Geriatrics

TOPLINE:

Older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis who were operated on within 1 day of admission were less likely to die in the hospital compared with those who were treated with nonsurgical management or who had a delayed surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 24,320 older adults (median age, 72 years; 50.9% women; 75.6% White) with uncomplicated appendicitis over a 2-year period starting in 2016; of these, 7290 patients were frail.
• Patients received nonsurgical treatment, immediate appendectomy within 1 day of admission, or delayed surgery after more than 1 day of admission.
• The clinical outcomes included infectious complications using a composite, cardiopulmonary complications, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and total hospital costs.
• Frailty of patients was assessed using a claims-based index producing a score ranging from 0 to 1 on the basis of 93 variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with frailty had higher rates of infections (1.3% vs 0.4%), cardiopulmonary complications (24.1% vs 6.3%), overall complications (57.1% vs 28.8%), in-hospital deaths (3.9% vs 0.3%), longer hospital stays (6 vs 4 days), and higher hospital costs ($67,000 vs $42,000) than those without frailty (P < .001).
• Patients with frailty who had immediate surgery had lower risk for death than those who received nonsurgical treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.89; P = .004) and delayed surgery (OR, 3.80; P = .001).
• In patients without frailty, immediate surgery was linked to a higher risk for hospital complications than nonsurgical treatment (OR, 0.77; P = .009), but it was linked to a lower risk than delayed appendectomy (OR, 2.05; P < .001).
• Black patients were less likely to receive immediate appendectomy compared with White patients (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that treatment of older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis may benefit from risk stratification based on patient frailty status,” the authors wrote. “Routine frailty assessments should be incorporated in the care of older adult patients to guide discussions for shared decision-making,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew Ashbrook, MD, MPH, of the Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Modification of the frailty index and reliance on discharge diagnosis could have resulted in misclassification bias. The timing of presentation of symptoms was not assessed. Also, lack of long-term data prevented tracking of readmissions and related complications.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis who were operated on within 1 day of admission were less likely to die in the hospital compared with those who were treated with nonsurgical management or who had a delayed surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 24,320 older adults (median age, 72 years; 50.9% women; 75.6% White) with uncomplicated appendicitis over a 2-year period starting in 2016; of these, 7290 patients were frail.
• Patients received nonsurgical treatment, immediate appendectomy within 1 day of admission, or delayed surgery after more than 1 day of admission.
• The clinical outcomes included infectious complications using a composite, cardiopulmonary complications, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and total hospital costs.
• Frailty of patients was assessed using a claims-based index producing a score ranging from 0 to 1 on the basis of 93 variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with frailty had higher rates of infections (1.3% vs 0.4%), cardiopulmonary complications (24.1% vs 6.3%), overall complications (57.1% vs 28.8%), in-hospital deaths (3.9% vs 0.3%), longer hospital stays (6 vs 4 days), and higher hospital costs ($67,000 vs $42,000) than those without frailty (P < .001).
• Patients with frailty who had immediate surgery had lower risk for death than those who received nonsurgical treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.89; P = .004) and delayed surgery (OR, 3.80; P = .001).
• In patients without frailty, immediate surgery was linked to a higher risk for hospital complications than nonsurgical treatment (OR, 0.77; P = .009), but it was linked to a lower risk than delayed appendectomy (OR, 2.05; P < .001).
• Black patients were less likely to receive immediate appendectomy compared with White patients (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that treatment of older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis may benefit from risk stratification based on patient frailty status,” the authors wrote. “Routine frailty assessments should be incorporated in the care of older adult patients to guide discussions for shared decision-making,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew Ashbrook, MD, MPH, of the Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Modification of the frailty index and reliance on discharge diagnosis could have resulted in misclassification bias. The timing of presentation of symptoms was not assessed. Also, lack of long-term data prevented tracking of readmissions and related complications.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis who were operated on within 1 day of admission were less likely to die in the hospital compared with those who were treated with nonsurgical management or who had a delayed surgery.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study of 24,320 older adults (median age, 72 years; 50.9% women; 75.6% White) with uncomplicated appendicitis over a 2-year period starting in 2016; of these, 7290 patients were frail.
• Patients received nonsurgical treatment, immediate appendectomy within 1 day of admission, or delayed surgery after more than 1 day of admission.
• The clinical outcomes included infectious complications using a composite, cardiopulmonary complications, in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, and total hospital costs.
• Frailty of patients was assessed using a claims-based index producing a score ranging from 0 to 1 on the basis of 93 variables.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with frailty had higher rates of infections (1.3% vs 0.4%), cardiopulmonary complications (24.1% vs 6.3%), overall complications (57.1% vs 28.8%), in-hospital deaths (3.9% vs 0.3%), longer hospital stays (6 vs 4 days), and higher hospital costs ($67,000 vs $42,000) than those without frailty (P < .001).
• Patients with frailty who had immediate surgery had lower risk for death than those who received nonsurgical treatment (odds ratio [OR], 2.89; P = .004) and delayed surgery (OR, 3.80; P = .001).
• In patients without frailty, immediate surgery was linked to a higher risk for hospital complications than nonsurgical treatment (OR, 0.77; P = .009), but it was linked to a lower risk than delayed appendectomy (OR, 2.05; P < .001).
• Black patients were less likely to receive immediate appendectomy compared with White patients (P < .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our results suggest that treatment of older adults with acute uncomplicated appendicitis may benefit from risk stratification based on patient frailty status,” the authors wrote. “Routine frailty assessments should be incorporated in the care of older adult patients to guide discussions for shared decision-making,” they added.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Matthew Ashbrook, MD, MPH, of the Department of Surgery, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

Modification of the frailty index and reliance on discharge diagnosis could have resulted in misclassification bias. The timing of presentation of symptoms was not assessed. Also, lack of long-term data prevented tracking of readmissions and related complications.

DISCLOSURES:

The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Living in areas saturated with artificial outdoor light at night is associated with an increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease, a new national study suggested.

Analyses of state and county light pollution data and Medicare claims showed that areas with higher average nighttime light intensity had a greater prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease.

Among people aged 65 years or older, Alzheimer’s disease prevalence was more strongly associated with nightly light pollution exposure than with alcohol misuse, chronic kidney disease, depression, or obesity.

In those younger than 65 years, greater nighttime light intensity had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than any other risk factor included in the study.

“The results are pretty striking when you do these comparisons and it’s true for people of all ages,” said Robin Voigt-Zuwala, PhD, lead author and director, Circadian Rhythm Research Laboratory, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois.

The study was published online in Frontiers of Neuroscience.
 

Shining a Light

Exposure to artificial outdoor light at night has been associated with adverse health effects such as sleep disruption, obesity, atherosclerosis, and cancer, but this is the first study to look specifically at Alzheimer’s disease, investigators noted.

Two recent studies reported higher risks for mild cognitive impairment among Chinese veterans and late-onset dementia among Italian residents living in areas with brighter outdoor light at night.

For this study, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala and colleagues examined the relationship between Alzheimer’s disease prevalence and average nighttime light intensity in the lower 48 states using data from Medicare Part A and B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and NASA satellite–acquired radiance data.

The data were averaged for the years 2012-2018 and states divided into five groups based on average nighttime light intensity.

The darkest states were Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Maine, New Mexico, Vermont, Oregon, Utah, and Nevada. The brightest states were Indiana, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and New Jersey.

Analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in Alzheimer’s disease prevalence between state groups (P < .0001). Multiple comparisons testing also showed that states with the lowest average nighttime light had significantly different Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than those with higher intensity.

The same positive relationship was observed when each year was assessed individually and at the county level, using data from 45 counties and the District of Columbia.
 

Strong Association

The investigators also found that state average nighttime light intensity is significantly associated with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence (P = .006). This effect was seen across all ages, sexes, and races except Asian Pacific Island, the latter possibly related to statistical power, the authors said.

When known or proposed risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease were added to the model, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and stroke had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease than average nighttime light intensity.

Nighttime light intensity, however, was more strongly associated with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than alcohol abuse, chronic kidney disease, depression, heart failure, and obesity.

Moreover, in people younger than 65 years, nighttime light pollution had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than all other risk factors (P = .007).

The mechanism behind this increased vulnerability is unclear, but there may be an interplay between genetic susceptibility of an individual and how they respond to light, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala suggested.

“APOE4 is the genotype most highly associated with Alzheimer’s disease risk, and maybe the people who have that genotype are just more sensitive to the effects of light exposure at night, more sensitive to circadian rhythm disruption,” she said.

The authors noted that additional research is needed but suggested light pollution may also influence Alzheimer’s disease through sleep disruption, which can promote inflammation, activate microglia and astrocytes, and negatively alter the clearance of amyloid beta, and by decreasing the levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor.
 

Are We Measuring the Right Light?

“It’s a good article and it’s got a good message, but I have some caveats to that,” said George C. Brainard, PhD, director, Light Research Program, Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a pioneer in the study of how light affects biology including breast cancer in night-shift workers.

The biggest caveat, and one acknowledged by the authors, is that the study didn’t measure indoor light exposure and relied instead on satellite imaging.

“They’re very striking images, but they may not be particularly relevant. And here’s why: People don’t live outdoors all night,” Dr. Brainard said.

Instead, people spend much of their time at night indoors where they’re exposed to lighting in the home and from smartphones, laptops, and television screens.

“It doesn’t invalidate their work. It’s an important advancement, an important observation,” Dr. Brainard said. “But the important thing really is to find out what is the population exposed to that triggers this response, and it’s probably indoor lighting related to the amount and physical characteristics of indoor lighting. It doesn’t mean outdoor lighting can’t play a role. It certainly can.”

Reached for comment, Erik Musiek, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology whose lab at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, has extensively studied circadian clock disruption and Alzheimer’s disease pathology in the brain, said the study provides a 10,000-foot view of the issue.

For example, the study was not designed to detect whether people living in high light pollution areas are actually experiencing more outdoor light at night and if risk factors such as air pollution and low socioeconomic status may correlate with these areas.

“Most of what we worry about is do people have lights on in the house, do they have their TV on, their screens up to their face late at night? This can’t tell us about that,” Dr. Musiek said. “But on the other hand, this kind of light exposure is something that public policy can affect.”

“It’s hard to control people’s personal habits nor should we probably, but we can control what types of bulbs you put into streetlights, how bright they are, and where you put lighting in a public place,” he added. “So I do think there’s value there.”

At least 19 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have laws in place to reduce light pollution, with the majority doing so to promote energy conservation, public safety, aesthetic interests, or astronomical research, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

To respond to some of the limitations in this study, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala is writing a grant application for a new project to look at both indoor and outdoor light exposure on an individual level.

“This is what I’ve been wanting to study for a long time, and this study is just sort of the stepping stone, the proof of concept that this is something we need to be investigating,” she said.

Dr. Voigt-Zuwala reported RO1 and R24 grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), one coauthor reported an NIH R24 grant; another reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Brainard reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Musiek reported research funding from Eisai Pharmaceuticals.

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

Living in areas saturated with artificial outdoor light at night is associated with an increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease, a new national study suggested.

Analyses of state and county light pollution data and Medicare claims showed that areas with higher average nighttime light intensity had a greater prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease.

Among people aged 65 years or older, Alzheimer’s disease prevalence was more strongly associated with nightly light pollution exposure than with alcohol misuse, chronic kidney disease, depression, or obesity.

In those younger than 65 years, greater nighttime light intensity had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than any other risk factor included in the study.

“The results are pretty striking when you do these comparisons and it’s true for people of all ages,” said Robin Voigt-Zuwala, PhD, lead author and director, Circadian Rhythm Research Laboratory, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois.

The study was published online in Frontiers of Neuroscience.
 

Shining a Light

Exposure to artificial outdoor light at night has been associated with adverse health effects such as sleep disruption, obesity, atherosclerosis, and cancer, but this is the first study to look specifically at Alzheimer’s disease, investigators noted.

Two recent studies reported higher risks for mild cognitive impairment among Chinese veterans and late-onset dementia among Italian residents living in areas with brighter outdoor light at night.

For this study, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala and colleagues examined the relationship between Alzheimer’s disease prevalence and average nighttime light intensity in the lower 48 states using data from Medicare Part A and B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and NASA satellite–acquired radiance data.

The data were averaged for the years 2012-2018 and states divided into five groups based on average nighttime light intensity.

The darkest states were Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Maine, New Mexico, Vermont, Oregon, Utah, and Nevada. The brightest states were Indiana, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and New Jersey.

Analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in Alzheimer’s disease prevalence between state groups (P < .0001). Multiple comparisons testing also showed that states with the lowest average nighttime light had significantly different Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than those with higher intensity.

The same positive relationship was observed when each year was assessed individually and at the county level, using data from 45 counties and the District of Columbia.
 

Strong Association

The investigators also found that state average nighttime light intensity is significantly associated with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence (P = .006). This effect was seen across all ages, sexes, and races except Asian Pacific Island, the latter possibly related to statistical power, the authors said.

When known or proposed risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease were added to the model, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and stroke had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease than average nighttime light intensity.

Nighttime light intensity, however, was more strongly associated with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than alcohol abuse, chronic kidney disease, depression, heart failure, and obesity.

Moreover, in people younger than 65 years, nighttime light pollution had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than all other risk factors (P = .007).

The mechanism behind this increased vulnerability is unclear, but there may be an interplay between genetic susceptibility of an individual and how they respond to light, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala suggested.

“APOE4 is the genotype most highly associated with Alzheimer’s disease risk, and maybe the people who have that genotype are just more sensitive to the effects of light exposure at night, more sensitive to circadian rhythm disruption,” she said.

The authors noted that additional research is needed but suggested light pollution may also influence Alzheimer’s disease through sleep disruption, which can promote inflammation, activate microglia and astrocytes, and negatively alter the clearance of amyloid beta, and by decreasing the levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor.
 

Are We Measuring the Right Light?

“It’s a good article and it’s got a good message, but I have some caveats to that,” said George C. Brainard, PhD, director, Light Research Program, Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a pioneer in the study of how light affects biology including breast cancer in night-shift workers.

The biggest caveat, and one acknowledged by the authors, is that the study didn’t measure indoor light exposure and relied instead on satellite imaging.

“They’re very striking images, but they may not be particularly relevant. And here’s why: People don’t live outdoors all night,” Dr. Brainard said.

Instead, people spend much of their time at night indoors where they’re exposed to lighting in the home and from smartphones, laptops, and television screens.

“It doesn’t invalidate their work. It’s an important advancement, an important observation,” Dr. Brainard said. “But the important thing really is to find out what is the population exposed to that triggers this response, and it’s probably indoor lighting related to the amount and physical characteristics of indoor lighting. It doesn’t mean outdoor lighting can’t play a role. It certainly can.”

Reached for comment, Erik Musiek, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology whose lab at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, has extensively studied circadian clock disruption and Alzheimer’s disease pathology in the brain, said the study provides a 10,000-foot view of the issue.

For example, the study was not designed to detect whether people living in high light pollution areas are actually experiencing more outdoor light at night and if risk factors such as air pollution and low socioeconomic status may correlate with these areas.

“Most of what we worry about is do people have lights on in the house, do they have their TV on, their screens up to their face late at night? This can’t tell us about that,” Dr. Musiek said. “But on the other hand, this kind of light exposure is something that public policy can affect.”

“It’s hard to control people’s personal habits nor should we probably, but we can control what types of bulbs you put into streetlights, how bright they are, and where you put lighting in a public place,” he added. “So I do think there’s value there.”

At least 19 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have laws in place to reduce light pollution, with the majority doing so to promote energy conservation, public safety, aesthetic interests, or astronomical research, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

To respond to some of the limitations in this study, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala is writing a grant application for a new project to look at both indoor and outdoor light exposure on an individual level.

“This is what I’ve been wanting to study for a long time, and this study is just sort of the stepping stone, the proof of concept that this is something we need to be investigating,” she said.

Dr. Voigt-Zuwala reported RO1 and R24 grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), one coauthor reported an NIH R24 grant; another reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Brainard reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Musiek reported research funding from Eisai Pharmaceuticals.

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

Living in areas saturated with artificial outdoor light at night is associated with an increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease, a new national study suggested.

Analyses of state and county light pollution data and Medicare claims showed that areas with higher average nighttime light intensity had a greater prevalence of Alzheimer’s disease.

Among people aged 65 years or older, Alzheimer’s disease prevalence was more strongly associated with nightly light pollution exposure than with alcohol misuse, chronic kidney disease, depression, or obesity.

In those younger than 65 years, greater nighttime light intensity had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than any other risk factor included in the study.

“The results are pretty striking when you do these comparisons and it’s true for people of all ages,” said Robin Voigt-Zuwala, PhD, lead author and director, Circadian Rhythm Research Laboratory, Rush University, Chicago, Illinois.

The study was published online in Frontiers of Neuroscience.
 

Shining a Light

Exposure to artificial outdoor light at night has been associated with adverse health effects such as sleep disruption, obesity, atherosclerosis, and cancer, but this is the first study to look specifically at Alzheimer’s disease, investigators noted.

Two recent studies reported higher risks for mild cognitive impairment among Chinese veterans and late-onset dementia among Italian residents living in areas with brighter outdoor light at night.

For this study, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala and colleagues examined the relationship between Alzheimer’s disease prevalence and average nighttime light intensity in the lower 48 states using data from Medicare Part A and B, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and NASA satellite–acquired radiance data.

The data were averaged for the years 2012-2018 and states divided into five groups based on average nighttime light intensity.

The darkest states were Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Idaho, Maine, New Mexico, Vermont, Oregon, Utah, and Nevada. The brightest states were Indiana, Illinois, Florida, Ohio, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, and New Jersey.

Analysis of variance revealed a significant difference in Alzheimer’s disease prevalence between state groups (P < .0001). Multiple comparisons testing also showed that states with the lowest average nighttime light had significantly different Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than those with higher intensity.

The same positive relationship was observed when each year was assessed individually and at the county level, using data from 45 counties and the District of Columbia.
 

Strong Association

The investigators also found that state average nighttime light intensity is significantly associated with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence (P = .006). This effect was seen across all ages, sexes, and races except Asian Pacific Island, the latter possibly related to statistical power, the authors said.

When known or proposed risk factors for Alzheimer’s disease were added to the model, atrial fibrillation, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and stroke had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease than average nighttime light intensity.

Nighttime light intensity, however, was more strongly associated with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than alcohol abuse, chronic kidney disease, depression, heart failure, and obesity.

Moreover, in people younger than 65 years, nighttime light pollution had a stronger association with Alzheimer’s disease prevalence than all other risk factors (P = .007).

The mechanism behind this increased vulnerability is unclear, but there may be an interplay between genetic susceptibility of an individual and how they respond to light, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala suggested.

“APOE4 is the genotype most highly associated with Alzheimer’s disease risk, and maybe the people who have that genotype are just more sensitive to the effects of light exposure at night, more sensitive to circadian rhythm disruption,” she said.

The authors noted that additional research is needed but suggested light pollution may also influence Alzheimer’s disease through sleep disruption, which can promote inflammation, activate microglia and astrocytes, and negatively alter the clearance of amyloid beta, and by decreasing the levels of brain-derived neurotrophic factor.
 

Are We Measuring the Right Light?

“It’s a good article and it’s got a good message, but I have some caveats to that,” said George C. Brainard, PhD, director, Light Research Program, Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a pioneer in the study of how light affects biology including breast cancer in night-shift workers.

The biggest caveat, and one acknowledged by the authors, is that the study didn’t measure indoor light exposure and relied instead on satellite imaging.

“They’re very striking images, but they may not be particularly relevant. And here’s why: People don’t live outdoors all night,” Dr. Brainard said.

Instead, people spend much of their time at night indoors where they’re exposed to lighting in the home and from smartphones, laptops, and television screens.

“It doesn’t invalidate their work. It’s an important advancement, an important observation,” Dr. Brainard said. “But the important thing really is to find out what is the population exposed to that triggers this response, and it’s probably indoor lighting related to the amount and physical characteristics of indoor lighting. It doesn’t mean outdoor lighting can’t play a role. It certainly can.”

Reached for comment, Erik Musiek, MD, PhD, a professor of neurology whose lab at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, has extensively studied circadian clock disruption and Alzheimer’s disease pathology in the brain, said the study provides a 10,000-foot view of the issue.

For example, the study was not designed to detect whether people living in high light pollution areas are actually experiencing more outdoor light at night and if risk factors such as air pollution and low socioeconomic status may correlate with these areas.

“Most of what we worry about is do people have lights on in the house, do they have their TV on, their screens up to their face late at night? This can’t tell us about that,” Dr. Musiek said. “But on the other hand, this kind of light exposure is something that public policy can affect.”

“It’s hard to control people’s personal habits nor should we probably, but we can control what types of bulbs you put into streetlights, how bright they are, and where you put lighting in a public place,” he added. “So I do think there’s value there.”

At least 19 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have laws in place to reduce light pollution, with the majority doing so to promote energy conservation, public safety, aesthetic interests, or astronomical research, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

To respond to some of the limitations in this study, Dr. Voigt-Zuwala is writing a grant application for a new project to look at both indoor and outdoor light exposure on an individual level.

“This is what I’ve been wanting to study for a long time, and this study is just sort of the stepping stone, the proof of concept that this is something we need to be investigating,” she said.

Dr. Voigt-Zuwala reported RO1 and R24 grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), one coauthor reported an NIH R24 grant; another reported having no conflicts of interest. Dr. Brainard reported having no relevant conflicts of interest. Dr. Musiek reported research funding from Eisai Pharmaceuticals.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) increases breast cancer risk in women with a strong family history of breast cancer. These women have a striking cumulative risk of developing breast cancer (age, 50-80 years) of 22.4%, according to a new modelling study of UK women.

METHODOLOGY:

This was a modeling study integrating two data-sets of UK women: the BOADICEA dataset of age-specific breast cancer risk with family history and the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, which covers relative risk for breast cancer with different types and durations of MHT.

Four different breast cancer family history profiles were:

• “Average” family history of breast cancer has unknown affected family members;
• “Modest” family history comprises a single first-degree relative with breast cancer at the age of 60 years.
• “Intermediate” family history comprises a single first-degree relative who developed breast cancer at the age of 40 years.
• “Strong” family history comprises two first-degree relatives who developed breast cancer at the age of 50 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The lowest risk category: “Average” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 9.8% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 1.7%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 11.0% and 1.8%, respectively.
• The highest risk category: “Strong” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 19.6% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 3.2%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 22.4% and 3.5%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors concluded that, “These integrated data will enable more accurate estimates of absolute and attributable risk associated with MHT exposure for women with a family history of breast cancer, informing shared decision-making.”

SOURCE:

The lead author is Catherine Huntley of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, England. The study appeared in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included modeling study that did not directly measure individuals with combined risks.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by several sources including Cancer Research UK. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) increases breast cancer risk in women with a strong family history of breast cancer. These women have a striking cumulative risk of developing breast cancer (age, 50-80 years) of 22.4%, according to a new modelling study of UK women.

METHODOLOGY:

This was a modeling study integrating two data-sets of UK women: the BOADICEA dataset of age-specific breast cancer risk with family history and the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, which covers relative risk for breast cancer with different types and durations of MHT.

Four different breast cancer family history profiles were:

• “Average” family history of breast cancer has unknown affected family members;
• “Modest” family history comprises a single first-degree relative with breast cancer at the age of 60 years.
• “Intermediate” family history comprises a single first-degree relative who developed breast cancer at the age of 40 years.
• “Strong” family history comprises two first-degree relatives who developed breast cancer at the age of 50 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The lowest risk category: “Average” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 9.8% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 1.7%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 11.0% and 1.8%, respectively.
• The highest risk category: “Strong” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 19.6% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 3.2%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 22.4% and 3.5%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors concluded that, “These integrated data will enable more accurate estimates of absolute and attributable risk associated with MHT exposure for women with a family history of breast cancer, informing shared decision-making.”

SOURCE:

The lead author is Catherine Huntley of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, England. The study appeared in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included modeling study that did not directly measure individuals with combined risks.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by several sources including Cancer Research UK. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE:

The use of menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) increases breast cancer risk in women with a strong family history of breast cancer. These women have a striking cumulative risk of developing breast cancer (age, 50-80 years) of 22.4%, according to a new modelling study of UK women.

METHODOLOGY:

This was a modeling study integrating two data-sets of UK women: the BOADICEA dataset of age-specific breast cancer risk with family history and the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, which covers relative risk for breast cancer with different types and durations of MHT.

Four different breast cancer family history profiles were:

• “Average” family history of breast cancer has unknown affected family members;
• “Modest” family history comprises a single first-degree relative with breast cancer at the age of 60 years.
• “Intermediate” family history comprises a single first-degree relative who developed breast cancer at the age of 40 years.
• “Strong” family history comprises two first-degree relatives who developed breast cancer at the age of 50 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• The lowest risk category: “Average” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 9.8% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 1.7%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 11.0% and 1.8%, respectively.
• The highest risk category: “Strong” family history with no MHT use has a cumulative breast cancer risk (age, 50-80 years) of 19.6% and a risk of dying from breast cancer of 3.2%. These risks rise with 5 years’ exposure to MHT (age, 50-55 years) to 22.4% and 3.5%, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

The authors concluded that, “These integrated data will enable more accurate estimates of absolute and attributable risk associated with MHT exposure for women with a family history of breast cancer, informing shared decision-making.”

SOURCE:

The lead author is Catherine Huntley of the Institute of Cancer Research, London, England. The study appeared in the British Journal of General Practice.

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations included modeling study that did not directly measure individuals with combined risks.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by several sources including Cancer Research UK. The authors reported no conflicts of interest.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Tricia Ward: I’m joined today by Dr. Scott R. Garrison, MD, PhD. He is a professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and director of the Pragmatic Trials Collaborative.

You presented two studies at ESC. One is the BedMed study, comparing day vs nighttime dosing of blood pressure therapy. Can you tell us the top-line findings? 
 

BedMed and BedMed-Frail

Dr. Garrison: We were looking to validate an earlier study that suggested a large benefit of taking blood pressure medication at bedtime, as far as reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). That was the MAPEC study. They suggested a 60% reduction. The BedMed trial was in hypertensive primary care patients in five Canadian provinces. We randomized well over 3000 patients to bedtime or morning medications. We looked at MACEs — so all-cause death or hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or heart failure, and a bunch of safety outcomes.

Essentially, we found that it made absolutely no difference whatever time of day you took it in terms of MACEs and it didn’t make any difference to the adverse effects. It was safe to take it at bedtime. But it did not convey any extra cardiovascular benefit.

Ms. Ward: And then you did a second study, called BedMed-Frail. Do you want to tell us the reason you did that?

Dr. Garrison: BedMed-Frail took place in a nursing home population. We believed that it was possible that frail, older adults might have very different risks and benefits, and that they would probably be underrepresented, as they normally are in the main trial. 

We thought that because bedtime blood pressure medications would be theoretically preferentially lowering night pressure, which is already the lowest pressure of the day, that if you were at risk for hypotensive or ischemic adverse events, that might make it worse. We looked at falls and fractures; worsening cognition in case they had vascular dementia; and whether they developed decubitus ulcers (pressure sores) because you need a certain amount of pressure to get past any obstruction — in this case, it’s the weight of your body if you’re lying in bed all the time. 

We also looked at problem behaviors. People who have dementia have what’s called “sundowning,” where agitation and confusion are worse as the evening is going on. We looked at that on the off chance that it had anything to do with blood pressures being lower. And the BedMed-Frail results mirror those of BedMed exactly. So there was no cardiovascular benefit, and in this population, that was largely driven by mortality; one third of these people died every year. 

Ms. Ward: The median age was about 88?

Dr. Garrison: Yes, the median age was 88. There was no cardiovascular mortality advantage to bedtime dosing, but neither was there any signal of safety concerns. 
 

Other Complementary and Conflicting Studies

Ms. Ward: These two studies mirror the TIME study from the United Kingdom.

Dr. Garrison: Yes. We found exactly what TIME found. Our point estimate was pretty much the same. The hazard ratio in the main trial was 0.96. Theirs, I believe, was 0.95. Our findings agree completely with those of TIME and differ substantially from the previous trials that suggested a large benefit.

Ms. Ward: Those previous trials were MAPEC and the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial.

Dr. Garrison: MAPEC was the first one. While we were doing our trial, and while the TIME investigators were doing their trial, both of us trying to validate MAPEC, the same group published another study called Hygia, which also reported a large reduction: a 45% reduction in MACE with bedtime dosing.

Ms. Ward: You didn’t present it, but there was also a meta-analysis presented here by somebody independent.

Dr. Garrison: Yes, Ricky Turgeon. I know Ricky. We gave him patient-level data for his meta-analysis, but I was not otherwise involved. 

Ms. Ward: And the conclusion is the same.

Dr. Garrison: It’s the same. He only found the same five trials: MAPEC, Hygia, TIME, BedMed, and BedMed-Frail. Combining them all together, the CIs still span 1.0, so it didn’t end up being significant. But he also analyzed TIME and the BedMed trials separately — again suggesting that those trials showed no benefit.

Ms. Ward: There was a TIME substudy of night owls vs early risers or morning people, and there was a hint (or whatever you should say for a subanalysis of a neutral trial) that timing might make a difference there.

Dr. Garrison: They recently published, I guess it is a substudy, where they looked at people’s chronotype according to whether you consider yourself an early bird or a night owl. Their assessment was more detailed. They reported that if people were tending toward being early birds and they took their blood pressure medicine in the morning, or if they were night owls and they took it in the evening, that they tended to have statistically significantly better outcomes than the opposite timing. In that analysis, they were only looking at nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke. 

We did ask something that was related. We asked people: “Do we consider yourself more of an early bird or a night owl?” So we do have those data. For what I presented at ESC, we just looked at the primary outcome; we did subgroups according to early bird, night owl, and neither, and that was not statistically significant. It didn’t rule it out. There were some trends in the direction that the TIME group were suggesting. We do intend to do a closer look at that. 

But, you know, they call these “late-breaking trials,” and it really was in our case. We didn’t get the last of our data from the last province until the end of June, so we still are finishing up the analysis of the chronotype portion — so more to come in another month or so.
 

Do What You Like, or Stick to Morning Dosing?

Ms. Ward: For the purposes of people’s take-home message, does this mostly apply to once-daily–dosed antihypertensives?

Dr. Garrison: It was essentially once-daily medicines that were changed. The docs did have the opportunity to consolidate twice-daily meds into once-daily or switch to a different medication. That’s probably the area where adherence was the biggest issue, because it’s largely beta-blockers that were given twice daily at baseline, and they were less likely to want to change. 

At 6 months, 83% of once-daily medications were taken per allocation in the bedtime group and 95% per allocation in the morning group, which was actually pretty good. For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and calcium-channel blockers, the adherence was excellent. Again, it was beta-blockers taken twice a day where it fell down, and then also diuretics. But if you combine all diuretic medications (ie, pure diuretics and combo agents), still, 75% of them were successful at taking them at bedtime. Only 15% of people switching a diuretic to bedtime dosing actually had problems with nocturia. Most physicians think that they can’t get their patients to take those meds at bedtime, but you can. There’s probably no reason to take it at bedtime, but most people do tolerate it.

Ms. Ward: Is your advice to take it whenever you feel like? I know when TIME came out, Professor George Stergiou, who’s the incoming president of the International Society of Hypertension, said, well, maybe we should stick with the morning, because that’s what most of the trials did. 

Dr. Garrison: I think that›s a perfectly valid point of view, and maybe for a lot of people, that could be the default. There are some people, though, who will have a particular reason why one time is better. For instance, most people have no problems with calcium-channel blockers, but some get ankle swelling and you’re more likely to have that happen if you take them in the morning. Or lots of people want to take all their pills at the same time; blood pressure pills are easy ones to switch the timing of if you’re trying to accomplish that, and if that will help adherence. Basically, whatever time of day you can remember to take it the best is probably the right time.

Ms. Ward: Given where we are today, with your trials and TIME, do you think this is now settled science that it doesn’t make a difference?

Dr. Garrison: I’m probably the wrong person to ask, because I clearly have a bias. I think the methods in the TIME trial are really transparent and solid. I hope that when our papers come out, people will feel the same. You just have to look at the different trials. You need people like Dr. Stergiou to wade through the trials to help you with that.

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today and discussing this trial.

Scott R. Garrison, MD, PhD, is Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and Staff Physician, Department of Family Medicine, Kaye Edmonton Clinic, and he has disclosed receiving research grants from Alberta Innovates (the Alberta Provincial Government) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (the Canadian Federal Government).

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Tricia Ward: I’m joined today by Dr. Scott R. Garrison, MD, PhD. He is a professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and director of the Pragmatic Trials Collaborative.

You presented two studies at ESC. One is the BedMed study, comparing day vs nighttime dosing of blood pressure therapy. Can you tell us the top-line findings? 
 

BedMed and BedMed-Frail

Dr. Garrison: We were looking to validate an earlier study that suggested a large benefit of taking blood pressure medication at bedtime, as far as reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). That was the MAPEC study. They suggested a 60% reduction. The BedMed trial was in hypertensive primary care patients in five Canadian provinces. We randomized well over 3000 patients to bedtime or morning medications. We looked at MACEs — so all-cause death or hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or heart failure, and a bunch of safety outcomes.

Essentially, we found that it made absolutely no difference whatever time of day you took it in terms of MACEs and it didn’t make any difference to the adverse effects. It was safe to take it at bedtime. But it did not convey any extra cardiovascular benefit.

Ms. Ward: And then you did a second study, called BedMed-Frail. Do you want to tell us the reason you did that?

Dr. Garrison: BedMed-Frail took place in a nursing home population. We believed that it was possible that frail, older adults might have very different risks and benefits, and that they would probably be underrepresented, as they normally are in the main trial. 

We thought that because bedtime blood pressure medications would be theoretically preferentially lowering night pressure, which is already the lowest pressure of the day, that if you were at risk for hypotensive or ischemic adverse events, that might make it worse. We looked at falls and fractures; worsening cognition in case they had vascular dementia; and whether they developed decubitus ulcers (pressure sores) because you need a certain amount of pressure to get past any obstruction — in this case, it’s the weight of your body if you’re lying in bed all the time. 

We also looked at problem behaviors. People who have dementia have what’s called “sundowning,” where agitation and confusion are worse as the evening is going on. We looked at that on the off chance that it had anything to do with blood pressures being lower. And the BedMed-Frail results mirror those of BedMed exactly. So there was no cardiovascular benefit, and in this population, that was largely driven by mortality; one third of these people died every year. 

Ms. Ward: The median age was about 88?

Dr. Garrison: Yes, the median age was 88. There was no cardiovascular mortality advantage to bedtime dosing, but neither was there any signal of safety concerns. 
 

Other Complementary and Conflicting Studies

Ms. Ward: These two studies mirror the TIME study from the United Kingdom.

Dr. Garrison: Yes. We found exactly what TIME found. Our point estimate was pretty much the same. The hazard ratio in the main trial was 0.96. Theirs, I believe, was 0.95. Our findings agree completely with those of TIME and differ substantially from the previous trials that suggested a large benefit.

Ms. Ward: Those previous trials were MAPEC and the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial.

Dr. Garrison: MAPEC was the first one. While we were doing our trial, and while the TIME investigators were doing their trial, both of us trying to validate MAPEC, the same group published another study called Hygia, which also reported a large reduction: a 45% reduction in MACE with bedtime dosing.

Ms. Ward: You didn’t present it, but there was also a meta-analysis presented here by somebody independent.

Dr. Garrison: Yes, Ricky Turgeon. I know Ricky. We gave him patient-level data for his meta-analysis, but I was not otherwise involved. 

Ms. Ward: And the conclusion is the same.

Dr. Garrison: It’s the same. He only found the same five trials: MAPEC, Hygia, TIME, BedMed, and BedMed-Frail. Combining them all together, the CIs still span 1.0, so it didn’t end up being significant. But he also analyzed TIME and the BedMed trials separately — again suggesting that those trials showed no benefit.

Ms. Ward: There was a TIME substudy of night owls vs early risers or morning people, and there was a hint (or whatever you should say for a subanalysis of a neutral trial) that timing might make a difference there.

Dr. Garrison: They recently published, I guess it is a substudy, where they looked at people’s chronotype according to whether you consider yourself an early bird or a night owl. Their assessment was more detailed. They reported that if people were tending toward being early birds and they took their blood pressure medicine in the morning, or if they were night owls and they took it in the evening, that they tended to have statistically significantly better outcomes than the opposite timing. In that analysis, they were only looking at nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke. 

We did ask something that was related. We asked people: “Do we consider yourself more of an early bird or a night owl?” So we do have those data. For what I presented at ESC, we just looked at the primary outcome; we did subgroups according to early bird, night owl, and neither, and that was not statistically significant. It didn’t rule it out. There were some trends in the direction that the TIME group were suggesting. We do intend to do a closer look at that. 

But, you know, they call these “late-breaking trials,” and it really was in our case. We didn’t get the last of our data from the last province until the end of June, so we still are finishing up the analysis of the chronotype portion — so more to come in another month or so.
 

Do What You Like, or Stick to Morning Dosing?

Ms. Ward: For the purposes of people’s take-home message, does this mostly apply to once-daily–dosed antihypertensives?

Dr. Garrison: It was essentially once-daily medicines that were changed. The docs did have the opportunity to consolidate twice-daily meds into once-daily or switch to a different medication. That’s probably the area where adherence was the biggest issue, because it’s largely beta-blockers that were given twice daily at baseline, and they were less likely to want to change. 

At 6 months, 83% of once-daily medications were taken per allocation in the bedtime group and 95% per allocation in the morning group, which was actually pretty good. For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and calcium-channel blockers, the adherence was excellent. Again, it was beta-blockers taken twice a day where it fell down, and then also diuretics. But if you combine all diuretic medications (ie, pure diuretics and combo agents), still, 75% of them were successful at taking them at bedtime. Only 15% of people switching a diuretic to bedtime dosing actually had problems with nocturia. Most physicians think that they can’t get their patients to take those meds at bedtime, but you can. There’s probably no reason to take it at bedtime, but most people do tolerate it.

Ms. Ward: Is your advice to take it whenever you feel like? I know when TIME came out, Professor George Stergiou, who’s the incoming president of the International Society of Hypertension, said, well, maybe we should stick with the morning, because that’s what most of the trials did. 

Dr. Garrison: I think that›s a perfectly valid point of view, and maybe for a lot of people, that could be the default. There are some people, though, who will have a particular reason why one time is better. For instance, most people have no problems with calcium-channel blockers, but some get ankle swelling and you’re more likely to have that happen if you take them in the morning. Or lots of people want to take all their pills at the same time; blood pressure pills are easy ones to switch the timing of if you’re trying to accomplish that, and if that will help adherence. Basically, whatever time of day you can remember to take it the best is probably the right time.

Ms. Ward: Given where we are today, with your trials and TIME, do you think this is now settled science that it doesn’t make a difference?

Dr. Garrison: I’m probably the wrong person to ask, because I clearly have a bias. I think the methods in the TIME trial are really transparent and solid. I hope that when our papers come out, people will feel the same. You just have to look at the different trials. You need people like Dr. Stergiou to wade through the trials to help you with that.

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today and discussing this trial.

Scott R. Garrison, MD, PhD, is Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and Staff Physician, Department of Family Medicine, Kaye Edmonton Clinic, and he has disclosed receiving research grants from Alberta Innovates (the Alberta Provincial Government) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (the Canadian Federal Government).

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Tricia Ward: I’m joined today by Dr. Scott R. Garrison, MD, PhD. He is a professor in the Department of Family Medicine at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and director of the Pragmatic Trials Collaborative.

You presented two studies at ESC. One is the BedMed study, comparing day vs nighttime dosing of blood pressure therapy. Can you tell us the top-line findings? 
 

BedMed and BedMed-Frail

Dr. Garrison: We were looking to validate an earlier study that suggested a large benefit of taking blood pressure medication at bedtime, as far as reducing major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). That was the MAPEC study. They suggested a 60% reduction. The BedMed trial was in hypertensive primary care patients in five Canadian provinces. We randomized well over 3000 patients to bedtime or morning medications. We looked at MACEs — so all-cause death or hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome, stroke, or heart failure, and a bunch of safety outcomes.

Essentially, we found that it made absolutely no difference whatever time of day you took it in terms of MACEs and it didn’t make any difference to the adverse effects. It was safe to take it at bedtime. But it did not convey any extra cardiovascular benefit.

Ms. Ward: And then you did a second study, called BedMed-Frail. Do you want to tell us the reason you did that?

Dr. Garrison: BedMed-Frail took place in a nursing home population. We believed that it was possible that frail, older adults might have very different risks and benefits, and that they would probably be underrepresented, as they normally are in the main trial. 

We thought that because bedtime blood pressure medications would be theoretically preferentially lowering night pressure, which is already the lowest pressure of the day, that if you were at risk for hypotensive or ischemic adverse events, that might make it worse. We looked at falls and fractures; worsening cognition in case they had vascular dementia; and whether they developed decubitus ulcers (pressure sores) because you need a certain amount of pressure to get past any obstruction — in this case, it’s the weight of your body if you’re lying in bed all the time. 

We also looked at problem behaviors. People who have dementia have what’s called “sundowning,” where agitation and confusion are worse as the evening is going on. We looked at that on the off chance that it had anything to do with blood pressures being lower. And the BedMed-Frail results mirror those of BedMed exactly. So there was no cardiovascular benefit, and in this population, that was largely driven by mortality; one third of these people died every year. 

Ms. Ward: The median age was about 88?

Dr. Garrison: Yes, the median age was 88. There was no cardiovascular mortality advantage to bedtime dosing, but neither was there any signal of safety concerns. 
 

Other Complementary and Conflicting Studies

Ms. Ward: These two studies mirror the TIME study from the United Kingdom.

Dr. Garrison: Yes. We found exactly what TIME found. Our point estimate was pretty much the same. The hazard ratio in the main trial was 0.96. Theirs, I believe, was 0.95. Our findings agree completely with those of TIME and differ substantially from the previous trials that suggested a large benefit.

Ms. Ward: Those previous trials were MAPEC and the Hygia Chronotherapy Trial.

Dr. Garrison: MAPEC was the first one. While we were doing our trial, and while the TIME investigators were doing their trial, both of us trying to validate MAPEC, the same group published another study called Hygia, which also reported a large reduction: a 45% reduction in MACE with bedtime dosing.

Ms. Ward: You didn’t present it, but there was also a meta-analysis presented here by somebody independent.

Dr. Garrison: Yes, Ricky Turgeon. I know Ricky. We gave him patient-level data for his meta-analysis, but I was not otherwise involved. 

Ms. Ward: And the conclusion is the same.

Dr. Garrison: It’s the same. He only found the same five trials: MAPEC, Hygia, TIME, BedMed, and BedMed-Frail. Combining them all together, the CIs still span 1.0, so it didn’t end up being significant. But he also analyzed TIME and the BedMed trials separately — again suggesting that those trials showed no benefit.

Ms. Ward: There was a TIME substudy of night owls vs early risers or morning people, and there was a hint (or whatever you should say for a subanalysis of a neutral trial) that timing might make a difference there.

Dr. Garrison: They recently published, I guess it is a substudy, where they looked at people’s chronotype according to whether you consider yourself an early bird or a night owl. Their assessment was more detailed. They reported that if people were tending toward being early birds and they took their blood pressure medicine in the morning, or if they were night owls and they took it in the evening, that they tended to have statistically significantly better outcomes than the opposite timing. In that analysis, they were only looking at nonfatal myocardial infarction and nonfatal stroke. 

We did ask something that was related. We asked people: “Do we consider yourself more of an early bird or a night owl?” So we do have those data. For what I presented at ESC, we just looked at the primary outcome; we did subgroups according to early bird, night owl, and neither, and that was not statistically significant. It didn’t rule it out. There were some trends in the direction that the TIME group were suggesting. We do intend to do a closer look at that. 

But, you know, they call these “late-breaking trials,” and it really was in our case. We didn’t get the last of our data from the last province until the end of June, so we still are finishing up the analysis of the chronotype portion — so more to come in another month or so.
 

Do What You Like, or Stick to Morning Dosing?

Ms. Ward: For the purposes of people’s take-home message, does this mostly apply to once-daily–dosed antihypertensives?

Dr. Garrison: It was essentially once-daily medicines that were changed. The docs did have the opportunity to consolidate twice-daily meds into once-daily or switch to a different medication. That’s probably the area where adherence was the biggest issue, because it’s largely beta-blockers that were given twice daily at baseline, and they were less likely to want to change. 

At 6 months, 83% of once-daily medications were taken per allocation in the bedtime group and 95% per allocation in the morning group, which was actually pretty good. For angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, and calcium-channel blockers, the adherence was excellent. Again, it was beta-blockers taken twice a day where it fell down, and then also diuretics. But if you combine all diuretic medications (ie, pure diuretics and combo agents), still, 75% of them were successful at taking them at bedtime. Only 15% of people switching a diuretic to bedtime dosing actually had problems with nocturia. Most physicians think that they can’t get their patients to take those meds at bedtime, but you can. There’s probably no reason to take it at bedtime, but most people do tolerate it.

Ms. Ward: Is your advice to take it whenever you feel like? I know when TIME came out, Professor George Stergiou, who’s the incoming president of the International Society of Hypertension, said, well, maybe we should stick with the morning, because that’s what most of the trials did. 

Dr. Garrison: I think that›s a perfectly valid point of view, and maybe for a lot of people, that could be the default. There are some people, though, who will have a particular reason why one time is better. For instance, most people have no problems with calcium-channel blockers, but some get ankle swelling and you’re more likely to have that happen if you take them in the morning. Or lots of people want to take all their pills at the same time; blood pressure pills are easy ones to switch the timing of if you’re trying to accomplish that, and if that will help adherence. Basically, whatever time of day you can remember to take it the best is probably the right time.

Ms. Ward: Given where we are today, with your trials and TIME, do you think this is now settled science that it doesn’t make a difference?

Dr. Garrison: I’m probably the wrong person to ask, because I clearly have a bias. I think the methods in the TIME trial are really transparent and solid. I hope that when our papers come out, people will feel the same. You just have to look at the different trials. You need people like Dr. Stergiou to wade through the trials to help you with that.

Ms. Ward: Thank you very much for joining me today and discussing this trial.

Scott R. Garrison, MD, PhD, is Professor, Department of Family Medicine, University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and Staff Physician, Department of Family Medicine, Kaye Edmonton Clinic, and he has disclosed receiving research grants from Alberta Innovates (the Alberta Provincial Government) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (the Canadian Federal Government).

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

This discussion was recorded on August 2, 2024. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Today, we’ll be discussing the results of a new study published in The Journal of Emergency Medicine, looking at the incidence of delayed intracranial hemorrhage among older patients taking preinjury anticoagulants who present to the emergency department (ED) with blunt head trauma.

Joining me today is the lead author of the study, Dr. Richard Shih, professor of emergency medicine at Florida Atlantic University. Also joining me is Dr. Christina Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina (UNC) Chapel Hill, with fellowship training in geriatric emergency medicine. 

Welcome to both of you.

Richard D. Shih, MD: Thanks, Rob. 

Christina L. Shenvi, MD, PhD, MBA: Thanks. Pleasure to be here. 
 

ICH Study Methodology

Dr. Glatter: It’s a pleasure to have you. Rich, this is a great study and targeted toward a population we see daily in the emergency department. I want you to describe your methodology, patient selection, and how you went about organizing your study to look at this important finding of delayed intracranial hemorrhage, especially in those on anticoagulants.

Dr. Shih: This all started for our research team when we first read the 2012 Annals of Emergency Medicine paper. The first author was Vincenzo Menditto, and he looked at a group of patients that had minor head injury, were anticoagulated, and had negative initial head CTs. 

There were about 100 patients, of which about 10 of them did not consent, but they hospitalized all these patients. These were anticoagulated, negative-first head CTs. They hospitalized the patients and then did a routine second CT at about 24 hours. They also followed them for a week, and it turned out a little over 7% of them had delayed head CT. 

We were wondering how many delayed intracranial hemorrhages we had missed because current practice for us was that, if patients had a good physical exam, their head CT was normal, and everything looked good, we would send them home.

Because of that, a number of people across the country wanted to verify those findings from the Menditto study. We tried to design a good study to answer that question. We happen to have a very large geriatric population in Florida, and our ED census is very high for age over 65, at nearly 60%. 

There are two Level I trauma centers in Palm Beach County. We included a second multicenter hospital, and we prospectively enrolled patients. We know the current state of practice is not to routinely do second CTs, so we followed these patients over time and followed their medical records to try to identify delayed bleeding. That’s how we set up our methodology.
 

Is It Safe to Discharge Patients With Trauma After 24 Hours?

Dr. Glatter: For the bulk of these patients with negative head CTs, it’s been my practice that when they’re stable and they look fine and there’s no other apparent, distracting painful trauma, injuries and so forth, they’re safe to discharge. 

The secondary outcome in your study is interesting: the need for neurosurgical intervention in terms of those with delayed intracranial hemorrhage.

Dr. Shih: I do believe that it’s certainly not the problem that Menditto described, which is 7%. There are two other prospective studies that have looked at this issue with delayed bleeding on anticoagulants. Both of these also showed a relatively low rate of delayed bleeding, which is between like 0.2% and 1.0%. In our study, it was 0.4%. 

The difference in the studies is that Menditto and colleagues routinely did 24-hour head CTs. They admitted everybody. For these other studies, routine head CT was not part of it. My bet is that there is a rate of delayed bleeding somewhere in between that seen in the Menditto study and that in all the other studies.

However, talking about significant intracranial hemorrhage, ones that perhaps need neurosurgery, I believe most of them are not significant. There’s some number that do occur, but the vast majority of those probably don’t need neurosurgery. We had 14 delayed bleeds out of 6000 patients with head trauma. One of them ended up requiring neurosurgery, so the answer is not zero, but I don’t think it’s 7% either. 

Dr. Glatter: Dr. Shenvi, I want to bring you into the conversation to talk about your experience at UNC, and how you run things in terms of older patients with blunt head trauma on preinjury anticoagulants.

Dr. Shenvi: Thanks, Rob. I remember when this paper came out showing this 7% rate of delayed bleeding and the question was, “Should we be admitting all these people?” Partly just from an overwhelming need for capacity that that would bring, it just wasn’t practical to say, “We’re going to admit every patient with a negative head CT to the hospital and rescan them.” That would be hundreds or thousands of patients each year in any given facility. 

The other thing is that delayed bleeds don’t always happen just in the first 24 hours. It’s not even a matter of bringing patients into observation for 24 hours, watching them, and rescanning them if they have symptoms. It can occur several days out. That never, in almost any institution that I know of, became standard practice. 

The way that it did change my care was to give good return precautions to patients, to make sure they have somebody with them to say, “Hey, sometimes you can have bleeding several days out after a fall, even though your CT scan here today looks perfect,” and to alert them that if they start having severe headaches, vomiting, or other symptoms of intracranial hemorrhage, that they should come back. 

I don’t think it ever became standard practice, and for good reason, because that was one study. The subsequent studies that Richard mentioned, pretty quickly on the heels of that initial one, showed a much lower rate of delayed ICH with the caveats that the methodology was different. 
 

Shift in Anticoagulants

Dr. Shenvi: One other big change from that original study, and now to Richard’s study, is the shift in anticoagulants. Back in the initial study you mentioned, it was all warfarin. We know from other studies looking at warfarin vs the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that DOACs have lower rates of ICH after a head injury, lower rates of need for neurosurgical intervention, and lower rates of discharge to a skilled nursing facility after an intracranial hemorrhage.

Across the board, we know that the DOACs tend to do better. It’s difficult to compare newer studies because it’s a different medication. It did inform my practice to have an awareness of delayed intracranial hemorrhage so that I warn patients more proactively. 

Dr. Glatter: I haven’t seen a patient on warfarin in years. I don’t know if either of you have, but it’s all DOACs now unless there’s some other reason. That shift is quite apparent.

Dr. Shih: The problem with looking at delayed bleeding for DOACs vs warfarin is the numbers were so low. I think we had 13 people, and seven were in the no-anticoagulant group. The numbers are even lower, so it’s hard to say. 

I just wanted to comment on something that Dr. Shenvi said, and I pretty much agree with everything that she said. Anticoagulants and warfarin, and that Menditto study, have a carryover effect. People group DOACs with warfarin similarly. When a patient is brought in, the first thing they talk about with head trauma is, “Oh, they’re on an anticoagulant” or “They’re not on an anticoagulant.” It’s so ingrained.

I believe that, in emergency medicine, we’re pressed for space and time and we’re not as affected by that 24-hour observation. Maybe many of our surgeons will automatically admit those patients. 

I haven’t seen a guideline from the United States, but there are two international guidelines. One is from Austria from 2019, and one is from Scandinavia. Both recommended 24-hour observation if you’re on an anticoagulant.

There is a bit of controversy left over with that. Hopefully, as more and more of information, like in our study, comes out, people will be a little bit more clear about it. I don’t think there’s a need to routinely admit them. 

I do want to mention that the Menditto study had such a massive impact on everybody. They pointed out one subgroup (and it’s such a small number of patients). They had seven cases of delayed bleeding; four or five of them were within that 24 hours, and a couple were diagnosed later over the next couple days.

Of those seven people, four of them had international normalized ratios (INRs) greater than 3. Of those four patients, I’ve heard people talk about this and recommend, “Okay, that’s the subgroup I would admit.” There’s a toss-up with what to do with DOAC because it’s very hard to tell whether there’s an issue, whether there are problems with their dosing, and whatever. 

We actually recently looked at that. We have a much larger sample than four: close to 300 patients who were on warfarin. We looked at patients who had INRs below 3 and above 3, and we didn’t show a difference. We still don’t believe that warfarin is a big issue with delayed bleeding.
 

Should We Be Asking: ‘Are They on Blood Thinners?’

Dr. Shenvi: One of the interesting trends related to warfarin and the DOACs vs no anticoagulant is that as you mentioned, Dr Shih, the first question out of people’s mouths or the first piece of information emergency medical services gives you when they come in with a patient who’s had a head injury is, “Are they on blood thinners or not?”

Yet, the paradigm is shifting to say it’s not actually the blood thinners themselves that are giving older patients the higher risk for bleeding; it’s age and other comorbidities.

Certainly, if you’re on an anticoagulant and you start to bleed, your prognosis is much worse because the bleeding doesn’t stop. In terms of who has a bleeding event, there’s much less impact of anticoagulation than we used to think. That, in part, may be due to the change from warfarin to other medications.

Some of the experts I’ve talked to who have done the research on this have said, “Well, actually, warfarin was more of a marker for being much older and more frail, because it was primarily prescribed to older patients who have significant heart disease, atrial fibrillation, and so on.” It was more a marker for somebody who is at risk for an intracranial hemorrhage. There are many changes that have happened in the past 10 years with medications and also our understanding. 
 

Challenges in Patient Follow-up

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. One thing, Rich, I want to ask you about is in terms of your proxy outcome assessment. When you use that at 14 and 60 days with telephone follow-up and then chart review at 60 and 90 days (because, obviously, everyone can’t get another head CT or it’s difficult to follow patients up), did you find that worked out well in your prospective cohort study, in terms of using that as a proxy, so to speak? 

Dr. Shih: I would say to a certain extent. Unfortunately, we don’t have access to the patients to come back to follow up all of them, and there was obviously a large number of patients in our study. 

The next best thing was that we had dedicated research assistants calling all of the patients at 14 days and 60 days. I’ve certainly read research studies where, when they call them, they get 80%-90% follow-up, but we did not achieve that.

I don’t know if people are more inundated with spam phone calls now, or the older people are just afraid of picking up their phone sometimes with all the scams and so forth. I totally understand, but in all honesty, we only had about a 30%-35% follow-up using that follow-up pathway. 

Then the proxy pathway was to look at their charts at 60 and 90 days. Also, we looked at the Florida death registry, which is pretty good, and then finally, we had both Level I trauma centers in the county that we were in participating. It’s standard practice that if you have an intracranial hemorrhage at a non–Level I trauma center, you would be transferred to a Level I trauma center. That’s the protocol. I know that’s not followed 100% of the time, but that’s part of the proxy follow-up. You could criticize the study for not having closer to 90% actual contact, but that’s the best we could do. 

Dr. Glatter: I think that’s admirable. Using that paradigm of what you described certainly allows the reader to understand the difficulty in assessing patients that don’t get follow-up head CT, and hardly anyone does that, as we know.

To your point of having both Level I trauma centers in the county, that makes it pretty secure. If we’re going to do a study encompassing a similar type of regional aspect, it would be similar.

Dr. Shenvi: I think your proxies, to your credit, were as good as you can get. You can never get a 100% follow-up, but you really looked at all the different avenues by which patients might present, either in the death registry or a Level I center. Well done on that aspect.

 

Determining When to Admit Patients for Observation

Dr. Glatter: In terms of admissions: You admit a patient, then you hear back that this patient should not have been admitted because they had a negative head CT, but you put them in anyway in the sense of delayed bleeding happening or not happening.

It’s interesting. Maybe the insurers will start looking at this in some capacity, based on your study, that because it’s so infrequent that you see delayed bleeding, that admitting someone for any reason whatsoever would be declined. Do you see that being an issue? In other words, [do you see] this leading to a pattern in terms of the payers?

Dr. Shih: Certainly, you could interpret it that way, and that would be unfortunate. The [incidence of] delayed bleeding is definitely not zero. That’s the first thing. 

The second thing is that when you’re dealing with an older population, having some sense that they’re not doing well is an important contributor to trying to fully assess what’s going on — whether or not they have a bleed or whether they’re at risk for falling again and then hitting their head and causing a second bleed, and making sure they can do the activities of daily life. There really should be some room for a physician to say, “They just got here, and we don’t know him that well. There’s something that bothers me about this person” and have the ability to watch them for at least another 24 hours. That’s how I feel. 

Dr. Shenvi: In my location, it would be difficult to try to admit somebody purely for observation for delayed bleeding. I think we would get a lot of pushback on that. The reasons I might admit a patient after a fall with a negative head CT, though, are all the things that, Rob, you alluded to earlier — which are, what made them fall in the first place and were they unable to get up? 

I had this happen just this week. A patient who fell couldn’t get off the ground for 12 hours, and so now she’s dehydrated and delirious with slight rhabdomyolysis. Then you’re admitting them either for the sequelae of the fall that are not related to the intracranial hemorrhage, or the fact that they are so debilitated and deconditioned that they cannot take care of themselves. They need physical therapy. Often, we will have physical and occupational therapists come see them in the ED during business hours and help make an assessment of whether they are safe to go home or whether they fall again. That can give more evidence for the need for admission.

Dr. Glatter: To bring artificial intelligence into this discussion, algorithms that are out there that say, “Push a button and the patient’s safe for discharge.” Well, this argues for a clinical gestalt and a human being to make an assessment because you can use these predictive models, which are coming and they’re going to be here soon, and they already are in some sense. Again, we have to use clinical human judgment. 

Dr. Shih: I agree. 
 

Advice for Primary Care Physicians

Dr. Glatter: What return precautions do you discuss with patients who’ve had blunt head trauma that maybe had a head CT, or even didn’t? What are the main things we’re looking for?

Dr. Shenvi: What I usually tell people is if you start to have a worse headache, nausea or vomiting, any weakness in one area of your body, or vision changes, and if there’s a family member or friend there, I’ll say, “If you notice that they’re acting differently or seem confused, come back.”

Dr. Shih: I agree with what she said, and I’m also going to add one thing. The most important part is they are trying to prevent a subsequent fall. We know that when they’ve fallen and they present to the ED, they’re at even higher risk for falling and reinjuring themselves, and that’s a population that’s already at risk.

One of the secondary studies that we published out of this project was looking at follow-up with their primary care physicians, and there were two things that we wanted to address. The first was, how often did they do it? Then, when they did do it, did their primary care physicians try to address and prevent subsequent falls?

Both the answers are actually bad. Amazingly, just over like 60% followed up. 

In some of our subsequent research, because we’re in the midst of a randomized, controlled trial where we do a home visit, when we initially see these individuals that have fallen, they’ll schedule a home visit for us. Then a week or two later, when we schedule the home visit, many of them cancel because they think, Oh, that was a one-off and it’s not going to happen again. Part of the problem is the patients, because many of them believe that they just slipped and fell and it’s not going to happen again, or they’re not prone to it.

The second issue was when patients did go to a primary care physician, we have found that some primary care physicians believe that falling and injuring themselves is just part of the normal aging process. A percentage of them don’t go over assessment for fall risk or even initiate fall prevention treatments or programs. 

I try to take that time to tell them that this is very common in their age group, and believe it or not, a fall from standing is the way people really injure themselves, and there may be ways to prevent subsequent falls and injuries. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Do you find that their medications are a contributor in some sense? Say they’re antihypertensive, have issues of orthostasis, or a new medication was added in the last week. 

Dr. Shenvi: It’s all of the above. Sometimes it’s one thing, like they just started tamsulosin for their kidney stone, they stood up, they felt lightheaded, and they fell. Usually, it’s multifactorial with some changes in their gait, vision, balance, reflex time, and strength, plus the medications or the need for assistive devices. Maybe they can’t take care of their home as well as they used to and there are things on the floor. It’s really all of the above.
 

‘Harder to Unlearn Something Than to Learn It’

Dr. Glatter: Would either of you like to add any additional points to the discussion or add a few pearls? 

Dr. Shenvi: This just highlights the challenge of how it’s harder to unlearn something than to learn it, where one study that maybe wasn’t quite looking at what we needed to, or practice and prescribing patterns have changed, so it’s no longer really relevant. 

The things that we learned from that, or the fears that we instilled in our minds of, Uh oh, they could go home and have delayed bleeding, are much harder to unlearn, and it takes more studies to unlearn that idea than it did to actually put it into place. 

I’m glad that your team has done this much larger, prospective study and hopefully will reduce the concern about this entity. 

Dr. Shih: I appreciate that segue. It is amazing that, for paramedics and medical students, the first thing out of their mouth is, “Are they on an anticoagulant?”

In terms of the risk of developing an intracranial hemorrhage, I think it’s much less than the weight we’ve put on it before. However, I believe if they have a bleed, the bleeds are worse. It’s kind of a double-edged sword. It’s still an important factor, but it doesn’t come with the Oh my gosh, they’re on an anticoagulant that everybody thinks about.
 

No. 1 Cause of Traumatic Injury Is a Fall from Standing

Dr. Glatter: These are obviously ground-level falls in most patients and not motor vehicle crashes. That’s an important part in the population that you looked at that should be mentioned clearly. 

Dr. Shih: It’s astonishing. I’ve been a program director for over 20 years, and geriatrics is not well taught in the curriculum. It’s astonishing for many of our trainees and emergency physicians in general that the number-one cause for traumatic injury is a fall from standing.

Certainly, we get patients coming in the trauma center like a 95-year-old person who’s on a ladder putting up his Christmas lights. I’m like, oh my God. 

For the vast majority, it’s closer to 90%, but in our study, for the patients we looked at, it was 80% that fall from standing. That’s the mechanism that causes these bleeds and these major injuries. 

Dr. Shenvi: That’s reflective of what we see, so it’s good that that’s what you looked at also. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Well, thank you both. This has been a very informative discussion. I appreciate your time, and our readers will certainly benefit from your knowledge and expertise. Thank you again.

Dr. Glatter, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, is a medical adviser for this news organization. He disclosed having no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Shih is professor of emergency medicine at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. His current grant funding and area of research interest involves geriatric emergency department patients with head injury and fall-related injury. He disclosed receiving a research grant from The Florida Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association Grant for Safety of Health Care Services). Dr. Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, disclosed ties with the American College of Emergency Physicians, Institute for Healthcare Improvement, AstraZeneca, and CurvaFix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on August 2, 2024. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Today, we’ll be discussing the results of a new study published in The Journal of Emergency Medicine, looking at the incidence of delayed intracranial hemorrhage among older patients taking preinjury anticoagulants who present to the emergency department (ED) with blunt head trauma.

Joining me today is the lead author of the study, Dr. Richard Shih, professor of emergency medicine at Florida Atlantic University. Also joining me is Dr. Christina Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina (UNC) Chapel Hill, with fellowship training in geriatric emergency medicine. 

Welcome to both of you.

Richard D. Shih, MD: Thanks, Rob. 

Christina L. Shenvi, MD, PhD, MBA: Thanks. Pleasure to be here. 
 

ICH Study Methodology

Dr. Glatter: It’s a pleasure to have you. Rich, this is a great study and targeted toward a population we see daily in the emergency department. I want you to describe your methodology, patient selection, and how you went about organizing your study to look at this important finding of delayed intracranial hemorrhage, especially in those on anticoagulants.

Dr. Shih: This all started for our research team when we first read the 2012 Annals of Emergency Medicine paper. The first author was Vincenzo Menditto, and he looked at a group of patients that had minor head injury, were anticoagulated, and had negative initial head CTs. 

There were about 100 patients, of which about 10 of them did not consent, but they hospitalized all these patients. These were anticoagulated, negative-first head CTs. They hospitalized the patients and then did a routine second CT at about 24 hours. They also followed them for a week, and it turned out a little over 7% of them had delayed head CT. 

We were wondering how many delayed intracranial hemorrhages we had missed because current practice for us was that, if patients had a good physical exam, their head CT was normal, and everything looked good, we would send them home.

Because of that, a number of people across the country wanted to verify those findings from the Menditto study. We tried to design a good study to answer that question. We happen to have a very large geriatric population in Florida, and our ED census is very high for age over 65, at nearly 60%. 

There are two Level I trauma centers in Palm Beach County. We included a second multicenter hospital, and we prospectively enrolled patients. We know the current state of practice is not to routinely do second CTs, so we followed these patients over time and followed their medical records to try to identify delayed bleeding. That’s how we set up our methodology.
 

Is It Safe to Discharge Patients With Trauma After 24 Hours?

Dr. Glatter: For the bulk of these patients with negative head CTs, it’s been my practice that when they’re stable and they look fine and there’s no other apparent, distracting painful trauma, injuries and so forth, they’re safe to discharge. 

The secondary outcome in your study is interesting: the need for neurosurgical intervention in terms of those with delayed intracranial hemorrhage.

Dr. Shih: I do believe that it’s certainly not the problem that Menditto described, which is 7%. There are two other prospective studies that have looked at this issue with delayed bleeding on anticoagulants. Both of these also showed a relatively low rate of delayed bleeding, which is between like 0.2% and 1.0%. In our study, it was 0.4%. 

The difference in the studies is that Menditto and colleagues routinely did 24-hour head CTs. They admitted everybody. For these other studies, routine head CT was not part of it. My bet is that there is a rate of delayed bleeding somewhere in between that seen in the Menditto study and that in all the other studies.

However, talking about significant intracranial hemorrhage, ones that perhaps need neurosurgery, I believe most of them are not significant. There’s some number that do occur, but the vast majority of those probably don’t need neurosurgery. We had 14 delayed bleeds out of 6000 patients with head trauma. One of them ended up requiring neurosurgery, so the answer is not zero, but I don’t think it’s 7% either. 

Dr. Glatter: Dr. Shenvi, I want to bring you into the conversation to talk about your experience at UNC, and how you run things in terms of older patients with blunt head trauma on preinjury anticoagulants.

Dr. Shenvi: Thanks, Rob. I remember when this paper came out showing this 7% rate of delayed bleeding and the question was, “Should we be admitting all these people?” Partly just from an overwhelming need for capacity that that would bring, it just wasn’t practical to say, “We’re going to admit every patient with a negative head CT to the hospital and rescan them.” That would be hundreds or thousands of patients each year in any given facility. 

The other thing is that delayed bleeds don’t always happen just in the first 24 hours. It’s not even a matter of bringing patients into observation for 24 hours, watching them, and rescanning them if they have symptoms. It can occur several days out. That never, in almost any institution that I know of, became standard practice. 

The way that it did change my care was to give good return precautions to patients, to make sure they have somebody with them to say, “Hey, sometimes you can have bleeding several days out after a fall, even though your CT scan here today looks perfect,” and to alert them that if they start having severe headaches, vomiting, or other symptoms of intracranial hemorrhage, that they should come back. 

I don’t think it ever became standard practice, and for good reason, because that was one study. The subsequent studies that Richard mentioned, pretty quickly on the heels of that initial one, showed a much lower rate of delayed ICH with the caveats that the methodology was different. 
 

Shift in Anticoagulants

Dr. Shenvi: One other big change from that original study, and now to Richard’s study, is the shift in anticoagulants. Back in the initial study you mentioned, it was all warfarin. We know from other studies looking at warfarin vs the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that DOACs have lower rates of ICH after a head injury, lower rates of need for neurosurgical intervention, and lower rates of discharge to a skilled nursing facility after an intracranial hemorrhage.

Across the board, we know that the DOACs tend to do better. It’s difficult to compare newer studies because it’s a different medication. It did inform my practice to have an awareness of delayed intracranial hemorrhage so that I warn patients more proactively. 

Dr. Glatter: I haven’t seen a patient on warfarin in years. I don’t know if either of you have, but it’s all DOACs now unless there’s some other reason. That shift is quite apparent.

Dr. Shih: The problem with looking at delayed bleeding for DOACs vs warfarin is the numbers were so low. I think we had 13 people, and seven were in the no-anticoagulant group. The numbers are even lower, so it’s hard to say. 

I just wanted to comment on something that Dr. Shenvi said, and I pretty much agree with everything that she said. Anticoagulants and warfarin, and that Menditto study, have a carryover effect. People group DOACs with warfarin similarly. When a patient is brought in, the first thing they talk about with head trauma is, “Oh, they’re on an anticoagulant” or “They’re not on an anticoagulant.” It’s so ingrained.

I believe that, in emergency medicine, we’re pressed for space and time and we’re not as affected by that 24-hour observation. Maybe many of our surgeons will automatically admit those patients. 

I haven’t seen a guideline from the United States, but there are two international guidelines. One is from Austria from 2019, and one is from Scandinavia. Both recommended 24-hour observation if you’re on an anticoagulant.

There is a bit of controversy left over with that. Hopefully, as more and more of information, like in our study, comes out, people will be a little bit more clear about it. I don’t think there’s a need to routinely admit them. 

I do want to mention that the Menditto study had such a massive impact on everybody. They pointed out one subgroup (and it’s such a small number of patients). They had seven cases of delayed bleeding; four or five of them were within that 24 hours, and a couple were diagnosed later over the next couple days.

Of those seven people, four of them had international normalized ratios (INRs) greater than 3. Of those four patients, I’ve heard people talk about this and recommend, “Okay, that’s the subgroup I would admit.” There’s a toss-up with what to do with DOAC because it’s very hard to tell whether there’s an issue, whether there are problems with their dosing, and whatever. 

We actually recently looked at that. We have a much larger sample than four: close to 300 patients who were on warfarin. We looked at patients who had INRs below 3 and above 3, and we didn’t show a difference. We still don’t believe that warfarin is a big issue with delayed bleeding.
 

Should We Be Asking: ‘Are They on Blood Thinners?’

Dr. Shenvi: One of the interesting trends related to warfarin and the DOACs vs no anticoagulant is that as you mentioned, Dr Shih, the first question out of people’s mouths or the first piece of information emergency medical services gives you when they come in with a patient who’s had a head injury is, “Are they on blood thinners or not?”

Yet, the paradigm is shifting to say it’s not actually the blood thinners themselves that are giving older patients the higher risk for bleeding; it’s age and other comorbidities.

Certainly, if you’re on an anticoagulant and you start to bleed, your prognosis is much worse because the bleeding doesn’t stop. In terms of who has a bleeding event, there’s much less impact of anticoagulation than we used to think. That, in part, may be due to the change from warfarin to other medications.

Some of the experts I’ve talked to who have done the research on this have said, “Well, actually, warfarin was more of a marker for being much older and more frail, because it was primarily prescribed to older patients who have significant heart disease, atrial fibrillation, and so on.” It was more a marker for somebody who is at risk for an intracranial hemorrhage. There are many changes that have happened in the past 10 years with medications and also our understanding. 
 

Challenges in Patient Follow-up

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. One thing, Rich, I want to ask you about is in terms of your proxy outcome assessment. When you use that at 14 and 60 days with telephone follow-up and then chart review at 60 and 90 days (because, obviously, everyone can’t get another head CT or it’s difficult to follow patients up), did you find that worked out well in your prospective cohort study, in terms of using that as a proxy, so to speak? 

Dr. Shih: I would say to a certain extent. Unfortunately, we don’t have access to the patients to come back to follow up all of them, and there was obviously a large number of patients in our study. 

The next best thing was that we had dedicated research assistants calling all of the patients at 14 days and 60 days. I’ve certainly read research studies where, when they call them, they get 80%-90% follow-up, but we did not achieve that.

I don’t know if people are more inundated with spam phone calls now, or the older people are just afraid of picking up their phone sometimes with all the scams and so forth. I totally understand, but in all honesty, we only had about a 30%-35% follow-up using that follow-up pathway. 

Then the proxy pathway was to look at their charts at 60 and 90 days. Also, we looked at the Florida death registry, which is pretty good, and then finally, we had both Level I trauma centers in the county that we were in participating. It’s standard practice that if you have an intracranial hemorrhage at a non–Level I trauma center, you would be transferred to a Level I trauma center. That’s the protocol. I know that’s not followed 100% of the time, but that’s part of the proxy follow-up. You could criticize the study for not having closer to 90% actual contact, but that’s the best we could do. 

Dr. Glatter: I think that’s admirable. Using that paradigm of what you described certainly allows the reader to understand the difficulty in assessing patients that don’t get follow-up head CT, and hardly anyone does that, as we know.

To your point of having both Level I trauma centers in the county, that makes it pretty secure. If we’re going to do a study encompassing a similar type of regional aspect, it would be similar.

Dr. Shenvi: I think your proxies, to your credit, were as good as you can get. You can never get a 100% follow-up, but you really looked at all the different avenues by which patients might present, either in the death registry or a Level I center. Well done on that aspect.

 

Determining When to Admit Patients for Observation

Dr. Glatter: In terms of admissions: You admit a patient, then you hear back that this patient should not have been admitted because they had a negative head CT, but you put them in anyway in the sense of delayed bleeding happening or not happening.

It’s interesting. Maybe the insurers will start looking at this in some capacity, based on your study, that because it’s so infrequent that you see delayed bleeding, that admitting someone for any reason whatsoever would be declined. Do you see that being an issue? In other words, [do you see] this leading to a pattern in terms of the payers?

Dr. Shih: Certainly, you could interpret it that way, and that would be unfortunate. The [incidence of] delayed bleeding is definitely not zero. That’s the first thing. 

The second thing is that when you’re dealing with an older population, having some sense that they’re not doing well is an important contributor to trying to fully assess what’s going on — whether or not they have a bleed or whether they’re at risk for falling again and then hitting their head and causing a second bleed, and making sure they can do the activities of daily life. There really should be some room for a physician to say, “They just got here, and we don’t know him that well. There’s something that bothers me about this person” and have the ability to watch them for at least another 24 hours. That’s how I feel. 

Dr. Shenvi: In my location, it would be difficult to try to admit somebody purely for observation for delayed bleeding. I think we would get a lot of pushback on that. The reasons I might admit a patient after a fall with a negative head CT, though, are all the things that, Rob, you alluded to earlier — which are, what made them fall in the first place and were they unable to get up? 

I had this happen just this week. A patient who fell couldn’t get off the ground for 12 hours, and so now she’s dehydrated and delirious with slight rhabdomyolysis. Then you’re admitting them either for the sequelae of the fall that are not related to the intracranial hemorrhage, or the fact that they are so debilitated and deconditioned that they cannot take care of themselves. They need physical therapy. Often, we will have physical and occupational therapists come see them in the ED during business hours and help make an assessment of whether they are safe to go home or whether they fall again. That can give more evidence for the need for admission.

Dr. Glatter: To bring artificial intelligence into this discussion, algorithms that are out there that say, “Push a button and the patient’s safe for discharge.” Well, this argues for a clinical gestalt and a human being to make an assessment because you can use these predictive models, which are coming and they’re going to be here soon, and they already are in some sense. Again, we have to use clinical human judgment. 

Dr. Shih: I agree. 
 

Advice for Primary Care Physicians

Dr. Glatter: What return precautions do you discuss with patients who’ve had blunt head trauma that maybe had a head CT, or even didn’t? What are the main things we’re looking for?

Dr. Shenvi: What I usually tell people is if you start to have a worse headache, nausea or vomiting, any weakness in one area of your body, or vision changes, and if there’s a family member or friend there, I’ll say, “If you notice that they’re acting differently or seem confused, come back.”

Dr. Shih: I agree with what she said, and I’m also going to add one thing. The most important part is they are trying to prevent a subsequent fall. We know that when they’ve fallen and they present to the ED, they’re at even higher risk for falling and reinjuring themselves, and that’s a population that’s already at risk.

One of the secondary studies that we published out of this project was looking at follow-up with their primary care physicians, and there were two things that we wanted to address. The first was, how often did they do it? Then, when they did do it, did their primary care physicians try to address and prevent subsequent falls?

Both the answers are actually bad. Amazingly, just over like 60% followed up. 

In some of our subsequent research, because we’re in the midst of a randomized, controlled trial where we do a home visit, when we initially see these individuals that have fallen, they’ll schedule a home visit for us. Then a week or two later, when we schedule the home visit, many of them cancel because they think, Oh, that was a one-off and it’s not going to happen again. Part of the problem is the patients, because many of them believe that they just slipped and fell and it’s not going to happen again, or they’re not prone to it.

The second issue was when patients did go to a primary care physician, we have found that some primary care physicians believe that falling and injuring themselves is just part of the normal aging process. A percentage of them don’t go over assessment for fall risk or even initiate fall prevention treatments or programs. 

I try to take that time to tell them that this is very common in their age group, and believe it or not, a fall from standing is the way people really injure themselves, and there may be ways to prevent subsequent falls and injuries. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Do you find that their medications are a contributor in some sense? Say they’re antihypertensive, have issues of orthostasis, or a new medication was added in the last week. 

Dr. Shenvi: It’s all of the above. Sometimes it’s one thing, like they just started tamsulosin for their kidney stone, they stood up, they felt lightheaded, and they fell. Usually, it’s multifactorial with some changes in their gait, vision, balance, reflex time, and strength, plus the medications or the need for assistive devices. Maybe they can’t take care of their home as well as they used to and there are things on the floor. It’s really all of the above.
 

‘Harder to Unlearn Something Than to Learn It’

Dr. Glatter: Would either of you like to add any additional points to the discussion or add a few pearls? 

Dr. Shenvi: This just highlights the challenge of how it’s harder to unlearn something than to learn it, where one study that maybe wasn’t quite looking at what we needed to, or practice and prescribing patterns have changed, so it’s no longer really relevant. 

The things that we learned from that, or the fears that we instilled in our minds of, Uh oh, they could go home and have delayed bleeding, are much harder to unlearn, and it takes more studies to unlearn that idea than it did to actually put it into place. 

I’m glad that your team has done this much larger, prospective study and hopefully will reduce the concern about this entity. 

Dr. Shih: I appreciate that segue. It is amazing that, for paramedics and medical students, the first thing out of their mouth is, “Are they on an anticoagulant?”

In terms of the risk of developing an intracranial hemorrhage, I think it’s much less than the weight we’ve put on it before. However, I believe if they have a bleed, the bleeds are worse. It’s kind of a double-edged sword. It’s still an important factor, but it doesn’t come with the Oh my gosh, they’re on an anticoagulant that everybody thinks about.
 

No. 1 Cause of Traumatic Injury Is a Fall from Standing

Dr. Glatter: These are obviously ground-level falls in most patients and not motor vehicle crashes. That’s an important part in the population that you looked at that should be mentioned clearly. 

Dr. Shih: It’s astonishing. I’ve been a program director for over 20 years, and geriatrics is not well taught in the curriculum. It’s astonishing for many of our trainees and emergency physicians in general that the number-one cause for traumatic injury is a fall from standing.

Certainly, we get patients coming in the trauma center like a 95-year-old person who’s on a ladder putting up his Christmas lights. I’m like, oh my God. 

For the vast majority, it’s closer to 90%, but in our study, for the patients we looked at, it was 80% that fall from standing. That’s the mechanism that causes these bleeds and these major injuries. 

Dr. Shenvi: That’s reflective of what we see, so it’s good that that’s what you looked at also. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Well, thank you both. This has been a very informative discussion. I appreciate your time, and our readers will certainly benefit from your knowledge and expertise. Thank you again.

Dr. Glatter, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, is a medical adviser for this news organization. He disclosed having no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Shih is professor of emergency medicine at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. His current grant funding and area of research interest involves geriatric emergency department patients with head injury and fall-related injury. He disclosed receiving a research grant from The Florida Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association Grant for Safety of Health Care Services). Dr. Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, disclosed ties with the American College of Emergency Physicians, Institute for Healthcare Improvement, AstraZeneca, and CurvaFix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

This discussion was recorded on August 2, 2024. This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Robert D. Glatter, MD: Today, we’ll be discussing the results of a new study published in The Journal of Emergency Medicine, looking at the incidence of delayed intracranial hemorrhage among older patients taking preinjury anticoagulants who present to the emergency department (ED) with blunt head trauma.

Joining me today is the lead author of the study, Dr. Richard Shih, professor of emergency medicine at Florida Atlantic University. Also joining me is Dr. Christina Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina (UNC) Chapel Hill, with fellowship training in geriatric emergency medicine. 

Welcome to both of you.

Richard D. Shih, MD: Thanks, Rob. 

Christina L. Shenvi, MD, PhD, MBA: Thanks. Pleasure to be here. 
 

ICH Study Methodology

Dr. Glatter: It’s a pleasure to have you. Rich, this is a great study and targeted toward a population we see daily in the emergency department. I want you to describe your methodology, patient selection, and how you went about organizing your study to look at this important finding of delayed intracranial hemorrhage, especially in those on anticoagulants.

Dr. Shih: This all started for our research team when we first read the 2012 Annals of Emergency Medicine paper. The first author was Vincenzo Menditto, and he looked at a group of patients that had minor head injury, were anticoagulated, and had negative initial head CTs. 

There were about 100 patients, of which about 10 of them did not consent, but they hospitalized all these patients. These were anticoagulated, negative-first head CTs. They hospitalized the patients and then did a routine second CT at about 24 hours. They also followed them for a week, and it turned out a little over 7% of them had delayed head CT. 

We were wondering how many delayed intracranial hemorrhages we had missed because current practice for us was that, if patients had a good physical exam, their head CT was normal, and everything looked good, we would send them home.

Because of that, a number of people across the country wanted to verify those findings from the Menditto study. We tried to design a good study to answer that question. We happen to have a very large geriatric population in Florida, and our ED census is very high for age over 65, at nearly 60%. 

There are two Level I trauma centers in Palm Beach County. We included a second multicenter hospital, and we prospectively enrolled patients. We know the current state of practice is not to routinely do second CTs, so we followed these patients over time and followed their medical records to try to identify delayed bleeding. That’s how we set up our methodology.
 

Is It Safe to Discharge Patients With Trauma After 24 Hours?

Dr. Glatter: For the bulk of these patients with negative head CTs, it’s been my practice that when they’re stable and they look fine and there’s no other apparent, distracting painful trauma, injuries and so forth, they’re safe to discharge. 

The secondary outcome in your study is interesting: the need for neurosurgical intervention in terms of those with delayed intracranial hemorrhage.

Dr. Shih: I do believe that it’s certainly not the problem that Menditto described, which is 7%. There are two other prospective studies that have looked at this issue with delayed bleeding on anticoagulants. Both of these also showed a relatively low rate of delayed bleeding, which is between like 0.2% and 1.0%. In our study, it was 0.4%. 

The difference in the studies is that Menditto and colleagues routinely did 24-hour head CTs. They admitted everybody. For these other studies, routine head CT was not part of it. My bet is that there is a rate of delayed bleeding somewhere in between that seen in the Menditto study and that in all the other studies.

However, talking about significant intracranial hemorrhage, ones that perhaps need neurosurgery, I believe most of them are not significant. There’s some number that do occur, but the vast majority of those probably don’t need neurosurgery. We had 14 delayed bleeds out of 6000 patients with head trauma. One of them ended up requiring neurosurgery, so the answer is not zero, but I don’t think it’s 7% either. 

Dr. Glatter: Dr. Shenvi, I want to bring you into the conversation to talk about your experience at UNC, and how you run things in terms of older patients with blunt head trauma on preinjury anticoagulants.

Dr. Shenvi: Thanks, Rob. I remember when this paper came out showing this 7% rate of delayed bleeding and the question was, “Should we be admitting all these people?” Partly just from an overwhelming need for capacity that that would bring, it just wasn’t practical to say, “We’re going to admit every patient with a negative head CT to the hospital and rescan them.” That would be hundreds or thousands of patients each year in any given facility. 

The other thing is that delayed bleeds don’t always happen just in the first 24 hours. It’s not even a matter of bringing patients into observation for 24 hours, watching them, and rescanning them if they have symptoms. It can occur several days out. That never, in almost any institution that I know of, became standard practice. 

The way that it did change my care was to give good return precautions to patients, to make sure they have somebody with them to say, “Hey, sometimes you can have bleeding several days out after a fall, even though your CT scan here today looks perfect,” and to alert them that if they start having severe headaches, vomiting, or other symptoms of intracranial hemorrhage, that they should come back. 

I don’t think it ever became standard practice, and for good reason, because that was one study. The subsequent studies that Richard mentioned, pretty quickly on the heels of that initial one, showed a much lower rate of delayed ICH with the caveats that the methodology was different. 
 

Shift in Anticoagulants

Dr. Shenvi: One other big change from that original study, and now to Richard’s study, is the shift in anticoagulants. Back in the initial study you mentioned, it was all warfarin. We know from other studies looking at warfarin vs the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) that DOACs have lower rates of ICH after a head injury, lower rates of need for neurosurgical intervention, and lower rates of discharge to a skilled nursing facility after an intracranial hemorrhage.

Across the board, we know that the DOACs tend to do better. It’s difficult to compare newer studies because it’s a different medication. It did inform my practice to have an awareness of delayed intracranial hemorrhage so that I warn patients more proactively. 

Dr. Glatter: I haven’t seen a patient on warfarin in years. I don’t know if either of you have, but it’s all DOACs now unless there’s some other reason. That shift is quite apparent.

Dr. Shih: The problem with looking at delayed bleeding for DOACs vs warfarin is the numbers were so low. I think we had 13 people, and seven were in the no-anticoagulant group. The numbers are even lower, so it’s hard to say. 

I just wanted to comment on something that Dr. Shenvi said, and I pretty much agree with everything that she said. Anticoagulants and warfarin, and that Menditto study, have a carryover effect. People group DOACs with warfarin similarly. When a patient is brought in, the first thing they talk about with head trauma is, “Oh, they’re on an anticoagulant” or “They’re not on an anticoagulant.” It’s so ingrained.

I believe that, in emergency medicine, we’re pressed for space and time and we’re not as affected by that 24-hour observation. Maybe many of our surgeons will automatically admit those patients. 

I haven’t seen a guideline from the United States, but there are two international guidelines. One is from Austria from 2019, and one is from Scandinavia. Both recommended 24-hour observation if you’re on an anticoagulant.

There is a bit of controversy left over with that. Hopefully, as more and more of information, like in our study, comes out, people will be a little bit more clear about it. I don’t think there’s a need to routinely admit them. 

I do want to mention that the Menditto study had such a massive impact on everybody. They pointed out one subgroup (and it’s such a small number of patients). They had seven cases of delayed bleeding; four or five of them were within that 24 hours, and a couple were diagnosed later over the next couple days.

Of those seven people, four of them had international normalized ratios (INRs) greater than 3. Of those four patients, I’ve heard people talk about this and recommend, “Okay, that’s the subgroup I would admit.” There’s a toss-up with what to do with DOAC because it’s very hard to tell whether there’s an issue, whether there are problems with their dosing, and whatever. 

We actually recently looked at that. We have a much larger sample than four: close to 300 patients who were on warfarin. We looked at patients who had INRs below 3 and above 3, and we didn’t show a difference. We still don’t believe that warfarin is a big issue with delayed bleeding.
 

Should We Be Asking: ‘Are They on Blood Thinners?’

Dr. Shenvi: One of the interesting trends related to warfarin and the DOACs vs no anticoagulant is that as you mentioned, Dr Shih, the first question out of people’s mouths or the first piece of information emergency medical services gives you when they come in with a patient who’s had a head injury is, “Are they on blood thinners or not?”

Yet, the paradigm is shifting to say it’s not actually the blood thinners themselves that are giving older patients the higher risk for bleeding; it’s age and other comorbidities.

Certainly, if you’re on an anticoagulant and you start to bleed, your prognosis is much worse because the bleeding doesn’t stop. In terms of who has a bleeding event, there’s much less impact of anticoagulation than we used to think. That, in part, may be due to the change from warfarin to other medications.

Some of the experts I’ve talked to who have done the research on this have said, “Well, actually, warfarin was more of a marker for being much older and more frail, because it was primarily prescribed to older patients who have significant heart disease, atrial fibrillation, and so on.” It was more a marker for somebody who is at risk for an intracranial hemorrhage. There are many changes that have happened in the past 10 years with medications and also our understanding. 
 

Challenges in Patient Follow-up

Dr. Glatter: That’s a great point. One thing, Rich, I want to ask you about is in terms of your proxy outcome assessment. When you use that at 14 and 60 days with telephone follow-up and then chart review at 60 and 90 days (because, obviously, everyone can’t get another head CT or it’s difficult to follow patients up), did you find that worked out well in your prospective cohort study, in terms of using that as a proxy, so to speak? 

Dr. Shih: I would say to a certain extent. Unfortunately, we don’t have access to the patients to come back to follow up all of them, and there was obviously a large number of patients in our study. 

The next best thing was that we had dedicated research assistants calling all of the patients at 14 days and 60 days. I’ve certainly read research studies where, when they call them, they get 80%-90% follow-up, but we did not achieve that.

I don’t know if people are more inundated with spam phone calls now, or the older people are just afraid of picking up their phone sometimes with all the scams and so forth. I totally understand, but in all honesty, we only had about a 30%-35% follow-up using that follow-up pathway. 

Then the proxy pathway was to look at their charts at 60 and 90 days. Also, we looked at the Florida death registry, which is pretty good, and then finally, we had both Level I trauma centers in the county that we were in participating. It’s standard practice that if you have an intracranial hemorrhage at a non–Level I trauma center, you would be transferred to a Level I trauma center. That’s the protocol. I know that’s not followed 100% of the time, but that’s part of the proxy follow-up. You could criticize the study for not having closer to 90% actual contact, but that’s the best we could do. 

Dr. Glatter: I think that’s admirable. Using that paradigm of what you described certainly allows the reader to understand the difficulty in assessing patients that don’t get follow-up head CT, and hardly anyone does that, as we know.

To your point of having both Level I trauma centers in the county, that makes it pretty secure. If we’re going to do a study encompassing a similar type of regional aspect, it would be similar.

Dr. Shenvi: I think your proxies, to your credit, were as good as you can get. You can never get a 100% follow-up, but you really looked at all the different avenues by which patients might present, either in the death registry or a Level I center. Well done on that aspect.

 

Determining When to Admit Patients for Observation

Dr. Glatter: In terms of admissions: You admit a patient, then you hear back that this patient should not have been admitted because they had a negative head CT, but you put them in anyway in the sense of delayed bleeding happening or not happening.

It’s interesting. Maybe the insurers will start looking at this in some capacity, based on your study, that because it’s so infrequent that you see delayed bleeding, that admitting someone for any reason whatsoever would be declined. Do you see that being an issue? In other words, [do you see] this leading to a pattern in terms of the payers?

Dr. Shih: Certainly, you could interpret it that way, and that would be unfortunate. The [incidence of] delayed bleeding is definitely not zero. That’s the first thing. 

The second thing is that when you’re dealing with an older population, having some sense that they’re not doing well is an important contributor to trying to fully assess what’s going on — whether or not they have a bleed or whether they’re at risk for falling again and then hitting their head and causing a second bleed, and making sure they can do the activities of daily life. There really should be some room for a physician to say, “They just got here, and we don’t know him that well. There’s something that bothers me about this person” and have the ability to watch them for at least another 24 hours. That’s how I feel. 

Dr. Shenvi: In my location, it would be difficult to try to admit somebody purely for observation for delayed bleeding. I think we would get a lot of pushback on that. The reasons I might admit a patient after a fall with a negative head CT, though, are all the things that, Rob, you alluded to earlier — which are, what made them fall in the first place and were they unable to get up? 

I had this happen just this week. A patient who fell couldn’t get off the ground for 12 hours, and so now she’s dehydrated and delirious with slight rhabdomyolysis. Then you’re admitting them either for the sequelae of the fall that are not related to the intracranial hemorrhage, or the fact that they are so debilitated and deconditioned that they cannot take care of themselves. They need physical therapy. Often, we will have physical and occupational therapists come see them in the ED during business hours and help make an assessment of whether they are safe to go home or whether they fall again. That can give more evidence for the need for admission.

Dr. Glatter: To bring artificial intelligence into this discussion, algorithms that are out there that say, “Push a button and the patient’s safe for discharge.” Well, this argues for a clinical gestalt and a human being to make an assessment because you can use these predictive models, which are coming and they’re going to be here soon, and they already are in some sense. Again, we have to use clinical human judgment. 

Dr. Shih: I agree. 
 

Advice for Primary Care Physicians

Dr. Glatter: What return precautions do you discuss with patients who’ve had blunt head trauma that maybe had a head CT, or even didn’t? What are the main things we’re looking for?

Dr. Shenvi: What I usually tell people is if you start to have a worse headache, nausea or vomiting, any weakness in one area of your body, or vision changes, and if there’s a family member or friend there, I’ll say, “If you notice that they’re acting differently or seem confused, come back.”

Dr. Shih: I agree with what she said, and I’m also going to add one thing. The most important part is they are trying to prevent a subsequent fall. We know that when they’ve fallen and they present to the ED, they’re at even higher risk for falling and reinjuring themselves, and that’s a population that’s already at risk.

One of the secondary studies that we published out of this project was looking at follow-up with their primary care physicians, and there were two things that we wanted to address. The first was, how often did they do it? Then, when they did do it, did their primary care physicians try to address and prevent subsequent falls?

Both the answers are actually bad. Amazingly, just over like 60% followed up. 

In some of our subsequent research, because we’re in the midst of a randomized, controlled trial where we do a home visit, when we initially see these individuals that have fallen, they’ll schedule a home visit for us. Then a week or two later, when we schedule the home visit, many of them cancel because they think, Oh, that was a one-off and it’s not going to happen again. Part of the problem is the patients, because many of them believe that they just slipped and fell and it’s not going to happen again, or they’re not prone to it.

The second issue was when patients did go to a primary care physician, we have found that some primary care physicians believe that falling and injuring themselves is just part of the normal aging process. A percentage of them don’t go over assessment for fall risk or even initiate fall prevention treatments or programs. 

I try to take that time to tell them that this is very common in their age group, and believe it or not, a fall from standing is the way people really injure themselves, and there may be ways to prevent subsequent falls and injuries. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Do you find that their medications are a contributor in some sense? Say they’re antihypertensive, have issues of orthostasis, or a new medication was added in the last week. 

Dr. Shenvi: It’s all of the above. Sometimes it’s one thing, like they just started tamsulosin for their kidney stone, they stood up, they felt lightheaded, and they fell. Usually, it’s multifactorial with some changes in their gait, vision, balance, reflex time, and strength, plus the medications or the need for assistive devices. Maybe they can’t take care of their home as well as they used to and there are things on the floor. It’s really all of the above.
 

‘Harder to Unlearn Something Than to Learn It’

Dr. Glatter: Would either of you like to add any additional points to the discussion or add a few pearls? 

Dr. Shenvi: This just highlights the challenge of how it’s harder to unlearn something than to learn it, where one study that maybe wasn’t quite looking at what we needed to, or practice and prescribing patterns have changed, so it’s no longer really relevant. 

The things that we learned from that, or the fears that we instilled in our minds of, Uh oh, they could go home and have delayed bleeding, are much harder to unlearn, and it takes more studies to unlearn that idea than it did to actually put it into place. 

I’m glad that your team has done this much larger, prospective study and hopefully will reduce the concern about this entity. 

Dr. Shih: I appreciate that segue. It is amazing that, for paramedics and medical students, the first thing out of their mouth is, “Are they on an anticoagulant?”

In terms of the risk of developing an intracranial hemorrhage, I think it’s much less than the weight we’ve put on it before. However, I believe if they have a bleed, the bleeds are worse. It’s kind of a double-edged sword. It’s still an important factor, but it doesn’t come with the Oh my gosh, they’re on an anticoagulant that everybody thinks about.
 

No. 1 Cause of Traumatic Injury Is a Fall from Standing

Dr. Glatter: These are obviously ground-level falls in most patients and not motor vehicle crashes. That’s an important part in the population that you looked at that should be mentioned clearly. 

Dr. Shih: It’s astonishing. I’ve been a program director for over 20 years, and geriatrics is not well taught in the curriculum. It’s astonishing for many of our trainees and emergency physicians in general that the number-one cause for traumatic injury is a fall from standing.

Certainly, we get patients coming in the trauma center like a 95-year-old person who’s on a ladder putting up his Christmas lights. I’m like, oh my God. 

For the vast majority, it’s closer to 90%, but in our study, for the patients we looked at, it was 80% that fall from standing. That’s the mechanism that causes these bleeds and these major injuries. 

Dr. Shenvi: That’s reflective of what we see, so it’s good that that’s what you looked at also. 

Dr. Glatter: Absolutely. Well, thank you both. This has been a very informative discussion. I appreciate your time, and our readers will certainly benefit from your knowledge and expertise. Thank you again.

Dr. Glatter, assistant professor of emergency medicine at Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell in Hempstead, New York, is a medical adviser for this news organization. He disclosed having no relevant financial conflicts. Dr. Shih is professor of emergency medicine at the Charles E. Schmidt College of Medicine at Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton. His current grant funding and area of research interest involves geriatric emergency department patients with head injury and fall-related injury. He disclosed receiving a research grant from The Florida Medical Malpractice Joint Underwriting Association Grant for Safety of Health Care Services). Dr. Shenvi, associate professor of emergency medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, disclosed ties with the American College of Emergency Physicians, Institute for Healthcare Improvement, AstraZeneca, and CurvaFix.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In older individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD), a higher intake of animal or plant protein is associated with reduced mortality. This finding comes from an analysis of three cohorts from Spain and Sweden, the results of which were published in JAMA Network Open.

In old age, our protein requirement increases. The recommended protein intake is between 1.0 and 1.2 g per kg of actual body weight per day. For elderly patients with acute and chronic illnesses, injuries, or malnutrition, the requirement may be higher.

“While older adults may need more protein than younger persons, higher protein intake could accelerate disease progression among those with CKD, a prevalent condition in older adults that often has no cure and high morbidity and mortality,” wrote Dr. Adrián Carballo-Casla of the Aging Research Center at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, and his colleagues.
 

Protein Restriction

The current Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guideline recommends that patients with mild CKD (ie, stages 1 and 2) not consume more than 1.3 g/kg/day of protein. In stages 3-5 (without dialysis) of CKD, protein intake should be limited to 0.6-0.8 g/kg/day. “Such a regimen of lower protein intake has been shown to slow CKD progression rates and improve metabolic derangements in persons with CKD stages 4 and 5 not receiving dialysis,” the researchers wrote. “Insufficient evidence of the overall health impact of limiting protein intake in older persons with mild or moderate CKD, and whether this impact is different in older adults without CKD, is available.”

The authors analyzed data from three cohorts from Spain and Sweden that included 8543 participants aged at least 60 years. A total of 14,399 observations were analyzed, including 4789 participants with CKD stages 1-3 and 9610 without CKD. To capture protein intake over a longer period and minimize variations among individual study participants, the researchers arranged the data so that there was one observation per time interval for each participant. During the 10-year follow-up, 1468 deaths were documented.

“We observed an inverse association between total protein intake and mortality among participants with CKD but a somewhat weaker one than among those without CKD,” the researchers wrote.
 

Slightly Weaker Association

Compared with participants with a protein intake of 0.8 g/kg/day, participants with CKD who consumed 1.0 g/kg/day of protein had a 12% reduced risk for death. At an intake of 1.2 g/kg/day, the mortality risk decreased by 21%. It decreased by 27% at a protein intake of 1.4 g/kg/day. In patients without CKD, the corresponding risk reductions were 23%, 37%, and 44%.

While in participants without CKD, mortality decreased by 15% with each increase in protein intake of 0.2 g/kg/day, in patients with CKD, the decrease was only 8%.

The association did not change according to whether the protein was of animal or plant origin. The age of the study participants (ie, whether they were under or over age 75 years) also did not play a role.
 

Benefits Outweigh Drawbacks

The researchers pointed out that the biological effects of protein sources could depend on the total intake, as well as the proportion of plant protein in the diet. “Not only did 68% of total protein come from animal sources in our study, but also the mean protein intake was well above the current recommendations for persons with moderate CKD,” they wrote. It is therefore unclear whether the results could be extrapolated to older patients who follow a plant-based or low-protein diet.

“The stronger associations in participants without CKD suggest that the benefits of proteins may outweigh the downsides in older persons with mild or moderate CKD,” the researchers concluded. 

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In older individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD), a higher intake of animal or plant protein is associated with reduced mortality. This finding comes from an analysis of three cohorts from Spain and Sweden, the results of which were published in JAMA Network Open.

In old age, our protein requirement increases. The recommended protein intake is between 1.0 and 1.2 g per kg of actual body weight per day. For elderly patients with acute and chronic illnesses, injuries, or malnutrition, the requirement may be higher.

“While older adults may need more protein than younger persons, higher protein intake could accelerate disease progression among those with CKD, a prevalent condition in older adults that often has no cure and high morbidity and mortality,” wrote Dr. Adrián Carballo-Casla of the Aging Research Center at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, and his colleagues.
 

Protein Restriction

The current Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guideline recommends that patients with mild CKD (ie, stages 1 and 2) not consume more than 1.3 g/kg/day of protein. In stages 3-5 (without dialysis) of CKD, protein intake should be limited to 0.6-0.8 g/kg/day. “Such a regimen of lower protein intake has been shown to slow CKD progression rates and improve metabolic derangements in persons with CKD stages 4 and 5 not receiving dialysis,” the researchers wrote. “Insufficient evidence of the overall health impact of limiting protein intake in older persons with mild or moderate CKD, and whether this impact is different in older adults without CKD, is available.”

The authors analyzed data from three cohorts from Spain and Sweden that included 8543 participants aged at least 60 years. A total of 14,399 observations were analyzed, including 4789 participants with CKD stages 1-3 and 9610 without CKD. To capture protein intake over a longer period and minimize variations among individual study participants, the researchers arranged the data so that there was one observation per time interval for each participant. During the 10-year follow-up, 1468 deaths were documented.

“We observed an inverse association between total protein intake and mortality among participants with CKD but a somewhat weaker one than among those without CKD,” the researchers wrote.
 

Slightly Weaker Association

Compared with participants with a protein intake of 0.8 g/kg/day, participants with CKD who consumed 1.0 g/kg/day of protein had a 12% reduced risk for death. At an intake of 1.2 g/kg/day, the mortality risk decreased by 21%. It decreased by 27% at a protein intake of 1.4 g/kg/day. In patients without CKD, the corresponding risk reductions were 23%, 37%, and 44%.

While in participants without CKD, mortality decreased by 15% with each increase in protein intake of 0.2 g/kg/day, in patients with CKD, the decrease was only 8%.

The association did not change according to whether the protein was of animal or plant origin. The age of the study participants (ie, whether they were under or over age 75 years) also did not play a role.
 

Benefits Outweigh Drawbacks

The researchers pointed out that the biological effects of protein sources could depend on the total intake, as well as the proportion of plant protein in the diet. “Not only did 68% of total protein come from animal sources in our study, but also the mean protein intake was well above the current recommendations for persons with moderate CKD,” they wrote. It is therefore unclear whether the results could be extrapolated to older patients who follow a plant-based or low-protein diet.

“The stronger associations in participants without CKD suggest that the benefits of proteins may outweigh the downsides in older persons with mild or moderate CKD,” the researchers concluded. 

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In older individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD), a higher intake of animal or plant protein is associated with reduced mortality. This finding comes from an analysis of three cohorts from Spain and Sweden, the results of which were published in JAMA Network Open.

In old age, our protein requirement increases. The recommended protein intake is between 1.0 and 1.2 g per kg of actual body weight per day. For elderly patients with acute and chronic illnesses, injuries, or malnutrition, the requirement may be higher.

“While older adults may need more protein than younger persons, higher protein intake could accelerate disease progression among those with CKD, a prevalent condition in older adults that often has no cure and high morbidity and mortality,” wrote Dr. Adrián Carballo-Casla of the Aging Research Center at the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm, Sweden, and his colleagues.
 

Protein Restriction

The current Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes guideline recommends that patients with mild CKD (ie, stages 1 and 2) not consume more than 1.3 g/kg/day of protein. In stages 3-5 (without dialysis) of CKD, protein intake should be limited to 0.6-0.8 g/kg/day. “Such a regimen of lower protein intake has been shown to slow CKD progression rates and improve metabolic derangements in persons with CKD stages 4 and 5 not receiving dialysis,” the researchers wrote. “Insufficient evidence of the overall health impact of limiting protein intake in older persons with mild or moderate CKD, and whether this impact is different in older adults without CKD, is available.”

The authors analyzed data from three cohorts from Spain and Sweden that included 8543 participants aged at least 60 years. A total of 14,399 observations were analyzed, including 4789 participants with CKD stages 1-3 and 9610 without CKD. To capture protein intake over a longer period and minimize variations among individual study participants, the researchers arranged the data so that there was one observation per time interval for each participant. During the 10-year follow-up, 1468 deaths were documented.

“We observed an inverse association between total protein intake and mortality among participants with CKD but a somewhat weaker one than among those without CKD,” the researchers wrote.
 

Slightly Weaker Association

Compared with participants with a protein intake of 0.8 g/kg/day, participants with CKD who consumed 1.0 g/kg/day of protein had a 12% reduced risk for death. At an intake of 1.2 g/kg/day, the mortality risk decreased by 21%. It decreased by 27% at a protein intake of 1.4 g/kg/day. In patients without CKD, the corresponding risk reductions were 23%, 37%, and 44%.

While in participants without CKD, mortality decreased by 15% with each increase in protein intake of 0.2 g/kg/day, in patients with CKD, the decrease was only 8%.

The association did not change according to whether the protein was of animal or plant origin. The age of the study participants (ie, whether they were under or over age 75 years) also did not play a role.
 

Benefits Outweigh Drawbacks

The researchers pointed out that the biological effects of protein sources could depend on the total intake, as well as the proportion of plant protein in the diet. “Not only did 68% of total protein come from animal sources in our study, but also the mean protein intake was well above the current recommendations for persons with moderate CKD,” they wrote. It is therefore unclear whether the results could be extrapolated to older patients who follow a plant-based or low-protein diet.

“The stronger associations in participants without CKD suggest that the benefits of proteins may outweigh the downsides in older persons with mild or moderate CKD,” the researchers concluded. 

This story was translated from the Medscape German edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Colonoscopy remains the gold standard method for detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) and removing precancerous polyps.

The recommended age for CRC screening in the United States spans 45-75 years, with the benefits of colonoscopy diminishing considerably after this point.

Older adults are much more likely to experience complications before, during, and after a colonoscopy. Bowel preps can cause dehydration or electrolyte problems in some, while bleeding and bowel perforation can occur perioperatively, and pulmonary or cardiovascular complications may arise postoperatively.

These risks often outweigh the benefits of catching a precancerous lesion or early-stage cancer, especially given the low rates of advanced neoplasia and CRC detected from screening and surveillance after age 75. Yet the research overall suggests that more than half of older individuals continue to receive screening and surveillance colonoscopies outside the recommended screening window.

So is there a point in time when a person is too old to receive a colonoscopy? The answer is not always clear-cut, but life expectancy should be a key consideration.

“Taking the most extreme example, if you have 6 months to live, finding early-stage cancer is not going to help you,” Michael Rothberg, MD, vice chair for research at Cleveland Clinic’s Medical Institute and director of the Center for Value-Based Care Research, told Medscape Medical News.

For those with more time, the benefits of continued screening and surveillance may outweigh the risks, but when that balance shifts from helpful to not helpful remains inexact, Dr. Rothberg noted.

What’s Recommended?

In May 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the CRC screening threshold to age 45, recommending all adults aged between 45 and 75 years receive screening.

For those aged between 76 and 85 years, the USPSTF upheld its 2016 recommendation of selective screening, noting that the “net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small” and should be determined on an individual basis. The USPSTF, however, did not provide recommendations on surveillance colonoscopies among those with previously identified polyps.

In November 2023, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) issued a clinical practice update that provided advice on risk stratification for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance. For adults older than 75 years specifically, the AGA recommended that the decision to continue CRC screening or perform post-polypectomy surveillance be based on risks, benefits, comorbidities, and screening history and decided on a case-by-case basis.

For instance, previously unscreened patients without comorbidities could benefit from screening beyond age 75 — up to age 80 for men and 90 for women — while those who have had regular colonoscopies, per recommended guidelines, but severe comorbidities that may limit life expectancy could stop sooner, even by age 65.

Although an individualized approach leaves room for variation, it’s essential to consider life expectancy and the time it takes for a polyp to progress to CRC, as well as the risks associated with the procedure itself. Certain older adults are “less likely to live long enough to benefit from surveillance colonoscopy, due to competing, non-CRC mortality risks,” and clinicians should discuss these risks with their patients, the experts explained.
 

When to Stop Screening Colonoscopies

Research shows that screening colonoscopies continue well after the recommended stop age.

A 2023 JAMA Internal Medicine study found, for instance, that a large proportion of screening colonoscopies occurred among the 7067 patients who were 75 years and older with a life expectancy < 10 years. Overall, 30% of patients aged between 76 and 80 years with a limited life expectancy had a colonoscopy. That percentage increased to 71% for those aged 81-85 years and to 100% for those older than 85 years.

But the benefits of screening were minimal. Overall, colonoscopies detected advanced neoplasia in 5.4% of patients aged 76-80 years, 6.2% of those aged 81-85 years, and 9.5% of those older than 85 years. Only 15 patients (0.2%) had CRC detected via colonoscopy, five of whom underwent cancer treatment. Of those five, four had a life expectancy ≥ 10 years, and one had a life expectancy < 10 years.

At the same time, adverse events requiring hospitalization were common 10 days post-colonoscopy (13.58 per 1000), and the risk for hospitalization increased with age.

“For all kinds of screening, we’re not that comfortable in America with the idea that people are eventually going to die, but as you get older, the potential benefits for screening decrease,” study author Dr. Rothberg told this news organization.

In general, life expectancy provides a good predictor of whether people should continue screening or receive treatment following a CRC diagnosis.

Patients aged 76-80 years in good health, for instance, could benefit from screening and, potentially, treatment, Dr. Rothberg said. And “if doctors don’t feel comfortable or confident about predicting life expectancy, taking comorbid illnesses into account can be helpful, especially for that age range.”
 

Weighing Surveillance Benefits

Surveillance colonoscopy is often recommended post-polypectomy to reduce the risk for CRC. But even in this higher-risk population, those older than 75 years may not benefit.

Recent evidence indicates that those with a history of one or two adenomas less than 1 cm in size have only a slightly (1.3-fold) increased risk for incident CRC — and no significant increased risk for fatal CRC.

Another recent study found that detecting CRC at surveillance colonoscopy was rare among older adults. In surveillance colonoscopies performed among 9601 individuals aged 70-85 years with prior adenomas, 12% had advanced neoplasia detected, and only 0.3% had CRC detected.

Similar rates of advanced polyps (7.8%) or CRC (0.2%) were reported in another recent analysis of more than 9800 adults older than 65 years receiving surveillance colonoscopies.

Despite the low rates of polyp and CRC detection, nearly 90% of patients with recommendation information available received advice to return for a future colonoscopy. Even among patients with no polyps or small ones, almost 60% who had life expectancy of less than 5 years were told to return.

Although someone with prior adenomas has a higher risk for CRC, that doesn’t tell the whole story for an individual patient, Samir Gupta, MD, professor of gastroenterology at the University of California San Diego, and co-lead of the Cancer Control Program at Moores Cancer Center, told this news organization. For older adults, it’s vital to consider the competing risks and how much time it might take for CRC to develop.

At Digestive Disease Week in May, Dr. Gupta presented new research that looked at cumulative risk among patients aged 75 years and older with prior precancerous polyps vs prior normal colonoscopies. Although those with prior adenomas had a higher risk for CRC overall, their cumulative CRC risk was low — about 0.3% at 5 years and 0.8% at 10 years. Cumulative CRC deaths were even lower — 0.2% at 5 years and 0.7% at 10 years — while the risk of dying from something other than CRC was 20% at 5 years and 40% at 10 years.

“What this means to me is that patients who are 75 and older should think really carefully about whether they want to do surveillance,” said Dr. Gupta, who coauthored the AGA’s clinical practice update. “Someone who is very healthy and doesn’t have obvious medical problems can look at that risk for developing colon cancer and the risk of dying and make a decision about whether there’s enough concern to go ahead with surveillance.”

Those with competing health priorities, on other hand, should likely concentrate on those instead, he said, and feel reassured that even if they choose not to do surveillance, they’re probably not doing themselves any harm.

“The bottom line is that referring older adults or frail adults for surveillance colonoscopy shouldn’t be a rubber stamp or check-the-box action,” Dr. Gupta said. “We need to think about it carefully and give ourselves — as clinicians and patients — the room to decide that it may not need to take high priority.”
 

What to Tell Patients

Overall, older adults who have had prior colonoscopies, no or low-risk polyps, and low CRC risk will likely face greater risks from the procedure than benefits.

“The more invasive the screening the test, the more dangerous it could be,” Dr. Rothberg noted.

Many patients, however, are open to stopping and often trust their primary care provider in the decision-making process, said Audrey Calderwood, MD, director of the Comprehensive Gastroenterology Center at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center. “But the systems we have in place don’t optimally support that decision-making at the time it matters most.”

For example, at a prior colonoscopy, a gastroenterologist may recommend surveillance again in 5-7 years. But in the interim, the patient could have new medications or develop comorbidities and other health issues. Rather than defer to the gastroenterologist’s recommendations from years ago, clinicians and patients can reassess the pros and cons of screening or surveillance based on current circumstances, Dr. Calderwood said.

“There should be lines of communication and systems of support to allow primary care providers to decide whether it is still needed,” she said.

While some may be ready to stop, other patients are going to continue to want and ask about CRC screening or surveillance, Dr. Rothberg said.

In these instances, communication style matters.

“You don’t want to tell a patient that they’re not going to be screened because they’re not going to live long enough to benefit,” Dr. Rothberg said.

However, steering people toward less invasive tests or telling them it’s important to give other health problems priority may be more sensitive ways to communicate that it’s time to ramp down or halt screening.

“Sometimes when you say you’re going to stop cancer screening, older adults misperceive that you’re giving up on them,” Dr. Gupta said. “We spend 30-40 years driving home the message that prevention and screening are important, and then it feels like we’re taking it away, so we need to find the best way to discuss it and make the choice that’s comfortable for them.”

Dr. Rothberg, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. Calderwood disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

Colonoscopy remains the gold standard method for detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) and removing precancerous polyps.

The recommended age for CRC screening in the United States spans 45-75 years, with the benefits of colonoscopy diminishing considerably after this point.

Older adults are much more likely to experience complications before, during, and after a colonoscopy. Bowel preps can cause dehydration or electrolyte problems in some, while bleeding and bowel perforation can occur perioperatively, and pulmonary or cardiovascular complications may arise postoperatively.

These risks often outweigh the benefits of catching a precancerous lesion or early-stage cancer, especially given the low rates of advanced neoplasia and CRC detected from screening and surveillance after age 75. Yet the research overall suggests that more than half of older individuals continue to receive screening and surveillance colonoscopies outside the recommended screening window.

So is there a point in time when a person is too old to receive a colonoscopy? The answer is not always clear-cut, but life expectancy should be a key consideration.

“Taking the most extreme example, if you have 6 months to live, finding early-stage cancer is not going to help you,” Michael Rothberg, MD, vice chair for research at Cleveland Clinic’s Medical Institute and director of the Center for Value-Based Care Research, told Medscape Medical News.

For those with more time, the benefits of continued screening and surveillance may outweigh the risks, but when that balance shifts from helpful to not helpful remains inexact, Dr. Rothberg noted.

What’s Recommended?

In May 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the CRC screening threshold to age 45, recommending all adults aged between 45 and 75 years receive screening.

For those aged between 76 and 85 years, the USPSTF upheld its 2016 recommendation of selective screening, noting that the “net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small” and should be determined on an individual basis. The USPSTF, however, did not provide recommendations on surveillance colonoscopies among those with previously identified polyps.

In November 2023, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) issued a clinical practice update that provided advice on risk stratification for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance. For adults older than 75 years specifically, the AGA recommended that the decision to continue CRC screening or perform post-polypectomy surveillance be based on risks, benefits, comorbidities, and screening history and decided on a case-by-case basis.

For instance, previously unscreened patients without comorbidities could benefit from screening beyond age 75 — up to age 80 for men and 90 for women — while those who have had regular colonoscopies, per recommended guidelines, but severe comorbidities that may limit life expectancy could stop sooner, even by age 65.

Although an individualized approach leaves room for variation, it’s essential to consider life expectancy and the time it takes for a polyp to progress to CRC, as well as the risks associated with the procedure itself. Certain older adults are “less likely to live long enough to benefit from surveillance colonoscopy, due to competing, non-CRC mortality risks,” and clinicians should discuss these risks with their patients, the experts explained.
 

When to Stop Screening Colonoscopies

Research shows that screening colonoscopies continue well after the recommended stop age.

A 2023 JAMA Internal Medicine study found, for instance, that a large proportion of screening colonoscopies occurred among the 7067 patients who were 75 years and older with a life expectancy < 10 years. Overall, 30% of patients aged between 76 and 80 years with a limited life expectancy had a colonoscopy. That percentage increased to 71% for those aged 81-85 years and to 100% for those older than 85 years.

But the benefits of screening were minimal. Overall, colonoscopies detected advanced neoplasia in 5.4% of patients aged 76-80 years, 6.2% of those aged 81-85 years, and 9.5% of those older than 85 years. Only 15 patients (0.2%) had CRC detected via colonoscopy, five of whom underwent cancer treatment. Of those five, four had a life expectancy ≥ 10 years, and one had a life expectancy < 10 years.

At the same time, adverse events requiring hospitalization were common 10 days post-colonoscopy (13.58 per 1000), and the risk for hospitalization increased with age.

“For all kinds of screening, we’re not that comfortable in America with the idea that people are eventually going to die, but as you get older, the potential benefits for screening decrease,” study author Dr. Rothberg told this news organization.

In general, life expectancy provides a good predictor of whether people should continue screening or receive treatment following a CRC diagnosis.

Patients aged 76-80 years in good health, for instance, could benefit from screening and, potentially, treatment, Dr. Rothberg said. And “if doctors don’t feel comfortable or confident about predicting life expectancy, taking comorbid illnesses into account can be helpful, especially for that age range.”
 

Weighing Surveillance Benefits

Surveillance colonoscopy is often recommended post-polypectomy to reduce the risk for CRC. But even in this higher-risk population, those older than 75 years may not benefit.

Recent evidence indicates that those with a history of one or two adenomas less than 1 cm in size have only a slightly (1.3-fold) increased risk for incident CRC — and no significant increased risk for fatal CRC.

Another recent study found that detecting CRC at surveillance colonoscopy was rare among older adults. In surveillance colonoscopies performed among 9601 individuals aged 70-85 years with prior adenomas, 12% had advanced neoplasia detected, and only 0.3% had CRC detected.

Similar rates of advanced polyps (7.8%) or CRC (0.2%) were reported in another recent analysis of more than 9800 adults older than 65 years receiving surveillance colonoscopies.

Despite the low rates of polyp and CRC detection, nearly 90% of patients with recommendation information available received advice to return for a future colonoscopy. Even among patients with no polyps or small ones, almost 60% who had life expectancy of less than 5 years were told to return.

Although someone with prior adenomas has a higher risk for CRC, that doesn’t tell the whole story for an individual patient, Samir Gupta, MD, professor of gastroenterology at the University of California San Diego, and co-lead of the Cancer Control Program at Moores Cancer Center, told this news organization. For older adults, it’s vital to consider the competing risks and how much time it might take for CRC to develop.

At Digestive Disease Week in May, Dr. Gupta presented new research that looked at cumulative risk among patients aged 75 years and older with prior precancerous polyps vs prior normal colonoscopies. Although those with prior adenomas had a higher risk for CRC overall, their cumulative CRC risk was low — about 0.3% at 5 years and 0.8% at 10 years. Cumulative CRC deaths were even lower — 0.2% at 5 years and 0.7% at 10 years — while the risk of dying from something other than CRC was 20% at 5 years and 40% at 10 years.

“What this means to me is that patients who are 75 and older should think really carefully about whether they want to do surveillance,” said Dr. Gupta, who coauthored the AGA’s clinical practice update. “Someone who is very healthy and doesn’t have obvious medical problems can look at that risk for developing colon cancer and the risk of dying and make a decision about whether there’s enough concern to go ahead with surveillance.”

Those with competing health priorities, on other hand, should likely concentrate on those instead, he said, and feel reassured that even if they choose not to do surveillance, they’re probably not doing themselves any harm.

“The bottom line is that referring older adults or frail adults for surveillance colonoscopy shouldn’t be a rubber stamp or check-the-box action,” Dr. Gupta said. “We need to think about it carefully and give ourselves — as clinicians and patients — the room to decide that it may not need to take high priority.”
 

What to Tell Patients

Overall, older adults who have had prior colonoscopies, no or low-risk polyps, and low CRC risk will likely face greater risks from the procedure than benefits.

“The more invasive the screening the test, the more dangerous it could be,” Dr. Rothberg noted.

Many patients, however, are open to stopping and often trust their primary care provider in the decision-making process, said Audrey Calderwood, MD, director of the Comprehensive Gastroenterology Center at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center. “But the systems we have in place don’t optimally support that decision-making at the time it matters most.”

For example, at a prior colonoscopy, a gastroenterologist may recommend surveillance again in 5-7 years. But in the interim, the patient could have new medications or develop comorbidities and other health issues. Rather than defer to the gastroenterologist’s recommendations from years ago, clinicians and patients can reassess the pros and cons of screening or surveillance based on current circumstances, Dr. Calderwood said.

“There should be lines of communication and systems of support to allow primary care providers to decide whether it is still needed,” she said.

While some may be ready to stop, other patients are going to continue to want and ask about CRC screening or surveillance, Dr. Rothberg said.

In these instances, communication style matters.

“You don’t want to tell a patient that they’re not going to be screened because they’re not going to live long enough to benefit,” Dr. Rothberg said.

However, steering people toward less invasive tests or telling them it’s important to give other health problems priority may be more sensitive ways to communicate that it’s time to ramp down or halt screening.

“Sometimes when you say you’re going to stop cancer screening, older adults misperceive that you’re giving up on them,” Dr. Gupta said. “We spend 30-40 years driving home the message that prevention and screening are important, and then it feels like we’re taking it away, so we need to find the best way to discuss it and make the choice that’s comfortable for them.”

Dr. Rothberg, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. Calderwood disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

Colonoscopy remains the gold standard method for detecting colorectal cancer (CRC) and removing precancerous polyps.

The recommended age for CRC screening in the United States spans 45-75 years, with the benefits of colonoscopy diminishing considerably after this point.

Older adults are much more likely to experience complications before, during, and after a colonoscopy. Bowel preps can cause dehydration or electrolyte problems in some, while bleeding and bowel perforation can occur perioperatively, and pulmonary or cardiovascular complications may arise postoperatively.

These risks often outweigh the benefits of catching a precancerous lesion or early-stage cancer, especially given the low rates of advanced neoplasia and CRC detected from screening and surveillance after age 75. Yet the research overall suggests that more than half of older individuals continue to receive screening and surveillance colonoscopies outside the recommended screening window.

So is there a point in time when a person is too old to receive a colonoscopy? The answer is not always clear-cut, but life expectancy should be a key consideration.

“Taking the most extreme example, if you have 6 months to live, finding early-stage cancer is not going to help you,” Michael Rothberg, MD, vice chair for research at Cleveland Clinic’s Medical Institute and director of the Center for Value-Based Care Research, told Medscape Medical News.

For those with more time, the benefits of continued screening and surveillance may outweigh the risks, but when that balance shifts from helpful to not helpful remains inexact, Dr. Rothberg noted.

What’s Recommended?

In May 2021, the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) lowered the CRC screening threshold to age 45, recommending all adults aged between 45 and 75 years receive screening.

For those aged between 76 and 85 years, the USPSTF upheld its 2016 recommendation of selective screening, noting that the “net benefit of screening all persons in this age group is small” and should be determined on an individual basis. The USPSTF, however, did not provide recommendations on surveillance colonoscopies among those with previously identified polyps.

In November 2023, the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) issued a clinical practice update that provided advice on risk stratification for CRC screening and post-polypectomy surveillance. For adults older than 75 years specifically, the AGA recommended that the decision to continue CRC screening or perform post-polypectomy surveillance be based on risks, benefits, comorbidities, and screening history and decided on a case-by-case basis.

For instance, previously unscreened patients without comorbidities could benefit from screening beyond age 75 — up to age 80 for men and 90 for women — while those who have had regular colonoscopies, per recommended guidelines, but severe comorbidities that may limit life expectancy could stop sooner, even by age 65.

Although an individualized approach leaves room for variation, it’s essential to consider life expectancy and the time it takes for a polyp to progress to CRC, as well as the risks associated with the procedure itself. Certain older adults are “less likely to live long enough to benefit from surveillance colonoscopy, due to competing, non-CRC mortality risks,” and clinicians should discuss these risks with their patients, the experts explained.
 

When to Stop Screening Colonoscopies

Research shows that screening colonoscopies continue well after the recommended stop age.

A 2023 JAMA Internal Medicine study found, for instance, that a large proportion of screening colonoscopies occurred among the 7067 patients who were 75 years and older with a life expectancy < 10 years. Overall, 30% of patients aged between 76 and 80 years with a limited life expectancy had a colonoscopy. That percentage increased to 71% for those aged 81-85 years and to 100% for those older than 85 years.

But the benefits of screening were minimal. Overall, colonoscopies detected advanced neoplasia in 5.4% of patients aged 76-80 years, 6.2% of those aged 81-85 years, and 9.5% of those older than 85 years. Only 15 patients (0.2%) had CRC detected via colonoscopy, five of whom underwent cancer treatment. Of those five, four had a life expectancy ≥ 10 years, and one had a life expectancy < 10 years.

At the same time, adverse events requiring hospitalization were common 10 days post-colonoscopy (13.58 per 1000), and the risk for hospitalization increased with age.

“For all kinds of screening, we’re not that comfortable in America with the idea that people are eventually going to die, but as you get older, the potential benefits for screening decrease,” study author Dr. Rothberg told this news organization.

In general, life expectancy provides a good predictor of whether people should continue screening or receive treatment following a CRC diagnosis.

Patients aged 76-80 years in good health, for instance, could benefit from screening and, potentially, treatment, Dr. Rothberg said. And “if doctors don’t feel comfortable or confident about predicting life expectancy, taking comorbid illnesses into account can be helpful, especially for that age range.”
 

Weighing Surveillance Benefits

Surveillance colonoscopy is often recommended post-polypectomy to reduce the risk for CRC. But even in this higher-risk population, those older than 75 years may not benefit.

Recent evidence indicates that those with a history of one or two adenomas less than 1 cm in size have only a slightly (1.3-fold) increased risk for incident CRC — and no significant increased risk for fatal CRC.

Another recent study found that detecting CRC at surveillance colonoscopy was rare among older adults. In surveillance colonoscopies performed among 9601 individuals aged 70-85 years with prior adenomas, 12% had advanced neoplasia detected, and only 0.3% had CRC detected.

Similar rates of advanced polyps (7.8%) or CRC (0.2%) were reported in another recent analysis of more than 9800 adults older than 65 years receiving surveillance colonoscopies.

Despite the low rates of polyp and CRC detection, nearly 90% of patients with recommendation information available received advice to return for a future colonoscopy. Even among patients with no polyps or small ones, almost 60% who had life expectancy of less than 5 years were told to return.

Although someone with prior adenomas has a higher risk for CRC, that doesn’t tell the whole story for an individual patient, Samir Gupta, MD, professor of gastroenterology at the University of California San Diego, and co-lead of the Cancer Control Program at Moores Cancer Center, told this news organization. For older adults, it’s vital to consider the competing risks and how much time it might take for CRC to develop.

At Digestive Disease Week in May, Dr. Gupta presented new research that looked at cumulative risk among patients aged 75 years and older with prior precancerous polyps vs prior normal colonoscopies. Although those with prior adenomas had a higher risk for CRC overall, their cumulative CRC risk was low — about 0.3% at 5 years and 0.8% at 10 years. Cumulative CRC deaths were even lower — 0.2% at 5 years and 0.7% at 10 years — while the risk of dying from something other than CRC was 20% at 5 years and 40% at 10 years.

“What this means to me is that patients who are 75 and older should think really carefully about whether they want to do surveillance,” said Dr. Gupta, who coauthored the AGA’s clinical practice update. “Someone who is very healthy and doesn’t have obvious medical problems can look at that risk for developing colon cancer and the risk of dying and make a decision about whether there’s enough concern to go ahead with surveillance.”

Those with competing health priorities, on other hand, should likely concentrate on those instead, he said, and feel reassured that even if they choose not to do surveillance, they’re probably not doing themselves any harm.

“The bottom line is that referring older adults or frail adults for surveillance colonoscopy shouldn’t be a rubber stamp or check-the-box action,” Dr. Gupta said. “We need to think about it carefully and give ourselves — as clinicians and patients — the room to decide that it may not need to take high priority.”
 

What to Tell Patients

Overall, older adults who have had prior colonoscopies, no or low-risk polyps, and low CRC risk will likely face greater risks from the procedure than benefits.

“The more invasive the screening the test, the more dangerous it could be,” Dr. Rothberg noted.

Many patients, however, are open to stopping and often trust their primary care provider in the decision-making process, said Audrey Calderwood, MD, director of the Comprehensive Gastroenterology Center at Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center. “But the systems we have in place don’t optimally support that decision-making at the time it matters most.”

For example, at a prior colonoscopy, a gastroenterologist may recommend surveillance again in 5-7 years. But in the interim, the patient could have new medications or develop comorbidities and other health issues. Rather than defer to the gastroenterologist’s recommendations from years ago, clinicians and patients can reassess the pros and cons of screening or surveillance based on current circumstances, Dr. Calderwood said.

“There should be lines of communication and systems of support to allow primary care providers to decide whether it is still needed,” she said.

While some may be ready to stop, other patients are going to continue to want and ask about CRC screening or surveillance, Dr. Rothberg said.

In these instances, communication style matters.

“You don’t want to tell a patient that they’re not going to be screened because they’re not going to live long enough to benefit,” Dr. Rothberg said.

However, steering people toward less invasive tests or telling them it’s important to give other health problems priority may be more sensitive ways to communicate that it’s time to ramp down or halt screening.

“Sometimes when you say you’re going to stop cancer screening, older adults misperceive that you’re giving up on them,” Dr. Gupta said. “We spend 30-40 years driving home the message that prevention and screening are important, and then it feels like we’re taking it away, so we need to find the best way to discuss it and make the choice that’s comfortable for them.”

Dr. Rothberg, Dr. Gupta, and Dr. Calderwood disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

TOPLINE:

Older adults with untreated hypertension have a 36% increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) compared with those without hypertension and a 42% increased risk for AD compared with those with treated hypertension.

METHODOLOGY:

• In this meta-analysis, researchers analyzed the data of 31,250 participants aged 60 years or older (mean age, 72.1 years; 41% men) from 14 community-based studies across 14 countries.
• Mean follow-up was 4.2 years, and blood pressure measurements, hypertension diagnosis, and antihypertensive medication use were recorded.
• Overall, 35.9% had no history of hypertension or antihypertensive medication use, 50.7% had a history of hypertension with antihypertensive medication use, and 9.4% had a history of hypertension without antihypertensive medication use.
• The main outcomes were AD and non-AD dementia.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 1415 participants developed AD, and 681 developed non-AD dementia.
• Participants with untreated hypertension had a 36% increased risk for AD compared with healthy controls (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; P = .041) and a 42% increased risk for AD (HR, 1.42; P = .013) compared with those with treated hypertension.
• Compared with healthy controls, patients with treated hypertension did not show an elevated risk for AD (HR, 0.961; P = .6644).
• Patients with both treated (HR, 1.285; P = .027) and untreated (HR, 1.693; P = .003) hypertension had an increased risk for non-AD dementia compared with healthy controls. Patients with treated and untreated hypertension had a similar risk for non-AD dementia.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that treating high blood pressure as a person ages continues to be a crucial factor in reducing their risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” the lead author Matthew J. Lennon, MD, PhD, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Matthew J. Lennon, MD, PhD, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS: 

Varied definitions for hypertension across different locations might have led to discrepancies in diagnosis. Additionally, the study did not account for potential confounders such as stroke, transient ischemic attack, and heart disease, which may act as mediators rather than covariates. Furthermore, the study did not report mortality data, which may have affected the interpretation of dementia risk.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported ties with several institutions and pharmaceutical companies outside this work. Full disclosures are available in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with untreated hypertension have a 36% increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) compared with those without hypertension and a 42% increased risk for AD compared with those with treated hypertension.

METHODOLOGY:

• In this meta-analysis, researchers analyzed the data of 31,250 participants aged 60 years or older (mean age, 72.1 years; 41% men) from 14 community-based studies across 14 countries.
• Mean follow-up was 4.2 years, and blood pressure measurements, hypertension diagnosis, and antihypertensive medication use were recorded.
• Overall, 35.9% had no history of hypertension or antihypertensive medication use, 50.7% had a history of hypertension with antihypertensive medication use, and 9.4% had a history of hypertension without antihypertensive medication use.
• The main outcomes were AD and non-AD dementia.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 1415 participants developed AD, and 681 developed non-AD dementia.
• Participants with untreated hypertension had a 36% increased risk for AD compared with healthy controls (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; P = .041) and a 42% increased risk for AD (HR, 1.42; P = .013) compared with those with treated hypertension.
• Compared with healthy controls, patients with treated hypertension did not show an elevated risk for AD (HR, 0.961; P = .6644).
• Patients with both treated (HR, 1.285; P = .027) and untreated (HR, 1.693; P = .003) hypertension had an increased risk for non-AD dementia compared with healthy controls. Patients with treated and untreated hypertension had a similar risk for non-AD dementia.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that treating high blood pressure as a person ages continues to be a crucial factor in reducing their risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” the lead author Matthew J. Lennon, MD, PhD, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Matthew J. Lennon, MD, PhD, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS: 

Varied definitions for hypertension across different locations might have led to discrepancies in diagnosis. Additionally, the study did not account for potential confounders such as stroke, transient ischemic attack, and heart disease, which may act as mediators rather than covariates. Furthermore, the study did not report mortality data, which may have affected the interpretation of dementia risk.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported ties with several institutions and pharmaceutical companies outside this work. Full disclosures are available in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Older adults with untreated hypertension have a 36% increased risk for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) compared with those without hypertension and a 42% increased risk for AD compared with those with treated hypertension.

METHODOLOGY:

• In this meta-analysis, researchers analyzed the data of 31,250 participants aged 60 years or older (mean age, 72.1 years; 41% men) from 14 community-based studies across 14 countries.
• Mean follow-up was 4.2 years, and blood pressure measurements, hypertension diagnosis, and antihypertensive medication use were recorded.
• Overall, 35.9% had no history of hypertension or antihypertensive medication use, 50.7% had a history of hypertension with antihypertensive medication use, and 9.4% had a history of hypertension without antihypertensive medication use.
• The main outcomes were AD and non-AD dementia.

TAKEAWAY:

• In total, 1415 participants developed AD, and 681 developed non-AD dementia.
• Participants with untreated hypertension had a 36% increased risk for AD compared with healthy controls (hazard ratio [HR], 1.36; P = .041) and a 42% increased risk for AD (HR, 1.42; P = .013) compared with those with treated hypertension.
• Compared with healthy controls, patients with treated hypertension did not show an elevated risk for AD (HR, 0.961; P = .6644).
• Patients with both treated (HR, 1.285; P = .027) and untreated (HR, 1.693; P = .003) hypertension had an increased risk for non-AD dementia compared with healthy controls. Patients with treated and untreated hypertension had a similar risk for non-AD dementia.

IN PRACTICE:

“These results suggest that treating high blood pressure as a person ages continues to be a crucial factor in reducing their risk of Alzheimer’s disease,” the lead author Matthew J. Lennon, MD, PhD, said in a press release.

SOURCE:

This study was led by Matthew J. Lennon, MD, PhD, School of Clinical Medicine, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia. It was published online in Neurology.

LIMITATIONS: 

Varied definitions for hypertension across different locations might have led to discrepancies in diagnosis. Additionally, the study did not account for potential confounders such as stroke, transient ischemic attack, and heart disease, which may act as mediators rather than covariates. Furthermore, the study did not report mortality data, which may have affected the interpretation of dementia risk.

DISCLOSURES:

This research was supported by the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health. Some authors reported ties with several institutions and pharmaceutical companies outside this work. Full disclosures are available in the original article.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Age-related hearing loss and peripheral neuropathy in older adults reduce longevity both directly and indirectly by affecting balance and gait.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed 793 older adults recruited from primary care practices participating in the OKLAHOMA Studies in 1999.
• Participants completed a questionnaire and underwent a physical examination; timed gait assessments (50 ft); and tests for peripheral nerve function, balance, and hearing.
• Hearing thresholds were tested at 20, 25, and 40 dB, respectively, and at sound frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz.
• Researchers tracked mortality data over 22 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 83% participants experienced hearing loss. Regular use of hearing aids was low, reported in 19% and 55% of those with moderate and severe hearing loss, respectively.
• Hearing loss was linked to impaired balance (P = .0014), slower walking (P = .0024), and reduced survival time (P = .0001). Moderate to severe hearing loss was strongly associated with reduced survival time (odds ratio, 1.36; P = .001), independent of the use of hearing aids.
• Peripheral neuropathy was present in 32% participants. The condition also increased the risk for death over the study period (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; P = .003). Participants with both hearing loss and peripheral neuropathy showed reduced balance and survival time compared with people with either condition alone (HR, 1.55; P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Like peripheral neuropathy, advanced-age hearing loss is associated with reduced life expectancy, probably mediated in part through an adverse impact on balance,” the authors wrote. “Greater appreciation for the serious impacts of hearing loss and peripheral neuropathy could lead to further efforts to understand their causes and improve prevention and treatment strategies.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by James W. Mold, MD, MPH, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City. It was published online in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

LIMITATIONS:

The dataset was collected in 1999 and may not entirely represent the current cohorts of older primary care patients. The absence of soundproof rooms and the exclusion of some components of the standard audiometric evaluation may have affected low-frequency sound measurements. Furthermore, physical examination was a less accurate measure of peripheral neuropathy. Information on the duration or severity of predictors and causes of death was not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Presbyterian Health Foundation. The authors did not disclose any competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Age-related hearing loss and peripheral neuropathy in older adults reduce longevity both directly and indirectly by affecting balance and gait.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed 793 older adults recruited from primary care practices participating in the OKLAHOMA Studies in 1999.
• Participants completed a questionnaire and underwent a physical examination; timed gait assessments (50 ft); and tests for peripheral nerve function, balance, and hearing.
• Hearing thresholds were tested at 20, 25, and 40 dB, respectively, and at sound frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz.
• Researchers tracked mortality data over 22 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 83% participants experienced hearing loss. Regular use of hearing aids was low, reported in 19% and 55% of those with moderate and severe hearing loss, respectively.
• Hearing loss was linked to impaired balance (P = .0014), slower walking (P = .0024), and reduced survival time (P = .0001). Moderate to severe hearing loss was strongly associated with reduced survival time (odds ratio, 1.36; P = .001), independent of the use of hearing aids.
• Peripheral neuropathy was present in 32% participants. The condition also increased the risk for death over the study period (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; P = .003). Participants with both hearing loss and peripheral neuropathy showed reduced balance and survival time compared with people with either condition alone (HR, 1.55; P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Like peripheral neuropathy, advanced-age hearing loss is associated with reduced life expectancy, probably mediated in part through an adverse impact on balance,” the authors wrote. “Greater appreciation for the serious impacts of hearing loss and peripheral neuropathy could lead to further efforts to understand their causes and improve prevention and treatment strategies.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by James W. Mold, MD, MPH, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City. It was published online in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

LIMITATIONS:

The dataset was collected in 1999 and may not entirely represent the current cohorts of older primary care patients. The absence of soundproof rooms and the exclusion of some components of the standard audiometric evaluation may have affected low-frequency sound measurements. Furthermore, physical examination was a less accurate measure of peripheral neuropathy. Information on the duration or severity of predictors and causes of death was not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Presbyterian Health Foundation. The authors did not disclose any competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Age-related hearing loss and peripheral neuropathy in older adults reduce longevity both directly and indirectly by affecting balance and gait.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers analyzed 793 older adults recruited from primary care practices participating in the OKLAHOMA Studies in 1999.
• Participants completed a questionnaire and underwent a physical examination; timed gait assessments (50 ft); and tests for peripheral nerve function, balance, and hearing.
• Hearing thresholds were tested at 20, 25, and 40 dB, respectively, and at sound frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz.
• Researchers tracked mortality data over 22 years.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 83% participants experienced hearing loss. Regular use of hearing aids was low, reported in 19% and 55% of those with moderate and severe hearing loss, respectively.
• Hearing loss was linked to impaired balance (P = .0014), slower walking (P = .0024), and reduced survival time (P = .0001). Moderate to severe hearing loss was strongly associated with reduced survival time (odds ratio, 1.36; P = .001), independent of the use of hearing aids.
• Peripheral neuropathy was present in 32% participants. The condition also increased the risk for death over the study period (hazard ratio [HR], 1.32; P = .003). Participants with both hearing loss and peripheral neuropathy showed reduced balance and survival time compared with people with either condition alone (HR, 1.55; P < .0001).

IN PRACTICE:

“Like peripheral neuropathy, advanced-age hearing loss is associated with reduced life expectancy, probably mediated in part through an adverse impact on balance,” the authors wrote. “Greater appreciation for the serious impacts of hearing loss and peripheral neuropathy could lead to further efforts to understand their causes and improve prevention and treatment strategies.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by James W. Mold, MD, MPH, of the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City. It was published online in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society.

LIMITATIONS:

The dataset was collected in 1999 and may not entirely represent the current cohorts of older primary care patients. The absence of soundproof rooms and the exclusion of some components of the standard audiometric evaluation may have affected low-frequency sound measurements. Furthermore, physical examination was a less accurate measure of peripheral neuropathy. Information on the duration or severity of predictors and causes of death was not available.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by the Presbyterian Health Foundation. The authors did not disclose any competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As more data show potentially dangerous effects of climate and weather on individuals with chronic medical conditions, CVS Health has introduced an initiative that uses technology to provide weather alerts and targeted outreach to those at increased risk, according to a press release from the company. Ultimately, the goals of the initiative are to improve health, reduce emergency department visits, hospital stays, and medical costs, according to the press release.

Extreme weather events such as heat waves are becoming more frequent and severe, but most heat-related deaths are preventable with outreach and intervention, Dan Knecht, MD, vice president and chief clinical innovation officer for CVS Caremark, a division of CVS Health, said in an interview. The approach will combine the company’s services, including care managers, health centers, and data, to aid patients vulnerable to severe weather.

The initiative is starting with a focus on extreme heat events and will expand this fall with alerts about high levels of air pollution for individuals with vulnerability to reduced lung function, asthma, and cardiac problems as a result of exposure to high air-pollution levels, according to Dr. Knecht.

For now, the initiative is available to members of Aetna Medicare, according to Dr. Knecht. “Our goal is to expand to other consumers, including those who visit MinuteClinic and CVS Pharmacy locations, where we can provide timely environment-related recommendations at time of care,” he said.

The alert system uses environmental data analytics to pair highly localized forecasts and real-time insights about air quality, wildfires, and high heat with medical and pharmacy data for high-risk patients in areas affected by extreme weather.

For example, for individuals who are at risk and living in areas facing extreme heat, “registered nurse care managers proactively reach out to vulnerable patients up to several days in advance of an extreme weather event and provide them personalized tips and resources,” said Dr. Knecht.

In addition, he added, “we talk to patients about how to manage their medications during periods of extreme heat and, when delivering medications, take weather data into account to determine appropriate packaging materials for shipments.”

These interventions direct patients to CVS Health–linked resources, such as Oak Street Health clinics available as cooling centers, health services provided at MinuteClinic locations, and medication management at CVS pharmacies. Other interventions include virtual or in-person mental health counseling through MinuteClinic.

Dr. Knecht offered additional guidance for clinicians and patients to help manage heat waves. “Heat and certain medications can impair heat tolerance and the ability to regulate body temperature,” he told this news organization. Extreme heat may affect the performance of some medications and their devices, such as inhalers and diabetes supplies, he added.
 

Health Alerts Have Potential, But Comprehensive Approach is Needed

“Patients with chronic lung conditions are highly susceptible to the impact of climate change,” MeiLan K. Han, MD, a pulmonologist and professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Increasing dust, hotter temperatures, and higher levels of air pollution make it more difficult for patients to breathe,” she said. Data also suggest that higher levels of air pollution may not only cause chronic lung disease but also cause worsening symptoms among those with existing disease, she added.

A weather-related health alert could be useful for patients so they can be prepared, Dr. Han told this news organization.

“For a patient with chronic lung disease, a hot weather alert may mean that it will be harder for patients to breathe, and [they] may [be] more susceptible to heat stroke and dehydration if they do not have access to air conditioning,” she said. “At a minimum, patients should ensure they are on their controller medications, which often means a daily inhaler for patients with conditions such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, patients also should have access to their short-term reliever medications so they can be prepared for increased shortness of breath that may accompany a hot weather day,” Dr. Han explained.

However, not all patients have access to technology such as smartphones or other devices that will alert them to impending weather events, such as heat waves, said Dr. Han. “For these patients, a standard phone call may be beneficial,” she said.

Looking ahead, “programs for weather-related health alerts will need to be comprehensive, focusing not only on access to needed medications but also climate-controlled settings for temporary relief of heat,” said Dr. Han. “For some of our most vulnerable patients, while they may have air conditioning, they may not be able to afford to run it, so this needs to be considered in developing a comprehensive program,” she emphasized.

Dr. Knecht had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Han disclosed ties with Aerogen, Altesa BioSciences, American Lung Association, Amgen, Apreo Health, AstraZeneca, Biodesix, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, COPD Foundation, DevPro, Gala Therapeutics, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Integrity, MDBriefcase, Medscape, Medtronic, Medwiz, Meissa Vaccines, Merck, Mylan, NACE, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Nuvaira, Polarian, Pulmonx, Regeneron, Roche, RS Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Sunovion, Teva, UpToDate, and Verona..
 

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

As more data show potentially dangerous effects of climate and weather on individuals with chronic medical conditions, CVS Health has introduced an initiative that uses technology to provide weather alerts and targeted outreach to those at increased risk, according to a press release from the company. Ultimately, the goals of the initiative are to improve health, reduce emergency department visits, hospital stays, and medical costs, according to the press release.

Extreme weather events such as heat waves are becoming more frequent and severe, but most heat-related deaths are preventable with outreach and intervention, Dan Knecht, MD, vice president and chief clinical innovation officer for CVS Caremark, a division of CVS Health, said in an interview. The approach will combine the company’s services, including care managers, health centers, and data, to aid patients vulnerable to severe weather.

The initiative is starting with a focus on extreme heat events and will expand this fall with alerts about high levels of air pollution for individuals with vulnerability to reduced lung function, asthma, and cardiac problems as a result of exposure to high air-pollution levels, according to Dr. Knecht.

For now, the initiative is available to members of Aetna Medicare, according to Dr. Knecht. “Our goal is to expand to other consumers, including those who visit MinuteClinic and CVS Pharmacy locations, where we can provide timely environment-related recommendations at time of care,” he said.

The alert system uses environmental data analytics to pair highly localized forecasts and real-time insights about air quality, wildfires, and high heat with medical and pharmacy data for high-risk patients in areas affected by extreme weather.

For example, for individuals who are at risk and living in areas facing extreme heat, “registered nurse care managers proactively reach out to vulnerable patients up to several days in advance of an extreme weather event and provide them personalized tips and resources,” said Dr. Knecht.

In addition, he added, “we talk to patients about how to manage their medications during periods of extreme heat and, when delivering medications, take weather data into account to determine appropriate packaging materials for shipments.”

These interventions direct patients to CVS Health–linked resources, such as Oak Street Health clinics available as cooling centers, health services provided at MinuteClinic locations, and medication management at CVS pharmacies. Other interventions include virtual or in-person mental health counseling through MinuteClinic.

Dr. Knecht offered additional guidance for clinicians and patients to help manage heat waves. “Heat and certain medications can impair heat tolerance and the ability to regulate body temperature,” he told this news organization. Extreme heat may affect the performance of some medications and their devices, such as inhalers and diabetes supplies, he added.
 

Health Alerts Have Potential, But Comprehensive Approach is Needed

“Patients with chronic lung conditions are highly susceptible to the impact of climate change,” MeiLan K. Han, MD, a pulmonologist and professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Increasing dust, hotter temperatures, and higher levels of air pollution make it more difficult for patients to breathe,” she said. Data also suggest that higher levels of air pollution may not only cause chronic lung disease but also cause worsening symptoms among those with existing disease, she added.

A weather-related health alert could be useful for patients so they can be prepared, Dr. Han told this news organization.

“For a patient with chronic lung disease, a hot weather alert may mean that it will be harder for patients to breathe, and [they] may [be] more susceptible to heat stroke and dehydration if they do not have access to air conditioning,” she said. “At a minimum, patients should ensure they are on their controller medications, which often means a daily inhaler for patients with conditions such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, patients also should have access to their short-term reliever medications so they can be prepared for increased shortness of breath that may accompany a hot weather day,” Dr. Han explained.

However, not all patients have access to technology such as smartphones or other devices that will alert them to impending weather events, such as heat waves, said Dr. Han. “For these patients, a standard phone call may be beneficial,” she said.

Looking ahead, “programs for weather-related health alerts will need to be comprehensive, focusing not only on access to needed medications but also climate-controlled settings for temporary relief of heat,” said Dr. Han. “For some of our most vulnerable patients, while they may have air conditioning, they may not be able to afford to run it, so this needs to be considered in developing a comprehensive program,” she emphasized.

Dr. Knecht had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Han disclosed ties with Aerogen, Altesa BioSciences, American Lung Association, Amgen, Apreo Health, AstraZeneca, Biodesix, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, COPD Foundation, DevPro, Gala Therapeutics, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Integrity, MDBriefcase, Medscape, Medtronic, Medwiz, Meissa Vaccines, Merck, Mylan, NACE, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Nuvaira, Polarian, Pulmonx, Regeneron, Roche, RS Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Sunovion, Teva, UpToDate, and Verona..
 

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

As more data show potentially dangerous effects of climate and weather on individuals with chronic medical conditions, CVS Health has introduced an initiative that uses technology to provide weather alerts and targeted outreach to those at increased risk, according to a press release from the company. Ultimately, the goals of the initiative are to improve health, reduce emergency department visits, hospital stays, and medical costs, according to the press release.

Extreme weather events such as heat waves are becoming more frequent and severe, but most heat-related deaths are preventable with outreach and intervention, Dan Knecht, MD, vice president and chief clinical innovation officer for CVS Caremark, a division of CVS Health, said in an interview. The approach will combine the company’s services, including care managers, health centers, and data, to aid patients vulnerable to severe weather.

The initiative is starting with a focus on extreme heat events and will expand this fall with alerts about high levels of air pollution for individuals with vulnerability to reduced lung function, asthma, and cardiac problems as a result of exposure to high air-pollution levels, according to Dr. Knecht.

For now, the initiative is available to members of Aetna Medicare, according to Dr. Knecht. “Our goal is to expand to other consumers, including those who visit MinuteClinic and CVS Pharmacy locations, where we can provide timely environment-related recommendations at time of care,” he said.

The alert system uses environmental data analytics to pair highly localized forecasts and real-time insights about air quality, wildfires, and high heat with medical and pharmacy data for high-risk patients in areas affected by extreme weather.

For example, for individuals who are at risk and living in areas facing extreme heat, “registered nurse care managers proactively reach out to vulnerable patients up to several days in advance of an extreme weather event and provide them personalized tips and resources,” said Dr. Knecht.

In addition, he added, “we talk to patients about how to manage their medications during periods of extreme heat and, when delivering medications, take weather data into account to determine appropriate packaging materials for shipments.”

These interventions direct patients to CVS Health–linked resources, such as Oak Street Health clinics available as cooling centers, health services provided at MinuteClinic locations, and medication management at CVS pharmacies. Other interventions include virtual or in-person mental health counseling through MinuteClinic.

Dr. Knecht offered additional guidance for clinicians and patients to help manage heat waves. “Heat and certain medications can impair heat tolerance and the ability to regulate body temperature,” he told this news organization. Extreme heat may affect the performance of some medications and their devices, such as inhalers and diabetes supplies, he added.
 

Health Alerts Have Potential, But Comprehensive Approach is Needed

“Patients with chronic lung conditions are highly susceptible to the impact of climate change,” MeiLan K. Han, MD, a pulmonologist and professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, said in an interview. “Increasing dust, hotter temperatures, and higher levels of air pollution make it more difficult for patients to breathe,” she said. Data also suggest that higher levels of air pollution may not only cause chronic lung disease but also cause worsening symptoms among those with existing disease, she added.

A weather-related health alert could be useful for patients so they can be prepared, Dr. Han told this news organization.

“For a patient with chronic lung disease, a hot weather alert may mean that it will be harder for patients to breathe, and [they] may [be] more susceptible to heat stroke and dehydration if they do not have access to air conditioning,” she said. “At a minimum, patients should ensure they are on their controller medications, which often means a daily inhaler for patients with conditions such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, patients also should have access to their short-term reliever medications so they can be prepared for increased shortness of breath that may accompany a hot weather day,” Dr. Han explained.

However, not all patients have access to technology such as smartphones or other devices that will alert them to impending weather events, such as heat waves, said Dr. Han. “For these patients, a standard phone call may be beneficial,” she said.

Looking ahead, “programs for weather-related health alerts will need to be comprehensive, focusing not only on access to needed medications but also climate-controlled settings for temporary relief of heat,” said Dr. Han. “For some of our most vulnerable patients, while they may have air conditioning, they may not be able to afford to run it, so this needs to be considered in developing a comprehensive program,” she emphasized.

Dr. Knecht had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Han disclosed ties with Aerogen, Altesa BioSciences, American Lung Association, Amgen, Apreo Health, AstraZeneca, Biodesix, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Cipla, COPD Foundation, DevPro, Gala Therapeutics, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Integrity, MDBriefcase, Medscape, Medtronic, Medwiz, Meissa Vaccines, Merck, Mylan, NACE, National Institutes of Health, Novartis, Nuvaira, Polarian, Pulmonx, Regeneron, Roche, RS Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Sunovion, Teva, UpToDate, and Verona..
 

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