thought it was very important to perform a randomized control trial on this subject to improve counseling to women who suffer from symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse,” Dr. van der Vaart said.

She and her colleagues conducted a noninferiority randomized clinical trial that recruited 1,605 women with stage II or higher prolapse who were referred to specialty care at 21 hospitals in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2019. Of the 440 women who agreed to participate in the trial, 218 received a pessary, a device inserted into the vagina that provides support to tissues displaced by prolapse, and 222 underwent surgery.

The primary outcome was subjective improvement using a standardized questionnaire at 24 months; women were asked to rank their symptoms on a seven-point scale, and subjective improvement was defined as a response of much better or very much better.

“We saw a substantial amount of improvement in both groups,” Dr. van der Vaart said in an interview.

After 24 months of follow-up, outcome data were available for 173 women in the pessary group and 162 in the surgery group. For this intention-to treat population, 76.3% in the pessary group and 81.5% in the surgery group reported improvement.

Results were similar for the smaller group of participants who completed the study per protocol, without crossing over to a treatment to which they had not been allocated.

However, neither the intention-to-treat nor per-protocol analysis met the prespecified criteria for noninferiority, suggesting that use of a vaginal pessary is not equivalent to surgery.

The study also found differences in adverse events. Among women randomly assigned to surgery, 9% suffered a postoperative urinary tract infection, and 5.4% underwent additional therapy, such as pessary or repeat operation.

But use of a pessary also had downsides. The most common adverse event was discomfort (42.7%), and by 24 months, 60% of the participants in the pessary group had discontinued use.

Dr. van der Vaart said that she was surprised by the high number of women assigned to the pessary group who later elected to undergo surgery. “Women should be told that their chance of crossing over to a surgical intervention is quite high – more than 50% do eventually end up having surgery.”

Cheryl Iglesia, MD, director of the National Center for Advanced Pelvic Surgery at MedStar Health and professor of obstetrics and gynecology and urology at Georgetown University, both in Washington, was also struck by the high crossover rate. “We’ve had the same pessaries probably for the last 100 years,” she said. “We need to get better.”

Dr. Iglesia welcomed new approaches to making vaginal pessaries that are custom designed for each woman’s unique anatomy using 3D printing and pointed to promising initial clinical trials of disposable pessaries. With the aging of the population and demand for treatment of prolapse increasing, she cited a need for better nonsurgical alternatives: “We have a work-force issue and may not have enough adequately trained urogynecologists to meet the demand for prolapse repairs as our population ages.”

The study was funded by a grant from ZonMW, a Dutch governmental health care organization. Dr. van der Vaart reported grants from ZonMW during the conduct of the study.

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

The standard nonsurgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse does not appear to work as well as surgery to correct the problem, Dutch researchers have found. 

Pelvic organ prolapse is an uncomfortable condition, causing a troublesome vaginal bulge, often accompanied by urinary, bowel, or sexual dysfunction. Between 3% and 6% of women develop symptomatic prolapse, with the highest incidence in women aged 60-69 years – a fast-growing demographic.

Although many women choose surgical treatment, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women be offered a vaginal pessary as a noninvasive alternative, despite inconsistent data from observational studies on their effectiveness.

Lisa van der Vaart, MD, a doctoral student in ob.gyn. at the University of Amsterdam and the lead author of the new study, published in JAMA, said that differences in outcome measures, small sample size, and lack of long-term follow-up have bedeviled previous comparisons of the two techniques.

“We thought it was very important to perform a randomized control trial on this subject to improve counseling to women who suffer from symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse,” Dr. van der Vaart said.

She and her colleagues conducted a noninferiority randomized clinical trial that recruited 1,605 women with stage II or higher prolapse who were referred to specialty care at 21 hospitals in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2019. Of the 440 women who agreed to participate in the trial, 218 received a pessary, a device inserted into the vagina that provides support to tissues displaced by prolapse, and 222 underwent surgery.

The primary outcome was subjective improvement using a standardized questionnaire at 24 months; women were asked to rank their symptoms on a seven-point scale, and subjective improvement was defined as a response of much better or very much better.

“We saw a substantial amount of improvement in both groups,” Dr. van der Vaart said in an interview.

After 24 months of follow-up, outcome data were available for 173 women in the pessary group and 162 in the surgery group. For this intention-to treat population, 76.3% in the pessary group and 81.5% in the surgery group reported improvement.

Results were similar for the smaller group of participants who completed the study per protocol, without crossing over to a treatment to which they had not been allocated.

However, neither the intention-to-treat nor per-protocol analysis met the prespecified criteria for noninferiority, suggesting that use of a vaginal pessary is not equivalent to surgery.

The study also found differences in adverse events. Among women randomly assigned to surgery, 9% suffered a postoperative urinary tract infection, and 5.4% underwent additional therapy, such as pessary or repeat operation.

But use of a pessary also had downsides. The most common adverse event was discomfort (42.7%), and by 24 months, 60% of the participants in the pessary group had discontinued use.

Dr. van der Vaart said that she was surprised by the high number of women assigned to the pessary group who later elected to undergo surgery. “Women should be told that their chance of crossing over to a surgical intervention is quite high – more than 50% do eventually end up having surgery.”

Cheryl Iglesia, MD, director of the National Center for Advanced Pelvic Surgery at MedStar Health and professor of obstetrics and gynecology and urology at Georgetown University, both in Washington, was also struck by the high crossover rate. “We’ve had the same pessaries probably for the last 100 years,” she said. “We need to get better.”

Dr. Iglesia welcomed new approaches to making vaginal pessaries that are custom designed for each woman’s unique anatomy using 3D printing and pointed to promising initial clinical trials of disposable pessaries. With the aging of the population and demand for treatment of prolapse increasing, she cited a need for better nonsurgical alternatives: “We have a work-force issue and may not have enough adequately trained urogynecologists to meet the demand for prolapse repairs as our population ages.”

The study was funded by a grant from ZonMW, a Dutch governmental health care organization. Dr. van der Vaart reported grants from ZonMW during the conduct of the study.

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

The standard nonsurgical treatment for pelvic organ prolapse does not appear to work as well as surgery to correct the problem, Dutch researchers have found. 

Pelvic organ prolapse is an uncomfortable condition, causing a troublesome vaginal bulge, often accompanied by urinary, bowel, or sexual dysfunction. Between 3% and 6% of women develop symptomatic prolapse, with the highest incidence in women aged 60-69 years – a fast-growing demographic.

Although many women choose surgical treatment, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that women be offered a vaginal pessary as a noninvasive alternative, despite inconsistent data from observational studies on their effectiveness.

Lisa van der Vaart, MD, a doctoral student in ob.gyn. at the University of Amsterdam and the lead author of the new study, published in JAMA, said that differences in outcome measures, small sample size, and lack of long-term follow-up have bedeviled previous comparisons of the two techniques.

“We thought it was very important to perform a randomized control trial on this subject to improve counseling to women who suffer from symptomatic pelvic organ prolapse,” Dr. van der Vaart said.

She and her colleagues conducted a noninferiority randomized clinical trial that recruited 1,605 women with stage II or higher prolapse who were referred to specialty care at 21 hospitals in the Netherlands between 2015 and 2019. Of the 440 women who agreed to participate in the trial, 218 received a pessary, a device inserted into the vagina that provides support to tissues displaced by prolapse, and 222 underwent surgery.

The primary outcome was subjective improvement using a standardized questionnaire at 24 months; women were asked to rank their symptoms on a seven-point scale, and subjective improvement was defined as a response of much better or very much better.

“We saw a substantial amount of improvement in both groups,” Dr. van der Vaart said in an interview.

After 24 months of follow-up, outcome data were available for 173 women in the pessary group and 162 in the surgery group. For this intention-to treat population, 76.3% in the pessary group and 81.5% in the surgery group reported improvement.

Results were similar for the smaller group of participants who completed the study per protocol, without crossing over to a treatment to which they had not been allocated.

However, neither the intention-to-treat nor per-protocol analysis met the prespecified criteria for noninferiority, suggesting that use of a vaginal pessary is not equivalent to surgery.

The study also found differences in adverse events. Among women randomly assigned to surgery, 9% suffered a postoperative urinary tract infection, and 5.4% underwent additional therapy, such as pessary or repeat operation.

But use of a pessary also had downsides. The most common adverse event was discomfort (42.7%), and by 24 months, 60% of the participants in the pessary group had discontinued use.

Dr. van der Vaart said that she was surprised by the high number of women assigned to the pessary group who later elected to undergo surgery. “Women should be told that their chance of crossing over to a surgical intervention is quite high – more than 50% do eventually end up having surgery.”

Cheryl Iglesia, MD, director of the National Center for Advanced Pelvic Surgery at MedStar Health and professor of obstetrics and gynecology and urology at Georgetown University, both in Washington, was also struck by the high crossover rate. “We’ve had the same pessaries probably for the last 100 years,” she said. “We need to get better.”

Dr. Iglesia welcomed new approaches to making vaginal pessaries that are custom designed for each woman’s unique anatomy using 3D printing and pointed to promising initial clinical trials of disposable pessaries. With the aging of the population and demand for treatment of prolapse increasing, she cited a need for better nonsurgical alternatives: “We have a work-force issue and may not have enough adequately trained urogynecologists to meet the demand for prolapse repairs as our population ages.”

The study was funded by a grant from ZonMW, a Dutch governmental health care organization. Dr. van der Vaart reported grants from ZonMW during the conduct of the study.

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

The American College of Physicians has updated their guideline for pharmacotherapy to reduce fracture risk in adults with primary osteoporosis or osteopenia (low bone mass) based on a systematic review of the evidence.

This is the first update for 5 years since the previous guidance was published in 2017.

It strongly recommends initial therapy with bisphosphonates for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, as well as men with osteoporosis, among other recommendations.

However, the author of an accompanying editorial, Susan M. Ott, MD, says: “The decision to start a bisphosphonate is actually not that easy.”

She also queries some of the other recommendations in the guidance.

Her editorial, along with the guideline by Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, and systematic review by Chelsea Ayers, MPH, and colleagues, were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Ryan D. Mire, MD, MACP, president of the ACP, gave a brief overview of the new guidance in a video.
 

Systematic review

The ACP commissioned a review of the evidence because it says new data have emerged on the efficacy of newer medications for osteoporosis and low bone mass, as well as treatment comparisons, and treatment in men.

The review authors identified 34 randomized controlled trials (in 100 publications) and 36 observational studies, which evaluated the following pharmacologic interventions:

• Antiresorptive drugs: four bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate) and a RANK ligand inhibitor (denosumab).
• Anabolic drugs: an analog of human parathyroid hormone (PTH)–related protein (abaloparatide), recombinant human PTH (teriparatide), and a sclerostin inhibitor (romosozumab).
• Estrogen agonists: selective estrogen receptor modulators (bazedoxifene, raloxifene).

The authors focused on effectiveness and harms of active drugs compared with placebo or bisphosphonates.
 

Major changes from 2017 guidelines, some questions

“Though there are many nuanced changes in this [2023 guideline] version, perhaps the major change is the explicit hierarchy of pharmacologic recommendations: bisphosphonates first, then denosumab,” Thomas G. Cooney, MD, senior author of the clinical guideline, explained in an interview.

“Bisphosphonates had the most favorable balance among benefits, harms, patient values and preferences, and cost among the examined drugs in postmenopausal females with primary osteoporosis,” Dr. Cooney, professor of medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, noted, as is stated in the guideline.

“Denosumab also had a favorable long-term net benefit, but bisphosphonates are much cheaper than other pharmacologic treatments and available in generic formulations,” the document states.

The new guideline suggests use of denosumab as second-line pharmacotherapy in adults who have contraindications to or experience adverse effects with bisphosphonates.

The choice among bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, zoledronic acid) would be based on a patient-centered discussion between physician and patient, addressing costs (often related to insurance), delivery-mode preferences (oral versus intravenous), and “values,” which includes the patient’s priorities, concerns, and expectations regarding their health care, Dr. Cooney explained.

Another update in the new guideline is, “We also clarify the specific, albeit more limited, role of sclerostin inhibitors and recombinant PTH ‘to reduce the risk of fractures only in females with primary osteoporosis with very high-risk of fracture’,” Dr. Cooney noted.

In addition, the guideline now states, “treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in males rather than limiting it to ‘vertebral fracture’ in men,” as in the 2017 guideline.

It also explicitly includes denosumab as second-line therapy for men, Dr. Cooney noted, but as in 2017, the strength of evidence in men remains low.

“Finally, we also clarified that in females over the age of 65 with low bone mass or osteopenia that an individualized approach be taken to treatment (similar to last guideline), but if treatment is initiated, that a bisphosphonate be used (new content),” he said.

The use of estrogen, treatment duration, drug discontinuation, and serial bone mineral density monitoring were not addressed in this guideline, but will likely be evaluated within 2 to 3 years.
 

‘Osteoporosis treatment: Not easy’ – editorial

In her editorial, Dr. Ott writes: “The data about bisphosphonates may seem overwhelmingly positive, leading to strong recommendations for their use to treat osteoporosis, but the decision to start a bisphosphonate is actually not that easy.”

“A strong recommendation should be given only when future studies are unlikely to change it,” continues Dr. Ott, professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.

“Yet, data already suggest that, in patients with serious osteoporosis, treatment should start with anabolic medications because previous treatment with either bisphosphonates or denosumab will prevent the anabolic response of newer medications.”

“Starting with bisphosphonate will change the bone so it will not respond to the newer medicines, and then a patient will lose the chance for getting the best improvement,” Dr. Ott clarified in an email to this news organization.

But, in fact, the new guidance does suggest that, to reduce the risk of fractures in females with primary osteoporosis at very high risk of fracture, one should consider use of the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab (moderate-certainty evidence) or recombinant human parathyroid hormone (teriparatide) (low-certainty evidence) followed by a bisphosphonate (conditional recommendation).

Dr. Ott said: “If the [fracture] risk is high, then we should start with an anabolic medication for 1-2 years. If the risk is medium, then use a bisphosphonate for up to 5 years, and then stop and monitor the patient for signs that the medicine is wearing off,” based on blood and urine tests.
 

‘We need medicines that will stop bone aging’

Osteopenia is defined by an arbitrary bone density measurement, Dr. Ott explained. “About half of women over 65 will have osteopenia, and by age 85 there are hardly any ‘normal’ women left.”

“We need medicines that will stop bone aging, which might sound impossible, but we should still try,” she continued.

“In the meantime, while waiting on new discoveries,” Dr. Ott said, “I would not use bisphosphonates in patients who did not already have a fracture or whose bone density T-score was better than –2.5 because, in the major study, alendronate did not prevent fractures in this group.”

Many people are worried about bisphosphonates because of problems with the jaw or femur. These are real, but they are very rare during the first 5 years of treatment, Dr. Ott noted. Then the risk starts to rise, up to more than 1 in 1,000 after 8 years. So people can get the benefits of these drugs with very low risk for 5 years.

“An immediate [guideline] update is necessary to address the severity of bone loss and the high risk for vertebral fractures after discontinuation of denosumab,” Dr. Ott urged.

“I don’t agree with using denosumab for osteoporosis as a second-line treatment,” she said. “I would use it only in patients who have cancer or unusually high bone resorption. You have to get a dose strictly every 6 months, and if you need to stop, it is recommended to treat with bisphosphonates. Denosumab is a poor choice for somebody who does not want to take a bisphosphonate. Many patients and even too many doctors do not realize how serious it can be to skip a dose.”

“I also think that men could be treated with anabolic medications,” Dr. Ott said. “Clinical trials show they respond the same as women. Many men have osteoporosis as a consequence of low testosterone, and then they can usually be treated with testosterone. Osteoporosis in men is a serious problem that is too often ignored – almost reverse discrimination.”

It is also unfortunate that the review and recommendations do not address estrogen, one of the most effective medications to prevent osteoporotic fractures, according to Dr. Ott.
 

Clinical considerations in addition to drug types

The new guideline also advises:

• Clinicians treating adults with osteoporosis should encourage adherence to recommended treatments and healthy lifestyle habits, including exercise, and counseling to evaluate and prevent falls.
• All adults with osteopenia or osteoporosis should have adequate calcium and vitamin D intake, as part of fracture prevention.
• Clinicians should assess baseline fracture risk based on bone density, fracture history, fracture risk factors, and response to prior osteoporosis treatments.
• Current evidence suggests that more than 3-5 years of bisphosphonate therapy reduces risk for new vertebral but not other fractures; however, it also increases risk for long-term harms. Therefore, clinicians should consider stopping bisphosphonate treatment after 5 years unless the patient has a strong indication for treatment continuation.
• The decision for a bisphosphonate holiday (temporary discontinuation) and its duration should be based on baseline fracture risk, medication half-life in bone, and benefits and harms.
• Women treated with an anabolic agent who discontinue it should be offered an antiresorptive agent to preserve gains and because of serious risk for rebound and multiple vertebral fractures.
• Adults older than 65 years with osteoporosis may be at increased risk for falls or other adverse events because of drug interactions.
• Transgender persons have variable risk for low bone mass.

The review and guideline were funded by the ACP. Dr. Ott has reported no relevant disclosures. Relevant financial disclosures for other authors are listed with the guideline and review.

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

The American College of Physicians has updated their guideline for pharmacotherapy to reduce fracture risk in adults with primary osteoporosis or osteopenia (low bone mass) based on a systematic review of the evidence.

This is the first update for 5 years since the previous guidance was published in 2017.

It strongly recommends initial therapy with bisphosphonates for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, as well as men with osteoporosis, among other recommendations.

However, the author of an accompanying editorial, Susan M. Ott, MD, says: “The decision to start a bisphosphonate is actually not that easy.”

She also queries some of the other recommendations in the guidance.

Her editorial, along with the guideline by Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, and systematic review by Chelsea Ayers, MPH, and colleagues, were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Ryan D. Mire, MD, MACP, president of the ACP, gave a brief overview of the new guidance in a video.
 

Systematic review

The ACP commissioned a review of the evidence because it says new data have emerged on the efficacy of newer medications for osteoporosis and low bone mass, as well as treatment comparisons, and treatment in men.

The review authors identified 34 randomized controlled trials (in 100 publications) and 36 observational studies, which evaluated the following pharmacologic interventions:

• Antiresorptive drugs: four bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate) and a RANK ligand inhibitor (denosumab).
• Anabolic drugs: an analog of human parathyroid hormone (PTH)–related protein (abaloparatide), recombinant human PTH (teriparatide), and a sclerostin inhibitor (romosozumab).
• Estrogen agonists: selective estrogen receptor modulators (bazedoxifene, raloxifene).

The authors focused on effectiveness and harms of active drugs compared with placebo or bisphosphonates.
 

Major changes from 2017 guidelines, some questions

“Though there are many nuanced changes in this [2023 guideline] version, perhaps the major change is the explicit hierarchy of pharmacologic recommendations: bisphosphonates first, then denosumab,” Thomas G. Cooney, MD, senior author of the clinical guideline, explained in an interview.

“Bisphosphonates had the most favorable balance among benefits, harms, patient values and preferences, and cost among the examined drugs in postmenopausal females with primary osteoporosis,” Dr. Cooney, professor of medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, noted, as is stated in the guideline.

“Denosumab also had a favorable long-term net benefit, but bisphosphonates are much cheaper than other pharmacologic treatments and available in generic formulations,” the document states.

The new guideline suggests use of denosumab as second-line pharmacotherapy in adults who have contraindications to or experience adverse effects with bisphosphonates.

The choice among bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, zoledronic acid) would be based on a patient-centered discussion between physician and patient, addressing costs (often related to insurance), delivery-mode preferences (oral versus intravenous), and “values,” which includes the patient’s priorities, concerns, and expectations regarding their health care, Dr. Cooney explained.

Another update in the new guideline is, “We also clarify the specific, albeit more limited, role of sclerostin inhibitors and recombinant PTH ‘to reduce the risk of fractures only in females with primary osteoporosis with very high-risk of fracture’,” Dr. Cooney noted.

In addition, the guideline now states, “treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in males rather than limiting it to ‘vertebral fracture’ in men,” as in the 2017 guideline.

It also explicitly includes denosumab as second-line therapy for men, Dr. Cooney noted, but as in 2017, the strength of evidence in men remains low.

“Finally, we also clarified that in females over the age of 65 with low bone mass or osteopenia that an individualized approach be taken to treatment (similar to last guideline), but if treatment is initiated, that a bisphosphonate be used (new content),” he said.

The use of estrogen, treatment duration, drug discontinuation, and serial bone mineral density monitoring were not addressed in this guideline, but will likely be evaluated within 2 to 3 years.
 

‘Osteoporosis treatment: Not easy’ – editorial

In her editorial, Dr. Ott writes: “The data about bisphosphonates may seem overwhelmingly positive, leading to strong recommendations for their use to treat osteoporosis, but the decision to start a bisphosphonate is actually not that easy.”

“A strong recommendation should be given only when future studies are unlikely to change it,” continues Dr. Ott, professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.

“Yet, data already suggest that, in patients with serious osteoporosis, treatment should start with anabolic medications because previous treatment with either bisphosphonates or denosumab will prevent the anabolic response of newer medications.”

“Starting with bisphosphonate will change the bone so it will not respond to the newer medicines, and then a patient will lose the chance for getting the best improvement,” Dr. Ott clarified in an email to this news organization.

But, in fact, the new guidance does suggest that, to reduce the risk of fractures in females with primary osteoporosis at very high risk of fracture, one should consider use of the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab (moderate-certainty evidence) or recombinant human parathyroid hormone (teriparatide) (low-certainty evidence) followed by a bisphosphonate (conditional recommendation).

Dr. Ott said: “If the [fracture] risk is high, then we should start with an anabolic medication for 1-2 years. If the risk is medium, then use a bisphosphonate for up to 5 years, and then stop and monitor the patient for signs that the medicine is wearing off,” based on blood and urine tests.
 

‘We need medicines that will stop bone aging’

Osteopenia is defined by an arbitrary bone density measurement, Dr. Ott explained. “About half of women over 65 will have osteopenia, and by age 85 there are hardly any ‘normal’ women left.”

“We need medicines that will stop bone aging, which might sound impossible, but we should still try,” she continued.

“In the meantime, while waiting on new discoveries,” Dr. Ott said, “I would not use bisphosphonates in patients who did not already have a fracture or whose bone density T-score was better than –2.5 because, in the major study, alendronate did not prevent fractures in this group.”

Many people are worried about bisphosphonates because of problems with the jaw or femur. These are real, but they are very rare during the first 5 years of treatment, Dr. Ott noted. Then the risk starts to rise, up to more than 1 in 1,000 after 8 years. So people can get the benefits of these drugs with very low risk for 5 years.

“An immediate [guideline] update is necessary to address the severity of bone loss and the high risk for vertebral fractures after discontinuation of denosumab,” Dr. Ott urged.

“I don’t agree with using denosumab for osteoporosis as a second-line treatment,” she said. “I would use it only in patients who have cancer or unusually high bone resorption. You have to get a dose strictly every 6 months, and if you need to stop, it is recommended to treat with bisphosphonates. Denosumab is a poor choice for somebody who does not want to take a bisphosphonate. Many patients and even too many doctors do not realize how serious it can be to skip a dose.”

“I also think that men could be treated with anabolic medications,” Dr. Ott said. “Clinical trials show they respond the same as women. Many men have osteoporosis as a consequence of low testosterone, and then they can usually be treated with testosterone. Osteoporosis in men is a serious problem that is too often ignored – almost reverse discrimination.”

It is also unfortunate that the review and recommendations do not address estrogen, one of the most effective medications to prevent osteoporotic fractures, according to Dr. Ott.
 

Clinical considerations in addition to drug types

The new guideline also advises:

• Clinicians treating adults with osteoporosis should encourage adherence to recommended treatments and healthy lifestyle habits, including exercise, and counseling to evaluate and prevent falls.
• All adults with osteopenia or osteoporosis should have adequate calcium and vitamin D intake, as part of fracture prevention.
• Clinicians should assess baseline fracture risk based on bone density, fracture history, fracture risk factors, and response to prior osteoporosis treatments.
• Current evidence suggests that more than 3-5 years of bisphosphonate therapy reduces risk for new vertebral but not other fractures; however, it also increases risk for long-term harms. Therefore, clinicians should consider stopping bisphosphonate treatment after 5 years unless the patient has a strong indication for treatment continuation.
• The decision for a bisphosphonate holiday (temporary discontinuation) and its duration should be based on baseline fracture risk, medication half-life in bone, and benefits and harms.
• Women treated with an anabolic agent who discontinue it should be offered an antiresorptive agent to preserve gains and because of serious risk for rebound and multiple vertebral fractures.
• Adults older than 65 years with osteoporosis may be at increased risk for falls or other adverse events because of drug interactions.
• Transgender persons have variable risk for low bone mass.

The review and guideline were funded by the ACP. Dr. Ott has reported no relevant disclosures. Relevant financial disclosures for other authors are listed with the guideline and review.

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

The American College of Physicians has updated their guideline for pharmacotherapy to reduce fracture risk in adults with primary osteoporosis or osteopenia (low bone mass) based on a systematic review of the evidence.

This is the first update for 5 years since the previous guidance was published in 2017.

It strongly recommends initial therapy with bisphosphonates for postmenopausal women with osteoporosis, as well as men with osteoporosis, among other recommendations.

However, the author of an accompanying editorial, Susan M. Ott, MD, says: “The decision to start a bisphosphonate is actually not that easy.”

She also queries some of the other recommendations in the guidance.

Her editorial, along with the guideline by Amir Qaseem, MD, PhD, MPH, and colleagues, and systematic review by Chelsea Ayers, MPH, and colleagues, were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

Ryan D. Mire, MD, MACP, president of the ACP, gave a brief overview of the new guidance in a video.
 

Systematic review

The ACP commissioned a review of the evidence because it says new data have emerged on the efficacy of newer medications for osteoporosis and low bone mass, as well as treatment comparisons, and treatment in men.

The review authors identified 34 randomized controlled trials (in 100 publications) and 36 observational studies, which evaluated the following pharmacologic interventions:

• Antiresorptive drugs: four bisphosphonates (alendronate, ibandronate, risedronate, zoledronate) and a RANK ligand inhibitor (denosumab).
• Anabolic drugs: an analog of human parathyroid hormone (PTH)–related protein (abaloparatide), recombinant human PTH (teriparatide), and a sclerostin inhibitor (romosozumab).
• Estrogen agonists: selective estrogen receptor modulators (bazedoxifene, raloxifene).

The authors focused on effectiveness and harms of active drugs compared with placebo or bisphosphonates.
 

Major changes from 2017 guidelines, some questions

“Though there are many nuanced changes in this [2023 guideline] version, perhaps the major change is the explicit hierarchy of pharmacologic recommendations: bisphosphonates first, then denosumab,” Thomas G. Cooney, MD, senior author of the clinical guideline, explained in an interview.

“Bisphosphonates had the most favorable balance among benefits, harms, patient values and preferences, and cost among the examined drugs in postmenopausal females with primary osteoporosis,” Dr. Cooney, professor of medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, noted, as is stated in the guideline.

“Denosumab also had a favorable long-term net benefit, but bisphosphonates are much cheaper than other pharmacologic treatments and available in generic formulations,” the document states.

The new guideline suggests use of denosumab as second-line pharmacotherapy in adults who have contraindications to or experience adverse effects with bisphosphonates.

The choice among bisphosphonates (alendronate, risedronate, zoledronic acid) would be based on a patient-centered discussion between physician and patient, addressing costs (often related to insurance), delivery-mode preferences (oral versus intravenous), and “values,” which includes the patient’s priorities, concerns, and expectations regarding their health care, Dr. Cooney explained.

Another update in the new guideline is, “We also clarify the specific, albeit more limited, role of sclerostin inhibitors and recombinant PTH ‘to reduce the risk of fractures only in females with primary osteoporosis with very high-risk of fracture’,” Dr. Cooney noted.

In addition, the guideline now states, “treatment to reduce the risk of fractures in males rather than limiting it to ‘vertebral fracture’ in men,” as in the 2017 guideline.

It also explicitly includes denosumab as second-line therapy for men, Dr. Cooney noted, but as in 2017, the strength of evidence in men remains low.

“Finally, we also clarified that in females over the age of 65 with low bone mass or osteopenia that an individualized approach be taken to treatment (similar to last guideline), but if treatment is initiated, that a bisphosphonate be used (new content),” he said.

The use of estrogen, treatment duration, drug discontinuation, and serial bone mineral density monitoring were not addressed in this guideline, but will likely be evaluated within 2 to 3 years.
 

‘Osteoporosis treatment: Not easy’ – editorial

In her editorial, Dr. Ott writes: “The data about bisphosphonates may seem overwhelmingly positive, leading to strong recommendations for their use to treat osteoporosis, but the decision to start a bisphosphonate is actually not that easy.”

“A strong recommendation should be given only when future studies are unlikely to change it,” continues Dr. Ott, professor of medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.

“Yet, data already suggest that, in patients with serious osteoporosis, treatment should start with anabolic medications because previous treatment with either bisphosphonates or denosumab will prevent the anabolic response of newer medications.”

“Starting with bisphosphonate will change the bone so it will not respond to the newer medicines, and then a patient will lose the chance for getting the best improvement,” Dr. Ott clarified in an email to this news organization.

But, in fact, the new guidance does suggest that, to reduce the risk of fractures in females with primary osteoporosis at very high risk of fracture, one should consider use of the sclerostin inhibitor romosozumab (moderate-certainty evidence) or recombinant human parathyroid hormone (teriparatide) (low-certainty evidence) followed by a bisphosphonate (conditional recommendation).

Dr. Ott said: “If the [fracture] risk is high, then we should start with an anabolic medication for 1-2 years. If the risk is medium, then use a bisphosphonate for up to 5 years, and then stop and monitor the patient for signs that the medicine is wearing off,” based on blood and urine tests.
 

‘We need medicines that will stop bone aging’

Osteopenia is defined by an arbitrary bone density measurement, Dr. Ott explained. “About half of women over 65 will have osteopenia, and by age 85 there are hardly any ‘normal’ women left.”

“We need medicines that will stop bone aging, which might sound impossible, but we should still try,” she continued.

“In the meantime, while waiting on new discoveries,” Dr. Ott said, “I would not use bisphosphonates in patients who did not already have a fracture or whose bone density T-score was better than –2.5 because, in the major study, alendronate did not prevent fractures in this group.”

Many people are worried about bisphosphonates because of problems with the jaw or femur. These are real, but they are very rare during the first 5 years of treatment, Dr. Ott noted. Then the risk starts to rise, up to more than 1 in 1,000 after 8 years. So people can get the benefits of these drugs with very low risk for 5 years.

“An immediate [guideline] update is necessary to address the severity of bone loss and the high risk for vertebral fractures after discontinuation of denosumab,” Dr. Ott urged.

“I don’t agree with using denosumab for osteoporosis as a second-line treatment,” she said. “I would use it only in patients who have cancer or unusually high bone resorption. You have to get a dose strictly every 6 months, and if you need to stop, it is recommended to treat with bisphosphonates. Denosumab is a poor choice for somebody who does not want to take a bisphosphonate. Many patients and even too many doctors do not realize how serious it can be to skip a dose.”

“I also think that men could be treated with anabolic medications,” Dr. Ott said. “Clinical trials show they respond the same as women. Many men have osteoporosis as a consequence of low testosterone, and then they can usually be treated with testosterone. Osteoporosis in men is a serious problem that is too often ignored – almost reverse discrimination.”

It is also unfortunate that the review and recommendations do not address estrogen, one of the most effective medications to prevent osteoporotic fractures, according to Dr. Ott.
 

Clinical considerations in addition to drug types

The new guideline also advises:

• Clinicians treating adults with osteoporosis should encourage adherence to recommended treatments and healthy lifestyle habits, including exercise, and counseling to evaluate and prevent falls.
• All adults with osteopenia or osteoporosis should have adequate calcium and vitamin D intake, as part of fracture prevention.
• Clinicians should assess baseline fracture risk based on bone density, fracture history, fracture risk factors, and response to prior osteoporosis treatments.
• Current evidence suggests that more than 3-5 years of bisphosphonate therapy reduces risk for new vertebral but not other fractures; however, it also increases risk for long-term harms. Therefore, clinicians should consider stopping bisphosphonate treatment after 5 years unless the patient has a strong indication for treatment continuation.
• The decision for a bisphosphonate holiday (temporary discontinuation) and its duration should be based on baseline fracture risk, medication half-life in bone, and benefits and harms.
• Women treated with an anabolic agent who discontinue it should be offered an antiresorptive agent to preserve gains and because of serious risk for rebound and multiple vertebral fractures.
• Adults older than 65 years with osteoporosis may be at increased risk for falls or other adverse events because of drug interactions.
• Transgender persons have variable risk for low bone mass.

The review and guideline were funded by the ACP. Dr. Ott has reported no relevant disclosures. Relevant financial disclosures for other authors are listed with the guideline and review.

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

Taking more steps per day is associated with a progressively lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among older adults – and the benefits accrue at well below the widely promoted threshold of 10,000 steps per day, new research shows.

Among adults aged 60 and older, those who took roughly 6,000 to 9,000 steps per day had a 40% to 50% lower risk of CVD, compared with peers logging just 2,000 steps per day.

“We hope this study will contribute evidence to future public health and clinical guidance on how many steps we need for health,” Amanda Paluch, PhD, with University of Massachusetts Amherst, told this news organization.

Getting in more steps per day can lower an individual’s risk for heart disease – but it’s not an “all or nothing” situation, Dr. Paluch said.

“The heart health benefits begin at lower than 10,000 steps per day. So, for the many adults that may find 10,000 steps a bit out of reach, it is important to promote that even small increases in steps can be beneficial for health,” Dr. Paluch said.

The study was published online in Circulation.
 

Attainable step goals

As part of the Steps for Health Collaborative, Dr. Paluch and colleagues examined the dose-response relationship between steps per day and CVD in a meta-analysis of eight prospective studies involving 20,152 adults (mean age 63, 52% women).

Steps were measured in each study using one of five different commercially available step-measuring devices. Adults aged 60 years and older took a median of 4,323 steps per day (interquartile range, 2,760-6,924), while younger adults walked a bit more (median 6,911 daily steps; IQR, 4,783-9,794).

During follow-up lasting an average of 6.2 years, a total of 1,523 CVD events were reported.

In the final adjusted model, for older adults, compared with those in quartile 1 who got the fewest steps per day (median 1,811), the risk of CVD was 20% lower in those in quartile 2, who got a median of 3,823 steps per day (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.93).

CVD risk was 38% lower in older adults in quartile 3 who got a median of 5,520 steps per day (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52-0.74) and 49% lower in those in quartile 4 who walked the most (a median of 9,259 steps per day; HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.63).

Restricting the analysis to individuals without known CVD at baseline showed similar results.

Among six studies that excluded adults with a history of CVD at baseline, compared with the lowest quartile, the HR for incident CVD events was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.60-0.91) in the second quartile, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.47-0.77) in the third quartile, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.40-0.76) in the fourth quartile.

Despite the inverse association of steps with CVD in older adults, there was no association in younger adults. The researchers caution, however, that CVD is a disease of aging, and the follow-up period in these studies may not have been long enough to capture CVD incidence in younger adults.

Stepping rate (pace or cadence) was not associated with CVD risk beyond that of total steps per day. However, only four of the eight studies reported data on stepping rate, so this finding should be viewed as preliminary, Dr. Paluch and colleagues say.
 

Start small and go from there

Dr. Paluch said the take-home message from this study and numerous others is simple.

“Move more and sit less! Being physically active, by getting in your steps, is an important part of keeping your heart healthy,” she said in an interview.

For adults who are currently inactive, Dr. Paluch suggests finding small ways to get in a few more steps per day. “It does not need to be drastic changes. Consider a brief 5- to 10-minute walking break at lunch, taking the stairs, or playing a game of hide and seek with the grandchildren,” Dr. Paluch advised.

“For adults starting at 3,000 steps a day, set a goal of 4,000, and then 5,000. Each improvement can lead to better heart health,” Dr. Paluch said. “And for those who are already active, keep it up, as there are benefits with higher volumes of steps per day as well.”

Support for this research was provided by the Intergovernmental Personnel Act Agreement through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking more steps per day is associated with a progressively lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among older adults – and the benefits accrue at well below the widely promoted threshold of 10,000 steps per day, new research shows.

Among adults aged 60 and older, those who took roughly 6,000 to 9,000 steps per day had a 40% to 50% lower risk of CVD, compared with peers logging just 2,000 steps per day.

“We hope this study will contribute evidence to future public health and clinical guidance on how many steps we need for health,” Amanda Paluch, PhD, with University of Massachusetts Amherst, told this news organization.

Getting in more steps per day can lower an individual’s risk for heart disease – but it’s not an “all or nothing” situation, Dr. Paluch said.

“The heart health benefits begin at lower than 10,000 steps per day. So, for the many adults that may find 10,000 steps a bit out of reach, it is important to promote that even small increases in steps can be beneficial for health,” Dr. Paluch said.

The study was published online in Circulation.
 

Attainable step goals

As part of the Steps for Health Collaborative, Dr. Paluch and colleagues examined the dose-response relationship between steps per day and CVD in a meta-analysis of eight prospective studies involving 20,152 adults (mean age 63, 52% women).

Steps were measured in each study using one of five different commercially available step-measuring devices. Adults aged 60 years and older took a median of 4,323 steps per day (interquartile range, 2,760-6,924), while younger adults walked a bit more (median 6,911 daily steps; IQR, 4,783-9,794).

During follow-up lasting an average of 6.2 years, a total of 1,523 CVD events were reported.

In the final adjusted model, for older adults, compared with those in quartile 1 who got the fewest steps per day (median 1,811), the risk of CVD was 20% lower in those in quartile 2, who got a median of 3,823 steps per day (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.93).

CVD risk was 38% lower in older adults in quartile 3 who got a median of 5,520 steps per day (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52-0.74) and 49% lower in those in quartile 4 who walked the most (a median of 9,259 steps per day; HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.63).

Restricting the analysis to individuals without known CVD at baseline showed similar results.

Among six studies that excluded adults with a history of CVD at baseline, compared with the lowest quartile, the HR for incident CVD events was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.60-0.91) in the second quartile, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.47-0.77) in the third quartile, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.40-0.76) in the fourth quartile.

Despite the inverse association of steps with CVD in older adults, there was no association in younger adults. The researchers caution, however, that CVD is a disease of aging, and the follow-up period in these studies may not have been long enough to capture CVD incidence in younger adults.

Stepping rate (pace or cadence) was not associated with CVD risk beyond that of total steps per day. However, only four of the eight studies reported data on stepping rate, so this finding should be viewed as preliminary, Dr. Paluch and colleagues say.
 

Start small and go from there

Dr. Paluch said the take-home message from this study and numerous others is simple.

“Move more and sit less! Being physically active, by getting in your steps, is an important part of keeping your heart healthy,” she said in an interview.

For adults who are currently inactive, Dr. Paluch suggests finding small ways to get in a few more steps per day. “It does not need to be drastic changes. Consider a brief 5- to 10-minute walking break at lunch, taking the stairs, or playing a game of hide and seek with the grandchildren,” Dr. Paluch advised.

“For adults starting at 3,000 steps a day, set a goal of 4,000, and then 5,000. Each improvement can lead to better heart health,” Dr. Paluch said. “And for those who are already active, keep it up, as there are benefits with higher volumes of steps per day as well.”

Support for this research was provided by the Intergovernmental Personnel Act Agreement through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Taking more steps per day is associated with a progressively lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) among older adults – and the benefits accrue at well below the widely promoted threshold of 10,000 steps per day, new research shows.

Among adults aged 60 and older, those who took roughly 6,000 to 9,000 steps per day had a 40% to 50% lower risk of CVD, compared with peers logging just 2,000 steps per day.

“We hope this study will contribute evidence to future public health and clinical guidance on how many steps we need for health,” Amanda Paluch, PhD, with University of Massachusetts Amherst, told this news organization.

Getting in more steps per day can lower an individual’s risk for heart disease – but it’s not an “all or nothing” situation, Dr. Paluch said.

“The heart health benefits begin at lower than 10,000 steps per day. So, for the many adults that may find 10,000 steps a bit out of reach, it is important to promote that even small increases in steps can be beneficial for health,” Dr. Paluch said.

The study was published online in Circulation.
 

Attainable step goals

As part of the Steps for Health Collaborative, Dr. Paluch and colleagues examined the dose-response relationship between steps per day and CVD in a meta-analysis of eight prospective studies involving 20,152 adults (mean age 63, 52% women).

Steps were measured in each study using one of five different commercially available step-measuring devices. Adults aged 60 years and older took a median of 4,323 steps per day (interquartile range, 2,760-6,924), while younger adults walked a bit more (median 6,911 daily steps; IQR, 4,783-9,794).

During follow-up lasting an average of 6.2 years, a total of 1,523 CVD events were reported.

In the final adjusted model, for older adults, compared with those in quartile 1 who got the fewest steps per day (median 1,811), the risk of CVD was 20% lower in those in quartile 2, who got a median of 3,823 steps per day (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-0.93).

CVD risk was 38% lower in older adults in quartile 3 who got a median of 5,520 steps per day (HR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.52-0.74) and 49% lower in those in quartile 4 who walked the most (a median of 9,259 steps per day; HR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.41-0.63).

Restricting the analysis to individuals without known CVD at baseline showed similar results.

Among six studies that excluded adults with a history of CVD at baseline, compared with the lowest quartile, the HR for incident CVD events was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.60-0.91) in the second quartile, 0.60 (95% CI, 0.47-0.77) in the third quartile, and 0.55 (95% CI, 0.40-0.76) in the fourth quartile.

Despite the inverse association of steps with CVD in older adults, there was no association in younger adults. The researchers caution, however, that CVD is a disease of aging, and the follow-up period in these studies may not have been long enough to capture CVD incidence in younger adults.

Stepping rate (pace or cadence) was not associated with CVD risk beyond that of total steps per day. However, only four of the eight studies reported data on stepping rate, so this finding should be viewed as preliminary, Dr. Paluch and colleagues say.
 

Start small and go from there

Dr. Paluch said the take-home message from this study and numerous others is simple.

“Move more and sit less! Being physically active, by getting in your steps, is an important part of keeping your heart healthy,” she said in an interview.

For adults who are currently inactive, Dr. Paluch suggests finding small ways to get in a few more steps per day. “It does not need to be drastic changes. Consider a brief 5- to 10-minute walking break at lunch, taking the stairs, or playing a game of hide and seek with the grandchildren,” Dr. Paluch advised.

“For adults starting at 3,000 steps a day, set a goal of 4,000, and then 5,000. Each improvement can lead to better heart health,” Dr. Paluch said. “And for those who are already active, keep it up, as there are benefits with higher volumes of steps per day as well.”

Support for this research was provided by the Intergovernmental Personnel Act Agreement through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Alzheimer’s Association has filed a formal request with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that it provide full and unrestricted coverage for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) treatments approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In a letter addressed to CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, MPP, the association has asked the agency to remove the requirements for “coverage with evidence development” in its national coverage determination for FDA-approved anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies.

The CMS coverage restrictions for anti-amyloid drugs were finalized in April on the basis of data available at the time.

Since then, new data from the CLARITY AD trial “clearly demonstrate a meaningful clinical benefit” from the investigational anti-amyloid agent lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), Robert Egge, chief public policy officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, told this news organization.

The CLARITY AD results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Lecanemab is currently under accelerated review at the FDA.

The Alzheimer’s Association’s letter to the CMS includes a joint statement signed by more than 200 AD researchers and experts. All agree that the lecanemab results represent “significant new evidence” that necessitates reconsidering the restrictions on anti-amyloid agents.

“CMS has said it would look at new evidence, and now that evidence is here. We believe CMS recognizes this evidence for lecanemab is stronger than that for many treatments Medicare routinely covers,” Mr. Egge said.
 

‘No time to waste’

“With the timing of accelerated approvals for both lecanemab and donanemab in the next few months, the Alzheimer’s Association wants to ensure, if approved, that patients can access these treatments,” Mr. Egge noted.

“Because revisions to National Coverage Determinations can be a lengthy process, CMS needs to act quickly to minimize delays. People living with Alzheimer’s disease don’t have time to waste,” he added.

The Alzheimer’s Association estimates that every day, more than 2,000 individuals aged 65 or older may transition from mild dementia due to AD to a more advanced stage of the disease in which they may no longer be eligible for lecanemab and the other anti-amyloid agents currently being tested.

“Each day matters when it comes to slowing the progression of this disease,” Joanne Pike, DrPH, president and incoming chief executive officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in a news release.

“The current CMS policy to severely limit access to these treatments eliminates people’s options, is resulting in continued irreversible disease progression, and contributes to greater health inequities. That’s not acceptable,” Dr. Pike said.

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

The Alzheimer’s Association has filed a formal request with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that it provide full and unrestricted coverage for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) treatments approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In a letter addressed to CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, MPP, the association has asked the agency to remove the requirements for “coverage with evidence development” in its national coverage determination for FDA-approved anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies.

The CMS coverage restrictions for anti-amyloid drugs were finalized in April on the basis of data available at the time.

Since then, new data from the CLARITY AD trial “clearly demonstrate a meaningful clinical benefit” from the investigational anti-amyloid agent lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), Robert Egge, chief public policy officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, told this news organization.

The CLARITY AD results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Lecanemab is currently under accelerated review at the FDA.

The Alzheimer’s Association’s letter to the CMS includes a joint statement signed by more than 200 AD researchers and experts. All agree that the lecanemab results represent “significant new evidence” that necessitates reconsidering the restrictions on anti-amyloid agents.

“CMS has said it would look at new evidence, and now that evidence is here. We believe CMS recognizes this evidence for lecanemab is stronger than that for many treatments Medicare routinely covers,” Mr. Egge said.
 

‘No time to waste’

“With the timing of accelerated approvals for both lecanemab and donanemab in the next few months, the Alzheimer’s Association wants to ensure, if approved, that patients can access these treatments,” Mr. Egge noted.

“Because revisions to National Coverage Determinations can be a lengthy process, CMS needs to act quickly to minimize delays. People living with Alzheimer’s disease don’t have time to waste,” he added.

The Alzheimer’s Association estimates that every day, more than 2,000 individuals aged 65 or older may transition from mild dementia due to AD to a more advanced stage of the disease in which they may no longer be eligible for lecanemab and the other anti-amyloid agents currently being tested.

“Each day matters when it comes to slowing the progression of this disease,” Joanne Pike, DrPH, president and incoming chief executive officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in a news release.

“The current CMS policy to severely limit access to these treatments eliminates people’s options, is resulting in continued irreversible disease progression, and contributes to greater health inequities. That’s not acceptable,” Dr. Pike said.

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

The Alzheimer’s Association has filed a formal request with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that it provide full and unrestricted coverage for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) treatments approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

In a letter addressed to CMS administrator Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, MPP, the association has asked the agency to remove the requirements for “coverage with evidence development” in its national coverage determination for FDA-approved anti-amyloid monoclonal antibodies.

The CMS coverage restrictions for anti-amyloid drugs were finalized in April on the basis of data available at the time.

Since then, new data from the CLARITY AD trial “clearly demonstrate a meaningful clinical benefit” from the investigational anti-amyloid agent lecanemab (Eisai/Biogen), Robert Egge, chief public policy officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, told this news organization.

The CLARITY AD results were published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Lecanemab is currently under accelerated review at the FDA.

The Alzheimer’s Association’s letter to the CMS includes a joint statement signed by more than 200 AD researchers and experts. All agree that the lecanemab results represent “significant new evidence” that necessitates reconsidering the restrictions on anti-amyloid agents.

“CMS has said it would look at new evidence, and now that evidence is here. We believe CMS recognizes this evidence for lecanemab is stronger than that for many treatments Medicare routinely covers,” Mr. Egge said.
 

‘No time to waste’

“With the timing of accelerated approvals for both lecanemab and donanemab in the next few months, the Alzheimer’s Association wants to ensure, if approved, that patients can access these treatments,” Mr. Egge noted.

“Because revisions to National Coverage Determinations can be a lengthy process, CMS needs to act quickly to minimize delays. People living with Alzheimer’s disease don’t have time to waste,” he added.

The Alzheimer’s Association estimates that every day, more than 2,000 individuals aged 65 or older may transition from mild dementia due to AD to a more advanced stage of the disease in which they may no longer be eligible for lecanemab and the other anti-amyloid agents currently being tested.

“Each day matters when it comes to slowing the progression of this disease,” Joanne Pike, DrPH, president and incoming chief executive officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, noted in a news release.

“The current CMS policy to severely limit access to these treatments eliminates people’s options, is resulting in continued irreversible disease progression, and contributes to greater health inequities. That’s not acceptable,” Dr. Pike said.

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

Weak handgrip in older adults is linked to a higher risk for depression – while a stronger handgrip may have protective benefits, new research suggests.
 

In a study of more than 115,000 adults, there was a significant association between stronger handgrip, up to 40 kg in men and 27 kg in women, and lower depression risk.

Investigators add that there was a “dose-response” association between physical strength and risk for depression.

“Being physically strong may serve as a preventive factor for depression in older adults, but this is limited to a maximum specific threshold for men and women,” Ruben Lopez-Bueno, PhD, of the department of physical medicine and nursing, University of Zaragoza, Spain, and colleagues write.

The findings were published online in the British Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Easy, fast, reliable

Depression is a major public health problem, and studies “aimed at examining preventive factors to tackle the increase in depression are required,” the investigators write.

They add that a “growing body of research” is examining the link between depression and muscle strength, with handgrip as an estimator, in healthy middle-aged and older adults.

Handgrip strength is an “easy-to-use, fast and reliable indicator of both sarcopenia (age-related loss of muscle mass) and dynapenia (age-related loss of muscle strength), both of which have been associated with depression,” the researchers note.

It is plausible that there is a “regulatory role of skeletal muscle on brain function affecting this condition,” they add.

They note that exercise seems to play a “key role” because it can improve muscle strength as well as muscle mass, downregulate systemic inflammation, and improve neuroplasticity, neuroendocrine, and oxidative stress responses.

Previous studies have relied either on cross-sectional or prospective cohort models and have focused mostly on a specific country, “not accounting for time-varying changes of both handgrip strength and relevant covariables.”

Moreover, previous evidence has been mixed regarding the “extent to which handgrip strength levels may associate with lower risk of depression, with study results ranging from weak to strong associations,” the investigators write.

So “higher-quality research with representative samples from different countries is required to better clarify the strength of such an association and to confirm directionality,” they add.
 

SHARE data

To fill this gap, the researchers turned to data from waves 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). This encompassed 115,601 individuals aged 50 years and older (mean age, 64.3 years; 54.3% women) residing in European countries and Israel (24 countries total).

Data from wave 3 were not used because handgrip measures were not used in that wave. In the other waves, a handheld dynamometer was used to measure handgrip strength.

The participants were divided into tertiles of handgrip strength, with the “first third” being the lowest tertile of strength and the “final third” representing the highest strength.

All participants were followed for a median of 7.3 years (792,459 person-years), during which 26.1% experienced a risk for depression, as reflected by scores on the EURO-D 12-item scale.

The investigators set the time scale as the months from study entry until either a first depression onset or the end of follow-up.

Covariates that the researchers accounted for included gender, age, education, country, body mass index, physical inactivity, smoking, alcohol consumption, whether living with a partner, wave of inclusion, chronic diseases, consumption of prescribed drugs, and fruit and vegetable consumption.

The researchers used two models: the first adjusted for gender and age at time of the interview, and the second adjusted for all confounders.

In the model that was adjusted only for gender and age, greater handgrip strength was associated with a significantly reduced risk for depression among participants in the second, third, and the final third in comparison with the first third (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.68; and HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.48-0.53, respectively).

The associations remained consistent in the fully adjusted model, although risk for depression was slightly attenuated in the second and final thirds compared with the first third (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.81; and HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.59-0.69, respectively).

When the researchers conducted analyses using restricted cubic spline modeling, they found a significant association for each kilogram increase of handgrip strength and depression, up to 40 kg in men and 27 kg in women (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.08-1.71; and HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.55, respectively).

There was no greater reduction in depression risk in those with handgrip strength above those values.
 

Potential depression screen

The investigators suggest several explanations for their findings. For example, handgrip strength has “been used as an overall indicator of health status, including sarcopenia,” they write.

Adults with sarcopenia have been found to be at greater risk for depression because of reduced muscle strength, since neurotrophins are produced by skeletal muscle, among other tissues, and are associated with improvement in mood.

From a psychological point of view, “being physically strong may lead to a sensation of psychological wellbeing,” the researchers write.

Moreover, being physically active “across the lifespan also promotes structural and functional changes in the brain, benefiting cognitive functioning and reducing the risk of neurodegeneration,” they write.

This can be important because aging adults with cognitive impairments can also experience neuromuscular impairments that “presumably will contribute to becoming weaker,” they note.

Overall, the findings “warrant strength training programmes aimed at older adults to reduce depression risk,” the investigators write. Clinicians “may consider using the observed handgrip strength thresholds to screen for potential depression risk in older adults,” they add.
 

Protective factor?

Commenting for this news organization, Julian Mutz, PhD, postdoctoral research associate at the Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, King’s College, London, said the study “provides further evidence that physical strength may be a protective factor against depression in older adults.”

This confirms a “plethora of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies,” including one recently conducted by Dr. Mutz’s group.

The design of the current study “allowed the authors to address a number of key limitations of previous studies, for example, by including repeated measurements of grip strength and adjustment for potential confounding factors over time,” said Dr. Mutz, who was not involved with the research.

Additionally, “an important contribution of this study is that the authors show that higher grip strength is only associated with a lower risk of depression up to a specific threshold,” he noted.

“The clinical implication of this finding is that only individuals with grip strength below this threshold are at a higher risk of depression. These individuals especially may benefit from interventions aimed at increasing physical strength,” Dr. Mutz said.

The SHARE data collection has been funded by the European Commission and by DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. Additional funding was obtained from the German Ministry of Education and Research, the Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science, and the U.S. National Institute on Aging. Dr. Lopez-Bueno is supported by the European Union – Next Generation EU. The other investigators and Dr. Mutz have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Weak handgrip in older adults is linked to a higher risk for depression – while a stronger handgrip may have protective benefits, new research suggests.
 

In a study of more than 115,000 adults, there was a significant association between stronger handgrip, up to 40 kg in men and 27 kg in women, and lower depression risk.

Investigators add that there was a “dose-response” association between physical strength and risk for depression.

“Being physically strong may serve as a preventive factor for depression in older adults, but this is limited to a maximum specific threshold for men and women,” Ruben Lopez-Bueno, PhD, of the department of physical medicine and nursing, University of Zaragoza, Spain, and colleagues write.

The findings were published online in the British Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Easy, fast, reliable

Depression is a major public health problem, and studies “aimed at examining preventive factors to tackle the increase in depression are required,” the investigators write.

They add that a “growing body of research” is examining the link between depression and muscle strength, with handgrip as an estimator, in healthy middle-aged and older adults.

Handgrip strength is an “easy-to-use, fast and reliable indicator of both sarcopenia (age-related loss of muscle mass) and dynapenia (age-related loss of muscle strength), both of which have been associated with depression,” the researchers note.

It is plausible that there is a “regulatory role of skeletal muscle on brain function affecting this condition,” they add.

They note that exercise seems to play a “key role” because it can improve muscle strength as well as muscle mass, downregulate systemic inflammation, and improve neuroplasticity, neuroendocrine, and oxidative stress responses.

Previous studies have relied either on cross-sectional or prospective cohort models and have focused mostly on a specific country, “not accounting for time-varying changes of both handgrip strength and relevant covariables.”

Moreover, previous evidence has been mixed regarding the “extent to which handgrip strength levels may associate with lower risk of depression, with study results ranging from weak to strong associations,” the investigators write.

So “higher-quality research with representative samples from different countries is required to better clarify the strength of such an association and to confirm directionality,” they add.
 

SHARE data

To fill this gap, the researchers turned to data from waves 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). This encompassed 115,601 individuals aged 50 years and older (mean age, 64.3 years; 54.3% women) residing in European countries and Israel (24 countries total).

Data from wave 3 were not used because handgrip measures were not used in that wave. In the other waves, a handheld dynamometer was used to measure handgrip strength.

The participants were divided into tertiles of handgrip strength, with the “first third” being the lowest tertile of strength and the “final third” representing the highest strength.

All participants were followed for a median of 7.3 years (792,459 person-years), during which 26.1% experienced a risk for depression, as reflected by scores on the EURO-D 12-item scale.

The investigators set the time scale as the months from study entry until either a first depression onset or the end of follow-up.

Covariates that the researchers accounted for included gender, age, education, country, body mass index, physical inactivity, smoking, alcohol consumption, whether living with a partner, wave of inclusion, chronic diseases, consumption of prescribed drugs, and fruit and vegetable consumption.

The researchers used two models: the first adjusted for gender and age at time of the interview, and the second adjusted for all confounders.

In the model that was adjusted only for gender and age, greater handgrip strength was associated with a significantly reduced risk for depression among participants in the second, third, and the final third in comparison with the first third (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.68; and HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.48-0.53, respectively).

The associations remained consistent in the fully adjusted model, although risk for depression was slightly attenuated in the second and final thirds compared with the first third (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.81; and HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.59-0.69, respectively).

When the researchers conducted analyses using restricted cubic spline modeling, they found a significant association for each kilogram increase of handgrip strength and depression, up to 40 kg in men and 27 kg in women (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.08-1.71; and HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.55, respectively).

There was no greater reduction in depression risk in those with handgrip strength above those values.
 

Potential depression screen

The investigators suggest several explanations for their findings. For example, handgrip strength has “been used as an overall indicator of health status, including sarcopenia,” they write.

Adults with sarcopenia have been found to be at greater risk for depression because of reduced muscle strength, since neurotrophins are produced by skeletal muscle, among other tissues, and are associated with improvement in mood.

From a psychological point of view, “being physically strong may lead to a sensation of psychological wellbeing,” the researchers write.

Moreover, being physically active “across the lifespan also promotes structural and functional changes in the brain, benefiting cognitive functioning and reducing the risk of neurodegeneration,” they write.

This can be important because aging adults with cognitive impairments can also experience neuromuscular impairments that “presumably will contribute to becoming weaker,” they note.

Overall, the findings “warrant strength training programmes aimed at older adults to reduce depression risk,” the investigators write. Clinicians “may consider using the observed handgrip strength thresholds to screen for potential depression risk in older adults,” they add.
 

Protective factor?

Commenting for this news organization, Julian Mutz, PhD, postdoctoral research associate at the Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, King’s College, London, said the study “provides further evidence that physical strength may be a protective factor against depression in older adults.”

This confirms a “plethora of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies,” including one recently conducted by Dr. Mutz’s group.

The design of the current study “allowed the authors to address a number of key limitations of previous studies, for example, by including repeated measurements of grip strength and adjustment for potential confounding factors over time,” said Dr. Mutz, who was not involved with the research.

Additionally, “an important contribution of this study is that the authors show that higher grip strength is only associated with a lower risk of depression up to a specific threshold,” he noted.

“The clinical implication of this finding is that only individuals with grip strength below this threshold are at a higher risk of depression. These individuals especially may benefit from interventions aimed at increasing physical strength,” Dr. Mutz said.

The SHARE data collection has been funded by the European Commission and by DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. Additional funding was obtained from the German Ministry of Education and Research, the Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science, and the U.S. National Institute on Aging. Dr. Lopez-Bueno is supported by the European Union – Next Generation EU. The other investigators and Dr. Mutz have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Weak handgrip in older adults is linked to a higher risk for depression – while a stronger handgrip may have protective benefits, new research suggests.
 

In a study of more than 115,000 adults, there was a significant association between stronger handgrip, up to 40 kg in men and 27 kg in women, and lower depression risk.

Investigators add that there was a “dose-response” association between physical strength and risk for depression.

“Being physically strong may serve as a preventive factor for depression in older adults, but this is limited to a maximum specific threshold for men and women,” Ruben Lopez-Bueno, PhD, of the department of physical medicine and nursing, University of Zaragoza, Spain, and colleagues write.

The findings were published online in the British Journal of Psychiatry.
 

Easy, fast, reliable

Depression is a major public health problem, and studies “aimed at examining preventive factors to tackle the increase in depression are required,” the investigators write.

They add that a “growing body of research” is examining the link between depression and muscle strength, with handgrip as an estimator, in healthy middle-aged and older adults.

Handgrip strength is an “easy-to-use, fast and reliable indicator of both sarcopenia (age-related loss of muscle mass) and dynapenia (age-related loss of muscle strength), both of which have been associated with depression,” the researchers note.

It is plausible that there is a “regulatory role of skeletal muscle on brain function affecting this condition,” they add.

They note that exercise seems to play a “key role” because it can improve muscle strength as well as muscle mass, downregulate systemic inflammation, and improve neuroplasticity, neuroendocrine, and oxidative stress responses.

Previous studies have relied either on cross-sectional or prospective cohort models and have focused mostly on a specific country, “not accounting for time-varying changes of both handgrip strength and relevant covariables.”

Moreover, previous evidence has been mixed regarding the “extent to which handgrip strength levels may associate with lower risk of depression, with study results ranging from weak to strong associations,” the investigators write.

So “higher-quality research with representative samples from different countries is required to better clarify the strength of such an association and to confirm directionality,” they add.
 

SHARE data

To fill this gap, the researchers turned to data from waves 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE). This encompassed 115,601 individuals aged 50 years and older (mean age, 64.3 years; 54.3% women) residing in European countries and Israel (24 countries total).

Data from wave 3 were not used because handgrip measures were not used in that wave. In the other waves, a handheld dynamometer was used to measure handgrip strength.

The participants were divided into tertiles of handgrip strength, with the “first third” being the lowest tertile of strength and the “final third” representing the highest strength.

All participants were followed for a median of 7.3 years (792,459 person-years), during which 26.1% experienced a risk for depression, as reflected by scores on the EURO-D 12-item scale.

The investigators set the time scale as the months from study entry until either a first depression onset or the end of follow-up.

Covariates that the researchers accounted for included gender, age, education, country, body mass index, physical inactivity, smoking, alcohol consumption, whether living with a partner, wave of inclusion, chronic diseases, consumption of prescribed drugs, and fruit and vegetable consumption.

The researchers used two models: the first adjusted for gender and age at time of the interview, and the second adjusted for all confounders.

In the model that was adjusted only for gender and age, greater handgrip strength was associated with a significantly reduced risk for depression among participants in the second, third, and the final third in comparison with the first third (hazard ratio, 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.63-0.68; and HR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.48-0.53, respectively).

The associations remained consistent in the fully adjusted model, although risk for depression was slightly attenuated in the second and final thirds compared with the first third (HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.81; and HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.59-0.69, respectively).

When the researchers conducted analyses using restricted cubic spline modeling, they found a significant association for each kilogram increase of handgrip strength and depression, up to 40 kg in men and 27 kg in women (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.08-1.71; and HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.55, respectively).

There was no greater reduction in depression risk in those with handgrip strength above those values.
 

Potential depression screen

The investigators suggest several explanations for their findings. For example, handgrip strength has “been used as an overall indicator of health status, including sarcopenia,” they write.

Adults with sarcopenia have been found to be at greater risk for depression because of reduced muscle strength, since neurotrophins are produced by skeletal muscle, among other tissues, and are associated with improvement in mood.

From a psychological point of view, “being physically strong may lead to a sensation of psychological wellbeing,” the researchers write.

Moreover, being physically active “across the lifespan also promotes structural and functional changes in the brain, benefiting cognitive functioning and reducing the risk of neurodegeneration,” they write.

This can be important because aging adults with cognitive impairments can also experience neuromuscular impairments that “presumably will contribute to becoming weaker,” they note.

Overall, the findings “warrant strength training programmes aimed at older adults to reduce depression risk,” the investigators write. Clinicians “may consider using the observed handgrip strength thresholds to screen for potential depression risk in older adults,” they add.
 

Protective factor?

Commenting for this news organization, Julian Mutz, PhD, postdoctoral research associate at the Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, King’s College, London, said the study “provides further evidence that physical strength may be a protective factor against depression in older adults.”

This confirms a “plethora of cross-sectional and longitudinal studies,” including one recently conducted by Dr. Mutz’s group.

The design of the current study “allowed the authors to address a number of key limitations of previous studies, for example, by including repeated measurements of grip strength and adjustment for potential confounding factors over time,” said Dr. Mutz, who was not involved with the research.

Additionally, “an important contribution of this study is that the authors show that higher grip strength is only associated with a lower risk of depression up to a specific threshold,” he noted.

“The clinical implication of this finding is that only individuals with grip strength below this threshold are at a higher risk of depression. These individuals especially may benefit from interventions aimed at increasing physical strength,” Dr. Mutz said.

The SHARE data collection has been funded by the European Commission and by DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion. Additional funding was obtained from the German Ministry of Education and Research, the Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science, and the U.S. National Institute on Aging. Dr. Lopez-Bueno is supported by the European Union – Next Generation EU. The other investigators and Dr. Mutz have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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