Geriatrics

Following an online yoga program improves physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to the results of a new randomized control trial.

Although pain did not significantly improve in the yoga group, participants only completed about two-thirds of the recommended sessions, suggesting that more benefit may be possible with greater adherence, wrote lead author Kim L. Bennell, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“To date, an online yoga program specifically for people with knee osteoarthritis has not been investigated,” the investigators said. “The need for such evidence-based packaged online exercise programs is highlighted in the 2020 U.S. National Public Health Agenda for Osteoarthritis.”
 

Methods and results

The trial involved 212 adults aged 45 years or older with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. All patients had access to online educational materials about managing osteoarthritis.

Half of the participants were randomized into the 12-week online yoga program. This self-directed, unsupervised course consisted of 12 prerecorded 30-minute instructional yoga sessions, each with a unique sequence of poses to be completed three times in one week before moving on to the next class the following week. After 12 weeks, these participants could choose to continue doing yoga via the online program for 12 additional weeks, if desired.

The primary outcomes were knee pain and physical function, gauged by a 10-point numerical rating scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), respectively. Adherence was defined as completion of at least 2 yoga sessions within the preceding week.

At the 12-week mark, the yoga group did not show any significant improvement in knee pain (–0.6; 95% confidence interval, –1.2 to 0.1), but they did achieve a mean 4-point reduction in WOMAC, suggesting significant improvement in knee function (­–4.0; 95% CI, –6.8 to –1.3). Of note, however, this improvement was not enough to meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference. At 24 weeks, the yoga group no longer showed significant improvement in knee function versus baseline.

“I don’t think a longer program would necessarily reduce knee pain, as benefits from a whole range of different types of exercise for knee osteoarthritis generally can show benefits within 8 weeks,” Dr. Bennell said in an interview.

Still, she noted that the average outcome in the trial may not represent what is possible if a patient commits to a regular yoga routine.

“I think it relates more to adherence [than duration], and I think benefits for knee pain would have been seen if a greater number of people had fully adhered to the program three times a week,” she said.

At 12 weeks, 68.8% of those in the yoga group were adherent, while just 28.4% were still adherent at week 24 after the optional extension period.

“As this was a self-directed program, adherence might be expected to be less than that of a supervised program,” Dr. Bennell noted.

Referring to unpublished data, Dr. Bennell said a sensitivity analysis showed that participants in the yoga group who completed yoga at least twice a week did show greater improvements in function and pain than those who did yoga less than twice per week.

“So it does suggest that adherence is important, as we might expect,” she said.
 

Another tool in the OA toolbox

Nick Trasolini, MD, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., described the benefits in the trial as “modest” and noted that the improvement in function did not meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference.

“Nevertheless,” he said in a written comment, “the [yoga] program was safe and associated with high participant satisfaction [mean satisfaction, 8 out of 10]. While this may not be the ‘silver bullet,’ it is another tool that we can offer to sufficiently motivated patients seeking non-operative solutions for knee osteoarthritis.”

Unfortunately, these tools remain “fraught with challenges,” Dr. Trasolini added.

“While multiple injection options are available (including corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid viscosupplementation, and biologic injections), the benefits of these injections can be short-lived,” he said. “This is frustrating to patients and physicians alike. Physical therapy is beneficial for knee osteoarthritis when deconditioning has led to decreased knee, hip, and core stability. However, physical therapy can be time consuming, painful, and cost prohibitive.”

In the present study, participants in the yoga group were somewhat willing (mean willingness, 5 out of 10) to pay for their 12-week yoga program. They reported that they would pay approximately $80 U.S. dollars for chance to do it all again.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council Program and the Centres of Research Excellence. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, TLCBio, and others. Dr. Trasolini disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Following an online yoga program improves physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to the results of a new randomized control trial.

Although pain did not significantly improve in the yoga group, participants only completed about two-thirds of the recommended sessions, suggesting that more benefit may be possible with greater adherence, wrote lead author Kim L. Bennell, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“To date, an online yoga program specifically for people with knee osteoarthritis has not been investigated,” the investigators said. “The need for such evidence-based packaged online exercise programs is highlighted in the 2020 U.S. National Public Health Agenda for Osteoarthritis.”
 

Methods and results

The trial involved 212 adults aged 45 years or older with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. All patients had access to online educational materials about managing osteoarthritis.

Half of the participants were randomized into the 12-week online yoga program. This self-directed, unsupervised course consisted of 12 prerecorded 30-minute instructional yoga sessions, each with a unique sequence of poses to be completed three times in one week before moving on to the next class the following week. After 12 weeks, these participants could choose to continue doing yoga via the online program for 12 additional weeks, if desired.

The primary outcomes were knee pain and physical function, gauged by a 10-point numerical rating scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), respectively. Adherence was defined as completion of at least 2 yoga sessions within the preceding week.

At the 12-week mark, the yoga group did not show any significant improvement in knee pain (–0.6; 95% confidence interval, –1.2 to 0.1), but they did achieve a mean 4-point reduction in WOMAC, suggesting significant improvement in knee function (­–4.0; 95% CI, –6.8 to –1.3). Of note, however, this improvement was not enough to meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference. At 24 weeks, the yoga group no longer showed significant improvement in knee function versus baseline.

“I don’t think a longer program would necessarily reduce knee pain, as benefits from a whole range of different types of exercise for knee osteoarthritis generally can show benefits within 8 weeks,” Dr. Bennell said in an interview.

Still, she noted that the average outcome in the trial may not represent what is possible if a patient commits to a regular yoga routine.

“I think it relates more to adherence [than duration], and I think benefits for knee pain would have been seen if a greater number of people had fully adhered to the program three times a week,” she said.

At 12 weeks, 68.8% of those in the yoga group were adherent, while just 28.4% were still adherent at week 24 after the optional extension period.

“As this was a self-directed program, adherence might be expected to be less than that of a supervised program,” Dr. Bennell noted.

Referring to unpublished data, Dr. Bennell said a sensitivity analysis showed that participants in the yoga group who completed yoga at least twice a week did show greater improvements in function and pain than those who did yoga less than twice per week.

“So it does suggest that adherence is important, as we might expect,” she said.
 

Another tool in the OA toolbox

Nick Trasolini, MD, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., described the benefits in the trial as “modest” and noted that the improvement in function did not meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference.

“Nevertheless,” he said in a written comment, “the [yoga] program was safe and associated with high participant satisfaction [mean satisfaction, 8 out of 10]. While this may not be the ‘silver bullet,’ it is another tool that we can offer to sufficiently motivated patients seeking non-operative solutions for knee osteoarthritis.”

Unfortunately, these tools remain “fraught with challenges,” Dr. Trasolini added.

“While multiple injection options are available (including corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid viscosupplementation, and biologic injections), the benefits of these injections can be short-lived,” he said. “This is frustrating to patients and physicians alike. Physical therapy is beneficial for knee osteoarthritis when deconditioning has led to decreased knee, hip, and core stability. However, physical therapy can be time consuming, painful, and cost prohibitive.”

In the present study, participants in the yoga group were somewhat willing (mean willingness, 5 out of 10) to pay for their 12-week yoga program. They reported that they would pay approximately $80 U.S. dollars for chance to do it all again.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council Program and the Centres of Research Excellence. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, TLCBio, and others. Dr. Trasolini disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Following an online yoga program improves physical function in patients with knee osteoarthritis, according to the results of a new randomized control trial.

Although pain did not significantly improve in the yoga group, participants only completed about two-thirds of the recommended sessions, suggesting that more benefit may be possible with greater adherence, wrote lead author Kim L. Bennell, PhD, of the University of Melbourne, and colleagues in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

“To date, an online yoga program specifically for people with knee osteoarthritis has not been investigated,” the investigators said. “The need for such evidence-based packaged online exercise programs is highlighted in the 2020 U.S. National Public Health Agenda for Osteoarthritis.”
 

Methods and results

The trial involved 212 adults aged 45 years or older with symptomatic knee osteoarthritis. All patients had access to online educational materials about managing osteoarthritis.

Half of the participants were randomized into the 12-week online yoga program. This self-directed, unsupervised course consisted of 12 prerecorded 30-minute instructional yoga sessions, each with a unique sequence of poses to be completed three times in one week before moving on to the next class the following week. After 12 weeks, these participants could choose to continue doing yoga via the online program for 12 additional weeks, if desired.

The primary outcomes were knee pain and physical function, gauged by a 10-point numerical rating scale and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), respectively. Adherence was defined as completion of at least 2 yoga sessions within the preceding week.

At the 12-week mark, the yoga group did not show any significant improvement in knee pain (–0.6; 95% confidence interval, –1.2 to 0.1), but they did achieve a mean 4-point reduction in WOMAC, suggesting significant improvement in knee function (­–4.0; 95% CI, –6.8 to –1.3). Of note, however, this improvement was not enough to meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference. At 24 weeks, the yoga group no longer showed significant improvement in knee function versus baseline.

“I don’t think a longer program would necessarily reduce knee pain, as benefits from a whole range of different types of exercise for knee osteoarthritis generally can show benefits within 8 weeks,” Dr. Bennell said in an interview.

Still, she noted that the average outcome in the trial may not represent what is possible if a patient commits to a regular yoga routine.

“I think it relates more to adherence [than duration], and I think benefits for knee pain would have been seen if a greater number of people had fully adhered to the program three times a week,” she said.

At 12 weeks, 68.8% of those in the yoga group were adherent, while just 28.4% were still adherent at week 24 after the optional extension period.

“As this was a self-directed program, adherence might be expected to be less than that of a supervised program,” Dr. Bennell noted.

Referring to unpublished data, Dr. Bennell said a sensitivity analysis showed that participants in the yoga group who completed yoga at least twice a week did show greater improvements in function and pain than those who did yoga less than twice per week.

“So it does suggest that adherence is important, as we might expect,” she said.
 

Another tool in the OA toolbox

Nick Trasolini, MD, of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, N.C., described the benefits in the trial as “modest” and noted that the improvement in function did not meet the threshold for minimal clinically important difference.

“Nevertheless,” he said in a written comment, “the [yoga] program was safe and associated with high participant satisfaction [mean satisfaction, 8 out of 10]. While this may not be the ‘silver bullet,’ it is another tool that we can offer to sufficiently motivated patients seeking non-operative solutions for knee osteoarthritis.”

Unfortunately, these tools remain “fraught with challenges,” Dr. Trasolini added.

“While multiple injection options are available (including corticosteroid, hyaluronic acid viscosupplementation, and biologic injections), the benefits of these injections can be short-lived,” he said. “This is frustrating to patients and physicians alike. Physical therapy is beneficial for knee osteoarthritis when deconditioning has led to decreased knee, hip, and core stability. However, physical therapy can be time consuming, painful, and cost prohibitive.”

In the present study, participants in the yoga group were somewhat willing (mean willingness, 5 out of 10) to pay for their 12-week yoga program. They reported that they would pay approximately $80 U.S. dollars for chance to do it all again.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council Program and the Centres of Research Excellence. The investigators disclosed additional relationships with Pfizer, Lilly, TLCBio, and others. Dr. Trasolini disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

Just over 51% of older hypertensive adults regularly check their own blood pressure, compared with 48% of those with blood pressure–related health conditions (BPHCs), based on a 2021 survey of individuals aged 50-80 years.

“Guidelines recommend that patients use self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) outside the clinic to diagnose and manage hypertension,” but just 61% of respondents with a BPHC and 68% of those with hypertension said that they had received such a recommendation from a physician, nurse, or other health care professional, Melanie V. Springer, MD, and associates said in JAMA Network Open.

The prevalence of regular monitoring among those with hypertension, 51.2%, does, however, compare favorably with an earlier study showing that 43% of adults aged 18 and older regularly monitored their BP in 2005 and 2008, “which is perhaps associated with our sample’s older age,” said Dr. Springer and associates of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The current study, they noted, is the first to report “SBPM prevalence in adults ages 50 to 80 years with hypertension or BPHCs, who have a higher risk of adverse outcomes from uncontrolled BP than younger adults.” The analysis is based on data from the National Poll on Healthy Aging, conducted by the University of Michigan in January 2021 and completed by 2,023 individuals.

The frequency of home monitoring varied among adults with BPHCs, as just under 15% reported daily checks and the largest proportion, about 28%, used their device one to three times per month. The results of home monitoring were shared with health care professionals by 50.2% of respondents with a BPHC and by 51.5% of those with hypertension, they said in the research letter.

Home monitoring’s less-than-universal recommendation by providers and use by patients “suggest that protocols should be developed to educate patients about the importance of SBPM and sharing readings with clinicians and the frequency that SBPM should be performed,” Dr. Springer and associates wrote.

The study was funded by AARP, Michigan Medicine, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. One investigator has received consulting fees or honoraria from SeeChange Health, HealthMine, the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, AbilTo, Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, American Diabetes Association, Donaghue Foundation, and Luxembourg National Research Fund.

Just over 51% of older hypertensive adults regularly check their own blood pressure, compared with 48% of those with blood pressure–related health conditions (BPHCs), based on a 2021 survey of individuals aged 50-80 years.

“Guidelines recommend that patients use self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) outside the clinic to diagnose and manage hypertension,” but just 61% of respondents with a BPHC and 68% of those with hypertension said that they had received such a recommendation from a physician, nurse, or other health care professional, Melanie V. Springer, MD, and associates said in JAMA Network Open.

The prevalence of regular monitoring among those with hypertension, 51.2%, does, however, compare favorably with an earlier study showing that 43% of adults aged 18 and older regularly monitored their BP in 2005 and 2008, “which is perhaps associated with our sample’s older age,” said Dr. Springer and associates of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The current study, they noted, is the first to report “SBPM prevalence in adults ages 50 to 80 years with hypertension or BPHCs, who have a higher risk of adverse outcomes from uncontrolled BP than younger adults.” The analysis is based on data from the National Poll on Healthy Aging, conducted by the University of Michigan in January 2021 and completed by 2,023 individuals.

The frequency of home monitoring varied among adults with BPHCs, as just under 15% reported daily checks and the largest proportion, about 28%, used their device one to three times per month. The results of home monitoring were shared with health care professionals by 50.2% of respondents with a BPHC and by 51.5% of those with hypertension, they said in the research letter.

Home monitoring’s less-than-universal recommendation by providers and use by patients “suggest that protocols should be developed to educate patients about the importance of SBPM and sharing readings with clinicians and the frequency that SBPM should be performed,” Dr. Springer and associates wrote.

The study was funded by AARP, Michigan Medicine, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. One investigator has received consulting fees or honoraria from SeeChange Health, HealthMine, the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, AbilTo, Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, American Diabetes Association, Donaghue Foundation, and Luxembourg National Research Fund.

Just over 51% of older hypertensive adults regularly check their own blood pressure, compared with 48% of those with blood pressure–related health conditions (BPHCs), based on a 2021 survey of individuals aged 50-80 years.

“Guidelines recommend that patients use self-measured blood pressure monitoring (SBPM) outside the clinic to diagnose and manage hypertension,” but just 61% of respondents with a BPHC and 68% of those with hypertension said that they had received such a recommendation from a physician, nurse, or other health care professional, Melanie V. Springer, MD, and associates said in JAMA Network Open.

The prevalence of regular monitoring among those with hypertension, 51.2%, does, however, compare favorably with an earlier study showing that 43% of adults aged 18 and older regularly monitored their BP in 2005 and 2008, “which is perhaps associated with our sample’s older age,” said Dr. Springer and associates of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The current study, they noted, is the first to report “SBPM prevalence in adults ages 50 to 80 years with hypertension or BPHCs, who have a higher risk of adverse outcomes from uncontrolled BP than younger adults.” The analysis is based on data from the National Poll on Healthy Aging, conducted by the University of Michigan in January 2021 and completed by 2,023 individuals.

The frequency of home monitoring varied among adults with BPHCs, as just under 15% reported daily checks and the largest proportion, about 28%, used their device one to three times per month. The results of home monitoring were shared with health care professionals by 50.2% of respondents with a BPHC and by 51.5% of those with hypertension, they said in the research letter.

Home monitoring’s less-than-universal recommendation by providers and use by patients “suggest that protocols should be developed to educate patients about the importance of SBPM and sharing readings with clinicians and the frequency that SBPM should be performed,” Dr. Springer and associates wrote.

The study was funded by AARP, Michigan Medicine, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. One investigator has received consulting fees or honoraria from SeeChange Health, HealthMine, the Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, AbilTo, Kansas City Area Life Sciences Institute, American Diabetes Association, Donaghue Foundation, and Luxembourg National Research Fund.

From the T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Ann Mungmode, Nicole Rioles, Jesse Cases, Dr. Ebekozien); The Leona M. and Harry B. Hemsley Charitable Trust, New York, NY (Laurel Koester); and the University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien).

Abstract

There have been remarkable innovations in diabetes management since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but these groundbreaking innovations are drawing limited focus as the field focuses on the adverse impact of the pandemic on patients with diabetes. This article reviews select population health innovations in diabetes management that have become available over the past 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative, a learning health network that focuses on improving care and outcomes for individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Such innovations include expanded telemedicine access, collection of real-world data, machine learning and artificial intelligence, and new diabetes medications and devices. In addition, multiple innovative studies have been undertaken to explore contributors to health inequities in diabetes, and advocacy efforts for specific populations have been successful. Looking to the future, work is required to explore additional health equity successes that do not further exacerbate inequities and to look for additional innovative ways to engage people with T1D in their health care through conversations on social determinants of health and societal structures.

Keywords: type 1 diabetes, learning health network, continuous glucose monitoring, health equity

One in 10 people in the United States has diabetes.¹ Diabetes is the nation’s second leading cause of death, costing the US health system more than $300 billion annually.² The COVID-19 pandemic presented additional health burdens for people living with diabetes. For example, preexisting diabetes was identified as a risk factor for COVID-19–associated morbidity and mortality.^3,4 Over the past 2 years, there have been remarkable innovations in diabetes management, including stem cell therapy and new medication options. Additionally, improved technology solutions have aided in diabetes management through continuous glucose monitors (CGM), smart insulin pens, advanced hybrid closed-loop systems, and continuous subcutaneous insulin injections.^5,6 Unfortunately, these groundbreaking innovations are drawing limited focus, as the field is rightfully focused on the adverse impact of the pandemic on patients with diabetes.

Learning health networks like the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative (T1DX-QI) have implemented some of these innovative solutions to improve care for people with diabetes.⁷ T1DX-QI has more than 50 data-sharing endocrinology centers that care for over 75,000 people with diabetes across the United States (Figure 1). Centers participating in the T1DX-QI use quality improvement (QI) and implementation science methods to quickly translate research into evidence-based clinical practice. T1DX-QI leads diabetes population health and health system research and supports widespread transferability across health care organizations through regular collaborative calls, conferences, and case study documentation.⁸

In this review, we summarize impactful population health innovations in diabetes management that have become available over the past 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of T1DX-QI (see Figure 2 for relevant definitions). This review is limited in scope and is not meant to be an exhaustive list of innovations. The review also reflects significant changes from the perspective of academic diabetes centers, which may not apply to rural or primary care diabetes practices.

The first (A.M.), second (H.H.), and senior (O.E.) authors conducted a scoping review of published literature using terms related to diabetes, population health, and innovation on PubMed Central and Google Scholar for the period March 2020 to June 2022. To complement the review, A.M. and O.E. also reviewed abstracts from presentations at major international diabetes conferences, including the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), the T1DX-QI Learning Session Conference, and the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) 2020 to 2022 conferences.^9-14 The authors also searched FDA.gov and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant insights. A.M. and O.E. sorted the reviewed literature into major themes (Figure 3) from the population health improvement perspective of the T1DX-QI.

Population Health Innovations in Diabetes Management

Expansion of Telemedicine Access

Telemedicine is cost-effective for patients with diabetes,¹⁵ including those with complex cases.¹⁶ Before the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine and virtual care were rare in diabetes management. However, the pandemic offered a new opportunity to expand the practice of telemedicine in diabetes management. A study from the T1DX-QI showed that telemedicine visits grew from comprising <1% of visits pre-pandemic (December 2019) to 95.2% during the pandemic (August 2020).¹⁷ Additional studies, like those conducted by Phillip et al,¹⁸ confirmed the noninferiority of telemedicine practice for patients with diabetes.Telemedicine was also found to be an effective strategy to educate patients on the use of diabetes technologies.¹⁹

Real-World Data and Disease Surveillance

As the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated outcomes for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), a need arose to understand the immediate effects of the pandemic on people with T1D through real-world data and disease surveillance. In April 2020, the T1DX-QI initiated a multicenter surveillance study to collect data and analyze the impact of COVID-19 on people with T1D. The existing health collaborative served as a springboard for robust surveillance study, documenting numerous works on the effects of COVID-19.^3,4,20-28 Other investigators also embraced the power of real-world surveillance and real-world data.^29,30

Big Data, Machine Learning, and Artificial Intelligence

The past 2 years have seen a shift toward embracing the incredible opportunity to tap the large volume of data generated from routine care for practical insights.³¹ In particular, researchers have demonstrated the widespread application of machine learning and artificial intelligence to improve diabetes management.³² The T1DX-QI also harnessed the growing power of big data by expanding the functionality of innovative benchmarking software. The T1DX QI Portal uses electronic medical record data of diabetes patients for clinic-to-clinic benchmarking and data analysis, using business intelligence solutions.³³

Health Equity

While inequities across various health outcomes have been well documented for years,³⁴ the COVID-19 pandemic further exaggerated racial/ethnic health inequities in T1D.^23,35 In response, several organizations have outlined specific strategies to address these health inequities. Emboldened by the pandemic, the T1DX-QI announced a multipronged approach to address health inequities among patients with T1D through the Health Equity Advancement Lab (HEAL).³⁶ One of HEAL’s main components is using real-world data to champion population-level insights and demonstrate progress in QI efforts.

Multiple innovative studies have been undertaken to explore contributors to health inequities in diabetes, and these studies are expanding our understanding of the chasm.³⁷ There have also been innovative solutions to addressing these inequities, with multiple studies published over the past 2 years.³⁸ A source of inequity among patients with T1D is the lack of representation of racial/ethnic minorities with T1D in clinical trials.³⁹ The T1DX-QI suggests that the equity-adapted framework for QI can be applied by research leaders to support trial diversity and representation, ensuring future device innovations are meaningful for all people with T1D.⁴⁰

Diabetes Devices

Glucose monitoring and insulin therapy are vital tools to support individuals living with T1D, and devices such as CGM and insulin pumps have become the standard of care for diabetes management (Table).⁴¹ Innovations in diabetes technology and device access are imperative for a chronic disease with no cure.

The COVID-19 pandemic created an opportunity to increase access to diabetes devices in inpatient settings. In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration expanded the use of CGM to support remote monitoring of patients in inpatient hospital settings, simultaneously supporting the glucose monitoring needs of patients with T1D and reducing COVID-19 transmission through reduced patient-clinician contact.⁴² This effort has been expanded and will continue in 2022 and beyond,⁴³ and aligns with the growing consensus that supports patients wearing both CGMs and insulin pumps in ambulatory settings to improve patient health outcomes.⁴⁴

Since 2020, innovations in diabetes technology have improved and increased the variety of options available to people with T1D and made them easier to use (Table). New, advanced hybrid closed-loop systems have progressed to offer Bluetooth features, including automatic software upgrades, tubeless systems, and the ability to allow parents to use their smartphones to bolus for children.^45-47 The next big step in insulin delivery innovation is the release of functioning, fully closed loop systems, of which several are currently in clinical trials.⁴⁸ These systems support reduced hypoglycemia and improved time in range.⁴⁹

Additional innovations in insulin delivery have improved the user experience and expanded therapeutic options, including a variety of smart insulin pens complete with dosing logs^50,51 and even a patch to deliver insulin without the burden of injections.⁵² As barriers to diabetes technology persist,⁵³ innovations in alternate insulin delivery provide people with T1D more options to align with their personal access and technology preferences.

Innovations in CGM address cited barriers to their use, including size or overall wear.^53-55 CGMs released in the past few years are smaller in physical size, have longer durations of time between changings, are more accurate, and do not require calibrations for accuracy.

New Diabetes Medications

Many new medications and therapeutic advances have become available in the past 2 years.⁵⁶ Additionally, more medications are being tested as adjunct therapies to support glycemic management in patients with T1D, including metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and 2 inhibitors, pramlintide, glucagon-like polypeptide-1 analogs, and glucagon receptor agonists.⁵⁷ Other recent advances include stem cell replacement therapy for patients with T1D.⁵⁸ The ultra-long-acting biosimilar insulins are one medical innovation that has been stalled, rather than propelled, during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁵⁹

Diabetes Policy Advocacy

People with T1D require insulin to survive. The cost of insulin has increased in recent years, with some studies citing a 64% to 100% increase in the past decade.^60,61 In fact, 1 in 4 insulin users report that cost has impacted their insulin use, including rationing their insulin.⁶² Lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic stressed US families financially, increasing the urgency for insulin cost caps.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic halted national conversations on drug financing,⁶³ advocacy efforts have succeeded for specific populations. The new Medicare Part D Senior Savings Model will cap the cost of insulin at $35 for a 30-day supply,⁶⁴ and 20 states passed legislation capping insulin pricing.⁶² Efforts to codify national cost caps are under debate, including the passage of the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which passed the House in March 2022 and is currently under review in the Senate.⁶⁵

Funders and industry partners play a crucial role in leading and supporting innovations that improve the lives of people with T1D and reduce society’s costs of living with the disease. Data infrastructure is critical to supporting population health. While building the data infrastructure to support population health is both time- and resource-intensive, private foundations such as Helmsley are uniquely positioned—and have a responsibility—to take large, informed risks to help reach all communities with T1D.

The T1DX-QI is the largest source of population health data on T1D in the United States and is becoming the premiere data authority on its incidence, prevalence, and outcomes. The T1DX-QI enables a robust understanding of T1D-related health trends at the population level, as well as trends among clinics and providers. Pilot centers in the T1DX-QI have reported reductions in patients’ A1c and acute diabetes-related events, as well as improvements in device usage and depression screening. The ability to capture changes speaks to the promise and power of these data to demonstrate the clinical impact of QI interventions and to support the spread of best practices and learnings across health systems.

Additional philanthropic efforts have supported innovation in the last 2 years. For example, the JDRF, a nonprofit philanthropic equity firm, has supported efforts in developing artificial pancreas systems and cell therapies currently in clinical trials like teplizumab, a drug that has demonstrated delayed onset of T1D through JDRF’s T1D Fund.⁶⁶ Industry partners also have an opportunity for significant influence in this area, as they continue to fund meaningful projects to advance care for people with T1D.⁶⁷

Conclusion

We are optimistic that the innovations summarized here describe a shift in the tide of equitable T1D outcomes; however, future work is required to explore additional health equity successes that do not further exacerbate inequities. We also see further opportunities for innovative ways to engage people with T1D in their health care through conversations on social determinants of health and societal structures.

Corresponding author: Ann Mungmode, MPH, T1D Exchange, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; Email: [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr. Ebekozien serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for the Medtronic Advisory Board and received research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom.

Funding: The T1DX-QI is funded by The Leona M. and Harry B. Hemsley Charitable Trust.

From the T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Ann Mungmode, Nicole Rioles, Jesse Cases, Dr. Ebekozien); The Leona M. and Harry B. Hemsley Charitable Trust, New York, NY (Laurel Koester); and the University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien).

Abstract

There have been remarkable innovations in diabetes management since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but these groundbreaking innovations are drawing limited focus as the field focuses on the adverse impact of the pandemic on patients with diabetes. This article reviews select population health innovations in diabetes management that have become available over the past 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative, a learning health network that focuses on improving care and outcomes for individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Such innovations include expanded telemedicine access, collection of real-world data, machine learning and artificial intelligence, and new diabetes medications and devices. In addition, multiple innovative studies have been undertaken to explore contributors to health inequities in diabetes, and advocacy efforts for specific populations have been successful. Looking to the future, work is required to explore additional health equity successes that do not further exacerbate inequities and to look for additional innovative ways to engage people with T1D in their health care through conversations on social determinants of health and societal structures.

Keywords: type 1 diabetes, learning health network, continuous glucose monitoring, health equity

One in 10 people in the United States has diabetes.¹ Diabetes is the nation’s second leading cause of death, costing the US health system more than $300 billion annually.² The COVID-19 pandemic presented additional health burdens for people living with diabetes. For example, preexisting diabetes was identified as a risk factor for COVID-19–associated morbidity and mortality.^3,4 Over the past 2 years, there have been remarkable innovations in diabetes management, including stem cell therapy and new medication options. Additionally, improved technology solutions have aided in diabetes management through continuous glucose monitors (CGM), smart insulin pens, advanced hybrid closed-loop systems, and continuous subcutaneous insulin injections.^5,6 Unfortunately, these groundbreaking innovations are drawing limited focus, as the field is rightfully focused on the adverse impact of the pandemic on patients with diabetes.

Learning health networks like the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative (T1DX-QI) have implemented some of these innovative solutions to improve care for people with diabetes.⁷ T1DX-QI has more than 50 data-sharing endocrinology centers that care for over 75,000 people with diabetes across the United States (Figure 1). Centers participating in the T1DX-QI use quality improvement (QI) and implementation science methods to quickly translate research into evidence-based clinical practice. T1DX-QI leads diabetes population health and health system research and supports widespread transferability across health care organizations through regular collaborative calls, conferences, and case study documentation.⁸

In this review, we summarize impactful population health innovations in diabetes management that have become available over the past 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of T1DX-QI (see Figure 2 for relevant definitions). This review is limited in scope and is not meant to be an exhaustive list of innovations. The review also reflects significant changes from the perspective of academic diabetes centers, which may not apply to rural or primary care diabetes practices.

The first (A.M.), second (H.H.), and senior (O.E.) authors conducted a scoping review of published literature using terms related to diabetes, population health, and innovation on PubMed Central and Google Scholar for the period March 2020 to June 2022. To complement the review, A.M. and O.E. also reviewed abstracts from presentations at major international diabetes conferences, including the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), the T1DX-QI Learning Session Conference, and the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) 2020 to 2022 conferences.^9-14 The authors also searched FDA.gov and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant insights. A.M. and O.E. sorted the reviewed literature into major themes (Figure 3) from the population health improvement perspective of the T1DX-QI.

Population Health Innovations in Diabetes Management

Expansion of Telemedicine Access

Telemedicine is cost-effective for patients with diabetes,¹⁵ including those with complex cases.¹⁶ Before the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine and virtual care were rare in diabetes management. However, the pandemic offered a new opportunity to expand the practice of telemedicine in diabetes management. A study from the T1DX-QI showed that telemedicine visits grew from comprising <1% of visits pre-pandemic (December 2019) to 95.2% during the pandemic (August 2020).¹⁷ Additional studies, like those conducted by Phillip et al,¹⁸ confirmed the noninferiority of telemedicine practice for patients with diabetes.Telemedicine was also found to be an effective strategy to educate patients on the use of diabetes technologies.¹⁹

Real-World Data and Disease Surveillance

As the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated outcomes for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), a need arose to understand the immediate effects of the pandemic on people with T1D through real-world data and disease surveillance. In April 2020, the T1DX-QI initiated a multicenter surveillance study to collect data and analyze the impact of COVID-19 on people with T1D. The existing health collaborative served as a springboard for robust surveillance study, documenting numerous works on the effects of COVID-19.^3,4,20-28 Other investigators also embraced the power of real-world surveillance and real-world data.^29,30

Big Data, Machine Learning, and Artificial Intelligence

The past 2 years have seen a shift toward embracing the incredible opportunity to tap the large volume of data generated from routine care for practical insights.³¹ In particular, researchers have demonstrated the widespread application of machine learning and artificial intelligence to improve diabetes management.³² The T1DX-QI also harnessed the growing power of big data by expanding the functionality of innovative benchmarking software. The T1DX QI Portal uses electronic medical record data of diabetes patients for clinic-to-clinic benchmarking and data analysis, using business intelligence solutions.³³

Health Equity

While inequities across various health outcomes have been well documented for years,³⁴ the COVID-19 pandemic further exaggerated racial/ethnic health inequities in T1D.^23,35 In response, several organizations have outlined specific strategies to address these health inequities. Emboldened by the pandemic, the T1DX-QI announced a multipronged approach to address health inequities among patients with T1D through the Health Equity Advancement Lab (HEAL).³⁶ One of HEAL’s main components is using real-world data to champion population-level insights and demonstrate progress in QI efforts.

Multiple innovative studies have been undertaken to explore contributors to health inequities in diabetes, and these studies are expanding our understanding of the chasm.³⁷ There have also been innovative solutions to addressing these inequities, with multiple studies published over the past 2 years.³⁸ A source of inequity among patients with T1D is the lack of representation of racial/ethnic minorities with T1D in clinical trials.³⁹ The T1DX-QI suggests that the equity-adapted framework for QI can be applied by research leaders to support trial diversity and representation, ensuring future device innovations are meaningful for all people with T1D.⁴⁰

Diabetes Devices

Glucose monitoring and insulin therapy are vital tools to support individuals living with T1D, and devices such as CGM and insulin pumps have become the standard of care for diabetes management (Table).⁴¹ Innovations in diabetes technology and device access are imperative for a chronic disease with no cure.

The COVID-19 pandemic created an opportunity to increase access to diabetes devices in inpatient settings. In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration expanded the use of CGM to support remote monitoring of patients in inpatient hospital settings, simultaneously supporting the glucose monitoring needs of patients with T1D and reducing COVID-19 transmission through reduced patient-clinician contact.⁴² This effort has been expanded and will continue in 2022 and beyond,⁴³ and aligns with the growing consensus that supports patients wearing both CGMs and insulin pumps in ambulatory settings to improve patient health outcomes.⁴⁴

Since 2020, innovations in diabetes technology have improved and increased the variety of options available to people with T1D and made them easier to use (Table). New, advanced hybrid closed-loop systems have progressed to offer Bluetooth features, including automatic software upgrades, tubeless systems, and the ability to allow parents to use their smartphones to bolus for children.^45-47 The next big step in insulin delivery innovation is the release of functioning, fully closed loop systems, of which several are currently in clinical trials.⁴⁸ These systems support reduced hypoglycemia and improved time in range.⁴⁹

Additional innovations in insulin delivery have improved the user experience and expanded therapeutic options, including a variety of smart insulin pens complete with dosing logs^50,51 and even a patch to deliver insulin without the burden of injections.⁵² As barriers to diabetes technology persist,⁵³ innovations in alternate insulin delivery provide people with T1D more options to align with their personal access and technology preferences.

Innovations in CGM address cited barriers to their use, including size or overall wear.^53-55 CGMs released in the past few years are smaller in physical size, have longer durations of time between changings, are more accurate, and do not require calibrations for accuracy.

New Diabetes Medications

Many new medications and therapeutic advances have become available in the past 2 years.⁵⁶ Additionally, more medications are being tested as adjunct therapies to support glycemic management in patients with T1D, including metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and 2 inhibitors, pramlintide, glucagon-like polypeptide-1 analogs, and glucagon receptor agonists.⁵⁷ Other recent advances include stem cell replacement therapy for patients with T1D.⁵⁸ The ultra-long-acting biosimilar insulins are one medical innovation that has been stalled, rather than propelled, during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁵⁹

Diabetes Policy Advocacy

People with T1D require insulin to survive. The cost of insulin has increased in recent years, with some studies citing a 64% to 100% increase in the past decade.^60,61 In fact, 1 in 4 insulin users report that cost has impacted their insulin use, including rationing their insulin.⁶² Lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic stressed US families financially, increasing the urgency for insulin cost caps.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic halted national conversations on drug financing,⁶³ advocacy efforts have succeeded for specific populations. The new Medicare Part D Senior Savings Model will cap the cost of insulin at $35 for a 30-day supply,⁶⁴ and 20 states passed legislation capping insulin pricing.⁶² Efforts to codify national cost caps are under debate, including the passage of the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which passed the House in March 2022 and is currently under review in the Senate.⁶⁵

Funders and industry partners play a crucial role in leading and supporting innovations that improve the lives of people with T1D and reduce society’s costs of living with the disease. Data infrastructure is critical to supporting population health. While building the data infrastructure to support population health is both time- and resource-intensive, private foundations such as Helmsley are uniquely positioned—and have a responsibility—to take large, informed risks to help reach all communities with T1D.

The T1DX-QI is the largest source of population health data on T1D in the United States and is becoming the premiere data authority on its incidence, prevalence, and outcomes. The T1DX-QI enables a robust understanding of T1D-related health trends at the population level, as well as trends among clinics and providers. Pilot centers in the T1DX-QI have reported reductions in patients’ A1c and acute diabetes-related events, as well as improvements in device usage and depression screening. The ability to capture changes speaks to the promise and power of these data to demonstrate the clinical impact of QI interventions and to support the spread of best practices and learnings across health systems.

Additional philanthropic efforts have supported innovation in the last 2 years. For example, the JDRF, a nonprofit philanthropic equity firm, has supported efforts in developing artificial pancreas systems and cell therapies currently in clinical trials like teplizumab, a drug that has demonstrated delayed onset of T1D through JDRF’s T1D Fund.⁶⁶ Industry partners also have an opportunity for significant influence in this area, as they continue to fund meaningful projects to advance care for people with T1D.⁶⁷

Conclusion

We are optimistic that the innovations summarized here describe a shift in the tide of equitable T1D outcomes; however, future work is required to explore additional health equity successes that do not further exacerbate inequities. We also see further opportunities for innovative ways to engage people with T1D in their health care through conversations on social determinants of health and societal structures.

Corresponding author: Ann Mungmode, MPH, T1D Exchange, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; Email: [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr. Ebekozien serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for the Medtronic Advisory Board and received research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom.

Funding: The T1DX-QI is funded by The Leona M. and Harry B. Hemsley Charitable Trust.

From the T1D Exchange, Boston, MA (Ann Mungmode, Nicole Rioles, Jesse Cases, Dr. Ebekozien); The Leona M. and Harry B. Hemsley Charitable Trust, New York, NY (Laurel Koester); and the University of Mississippi School of Population Health, Jackson, MS (Dr. Ebekozien).

Abstract

There have been remarkable innovations in diabetes management since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, but these groundbreaking innovations are drawing limited focus as the field focuses on the adverse impact of the pandemic on patients with diabetes. This article reviews select population health innovations in diabetes management that have become available over the past 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative, a learning health network that focuses on improving care and outcomes for individuals with type 1 diabetes (T1D). Such innovations include expanded telemedicine access, collection of real-world data, machine learning and artificial intelligence, and new diabetes medications and devices. In addition, multiple innovative studies have been undertaken to explore contributors to health inequities in diabetes, and advocacy efforts for specific populations have been successful. Looking to the future, work is required to explore additional health equity successes that do not further exacerbate inequities and to look for additional innovative ways to engage people with T1D in their health care through conversations on social determinants of health and societal structures.

Keywords: type 1 diabetes, learning health network, continuous glucose monitoring, health equity

One in 10 people in the United States has diabetes.¹ Diabetes is the nation’s second leading cause of death, costing the US health system more than $300 billion annually.² The COVID-19 pandemic presented additional health burdens for people living with diabetes. For example, preexisting diabetes was identified as a risk factor for COVID-19–associated morbidity and mortality.^3,4 Over the past 2 years, there have been remarkable innovations in diabetes management, including stem cell therapy and new medication options. Additionally, improved technology solutions have aided in diabetes management through continuous glucose monitors (CGM), smart insulin pens, advanced hybrid closed-loop systems, and continuous subcutaneous insulin injections.^5,6 Unfortunately, these groundbreaking innovations are drawing limited focus, as the field is rightfully focused on the adverse impact of the pandemic on patients with diabetes.

Learning health networks like the T1D Exchange Quality Improvement Collaborative (T1DX-QI) have implemented some of these innovative solutions to improve care for people with diabetes.⁷ T1DX-QI has more than 50 data-sharing endocrinology centers that care for over 75,000 people with diabetes across the United States (Figure 1). Centers participating in the T1DX-QI use quality improvement (QI) and implementation science methods to quickly translate research into evidence-based clinical practice. T1DX-QI leads diabetes population health and health system research and supports widespread transferability across health care organizations through regular collaborative calls, conferences, and case study documentation.⁸

In this review, we summarize impactful population health innovations in diabetes management that have become available over the past 2 years of the COVID-19 pandemic from the perspective of T1DX-QI (see Figure 2 for relevant definitions). This review is limited in scope and is not meant to be an exhaustive list of innovations. The review also reflects significant changes from the perspective of academic diabetes centers, which may not apply to rural or primary care diabetes practices.

The first (A.M.), second (H.H.), and senior (O.E.) authors conducted a scoping review of published literature using terms related to diabetes, population health, and innovation on PubMed Central and Google Scholar for the period March 2020 to June 2022. To complement the review, A.M. and O.E. also reviewed abstracts from presentations at major international diabetes conferences, including the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the International Society for Pediatric and Adolescent Diabetes (ISPAD), the T1DX-QI Learning Session Conference, and the Advanced Technologies & Treatments for Diabetes (ATTD) 2020 to 2022 conferences.^9-14 The authors also searched FDA.gov and ClinicalTrials.gov for relevant insights. A.M. and O.E. sorted the reviewed literature into major themes (Figure 3) from the population health improvement perspective of the T1DX-QI.

Population Health Innovations in Diabetes Management

Expansion of Telemedicine Access

Telemedicine is cost-effective for patients with diabetes,¹⁵ including those with complex cases.¹⁶ Before the COVID-19 pandemic, telemedicine and virtual care were rare in diabetes management. However, the pandemic offered a new opportunity to expand the practice of telemedicine in diabetes management. A study from the T1DX-QI showed that telemedicine visits grew from comprising <1% of visits pre-pandemic (December 2019) to 95.2% during the pandemic (August 2020).¹⁷ Additional studies, like those conducted by Phillip et al,¹⁸ confirmed the noninferiority of telemedicine practice for patients with diabetes.Telemedicine was also found to be an effective strategy to educate patients on the use of diabetes technologies.¹⁹

Real-World Data and Disease Surveillance

As the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated outcomes for people with type 1 diabetes (T1D), a need arose to understand the immediate effects of the pandemic on people with T1D through real-world data and disease surveillance. In April 2020, the T1DX-QI initiated a multicenter surveillance study to collect data and analyze the impact of COVID-19 on people with T1D. The existing health collaborative served as a springboard for robust surveillance study, documenting numerous works on the effects of COVID-19.^3,4,20-28 Other investigators also embraced the power of real-world surveillance and real-world data.^29,30

Big Data, Machine Learning, and Artificial Intelligence

The past 2 years have seen a shift toward embracing the incredible opportunity to tap the large volume of data generated from routine care for practical insights.³¹ In particular, researchers have demonstrated the widespread application of machine learning and artificial intelligence to improve diabetes management.³² The T1DX-QI also harnessed the growing power of big data by expanding the functionality of innovative benchmarking software. The T1DX QI Portal uses electronic medical record data of diabetes patients for clinic-to-clinic benchmarking and data analysis, using business intelligence solutions.³³

Health Equity

While inequities across various health outcomes have been well documented for years,³⁴ the COVID-19 pandemic further exaggerated racial/ethnic health inequities in T1D.^23,35 In response, several organizations have outlined specific strategies to address these health inequities. Emboldened by the pandemic, the T1DX-QI announced a multipronged approach to address health inequities among patients with T1D through the Health Equity Advancement Lab (HEAL).³⁶ One of HEAL’s main components is using real-world data to champion population-level insights and demonstrate progress in QI efforts.

Multiple innovative studies have been undertaken to explore contributors to health inequities in diabetes, and these studies are expanding our understanding of the chasm.³⁷ There have also been innovative solutions to addressing these inequities, with multiple studies published over the past 2 years.³⁸ A source of inequity among patients with T1D is the lack of representation of racial/ethnic minorities with T1D in clinical trials.³⁹ The T1DX-QI suggests that the equity-adapted framework for QI can be applied by research leaders to support trial diversity and representation, ensuring future device innovations are meaningful for all people with T1D.⁴⁰

Diabetes Devices

Glucose monitoring and insulin therapy are vital tools to support individuals living with T1D, and devices such as CGM and insulin pumps have become the standard of care for diabetes management (Table).⁴¹ Innovations in diabetes technology and device access are imperative for a chronic disease with no cure.

The COVID-19 pandemic created an opportunity to increase access to diabetes devices in inpatient settings. In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration expanded the use of CGM to support remote monitoring of patients in inpatient hospital settings, simultaneously supporting the glucose monitoring needs of patients with T1D and reducing COVID-19 transmission through reduced patient-clinician contact.⁴² This effort has been expanded and will continue in 2022 and beyond,⁴³ and aligns with the growing consensus that supports patients wearing both CGMs and insulin pumps in ambulatory settings to improve patient health outcomes.⁴⁴

Since 2020, innovations in diabetes technology have improved and increased the variety of options available to people with T1D and made them easier to use (Table). New, advanced hybrid closed-loop systems have progressed to offer Bluetooth features, including automatic software upgrades, tubeless systems, and the ability to allow parents to use their smartphones to bolus for children.^45-47 The next big step in insulin delivery innovation is the release of functioning, fully closed loop systems, of which several are currently in clinical trials.⁴⁸ These systems support reduced hypoglycemia and improved time in range.⁴⁹

Additional innovations in insulin delivery have improved the user experience and expanded therapeutic options, including a variety of smart insulin pens complete with dosing logs^50,51 and even a patch to deliver insulin without the burden of injections.⁵² As barriers to diabetes technology persist,⁵³ innovations in alternate insulin delivery provide people with T1D more options to align with their personal access and technology preferences.

Innovations in CGM address cited barriers to their use, including size or overall wear.^53-55 CGMs released in the past few years are smaller in physical size, have longer durations of time between changings, are more accurate, and do not require calibrations for accuracy.

New Diabetes Medications

Many new medications and therapeutic advances have become available in the past 2 years.⁵⁶ Additionally, more medications are being tested as adjunct therapies to support glycemic management in patients with T1D, including metformin, sodium-glucose cotransporter 1 and 2 inhibitors, pramlintide, glucagon-like polypeptide-1 analogs, and glucagon receptor agonists.⁵⁷ Other recent advances include stem cell replacement therapy for patients with T1D.⁵⁸ The ultra-long-acting biosimilar insulins are one medical innovation that has been stalled, rather than propelled, during the COVID-19 pandemic.⁵⁹

Diabetes Policy Advocacy

People with T1D require insulin to survive. The cost of insulin has increased in recent years, with some studies citing a 64% to 100% increase in the past decade.^60,61 In fact, 1 in 4 insulin users report that cost has impacted their insulin use, including rationing their insulin.⁶² Lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic stressed US families financially, increasing the urgency for insulin cost caps.

Although the COVID-19 pandemic halted national conversations on drug financing,⁶³ advocacy efforts have succeeded for specific populations. The new Medicare Part D Senior Savings Model will cap the cost of insulin at $35 for a 30-day supply,⁶⁴ and 20 states passed legislation capping insulin pricing.⁶² Efforts to codify national cost caps are under debate, including the passage of the Affordable Insulin Now Act, which passed the House in March 2022 and is currently under review in the Senate.⁶⁵

Funders and industry partners play a crucial role in leading and supporting innovations that improve the lives of people with T1D and reduce society’s costs of living with the disease. Data infrastructure is critical to supporting population health. While building the data infrastructure to support population health is both time- and resource-intensive, private foundations such as Helmsley are uniquely positioned—and have a responsibility—to take large, informed risks to help reach all communities with T1D.

The T1DX-QI is the largest source of population health data on T1D in the United States and is becoming the premiere data authority on its incidence, prevalence, and outcomes. The T1DX-QI enables a robust understanding of T1D-related health trends at the population level, as well as trends among clinics and providers. Pilot centers in the T1DX-QI have reported reductions in patients’ A1c and acute diabetes-related events, as well as improvements in device usage and depression screening. The ability to capture changes speaks to the promise and power of these data to demonstrate the clinical impact of QI interventions and to support the spread of best practices and learnings across health systems.

Additional philanthropic efforts have supported innovation in the last 2 years. For example, the JDRF, a nonprofit philanthropic equity firm, has supported efforts in developing artificial pancreas systems and cell therapies currently in clinical trials like teplizumab, a drug that has demonstrated delayed onset of T1D through JDRF’s T1D Fund.⁶⁶ Industry partners also have an opportunity for significant influence in this area, as they continue to fund meaningful projects to advance care for people with T1D.⁶⁷

Conclusion

We are optimistic that the innovations summarized here describe a shift in the tide of equitable T1D outcomes; however, future work is required to explore additional health equity successes that do not further exacerbate inequities. We also see further opportunities for innovative ways to engage people with T1D in their health care through conversations on social determinants of health and societal structures.

Corresponding author: Ann Mungmode, MPH, T1D Exchange, 11 Avenue de Lafayette, Boston, MA 02111; Email: [email protected]

Disclosures: Dr. Ebekozien serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, advisor, consultant, or trustee for the Medtronic Advisory Board and received research grants from Medtronic Diabetes, Eli Lilly, and Dexcom.

Funding: The T1DX-QI is funded by The Leona M. and Harry B. Hemsley Charitable Trust.

Study 1 Overview (Bayliss et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a deprescribing educational intervention on medication use in older adults with cognitive impairment.

Design: This was a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial conducted in 8 primary care clinics that are part of a nonprofit health care system.

Setting and participants: The primary care clinic populations ranged from 170 to 1125 patients per clinic. The primary care clinics were randomly assigned to intervention or control using a uniform distribution in blocks by clinic size. Eligibility criteria for participants at those practices included age 65 years or older; health plan enrollment at least 1 year prior to intervention; diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and related dementia (ADRD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) by International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision code or from problem list; 1 or more chronic conditions from those in the Chronic Conditions Warehouse; and 5 or more long-term medications. Those who scheduled a visit at their primary care clinic in advance were eligible for the intervention. Primary care clinicians in intervention clinics were eligible to receive the clinician portion of the intervention. A total of 1433 participants were enrolled in the intervention group, and 1579 participants were enrolled in the control group.

Intervention: The intervention included 2 components: a patient and family component with materials mailed in advance of their primary care visits and a clinician component comprising monthly educational materials on deprescribing and notification in the electronic health record about visits with patient participants. The patient and family component consisted of a brochure titled “Managing Medication” and a questionnaire on attitudes toward deprescribing intended to educate patients and family about deprescribing. Clinicians at intervention clinics received an educational presentation at a monthly clinician meeting as well as tip sheets and a poster on deprescribing topics, and they also were notified of upcoming appointments with patients who received the patient component of the intervention. For the control group, patients and family did not receive any materials, and clinicians did not receive intervention materials or notification of participants enrolled in the trial. Usual care in both intervention and control groups included medication reconciliation and electronic health record alerts for potentially high-risk medications.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcomes of the study were the number of long-term medications per individual and the proportion of patients prescribed 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications. Outcome measurements were extracted from the electronic clinical data, and outcomes were assessed at 6 months, which involved comparing counts of medications at baseline with medications at 6 months. Long-term medications were defined as medications that are prescribed for 28 days or more based on pharmacy dispensing data. Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) were defined using the Beers list of medications to avoid in those with cognitive impairment and opioid medications. Analyses were conducted as intention to treat.

Main results: In the intervention group and control group, 56.2% and 54.4% of participants were women, and the mean age was 80.1 years (SD, 7.2) and 79.9 years (SD, 7.5), respectively. At baseline, the mean number of long-term medications was 7.0 (SD, 2.1) in the intervention group and 7.0 (SD, 2.2) in the control group. The proportion of patients taking any PIMs was 30.5% in the intervention group and 29.6% in the control group. At 6 months, the mean number of long-term medications was 6.4 in the intervention group and 6.5 in the control group, with an adjusted difference of –0.1 (95% CI, –0.2 to 0.04; P = .14); the proportion of patients with any PIMs was 17.8% in the intervention group and 20.9% in the control group, with an adjusted difference of –3.2% (95% CI, –6.2 to 0.4; P = .08). Preplanned analyses to examine subgroup differences for those with a higher number of medications (7+ vs 5 or 6 medications) did not find different effects of the intervention.

Conclusion: This educational intervention on deprescribing did not result in reductions in the number of medications or the use of PIMs in patients with cognitive impairment.

Study 2 Overview (Gedde et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a deprescribing intervention (COSMOS) on medication use for nursing home residents.

Design: This was a randomized clinical trial.

Setting and participants: This trial was conducted in 67 units in 33 nursing homes in Norway. Participants were nursing home residents recruited from August 2014 to March 2015. Inclusion criteria included adults aged 65 years and older with at least 2 years of residency in nursing homes. Exclusion criteria included diagnosis of schizophrenia and a life expectancy of 6 months or less. Participants were followed for 4 months; participants were considered lost to follow-up if they died or moved from the nursing home unit. The analyses were per protocol and did not include those lost to follow-up or those who did not undergo a medication review in the intervention group. A total of 217 and 211 residents were included in the intervention and control groups, respectively.

Intervention: The intervention contained 5 components: communication and advance care planning, systematic pain management, medication reviews with collegial mentoring, organization of activities adjusted to needs and preferences, and safety. For medication review, the nursing home physician reviewed medications together with a nurse and study physicians who provided mentoring. The medication review involved a structured process that used assessment tools for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), activities of daily living (ADL), pain, cognitive status, well-being and quality of life, and clinical metrics of blood pressure, pulse, and body mass index. The study utilized the START/STOPP criteria¹ for medication use in addition to a list of medications with anticholinergic properties for the medication review. In addition, drug interactions were documented through a drug interaction database; the team also incorporated patient wishes and concerns in the medication reviews. The nursing home physician made final decisions on medications. For the control group, nursing home residents received usual care without this intervention.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of the study was the mean change in the number of prescribed psychotropic medications, both regularly scheduled and total medications (which also included on-demand drugs) received at 4 months when compared to baseline. Psychotropic medications included antipsychotics, anxiolytics, hypnotics or sedatives, antidepressants, and antidementia drugs. Secondary outcomes included mean changes in BPSD using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing home version (NPI-NH) and the Cornell Scale for Depression for Dementia (CSDD) and ADL using the Physical Self Maintenance Scale (PSMS).

Main results: In both the intervention and control groups, 76% of participants were women, and mean age was 86.3 years (SD, 7.95) in the intervention group and 86.6 years (SD, 7.21) in the control group. At baseline, the mean number of total medications was 10.9 (SD, 4.6) in the intervention group and 10.9 (SD, 4.7) in the control group, and the mean number of psychotropic medications was 2.2 (SD, 1.6) and 2.2 (SD, 1.7) in the intervention and control groups, respectively. At 4 months, the mean change from baseline of total psychotropic medications was –0.34 in the intervention group and 0.01 in the control group (P < .001), and the mean change of regularly scheduled psychotropic medications was –0.21 in the intervention group and 0.02 in the control group (P < .001). Measures of BPSD and depression did not differ between intervention and control groups, and ADL showed a small improvement in the intervention group.

Conclusion: This intervention reduced the use of psychotropic medications in nursing home residents without worsening BPSD or depression and may have yielded improvements in ADL.

Commentary

Polypharmacy is common among older adults, as many of them have multiple chronic conditions and often take multiple medications for managing them. Polypharmacy increases the risk of drug interactions and adverse effects from medications; older adults who are frail and/or who have cognitive impairment are especially at risk. Reducing medication use, especially medications likely to cause adverse effects such as those with anticholinergic properties, has the potential to yield beneficial effects while reducing the burden of taking medications. A large randomized trial found that a pharmacist-led education intervention can be effective in reducing PIM use in community-dwelling older adults,² and that targeting patient motivation and capacity to deprescribe could be effective.³ This study by Bayliss and colleagues (Study 1), however, fell short of the effects seen in the earlier D-PRESCRIBE trial. One of the reasons for these findings may be that the clinician portion of the intervention was less intensive than that used in the earlier trial; specifically, in the present study, clinicians were not provided with or expected to utilize tools for structured medication review or deprescribing. Although the intervention primes the patient and family for discussions around deprescribing through the use of a brochure and questionnaire, the clinician portion of the intervention was less structured. Another example of an effective intervention that provided a more structured deprescribing intervention beyond education of clinicians utilized electronic decision-support to assist with deprescribing.⁴

The findings from the Gedde et al study (Study 2) are comparable to those of prior studies in the nursing home population,⁵ where participants are likely to take a large number of medications, including psychotropic medications, and are more likely to be frail. However, Gedde and colleagues employed a bundled intervention⁶ that included other components besides medication review, and thus it is unclear whether the effect on ADL can be attributed to the deprescribing of medications alone. Gedde et al’s finding that deprescribing can reduce the use of psychotropic medications while not leading to differences in behavioral and psychologic symptoms or depression is an important contribution to our knowledge about polypharmacy and deprescribing in older patients. Thus, nursing home residents, their families, and clinicians could expect that the deprescribing of psychotropic medications does not lead to worsening symptoms. Of note, the clinician portion of the intervention in the Gedde et al study was quite structured, and this structure may have contributed to the observed effects.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Both studies add to the literature on deprescribing and may offer options for researchers and clinicians who are considering potential components of an effective deprescribing intervention. Patient activation for deprescribing via the methods used in these 2 studies may help to prime patients for conversations about deprescribing; however, as shown by the Bayliss et al study, a more structured approach to clinical encounters may be needed when deprescribing, such as the use of tools in the electronic health record, in order to reduce the use of medication deemed unnecessary or potentially harmful. Further studies should examine the effect of deprescribing on medication use, but perhaps even more importantly, how deprescribing impacts patient outcomes both in terms of risks and benefits.

Practice Points

• A more structured approach to clinical encounters (eg, the use of tools in the electronic health record) may be needed when deprescribing unnecessary or potentially harmful medications in older patients in community settings.
• In the nursing home setting, structured deprescribing intervention can reduce the use of psychotropic medications while not leading to differences in behavioral and psychologic symptoms or depression.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study 1 Overview (Bayliss et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a deprescribing educational intervention on medication use in older adults with cognitive impairment.

Design: This was a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial conducted in 8 primary care clinics that are part of a nonprofit health care system.

Setting and participants: The primary care clinic populations ranged from 170 to 1125 patients per clinic. The primary care clinics were randomly assigned to intervention or control using a uniform distribution in blocks by clinic size. Eligibility criteria for participants at those practices included age 65 years or older; health plan enrollment at least 1 year prior to intervention; diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and related dementia (ADRD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) by International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision code or from problem list; 1 or more chronic conditions from those in the Chronic Conditions Warehouse; and 5 or more long-term medications. Those who scheduled a visit at their primary care clinic in advance were eligible for the intervention. Primary care clinicians in intervention clinics were eligible to receive the clinician portion of the intervention. A total of 1433 participants were enrolled in the intervention group, and 1579 participants were enrolled in the control group.

Intervention: The intervention included 2 components: a patient and family component with materials mailed in advance of their primary care visits and a clinician component comprising monthly educational materials on deprescribing and notification in the electronic health record about visits with patient participants. The patient and family component consisted of a brochure titled “Managing Medication” and a questionnaire on attitudes toward deprescribing intended to educate patients and family about deprescribing. Clinicians at intervention clinics received an educational presentation at a monthly clinician meeting as well as tip sheets and a poster on deprescribing topics, and they also were notified of upcoming appointments with patients who received the patient component of the intervention. For the control group, patients and family did not receive any materials, and clinicians did not receive intervention materials or notification of participants enrolled in the trial. Usual care in both intervention and control groups included medication reconciliation and electronic health record alerts for potentially high-risk medications.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcomes of the study were the number of long-term medications per individual and the proportion of patients prescribed 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications. Outcome measurements were extracted from the electronic clinical data, and outcomes were assessed at 6 months, which involved comparing counts of medications at baseline with medications at 6 months. Long-term medications were defined as medications that are prescribed for 28 days or more based on pharmacy dispensing data. Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) were defined using the Beers list of medications to avoid in those with cognitive impairment and opioid medications. Analyses were conducted as intention to treat.

Main results: In the intervention group and control group, 56.2% and 54.4% of participants were women, and the mean age was 80.1 years (SD, 7.2) and 79.9 years (SD, 7.5), respectively. At baseline, the mean number of long-term medications was 7.0 (SD, 2.1) in the intervention group and 7.0 (SD, 2.2) in the control group. The proportion of patients taking any PIMs was 30.5% in the intervention group and 29.6% in the control group. At 6 months, the mean number of long-term medications was 6.4 in the intervention group and 6.5 in the control group, with an adjusted difference of –0.1 (95% CI, –0.2 to 0.04; P = .14); the proportion of patients with any PIMs was 17.8% in the intervention group and 20.9% in the control group, with an adjusted difference of –3.2% (95% CI, –6.2 to 0.4; P = .08). Preplanned analyses to examine subgroup differences for those with a higher number of medications (7+ vs 5 or 6 medications) did not find different effects of the intervention.

Conclusion: This educational intervention on deprescribing did not result in reductions in the number of medications or the use of PIMs in patients with cognitive impairment.

Study 2 Overview (Gedde et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a deprescribing intervention (COSMOS) on medication use for nursing home residents.

Design: This was a randomized clinical trial.

Setting and participants: This trial was conducted in 67 units in 33 nursing homes in Norway. Participants were nursing home residents recruited from August 2014 to March 2015. Inclusion criteria included adults aged 65 years and older with at least 2 years of residency in nursing homes. Exclusion criteria included diagnosis of schizophrenia and a life expectancy of 6 months or less. Participants were followed for 4 months; participants were considered lost to follow-up if they died or moved from the nursing home unit. The analyses were per protocol and did not include those lost to follow-up or those who did not undergo a medication review in the intervention group. A total of 217 and 211 residents were included in the intervention and control groups, respectively.

Intervention: The intervention contained 5 components: communication and advance care planning, systematic pain management, medication reviews with collegial mentoring, organization of activities adjusted to needs and preferences, and safety. For medication review, the nursing home physician reviewed medications together with a nurse and study physicians who provided mentoring. The medication review involved a structured process that used assessment tools for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), activities of daily living (ADL), pain, cognitive status, well-being and quality of life, and clinical metrics of blood pressure, pulse, and body mass index. The study utilized the START/STOPP criteria¹ for medication use in addition to a list of medications with anticholinergic properties for the medication review. In addition, drug interactions were documented through a drug interaction database; the team also incorporated patient wishes and concerns in the medication reviews. The nursing home physician made final decisions on medications. For the control group, nursing home residents received usual care without this intervention.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of the study was the mean change in the number of prescribed psychotropic medications, both regularly scheduled and total medications (which also included on-demand drugs) received at 4 months when compared to baseline. Psychotropic medications included antipsychotics, anxiolytics, hypnotics or sedatives, antidepressants, and antidementia drugs. Secondary outcomes included mean changes in BPSD using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing home version (NPI-NH) and the Cornell Scale for Depression for Dementia (CSDD) and ADL using the Physical Self Maintenance Scale (PSMS).

Main results: In both the intervention and control groups, 76% of participants were women, and mean age was 86.3 years (SD, 7.95) in the intervention group and 86.6 years (SD, 7.21) in the control group. At baseline, the mean number of total medications was 10.9 (SD, 4.6) in the intervention group and 10.9 (SD, 4.7) in the control group, and the mean number of psychotropic medications was 2.2 (SD, 1.6) and 2.2 (SD, 1.7) in the intervention and control groups, respectively. At 4 months, the mean change from baseline of total psychotropic medications was –0.34 in the intervention group and 0.01 in the control group (P < .001), and the mean change of regularly scheduled psychotropic medications was –0.21 in the intervention group and 0.02 in the control group (P < .001). Measures of BPSD and depression did not differ between intervention and control groups, and ADL showed a small improvement in the intervention group.

Conclusion: This intervention reduced the use of psychotropic medications in nursing home residents without worsening BPSD or depression and may have yielded improvements in ADL.

Commentary

Polypharmacy is common among older adults, as many of them have multiple chronic conditions and often take multiple medications for managing them. Polypharmacy increases the risk of drug interactions and adverse effects from medications; older adults who are frail and/or who have cognitive impairment are especially at risk. Reducing medication use, especially medications likely to cause adverse effects such as those with anticholinergic properties, has the potential to yield beneficial effects while reducing the burden of taking medications. A large randomized trial found that a pharmacist-led education intervention can be effective in reducing PIM use in community-dwelling older adults,² and that targeting patient motivation and capacity to deprescribe could be effective.³ This study by Bayliss and colleagues (Study 1), however, fell short of the effects seen in the earlier D-PRESCRIBE trial. One of the reasons for these findings may be that the clinician portion of the intervention was less intensive than that used in the earlier trial; specifically, in the present study, clinicians were not provided with or expected to utilize tools for structured medication review or deprescribing. Although the intervention primes the patient and family for discussions around deprescribing through the use of a brochure and questionnaire, the clinician portion of the intervention was less structured. Another example of an effective intervention that provided a more structured deprescribing intervention beyond education of clinicians utilized electronic decision-support to assist with deprescribing.⁴

The findings from the Gedde et al study (Study 2) are comparable to those of prior studies in the nursing home population,⁵ where participants are likely to take a large number of medications, including psychotropic medications, and are more likely to be frail. However, Gedde and colleagues employed a bundled intervention⁶ that included other components besides medication review, and thus it is unclear whether the effect on ADL can be attributed to the deprescribing of medications alone. Gedde et al’s finding that deprescribing can reduce the use of psychotropic medications while not leading to differences in behavioral and psychologic symptoms or depression is an important contribution to our knowledge about polypharmacy and deprescribing in older patients. Thus, nursing home residents, their families, and clinicians could expect that the deprescribing of psychotropic medications does not lead to worsening symptoms. Of note, the clinician portion of the intervention in the Gedde et al study was quite structured, and this structure may have contributed to the observed effects.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Both studies add to the literature on deprescribing and may offer options for researchers and clinicians who are considering potential components of an effective deprescribing intervention. Patient activation for deprescribing via the methods used in these 2 studies may help to prime patients for conversations about deprescribing; however, as shown by the Bayliss et al study, a more structured approach to clinical encounters may be needed when deprescribing, such as the use of tools in the electronic health record, in order to reduce the use of medication deemed unnecessary or potentially harmful. Further studies should examine the effect of deprescribing on medication use, but perhaps even more importantly, how deprescribing impacts patient outcomes both in terms of risks and benefits.

Practice Points

• A more structured approach to clinical encounters (eg, the use of tools in the electronic health record) may be needed when deprescribing unnecessary or potentially harmful medications in older patients in community settings.
• In the nursing home setting, structured deprescribing intervention can reduce the use of psychotropic medications while not leading to differences in behavioral and psychologic symptoms or depression.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study 1 Overview (Bayliss et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a deprescribing educational intervention on medication use in older adults with cognitive impairment.

Design: This was a pragmatic, cluster randomized trial conducted in 8 primary care clinics that are part of a nonprofit health care system.

Setting and participants: The primary care clinic populations ranged from 170 to 1125 patients per clinic. The primary care clinics were randomly assigned to intervention or control using a uniform distribution in blocks by clinic size. Eligibility criteria for participants at those practices included age 65 years or older; health plan enrollment at least 1 year prior to intervention; diagnosis of Alzheimer disease and related dementia (ADRD) or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) by International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision code or from problem list; 1 or more chronic conditions from those in the Chronic Conditions Warehouse; and 5 or more long-term medications. Those who scheduled a visit at their primary care clinic in advance were eligible for the intervention. Primary care clinicians in intervention clinics were eligible to receive the clinician portion of the intervention. A total of 1433 participants were enrolled in the intervention group, and 1579 participants were enrolled in the control group.

Intervention: The intervention included 2 components: a patient and family component with materials mailed in advance of their primary care visits and a clinician component comprising monthly educational materials on deprescribing and notification in the electronic health record about visits with patient participants. The patient and family component consisted of a brochure titled “Managing Medication” and a questionnaire on attitudes toward deprescribing intended to educate patients and family about deprescribing. Clinicians at intervention clinics received an educational presentation at a monthly clinician meeting as well as tip sheets and a poster on deprescribing topics, and they also were notified of upcoming appointments with patients who received the patient component of the intervention. For the control group, patients and family did not receive any materials, and clinicians did not receive intervention materials or notification of participants enrolled in the trial. Usual care in both intervention and control groups included medication reconciliation and electronic health record alerts for potentially high-risk medications.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcomes of the study were the number of long-term medications per individual and the proportion of patients prescribed 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications. Outcome measurements were extracted from the electronic clinical data, and outcomes were assessed at 6 months, which involved comparing counts of medications at baseline with medications at 6 months. Long-term medications were defined as medications that are prescribed for 28 days or more based on pharmacy dispensing data. Potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) were defined using the Beers list of medications to avoid in those with cognitive impairment and opioid medications. Analyses were conducted as intention to treat.

Main results: In the intervention group and control group, 56.2% and 54.4% of participants were women, and the mean age was 80.1 years (SD, 7.2) and 79.9 years (SD, 7.5), respectively. At baseline, the mean number of long-term medications was 7.0 (SD, 2.1) in the intervention group and 7.0 (SD, 2.2) in the control group. The proportion of patients taking any PIMs was 30.5% in the intervention group and 29.6% in the control group. At 6 months, the mean number of long-term medications was 6.4 in the intervention group and 6.5 in the control group, with an adjusted difference of –0.1 (95% CI, –0.2 to 0.04; P = .14); the proportion of patients with any PIMs was 17.8% in the intervention group and 20.9% in the control group, with an adjusted difference of –3.2% (95% CI, –6.2 to 0.4; P = .08). Preplanned analyses to examine subgroup differences for those with a higher number of medications (7+ vs 5 or 6 medications) did not find different effects of the intervention.

Conclusion: This educational intervention on deprescribing did not result in reductions in the number of medications or the use of PIMs in patients with cognitive impairment.

Study 2 Overview (Gedde et al)

Objective: To examine the effect of a deprescribing intervention (COSMOS) on medication use for nursing home residents.

Design: This was a randomized clinical trial.

Setting and participants: This trial was conducted in 67 units in 33 nursing homes in Norway. Participants were nursing home residents recruited from August 2014 to March 2015. Inclusion criteria included adults aged 65 years and older with at least 2 years of residency in nursing homes. Exclusion criteria included diagnosis of schizophrenia and a life expectancy of 6 months or less. Participants were followed for 4 months; participants were considered lost to follow-up if they died or moved from the nursing home unit. The analyses were per protocol and did not include those lost to follow-up or those who did not undergo a medication review in the intervention group. A total of 217 and 211 residents were included in the intervention and control groups, respectively.

Intervention: The intervention contained 5 components: communication and advance care planning, systematic pain management, medication reviews with collegial mentoring, organization of activities adjusted to needs and preferences, and safety. For medication review, the nursing home physician reviewed medications together with a nurse and study physicians who provided mentoring. The medication review involved a structured process that used assessment tools for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD), activities of daily living (ADL), pain, cognitive status, well-being and quality of life, and clinical metrics of blood pressure, pulse, and body mass index. The study utilized the START/STOPP criteria¹ for medication use in addition to a list of medications with anticholinergic properties for the medication review. In addition, drug interactions were documented through a drug interaction database; the team also incorporated patient wishes and concerns in the medication reviews. The nursing home physician made final decisions on medications. For the control group, nursing home residents received usual care without this intervention.

Main outcome measures: The primary outcome of the study was the mean change in the number of prescribed psychotropic medications, both regularly scheduled and total medications (which also included on-demand drugs) received at 4 months when compared to baseline. Psychotropic medications included antipsychotics, anxiolytics, hypnotics or sedatives, antidepressants, and antidementia drugs. Secondary outcomes included mean changes in BPSD using the Neuropsychiatric Inventory-Nursing home version (NPI-NH) and the Cornell Scale for Depression for Dementia (CSDD) and ADL using the Physical Self Maintenance Scale (PSMS).

Main results: In both the intervention and control groups, 76% of participants were women, and mean age was 86.3 years (SD, 7.95) in the intervention group and 86.6 years (SD, 7.21) in the control group. At baseline, the mean number of total medications was 10.9 (SD, 4.6) in the intervention group and 10.9 (SD, 4.7) in the control group, and the mean number of psychotropic medications was 2.2 (SD, 1.6) and 2.2 (SD, 1.7) in the intervention and control groups, respectively. At 4 months, the mean change from baseline of total psychotropic medications was –0.34 in the intervention group and 0.01 in the control group (P < .001), and the mean change of regularly scheduled psychotropic medications was –0.21 in the intervention group and 0.02 in the control group (P < .001). Measures of BPSD and depression did not differ between intervention and control groups, and ADL showed a small improvement in the intervention group.

Conclusion: This intervention reduced the use of psychotropic medications in nursing home residents without worsening BPSD or depression and may have yielded improvements in ADL.

Commentary

Polypharmacy is common among older adults, as many of them have multiple chronic conditions and often take multiple medications for managing them. Polypharmacy increases the risk of drug interactions and adverse effects from medications; older adults who are frail and/or who have cognitive impairment are especially at risk. Reducing medication use, especially medications likely to cause adverse effects such as those with anticholinergic properties, has the potential to yield beneficial effects while reducing the burden of taking medications. A large randomized trial found that a pharmacist-led education intervention can be effective in reducing PIM use in community-dwelling older adults,² and that targeting patient motivation and capacity to deprescribe could be effective.³ This study by Bayliss and colleagues (Study 1), however, fell short of the effects seen in the earlier D-PRESCRIBE trial. One of the reasons for these findings may be that the clinician portion of the intervention was less intensive than that used in the earlier trial; specifically, in the present study, clinicians were not provided with or expected to utilize tools for structured medication review or deprescribing. Although the intervention primes the patient and family for discussions around deprescribing through the use of a brochure and questionnaire, the clinician portion of the intervention was less structured. Another example of an effective intervention that provided a more structured deprescribing intervention beyond education of clinicians utilized electronic decision-support to assist with deprescribing.⁴

The findings from the Gedde et al study (Study 2) are comparable to those of prior studies in the nursing home population,⁵ where participants are likely to take a large number of medications, including psychotropic medications, and are more likely to be frail. However, Gedde and colleagues employed a bundled intervention⁶ that included other components besides medication review, and thus it is unclear whether the effect on ADL can be attributed to the deprescribing of medications alone. Gedde et al’s finding that deprescribing can reduce the use of psychotropic medications while not leading to differences in behavioral and psychologic symptoms or depression is an important contribution to our knowledge about polypharmacy and deprescribing in older patients. Thus, nursing home residents, their families, and clinicians could expect that the deprescribing of psychotropic medications does not lead to worsening symptoms. Of note, the clinician portion of the intervention in the Gedde et al study was quite structured, and this structure may have contributed to the observed effects.

Applications for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

Both studies add to the literature on deprescribing and may offer options for researchers and clinicians who are considering potential components of an effective deprescribing intervention. Patient activation for deprescribing via the methods used in these 2 studies may help to prime patients for conversations about deprescribing; however, as shown by the Bayliss et al study, a more structured approach to clinical encounters may be needed when deprescribing, such as the use of tools in the electronic health record, in order to reduce the use of medication deemed unnecessary or potentially harmful. Further studies should examine the effect of deprescribing on medication use, but perhaps even more importantly, how deprescribing impacts patient outcomes both in terms of risks and benefits.

Practice Points

• A more structured approach to clinical encounters (eg, the use of tools in the electronic health record) may be needed when deprescribing unnecessary or potentially harmful medications in older patients in community settings.
• In the nursing home setting, structured deprescribing intervention can reduce the use of psychotropic medications while not leading to differences in behavioral and psychologic symptoms or depression.

–William W. Hung, MD, MPH

Study 1 Overview (Oberhaus et al)

Objective: To compare the 3-Minute Diagnostic Confusion Assessment Method (3D-CAM) to the long-form Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) in detecting postoperative delirium.

Design: Prospective concurrent comparison of 3D-CAM and CAM evaluations in a cohort of postoperative geriatric patients.

Setting and participants: Eligible participants were patients aged 60 years or older undergoing major elective surgery at Barnes Jewish Hospital (St. Louis, Missouri) who were enrolled in ongoing clinical trials (PODCAST, ENGAGES, SATISFY-SOS) between 2015 and 2018. Surgeries were at least 2 hours in length and required general anesthesia, planned extubation, and a minimum 2-day hospital stay. Investigators were extensively trained in administering 3D-CAM and CAM instruments. Participants were evaluated 2 hours after the end of anesthesia care on the day of surgery, then daily until follow-up was completed per clinical trial protocol or until the participant was determined by CAM to be nondelirious for 3 consecutive days. For each evaluation, both 3D-CAM and CAM assessors approached the participant together, but the evaluation was conducted such that the 3D-CAM assessor was masked to the additional questions ascertained by the long-form CAM assessment. The 3D-CAM or CAM assessor independently scored their respective assessments blinded to the results of the other assessor.

Main outcome measures: Participants were concurrently evaluated for postoperative delirium by both 3D-CAM and long-form CAM assessments. Comparisons between 3D-CAM and CAM scores were made using Cohen κ with repeated measures, generalized linear mixed-effects model, and Bland-Altman analysis.

Main results: Sixteen raters performed 471 concurrent 3D-CAM and CAM assessments in 299 participants (mean [SD] age, 69 [6.5] years). Of these participants, 152 (50.8%) were men, 263 (88.0%) were White, and 211 (70.6%) underwent noncardiac surgery. Both instruments showed good intraclass correlation (0.98 for 3D-CAM, 0.84 for CAM) with good overall agreement (Cohen κ = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.83). The mixed-effects model indicated a significant disagreement between the 3D-CAM and CAM assessments (estimated difference in fixed effect, –0.68; 95% CI, –1.32 to –0.05; P = .04). The Bland-Altman analysis showed that the probability of a delirium diagnosis with the 3D-CAM was more than twice that with the CAM (probability ratio, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.44-3.23).

Conclusion: The high degree of agreement between 3D-CAM and long-form CAM assessments suggests that the former may be a pragmatic and easy-to-administer clinical tool to screen for postoperative delirium in vulnerable older surgical patients.

Study 2 Overview (Shenkin et al)

Objective: To assess the accuracy of the 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT) for delirium detection in the medical inpatient setting and to compare the 4AT to the CAM.

Design: Prospective randomized diagnostic test accuracy study.

Setting and participants: This study was conducted in emergency departments and acute medical wards at 3 UK sites (Edinburgh, Bradford, and Sheffield) and enrolled acute medical patients aged 70 years or older without acute life-threatening illnesses and/or coma. Assessors administering the delirium evaluation were nurses or graduate clinical research associates who underwent systematic training in delirium and delirium assessment. Additional training was provided to those administering the CAM but not to those administering the 4AT as the latter is designed to be administered without special training. First, all participants underwent a reference standard delirium assessment using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) (DSM-IV) criteria to derive a final definitive diagnosis of delirium via expert consensus (1 psychiatrist and 2 geriatricians). Then, the participants were randomized to either the 4AT or the comparator CAM group using computer-generated pseudo-random numbers, stratified by study site, with block allocation. All assessments were performed by pairs of independent assessors blinded to the results of the other assessment.

Main outcome measures: All participants were evaluated by the reference standard (DSM-IV criteria for delirium) and by either 4AT or CAM instruments for delirium. The accuracy of the 4AT instrument was evaluated by comparing its positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity to the reference standard and analyzed via the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The diagnostic accuracy of 4AT, compared to the CAM, was evaluated by comparing positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity using Fisher’s exact test. The overall performance of 4AT and CAM was summarized using Youden’s Index and the diagnostic odds ratio of sensitivity to specificity.

Results: All 843 individuals enrolled in the study were randomized and 785 were included in the analysis (23 withdrew, 3 lost contact, 32 indeterminate diagnosis, 2 missing outcome). Of the participants analyzed, the mean age was 81.4 [6.4] years, and 12.1% (95/785) had delirium by reference standard assessment, 14.3% (56/392) by 4AT, and 4.7% (18/384) by CAM. The 4AT group had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96), a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI, 61%-87%), and a specificity of 94% (95% CI, 92%-97%). In comparison, the CAM group had a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI, 26%-57%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 98%-100%).

Conclusions: The 4AT is a pragmatic screening test for delirium in a medical space that does not require special training to administer. The use of this instrument may help to improve delirium detection as a part of routine clinical care in hospitalized older adults.

Delirium is an acute confusional state marked by fluctuating mental status, inattention, disorganized thinking, and altered level of consciousness. It is exceedingly common in older patients in both surgical and medical settings and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, hospital length of stay, institutionalization, and health care costs. Delirium is frequently underdiagnosed in the hospitalized setting, perhaps due to a combination of its waxing and waning nature and a lack of pragmatic and easily implementable screening tools that can be readily administered by clinicians and nonclinicians alike.¹ While the CAM is a well-validated instrument to diagnose delirium, it requires specific training in the rating of each of the cardinal features ascertained through a brief cognitive assessment and takes 5 to 10 minutes to complete. Taken together, given the high patient load for clinicians in the hospital setting, the validation and application of brief delirium screening instruments that can be reliably administered by nonphysicians and nonclinicians may enhance delirium detection in vulnerable patients and consequently improve their outcomes.

In Study 1, Oberhaus et al approach the challenge of underdiagnosing delirium in the postoperative setting by investigating whether the widely accepted long-form CAM and an abbreviated 3-minute version, the 3D-CAM, provide similar delirium detection in older surgical patients. The authors found that both instruments were reliable tests individually (high interrater reliability) and had good overall agreement. However, the 3D-CAM was more likely to yield a positive diagnosis of delirium compared to the long-form CAM, consistent with its purpose as a screening tool with a high sensitivity. It is important to emphasize that the 3D-CAM takes less time to administer, but also requires less extensive training and clinical knowledge than the long-form CAM. Therefore, this instrument meets the prerequisite of a brief screening test that can be rapidly administered by nonclinicians, and if affirmative, followed by a more extensive confirmatory test performed by a clinician. Limitations of this study include a lack of a reference standard structured interview conducted by a physician-rater to better determine the true diagnostic accuracy of both 3D-CAM and CAM assessments, and the use of convenience sampling at a single center, which reduces the generalizability of its findings.

In a similar vein, Shenkin et al in Study 2 attempt to evaluate the utility of the 4AT instrument in diagnosing delirium in older medical inpatients by testing the diagnostic accuracy of the 4AT against a reference standard (ie, DSM-IV–based evaluation by physicians) as well as comparing it to CAM. The 4AT takes less time (~2 minutes) and requires less knowledge and training to administer as compared to the CAM. The study showed that the abbreviated 4AT, compared to CAM, had a higher sensitivity (76% vs 40%) and lower specificity (94% vs 100%) in delirium detection. Thus, akin to the application of 3D-CAM in the postoperative setting, 4AT possesses key characteristics of a brief delirium screening test for older patients in the acute medical setting. In contrast to the Oberhaus et al study, a major strength of this study was the utilization of a reference standard that was validated by expert consensus. This allowed the 4AT and CAM assessments to be compared to a more objective standard, thereby directly testing their diagnostic performance in detecting delirium.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

The findings from both Study 1 and 2 suggest that using an abbreviated delirium instrument in both surgical and acute medical settings may provide a pragmatic and sensitive method to detect delirium in older patients. The brevity of administration of 3D-CAM (~3 minutes) and 4AT (~2 minutes), combined with their higher sensitivity for detecting delirium compared to CAM, make these instruments potentially effective rapid screening tests for delirium in hospitalized older patients. Importantly, the utilization of such instruments might be a feasible way to mitigate the issue of underdiagnosing delirium in the hospital.

Several additional aspects of these abbreviated delirium instruments increase their suitability for clinical application. Specifically, the 3D-CAM and 4AT require less extensive training and clinical knowledge to both administer and interpret the results than the CAM.² For instance, a multistage, multiday training for CAM is a key factor in maintaining its diagnostic accuracy.^3,4 In contrast, the 3D-CAM requires only a 1- to 2-hour training session, and the 4AT can be administered by a nonclinician without the need for instrument-specific training. Thus, implementation of these instruments can be particularly pragmatic in clinical settings in which the staff involved in delirium screening cannot undergo the substantial training required to administer CAM. Moreover, these abbreviated tests enable nonphysician care team members to assume the role of delirium screener in the hospital. Taken together, the adoption of these abbreviated instruments may facilitate brief screenings of delirium in older patients by caregivers who see them most often—nurses and certified nursing assistants—thereby improving early detection and prevention of delirium-related complications in the hospital.

The feasibility of using abbreviated delirium screening instruments in the hospital setting raises a system implementation question—if these instruments are designed to be administered by those with limited to no training, could nonclinicians, such as hospital volunteers, effectively take on delirium screening roles in the hospital? If volunteers are able to take on this role, the integration of hospital volunteers into the clinical team can greatly expand the capacity for delirium screening in the hospital setting. Further research is warranted to validate the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-CAM and 4AT by nonclinician administrators in order to more broadly adopt this approach to delirium screening.

Practice Points

• Abbreviated delirium screening tools such as 3D-CAM and 4AT may be pragmatic instruments to improve delirium detection in surgical and hospitalized older patients, respectively.
• Further studies are warranted to validate the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-CAM and 4AT by nonclinician administrators in order to more broadly adopt this approach to delirium screening.

Jared Doan, BS, and Fred Ko, MD
Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Study 1 Overview (Oberhaus et al)

Objective: To compare the 3-Minute Diagnostic Confusion Assessment Method (3D-CAM) to the long-form Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) in detecting postoperative delirium.

Design: Prospective concurrent comparison of 3D-CAM and CAM evaluations in a cohort of postoperative geriatric patients.

Setting and participants: Eligible participants were patients aged 60 years or older undergoing major elective surgery at Barnes Jewish Hospital (St. Louis, Missouri) who were enrolled in ongoing clinical trials (PODCAST, ENGAGES, SATISFY-SOS) between 2015 and 2018. Surgeries were at least 2 hours in length and required general anesthesia, planned extubation, and a minimum 2-day hospital stay. Investigators were extensively trained in administering 3D-CAM and CAM instruments. Participants were evaluated 2 hours after the end of anesthesia care on the day of surgery, then daily until follow-up was completed per clinical trial protocol or until the participant was determined by CAM to be nondelirious for 3 consecutive days. For each evaluation, both 3D-CAM and CAM assessors approached the participant together, but the evaluation was conducted such that the 3D-CAM assessor was masked to the additional questions ascertained by the long-form CAM assessment. The 3D-CAM or CAM assessor independently scored their respective assessments blinded to the results of the other assessor.

Main outcome measures: Participants were concurrently evaluated for postoperative delirium by both 3D-CAM and long-form CAM assessments. Comparisons between 3D-CAM and CAM scores were made using Cohen κ with repeated measures, generalized linear mixed-effects model, and Bland-Altman analysis.

Main results: Sixteen raters performed 471 concurrent 3D-CAM and CAM assessments in 299 participants (mean [SD] age, 69 [6.5] years). Of these participants, 152 (50.8%) were men, 263 (88.0%) were White, and 211 (70.6%) underwent noncardiac surgery. Both instruments showed good intraclass correlation (0.98 for 3D-CAM, 0.84 for CAM) with good overall agreement (Cohen κ = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.83). The mixed-effects model indicated a significant disagreement between the 3D-CAM and CAM assessments (estimated difference in fixed effect, –0.68; 95% CI, –1.32 to –0.05; P = .04). The Bland-Altman analysis showed that the probability of a delirium diagnosis with the 3D-CAM was more than twice that with the CAM (probability ratio, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.44-3.23).

Conclusion: The high degree of agreement between 3D-CAM and long-form CAM assessments suggests that the former may be a pragmatic and easy-to-administer clinical tool to screen for postoperative delirium in vulnerable older surgical patients.

Study 2 Overview (Shenkin et al)

Objective: To assess the accuracy of the 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT) for delirium detection in the medical inpatient setting and to compare the 4AT to the CAM.

Design: Prospective randomized diagnostic test accuracy study.

Setting and participants: This study was conducted in emergency departments and acute medical wards at 3 UK sites (Edinburgh, Bradford, and Sheffield) and enrolled acute medical patients aged 70 years or older without acute life-threatening illnesses and/or coma. Assessors administering the delirium evaluation were nurses or graduate clinical research associates who underwent systematic training in delirium and delirium assessment. Additional training was provided to those administering the CAM but not to those administering the 4AT as the latter is designed to be administered without special training. First, all participants underwent a reference standard delirium assessment using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) (DSM-IV) criteria to derive a final definitive diagnosis of delirium via expert consensus (1 psychiatrist and 2 geriatricians). Then, the participants were randomized to either the 4AT or the comparator CAM group using computer-generated pseudo-random numbers, stratified by study site, with block allocation. All assessments were performed by pairs of independent assessors blinded to the results of the other assessment.

Main outcome measures: All participants were evaluated by the reference standard (DSM-IV criteria for delirium) and by either 4AT or CAM instruments for delirium. The accuracy of the 4AT instrument was evaluated by comparing its positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity to the reference standard and analyzed via the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The diagnostic accuracy of 4AT, compared to the CAM, was evaluated by comparing positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity using Fisher’s exact test. The overall performance of 4AT and CAM was summarized using Youden’s Index and the diagnostic odds ratio of sensitivity to specificity.

Results: All 843 individuals enrolled in the study were randomized and 785 were included in the analysis (23 withdrew, 3 lost contact, 32 indeterminate diagnosis, 2 missing outcome). Of the participants analyzed, the mean age was 81.4 [6.4] years, and 12.1% (95/785) had delirium by reference standard assessment, 14.3% (56/392) by 4AT, and 4.7% (18/384) by CAM. The 4AT group had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96), a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI, 61%-87%), and a specificity of 94% (95% CI, 92%-97%). In comparison, the CAM group had a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI, 26%-57%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 98%-100%).

Conclusions: The 4AT is a pragmatic screening test for delirium in a medical space that does not require special training to administer. The use of this instrument may help to improve delirium detection as a part of routine clinical care in hospitalized older adults.

Delirium is an acute confusional state marked by fluctuating mental status, inattention, disorganized thinking, and altered level of consciousness. It is exceedingly common in older patients in both surgical and medical settings and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, hospital length of stay, institutionalization, and health care costs. Delirium is frequently underdiagnosed in the hospitalized setting, perhaps due to a combination of its waxing and waning nature and a lack of pragmatic and easily implementable screening tools that can be readily administered by clinicians and nonclinicians alike.¹ While the CAM is a well-validated instrument to diagnose delirium, it requires specific training in the rating of each of the cardinal features ascertained through a brief cognitive assessment and takes 5 to 10 minutes to complete. Taken together, given the high patient load for clinicians in the hospital setting, the validation and application of brief delirium screening instruments that can be reliably administered by nonphysicians and nonclinicians may enhance delirium detection in vulnerable patients and consequently improve their outcomes.

In Study 1, Oberhaus et al approach the challenge of underdiagnosing delirium in the postoperative setting by investigating whether the widely accepted long-form CAM and an abbreviated 3-minute version, the 3D-CAM, provide similar delirium detection in older surgical patients. The authors found that both instruments were reliable tests individually (high interrater reliability) and had good overall agreement. However, the 3D-CAM was more likely to yield a positive diagnosis of delirium compared to the long-form CAM, consistent with its purpose as a screening tool with a high sensitivity. It is important to emphasize that the 3D-CAM takes less time to administer, but also requires less extensive training and clinical knowledge than the long-form CAM. Therefore, this instrument meets the prerequisite of a brief screening test that can be rapidly administered by nonclinicians, and if affirmative, followed by a more extensive confirmatory test performed by a clinician. Limitations of this study include a lack of a reference standard structured interview conducted by a physician-rater to better determine the true diagnostic accuracy of both 3D-CAM and CAM assessments, and the use of convenience sampling at a single center, which reduces the generalizability of its findings.

In a similar vein, Shenkin et al in Study 2 attempt to evaluate the utility of the 4AT instrument in diagnosing delirium in older medical inpatients by testing the diagnostic accuracy of the 4AT against a reference standard (ie, DSM-IV–based evaluation by physicians) as well as comparing it to CAM. The 4AT takes less time (~2 minutes) and requires less knowledge and training to administer as compared to the CAM. The study showed that the abbreviated 4AT, compared to CAM, had a higher sensitivity (76% vs 40%) and lower specificity (94% vs 100%) in delirium detection. Thus, akin to the application of 3D-CAM in the postoperative setting, 4AT possesses key characteristics of a brief delirium screening test for older patients in the acute medical setting. In contrast to the Oberhaus et al study, a major strength of this study was the utilization of a reference standard that was validated by expert consensus. This allowed the 4AT and CAM assessments to be compared to a more objective standard, thereby directly testing their diagnostic performance in detecting delirium.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

The findings from both Study 1 and 2 suggest that using an abbreviated delirium instrument in both surgical and acute medical settings may provide a pragmatic and sensitive method to detect delirium in older patients. The brevity of administration of 3D-CAM (~3 minutes) and 4AT (~2 minutes), combined with their higher sensitivity for detecting delirium compared to CAM, make these instruments potentially effective rapid screening tests for delirium in hospitalized older patients. Importantly, the utilization of such instruments might be a feasible way to mitigate the issue of underdiagnosing delirium in the hospital.

Several additional aspects of these abbreviated delirium instruments increase their suitability for clinical application. Specifically, the 3D-CAM and 4AT require less extensive training and clinical knowledge to both administer and interpret the results than the CAM.² For instance, a multistage, multiday training for CAM is a key factor in maintaining its diagnostic accuracy.^3,4 In contrast, the 3D-CAM requires only a 1- to 2-hour training session, and the 4AT can be administered by a nonclinician without the need for instrument-specific training. Thus, implementation of these instruments can be particularly pragmatic in clinical settings in which the staff involved in delirium screening cannot undergo the substantial training required to administer CAM. Moreover, these abbreviated tests enable nonphysician care team members to assume the role of delirium screener in the hospital. Taken together, the adoption of these abbreviated instruments may facilitate brief screenings of delirium in older patients by caregivers who see them most often—nurses and certified nursing assistants—thereby improving early detection and prevention of delirium-related complications in the hospital.

The feasibility of using abbreviated delirium screening instruments in the hospital setting raises a system implementation question—if these instruments are designed to be administered by those with limited to no training, could nonclinicians, such as hospital volunteers, effectively take on delirium screening roles in the hospital? If volunteers are able to take on this role, the integration of hospital volunteers into the clinical team can greatly expand the capacity for delirium screening in the hospital setting. Further research is warranted to validate the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-CAM and 4AT by nonclinician administrators in order to more broadly adopt this approach to delirium screening.

Practice Points

• Abbreviated delirium screening tools such as 3D-CAM and 4AT may be pragmatic instruments to improve delirium detection in surgical and hospitalized older patients, respectively.
• Further studies are warranted to validate the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-CAM and 4AT by nonclinician administrators in order to more broadly adopt this approach to delirium screening.

Jared Doan, BS, and Fred Ko, MD
Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Study 1 Overview (Oberhaus et al)

Objective: To compare the 3-Minute Diagnostic Confusion Assessment Method (3D-CAM) to the long-form Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) in detecting postoperative delirium.

Design: Prospective concurrent comparison of 3D-CAM and CAM evaluations in a cohort of postoperative geriatric patients.

Setting and participants: Eligible participants were patients aged 60 years or older undergoing major elective surgery at Barnes Jewish Hospital (St. Louis, Missouri) who were enrolled in ongoing clinical trials (PODCAST, ENGAGES, SATISFY-SOS) between 2015 and 2018. Surgeries were at least 2 hours in length and required general anesthesia, planned extubation, and a minimum 2-day hospital stay. Investigators were extensively trained in administering 3D-CAM and CAM instruments. Participants were evaluated 2 hours after the end of anesthesia care on the day of surgery, then daily until follow-up was completed per clinical trial protocol or until the participant was determined by CAM to be nondelirious for 3 consecutive days. For each evaluation, both 3D-CAM and CAM assessors approached the participant together, but the evaluation was conducted such that the 3D-CAM assessor was masked to the additional questions ascertained by the long-form CAM assessment. The 3D-CAM or CAM assessor independently scored their respective assessments blinded to the results of the other assessor.

Main outcome measures: Participants were concurrently evaluated for postoperative delirium by both 3D-CAM and long-form CAM assessments. Comparisons between 3D-CAM and CAM scores were made using Cohen κ with repeated measures, generalized linear mixed-effects model, and Bland-Altman analysis.

Main results: Sixteen raters performed 471 concurrent 3D-CAM and CAM assessments in 299 participants (mean [SD] age, 69 [6.5] years). Of these participants, 152 (50.8%) were men, 263 (88.0%) were White, and 211 (70.6%) underwent noncardiac surgery. Both instruments showed good intraclass correlation (0.98 for 3D-CAM, 0.84 for CAM) with good overall agreement (Cohen κ = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.83). The mixed-effects model indicated a significant disagreement between the 3D-CAM and CAM assessments (estimated difference in fixed effect, –0.68; 95% CI, –1.32 to –0.05; P = .04). The Bland-Altman analysis showed that the probability of a delirium diagnosis with the 3D-CAM was more than twice that with the CAM (probability ratio, 2.78; 95% CI, 2.44-3.23).

Conclusion: The high degree of agreement between 3D-CAM and long-form CAM assessments suggests that the former may be a pragmatic and easy-to-administer clinical tool to screen for postoperative delirium in vulnerable older surgical patients.

Study 2 Overview (Shenkin et al)

Objective: To assess the accuracy of the 4 ‘A’s Test (4AT) for delirium detection in the medical inpatient setting and to compare the 4AT to the CAM.

Design: Prospective randomized diagnostic test accuracy study.

Setting and participants: This study was conducted in emergency departments and acute medical wards at 3 UK sites (Edinburgh, Bradford, and Sheffield) and enrolled acute medical patients aged 70 years or older without acute life-threatening illnesses and/or coma. Assessors administering the delirium evaluation were nurses or graduate clinical research associates who underwent systematic training in delirium and delirium assessment. Additional training was provided to those administering the CAM but not to those administering the 4AT as the latter is designed to be administered without special training. First, all participants underwent a reference standard delirium assessment using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) (DSM-IV) criteria to derive a final definitive diagnosis of delirium via expert consensus (1 psychiatrist and 2 geriatricians). Then, the participants were randomized to either the 4AT or the comparator CAM group using computer-generated pseudo-random numbers, stratified by study site, with block allocation. All assessments were performed by pairs of independent assessors blinded to the results of the other assessment.

Main outcome measures: All participants were evaluated by the reference standard (DSM-IV criteria for delirium) and by either 4AT or CAM instruments for delirium. The accuracy of the 4AT instrument was evaluated by comparing its positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity to the reference standard and analyzed via the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The diagnostic accuracy of 4AT, compared to the CAM, was evaluated by comparing positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity, and specificity using Fisher’s exact test. The overall performance of 4AT and CAM was summarized using Youden’s Index and the diagnostic odds ratio of sensitivity to specificity.

Results: All 843 individuals enrolled in the study were randomized and 785 were included in the analysis (23 withdrew, 3 lost contact, 32 indeterminate diagnosis, 2 missing outcome). Of the participants analyzed, the mean age was 81.4 [6.4] years, and 12.1% (95/785) had delirium by reference standard assessment, 14.3% (56/392) by 4AT, and 4.7% (18/384) by CAM. The 4AT group had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.90 (95% CI, 0.84-0.96), a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI, 61%-87%), and a specificity of 94% (95% CI, 92%-97%). In comparison, the CAM group had a sensitivity of 40% (95% CI, 26%-57%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 98%-100%).

Conclusions: The 4AT is a pragmatic screening test for delirium in a medical space that does not require special training to administer. The use of this instrument may help to improve delirium detection as a part of routine clinical care in hospitalized older adults.

Delirium is an acute confusional state marked by fluctuating mental status, inattention, disorganized thinking, and altered level of consciousness. It is exceedingly common in older patients in both surgical and medical settings and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, hospital length of stay, institutionalization, and health care costs. Delirium is frequently underdiagnosed in the hospitalized setting, perhaps due to a combination of its waxing and waning nature and a lack of pragmatic and easily implementable screening tools that can be readily administered by clinicians and nonclinicians alike.¹ While the CAM is a well-validated instrument to diagnose delirium, it requires specific training in the rating of each of the cardinal features ascertained through a brief cognitive assessment and takes 5 to 10 minutes to complete. Taken together, given the high patient load for clinicians in the hospital setting, the validation and application of brief delirium screening instruments that can be reliably administered by nonphysicians and nonclinicians may enhance delirium detection in vulnerable patients and consequently improve their outcomes.

In Study 1, Oberhaus et al approach the challenge of underdiagnosing delirium in the postoperative setting by investigating whether the widely accepted long-form CAM and an abbreviated 3-minute version, the 3D-CAM, provide similar delirium detection in older surgical patients. The authors found that both instruments were reliable tests individually (high interrater reliability) and had good overall agreement. However, the 3D-CAM was more likely to yield a positive diagnosis of delirium compared to the long-form CAM, consistent with its purpose as a screening tool with a high sensitivity. It is important to emphasize that the 3D-CAM takes less time to administer, but also requires less extensive training and clinical knowledge than the long-form CAM. Therefore, this instrument meets the prerequisite of a brief screening test that can be rapidly administered by nonclinicians, and if affirmative, followed by a more extensive confirmatory test performed by a clinician. Limitations of this study include a lack of a reference standard structured interview conducted by a physician-rater to better determine the true diagnostic accuracy of both 3D-CAM and CAM assessments, and the use of convenience sampling at a single center, which reduces the generalizability of its findings.

In a similar vein, Shenkin et al in Study 2 attempt to evaluate the utility of the 4AT instrument in diagnosing delirium in older medical inpatients by testing the diagnostic accuracy of the 4AT against a reference standard (ie, DSM-IV–based evaluation by physicians) as well as comparing it to CAM. The 4AT takes less time (~2 minutes) and requires less knowledge and training to administer as compared to the CAM. The study showed that the abbreviated 4AT, compared to CAM, had a higher sensitivity (76% vs 40%) and lower specificity (94% vs 100%) in delirium detection. Thus, akin to the application of 3D-CAM in the postoperative setting, 4AT possesses key characteristics of a brief delirium screening test for older patients in the acute medical setting. In contrast to the Oberhaus et al study, a major strength of this study was the utilization of a reference standard that was validated by expert consensus. This allowed the 4AT and CAM assessments to be compared to a more objective standard, thereby directly testing their diagnostic performance in detecting delirium.

Application for Clinical Practice and System Implementation

The findings from both Study 1 and 2 suggest that using an abbreviated delirium instrument in both surgical and acute medical settings may provide a pragmatic and sensitive method to detect delirium in older patients. The brevity of administration of 3D-CAM (~3 minutes) and 4AT (~2 minutes), combined with their higher sensitivity for detecting delirium compared to CAM, make these instruments potentially effective rapid screening tests for delirium in hospitalized older patients. Importantly, the utilization of such instruments might be a feasible way to mitigate the issue of underdiagnosing delirium in the hospital.

Several additional aspects of these abbreviated delirium instruments increase their suitability for clinical application. Specifically, the 3D-CAM and 4AT require less extensive training and clinical knowledge to both administer and interpret the results than the CAM.² For instance, a multistage, multiday training for CAM is a key factor in maintaining its diagnostic accuracy.^3,4 In contrast, the 3D-CAM requires only a 1- to 2-hour training session, and the 4AT can be administered by a nonclinician without the need for instrument-specific training. Thus, implementation of these instruments can be particularly pragmatic in clinical settings in which the staff involved in delirium screening cannot undergo the substantial training required to administer CAM. Moreover, these abbreviated tests enable nonphysician care team members to assume the role of delirium screener in the hospital. Taken together, the adoption of these abbreviated instruments may facilitate brief screenings of delirium in older patients by caregivers who see them most often—nurses and certified nursing assistants—thereby improving early detection and prevention of delirium-related complications in the hospital.

The feasibility of using abbreviated delirium screening instruments in the hospital setting raises a system implementation question—if these instruments are designed to be administered by those with limited to no training, could nonclinicians, such as hospital volunteers, effectively take on delirium screening roles in the hospital? If volunteers are able to take on this role, the integration of hospital volunteers into the clinical team can greatly expand the capacity for delirium screening in the hospital setting. Further research is warranted to validate the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-CAM and 4AT by nonclinician administrators in order to more broadly adopt this approach to delirium screening.

Practice Points

• Abbreviated delirium screening tools such as 3D-CAM and 4AT may be pragmatic instruments to improve delirium detection in surgical and hospitalized older patients, respectively.
• Further studies are warranted to validate the diagnostic accuracy of 3D-CAM and 4AT by nonclinician administrators in order to more broadly adopt this approach to delirium screening.

Jared Doan, BS, and Fred Ko, MD
Geriatrics and Palliative Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

Even a little walking may help avert serious illness and death, and a brisk stroll may be especially beneficial, according to a study of nearly 80,000 middle-aged and older adults.

Each additional 2,000 steps per day – up to 10,000 – was associated with 8% to 11% fewer deaths and less heart disease and cancer, the researchers found. Walking quickly had an even stronger link to lower health risks.

The findings were reported in JAMA Internal Medicine. In a separate paper, published in JAMA Neurology, the researchers reported associations between walking and reduced risk of dementia.
 

Moving faster provides a health ‘bonus’

The findings expand on evidence in smaller studies of middle-aged individuals and older women that suggested health benefits from covering less than the widely promoted target of 10,000 steps a day.

The new study supports the ideas that “every step counts” and moving faster provides a health “bonus,” said one of its co-lead authors, Borja del Pozo Cruz, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and a senior researcher in health at the University of Cadiz, Spain.

Dr. Del Pozo Cruz and his coauthors analyzed median daily step counts for 78,500 adults aged 40-79 years in the U.K. Biobank database who agreed to wear an accelerometer for 1 week. Participants’ average age was 61. Fifty-five percent were women and 97% were White.

Steps were categorized as “incidental,” defined as a pace of less than 40 per minute, and “purposeful,” ones taken at the pace of 40 or more per minute. Researchers also calculated peak 30-minute cadence, the average of an individual’s 30 most active minutes in a day.

Participants’ health records were reviewed after 7 years. Each additional 2,000 steps taken was associated with lower all-cause mortality (mean rate of change [MRC] in the hazard ratio, –0.08; 95% confidence interval, –0.11 to –0.06); cardiovascular mortality (MRC, –0.10; 95% CI, –0.15 to –0.06), and cancer mortality (MRC, –0.11; 95% CI, –0.15 to –0.06).

Similar incremental reductions were observed in the incidence of heart disease, defined as fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure; and a composite cancer outcome of 13 sites shown to be associated with low physical activity.

Both incidental and purposeful steps were linked to lower rates of mortality and disease. Particularly encouraging, the researchers said, was the benefit associated with incidental steps, which might be more feasible for some individuals than a planned walk.

The association with better outcomes was especially strong for peak-30 cadence, with individuals in the top fifth of intensity having a 34% lower mortality rate compared with those in the bottom fifth – an observation that researchers wrote “reflects the importance of the natural best effort relative to the individual’s capability.”

The analysis adjusted for a variety of factors including age, sex, race, smoking, alcohol use, fruit and vegetable consumption, medication use, family history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, and sleep quality. It also excluded participants who had deaths and illnesses within 2 years of a step assessment to minimize the problem of reverse causation, in which existing health problems cause participants to move less.
 

Data contribute evidence toward step count recommendations

The data are observational and do not prove cause and effect, the researchers noted. Still, the authors said the study “contributes critical evidence toward step count–based recommendations” for physical activity.

Guidelines of the United States and the World Health Organization recommend 150 minutes of moderately intense activity or 75 minutes of vigorous activity weekly plus strength training twice a week.

Given the proliferation of activity trackers in phones and watches, recommendations based on steps could be especially useful for individuals who don’t intentionally record their physical activity, the researchers wrote.

“It’s nice to have a study that puts some science behind steps counts,” cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, a clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University, and a spokesperson for the American Heart Association, said of the findings.

Particularly important, said Dr. Goldberg, who was not involved in the study, is the lack of a minimum threshold for health benefits, since the 10,000-step target may be daunting for some individuals.

Only one in five participants in this latest study achieved 10,000 steps per day, according to the paper.

The authors wrote that promotion of lower step targets “may provide a more realistic and achievable goal for the general adult population,” and longevity gains “may be maximized simply by shifting away from the least-active end of the step-count distribution.”

Dr. Goldberg put it this way: “Take a walk. Try to aspire to 10,000 steps. But if you can only do 6,000 or 8,000, you get benefit there, too.”

Cathy Handy Marshall, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved in the new study, said the findings can be used to guide “exercise prescriptions,” but more research is needed to tailor recommendations, particularly for individuals who cannot achieve high step counts.

Dr. Del Pozo Cruz said the findings need to be replicated in other populations.

The study authors, Dr. Goldberg, and Dr. Handy Marshall reported no relevant competing interests.

Even a little walking may help avert serious illness and death, and a brisk stroll may be especially beneficial, according to a study of nearly 80,000 middle-aged and older adults.

Each additional 2,000 steps per day – up to 10,000 – was associated with 8% to 11% fewer deaths and less heart disease and cancer, the researchers found. Walking quickly had an even stronger link to lower health risks.

The findings were reported in JAMA Internal Medicine. In a separate paper, published in JAMA Neurology, the researchers reported associations between walking and reduced risk of dementia.
 

Moving faster provides a health ‘bonus’

The findings expand on evidence in smaller studies of middle-aged individuals and older women that suggested health benefits from covering less than the widely promoted target of 10,000 steps a day.

The new study supports the ideas that “every step counts” and moving faster provides a health “bonus,” said one of its co-lead authors, Borja del Pozo Cruz, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and a senior researcher in health at the University of Cadiz, Spain.

Dr. Del Pozo Cruz and his coauthors analyzed median daily step counts for 78,500 adults aged 40-79 years in the U.K. Biobank database who agreed to wear an accelerometer for 1 week. Participants’ average age was 61. Fifty-five percent were women and 97% were White.

Steps were categorized as “incidental,” defined as a pace of less than 40 per minute, and “purposeful,” ones taken at the pace of 40 or more per minute. Researchers also calculated peak 30-minute cadence, the average of an individual’s 30 most active minutes in a day.

Participants’ health records were reviewed after 7 years. Each additional 2,000 steps taken was associated with lower all-cause mortality (mean rate of change [MRC] in the hazard ratio, –0.08; 95% confidence interval, –0.11 to –0.06); cardiovascular mortality (MRC, –0.10; 95% CI, –0.15 to –0.06), and cancer mortality (MRC, –0.11; 95% CI, –0.15 to –0.06).

Similar incremental reductions were observed in the incidence of heart disease, defined as fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure; and a composite cancer outcome of 13 sites shown to be associated with low physical activity.

Both incidental and purposeful steps were linked to lower rates of mortality and disease. Particularly encouraging, the researchers said, was the benefit associated with incidental steps, which might be more feasible for some individuals than a planned walk.

The association with better outcomes was especially strong for peak-30 cadence, with individuals in the top fifth of intensity having a 34% lower mortality rate compared with those in the bottom fifth – an observation that researchers wrote “reflects the importance of the natural best effort relative to the individual’s capability.”

The analysis adjusted for a variety of factors including age, sex, race, smoking, alcohol use, fruit and vegetable consumption, medication use, family history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, and sleep quality. It also excluded participants who had deaths and illnesses within 2 years of a step assessment to minimize the problem of reverse causation, in which existing health problems cause participants to move less.
 

Data contribute evidence toward step count recommendations

The data are observational and do not prove cause and effect, the researchers noted. Still, the authors said the study “contributes critical evidence toward step count–based recommendations” for physical activity.

Guidelines of the United States and the World Health Organization recommend 150 minutes of moderately intense activity or 75 minutes of vigorous activity weekly plus strength training twice a week.

Given the proliferation of activity trackers in phones and watches, recommendations based on steps could be especially useful for individuals who don’t intentionally record their physical activity, the researchers wrote.

“It’s nice to have a study that puts some science behind steps counts,” cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, a clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University, and a spokesperson for the American Heart Association, said of the findings.

Particularly important, said Dr. Goldberg, who was not involved in the study, is the lack of a minimum threshold for health benefits, since the 10,000-step target may be daunting for some individuals.

Only one in five participants in this latest study achieved 10,000 steps per day, according to the paper.

The authors wrote that promotion of lower step targets “may provide a more realistic and achievable goal for the general adult population,” and longevity gains “may be maximized simply by shifting away from the least-active end of the step-count distribution.”

Dr. Goldberg put it this way: “Take a walk. Try to aspire to 10,000 steps. But if you can only do 6,000 or 8,000, you get benefit there, too.”

Cathy Handy Marshall, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved in the new study, said the findings can be used to guide “exercise prescriptions,” but more research is needed to tailor recommendations, particularly for individuals who cannot achieve high step counts.

Dr. Del Pozo Cruz said the findings need to be replicated in other populations.

The study authors, Dr. Goldberg, and Dr. Handy Marshall reported no relevant competing interests.

Even a little walking may help avert serious illness and death, and a brisk stroll may be especially beneficial, according to a study of nearly 80,000 middle-aged and older adults.

Each additional 2,000 steps per day – up to 10,000 – was associated with 8% to 11% fewer deaths and less heart disease and cancer, the researchers found. Walking quickly had an even stronger link to lower health risks.

The findings were reported in JAMA Internal Medicine. In a separate paper, published in JAMA Neurology, the researchers reported associations between walking and reduced risk of dementia.
 

Moving faster provides a health ‘bonus’

The findings expand on evidence in smaller studies of middle-aged individuals and older women that suggested health benefits from covering less than the widely promoted target of 10,000 steps a day.

The new study supports the ideas that “every step counts” and moving faster provides a health “bonus,” said one of its co-lead authors, Borja del Pozo Cruz, PhD, an associate professor at the University of Southern Denmark, Odense, and a senior researcher in health at the University of Cadiz, Spain.

Dr. Del Pozo Cruz and his coauthors analyzed median daily step counts for 78,500 adults aged 40-79 years in the U.K. Biobank database who agreed to wear an accelerometer for 1 week. Participants’ average age was 61. Fifty-five percent were women and 97% were White.

Steps were categorized as “incidental,” defined as a pace of less than 40 per minute, and “purposeful,” ones taken at the pace of 40 or more per minute. Researchers also calculated peak 30-minute cadence, the average of an individual’s 30 most active minutes in a day.

Participants’ health records were reviewed after 7 years. Each additional 2,000 steps taken was associated with lower all-cause mortality (mean rate of change [MRC] in the hazard ratio, –0.08; 95% confidence interval, –0.11 to –0.06); cardiovascular mortality (MRC, –0.10; 95% CI, –0.15 to –0.06), and cancer mortality (MRC, –0.11; 95% CI, –0.15 to –0.06).

Similar incremental reductions were observed in the incidence of heart disease, defined as fatal and nonfatal coronary heart disease, stroke, and heart failure; and a composite cancer outcome of 13 sites shown to be associated with low physical activity.

Both incidental and purposeful steps were linked to lower rates of mortality and disease. Particularly encouraging, the researchers said, was the benefit associated with incidental steps, which might be more feasible for some individuals than a planned walk.

The association with better outcomes was especially strong for peak-30 cadence, with individuals in the top fifth of intensity having a 34% lower mortality rate compared with those in the bottom fifth – an observation that researchers wrote “reflects the importance of the natural best effort relative to the individual’s capability.”

The analysis adjusted for a variety of factors including age, sex, race, smoking, alcohol use, fruit and vegetable consumption, medication use, family history of cardiovascular disease or cancer, and sleep quality. It also excluded participants who had deaths and illnesses within 2 years of a step assessment to minimize the problem of reverse causation, in which existing health problems cause participants to move less.
 

Data contribute evidence toward step count recommendations

The data are observational and do not prove cause and effect, the researchers noted. Still, the authors said the study “contributes critical evidence toward step count–based recommendations” for physical activity.

Guidelines of the United States and the World Health Organization recommend 150 minutes of moderately intense activity or 75 minutes of vigorous activity weekly plus strength training twice a week.

Given the proliferation of activity trackers in phones and watches, recommendations based on steps could be especially useful for individuals who don’t intentionally record their physical activity, the researchers wrote.

“It’s nice to have a study that puts some science behind steps counts,” cardiologist Nieca Goldberg, MD, a clinical associate professor of medicine at New York University, and a spokesperson for the American Heart Association, said of the findings.

Particularly important, said Dr. Goldberg, who was not involved in the study, is the lack of a minimum threshold for health benefits, since the 10,000-step target may be daunting for some individuals.

Only one in five participants in this latest study achieved 10,000 steps per day, according to the paper.

The authors wrote that promotion of lower step targets “may provide a more realistic and achievable goal for the general adult population,” and longevity gains “may be maximized simply by shifting away from the least-active end of the step-count distribution.”

Dr. Goldberg put it this way: “Take a walk. Try to aspire to 10,000 steps. But if you can only do 6,000 or 8,000, you get benefit there, too.”

Cathy Handy Marshall, MD, MPH, an assistant professor of oncology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who was not involved in the new study, said the findings can be used to guide “exercise prescriptions,” but more research is needed to tailor recommendations, particularly for individuals who cannot achieve high step counts.

Dr. Del Pozo Cruz said the findings need to be replicated in other populations.

The study authors, Dr. Goldberg, and Dr. Handy Marshall reported no relevant competing interests.

The annual incidence of hip fractures declined in most countries from 2005 to 2018, but this rate is projected to roughly double by 2050, according to a new study of 19 countries/regions.

The study by Chor-Wing Sing, PhD, and colleagues was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research. The predicted increase in hip fractures is being driven by the aging population, with the population of those age 85 and older projected to increase 4.5-fold from 2010 to 2050, they note.

The researchers also estimate that from 2018 to 2050 the incidence of fractures will increase by 1.9-fold overall – more in men (2.4-fold) than in women (1.7-fold).

In addition, rates of use of osteoporosis drugs 1 year after a hip fracture were less than 50%, with less treatment in men. Men were also more likely than women to die within 1 year of a hip fracture.

iStock/Thinkstock

Aging will fuel rise in hip fractures; more preventive treatment needed

“Even though there is a decreasing trend of hip fracture incidence in some countries, such a percentage decrease is insufficient to offset the percentage increase in the aging population,” senior co-author Ching-Lung Cheung, PhD, associate professor in the department of pharmacology and pharmacy at the University of Hong Kong, explained to this news organization.

The takeaways from the study are that “a greater effort on fracture prevention should be made to avoid the continuous increase in the number of hip fractures,” he said.

In addition, “although initiation of anti-osteoporosis medication after hip fracture is recommended in international guidelines, the 1-year treatment rate [was] well below 50% in most of the countries and regions studied. This indicates the treatment rate is far from optimal.”

“Our study also showed that the use of anti-osteoporosis medications following a hip fracture is lower in men than in women by 30% to 67%,” he said. “Thus, more attention should be paid to preventing and treating hip fractures in men.”

“The greater increase in the projected number of hip fractures in men than in women “could be [because] osteoporosis is commonly perceived as a ‘woman’s disease,’ ” he speculated.

Invited to comment, Juliet Compston, MD, who selected the study as one of the top clinical science highlight abstracts at the ASBMR meeting, agrees that “there is substantial room for improvement” in osteoporosis treatment rates following a hip fracture “in all the regions covered by the study.”

“In addition,” she continues, “the wide variations in treatment rates can provide important lessons about the most effective models of care for people who sustain a hip fracture: for example, fracture liaison services.”

Men suffer as osteoporosis perceived to be a ‘woman’s disease’

The even lower treatment rate in men than women is “concerning and likely reflects the mistaken perception that osteoporosis is predominantly a disease affecting women,” notes Dr. Compston, emeritus professor of bone medicine, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.  

Also invited to comment, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, outgoing president of the ASBMR, said that the projected doubling of hip fractures “is likely mainly due to aging of the population, with increasing lifespan for males in particular. However, increasing urbanization and decreasing weight-bearing exercise as a result are likely to also contribute in developing countries.”

“Unfortunately, despite the advances in treatments for osteoporosis over the last 25 years, osteoporosis treatment rates remain low, and osteoporosis remains undiagnosed in postmenopausal women and older men,” added Dr. Ebeling, from Monash University, Melbourne, who was not involved with the research.

“More targeted screening for osteoporosis would help,” he said, “as would treating patients for it following other minimal trauma fractures (vertebral, distal radius, and humerus, etc.), since if left untreated, about 50% of these patients will have hip fractures later in life.”

“Some countries may be doing better because they have health quality standards for hip fracture (for example, surgery within 24 hours, investigation, and treatment for osteoporosis). In other countries like Australia, bone density tests and treatment for osteoporosis are reimbursed, increasing their uptake.”

The public health implications of this study are “substantial” according to Dr. Compston. “People who have sustained a hip fracture are at high risk of subsequent fractures if untreated. There is a range of safe, cost-effective pharmacological therapies to reduce fracture rate, and wider use of these would have a major impact on the current and future burden imposed by hip fractures in the elderly population.”

Similarly, Dr. Ebeling noted that “prevention is important to save a huge health burden for patients and costs for society.”

“Patients with minimal trauma fractures (particularly hip or spinal fractures) should be investigated and treated for osteoporosis with care pathways established in the hospitals, reaching out to the community [fracture liaison services],” he said.

Support for these is being sought under Medicare in the United States, he noted, and bone densitometry reimbursement rates also need to be higher in the United States.
 

Projections for number of hip fractures to 2050

Previous international reviews of hip fractures have been based on heterogeneous data from more than 10 to 30 years ago, the researchers note.

They performed a retrospective cohort study using a common protocol across 19 countries/regions, as described in an article about the protocol published in BMJ Open.

They analyzed data from adults aged 50 and older who were hospitalized with a hip fracture to determine 1) the annual incidence of hip fractures in 2008-2015; 2) the uptake of drugs to treat osteoporosis at 1 year after a hip fracture; and 3) all-cause mortality at 1 year after a hip fracture.

In a second step, they estimated the number of hip fractures that would occur from 2030 to 2050, using World Bank population growth projections.

The data are from 20 health care databases from 19 countries/regions: Oceania (Australia, New Zealand), Asia (Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand), Northern Europe (Denmark, Finland, and U.K.), Western Europe (France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, and Spain), and North and South America (Canada, United States, and Brazil).

The population in Japan was under age 75. U.S. data are from two databases: Medicare (age ≥ 65) and Optum.

Most databases (13) covered 90%-100% of the national population, and the rest covered 5%-70% of the population.

From 2008 to 2015, the annual incidence of hip fractures declined in 11 countries/regions (Singapore, Denmark, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Finland, U.K., Italy, Spain, United States [Medicare], Canada, and New Zealand).

“One potential reason that some countries have seen relatively large declines in hip fractures is better osteoporosis management and post-fracture care,” said Dr. Sing in a press release issued by ASBMR. “Better fall-prevention programs and clearer guidelines for clinical care have likely made a difference.”

Hip fracture incidence increased in five countries (The Netherlands, South Korea, France, Germany, and Brazil) and was stable in four countries (Australia, Japan, Thailand, and United States [Optum]).

The United Kingdom had the highest rate of osteoporosis treatment at 1-year after a hip fracture (50.3%). Rates in the other countries/regions ranged from 11.5% to 37%.

Fewer men than women were receiving drugs for osteoporosis at 1 year (range 5.1% to 38.2% versus 15.0% to 54.7%).

From 2005 to 2018, rates of osteoporosis treatment at 1 year after a hip fracture declined in six countries, increased in four countries, and were stable in five countries.

All-cause mortality within 1 year of hip fracture was higher in men than in women (range 19.2% to 35.8% versus 12.1% to 25.4%).

“Among the studied countries and regions, the U.S. ranks fifth with the highest hip fracture incidence,” Dr. Cheung replied when specifically asked about this. “The risk of hip fracture is determined by multiple factors: for example, lifestyle, diet, genetics, as well as management of osteoporosis,” he noted.

“Denmark is the only country showing no projected increase, and it is because Denmark had a continuous and remarkable decrease in the incidence of hip fractures,” he added, which “can offset the number of hip fractures contributed by the population aging.”

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Sing and Dr. Cheung have reported no relevant financial relationships. One of the study authors is employed by Amgen.

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

The annual incidence of hip fractures declined in most countries from 2005 to 2018, but this rate is projected to roughly double by 2050, according to a new study of 19 countries/regions.

The study by Chor-Wing Sing, PhD, and colleagues was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research. The predicted increase in hip fractures is being driven by the aging population, with the population of those age 85 and older projected to increase 4.5-fold from 2010 to 2050, they note.

The researchers also estimate that from 2018 to 2050 the incidence of fractures will increase by 1.9-fold overall – more in men (2.4-fold) than in women (1.7-fold).

In addition, rates of use of osteoporosis drugs 1 year after a hip fracture were less than 50%, with less treatment in men. Men were also more likely than women to die within 1 year of a hip fracture.

iStock/Thinkstock

Aging will fuel rise in hip fractures; more preventive treatment needed

“Even though there is a decreasing trend of hip fracture incidence in some countries, such a percentage decrease is insufficient to offset the percentage increase in the aging population,” senior co-author Ching-Lung Cheung, PhD, associate professor in the department of pharmacology and pharmacy at the University of Hong Kong, explained to this news organization.

The takeaways from the study are that “a greater effort on fracture prevention should be made to avoid the continuous increase in the number of hip fractures,” he said.

In addition, “although initiation of anti-osteoporosis medication after hip fracture is recommended in international guidelines, the 1-year treatment rate [was] well below 50% in most of the countries and regions studied. This indicates the treatment rate is far from optimal.”

“Our study also showed that the use of anti-osteoporosis medications following a hip fracture is lower in men than in women by 30% to 67%,” he said. “Thus, more attention should be paid to preventing and treating hip fractures in men.”

“The greater increase in the projected number of hip fractures in men than in women “could be [because] osteoporosis is commonly perceived as a ‘woman’s disease,’ ” he speculated.

Invited to comment, Juliet Compston, MD, who selected the study as one of the top clinical science highlight abstracts at the ASBMR meeting, agrees that “there is substantial room for improvement” in osteoporosis treatment rates following a hip fracture “in all the regions covered by the study.”

“In addition,” she continues, “the wide variations in treatment rates can provide important lessons about the most effective models of care for people who sustain a hip fracture: for example, fracture liaison services.”

Men suffer as osteoporosis perceived to be a ‘woman’s disease’

The even lower treatment rate in men than women is “concerning and likely reflects the mistaken perception that osteoporosis is predominantly a disease affecting women,” notes Dr. Compston, emeritus professor of bone medicine, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.  

Also invited to comment, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, outgoing president of the ASBMR, said that the projected doubling of hip fractures “is likely mainly due to aging of the population, with increasing lifespan for males in particular. However, increasing urbanization and decreasing weight-bearing exercise as a result are likely to also contribute in developing countries.”

“Unfortunately, despite the advances in treatments for osteoporosis over the last 25 years, osteoporosis treatment rates remain low, and osteoporosis remains undiagnosed in postmenopausal women and older men,” added Dr. Ebeling, from Monash University, Melbourne, who was not involved with the research.

“More targeted screening for osteoporosis would help,” he said, “as would treating patients for it following other minimal trauma fractures (vertebral, distal radius, and humerus, etc.), since if left untreated, about 50% of these patients will have hip fractures later in life.”

“Some countries may be doing better because they have health quality standards for hip fracture (for example, surgery within 24 hours, investigation, and treatment for osteoporosis). In other countries like Australia, bone density tests and treatment for osteoporosis are reimbursed, increasing their uptake.”

The public health implications of this study are “substantial” according to Dr. Compston. “People who have sustained a hip fracture are at high risk of subsequent fractures if untreated. There is a range of safe, cost-effective pharmacological therapies to reduce fracture rate, and wider use of these would have a major impact on the current and future burden imposed by hip fractures in the elderly population.”

Similarly, Dr. Ebeling noted that “prevention is important to save a huge health burden for patients and costs for society.”

“Patients with minimal trauma fractures (particularly hip or spinal fractures) should be investigated and treated for osteoporosis with care pathways established in the hospitals, reaching out to the community [fracture liaison services],” he said.

Support for these is being sought under Medicare in the United States, he noted, and bone densitometry reimbursement rates also need to be higher in the United States.
 

Projections for number of hip fractures to 2050

Previous international reviews of hip fractures have been based on heterogeneous data from more than 10 to 30 years ago, the researchers note.

They performed a retrospective cohort study using a common protocol across 19 countries/regions, as described in an article about the protocol published in BMJ Open.

They analyzed data from adults aged 50 and older who were hospitalized with a hip fracture to determine 1) the annual incidence of hip fractures in 2008-2015; 2) the uptake of drugs to treat osteoporosis at 1 year after a hip fracture; and 3) all-cause mortality at 1 year after a hip fracture.

In a second step, they estimated the number of hip fractures that would occur from 2030 to 2050, using World Bank population growth projections.

The data are from 20 health care databases from 19 countries/regions: Oceania (Australia, New Zealand), Asia (Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand), Northern Europe (Denmark, Finland, and U.K.), Western Europe (France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, and Spain), and North and South America (Canada, United States, and Brazil).

The population in Japan was under age 75. U.S. data are from two databases: Medicare (age ≥ 65) and Optum.

Most databases (13) covered 90%-100% of the national population, and the rest covered 5%-70% of the population.

From 2008 to 2015, the annual incidence of hip fractures declined in 11 countries/regions (Singapore, Denmark, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Finland, U.K., Italy, Spain, United States [Medicare], Canada, and New Zealand).

“One potential reason that some countries have seen relatively large declines in hip fractures is better osteoporosis management and post-fracture care,” said Dr. Sing in a press release issued by ASBMR. “Better fall-prevention programs and clearer guidelines for clinical care have likely made a difference.”

Hip fracture incidence increased in five countries (The Netherlands, South Korea, France, Germany, and Brazil) and was stable in four countries (Australia, Japan, Thailand, and United States [Optum]).

The United Kingdom had the highest rate of osteoporosis treatment at 1-year after a hip fracture (50.3%). Rates in the other countries/regions ranged from 11.5% to 37%.

Fewer men than women were receiving drugs for osteoporosis at 1 year (range 5.1% to 38.2% versus 15.0% to 54.7%).

From 2005 to 2018, rates of osteoporosis treatment at 1 year after a hip fracture declined in six countries, increased in four countries, and were stable in five countries.

All-cause mortality within 1 year of hip fracture was higher in men than in women (range 19.2% to 35.8% versus 12.1% to 25.4%).

“Among the studied countries and regions, the U.S. ranks fifth with the highest hip fracture incidence,” Dr. Cheung replied when specifically asked about this. “The risk of hip fracture is determined by multiple factors: for example, lifestyle, diet, genetics, as well as management of osteoporosis,” he noted.

“Denmark is the only country showing no projected increase, and it is because Denmark had a continuous and remarkable decrease in the incidence of hip fractures,” he added, which “can offset the number of hip fractures contributed by the population aging.”

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Sing and Dr. Cheung have reported no relevant financial relationships. One of the study authors is employed by Amgen.

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

The annual incidence of hip fractures declined in most countries from 2005 to 2018, but this rate is projected to roughly double by 2050, according to a new study of 19 countries/regions.

The study by Chor-Wing Sing, PhD, and colleagues was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Bone and Mineral Research. The predicted increase in hip fractures is being driven by the aging population, with the population of those age 85 and older projected to increase 4.5-fold from 2010 to 2050, they note.

The researchers also estimate that from 2018 to 2050 the incidence of fractures will increase by 1.9-fold overall – more in men (2.4-fold) than in women (1.7-fold).

In addition, rates of use of osteoporosis drugs 1 year after a hip fracture were less than 50%, with less treatment in men. Men were also more likely than women to die within 1 year of a hip fracture.

iStock/Thinkstock

Aging will fuel rise in hip fractures; more preventive treatment needed

“Even though there is a decreasing trend of hip fracture incidence in some countries, such a percentage decrease is insufficient to offset the percentage increase in the aging population,” senior co-author Ching-Lung Cheung, PhD, associate professor in the department of pharmacology and pharmacy at the University of Hong Kong, explained to this news organization.

The takeaways from the study are that “a greater effort on fracture prevention should be made to avoid the continuous increase in the number of hip fractures,” he said.

In addition, “although initiation of anti-osteoporosis medication after hip fracture is recommended in international guidelines, the 1-year treatment rate [was] well below 50% in most of the countries and regions studied. This indicates the treatment rate is far from optimal.”

“Our study also showed that the use of anti-osteoporosis medications following a hip fracture is lower in men than in women by 30% to 67%,” he said. “Thus, more attention should be paid to preventing and treating hip fractures in men.”

“The greater increase in the projected number of hip fractures in men than in women “could be [because] osteoporosis is commonly perceived as a ‘woman’s disease,’ ” he speculated.

Invited to comment, Juliet Compston, MD, who selected the study as one of the top clinical science highlight abstracts at the ASBMR meeting, agrees that “there is substantial room for improvement” in osteoporosis treatment rates following a hip fracture “in all the regions covered by the study.”

“In addition,” she continues, “the wide variations in treatment rates can provide important lessons about the most effective models of care for people who sustain a hip fracture: for example, fracture liaison services.”

Men suffer as osteoporosis perceived to be a ‘woman’s disease’

The even lower treatment rate in men than women is “concerning and likely reflects the mistaken perception that osteoporosis is predominantly a disease affecting women,” notes Dr. Compston, emeritus professor of bone medicine, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom.  

Also invited to comment, Peter R. Ebeling, MD, outgoing president of the ASBMR, said that the projected doubling of hip fractures “is likely mainly due to aging of the population, with increasing lifespan for males in particular. However, increasing urbanization and decreasing weight-bearing exercise as a result are likely to also contribute in developing countries.”

“Unfortunately, despite the advances in treatments for osteoporosis over the last 25 years, osteoporosis treatment rates remain low, and osteoporosis remains undiagnosed in postmenopausal women and older men,” added Dr. Ebeling, from Monash University, Melbourne, who was not involved with the research.

“More targeted screening for osteoporosis would help,” he said, “as would treating patients for it following other minimal trauma fractures (vertebral, distal radius, and humerus, etc.), since if left untreated, about 50% of these patients will have hip fractures later in life.”

“Some countries may be doing better because they have health quality standards for hip fracture (for example, surgery within 24 hours, investigation, and treatment for osteoporosis). In other countries like Australia, bone density tests and treatment for osteoporosis are reimbursed, increasing their uptake.”

The public health implications of this study are “substantial” according to Dr. Compston. “People who have sustained a hip fracture are at high risk of subsequent fractures if untreated. There is a range of safe, cost-effective pharmacological therapies to reduce fracture rate, and wider use of these would have a major impact on the current and future burden imposed by hip fractures in the elderly population.”

Similarly, Dr. Ebeling noted that “prevention is important to save a huge health burden for patients and costs for society.”

“Patients with minimal trauma fractures (particularly hip or spinal fractures) should be investigated and treated for osteoporosis with care pathways established in the hospitals, reaching out to the community [fracture liaison services],” he said.

Support for these is being sought under Medicare in the United States, he noted, and bone densitometry reimbursement rates also need to be higher in the United States.
 

Projections for number of hip fractures to 2050

Previous international reviews of hip fractures have been based on heterogeneous data from more than 10 to 30 years ago, the researchers note.

They performed a retrospective cohort study using a common protocol across 19 countries/regions, as described in an article about the protocol published in BMJ Open.

They analyzed data from adults aged 50 and older who were hospitalized with a hip fracture to determine 1) the annual incidence of hip fractures in 2008-2015; 2) the uptake of drugs to treat osteoporosis at 1 year after a hip fracture; and 3) all-cause mortality at 1 year after a hip fracture.

In a second step, they estimated the number of hip fractures that would occur from 2030 to 2050, using World Bank population growth projections.

The data are from 20 health care databases from 19 countries/regions: Oceania (Australia, New Zealand), Asia (Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand), Northern Europe (Denmark, Finland, and U.K.), Western Europe (France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, and Spain), and North and South America (Canada, United States, and Brazil).

The population in Japan was under age 75. U.S. data are from two databases: Medicare (age ≥ 65) and Optum.

Most databases (13) covered 90%-100% of the national population, and the rest covered 5%-70% of the population.

From 2008 to 2015, the annual incidence of hip fractures declined in 11 countries/regions (Singapore, Denmark, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Finland, U.K., Italy, Spain, United States [Medicare], Canada, and New Zealand).

“One potential reason that some countries have seen relatively large declines in hip fractures is better osteoporosis management and post-fracture care,” said Dr. Sing in a press release issued by ASBMR. “Better fall-prevention programs and clearer guidelines for clinical care have likely made a difference.”

Hip fracture incidence increased in five countries (The Netherlands, South Korea, France, Germany, and Brazil) and was stable in four countries (Australia, Japan, Thailand, and United States [Optum]).

The United Kingdom had the highest rate of osteoporosis treatment at 1-year after a hip fracture (50.3%). Rates in the other countries/regions ranged from 11.5% to 37%.

Fewer men than women were receiving drugs for osteoporosis at 1 year (range 5.1% to 38.2% versus 15.0% to 54.7%).

From 2005 to 2018, rates of osteoporosis treatment at 1 year after a hip fracture declined in six countries, increased in four countries, and were stable in five countries.

All-cause mortality within 1 year of hip fracture was higher in men than in women (range 19.2% to 35.8% versus 12.1% to 25.4%).

“Among the studied countries and regions, the U.S. ranks fifth with the highest hip fracture incidence,” Dr. Cheung replied when specifically asked about this. “The risk of hip fracture is determined by multiple factors: for example, lifestyle, diet, genetics, as well as management of osteoporosis,” he noted.

“Denmark is the only country showing no projected increase, and it is because Denmark had a continuous and remarkable decrease in the incidence of hip fractures,” he added, which “can offset the number of hip fractures contributed by the population aging.”

The study was funded by Amgen. Dr. Sing and Dr. Cheung have reported no relevant financial relationships. One of the study authors is employed by Amgen.

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

The health benefits of maintaining a physically active lifestyle are vast and irrefutable.¹ Physical activity is an important modifiable behavior demonstrated to reduce the risk for many chronic diseases while improving physical function (TABLE 1²).³ Physical inactivity increases with age, making older adults (ages ≥ 65 years) the least active age group and the group at greatest risk for inactivity-­related health consequences.^4-6 Engaging in a physically active lifestyle is especially important for older adults to maintain independence,⁷ quality of life,⁸ and the ability to perform activities of daily living.^3,9

Prescribe physical activity for older adults

The 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans recommend that all healthy adults (including healthy older adults) ideally should perform muscle-strengthening activities of moderate or greater intensity that involve all major muscle groups on 2 or more days per week and either (a) 150 to 300 minutes per week of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity, (b) 75 to 150 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity, or (c) an equivalent combination, if possible (TABLE 2²).³ It is recommended that older adults specifically follow a multicomponent physical activity program that includes balance training, as well as aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities.³ Unfortunately, nearly 80% of older adults do not meet the recommended guidelines for aerobic or muscle-strengthening exercise.³

Identify barriers to exercise

Older adults report several barriers that limit physical activity. Some of the most commonly reported barriers include a lack of motivation, low self-efficacy for being active, physical limitations due to health conditions, inconvenient physical activity locations, boredom with physical activity, and lack of guidance from professionals.^10-12 Physical activity programs designed for older adults should specifically target these barriers for maximum effectiveness.

Clinicians also face potential barriers for promoting physical activity among older adults. Screening patients for physical inactivity can be a challenge, given the robust number of clinical preventive services and conversations that are already recommended for older adults. Additionally, screening for physical activity is not a reimbursable service. In July, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) reaffirmed its 2017 recommendation to individualize the decision to offer or refer adults without obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or abnormal blood glucose levels or diabetes to behavioral counseling to promote a healthy diet and physical activity (Grade C rating).¹³

Treat physical activity as a vital sign

The Exercise is Medicine (EIM) model is based on the principle that physical activity should be treated as a vital sign and discussed during all health care visits. Health care professionals have a unique opportunity to promote physical activity, since more than 80% of US adults see a physician annually. Evidence also suggests clinician advice is associated with patients’ healthy lifestyle behaviors.^14,15

EIM is a global health initiative that was established in 2007 and is managed by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). The primary objective of the EIM model is to treat physical activity behavior as a vital sign and include physical activity promotion as a standard of clinical care. In order to achieve this objective, the EIM model recommends health care systems follow 3 simple rules: (1) treat physical activity as a vital sign by measuring physical activity of every patient at every visit, (2) prescribe exercise to those patients who report not meeting the physical activity guidelines, and/or (3) refer inactive patients to evidence-based physical activity resources to receive exercise counseling.^16,17

Screen for physical activity using this 2-question self-report

Clinicians may employ multiple tactics to screen patients for their current levels of physical activity. Physical Activity Vital Sign (PAVS) is a 2-item self-report measure developed to briefly assess a patient’s level of physical activity; results can be entered into the patient’s electronic medical record and used to begin a process of referring inactive patients for behavioral counseling.^17,18 The PAVS can be administered in less than 1 minute by a medical assistant and/or nursing staff during rooming or intake of patients. The PAVS questions include, “On average, how many days per week do you engage in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity?” and “On average, how many minutes do you engage in physical activity at this level?” The clinician can then multiply the 2 numbers to calculate the patient’s total minutes of ­moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week to determine whether a patient is meeting the recommended physical activity guidelines.¹⁶ (For more on the PAVS and other resources, see TABLE 3.)

Continue to: The PAVS has been established...

Approximately 80% of older adults do not meet the recommended guidelines for aerobic or muscle-strengthening exercise.

The PAVS has been established as a valid instrument for detecting patients who may need counseling on physical activity for chronic disease recognition, management, and prevention.¹⁷ Furthermore, there is a strong association between PAVS, elevated body mass index, and chronic disease burden.¹⁹ Therefore, we recommend that primary care physicians screen their patients for physical activity levels. It has been demonstrated, however, that many primary care visits for older individuals include discussions of diet and physical activity but do not provide recommendations for lifestyle change.¹⁹ Thus, exploring ways to counsel patients on lifestyle change in an efficient manner is recommended. It has been demonstrated that counseling and referral from primary care centers can promote increased adherence to physical activity practices.^20,21

Determine physical activity readiness

Prior to recommending a physical activity regimen, it is important to evaluate the patient’s readiness to make a change. Various questionnaires—such as the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire—have been developed to determine a patient’s level of readiness, evaluating both psychological and physical factors (www.nasm.org/docs/pdf/parqplus-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=401bf1af_24). Questionnaires also help you to determine whether further medical evaluation prior to beginning an exercise regimen is necessary. It’s important to note that, as is true with any office intervention, patients may be in a precontemplation or contemplation phase and may not be prepared to immediately make changes.

Evaluate risk level

Assess cardiovascular risk. Physicians and patients are often concerned about cardiovascular risk or injury risk during physical activity counseling, which may lead to fewer exercise prescriptions. As a physician, it is important to remember that for most adults, the benefits of exercise will outweigh any potential risks,³ and there is generally a low risk of cardiovascular events related to light to moderate–intensity exercise regimens.² Additionally, it has been demonstrated that exercise and cardiovascular rehabilitation are highly beneficial for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.²² Given that cardiovascular comorbidities are relatively common in older adults, some older adults will need to undergo risk stratification evaluation prior to initiating an exercise regimen.

Review preparticipation screening guidelines and recommendations

Guidelines can be contradictory regarding the ideal pre-exercise evaluation. In general, the USPSTF recommends against screening with resting or exercise electrocardiography (EKG) to prevent cardiovascular disease events in asymptomatic adults who are at low risk. It also finds insufficient evidence to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening with resting or exercise EKG to prevent cardiovascular disease events in asymptomatic adults who are at intermediate or high risk.²²

Similarly, the 2020 ACSM Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription reflect that routine exercise testing is not recommended for all older adult patients prior to starting an exercise regimen.¹⁷ However, the ACSM does recommend all patients with signs or symptoms of a cardiovascular, renal, or metabolic disease consult with a clinician for medical risk stratification and potential subsequent testing prior to starting an exercise regimen. If an individual already exercises and is having new/worsening signs or symptoms of a cardiovascular, renal, or metabolic disease, that patient should cease exercise until medical evaluation is performed. Additionally, ACSM recommends that asymptomatic patients who do not exercise but who have known cardiovascular, renal, or metabolic disease receive medical evaluation prior to starting an exercise regimen.¹⁷

Continue to: Is there evidence of cardiovascular, renal, or metabolic disease?

Initial screening can be completed by obtaining the patient’s history and conducting a physical examination. Patients reporting chest pain or discomfort (or any anginal equivalent), dyspnea, syncope, orthopnea, lower extremity edema, signs of tachyarrhythmia/bradyarrhythmia, intermittent claudication, exertional fatigue, or new exertional symptoms should all be considered for cardiovascular stress testing. Patients with a diagnosis of renal disease or either type 1 or type 2 diabetes should also be considered for cardiovascular stress testing.

Ready to prescribe exercise? Cover these 4 points

When prescribing any exercise plan for older adults, it is important for clinicians to specify 4 key components: frequency, intensity, time, and type (this can be remembered using the acronym “FITT”).²³ A sedentary adult should be encouraged to engage in moderate-­intensity exercise, such as walking, for 15 minutes 3 times per week. The key with a sedentary adult is appropriate follow-up to monitor progression and modify activity to help ensure the patient can achieve the goal number of minutes per week. It can be helpful to share the “next step” with the patient, as well (eg, increase to 4 times per week after 2 weeks, or increase by 5 minutes every week). For the intermittent exerciser, a program of moderate exercise, such as using an elliptical, for 30 to 40 minutes 5 times per week is a recommended prescription. FITT components can be tailored to meet individual patient physical readiness.²³

Frequency. While the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans recommend a specific frequency of physical activity throughout the week, it is important to remember that some older adults will be unable to meet these recommendations, particularly in the setting of frailty and comorbidities (TABLE 2²). In these cases, the guidelines simply recommend that older adults should be as physically active as their abilities and comorbidities allow. Some exercise is better than none, and generally moving more and sitting less will yield health benefits for older adult patients.

Intensity is a description of how hard an individual is working during physical activity. An older adult’s individual capacity for exercise intensity will depend on many factors, including their comorbidities. An activity’s intensity will be relative to a person’s unique level of fitness. Given this heterogeneity, exercise prescriptions should be tailored to the individual. Light-intensity exercise generally causes a slight increase in pulse and respiratory rate, moderate-intensity exercise causes a noticeable increase in pulse and respiratory rate, and vigorous-intensity exercise causes a significant increase in pulse and respiratory rate (TABLE 4^2,16,17,24).²

The “talk test” is a simple, practical, and validated test that can help one determine an individual’s capacity for moderate- or ­vigorous-intensity exercise.²³ In general, a person performing vigorous-intensity exercise will be unable to talk comfortably during activity for more than a few words without pausing for breath. Similarly, a person will be able to talk but not sing comfortably during moderate-intensity exercise.^3,23

Continue to: Time

Time. The 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans recommend a specific duration of physical activity throughout the week; however, as with frequency, it is important to remember that duration of exercise is individualized (TABLE 2²). Older adults should be as physically active as their abilities and comorbidities allow, and in the setting of frailty, numerous comorbidities, and/or a sedentary lifestyle, it is reasonable to initiate exercise recommendations with shorter durations.

The PAVS is a 2-item self-report measure used to quickly assess a patient’s level of physical activity.

Type of exercise. As noted in the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, recommendations for older adults include multiple types of exercise. In addition to these general exercise recommendations, exercise prescriptions can be individualized to target specific comorbidities (TABLE 2²). Weight-bearing, bone-strengthening exercises can benefit patients with disorders of low bone density and possibly those with osteoarthritis.^3,23 Patients at increased risk for falls should focus on balance-training options that strengthen the muscles of the back, abdomen, and legs, such as tai chi.^3,23 Patients with cardiovascular risk can benefit from moderate- to high-intensity aerobic exercise (although exercise should be performed below anginal threshold in patients with known cardiovascular disease). Patients with type 2 diabetes achieve improved glycemic control when engaging in combined moderate-intensity aerobic exercise and resistance training.^7,23

Referral to a physical therapist or sport and exercise medicine specialist can always be considered, particularly for patients with significant neurologic disorders, disability secondary to traumatic injury, or health conditions.³

An improved quality of life. Incorporating physical activity into older adults’ lives can enhance their quality of life. Family physicians are well positioned to counsel older adults on the importance and benefits of exercise and to help them overcome the barriers or resistance to undertaking a change in behavior. Guidelines, recommendations, patient history, and resources provide the support needed to prescribe individualized exercise plans for this distinct population. 

CORRESPONDENCE
Scott T. Larson, MD, 200 Hawkins Drive, Iowa City, IA, 52242; [email protected]

The health benefits of maintaining a physically active lifestyle are vast and irrefutable.¹ Physical activity is an important modifiable behavior demonstrated to reduce the risk for many chronic diseases while improving physical function (TABLE 1²).³ Physical inactivity increases with age, making older adults (ages ≥ 65 years) the least active age group and the group at greatest risk for inactivity-­related health consequences.^4-6 Engaging in a physically active lifestyle is especially important for older adults to maintain independence,⁷ quality of life,⁸ and the ability to perform activities of daily living.^3,9

Prescribe physical activity for older adults

The 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans recommend that all healthy adults (including healthy older adults) ideally should perform muscle-strengthening activities of moderate or greater intensity that involve all major muscle groups on 2 or more days per week and either (a) 150 to 300 minutes per week of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity, (b) 75 to 150 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity, or (c) an equivalent combination, if possible (TABLE 2²).³ It is recommended that older adults specifically follow a multicomponent physical activity program that includes balance training, as well as aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities.³ Unfortunately, nearly 80% of older adults do not meet the recommended guidelines for aerobic or muscle-strengthening exercise.³

Identify barriers to exercise

Older adults report several barriers that limit physical activity. Some of the most commonly reported barriers include a lack of motivation, low self-efficacy for being active, physical limitations due to health conditions, inconvenient physical activity locations, boredom with physical activity, and lack of guidance from professionals.^10-12 Physical activity programs designed for older adults should specifically target these barriers for maximum effectiveness.

Clinicians also face potential barriers for promoting physical activity among older adults. Screening patients for physical inactivity can be a challenge, given the robust number of clinical preventive services and conversations that are already recommended for older adults. Additionally, screening for physical activity is not a reimbursable service. In July, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) reaffirmed its 2017 recommendation to individualize the decision to offer or refer adults without obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or abnormal blood glucose levels or diabetes to behavioral counseling to promote a healthy diet and physical activity (Grade C rating).¹³

Treat physical activity as a vital sign

The Exercise is Medicine (EIM) model is based on the principle that physical activity should be treated as a vital sign and discussed during all health care visits. Health care professionals have a unique opportunity to promote physical activity, since more than 80% of US adults see a physician annually. Evidence also suggests clinician advice is associated with patients’ healthy lifestyle behaviors.^14,15

EIM is a global health initiative that was established in 2007 and is managed by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). The primary objective of the EIM model is to treat physical activity behavior as a vital sign and include physical activity promotion as a standard of clinical care. In order to achieve this objective, the EIM model recommends health care systems follow 3 simple rules: (1) treat physical activity as a vital sign by measuring physical activity of every patient at every visit, (2) prescribe exercise to those patients who report not meeting the physical activity guidelines, and/or (3) refer inactive patients to evidence-based physical activity resources to receive exercise counseling.^16,17

Screen for physical activity using this 2-question self-report

Clinicians may employ multiple tactics to screen patients for their current levels of physical activity. Physical Activity Vital Sign (PAVS) is a 2-item self-report measure developed to briefly assess a patient’s level of physical activity; results can be entered into the patient’s electronic medical record and used to begin a process of referring inactive patients for behavioral counseling.^17,18 The PAVS can be administered in less than 1 minute by a medical assistant and/or nursing staff during rooming or intake of patients. The PAVS questions include, “On average, how many days per week do you engage in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity?” and “On average, how many minutes do you engage in physical activity at this level?” The clinician can then multiply the 2 numbers to calculate the patient’s total minutes of ­moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week to determine whether a patient is meeting the recommended physical activity guidelines.¹⁶ (For more on the PAVS and other resources, see TABLE 3.)

Continue to: The PAVS has been established...

Approximately 80% of older adults do not meet the recommended guidelines for aerobic or muscle-strengthening exercise.

The PAVS has been established as a valid instrument for detecting patients who may need counseling on physical activity for chronic disease recognition, management, and prevention.¹⁷ Furthermore, there is a strong association between PAVS, elevated body mass index, and chronic disease burden.¹⁹ Therefore, we recommend that primary care physicians screen their patients for physical activity levels. It has been demonstrated, however, that many primary care visits for older individuals include discussions of diet and physical activity but do not provide recommendations for lifestyle change.¹⁹ Thus, exploring ways to counsel patients on lifestyle change in an efficient manner is recommended. It has been demonstrated that counseling and referral from primary care centers can promote increased adherence to physical activity practices.^20,21

Determine physical activity readiness

Prior to recommending a physical activity regimen, it is important to evaluate the patient’s readiness to make a change. Various questionnaires—such as the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire—have been developed to determine a patient’s level of readiness, evaluating both psychological and physical factors (www.nasm.org/docs/pdf/parqplus-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=401bf1af_24). Questionnaires also help you to determine whether further medical evaluation prior to beginning an exercise regimen is necessary. It’s important to note that, as is true with any office intervention, patients may be in a precontemplation or contemplation phase and may not be prepared to immediately make changes.

Evaluate risk level

Assess cardiovascular risk. Physicians and patients are often concerned about cardiovascular risk or injury risk during physical activity counseling, which may lead to fewer exercise prescriptions. As a physician, it is important to remember that for most adults, the benefits of exercise will outweigh any potential risks,³ and there is generally a low risk of cardiovascular events related to light to moderate–intensity exercise regimens.² Additionally, it has been demonstrated that exercise and cardiovascular rehabilitation are highly beneficial for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.²² Given that cardiovascular comorbidities are relatively common in older adults, some older adults will need to undergo risk stratification evaluation prior to initiating an exercise regimen.

Review preparticipation screening guidelines and recommendations

Guidelines can be contradictory regarding the ideal pre-exercise evaluation. In general, the USPSTF recommends against screening with resting or exercise electrocardiography (EKG) to prevent cardiovascular disease events in asymptomatic adults who are at low risk. It also finds insufficient evidence to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening with resting or exercise EKG to prevent cardiovascular disease events in asymptomatic adults who are at intermediate or high risk.²²

Similarly, the 2020 ACSM Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription reflect that routine exercise testing is not recommended for all older adult patients prior to starting an exercise regimen.¹⁷ However, the ACSM does recommend all patients with signs or symptoms of a cardiovascular, renal, or metabolic disease consult with a clinician for medical risk stratification and potential subsequent testing prior to starting an exercise regimen. If an individual already exercises and is having new/worsening signs or symptoms of a cardiovascular, renal, or metabolic disease, that patient should cease exercise until medical evaluation is performed. Additionally, ACSM recommends that asymptomatic patients who do not exercise but who have known cardiovascular, renal, or metabolic disease receive medical evaluation prior to starting an exercise regimen.¹⁷

Continue to: Is there evidence of cardiovascular, renal, or metabolic disease?

Initial screening can be completed by obtaining the patient’s history and conducting a physical examination. Patients reporting chest pain or discomfort (or any anginal equivalent), dyspnea, syncope, orthopnea, lower extremity edema, signs of tachyarrhythmia/bradyarrhythmia, intermittent claudication, exertional fatigue, or new exertional symptoms should all be considered for cardiovascular stress testing. Patients with a diagnosis of renal disease or either type 1 or type 2 diabetes should also be considered for cardiovascular stress testing.

Ready to prescribe exercise? Cover these 4 points

When prescribing any exercise plan for older adults, it is important for clinicians to specify 4 key components: frequency, intensity, time, and type (this can be remembered using the acronym “FITT”).²³ A sedentary adult should be encouraged to engage in moderate-­intensity exercise, such as walking, for 15 minutes 3 times per week. The key with a sedentary adult is appropriate follow-up to monitor progression and modify activity to help ensure the patient can achieve the goal number of minutes per week. It can be helpful to share the “next step” with the patient, as well (eg, increase to 4 times per week after 2 weeks, or increase by 5 minutes every week). For the intermittent exerciser, a program of moderate exercise, such as using an elliptical, for 30 to 40 minutes 5 times per week is a recommended prescription. FITT components can be tailored to meet individual patient physical readiness.²³

Frequency. While the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans recommend a specific frequency of physical activity throughout the week, it is important to remember that some older adults will be unable to meet these recommendations, particularly in the setting of frailty and comorbidities (TABLE 2²). In these cases, the guidelines simply recommend that older adults should be as physically active as their abilities and comorbidities allow. Some exercise is better than none, and generally moving more and sitting less will yield health benefits for older adult patients.

Intensity is a description of how hard an individual is working during physical activity. An older adult’s individual capacity for exercise intensity will depend on many factors, including their comorbidities. An activity’s intensity will be relative to a person’s unique level of fitness. Given this heterogeneity, exercise prescriptions should be tailored to the individual. Light-intensity exercise generally causes a slight increase in pulse and respiratory rate, moderate-intensity exercise causes a noticeable increase in pulse and respiratory rate, and vigorous-intensity exercise causes a significant increase in pulse and respiratory rate (TABLE 4^2,16,17,24).²

The “talk test” is a simple, practical, and validated test that can help one determine an individual’s capacity for moderate- or ­vigorous-intensity exercise.²³ In general, a person performing vigorous-intensity exercise will be unable to talk comfortably during activity for more than a few words without pausing for breath. Similarly, a person will be able to talk but not sing comfortably during moderate-intensity exercise.^3,23

Continue to: Time

Time. The 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans recommend a specific duration of physical activity throughout the week; however, as with frequency, it is important to remember that duration of exercise is individualized (TABLE 2²). Older adults should be as physically active as their abilities and comorbidities allow, and in the setting of frailty, numerous comorbidities, and/or a sedentary lifestyle, it is reasonable to initiate exercise recommendations with shorter durations.

The PAVS is a 2-item self-report measure used to quickly assess a patient’s level of physical activity.

Type of exercise. As noted in the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, recommendations for older adults include multiple types of exercise. In addition to these general exercise recommendations, exercise prescriptions can be individualized to target specific comorbidities (TABLE 2²). Weight-bearing, bone-strengthening exercises can benefit patients with disorders of low bone density and possibly those with osteoarthritis.^3,23 Patients at increased risk for falls should focus on balance-training options that strengthen the muscles of the back, abdomen, and legs, such as tai chi.^3,23 Patients with cardiovascular risk can benefit from moderate- to high-intensity aerobic exercise (although exercise should be performed below anginal threshold in patients with known cardiovascular disease). Patients with type 2 diabetes achieve improved glycemic control when engaging in combined moderate-intensity aerobic exercise and resistance training.^7,23

Referral to a physical therapist or sport and exercise medicine specialist can always be considered, particularly for patients with significant neurologic disorders, disability secondary to traumatic injury, or health conditions.³

An improved quality of life. Incorporating physical activity into older adults’ lives can enhance their quality of life. Family physicians are well positioned to counsel older adults on the importance and benefits of exercise and to help them overcome the barriers or resistance to undertaking a change in behavior. Guidelines, recommendations, patient history, and resources provide the support needed to prescribe individualized exercise plans for this distinct population. 

CORRESPONDENCE
Scott T. Larson, MD, 200 Hawkins Drive, Iowa City, IA, 52242; [email protected]

The health benefits of maintaining a physically active lifestyle are vast and irrefutable.¹ Physical activity is an important modifiable behavior demonstrated to reduce the risk for many chronic diseases while improving physical function (TABLE 1²).³ Physical inactivity increases with age, making older adults (ages ≥ 65 years) the least active age group and the group at greatest risk for inactivity-­related health consequences.^4-6 Engaging in a physically active lifestyle is especially important for older adults to maintain independence,⁷ quality of life,⁸ and the ability to perform activities of daily living.^3,9

Prescribe physical activity for older adults

The 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans recommend that all healthy adults (including healthy older adults) ideally should perform muscle-strengthening activities of moderate or greater intensity that involve all major muscle groups on 2 or more days per week and either (a) 150 to 300 minutes per week of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity, (b) 75 to 150 minutes per week of vigorous-intensity aerobic physical activity, or (c) an equivalent combination, if possible (TABLE 2²).³ It is recommended that older adults specifically follow a multicomponent physical activity program that includes balance training, as well as aerobic and muscle-strengthening activities.³ Unfortunately, nearly 80% of older adults do not meet the recommended guidelines for aerobic or muscle-strengthening exercise.³

Identify barriers to exercise

Older adults report several barriers that limit physical activity. Some of the most commonly reported barriers include a lack of motivation, low self-efficacy for being active, physical limitations due to health conditions, inconvenient physical activity locations, boredom with physical activity, and lack of guidance from professionals.^10-12 Physical activity programs designed for older adults should specifically target these barriers for maximum effectiveness.

Clinicians also face potential barriers for promoting physical activity among older adults. Screening patients for physical inactivity can be a challenge, given the robust number of clinical preventive services and conversations that are already recommended for older adults. Additionally, screening for physical activity is not a reimbursable service. In July, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) reaffirmed its 2017 recommendation to individualize the decision to offer or refer adults without obesity, hypertension, dyslipidemia, or abnormal blood glucose levels or diabetes to behavioral counseling to promote a healthy diet and physical activity (Grade C rating).¹³

Treat physical activity as a vital sign

The Exercise is Medicine (EIM) model is based on the principle that physical activity should be treated as a vital sign and discussed during all health care visits. Health care professionals have a unique opportunity to promote physical activity, since more than 80% of US adults see a physician annually. Evidence also suggests clinician advice is associated with patients’ healthy lifestyle behaviors.^14,15

EIM is a global health initiative that was established in 2007 and is managed by the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM). The primary objective of the EIM model is to treat physical activity behavior as a vital sign and include physical activity promotion as a standard of clinical care. In order to achieve this objective, the EIM model recommends health care systems follow 3 simple rules: (1) treat physical activity as a vital sign by measuring physical activity of every patient at every visit, (2) prescribe exercise to those patients who report not meeting the physical activity guidelines, and/or (3) refer inactive patients to evidence-based physical activity resources to receive exercise counseling.^16,17

Screen for physical activity using this 2-question self-report

Clinicians may employ multiple tactics to screen patients for their current levels of physical activity. Physical Activity Vital Sign (PAVS) is a 2-item self-report measure developed to briefly assess a patient’s level of physical activity; results can be entered into the patient’s electronic medical record and used to begin a process of referring inactive patients for behavioral counseling.^17,18 The PAVS can be administered in less than 1 minute by a medical assistant and/or nursing staff during rooming or intake of patients. The PAVS questions include, “On average, how many days per week do you engage in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity?” and “On average, how many minutes do you engage in physical activity at this level?” The clinician can then multiply the 2 numbers to calculate the patient’s total minutes of ­moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week to determine whether a patient is meeting the recommended physical activity guidelines.¹⁶ (For more on the PAVS and other resources, see TABLE 3.)

Continue to: The PAVS has been established...

Approximately 80% of older adults do not meet the recommended guidelines for aerobic or muscle-strengthening exercise.

The PAVS has been established as a valid instrument for detecting patients who may need counseling on physical activity for chronic disease recognition, management, and prevention.¹⁷ Furthermore, there is a strong association between PAVS, elevated body mass index, and chronic disease burden.¹⁹ Therefore, we recommend that primary care physicians screen their patients for physical activity levels. It has been demonstrated, however, that many primary care visits for older individuals include discussions of diet and physical activity but do not provide recommendations for lifestyle change.¹⁹ Thus, exploring ways to counsel patients on lifestyle change in an efficient manner is recommended. It has been demonstrated that counseling and referral from primary care centers can promote increased adherence to physical activity practices.^20,21

Determine physical activity readiness

Prior to recommending a physical activity regimen, it is important to evaluate the patient’s readiness to make a change. Various questionnaires—such as the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire—have been developed to determine a patient’s level of readiness, evaluating both psychological and physical factors (www.nasm.org/docs/pdf/parqplus-2020.pdf?sfvrsn=401bf1af_24). Questionnaires also help you to determine whether further medical evaluation prior to beginning an exercise regimen is necessary. It’s important to note that, as is true with any office intervention, patients may be in a precontemplation or contemplation phase and may not be prepared to immediately make changes.

Evaluate risk level

Assess cardiovascular risk. Physicians and patients are often concerned about cardiovascular risk or injury risk during physical activity counseling, which may lead to fewer exercise prescriptions. As a physician, it is important to remember that for most adults, the benefits of exercise will outweigh any potential risks,³ and there is generally a low risk of cardiovascular events related to light to moderate–intensity exercise regimens.² Additionally, it has been demonstrated that exercise and cardiovascular rehabilitation are highly beneficial for primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.²² Given that cardiovascular comorbidities are relatively common in older adults, some older adults will need to undergo risk stratification evaluation prior to initiating an exercise regimen.

Review preparticipation screening guidelines and recommendations

Guidelines can be contradictory regarding the ideal pre-exercise evaluation. In general, the USPSTF recommends against screening with resting or exercise electrocardiography (EKG) to prevent cardiovascular disease events in asymptomatic adults who are at low risk. It also finds insufficient evidence to assess the balance of benefits and harms of screening with resting or exercise EKG to prevent cardiovascular disease events in asymptomatic adults who are at intermediate or high risk.²²

Similarly, the 2020 ACSM Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription reflect that routine exercise testing is not recommended for all older adult patients prior to starting an exercise regimen.¹⁷ However, the ACSM does recommend all patients with signs or symptoms of a cardiovascular, renal, or metabolic disease consult with a clinician for medical risk stratification and potential subsequent testing prior to starting an exercise regimen. If an individual already exercises and is having new/worsening signs or symptoms of a cardiovascular, renal, or metabolic disease, that patient should cease exercise until medical evaluation is performed. Additionally, ACSM recommends that asymptomatic patients who do not exercise but who have known cardiovascular, renal, or metabolic disease receive medical evaluation prior to starting an exercise regimen.¹⁷

Continue to: Is there evidence of cardiovascular, renal, or metabolic disease?

Initial screening can be completed by obtaining the patient’s history and conducting a physical examination. Patients reporting chest pain or discomfort (or any anginal equivalent), dyspnea, syncope, orthopnea, lower extremity edema, signs of tachyarrhythmia/bradyarrhythmia, intermittent claudication, exertional fatigue, or new exertional symptoms should all be considered for cardiovascular stress testing. Patients with a diagnosis of renal disease or either type 1 or type 2 diabetes should also be considered for cardiovascular stress testing.

Ready to prescribe exercise? Cover these 4 points

When prescribing any exercise plan for older adults, it is important for clinicians to specify 4 key components: frequency, intensity, time, and type (this can be remembered using the acronym “FITT”).²³ A sedentary adult should be encouraged to engage in moderate-­intensity exercise, such as walking, for 15 minutes 3 times per week. The key with a sedentary adult is appropriate follow-up to monitor progression and modify activity to help ensure the patient can achieve the goal number of minutes per week. It can be helpful to share the “next step” with the patient, as well (eg, increase to 4 times per week after 2 weeks, or increase by 5 minutes every week). For the intermittent exerciser, a program of moderate exercise, such as using an elliptical, for 30 to 40 minutes 5 times per week is a recommended prescription. FITT components can be tailored to meet individual patient physical readiness.²³

Frequency. While the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans recommend a specific frequency of physical activity throughout the week, it is important to remember that some older adults will be unable to meet these recommendations, particularly in the setting of frailty and comorbidities (TABLE 2²). In these cases, the guidelines simply recommend that older adults should be as physically active as their abilities and comorbidities allow. Some exercise is better than none, and generally moving more and sitting less will yield health benefits for older adult patients.

Intensity is a description of how hard an individual is working during physical activity. An older adult’s individual capacity for exercise intensity will depend on many factors, including their comorbidities. An activity’s intensity will be relative to a person’s unique level of fitness. Given this heterogeneity, exercise prescriptions should be tailored to the individual. Light-intensity exercise generally causes a slight increase in pulse and respiratory rate, moderate-intensity exercise causes a noticeable increase in pulse and respiratory rate, and vigorous-intensity exercise causes a significant increase in pulse and respiratory rate (TABLE 4^2,16,17,24).²

The “talk test” is a simple, practical, and validated test that can help one determine an individual’s capacity for moderate- or ­vigorous-intensity exercise.²³ In general, a person performing vigorous-intensity exercise will be unable to talk comfortably during activity for more than a few words without pausing for breath. Similarly, a person will be able to talk but not sing comfortably during moderate-intensity exercise.^3,23

Continue to: Time

Time. The 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans recommend a specific duration of physical activity throughout the week; however, as with frequency, it is important to remember that duration of exercise is individualized (TABLE 2²). Older adults should be as physically active as their abilities and comorbidities allow, and in the setting of frailty, numerous comorbidities, and/or a sedentary lifestyle, it is reasonable to initiate exercise recommendations with shorter durations.

The PAVS is a 2-item self-report measure used to quickly assess a patient’s level of physical activity.

Type of exercise. As noted in the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans, recommendations for older adults include multiple types of exercise. In addition to these general exercise recommendations, exercise prescriptions can be individualized to target specific comorbidities (TABLE 2²). Weight-bearing, bone-strengthening exercises can benefit patients with disorders of low bone density and possibly those with osteoarthritis.^3,23 Patients at increased risk for falls should focus on balance-training options that strengthen the muscles of the back, abdomen, and legs, such as tai chi.^3,23 Patients with cardiovascular risk can benefit from moderate- to high-intensity aerobic exercise (although exercise should be performed below anginal threshold in patients with known cardiovascular disease). Patients with type 2 diabetes achieve improved glycemic control when engaging in combined moderate-intensity aerobic exercise and resistance training.^7,23

Referral to a physical therapist or sport and exercise medicine specialist can always be considered, particularly for patients with significant neurologic disorders, disability secondary to traumatic injury, or health conditions.³

An improved quality of life. Incorporating physical activity into older adults’ lives can enhance their quality of life. Family physicians are well positioned to counsel older adults on the importance and benefits of exercise and to help them overcome the barriers or resistance to undertaking a change in behavior. Guidelines, recommendations, patient history, and resources provide the support needed to prescribe individualized exercise plans for this distinct population. 

CORRESPONDENCE
Scott T. Larson, MD, 200 Hawkins Drive, Iowa City, IA, 52242; [email protected]

Both yoga and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) provide meaningful improvements in worry, anxiety, and insomnia in older adults that last even 6 months after discontinuing treatment, new research suggests.

The study is the first to compare the long-term effects from the two interventions; and the results offer clinicians and patients two effective choices for reducing worry and anxiety, researchers noted.

“Anxiety can be a really big problem for older adults,” lead investigator Suzanne Danhauer, PhD, professor of social sciences and health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

“So to find something they can do that lasts ... and has some enduring impact on their quality of life and their mental health, and they’re both nonpharmacologic treatments, I think for a lot of older people that’s really attractive,” Dr. Danhauer said.

The findings are published in the September issue of the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Long-term benefits

The two-stage randomized preference trial included 500 community-dwelling individuals over age 60 who scored 26 or above on the Penn State Worry Questionnaire–Abbreviated (PSWQ-A), indicating heightened anxiety and worry.

Half the group took part in a randomized, controlled trial comparing CBT (n = 125) with yoga (n = 125). The other half participated in a preference trial where they were allowed to choose between CBT (n = 120) and yoga (n = 130).

Participants completed 20 yoga sessions over 10 weeks or 10 weekly CBT calls between May 2017 and November 2018.

Measures used included the PSWQ-A, the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Short Form v1.0 – Anxiety 8a, and the PROMIS-29 to assess depression, fatigue, physical function, social participation, and pain.

In 2020, the researchers published results at 11 weeks showing improvements from baseline in all areas. The scores for anxiety and worry were similar between the CBT and yoga groups, but CBT yielded significantly higher improvement in insomnia.

At 37 weeks, about 6 months after the interventions had ended, the investigators found even greater improvements from baseline in all areas measured – except physical function.

However, at that point, there were no significant differences between the two interventions in either the randomized controlled trial or the preference trial. There were also no differences in the results between the two trial designs.

“There were some little differences, but by and large we found both interventions to be efficacious,” Dr. Danhauer said. “This gives clinicians [the] choice to be able to say, ‘you can try either one of these and they’re probably going to help.’ ”
 

Beyond statistically significant

The researchers also found the improvements were not just statistically significant, but were also clinically meaningful for worry, anxiety, and insomnia.

Meaningful changes were defined as a decrease of at least 5.5 points on the PSWQ-A for worry, a decrease of at least 3 points on the PROMIS Anxiety scale for anxiety, and a decrease of at least 6 points in the ISI for insomnia.

At long-term follow-up, the majority of participants in both the CBT and yoga arms of the randomized, controlled trial demonstrated meaningful change in worry (85.7% and 77.6%, respectively), anxiety (82.1% and 80.8%), and insomnia (52.8% and 44.3%).

The majority of participants also reported meaningful improvements in generalized anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, and fatigue, but not for physical function, pain interference, or pain intensity.

“That’s the part to me that’s particularly notable. The improvements weren’t just statistically significant, they were clinically meaningful as well,” Dr. Danhauer said.

“When it comes right down to people’s lives, they want differences they can feel and see and not just what a P value looks like,” she added.
 

Real-world impact

In an accompanying editorial, Carmen Andreescu, MD, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, agreed that the results have “real-world impact.”

“Clinicians can direct their patients toward interventions that may be beneficial, consolidate the results over time and avoid fueling the well-trained worry cognitive loop with concerns related to potential side effects,” Dr. Andreescu wrote.

She adds that interventions such as these “may increase accessibility and provide relief for the immediate suffering of our patients.”

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Program. Dr. Danhauer and Dr. Andreescu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both yoga and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) provide meaningful improvements in worry, anxiety, and insomnia in older adults that last even 6 months after discontinuing treatment, new research suggests.

The study is the first to compare the long-term effects from the two interventions; and the results offer clinicians and patients two effective choices for reducing worry and anxiety, researchers noted.

“Anxiety can be a really big problem for older adults,” lead investigator Suzanne Danhauer, PhD, professor of social sciences and health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

“So to find something they can do that lasts ... and has some enduring impact on their quality of life and their mental health, and they’re both nonpharmacologic treatments, I think for a lot of older people that’s really attractive,” Dr. Danhauer said.

The findings are published in the September issue of the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Long-term benefits

The two-stage randomized preference trial included 500 community-dwelling individuals over age 60 who scored 26 or above on the Penn State Worry Questionnaire–Abbreviated (PSWQ-A), indicating heightened anxiety and worry.

Half the group took part in a randomized, controlled trial comparing CBT (n = 125) with yoga (n = 125). The other half participated in a preference trial where they were allowed to choose between CBT (n = 120) and yoga (n = 130).

Participants completed 20 yoga sessions over 10 weeks or 10 weekly CBT calls between May 2017 and November 2018.

Measures used included the PSWQ-A, the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Short Form v1.0 – Anxiety 8a, and the PROMIS-29 to assess depression, fatigue, physical function, social participation, and pain.

In 2020, the researchers published results at 11 weeks showing improvements from baseline in all areas. The scores for anxiety and worry were similar between the CBT and yoga groups, but CBT yielded significantly higher improvement in insomnia.

At 37 weeks, about 6 months after the interventions had ended, the investigators found even greater improvements from baseline in all areas measured – except physical function.

However, at that point, there were no significant differences between the two interventions in either the randomized controlled trial or the preference trial. There were also no differences in the results between the two trial designs.

“There were some little differences, but by and large we found both interventions to be efficacious,” Dr. Danhauer said. “This gives clinicians [the] choice to be able to say, ‘you can try either one of these and they’re probably going to help.’ ”
 

Beyond statistically significant

The researchers also found the improvements were not just statistically significant, but were also clinically meaningful for worry, anxiety, and insomnia.

Meaningful changes were defined as a decrease of at least 5.5 points on the PSWQ-A for worry, a decrease of at least 3 points on the PROMIS Anxiety scale for anxiety, and a decrease of at least 6 points in the ISI for insomnia.

At long-term follow-up, the majority of participants in both the CBT and yoga arms of the randomized, controlled trial demonstrated meaningful change in worry (85.7% and 77.6%, respectively), anxiety (82.1% and 80.8%), and insomnia (52.8% and 44.3%).

The majority of participants also reported meaningful improvements in generalized anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, and fatigue, but not for physical function, pain interference, or pain intensity.

“That’s the part to me that’s particularly notable. The improvements weren’t just statistically significant, they were clinically meaningful as well,” Dr. Danhauer said.

“When it comes right down to people’s lives, they want differences they can feel and see and not just what a P value looks like,” she added.
 

Real-world impact

In an accompanying editorial, Carmen Andreescu, MD, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, agreed that the results have “real-world impact.”

“Clinicians can direct their patients toward interventions that may be beneficial, consolidate the results over time and avoid fueling the well-trained worry cognitive loop with concerns related to potential side effects,” Dr. Andreescu wrote.

She adds that interventions such as these “may increase accessibility and provide relief for the immediate suffering of our patients.”

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Program. Dr. Danhauer and Dr. Andreescu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Both yoga and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) provide meaningful improvements in worry, anxiety, and insomnia in older adults that last even 6 months after discontinuing treatment, new research suggests.

The study is the first to compare the long-term effects from the two interventions; and the results offer clinicians and patients two effective choices for reducing worry and anxiety, researchers noted.

“Anxiety can be a really big problem for older adults,” lead investigator Suzanne Danhauer, PhD, professor of social sciences and health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., said in an interview.

“So to find something they can do that lasts ... and has some enduring impact on their quality of life and their mental health, and they’re both nonpharmacologic treatments, I think for a lot of older people that’s really attractive,” Dr. Danhauer said.

The findings are published in the September issue of the American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry.
 

Long-term benefits

The two-stage randomized preference trial included 500 community-dwelling individuals over age 60 who scored 26 or above on the Penn State Worry Questionnaire–Abbreviated (PSWQ-A), indicating heightened anxiety and worry.

Half the group took part in a randomized, controlled trial comparing CBT (n = 125) with yoga (n = 125). The other half participated in a preference trial where they were allowed to choose between CBT (n = 120) and yoga (n = 130).

Participants completed 20 yoga sessions over 10 weeks or 10 weekly CBT calls between May 2017 and November 2018.

Measures used included the PSWQ-A, the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI), the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Short Form v1.0 – Anxiety 8a, and the PROMIS-29 to assess depression, fatigue, physical function, social participation, and pain.

In 2020, the researchers published results at 11 weeks showing improvements from baseline in all areas. The scores for anxiety and worry were similar between the CBT and yoga groups, but CBT yielded significantly higher improvement in insomnia.

At 37 weeks, about 6 months after the interventions had ended, the investigators found even greater improvements from baseline in all areas measured – except physical function.

However, at that point, there were no significant differences between the two interventions in either the randomized controlled trial or the preference trial. There were also no differences in the results between the two trial designs.

“There were some little differences, but by and large we found both interventions to be efficacious,” Dr. Danhauer said. “This gives clinicians [the] choice to be able to say, ‘you can try either one of these and they’re probably going to help.’ ”
 

Beyond statistically significant

The researchers also found the improvements were not just statistically significant, but were also clinically meaningful for worry, anxiety, and insomnia.

Meaningful changes were defined as a decrease of at least 5.5 points on the PSWQ-A for worry, a decrease of at least 3 points on the PROMIS Anxiety scale for anxiety, and a decrease of at least 6 points in the ISI for insomnia.

At long-term follow-up, the majority of participants in both the CBT and yoga arms of the randomized, controlled trial demonstrated meaningful change in worry (85.7% and 77.6%, respectively), anxiety (82.1% and 80.8%), and insomnia (52.8% and 44.3%).

The majority of participants also reported meaningful improvements in generalized anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, and fatigue, but not for physical function, pain interference, or pain intensity.

“That’s the part to me that’s particularly notable. The improvements weren’t just statistically significant, they were clinically meaningful as well,” Dr. Danhauer said.

“When it comes right down to people’s lives, they want differences they can feel and see and not just what a P value looks like,” she added.
 

Real-world impact

In an accompanying editorial, Carmen Andreescu, MD, associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Pittsburgh, agreed that the results have “real-world impact.”

“Clinicians can direct their patients toward interventions that may be beneficial, consolidate the results over time and avoid fueling the well-trained worry cognitive loop with concerns related to potential side effects,” Dr. Andreescu wrote.

She adds that interventions such as these “may increase accessibility and provide relief for the immediate suffering of our patients.”

The study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Program. Dr. Danhauer and Dr. Andreescu reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

BARCELONA – Treatment of patients with chronic heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), a mainstay agent for people with this disorder, produced no hint of incremental adverse cognitive effects during 3 years of treatment in a prospective, controlled, multicenter study with nearly 600 patients, although some experts note that possible adverse cognitive effects of sacubitril were not an issue for many heart failure clinicians, even before the study ran.

The potential for an adverse effect of sacubitril on cognition had arisen as a hypothetical concern because sacubitril inhibits the human enzyme neprilysin. This activity results in beneficial effects for patients with heart failure by increasing levels of several endogenous vasoactive peptides. But neprilysin also degrades amyloid beta peptides and so inhibition of this enzyme could possibly result in accumulation of amyloid peptides in the brain with potential neurotoxic effects, which raised concern among some cardiologists and patients that sacubitril/valsartan could hasten cognitive decline.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Results from the new study, PERSPECTIVE, showed “no evidence that neprilysin inhibition increased the risk of cognitive impairment due to the accumulation of beta amyloid” in patients with heart failure with either mid-range or preserved ejection fraction,” John McMurray, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Dr. McMurray, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, highlighted that the study enrolled only patients with heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction of greater than 40% because the study designers considered it “unethical” to withhold treatment with sacubitril/valsartan from patients with an ejection fraction of 40% or less (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, HFrEF), whereas “no mandate” exists in current treatment guidelines for using sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and higher ejection fractions. He added that he could see no reason why the results seen in patients with higher ejection fractions would not also apply to those with HFrEF.
 

Reassuring results, but cost still a drag on uptake

“This was a well-designed trial” with results that are “very reassuring” for a lack of harm from sacubitril/valsartan, commented Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, the study’s designated discussant and professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. The findings “solidify the lack of risk and are very exciting for the heart failure community because the question has bothered a large number of people, especially older patients” with heart failure.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Following these results, “hopefully more patients with heart failure will receive” sacubitril/valsartan, agreed Dr. McMurray, but he added the caveat that the relatively high cost of the agent (which has a U.S. list price of roughly $6,000/year) has been the primary barrier to wider uptake of the drug for patients with heart failure. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan is recommended in several society guidelines as a core intervention for patients with HFrEF and as a treatment option for patients with heart failure and higher ejection fractions.

“Cost remains the single biggest deterrent for use” of sacubitril/valsartan, agreed Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, director of disease management at the Hoag Heart and Vascular Institute in Newport Beach, Calif. “Concerns about cognitive impairment has not been why people have not been using sacubitril/valsartan,” Dr. Itchhaporia commented in an interview.

PERSPECTIVE enrolled patients with heart failure with an ejection fraction greater than 40% and at least 60 years old at any of 137 sites in 20 countries, with about a third of enrolled patients coming from U.S. centers. The study, which ran enrollment during January 2017–May 2019, excluded people with clinically discernible cognitive impairment at the time of entry.

Researchers randomized patients to either a standard regimen of sacubitril/valsartan (295) or valsartan (297) on top of their background treatment, with most patients also receiving a beta-blocker, a diuretic, and a statin. The enrolled patients averaged about 72 years of age, and more than one-third were at least 75 years old.

The study’s primary endpoint was the performance of these patients in seven different tests of cognitive function using a proprietary metric, the CogState Global Cognitive Composite Score, measured at baseline and then every 6 months during follow-up designed to run for 3 years on treatment (the researchers collected data for at least 30 months of follow-up from 71%-73% of enrolled patients). Average changes in these scores over time tracked nearly the same in both treatment arms and met the study’s prespecified criteria for noninferiority of the sacubitril valsartan treatment, Dr. McMurray reported. The results also showed that roughly 60% of patients in both arms had “some degree of cognitive impairment” during follow-up.

A secondary outcome measure used PET imaging to quantify cerebral accumulation of beta amyloid, and again the results met the study’s prespecified threshold for noninferiority for the patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan, said Dr. McMurray.

Another concern raised by some experts was the relatively brief follow-up of 3 years, and the complexity of heart failure patients who could face several other causes of cognitive decline. The findings “help reassure, but 3 years is not long enough, and I’m not sure the study eliminated all the other possible variables,” commented Dr. Itchhaporia.

But Dr. McMurray contended that 3 years represents robust follow-up in patients with heart failure who notoriously have limited life expectancy following their diagnosis. “Three years is a long time for patients with heart failure.”

The findings also raise the prospect of developing sacubitril/valsartan as an antihypertensive treatment, an indication that has been avoided until now because of the uncertain cognitive effects of the agent and the need for prolonged use when the treated disorder is hypertension instead of heart failure.

PERSPECTIVE was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. McMurray has received consulting and lecture fees from Novartis and he and his institution have received research funding from Novartis. Dr. Bozkurt has been a consultant to numerous companies but has no relationship with Novartis. Dr. Itchhaporia had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – Treatment of patients with chronic heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), a mainstay agent for people with this disorder, produced no hint of incremental adverse cognitive effects during 3 years of treatment in a prospective, controlled, multicenter study with nearly 600 patients, although some experts note that possible adverse cognitive effects of sacubitril were not an issue for many heart failure clinicians, even before the study ran.

The potential for an adverse effect of sacubitril on cognition had arisen as a hypothetical concern because sacubitril inhibits the human enzyme neprilysin. This activity results in beneficial effects for patients with heart failure by increasing levels of several endogenous vasoactive peptides. But neprilysin also degrades amyloid beta peptides and so inhibition of this enzyme could possibly result in accumulation of amyloid peptides in the brain with potential neurotoxic effects, which raised concern among some cardiologists and patients that sacubitril/valsartan could hasten cognitive decline.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Results from the new study, PERSPECTIVE, showed “no evidence that neprilysin inhibition increased the risk of cognitive impairment due to the accumulation of beta amyloid” in patients with heart failure with either mid-range or preserved ejection fraction,” John McMurray, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Dr. McMurray, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, highlighted that the study enrolled only patients with heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction of greater than 40% because the study designers considered it “unethical” to withhold treatment with sacubitril/valsartan from patients with an ejection fraction of 40% or less (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, HFrEF), whereas “no mandate” exists in current treatment guidelines for using sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and higher ejection fractions. He added that he could see no reason why the results seen in patients with higher ejection fractions would not also apply to those with HFrEF.
 

Reassuring results, but cost still a drag on uptake

“This was a well-designed trial” with results that are “very reassuring” for a lack of harm from sacubitril/valsartan, commented Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, the study’s designated discussant and professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. The findings “solidify the lack of risk and are very exciting for the heart failure community because the question has bothered a large number of people, especially older patients” with heart failure.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Following these results, “hopefully more patients with heart failure will receive” sacubitril/valsartan, agreed Dr. McMurray, but he added the caveat that the relatively high cost of the agent (which has a U.S. list price of roughly $6,000/year) has been the primary barrier to wider uptake of the drug for patients with heart failure. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan is recommended in several society guidelines as a core intervention for patients with HFrEF and as a treatment option for patients with heart failure and higher ejection fractions.

“Cost remains the single biggest deterrent for use” of sacubitril/valsartan, agreed Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, director of disease management at the Hoag Heart and Vascular Institute in Newport Beach, Calif. “Concerns about cognitive impairment has not been why people have not been using sacubitril/valsartan,” Dr. Itchhaporia commented in an interview.

PERSPECTIVE enrolled patients with heart failure with an ejection fraction greater than 40% and at least 60 years old at any of 137 sites in 20 countries, with about a third of enrolled patients coming from U.S. centers. The study, which ran enrollment during January 2017–May 2019, excluded people with clinically discernible cognitive impairment at the time of entry.

Researchers randomized patients to either a standard regimen of sacubitril/valsartan (295) or valsartan (297) on top of their background treatment, with most patients also receiving a beta-blocker, a diuretic, and a statin. The enrolled patients averaged about 72 years of age, and more than one-third were at least 75 years old.

The study’s primary endpoint was the performance of these patients in seven different tests of cognitive function using a proprietary metric, the CogState Global Cognitive Composite Score, measured at baseline and then every 6 months during follow-up designed to run for 3 years on treatment (the researchers collected data for at least 30 months of follow-up from 71%-73% of enrolled patients). Average changes in these scores over time tracked nearly the same in both treatment arms and met the study’s prespecified criteria for noninferiority of the sacubitril valsartan treatment, Dr. McMurray reported. The results also showed that roughly 60% of patients in both arms had “some degree of cognitive impairment” during follow-up.

A secondary outcome measure used PET imaging to quantify cerebral accumulation of beta amyloid, and again the results met the study’s prespecified threshold for noninferiority for the patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan, said Dr. McMurray.

Another concern raised by some experts was the relatively brief follow-up of 3 years, and the complexity of heart failure patients who could face several other causes of cognitive decline. The findings “help reassure, but 3 years is not long enough, and I’m not sure the study eliminated all the other possible variables,” commented Dr. Itchhaporia.

But Dr. McMurray contended that 3 years represents robust follow-up in patients with heart failure who notoriously have limited life expectancy following their diagnosis. “Three years is a long time for patients with heart failure.”

The findings also raise the prospect of developing sacubitril/valsartan as an antihypertensive treatment, an indication that has been avoided until now because of the uncertain cognitive effects of the agent and the need for prolonged use when the treated disorder is hypertension instead of heart failure.

PERSPECTIVE was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. McMurray has received consulting and lecture fees from Novartis and he and his institution have received research funding from Novartis. Dr. Bozkurt has been a consultant to numerous companies but has no relationship with Novartis. Dr. Itchhaporia had no disclosures.

BARCELONA – Treatment of patients with chronic heart failure with sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto), a mainstay agent for people with this disorder, produced no hint of incremental adverse cognitive effects during 3 years of treatment in a prospective, controlled, multicenter study with nearly 600 patients, although some experts note that possible adverse cognitive effects of sacubitril were not an issue for many heart failure clinicians, even before the study ran.

The potential for an adverse effect of sacubitril on cognition had arisen as a hypothetical concern because sacubitril inhibits the human enzyme neprilysin. This activity results in beneficial effects for patients with heart failure by increasing levels of several endogenous vasoactive peptides. But neprilysin also degrades amyloid beta peptides and so inhibition of this enzyme could possibly result in accumulation of amyloid peptides in the brain with potential neurotoxic effects, which raised concern among some cardiologists and patients that sacubitril/valsartan could hasten cognitive decline.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Results from the new study, PERSPECTIVE, showed “no evidence that neprilysin inhibition increased the risk of cognitive impairment due to the accumulation of beta amyloid” in patients with heart failure with either mid-range or preserved ejection fraction,” John McMurray, MD, said at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology.

Dr. McMurray, professor of medical cardiology at the University of Glasgow, highlighted that the study enrolled only patients with heart failure with a left ventricular ejection fraction of greater than 40% because the study designers considered it “unethical” to withhold treatment with sacubitril/valsartan from patients with an ejection fraction of 40% or less (heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, HFrEF), whereas “no mandate” exists in current treatment guidelines for using sacubitril/valsartan in patients with heart failure and higher ejection fractions. He added that he could see no reason why the results seen in patients with higher ejection fractions would not also apply to those with HFrEF.
 

Reassuring results, but cost still a drag on uptake

“This was a well-designed trial” with results that are “very reassuring” for a lack of harm from sacubitril/valsartan, commented Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, the study’s designated discussant and professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston. The findings “solidify the lack of risk and are very exciting for the heart failure community because the question has bothered a large number of people, especially older patients” with heart failure.

Catherine Hackett/MDedge News

Following these results, “hopefully more patients with heart failure will receive” sacubitril/valsartan, agreed Dr. McMurray, but he added the caveat that the relatively high cost of the agent (which has a U.S. list price of roughly $6,000/year) has been the primary barrier to wider uptake of the drug for patients with heart failure. Treatment with sacubitril/valsartan is recommended in several society guidelines as a core intervention for patients with HFrEF and as a treatment option for patients with heart failure and higher ejection fractions.

“Cost remains the single biggest deterrent for use” of sacubitril/valsartan, agreed Dipti N. Itchhaporia, MD, director of disease management at the Hoag Heart and Vascular Institute in Newport Beach, Calif. “Concerns about cognitive impairment has not been why people have not been using sacubitril/valsartan,” Dr. Itchhaporia commented in an interview.

PERSPECTIVE enrolled patients with heart failure with an ejection fraction greater than 40% and at least 60 years old at any of 137 sites in 20 countries, with about a third of enrolled patients coming from U.S. centers. The study, which ran enrollment during January 2017–May 2019, excluded people with clinically discernible cognitive impairment at the time of entry.

Researchers randomized patients to either a standard regimen of sacubitril/valsartan (295) or valsartan (297) on top of their background treatment, with most patients also receiving a beta-blocker, a diuretic, and a statin. The enrolled patients averaged about 72 years of age, and more than one-third were at least 75 years old.

The study’s primary endpoint was the performance of these patients in seven different tests of cognitive function using a proprietary metric, the CogState Global Cognitive Composite Score, measured at baseline and then every 6 months during follow-up designed to run for 3 years on treatment (the researchers collected data for at least 30 months of follow-up from 71%-73% of enrolled patients). Average changes in these scores over time tracked nearly the same in both treatment arms and met the study’s prespecified criteria for noninferiority of the sacubitril valsartan treatment, Dr. McMurray reported. The results also showed that roughly 60% of patients in both arms had “some degree of cognitive impairment” during follow-up.

A secondary outcome measure used PET imaging to quantify cerebral accumulation of beta amyloid, and again the results met the study’s prespecified threshold for noninferiority for the patients treated with sacubitril/valsartan, said Dr. McMurray.

Another concern raised by some experts was the relatively brief follow-up of 3 years, and the complexity of heart failure patients who could face several other causes of cognitive decline. The findings “help reassure, but 3 years is not long enough, and I’m not sure the study eliminated all the other possible variables,” commented Dr. Itchhaporia.

But Dr. McMurray contended that 3 years represents robust follow-up in patients with heart failure who notoriously have limited life expectancy following their diagnosis. “Three years is a long time for patients with heart failure.”

The findings also raise the prospect of developing sacubitril/valsartan as an antihypertensive treatment, an indication that has been avoided until now because of the uncertain cognitive effects of the agent and the need for prolonged use when the treated disorder is hypertension instead of heart failure.

PERSPECTIVE was funded by Novartis, the company that markets sacubitril/valsartan (Entresto). Dr. McMurray has received consulting and lecture fees from Novartis and he and his institution have received research funding from Novartis. Dr. Bozkurt has been a consultant to numerous companies but has no relationship with Novartis. Dr. Itchhaporia had no disclosures.