Geriatrics

The first large study of its kind reveals that SARS-CoV-2 reinfections remain rare, although people older than 65 are at higher risk.

When researchers analyzed test results of 4 million people in Denmark, they found that less than 1% of those who tested positive experienced reinfection.

Initial infection was associated with about 80% protection overall against getting SARS-CoV-2 again. However, among those older than 65, the protection plummeted to 47%.

“Not everybody is protected against reinfection after a first infection. Older people are at higher risk of catching it again,” co–lead author Daniela Michlmayr, PhD, said in an interview. “Our findings emphasize the importance of policies to protect the elderly and of adhering to infection control measures and restrictions, even if previously infected with COVID-19.”
 

Verifying the need for vaccination

“The findings also highlight the need to vaccinate people who had COVID-19 before, as natural immunity to infection – especially among the elderly 65 and older – cannot be relied upon,” added Dr. Michlmayr, a researcher in the department of bacteria, parasites, and fungi at the Staten Serums Institut, Copenhagen.

The population-based observational study was published online March 17 in The Lancet.

“The findings make sense, as patients who are immunocompromised or of advanced age may not mount an immune response that is as long-lasting,” David Hirschwerk, MD, said in an interview. “It does underscore the importance of vaccination for people of more advanced age, even if they previously were infected with COVID.

“For those who were infected last spring and have not yet been vaccinated, this helps to support the value of still pursuing the vaccine,” added Dr. Hirschwerk, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.

Evidence on reinfection risk was limited prior to this study. “Little is known about protection against SARS-CoV-2 repeat infections, but two studies in the UK have found that immunity could last at least 5 to 6 months after infection,” the authors noted.

Along with co–lead author Christian Holm Hansen, PhD, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues found that 2.11% of 525,339 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the first surge in Denmark from March to May 2020. Within this group, 0.65% tested positive during a second surge from September to December.

By the end of 2020, more than 10 million people had undergone free polymerase chain reaction testing by the Danish government or through the national TestDenmark program.

“My overall take is that it is great to have such a big dataset looking at this question,” E. John Wherry, PhD, said in an interview. The findings support “what we’ve seen in previous, smaller studies.”

Natural protection against reinfection of approximately 80% “is not as good as the vaccines, but not bad,” added Dr. Wherry, director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
 

Age alters immunity?

“Our finding that older people were more likely than younger people to test positive again if they had already tested positive could be explained by natural age-related changes in the immune system of older adults, also referred to as immune senescence,” the authors noted.

The investigators found no significant differences in reinfection rates between women and men.

As with the previous research, this study also indicates that an initial bout with SARS-CoV-2 infection appears to confer protection for at least 6 months. The researchers found no significant differences between people who were followed for 3-6 months and those followed for 7 months or longer.
 

Variants not included

To account for possible bias among people who got tested repeatedly, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues performed a sensitivity analysis in a subgroup. They assessed reinfection rates among people who underwent testing frequently and routinely – nurses, doctors, social workers, and health care assistants – and found that 1.2% tested positive a second time during the second surge.

A limitation of the study was the inability to correlate symptoms with risk for reinfection. Also, the researchers did not account for SARS-CoV-2 variants, noting that “during the study period, such variants were not yet established in Denmark; although into 2021 this pattern is changing.”

Asked to speculate whether the results would be different had the study accounted for variants, Dr. Hirschwerk said, “It depends upon the variant, but certainly for the B.1.351 variant, there already has been data clearly demonstrating risk of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 despite prior infection with the original strain of virus.”

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern that could escape natural and vaccine-related immunity “complicates matters further,” Rosemary J. Boyton, MBBS, and Daniel M. Altmann, PhD, both of Imperial College London, wrote in an accompanying comment in The Lancet.

“Emerging variants of concern might shift immunity below a protective margin, prompting the need for updated vaccines. Interestingly, vaccine responses even after single dose are substantially enhanced in individuals with a history of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” they added.

The current study confirms that “the hope of protective immunity through natural infections might not be within our reach, and a global vaccination program with high efficacy vaccines is the enduring solution,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann noted.

Cause for alarm?

Despite evidence that reinfection is relatively rare, “many will find the data reported by Hansen and colleagues about protection through natural infection relatively alarming,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote in their commentary. The 80% protection rate from reinfection in general and the 47% rate among people aged 65 and older “are more concerning figures than offered by previous studies.”

Vaccines appear to provide better quality, quantity, and durability of protection against repeated infection – measured in terms of neutralizing antibodies and T cells – compared with previous infection with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote.
 

More research needed

The duration of natural protection against reinfection remains an unanswered question, the researchers noted, “because too little time has elapsed since the beginning of the pandemic.”

Future prospective and longitudinal cohort studies coupled with molecular surveillance are needed to characterize antibody titers and waning of protection against repeat infections, the authors noted. Furthermore, more answers are needed regarding how some virus variants might contribute to reinfection risk.

No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Michlmayr, Dr. Hirschwerk, Dr. Wherry, Dr. Boyton, and Dr. Altmann have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The first large study of its kind reveals that SARS-CoV-2 reinfections remain rare, although people older than 65 are at higher risk.

When researchers analyzed test results of 4 million people in Denmark, they found that less than 1% of those who tested positive experienced reinfection.

Initial infection was associated with about 80% protection overall against getting SARS-CoV-2 again. However, among those older than 65, the protection plummeted to 47%.

“Not everybody is protected against reinfection after a first infection. Older people are at higher risk of catching it again,” co–lead author Daniela Michlmayr, PhD, said in an interview. “Our findings emphasize the importance of policies to protect the elderly and of adhering to infection control measures and restrictions, even if previously infected with COVID-19.”
 

Verifying the need for vaccination

“The findings also highlight the need to vaccinate people who had COVID-19 before, as natural immunity to infection – especially among the elderly 65 and older – cannot be relied upon,” added Dr. Michlmayr, a researcher in the department of bacteria, parasites, and fungi at the Staten Serums Institut, Copenhagen.

The population-based observational study was published online March 17 in The Lancet.

“The findings make sense, as patients who are immunocompromised or of advanced age may not mount an immune response that is as long-lasting,” David Hirschwerk, MD, said in an interview. “It does underscore the importance of vaccination for people of more advanced age, even if they previously were infected with COVID.

“For those who were infected last spring and have not yet been vaccinated, this helps to support the value of still pursuing the vaccine,” added Dr. Hirschwerk, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.

Evidence on reinfection risk was limited prior to this study. “Little is known about protection against SARS-CoV-2 repeat infections, but two studies in the UK have found that immunity could last at least 5 to 6 months after infection,” the authors noted.

Along with co–lead author Christian Holm Hansen, PhD, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues found that 2.11% of 525,339 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the first surge in Denmark from March to May 2020. Within this group, 0.65% tested positive during a second surge from September to December.

By the end of 2020, more than 10 million people had undergone free polymerase chain reaction testing by the Danish government or through the national TestDenmark program.

“My overall take is that it is great to have such a big dataset looking at this question,” E. John Wherry, PhD, said in an interview. The findings support “what we’ve seen in previous, smaller studies.”

Natural protection against reinfection of approximately 80% “is not as good as the vaccines, but not bad,” added Dr. Wherry, director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
 

Age alters immunity?

“Our finding that older people were more likely than younger people to test positive again if they had already tested positive could be explained by natural age-related changes in the immune system of older adults, also referred to as immune senescence,” the authors noted.

The investigators found no significant differences in reinfection rates between women and men.

As with the previous research, this study also indicates that an initial bout with SARS-CoV-2 infection appears to confer protection for at least 6 months. The researchers found no significant differences between people who were followed for 3-6 months and those followed for 7 months or longer.
 

Variants not included

To account for possible bias among people who got tested repeatedly, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues performed a sensitivity analysis in a subgroup. They assessed reinfection rates among people who underwent testing frequently and routinely – nurses, doctors, social workers, and health care assistants – and found that 1.2% tested positive a second time during the second surge.

A limitation of the study was the inability to correlate symptoms with risk for reinfection. Also, the researchers did not account for SARS-CoV-2 variants, noting that “during the study period, such variants were not yet established in Denmark; although into 2021 this pattern is changing.”

Asked to speculate whether the results would be different had the study accounted for variants, Dr. Hirschwerk said, “It depends upon the variant, but certainly for the B.1.351 variant, there already has been data clearly demonstrating risk of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 despite prior infection with the original strain of virus.”

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern that could escape natural and vaccine-related immunity “complicates matters further,” Rosemary J. Boyton, MBBS, and Daniel M. Altmann, PhD, both of Imperial College London, wrote in an accompanying comment in The Lancet.

“Emerging variants of concern might shift immunity below a protective margin, prompting the need for updated vaccines. Interestingly, vaccine responses even after single dose are substantially enhanced in individuals with a history of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” they added.

The current study confirms that “the hope of protective immunity through natural infections might not be within our reach, and a global vaccination program with high efficacy vaccines is the enduring solution,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann noted.

Cause for alarm?

Despite evidence that reinfection is relatively rare, “many will find the data reported by Hansen and colleagues about protection through natural infection relatively alarming,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote in their commentary. The 80% protection rate from reinfection in general and the 47% rate among people aged 65 and older “are more concerning figures than offered by previous studies.”

Vaccines appear to provide better quality, quantity, and durability of protection against repeated infection – measured in terms of neutralizing antibodies and T cells – compared with previous infection with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote.
 

More research needed

The duration of natural protection against reinfection remains an unanswered question, the researchers noted, “because too little time has elapsed since the beginning of the pandemic.”

Future prospective and longitudinal cohort studies coupled with molecular surveillance are needed to characterize antibody titers and waning of protection against repeat infections, the authors noted. Furthermore, more answers are needed regarding how some virus variants might contribute to reinfection risk.

No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Michlmayr, Dr. Hirschwerk, Dr. Wherry, Dr. Boyton, and Dr. Altmann have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

The first large study of its kind reveals that SARS-CoV-2 reinfections remain rare, although people older than 65 are at higher risk.

When researchers analyzed test results of 4 million people in Denmark, they found that less than 1% of those who tested positive experienced reinfection.

Initial infection was associated with about 80% protection overall against getting SARS-CoV-2 again. However, among those older than 65, the protection plummeted to 47%.

“Not everybody is protected against reinfection after a first infection. Older people are at higher risk of catching it again,” co–lead author Daniela Michlmayr, PhD, said in an interview. “Our findings emphasize the importance of policies to protect the elderly and of adhering to infection control measures and restrictions, even if previously infected with COVID-19.”
 

Verifying the need for vaccination

“The findings also highlight the need to vaccinate people who had COVID-19 before, as natural immunity to infection – especially among the elderly 65 and older – cannot be relied upon,” added Dr. Michlmayr, a researcher in the department of bacteria, parasites, and fungi at the Staten Serums Institut, Copenhagen.

The population-based observational study was published online March 17 in The Lancet.

“The findings make sense, as patients who are immunocompromised or of advanced age may not mount an immune response that is as long-lasting,” David Hirschwerk, MD, said in an interview. “It does underscore the importance of vaccination for people of more advanced age, even if they previously were infected with COVID.

“For those who were infected last spring and have not yet been vaccinated, this helps to support the value of still pursuing the vaccine,” added Dr. Hirschwerk, an infectious disease specialist at Northwell Health in Manhasset, N.Y.

Evidence on reinfection risk was limited prior to this study. “Little is known about protection against SARS-CoV-2 repeat infections, but two studies in the UK have found that immunity could last at least 5 to 6 months after infection,” the authors noted.

Along with co–lead author Christian Holm Hansen, PhD, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues found that 2.11% of 525,339 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during the first surge in Denmark from March to May 2020. Within this group, 0.65% tested positive during a second surge from September to December.

By the end of 2020, more than 10 million people had undergone free polymerase chain reaction testing by the Danish government or through the national TestDenmark program.

“My overall take is that it is great to have such a big dataset looking at this question,” E. John Wherry, PhD, said in an interview. The findings support “what we’ve seen in previous, smaller studies.”

Natural protection against reinfection of approximately 80% “is not as good as the vaccines, but not bad,” added Dr. Wherry, director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
 

Age alters immunity?

“Our finding that older people were more likely than younger people to test positive again if they had already tested positive could be explained by natural age-related changes in the immune system of older adults, also referred to as immune senescence,” the authors noted.

The investigators found no significant differences in reinfection rates between women and men.

As with the previous research, this study also indicates that an initial bout with SARS-CoV-2 infection appears to confer protection for at least 6 months. The researchers found no significant differences between people who were followed for 3-6 months and those followed for 7 months or longer.
 

Variants not included

To account for possible bias among people who got tested repeatedly, Dr. Michlmayr and colleagues performed a sensitivity analysis in a subgroup. They assessed reinfection rates among people who underwent testing frequently and routinely – nurses, doctors, social workers, and health care assistants – and found that 1.2% tested positive a second time during the second surge.

A limitation of the study was the inability to correlate symptoms with risk for reinfection. Also, the researchers did not account for SARS-CoV-2 variants, noting that “during the study period, such variants were not yet established in Denmark; although into 2021 this pattern is changing.”

Asked to speculate whether the results would be different had the study accounted for variants, Dr. Hirschwerk said, “It depends upon the variant, but certainly for the B.1.351 variant, there already has been data clearly demonstrating risk of reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 despite prior infection with the original strain of virus.”

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern that could escape natural and vaccine-related immunity “complicates matters further,” Rosemary J. Boyton, MBBS, and Daniel M. Altmann, PhD, both of Imperial College London, wrote in an accompanying comment in The Lancet.

“Emerging variants of concern might shift immunity below a protective margin, prompting the need for updated vaccines. Interestingly, vaccine responses even after single dose are substantially enhanced in individuals with a history of infection with SARS-CoV-2,” they added.

The current study confirms that “the hope of protective immunity through natural infections might not be within our reach, and a global vaccination program with high efficacy vaccines is the enduring solution,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann noted.

Cause for alarm?

Despite evidence that reinfection is relatively rare, “many will find the data reported by Hansen and colleagues about protection through natural infection relatively alarming,” Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote in their commentary. The 80% protection rate from reinfection in general and the 47% rate among people aged 65 and older “are more concerning figures than offered by previous studies.”

Vaccines appear to provide better quality, quantity, and durability of protection against repeated infection – measured in terms of neutralizing antibodies and T cells – compared with previous infection with SARS-CoV-2, Dr. Boyton and Dr. Altmann wrote.
 

More research needed

The duration of natural protection against reinfection remains an unanswered question, the researchers noted, “because too little time has elapsed since the beginning of the pandemic.”

Future prospective and longitudinal cohort studies coupled with molecular surveillance are needed to characterize antibody titers and waning of protection against repeat infections, the authors noted. Furthermore, more answers are needed regarding how some virus variants might contribute to reinfection risk.

No funding for the study has been reported. Dr. Michlmayr, Dr. Hirschwerk, Dr. Wherry, Dr. Boyton, and Dr. Altmann have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Results from a phase 2 placebo-controlled trial of the investigational antiamyloid drug donanemab show that the novel agent met the primary outcome of slowing cognitive decline in patients with early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 

Results from the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial were presented at the 2021 International Conference on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases (AD/PD) and were simultaneously published online March 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, topline results showed that donanemab slowed cognitive decline by 32% on the Integrated AD Rating Scale (iADRS) from baseline to 76 weeks relative to placebo.

The newly released detailed findings showed that “the use of donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed,” the investigators, with first author Mark A. Mintun, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, reported.   

Results revealed improvement in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and the 13-item cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog13), but the differences between the two treatment groups were not significant. In addition, score changes on the AD Cooperative Study–Instrumental Activities of Daily Inventory (ADCS-iADL) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were not “substantial.”

However, the donanemab group did show an 85-centiloid greater reduction in amyloid plaque level at 76 weeks, as shown on PET, compared with the placebo group.
 

Proof of concept?

The humanized antibody donanemab, which was previously known as LY3002813, targets a modified form of deposited amyloid-beta (A-beta) peptide called N3pG.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial, which was described as a “phase 2 proof of concept trial” in the AD/PD program, was conducted at 56 sites in the United States and Canada and included 257 patients between the ages of 60 and 85 years (52% were women). PET confirmed tau and amyloid deposition in all participants.

The active treatment group (n = 131) was randomly assigned to receive donanemab 700 mg for three doses; after that, treatment was bumped up to 1,400 mg. Both the donanemab and placebo groups (n = 126) received treatment intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 72 weeks.

Participants also underwent F-florbetapir and F-flortaucipir PET scans at various timepoints and completed a slew of cognitive tests.

The study’s primary outcome measure was change between baseline and 76 weeks post treatment on composite score for cognition, as measured by the iADRS. The iADRS combines the ADAS-Cog13 and the ADCS-iADL.

This measure ranges from 0 to 144, with lower scores associated with greater cognitive impairment. Both treatment groups had an iADRS score of 106 at baseline.
 

More research needed

Results showed that the score change from baseline on the iADRS was –6.86 for the active treatment group vs –10.06 for the placebo group (group difference, 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-6.27; P = .04). Although significant, “the trial was powered to show a 6-point difference,” which was not met, the investigators note.

Differences in score changes from baseline to 76 weeks for the treatment vs. placebo groups on the following secondary outcome measures were:

• CDR-SB: –0.36 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.12).
• ADAS-Cog13: –1.86 (95% CI, –3.63 to –0.09).
• ADCS-iADL: 1.21 (95% CI, –0.77 to 3.2).
• MMSE: 0.64 (95% CI, –0.4 to 1.67).

The CDR-SB was designated as the first secondary outcome, and because it did not show a significant between-group difference, “the hierarchy failed and no definite conclusions can be drawn from data regarding the differences between groups in the change in the ADAS-Cog13,” the investigators wrote.

In addition, the differences in scores on the latter two secondary outcomes were not “substantial,” they reported.

However, at 76 weeks, the donanemab group showed a reduction of 84.13 centiloids in amyloid plaque level vs. an increase of 0.93 centiloids in the placebo group (between-group difference, 85.06 centiloids). At 24 weeks, the active-treatment group had a 67.83-centiloids greater reduction vs. the placebo group.

In addition, 40%, 59.8%, and 67.8% of the donanemab group achieved “amyloid-negative status” at 24, 52, and 76 weeks, respectively. Amyloid-negative status was defined as an amyloid plaque level of less than 24.1 centiloids.

Total incidence of death or serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the donanemab group had significantly more reports of ARIA-E compared with the placebo group (26.7% vs. 0.8%).

Overall, the researchers noted that more trials of longer duration with larger patient numbers are warranted “to further determine the efficacy and safety of donanemab” in AD.
 

Positive signal?

In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said the organization “is encouraged by this promising data.

“It is the first phase 2 Alzheimer’s trial to show positive results on a primary outcome measure related to memory and thinking,” Dr. Carrillo said. However, “more work needs to be done on this experimental drug therapy.”

Dr. Carrillo noted that because the trial was moderately sized and only 180 participants completed the study, “we look forward to the results of a second, larger phase 2 trial of this drug.”

Still, she added, there were several “novel and innovative aspects” in the way the study was conducted noting that it showcases the evolution of AD research.

“I’m hopeful for the future,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Also commenting on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, neuroscientist and founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study showed “the pharmacology works” and that the drug did what it was supposed to do in terms of removing A-beta plaque.

“It also gave us a signal in a relatively small phase 2 study that there might be a modest cognitive benefit,” said Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that although the rate of decline slowing was statistically significant it remains to be seen whether this is clinically meaningful, particularly in light of the fact that the secondary outcome results were mixed.  

“Basically, it was a positive study that probably needs to be followed by another, much larger study to get us to really see the benefit,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Mintun is an employee of Eli Lilly, which funded the study. Dr. Carrillo and Dr. Fillit have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results from a phase 2 placebo-controlled trial of the investigational antiamyloid drug donanemab show that the novel agent met the primary outcome of slowing cognitive decline in patients with early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 

Results from the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial were presented at the 2021 International Conference on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases (AD/PD) and were simultaneously published online March 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, topline results showed that donanemab slowed cognitive decline by 32% on the Integrated AD Rating Scale (iADRS) from baseline to 76 weeks relative to placebo.

The newly released detailed findings showed that “the use of donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed,” the investigators, with first author Mark A. Mintun, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, reported.   

Results revealed improvement in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and the 13-item cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog13), but the differences between the two treatment groups were not significant. In addition, score changes on the AD Cooperative Study–Instrumental Activities of Daily Inventory (ADCS-iADL) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were not “substantial.”

However, the donanemab group did show an 85-centiloid greater reduction in amyloid plaque level at 76 weeks, as shown on PET, compared with the placebo group.
 

Proof of concept?

The humanized antibody donanemab, which was previously known as LY3002813, targets a modified form of deposited amyloid-beta (A-beta) peptide called N3pG.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial, which was described as a “phase 2 proof of concept trial” in the AD/PD program, was conducted at 56 sites in the United States and Canada and included 257 patients between the ages of 60 and 85 years (52% were women). PET confirmed tau and amyloid deposition in all participants.

The active treatment group (n = 131) was randomly assigned to receive donanemab 700 mg for three doses; after that, treatment was bumped up to 1,400 mg. Both the donanemab and placebo groups (n = 126) received treatment intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 72 weeks.

Participants also underwent F-florbetapir and F-flortaucipir PET scans at various timepoints and completed a slew of cognitive tests.

The study’s primary outcome measure was change between baseline and 76 weeks post treatment on composite score for cognition, as measured by the iADRS. The iADRS combines the ADAS-Cog13 and the ADCS-iADL.

This measure ranges from 0 to 144, with lower scores associated with greater cognitive impairment. Both treatment groups had an iADRS score of 106 at baseline.
 

More research needed

Results showed that the score change from baseline on the iADRS was –6.86 for the active treatment group vs –10.06 for the placebo group (group difference, 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-6.27; P = .04). Although significant, “the trial was powered to show a 6-point difference,” which was not met, the investigators note.

Differences in score changes from baseline to 76 weeks for the treatment vs. placebo groups on the following secondary outcome measures were:

• CDR-SB: –0.36 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.12).
• ADAS-Cog13: –1.86 (95% CI, –3.63 to –0.09).
• ADCS-iADL: 1.21 (95% CI, –0.77 to 3.2).
• MMSE: 0.64 (95% CI, –0.4 to 1.67).

The CDR-SB was designated as the first secondary outcome, and because it did not show a significant between-group difference, “the hierarchy failed and no definite conclusions can be drawn from data regarding the differences between groups in the change in the ADAS-Cog13,” the investigators wrote.

In addition, the differences in scores on the latter two secondary outcomes were not “substantial,” they reported.

However, at 76 weeks, the donanemab group showed a reduction of 84.13 centiloids in amyloid plaque level vs. an increase of 0.93 centiloids in the placebo group (between-group difference, 85.06 centiloids). At 24 weeks, the active-treatment group had a 67.83-centiloids greater reduction vs. the placebo group.

In addition, 40%, 59.8%, and 67.8% of the donanemab group achieved “amyloid-negative status” at 24, 52, and 76 weeks, respectively. Amyloid-negative status was defined as an amyloid plaque level of less than 24.1 centiloids.

Total incidence of death or serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the donanemab group had significantly more reports of ARIA-E compared with the placebo group (26.7% vs. 0.8%).

Overall, the researchers noted that more trials of longer duration with larger patient numbers are warranted “to further determine the efficacy and safety of donanemab” in AD.
 

Positive signal?

In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said the organization “is encouraged by this promising data.

“It is the first phase 2 Alzheimer’s trial to show positive results on a primary outcome measure related to memory and thinking,” Dr. Carrillo said. However, “more work needs to be done on this experimental drug therapy.”

Dr. Carrillo noted that because the trial was moderately sized and only 180 participants completed the study, “we look forward to the results of a second, larger phase 2 trial of this drug.”

Still, she added, there were several “novel and innovative aspects” in the way the study was conducted noting that it showcases the evolution of AD research.

“I’m hopeful for the future,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Also commenting on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, neuroscientist and founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study showed “the pharmacology works” and that the drug did what it was supposed to do in terms of removing A-beta plaque.

“It also gave us a signal in a relatively small phase 2 study that there might be a modest cognitive benefit,” said Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that although the rate of decline slowing was statistically significant it remains to be seen whether this is clinically meaningful, particularly in light of the fact that the secondary outcome results were mixed.  

“Basically, it was a positive study that probably needs to be followed by another, much larger study to get us to really see the benefit,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Mintun is an employee of Eli Lilly, which funded the study. Dr. Carrillo and Dr. Fillit have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Results from a phase 2 placebo-controlled trial of the investigational antiamyloid drug donanemab show that the novel agent met the primary outcome of slowing cognitive decline in patients with early symptomatic Alzheimer’s disease (AD). 

Results from the TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial were presented at the 2021 International Conference on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s Diseases (AD/PD) and were simultaneously published online March 13 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, topline results showed that donanemab slowed cognitive decline by 32% on the Integrated AD Rating Scale (iADRS) from baseline to 76 weeks relative to placebo.

The newly released detailed findings showed that “the use of donanemab resulted in a better composite score for cognition and for the ability to perform activities of daily living than placebo at 76 weeks, although results for secondary outcomes were mixed,” the investigators, with first author Mark A. Mintun, MD, an employee of Eli Lilly, reported.   

Results revealed improvement in scores on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-Sum of Boxes (CDR-SB) and the 13-item cognitive subscale of the AD Assessment Scale (ADAS-Cog13), but the differences between the two treatment groups were not significant. In addition, score changes on the AD Cooperative Study–Instrumental Activities of Daily Inventory (ADCS-iADL) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were not “substantial.”

However, the donanemab group did show an 85-centiloid greater reduction in amyloid plaque level at 76 weeks, as shown on PET, compared with the placebo group.
 

Proof of concept?

The humanized antibody donanemab, which was previously known as LY3002813, targets a modified form of deposited amyloid-beta (A-beta) peptide called N3pG.

The randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind TRAILBLAZER-ALZ trial, which was described as a “phase 2 proof of concept trial” in the AD/PD program, was conducted at 56 sites in the United States and Canada and included 257 patients between the ages of 60 and 85 years (52% were women). PET confirmed tau and amyloid deposition in all participants.

The active treatment group (n = 131) was randomly assigned to receive donanemab 700 mg for three doses; after that, treatment was bumped up to 1,400 mg. Both the donanemab and placebo groups (n = 126) received treatment intravenously every 4 weeks for up to 72 weeks.

Participants also underwent F-florbetapir and F-flortaucipir PET scans at various timepoints and completed a slew of cognitive tests.

The study’s primary outcome measure was change between baseline and 76 weeks post treatment on composite score for cognition, as measured by the iADRS. The iADRS combines the ADAS-Cog13 and the ADCS-iADL.

This measure ranges from 0 to 144, with lower scores associated with greater cognitive impairment. Both treatment groups had an iADRS score of 106 at baseline.
 

More research needed

Results showed that the score change from baseline on the iADRS was –6.86 for the active treatment group vs –10.06 for the placebo group (group difference, 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.12-6.27; P = .04). Although significant, “the trial was powered to show a 6-point difference,” which was not met, the investigators note.

Differences in score changes from baseline to 76 weeks for the treatment vs. placebo groups on the following secondary outcome measures were:

• CDR-SB: –0.36 (95% CI, –0.83 to –0.12).
• ADAS-Cog13: –1.86 (95% CI, –3.63 to –0.09).
• ADCS-iADL: 1.21 (95% CI, –0.77 to 3.2).
• MMSE: 0.64 (95% CI, –0.4 to 1.67).

The CDR-SB was designated as the first secondary outcome, and because it did not show a significant between-group difference, “the hierarchy failed and no definite conclusions can be drawn from data regarding the differences between groups in the change in the ADAS-Cog13,” the investigators wrote.

In addition, the differences in scores on the latter two secondary outcomes were not “substantial,” they reported.

However, at 76 weeks, the donanemab group showed a reduction of 84.13 centiloids in amyloid plaque level vs. an increase of 0.93 centiloids in the placebo group (between-group difference, 85.06 centiloids). At 24 weeks, the active-treatment group had a 67.83-centiloids greater reduction vs. the placebo group.

In addition, 40%, 59.8%, and 67.8% of the donanemab group achieved “amyloid-negative status” at 24, 52, and 76 weeks, respectively. Amyloid-negative status was defined as an amyloid plaque level of less than 24.1 centiloids.

Total incidence of death or serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. However, the donanemab group had significantly more reports of ARIA-E compared with the placebo group (26.7% vs. 0.8%).

Overall, the researchers noted that more trials of longer duration with larger patient numbers are warranted “to further determine the efficacy and safety of donanemab” in AD.
 

Positive signal?

In a statement, Maria Carrillo, PhD, chief science officer for the Alzheimer’s Association, said the organization “is encouraged by this promising data.

“It is the first phase 2 Alzheimer’s trial to show positive results on a primary outcome measure related to memory and thinking,” Dr. Carrillo said. However, “more work needs to be done on this experimental drug therapy.”

Dr. Carrillo noted that because the trial was moderately sized and only 180 participants completed the study, “we look forward to the results of a second, larger phase 2 trial of this drug.”

Still, she added, there were several “novel and innovative aspects” in the way the study was conducted noting that it showcases the evolution of AD research.

“I’m hopeful for the future,” Dr. Carrillo said.

Also commenting on the results, Howard Fillit, MD, neuroscientist and founding executive director and chief science officer of the Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation, said the study showed “the pharmacology works” and that the drug did what it was supposed to do in terms of removing A-beta plaque.

“It also gave us a signal in a relatively small phase 2 study that there might be a modest cognitive benefit,” said Dr. Fillit, who was not involved with the research.

He noted that although the rate of decline slowing was statistically significant it remains to be seen whether this is clinically meaningful, particularly in light of the fact that the secondary outcome results were mixed.  

“Basically, it was a positive study that probably needs to be followed by another, much larger study to get us to really see the benefit,” Dr. Fillit said.

Dr. Mintun is an employee of Eli Lilly, which funded the study. Dr. Carrillo and Dr. Fillit have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Practicing self-management techniques can help with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) as much as taking medications, according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

Courtesy Dr. Camille Vaughan

The researchers reviewed the literature and analyzed eight randomized controlled trials enrolling a total of 1,006 men, who were experiencing lower urinary tract symptoms, according to the paper published in the Annals of Family Medicine. The self-management techniques practiced by patients as part of the trials included adjusting the timing of when patients drank fluids, reducing or eliminating caffeine and alcohol, adjusting the schedules of or replacing medications for other conditions, adjusting patients’ habits for urinating, and performing pelvic floor exercises for better performance of muscles controlling urination.

“Self-management interventions for lower urinary tract symptoms should be considered as a cheap and safe alternative to drug interventions with unfavorable safety profiles,” said study author Loai Albarqouni, MD, MSc, PhD, a post-doctoral fellow at Bond University in Australia.
 

Self-management yielded better results than usual care

Some of the symptoms experienced by participants in the trials included increased frequency of urination, urgency of urination, urination hesitancy, and dribbling. The researchers excluded research involving men with LUTS attributed to infections, those with prostate cancer, men who had undergone prostate surgery, and men with neurologic conditions.

Self-management techniques, which frequently included watchful waiting, significantly reduced symptom severity, compared with usual care in two of the trials, which included a total of 350 participants. Symptom severity was measured using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), with a mean difference of 7.44 points in favor of self-management (95% confidence interval, –8.82 to –6.06). A drop of 3 points on the IPSS scale is considered clinically meaningful.

The researchers found no difference in symptom severity at 6-12 weeks between self-management and drug therapy in their analysis of four trials that compared these approaches. Self-management resulted in better results in terms of waking at night because of the need to urinate, but there was no difference in the number of times urinating per day.

In two of the studies, investigators examined a combined self-management and drug therapy approach, compared with drug therapy by itself. In one of these studies, which included 133 participants, using the combination of treatments resulted in significantly lower symptom severity, compared with using drug therapy alone at 6 weeks, on the IPSS, with a mean difference of 2.30 (95% CI, –4.11 to –0.49).

One study involving men with involuntary loss of urine immediately after urination compared utilizing counseling, pelvic floor exercises, and urethral milking to work urine through the urethra. Pelvic floor exercise was the most effective at reducing urine loss.

Study author Dr. Albarqouni said better tools for physician education could help with implementing these strategies more effectively.
 

Analysis draws more attention to self-management approaches for men

Outside experts said that, while self-management approaches for these symptoms have long been recognized for women, this analysis draws more attention to the growing use of self-management approaches for men. They noted that hurdles, such as time constraints and physician education on proper technique, remain.

“Evidence suggests that the regular use of nondrug interventions is suboptimal for various reasons, including the inadequate reporting of the details of the interventions in the literature,” Dr. Albarqouni said.

Camille Vaughan, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine at Emory University, where she has researched lower urinary tract symptoms, said advising patients on self-care is common in her practice, but should be more widely adopted in primary care.

Many patients don’t want to add to drugs that are often already a long list of medications, for fear of side effects and interactions, she said.

“If there are behavioral-based approaches that are appropriate, they’re often really interested in those strategies,” she said.

Barriers include the time it takes to teach patients these strategies and the confidence of the physicians themselves to instruct patients correctly, Dr. Vaughan said. Some physicians might be interested in the self-management approach for their patients, but “may not feel like they have all of the information at hand to share with patients,” she added.

“I think there are several decades of work showing the benefit of these types of strategies in women,” she said. “It’s relatively recent for men.” The analysis is a useful summary, she said.

“I think this should be really encouraging for providers and patients alike, because it’s highlighting the benefits of behavior and lifestyle-based strategies. A lot of these issues are going to impact men as they age,” she added.
 

High-quality data on self-management techniques have been limited

Scott Bauer, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and general internist at the San Francisco VA Medical Center, said he often prescribes self-management but has often had to review primary data from smaller trials and adapt that information to his own practice.

“I have felt like, for a long time, there’s been a lack of high-quality data and good synthesis of that data to really guide what I should specifically be recommending,” he said. “I’m very happy to see efforts to try to synthesize the data in a more comprehensive way and maybe work toward guidelines that can be applied more easily in clinical care.” It shows, he said, that “there is a decent amount of signal that should really be taken seriously both in a clinical context and for future research studies.”

Dr. Bauer noted that there is still a need to identify which patients are best suited for which approaches.

“We are very poor at diagnosing the specific etiology of LUTS – we don’t have great diagnostic tests or even phenotyping, and so that leaves clinicians with a very heterogeneous group of patients who all have the same syndrome of symptoms,” he explained. “But we don’t have much to guide us in terms of identifying who would benefit most from self-management overall, who would benefit from specific self-management techniques, and who would benefit from medication to target very specific mechanisms.”

Dr. Vaughan reported receiving funding from the Department of Veterans Affairs and National institutes of Health for research related to urinary symptom management, and that her spouse is an employee of Kimberly-Clark, which makes adult care products. Dr. Albarqouni and Dr. Bauer reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Practicing self-management techniques can help with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) as much as taking medications, according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

Courtesy Dr. Camille Vaughan

The researchers reviewed the literature and analyzed eight randomized controlled trials enrolling a total of 1,006 men, who were experiencing lower urinary tract symptoms, according to the paper published in the Annals of Family Medicine. The self-management techniques practiced by patients as part of the trials included adjusting the timing of when patients drank fluids, reducing or eliminating caffeine and alcohol, adjusting the schedules of or replacing medications for other conditions, adjusting patients’ habits for urinating, and performing pelvic floor exercises for better performance of muscles controlling urination.

“Self-management interventions for lower urinary tract symptoms should be considered as a cheap and safe alternative to drug interventions with unfavorable safety profiles,” said study author Loai Albarqouni, MD, MSc, PhD, a post-doctoral fellow at Bond University in Australia.
 

Self-management yielded better results than usual care

Some of the symptoms experienced by participants in the trials included increased frequency of urination, urgency of urination, urination hesitancy, and dribbling. The researchers excluded research involving men with LUTS attributed to infections, those with prostate cancer, men who had undergone prostate surgery, and men with neurologic conditions.

Self-management techniques, which frequently included watchful waiting, significantly reduced symptom severity, compared with usual care in two of the trials, which included a total of 350 participants. Symptom severity was measured using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), with a mean difference of 7.44 points in favor of self-management (95% confidence interval, –8.82 to –6.06). A drop of 3 points on the IPSS scale is considered clinically meaningful.

The researchers found no difference in symptom severity at 6-12 weeks between self-management and drug therapy in their analysis of four trials that compared these approaches. Self-management resulted in better results in terms of waking at night because of the need to urinate, but there was no difference in the number of times urinating per day.

In two of the studies, investigators examined a combined self-management and drug therapy approach, compared with drug therapy by itself. In one of these studies, which included 133 participants, using the combination of treatments resulted in significantly lower symptom severity, compared with using drug therapy alone at 6 weeks, on the IPSS, with a mean difference of 2.30 (95% CI, –4.11 to –0.49).

One study involving men with involuntary loss of urine immediately after urination compared utilizing counseling, pelvic floor exercises, and urethral milking to work urine through the urethra. Pelvic floor exercise was the most effective at reducing urine loss.

Study author Dr. Albarqouni said better tools for physician education could help with implementing these strategies more effectively.
 

Analysis draws more attention to self-management approaches for men

Outside experts said that, while self-management approaches for these symptoms have long been recognized for women, this analysis draws more attention to the growing use of self-management approaches for men. They noted that hurdles, such as time constraints and physician education on proper technique, remain.

“Evidence suggests that the regular use of nondrug interventions is suboptimal for various reasons, including the inadequate reporting of the details of the interventions in the literature,” Dr. Albarqouni said.

Camille Vaughan, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine at Emory University, where she has researched lower urinary tract symptoms, said advising patients on self-care is common in her practice, but should be more widely adopted in primary care.

Many patients don’t want to add to drugs that are often already a long list of medications, for fear of side effects and interactions, she said.

“If there are behavioral-based approaches that are appropriate, they’re often really interested in those strategies,” she said.

Barriers include the time it takes to teach patients these strategies and the confidence of the physicians themselves to instruct patients correctly, Dr. Vaughan said. Some physicians might be interested in the self-management approach for their patients, but “may not feel like they have all of the information at hand to share with patients,” she added.

“I think there are several decades of work showing the benefit of these types of strategies in women,” she said. “It’s relatively recent for men.” The analysis is a useful summary, she said.

“I think this should be really encouraging for providers and patients alike, because it’s highlighting the benefits of behavior and lifestyle-based strategies. A lot of these issues are going to impact men as they age,” she added.
 

High-quality data on self-management techniques have been limited

Scott Bauer, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and general internist at the San Francisco VA Medical Center, said he often prescribes self-management but has often had to review primary data from smaller trials and adapt that information to his own practice.

“I have felt like, for a long time, there’s been a lack of high-quality data and good synthesis of that data to really guide what I should specifically be recommending,” he said. “I’m very happy to see efforts to try to synthesize the data in a more comprehensive way and maybe work toward guidelines that can be applied more easily in clinical care.” It shows, he said, that “there is a decent amount of signal that should really be taken seriously both in a clinical context and for future research studies.”

Dr. Bauer noted that there is still a need to identify which patients are best suited for which approaches.

“We are very poor at diagnosing the specific etiology of LUTS – we don’t have great diagnostic tests or even phenotyping, and so that leaves clinicians with a very heterogeneous group of patients who all have the same syndrome of symptoms,” he explained. “But we don’t have much to guide us in terms of identifying who would benefit most from self-management overall, who would benefit from specific self-management techniques, and who would benefit from medication to target very specific mechanisms.”

Dr. Vaughan reported receiving funding from the Department of Veterans Affairs and National institutes of Health for research related to urinary symptom management, and that her spouse is an employee of Kimberly-Clark, which makes adult care products. Dr. Albarqouni and Dr. Bauer reported no relevant financial disclosures.

Practicing self-management techniques can help with lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) as much as taking medications, according to a new systematic review and meta-analysis.

Courtesy Dr. Camille Vaughan

The researchers reviewed the literature and analyzed eight randomized controlled trials enrolling a total of 1,006 men, who were experiencing lower urinary tract symptoms, according to the paper published in the Annals of Family Medicine. The self-management techniques practiced by patients as part of the trials included adjusting the timing of when patients drank fluids, reducing or eliminating caffeine and alcohol, adjusting the schedules of or replacing medications for other conditions, adjusting patients’ habits for urinating, and performing pelvic floor exercises for better performance of muscles controlling urination.

“Self-management interventions for lower urinary tract symptoms should be considered as a cheap and safe alternative to drug interventions with unfavorable safety profiles,” said study author Loai Albarqouni, MD, MSc, PhD, a post-doctoral fellow at Bond University in Australia.
 

Self-management yielded better results than usual care

Some of the symptoms experienced by participants in the trials included increased frequency of urination, urgency of urination, urination hesitancy, and dribbling. The researchers excluded research involving men with LUTS attributed to infections, those with prostate cancer, men who had undergone prostate surgery, and men with neurologic conditions.

Self-management techniques, which frequently included watchful waiting, significantly reduced symptom severity, compared with usual care in two of the trials, which included a total of 350 participants. Symptom severity was measured using the International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), with a mean difference of 7.44 points in favor of self-management (95% confidence interval, –8.82 to –6.06). A drop of 3 points on the IPSS scale is considered clinically meaningful.

The researchers found no difference in symptom severity at 6-12 weeks between self-management and drug therapy in their analysis of four trials that compared these approaches. Self-management resulted in better results in terms of waking at night because of the need to urinate, but there was no difference in the number of times urinating per day.

In two of the studies, investigators examined a combined self-management and drug therapy approach, compared with drug therapy by itself. In one of these studies, which included 133 participants, using the combination of treatments resulted in significantly lower symptom severity, compared with using drug therapy alone at 6 weeks, on the IPSS, with a mean difference of 2.30 (95% CI, –4.11 to –0.49).

One study involving men with involuntary loss of urine immediately after urination compared utilizing counseling, pelvic floor exercises, and urethral milking to work urine through the urethra. Pelvic floor exercise was the most effective at reducing urine loss.

Study author Dr. Albarqouni said better tools for physician education could help with implementing these strategies more effectively.
 

Analysis draws more attention to self-management approaches for men

Outside experts said that, while self-management approaches for these symptoms have long been recognized for women, this analysis draws more attention to the growing use of self-management approaches for men. They noted that hurdles, such as time constraints and physician education on proper technique, remain.

“Evidence suggests that the regular use of nondrug interventions is suboptimal for various reasons, including the inadequate reporting of the details of the interventions in the literature,” Dr. Albarqouni said.

Camille Vaughan, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine at Emory University, where she has researched lower urinary tract symptoms, said advising patients on self-care is common in her practice, but should be more widely adopted in primary care.

Many patients don’t want to add to drugs that are often already a long list of medications, for fear of side effects and interactions, she said.

“If there are behavioral-based approaches that are appropriate, they’re often really interested in those strategies,” she said.

Barriers include the time it takes to teach patients these strategies and the confidence of the physicians themselves to instruct patients correctly, Dr. Vaughan said. Some physicians might be interested in the self-management approach for their patients, but “may not feel like they have all of the information at hand to share with patients,” she added.

“I think there are several decades of work showing the benefit of these types of strategies in women,” she said. “It’s relatively recent for men.” The analysis is a useful summary, she said.

“I think this should be really encouraging for providers and patients alike, because it’s highlighting the benefits of behavior and lifestyle-based strategies. A lot of these issues are going to impact men as they age,” she added.
 

High-quality data on self-management techniques have been limited

Scott Bauer, MD, MS, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and general internist at the San Francisco VA Medical Center, said he often prescribes self-management but has often had to review primary data from smaller trials and adapt that information to his own practice.

“I have felt like, for a long time, there’s been a lack of high-quality data and good synthesis of that data to really guide what I should specifically be recommending,” he said. “I’m very happy to see efforts to try to synthesize the data in a more comprehensive way and maybe work toward guidelines that can be applied more easily in clinical care.” It shows, he said, that “there is a decent amount of signal that should really be taken seriously both in a clinical context and for future research studies.”

Dr. Bauer noted that there is still a need to identify which patients are best suited for which approaches.

“We are very poor at diagnosing the specific etiology of LUTS – we don’t have great diagnostic tests or even phenotyping, and so that leaves clinicians with a very heterogeneous group of patients who all have the same syndrome of symptoms,” he explained. “But we don’t have much to guide us in terms of identifying who would benefit most from self-management overall, who would benefit from specific self-management techniques, and who would benefit from medication to target very specific mechanisms.”

Dr. Vaughan reported receiving funding from the Department of Veterans Affairs and National institutes of Health for research related to urinary symptom management, and that her spouse is an employee of Kimberly-Clark, which makes adult care products. Dr. Albarqouni and Dr. Bauer reported no relevant financial disclosures.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for patients taking osteoporosis medications, according to joint guidance from six endocrine and osteoporosis societies and foundations.

They noted, though, that some timing modifications with certain medications should be considered to help distinguish between adverse events from the medication versus the vaccine.

The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research “is an international organization, so we brought together our sister societies that have a vested interested in bone health. Vaccination is happening worldwide, and we wanted to present a united front and united recommendations about how to handle osteoporosis medications appropriately during vaccination,” said Suzanne Jan De Beur, MD, who is president of ASBMR and an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

There has been quite a lot of concern from the community about vaccine and medications, from both physicians and patients wondering whether treatments and vaccines should occur in a certain order, and whether there should be a time gap between the two, said Dr. Jan De Beur. “There was a dearth of information about the best practices for osteoporosis treatment management during vaccination, and we didn’t want people missing their opportunity for a vaccine, and we also didn’t want them unnecessarily delaying their osteoporosis treatment.”

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the risk or severity of COVID-19 disease, nor do they appear to change the disease course. Osteoporosis itself does not appear associated with increased risk of infection or severe outcomes, so patients with osteoporosis do not need to be prioritized for vaccination based on that condition alone.

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the safety or efficacy of vaccination, but given that vaccine availability is currently inconsistent, patients may need to make temporary changes to their osteoporosis regimens to ensure they can receive vaccine when it is available, such as ensuring a delay between medication and vaccination injections.

A key reason for a delay between injectable or infusion medications and a vaccine is to distinguish between adverse events that could occur, so that an adverse reaction to vaccine isn’t mistaken for an adverse reaction to a drug. Nevertheless, the real world is messy. Dr. Jan De Beur noted a recent patient who arrived at her clinic for an injectable treatment who had just received a COVID-19 vaccination that morning. “We decided to put the injection in the other arm, rather than reschedule the person and put them through the risk of coming back. We could distinguish between injection-site reactions, at least,” she said.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

No changes should be made to general bone health therapies, such as calcium and vitamin D supplementation, weight-bearing exercises, and maintenance of a balanced diet.

The guidance includes some recommendations for specific osteoporosis medications.

• Oral bisphosphonates: Alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate should be continued.
• Intravenous bisphosphonates: a 7-day interval (4-day minimum) is recommended between intravenous bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid and ibandronate) infusion and COVID-19 vaccination in order to distinguish potential autoimmune or inflammatory reactions that could be attributable to either intravenous bisphosphonate or the vaccine.
• Denosumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between denosumab infusion and COVID-19 vaccination to account for injection-site reactions. Another option is to have denosumab injected into the contralateral arm or another site like the abdomen or upper thigh, if spacing the injections is not possible. In any case, denosumab injections should be performed within 7 months of the previous dose.
• Teriparatide and abaloparatide should be continued.
• Romosozumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between a romosozumab injection and COVID-19 vaccine, or romosozumab can be injected in the abdomen (with the exception of a 2-inch area around the naval) or thigh if spacing is not possible.
• Raloxifene should be continued in patients receiving COVID-19 vaccination.

Guidance signatories include ASBMR, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Dr. Jan De Beur has no relevant financial disclosures.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for patients taking osteoporosis medications, according to joint guidance from six endocrine and osteoporosis societies and foundations.

They noted, though, that some timing modifications with certain medications should be considered to help distinguish between adverse events from the medication versus the vaccine.

The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research “is an international organization, so we brought together our sister societies that have a vested interested in bone health. Vaccination is happening worldwide, and we wanted to present a united front and united recommendations about how to handle osteoporosis medications appropriately during vaccination,” said Suzanne Jan De Beur, MD, who is president of ASBMR and an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

There has been quite a lot of concern from the community about vaccine and medications, from both physicians and patients wondering whether treatments and vaccines should occur in a certain order, and whether there should be a time gap between the two, said Dr. Jan De Beur. “There was a dearth of information about the best practices for osteoporosis treatment management during vaccination, and we didn’t want people missing their opportunity for a vaccine, and we also didn’t want them unnecessarily delaying their osteoporosis treatment.”

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the risk or severity of COVID-19 disease, nor do they appear to change the disease course. Osteoporosis itself does not appear associated with increased risk of infection or severe outcomes, so patients with osteoporosis do not need to be prioritized for vaccination based on that condition alone.

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the safety or efficacy of vaccination, but given that vaccine availability is currently inconsistent, patients may need to make temporary changes to their osteoporosis regimens to ensure they can receive vaccine when it is available, such as ensuring a delay between medication and vaccination injections.

A key reason for a delay between injectable or infusion medications and a vaccine is to distinguish between adverse events that could occur, so that an adverse reaction to vaccine isn’t mistaken for an adverse reaction to a drug. Nevertheless, the real world is messy. Dr. Jan De Beur noted a recent patient who arrived at her clinic for an injectable treatment who had just received a COVID-19 vaccination that morning. “We decided to put the injection in the other arm, rather than reschedule the person and put them through the risk of coming back. We could distinguish between injection-site reactions, at least,” she said.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

No changes should be made to general bone health therapies, such as calcium and vitamin D supplementation, weight-bearing exercises, and maintenance of a balanced diet.

The guidance includes some recommendations for specific osteoporosis medications.

• Oral bisphosphonates: Alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate should be continued.
• Intravenous bisphosphonates: a 7-day interval (4-day minimum) is recommended between intravenous bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid and ibandronate) infusion and COVID-19 vaccination in order to distinguish potential autoimmune or inflammatory reactions that could be attributable to either intravenous bisphosphonate or the vaccine.
• Denosumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between denosumab infusion and COVID-19 vaccination to account for injection-site reactions. Another option is to have denosumab injected into the contralateral arm or another site like the abdomen or upper thigh, if spacing the injections is not possible. In any case, denosumab injections should be performed within 7 months of the previous dose.
• Teriparatide and abaloparatide should be continued.
• Romosozumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between a romosozumab injection and COVID-19 vaccine, or romosozumab can be injected in the abdomen (with the exception of a 2-inch area around the naval) or thigh if spacing is not possible.
• Raloxifene should be continued in patients receiving COVID-19 vaccination.

Guidance signatories include ASBMR, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Dr. Jan De Beur has no relevant financial disclosures.

COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for patients taking osteoporosis medications, according to joint guidance from six endocrine and osteoporosis societies and foundations.

They noted, though, that some timing modifications with certain medications should be considered to help distinguish between adverse events from the medication versus the vaccine.

The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research “is an international organization, so we brought together our sister societies that have a vested interested in bone health. Vaccination is happening worldwide, and we wanted to present a united front and united recommendations about how to handle osteoporosis medications appropriately during vaccination,” said Suzanne Jan De Beur, MD, who is president of ASBMR and an associate professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

There has been quite a lot of concern from the community about vaccine and medications, from both physicians and patients wondering whether treatments and vaccines should occur in a certain order, and whether there should be a time gap between the two, said Dr. Jan De Beur. “There was a dearth of information about the best practices for osteoporosis treatment management during vaccination, and we didn’t want people missing their opportunity for a vaccine, and we also didn’t want them unnecessarily delaying their osteoporosis treatment.”

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the risk or severity of COVID-19 disease, nor do they appear to change the disease course. Osteoporosis itself does not appear associated with increased risk of infection or severe outcomes, so patients with osteoporosis do not need to be prioritized for vaccination based on that condition alone.

There is no evidence that osteoporosis therapies affect the safety or efficacy of vaccination, but given that vaccine availability is currently inconsistent, patients may need to make temporary changes to their osteoporosis regimens to ensure they can receive vaccine when it is available, such as ensuring a delay between medication and vaccination injections.

A key reason for a delay between injectable or infusion medications and a vaccine is to distinguish between adverse events that could occur, so that an adverse reaction to vaccine isn’t mistaken for an adverse reaction to a drug. Nevertheless, the real world is messy. Dr. Jan De Beur noted a recent patient who arrived at her clinic for an injectable treatment who had just received a COVID-19 vaccination that morning. “We decided to put the injection in the other arm, rather than reschedule the person and put them through the risk of coming back. We could distinguish between injection-site reactions, at least,” she said.

copyright DesignPics/Thinkstock

No changes should be made to general bone health therapies, such as calcium and vitamin D supplementation, weight-bearing exercises, and maintenance of a balanced diet.

The guidance includes some recommendations for specific osteoporosis medications.

• Oral bisphosphonates: Alendronate, risedronate, and ibandronate should be continued.
• Intravenous bisphosphonates: a 7-day interval (4-day minimum) is recommended between intravenous bisphosphonate (zoledronic acid and ibandronate) infusion and COVID-19 vaccination in order to distinguish potential autoimmune or inflammatory reactions that could be attributable to either intravenous bisphosphonate or the vaccine.
• Denosumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between denosumab infusion and COVID-19 vaccination to account for injection-site reactions. Another option is to have denosumab injected into the contralateral arm or another site like the abdomen or upper thigh, if spacing the injections is not possible. In any case, denosumab injections should be performed within 7 months of the previous dose.
• Teriparatide and abaloparatide should be continued.
• Romosozumab: There should be a 4- to 7-day delay between a romosozumab injection and COVID-19 vaccine, or romosozumab can be injected in the abdomen (with the exception of a 2-inch area around the naval) or thigh if spacing is not possible.
• Raloxifene should be continued in patients receiving COVID-19 vaccination.

Guidance signatories include ASBMR, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinology, the Endocrine Society, the European Calcified Tissue Society, the National Osteoporosis Foundation, and the International Osteoporosis Foundation.

Dr. Jan De Beur has no relevant financial disclosures.

Palliative care for people with dementia is increasingly recognized as a way to improve quality of life and provide relief from the myriad physical and psychological symptoms of advancing neurodegenerative disease. But unlike in cancer, relatively few patients with terminal dementia receive referrals to palliative care.

A new literature review has found these referrals to be all over the map among patients with dementia – with many occurring very late in the disease process – and do not reflect any consistent criteria based on patient needs.

For their research, published March 2 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Li Mo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues looked at nearly 60 studies dating back to the early 1990s that contained information on referrals to palliative care for patients with dementia. While a palliative care approach can be provided by nonspecialists, all the included studies dealt at least in part with specialist care.
 

Standardized criteria is lacking

The investigators found advanced or late-stage dementia to be the most common reason cited for referral, with three quarters of the studies recommending palliative care for late-stage or advanced dementia, generally without qualifying what symptoms or needs were present. Patients received palliative care across a range of settings, including nursing homes, hospitals, and their own homes, though many articles did not include information on where patients received care.

A fifth of the articles suggested that medical complications of dementia including falls, pneumonia, and ulcers should trigger referrals to palliative care, while another fifth cited poor prognosis, defined varyingly as having between 2 years and 6 months likely left to live. Poor nutrition status was identified in 10% of studies as meriting referral.

Only 20% of the studies identified patient needs – evidence of psychological distress or functional decline, for example – as criteria for referral, despite these being ubiquitous in dementia. The authors said they were surprised by this finding, which could possibly be explained, they wrote, by “the interest among geriatrician, neurologist, and primary care teams to provide good symptom management,” reflecting a de facto palliative care approach. “There is also significant stigma associated with a specialist palliative care referral,” the authors noted.

Curiously, the researchers noted, a new diagnosis of dementia in more than a quarter of the studies triggered referral, a finding that possibly reflected delayed diagnoses.

The findings revealed “heterogeneity in the literature in reasons for involving specialist palliative care, which may partly explain the variation in patterns of palliative care referral,” Dr. Mo and colleagues wrote, stressing that more standardized criteria are urgently needed to bring dementia in line with cancer in terms of providing timely palliative care.

Patients with advancing dementia have little chance to self-report symptoms, meaning that more attention to patient complaints earlier in the disease course, and greater sensitivity to patient distress, are required. By routinely screening symptoms, clinicians could use specific cutoffs “as triggers to initiate automatic timely palliative care referral,” the authors concluded, noting that more research was needed before these cutoffs, whether based on symptom intensity or other measures, could be calculated.

Dr. Mo and colleagues acknowledged as weaknesses of their study the fact that a third of the articles in the review were based on expert consensus, while others did not distinguish clearly between primary and specialist palliative care.
 

A starting point for further discussion

Asked to comment on the findings, Elizabeth Sampson, MD, a palliative care researcher at University College London, praised Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study as “starting to pull together the strands” of a systematic approach to referrals and access to palliative care in dementia.

Dr. Sampson’s group is leading a UK-government funded research effort that aims to develop cost-effective palliative care interventions in dementia, in part through a tool that uses caregiver reports to assess symptom burden and patient needs. The research program “is founded on a needs-based approach, which aims to look at people’s individual needs and responding to them in a proactive way,” she said.

One of the obstacles to timely palliative care in dementia, Dr. Sampson said, is weighing resource allocation against what can be wildly varying prognoses. “Hospices understand when someone has terminal cancer and [is] likely to die within a few weeks, but it’s not unheard of for someone in very advanced stages of dementia to live another year,” she said. “There are concerns that a rapid increase in people with dementia being moved to palliative care could overwhelm already limited hospice capacity. We would argue that the best approach is to get palliative care out to where people with dementia live, which is usually the care home.”

Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, and its authors disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sampson’s work is supported by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and National Institute for Health Research. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Palliative care for people with dementia is increasingly recognized as a way to improve quality of life and provide relief from the myriad physical and psychological symptoms of advancing neurodegenerative disease. But unlike in cancer, relatively few patients with terminal dementia receive referrals to palliative care.

A new literature review has found these referrals to be all over the map among patients with dementia – with many occurring very late in the disease process – and do not reflect any consistent criteria based on patient needs.

For their research, published March 2 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Li Mo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues looked at nearly 60 studies dating back to the early 1990s that contained information on referrals to palliative care for patients with dementia. While a palliative care approach can be provided by nonspecialists, all the included studies dealt at least in part with specialist care.
 

Standardized criteria is lacking

The investigators found advanced or late-stage dementia to be the most common reason cited for referral, with three quarters of the studies recommending palliative care for late-stage or advanced dementia, generally without qualifying what symptoms or needs were present. Patients received palliative care across a range of settings, including nursing homes, hospitals, and their own homes, though many articles did not include information on where patients received care.

A fifth of the articles suggested that medical complications of dementia including falls, pneumonia, and ulcers should trigger referrals to palliative care, while another fifth cited poor prognosis, defined varyingly as having between 2 years and 6 months likely left to live. Poor nutrition status was identified in 10% of studies as meriting referral.

Only 20% of the studies identified patient needs – evidence of psychological distress or functional decline, for example – as criteria for referral, despite these being ubiquitous in dementia. The authors said they were surprised by this finding, which could possibly be explained, they wrote, by “the interest among geriatrician, neurologist, and primary care teams to provide good symptom management,” reflecting a de facto palliative care approach. “There is also significant stigma associated with a specialist palliative care referral,” the authors noted.

Curiously, the researchers noted, a new diagnosis of dementia in more than a quarter of the studies triggered referral, a finding that possibly reflected delayed diagnoses.

The findings revealed “heterogeneity in the literature in reasons for involving specialist palliative care, which may partly explain the variation in patterns of palliative care referral,” Dr. Mo and colleagues wrote, stressing that more standardized criteria are urgently needed to bring dementia in line with cancer in terms of providing timely palliative care.

Patients with advancing dementia have little chance to self-report symptoms, meaning that more attention to patient complaints earlier in the disease course, and greater sensitivity to patient distress, are required. By routinely screening symptoms, clinicians could use specific cutoffs “as triggers to initiate automatic timely palliative care referral,” the authors concluded, noting that more research was needed before these cutoffs, whether based on symptom intensity or other measures, could be calculated.

Dr. Mo and colleagues acknowledged as weaknesses of their study the fact that a third of the articles in the review were based on expert consensus, while others did not distinguish clearly between primary and specialist palliative care.
 

A starting point for further discussion

Asked to comment on the findings, Elizabeth Sampson, MD, a palliative care researcher at University College London, praised Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study as “starting to pull together the strands” of a systematic approach to referrals and access to palliative care in dementia.

Dr. Sampson’s group is leading a UK-government funded research effort that aims to develop cost-effective palliative care interventions in dementia, in part through a tool that uses caregiver reports to assess symptom burden and patient needs. The research program “is founded on a needs-based approach, which aims to look at people’s individual needs and responding to them in a proactive way,” she said.

One of the obstacles to timely palliative care in dementia, Dr. Sampson said, is weighing resource allocation against what can be wildly varying prognoses. “Hospices understand when someone has terminal cancer and [is] likely to die within a few weeks, but it’s not unheard of for someone in very advanced stages of dementia to live another year,” she said. “There are concerns that a rapid increase in people with dementia being moved to palliative care could overwhelm already limited hospice capacity. We would argue that the best approach is to get palliative care out to where people with dementia live, which is usually the care home.”

Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, and its authors disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sampson’s work is supported by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and National Institute for Health Research. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

Palliative care for people with dementia is increasingly recognized as a way to improve quality of life and provide relief from the myriad physical and psychological symptoms of advancing neurodegenerative disease. But unlike in cancer, relatively few patients with terminal dementia receive referrals to palliative care.

A new literature review has found these referrals to be all over the map among patients with dementia – with many occurring very late in the disease process – and do not reflect any consistent criteria based on patient needs.

For their research, published March 2 in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, Li Mo, MD, of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, and colleagues looked at nearly 60 studies dating back to the early 1990s that contained information on referrals to palliative care for patients with dementia. While a palliative care approach can be provided by nonspecialists, all the included studies dealt at least in part with specialist care.
 

Standardized criteria is lacking

The investigators found advanced or late-stage dementia to be the most common reason cited for referral, with three quarters of the studies recommending palliative care for late-stage or advanced dementia, generally without qualifying what symptoms or needs were present. Patients received palliative care across a range of settings, including nursing homes, hospitals, and their own homes, though many articles did not include information on where patients received care.

A fifth of the articles suggested that medical complications of dementia including falls, pneumonia, and ulcers should trigger referrals to palliative care, while another fifth cited poor prognosis, defined varyingly as having between 2 years and 6 months likely left to live. Poor nutrition status was identified in 10% of studies as meriting referral.

Only 20% of the studies identified patient needs – evidence of psychological distress or functional decline, for example – as criteria for referral, despite these being ubiquitous in dementia. The authors said they were surprised by this finding, which could possibly be explained, they wrote, by “the interest among geriatrician, neurologist, and primary care teams to provide good symptom management,” reflecting a de facto palliative care approach. “There is also significant stigma associated with a specialist palliative care referral,” the authors noted.

Curiously, the researchers noted, a new diagnosis of dementia in more than a quarter of the studies triggered referral, a finding that possibly reflected delayed diagnoses.

The findings revealed “heterogeneity in the literature in reasons for involving specialist palliative care, which may partly explain the variation in patterns of palliative care referral,” Dr. Mo and colleagues wrote, stressing that more standardized criteria are urgently needed to bring dementia in line with cancer in terms of providing timely palliative care.

Patients with advancing dementia have little chance to self-report symptoms, meaning that more attention to patient complaints earlier in the disease course, and greater sensitivity to patient distress, are required. By routinely screening symptoms, clinicians could use specific cutoffs “as triggers to initiate automatic timely palliative care referral,” the authors concluded, noting that more research was needed before these cutoffs, whether based on symptom intensity or other measures, could be calculated.

Dr. Mo and colleagues acknowledged as weaknesses of their study the fact that a third of the articles in the review were based on expert consensus, while others did not distinguish clearly between primary and specialist palliative care.
 

A starting point for further discussion

Asked to comment on the findings, Elizabeth Sampson, MD, a palliative care researcher at University College London, praised Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study as “starting to pull together the strands” of a systematic approach to referrals and access to palliative care in dementia.

Dr. Sampson’s group is leading a UK-government funded research effort that aims to develop cost-effective palliative care interventions in dementia, in part through a tool that uses caregiver reports to assess symptom burden and patient needs. The research program “is founded on a needs-based approach, which aims to look at people’s individual needs and responding to them in a proactive way,” she said.

One of the obstacles to timely palliative care in dementia, Dr. Sampson said, is weighing resource allocation against what can be wildly varying prognoses. “Hospices understand when someone has terminal cancer and [is] likely to die within a few weeks, but it’s not unheard of for someone in very advanced stages of dementia to live another year,” she said. “There are concerns that a rapid increase in people with dementia being moved to palliative care could overwhelm already limited hospice capacity. We would argue that the best approach is to get palliative care out to where people with dementia live, which is usually the care home.”

Dr. Mo and colleagues’ study received funding from the National Institutes of Health, and its authors disclosed no financial conflicts of interest. Dr. Sampson’s work is supported by the UK’s Economic and Social Research Council and National Institute for Health Research. She disclosed no conflicts of interest.

New models are needed for delivering long-term care (LTC) that are home-based, cost-effective, and appropriate for older adults with a range of care needs.^1,2 In fiscal year (FY) 2015, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) spent $7.4 billion on LTC, accounting for 13% of total VA health care spending. Overall, 71% of LTC spending in FY 2015 was allocated to institutional care.³ Beyond cost, 95% of older adults prefer to remain in community rather than institutional LTC settings, such as nursing homes.⁴ The COVID-19 pandemic created additional concerns related to the spread of infectious disease, with > 37% of COVID-19 deaths in the United States occurring in nursing homes irrespective of facility quality.^5,6

One community-based LTC alternative developed within the VA is the Medical Foster Home (MFH) program. The MFH program is an adult foster care program in which veterans who are unable to live independently receive round-the-clock care in the home of a community-based caregiver.⁷ MFH caregivers usually have previous experience caring for family, working in a nursing home, or working as a caregiver in another capacity. These caregivers are responsible for providing 24-hour supervision and support to residents in their MFH and can care for up to 3 adults. In the MFH program, VA home-based primary care (HBPC) teams composed of physicians, registered nurses, physical and occupational therapists, social workers, pharmacists, dieticians, and psychologists, provide primary care for MFH veterans and oversee care in the caregiver’s home.

The goal of the VA HBPC program is to improve veterans’ access to medical care and shift LTC services from institutional to noninstitutional settings by providing in-home care for those who are too sick or disabled to go to a clinic for care. On average, veterans pay the MFH caregiver $2,500 out-of-pocket per month for their care.⁸ In 2016, there were 992 veterans residing in MFHs across the country.⁹ Since MFH program implementation expanded nationwide in 2008, more than 4,000 veterans have resided in MFHs in 45 states and territories.¹⁰

The VA is required to pay for nursing home care for veterans who have a qualifying VA service-connected disability or who meet a specific threshold of disability.¹¹ Currently, the VA is not authorized to pay for MFH care for veterans who meet the eligibility criteria for VA-paid nursing home care. Over the past decade, the VA has introduced and expanded several initiatives and programs to help veterans who require LTC remain in their homes and communities. These include but are not limited to the Veteran Directed Care program, the Choose Home Initiative, and the Caregiver Support Program.^12-14 Additionally, attempts have been made to pass legislation to authorize the VA to pay for MFH for veterans’ care whose military benefits include coverage for nursing home care.¹⁵ This legislation and VA initiatives are clear signs that the VA is committed to supporting programs such as the MFH program. Given this commitment, demand for the MFH program will likely increase.

Therefore, VA practitioners need to better identify which veterans are currently in the MFH program. While veterans are expected to need nursing home level care to qualify for MFH enrollment, little has been published about the physical and mental health care needs of veterans currently receiving MFH care. One previous study compared the demographics, diagnostic characteristics, and care utilization of MFH veterans with that of veterans receiving LTC in VA community living centers (CLCs), and found that veterans in MFHs had similar levels of frailty and comorbidity and had a higher mean age when compared with veterans in CLCs.¹⁶

Our study assessed a sample of veterans living in MFHs and describes these veterans’ clinical and functional characteristics. We used the Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) to complete the assessments to allow comparisons with other populations residing in long-term care.^17,18 While MDS assessments are required for Medicare/Medicaid-certified nursing home residents and for residents in VA CLCs, this study was the first attempt to perform in-home MDS data assessments in MFHs. This collection of descriptive clinical data is an important first step in providing VA practitioners with information about the characteristics of veterans currently cared for in MFHs and policymakers with data to think critically about which veterans are willing to pay for the MFH program.

Methods

This study was part of a larger research project assessing the impact of the MFH program on veterans’ outcomes and health care spending as well as factors influencing program growth.^{7,9,10,16,19-23} We report on the characteristics of veterans staying in MFHs, using data from the MDS, including a clinical assessment of patients’ cognitive, function, and health care–related needs, collected from participants recruited for this study.

Five research nurses were trained to administer the MDS assessment to veterans in MFHs. Data were collected between April 2014 and December 2015 from veterans at MFH sites associated with 4 urban VA medical centers in 4 different Veterans Integrated Service Networks (58 total homes). While the VA medical centers (VAMCs)were urban, many of the MFHs were in rural areas, given that MFHs can be up to 50 miles from the associated VAMC. We selected MFH sites for this study based on MFH program veteran census. Specifically, we identified MFH sites with high veteran enrollment to ensure we would have a sufficiently large sample for participant recruitment.

Veterans who had resided in an MFH for at least 90 days were eligible to participate. Of the 155 veterans mailed a letter of invitation to participate, 92 (59%) completed the in-home MDS assessment. Reasons for not participating included: 13 veterans died prior to data collection, 18 veterans declined to participate, 18 family members or legal guardians of cognitively impaired veterans did not want the veteran to participate, and 14 veterans left the MFH program or were hospitalized at the time of data collection.

Family members and legal guardians who declined participation on behalf of a veteran reported that they felt the veteran was too frail to participate or that participating would be an added burden on the veteran. Based on the census of veterans residing in all MFHs nationally in November 2015 (N = 972), 9.5% of MFH veterans were included in this study.⁷This study was approved by the VA Central Institutional Review Board (CIRB #12–31), in addition to the local VA research and development review boards where MFH MDS assessments were collected.

Assessment Instrument and Variables

The MDS 3.0 assesses numerous aspects of clinical and functional status. Several resident-level characteristics from the MDS 3.0 were included in this study. The Cognitive Function Scale (CFS) was used to categorize cognitive function. The CFS is a categorical variable that is created from MDS 3.0 data. The CFS integrates self- and staff-reported data to classify individuals as cognitively intact, mildly impaired, moderately impaired, or severely impaired based on respondents’ Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment or staff-reported cognitive function collected as part of the MDS 3.0.²⁴ We explored depression by calculating a mean summary severity score for all respondents from the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 item interview (PHQ-9).²⁵ PHQ-9 summary scores range from 0 to 27, with mean scores of ≤ 4 indicating no or minimal depression, and higher scores corresponding to more severe depression as scores increase. For respondents who were unable to complete the PHQ-9, we calculated mean PHQ Observational Version (PHQ-9-OV) scores.

We included 2 variables to characterize behaviors: wandering frequency and presence and frequency of aggressive behaviors. We summarized aggressive behaviors using the Aggressive and Reactive Behavior Scale, which characterizes whether a resident has none, mild, moderate, or severe behavioral symptoms based on the presence and frequency of physical and verbal behaviors and resistance to care.^26,27 We included items that described pain, number of falls since admission or prior assessment, degree of urinary and bowel continence (always continent vs not always continent) and mobility device use to describe respondents’ health conditions and functional status. To characterize pain, we used veteran’s self-reported frequency and intensity of pain experienced in the prior 5 days and classified the experienced pain as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Finally, demographic characteristics included age and gender.

To determine functional status, we included measures of needing help to perform activities of daily living (ADLs). The MDS allows us to understand functional status ranging from ADLs lost early in the trajectory of functional decline (ie, bathing, hygiene) to those lost in the middle (ie, walking, dressing, toileting, transferring) to those lost late in the trajectory of functional decline (ie, bed mobility and eating).^28,29 To assess MFH veterans’ independence in mobility, we considered the veteran’s ability to walk without supervision or assistance in the hallway outside of their room, ability to move between their room and hallway, and ability to move throughout the house. Mobility includes use of an assistive device such as a cane, walker, or wheelchair if the veteran can use it without assistance. We summarized dependency in ADLs, using a combined score of dependence in bed mobility, transfer, locomotion on unit, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene that ranges from 0 (independent) to 28 (completely dependent).³⁰ Additionally, we created 3-category variables to indicate the degree of dependence in performing ADLs (independent, supervision or assistance, and completely dependent).

Finally, we included diagnoses identified as active to explore differences in neurologic, mood, psychiatric, and chronic disease morbidity. In the MDS 3.0 assessment, an active diagnosis is defined as a diagnosis documented by a licensed independent practitioner in the prior 60 days that has affected the resident or their care in the prior 7 days.

Analysis

We conducted statistical analyses using Stata MP version 15.1 (StataCorp). We summarized demographic characteristics, cognitive function scores, depression scores, pain status, behavioral symptoms, incidence of falls, degree of continence, functional status, and comorbidities, using means and standard deviations for continuous variables and frequencies and proportions for categorical variables.

Results

Of the 92 MFH veterans in our sample, 85% were male and 83% were aged ≥ 65 years (Table 1). Veterans had an average length of stay of 927 days at the time of MDS assessment. More than half (55%) of MFH veterans had cognitive impairment (ranging from mild to severe). The mean (SD) depression score was 3.3 (3.9), indicating minimal depression. For veterans who could not complete the depression questionnaire, the mean (SD) staff-assessed depression score was 5.9 (5.5), suggesting mild depression. Overall, 22% of the sample had aggressive behaviors but only 7 were noted to be severe. Few residents had caregiver-reported wandering. Self-reported pain intensity indicated that 45% of the sample had mild, moderate, or severe pain. While more than half the cohort had complete bowel continence (53%), only 36% had complete urinary continence. Use of mobility devices was common, with 56% of residents using a wheelchair, 42% using a walker, and 14% using a cane. One-fourth of veterans had fallen at least once since admission to the MFH.

Of the 11 ADLs assessed, the percentage of MFH veterans requiring assistance with early and mid-loss ADLs ranged from 63% for transferring to 84% for bathing (Table 2). Even for the late-loss ADL of eating, 57% of the MFH cohort required assistance. Overall, MFH veterans had an average ADL dependency score of 11.

Discussion

In this study, we describe the characteristics of veterans receiving LTC in a sample of MFHs. This is the first study to assess veteran health and function across a group of MFHs. To help provide context for the description of MFH residents, we compared demographic characteristics, cognitive impairment, depression, pain, behaviors, functional status, and morbidity of veterans in the MFH program to long-stay residents in community nursing homes (eAppendix 1-3 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0102). A comparison with this reference population suggests that these MFH and nursing home cohorts are similar in terms of age, wandering behavior, incidence of falls, and prevalence of neurologic, psychiatric, and chronic diseases. Compared with nursing home residents, veterans in the MFH cohort had slightly higher mood symptom scores, were more likely to display aggressive behavior, and were more likely to report experiencing moderate and severe pain.

Additionally, MFH veterans displayed a lower level of cognitive impairment, fewer functional impairments, measured by the ADL dependency score, and were less likely to be bowel or bladder incontinent. Despite an overall lower ADL dependency score, a similar proportion of MFH veterans and nursing home residents were totally dependent in performing 7 of 11 ADLs and a higher proportion of MFH veterans were completely dependent for toileting (22% long-stay nursing home vs 31% MFH). The only ADLs for which there was a higher proportion of long-stay nursing home residents who were totally dependent compared with MFH residents were walking in room (54% long-stay nursing home vs 38% MFH), walking in the corridor (57% long-stay nursing home vs 33% MFH), and locomotion off the unit (36% long-stay nursing home vs 22% MFH).

While the rates of total ADL dependence among veterans in MFHs suggest that MFHs are providing care to a subset of veterans with high levels of functional impairment and care needs, MFHs are also providing care to veterans who are more independent in performing ADLs and who resemble low-care nursing home residents. A low-care nursing home resident is broadly defined as an one who does not need assistance performing late-loss ADLs (bed mobility, transferring, toileting, and eating) and who does not have the Resource Utilization Group classification of special rehab or clinically complex.^31,32 Due to their overall higher functional capacity, low-care residents, even those with chronic medical care needs, may be more appropriately cared for in less intensive care settings than in nursing homes. About 5% to 30% of long-stay nursing home residents can be classified as low care.^31,33-37 Additionally, a majority of newly admitted nursing home patients report a preference for or support community discharge rather than long-stay nursing home care, suggesting that many nursing home residents have the potential and desire to transition to a community-based setting.³³

Based on the prevalence of veterans in our sample who are similar to low-care nursing home residents and the national focus on shifting LTC to community-based settings, MFHs may be an ideal setting for both low-care nursing home residents and those seeking community-based alternatives to traditional, institutionalized LTC. Additionally, given that we observed greater behavioral and pain needs and similar rates of comorbidities in MFH veterans relative to long-stay nursing home residents, our results indicate that MFHs also have the capacity to care for veterans with higher care needs who desire community-based LTC.

Previous research identified barriers to program MFH growth that may contribute to referral of veterans with fewer ADL dependencies compared with long-stay nursing home residents. A key barrier to MFH referral is that nursing home referral requires selection of a home, whereas MFH referral involves matching veterans with appropriate caregivers, which requires time to align the veteran’s needs with the right caregiver in the right home.⁷ Given the rigors of finding a match, VA staff who refer veterans may preferentially refer veterans with greater ADL impairments to nursing homes, assuming that higher levels of care needs will complicate the matching process and reserve MFH referral for only the highest functioning candidates.¹⁹ However, the ADL data presented here indicate that many MFH residents with significant levels of ADL dependence are living in MFHs. Meeting the care needs of those who have higher ADL dependencies is possible because MFH coordinators and HBPC providers deliver individual, ongoing education to MFH caregivers about caring for MFH veterans and provide available resources needed to safely care for MFH veterans across the spectrum of ADL dependency.⁷

Veterans with higher levels of functional dependence may also be referred to nursing homes rather than to MFHs because of payment issues. Independent of the VA, veterans or their families negotiate a contract with their caregiver to pay out-of-pocket for MFH caregiving as well as room and board. Particularly for veterans who have military benefits to cover nursing home care costs, the out-of-pocket payment for veterans with high degrees of functional dependence increase as needs increase. These out-of-pocket payments may serve as a barrier to MFH enrollment. The proposed Long-Term Care Veterans Choice Act, which would allow the VA to pay for MFH care for eligible veterans may address this barrier.¹⁵

Another possible explanation for the higher rates of functional independence in the MFH cohort is that veterans with functional impairment are not being referred to MFHs. A previous study of the MFH program found that health care providers were often unaware of the program and as a result did not refer eligible veterans to this alternative LTC option.⁷ The changes proposed by the Long-Term Care Veterans Choice Act may result in an increase in demand in MFH care and thus increase awareness of the program among VA physicians.¹⁵

Limitations

There are several potential limitations in this study. First, there are limits to the generalizability of the MFH sample given that the sample of veterans was not randomly selected and that weights were not applied to account for nonresponse bias. Second, charting requirements in MFHs are less intensive compared with nursing home tracking. While the training for research nurses on how to conduct MDS assessments in MFHs was designed to simulate the process in nursing homes, MDS data were likely impacted by differences in charting practices. In addition, MFH caregivers may report certain items, such as aggressive behaviors, more often because they observe MFH veterans round-the-clock compared with NH caregivers who work in shifts and have a lower caregiver to resident ratio. The current data suggest differences in prevalence of behavioral symptoms.

Future studies should examine whether this reflects differences in the populations served or differences in how MFH caregivers track and manage behavioral symptoms. Third, this study was conducted at only MFH sites associated with 4 VAMCs, thus our findings may not be generalizable to veterans in other areas. Finally, there may be differences in the veterans who agreed to participate in the study compared with those who declined to participate. For example, it is possible that the eligible MFH veterans who declined to participate in this study were more functionally impaired than those who did participate. More than one-third (39%) of the family members of cognitively impaired MFH veterans who did not participate cited concerns about the veteran’s frailty as a primary reason for declining to participate. Consequently, the high level of functional status among veterans included in this study compared to nursing home residents may be in part a result of selection bias from more ADL-impaired veterans declining to participate in the study.

Conclusions

Although the MFH program has provided LTC nationally to veterans for nearly 2 decades, this study is the first to administer in-home MDS assessments to veterans in MFHs, allowing for a detailed description of cognitive, functional, and behavioral characteristics of MFH residents. In this study, we found that veterans currently receiving care in MFHs have a wide range of care needs. Our findings indicate that MFHs are caring for some veterans with high functional impairment as well as those who are completely independent in performing ADLs.

Moreover, these results are a preliminary attempt to assist VA health care providers in determining which veterans can be cared for in an MFH such that they can make informed referrals to this alternative LTC setting. To improve the generalizability of these findings, future studies should collect MDS 3.0 assessments longitudinally from a representative sample of veterans in MFHs. Further research is needed to explore how VA providers make the decision to refer a veteran to an MFH compared to a nursing home. Additionally, the percentage of veterans in this study who reported experiencing pain may indicate the need to identify innovative, integrated pain management programs for home settings.

New models are needed for delivering long-term care (LTC) that are home-based, cost-effective, and appropriate for older adults with a range of care needs.^1,2 In fiscal year (FY) 2015, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) spent $7.4 billion on LTC, accounting for 13% of total VA health care spending. Overall, 71% of LTC spending in FY 2015 was allocated to institutional care.³ Beyond cost, 95% of older adults prefer to remain in community rather than institutional LTC settings, such as nursing homes.⁴ The COVID-19 pandemic created additional concerns related to the spread of infectious disease, with > 37% of COVID-19 deaths in the United States occurring in nursing homes irrespective of facility quality.^5,6

One community-based LTC alternative developed within the VA is the Medical Foster Home (MFH) program. The MFH program is an adult foster care program in which veterans who are unable to live independently receive round-the-clock care in the home of a community-based caregiver.⁷ MFH caregivers usually have previous experience caring for family, working in a nursing home, or working as a caregiver in another capacity. These caregivers are responsible for providing 24-hour supervision and support to residents in their MFH and can care for up to 3 adults. In the MFH program, VA home-based primary care (HBPC) teams composed of physicians, registered nurses, physical and occupational therapists, social workers, pharmacists, dieticians, and psychologists, provide primary care for MFH veterans and oversee care in the caregiver’s home.

The goal of the VA HBPC program is to improve veterans’ access to medical care and shift LTC services from institutional to noninstitutional settings by providing in-home care for those who are too sick or disabled to go to a clinic for care. On average, veterans pay the MFH caregiver $2,500 out-of-pocket per month for their care.⁸ In 2016, there were 992 veterans residing in MFHs across the country.⁹ Since MFH program implementation expanded nationwide in 2008, more than 4,000 veterans have resided in MFHs in 45 states and territories.¹⁰

The VA is required to pay for nursing home care for veterans who have a qualifying VA service-connected disability or who meet a specific threshold of disability.¹¹ Currently, the VA is not authorized to pay for MFH care for veterans who meet the eligibility criteria for VA-paid nursing home care. Over the past decade, the VA has introduced and expanded several initiatives and programs to help veterans who require LTC remain in their homes and communities. These include but are not limited to the Veteran Directed Care program, the Choose Home Initiative, and the Caregiver Support Program.^12-14 Additionally, attempts have been made to pass legislation to authorize the VA to pay for MFH for veterans’ care whose military benefits include coverage for nursing home care.¹⁵ This legislation and VA initiatives are clear signs that the VA is committed to supporting programs such as the MFH program. Given this commitment, demand for the MFH program will likely increase.

Therefore, VA practitioners need to better identify which veterans are currently in the MFH program. While veterans are expected to need nursing home level care to qualify for MFH enrollment, little has been published about the physical and mental health care needs of veterans currently receiving MFH care. One previous study compared the demographics, diagnostic characteristics, and care utilization of MFH veterans with that of veterans receiving LTC in VA community living centers (CLCs), and found that veterans in MFHs had similar levels of frailty and comorbidity and had a higher mean age when compared with veterans in CLCs.¹⁶

Our study assessed a sample of veterans living in MFHs and describes these veterans’ clinical and functional characteristics. We used the Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) to complete the assessments to allow comparisons with other populations residing in long-term care.^17,18 While MDS assessments are required for Medicare/Medicaid-certified nursing home residents and for residents in VA CLCs, this study was the first attempt to perform in-home MDS data assessments in MFHs. This collection of descriptive clinical data is an important first step in providing VA practitioners with information about the characteristics of veterans currently cared for in MFHs and policymakers with data to think critically about which veterans are willing to pay for the MFH program.

Methods

This study was part of a larger research project assessing the impact of the MFH program on veterans’ outcomes and health care spending as well as factors influencing program growth.^{7,9,10,16,19-23} We report on the characteristics of veterans staying in MFHs, using data from the MDS, including a clinical assessment of patients’ cognitive, function, and health care–related needs, collected from participants recruited for this study.

Five research nurses were trained to administer the MDS assessment to veterans in MFHs. Data were collected between April 2014 and December 2015 from veterans at MFH sites associated with 4 urban VA medical centers in 4 different Veterans Integrated Service Networks (58 total homes). While the VA medical centers (VAMCs)were urban, many of the MFHs were in rural areas, given that MFHs can be up to 50 miles from the associated VAMC. We selected MFH sites for this study based on MFH program veteran census. Specifically, we identified MFH sites with high veteran enrollment to ensure we would have a sufficiently large sample for participant recruitment.

Veterans who had resided in an MFH for at least 90 days were eligible to participate. Of the 155 veterans mailed a letter of invitation to participate, 92 (59%) completed the in-home MDS assessment. Reasons for not participating included: 13 veterans died prior to data collection, 18 veterans declined to participate, 18 family members or legal guardians of cognitively impaired veterans did not want the veteran to participate, and 14 veterans left the MFH program or were hospitalized at the time of data collection.

Family members and legal guardians who declined participation on behalf of a veteran reported that they felt the veteran was too frail to participate or that participating would be an added burden on the veteran. Based on the census of veterans residing in all MFHs nationally in November 2015 (N = 972), 9.5% of MFH veterans were included in this study.⁷This study was approved by the VA Central Institutional Review Board (CIRB #12–31), in addition to the local VA research and development review boards where MFH MDS assessments were collected.

Assessment Instrument and Variables

The MDS 3.0 assesses numerous aspects of clinical and functional status. Several resident-level characteristics from the MDS 3.0 were included in this study. The Cognitive Function Scale (CFS) was used to categorize cognitive function. The CFS is a categorical variable that is created from MDS 3.0 data. The CFS integrates self- and staff-reported data to classify individuals as cognitively intact, mildly impaired, moderately impaired, or severely impaired based on respondents’ Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment or staff-reported cognitive function collected as part of the MDS 3.0.²⁴ We explored depression by calculating a mean summary severity score for all respondents from the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 item interview (PHQ-9).²⁵ PHQ-9 summary scores range from 0 to 27, with mean scores of ≤ 4 indicating no or minimal depression, and higher scores corresponding to more severe depression as scores increase. For respondents who were unable to complete the PHQ-9, we calculated mean PHQ Observational Version (PHQ-9-OV) scores.

We included 2 variables to characterize behaviors: wandering frequency and presence and frequency of aggressive behaviors. We summarized aggressive behaviors using the Aggressive and Reactive Behavior Scale, which characterizes whether a resident has none, mild, moderate, or severe behavioral symptoms based on the presence and frequency of physical and verbal behaviors and resistance to care.^26,27 We included items that described pain, number of falls since admission or prior assessment, degree of urinary and bowel continence (always continent vs not always continent) and mobility device use to describe respondents’ health conditions and functional status. To characterize pain, we used veteran’s self-reported frequency and intensity of pain experienced in the prior 5 days and classified the experienced pain as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Finally, demographic characteristics included age and gender.

To determine functional status, we included measures of needing help to perform activities of daily living (ADLs). The MDS allows us to understand functional status ranging from ADLs lost early in the trajectory of functional decline (ie, bathing, hygiene) to those lost in the middle (ie, walking, dressing, toileting, transferring) to those lost late in the trajectory of functional decline (ie, bed mobility and eating).^28,29 To assess MFH veterans’ independence in mobility, we considered the veteran’s ability to walk without supervision or assistance in the hallway outside of their room, ability to move between their room and hallway, and ability to move throughout the house. Mobility includes use of an assistive device such as a cane, walker, or wheelchair if the veteran can use it without assistance. We summarized dependency in ADLs, using a combined score of dependence in bed mobility, transfer, locomotion on unit, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene that ranges from 0 (independent) to 28 (completely dependent).³⁰ Additionally, we created 3-category variables to indicate the degree of dependence in performing ADLs (independent, supervision or assistance, and completely dependent).

Finally, we included diagnoses identified as active to explore differences in neurologic, mood, psychiatric, and chronic disease morbidity. In the MDS 3.0 assessment, an active diagnosis is defined as a diagnosis documented by a licensed independent practitioner in the prior 60 days that has affected the resident or their care in the prior 7 days.

Analysis

We conducted statistical analyses using Stata MP version 15.1 (StataCorp). We summarized demographic characteristics, cognitive function scores, depression scores, pain status, behavioral symptoms, incidence of falls, degree of continence, functional status, and comorbidities, using means and standard deviations for continuous variables and frequencies and proportions for categorical variables.

Results

Of the 92 MFH veterans in our sample, 85% were male and 83% were aged ≥ 65 years (Table 1). Veterans had an average length of stay of 927 days at the time of MDS assessment. More than half (55%) of MFH veterans had cognitive impairment (ranging from mild to severe). The mean (SD) depression score was 3.3 (3.9), indicating minimal depression. For veterans who could not complete the depression questionnaire, the mean (SD) staff-assessed depression score was 5.9 (5.5), suggesting mild depression. Overall, 22% of the sample had aggressive behaviors but only 7 were noted to be severe. Few residents had caregiver-reported wandering. Self-reported pain intensity indicated that 45% of the sample had mild, moderate, or severe pain. While more than half the cohort had complete bowel continence (53%), only 36% had complete urinary continence. Use of mobility devices was common, with 56% of residents using a wheelchair, 42% using a walker, and 14% using a cane. One-fourth of veterans had fallen at least once since admission to the MFH.

Of the 11 ADLs assessed, the percentage of MFH veterans requiring assistance with early and mid-loss ADLs ranged from 63% for transferring to 84% for bathing (Table 2). Even for the late-loss ADL of eating, 57% of the MFH cohort required assistance. Overall, MFH veterans had an average ADL dependency score of 11.

Discussion

In this study, we describe the characteristics of veterans receiving LTC in a sample of MFHs. This is the first study to assess veteran health and function across a group of MFHs. To help provide context for the description of MFH residents, we compared demographic characteristics, cognitive impairment, depression, pain, behaviors, functional status, and morbidity of veterans in the MFH program to long-stay residents in community nursing homes (eAppendix 1-3 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0102). A comparison with this reference population suggests that these MFH and nursing home cohorts are similar in terms of age, wandering behavior, incidence of falls, and prevalence of neurologic, psychiatric, and chronic diseases. Compared with nursing home residents, veterans in the MFH cohort had slightly higher mood symptom scores, were more likely to display aggressive behavior, and were more likely to report experiencing moderate and severe pain.

Additionally, MFH veterans displayed a lower level of cognitive impairment, fewer functional impairments, measured by the ADL dependency score, and were less likely to be bowel or bladder incontinent. Despite an overall lower ADL dependency score, a similar proportion of MFH veterans and nursing home residents were totally dependent in performing 7 of 11 ADLs and a higher proportion of MFH veterans were completely dependent for toileting (22% long-stay nursing home vs 31% MFH). The only ADLs for which there was a higher proportion of long-stay nursing home residents who were totally dependent compared with MFH residents were walking in room (54% long-stay nursing home vs 38% MFH), walking in the corridor (57% long-stay nursing home vs 33% MFH), and locomotion off the unit (36% long-stay nursing home vs 22% MFH).

While the rates of total ADL dependence among veterans in MFHs suggest that MFHs are providing care to a subset of veterans with high levels of functional impairment and care needs, MFHs are also providing care to veterans who are more independent in performing ADLs and who resemble low-care nursing home residents. A low-care nursing home resident is broadly defined as an one who does not need assistance performing late-loss ADLs (bed mobility, transferring, toileting, and eating) and who does not have the Resource Utilization Group classification of special rehab or clinically complex.^31,32 Due to their overall higher functional capacity, low-care residents, even those with chronic medical care needs, may be more appropriately cared for in less intensive care settings than in nursing homes. About 5% to 30% of long-stay nursing home residents can be classified as low care.^31,33-37 Additionally, a majority of newly admitted nursing home patients report a preference for or support community discharge rather than long-stay nursing home care, suggesting that many nursing home residents have the potential and desire to transition to a community-based setting.³³

Based on the prevalence of veterans in our sample who are similar to low-care nursing home residents and the national focus on shifting LTC to community-based settings, MFHs may be an ideal setting for both low-care nursing home residents and those seeking community-based alternatives to traditional, institutionalized LTC. Additionally, given that we observed greater behavioral and pain needs and similar rates of comorbidities in MFH veterans relative to long-stay nursing home residents, our results indicate that MFHs also have the capacity to care for veterans with higher care needs who desire community-based LTC.

Previous research identified barriers to program MFH growth that may contribute to referral of veterans with fewer ADL dependencies compared with long-stay nursing home residents. A key barrier to MFH referral is that nursing home referral requires selection of a home, whereas MFH referral involves matching veterans with appropriate caregivers, which requires time to align the veteran’s needs with the right caregiver in the right home.⁷ Given the rigors of finding a match, VA staff who refer veterans may preferentially refer veterans with greater ADL impairments to nursing homes, assuming that higher levels of care needs will complicate the matching process and reserve MFH referral for only the highest functioning candidates.¹⁹ However, the ADL data presented here indicate that many MFH residents with significant levels of ADL dependence are living in MFHs. Meeting the care needs of those who have higher ADL dependencies is possible because MFH coordinators and HBPC providers deliver individual, ongoing education to MFH caregivers about caring for MFH veterans and provide available resources needed to safely care for MFH veterans across the spectrum of ADL dependency.⁷

Veterans with higher levels of functional dependence may also be referred to nursing homes rather than to MFHs because of payment issues. Independent of the VA, veterans or their families negotiate a contract with their caregiver to pay out-of-pocket for MFH caregiving as well as room and board. Particularly for veterans who have military benefits to cover nursing home care costs, the out-of-pocket payment for veterans with high degrees of functional dependence increase as needs increase. These out-of-pocket payments may serve as a barrier to MFH enrollment. The proposed Long-Term Care Veterans Choice Act, which would allow the VA to pay for MFH care for eligible veterans may address this barrier.¹⁵

Another possible explanation for the higher rates of functional independence in the MFH cohort is that veterans with functional impairment are not being referred to MFHs. A previous study of the MFH program found that health care providers were often unaware of the program and as a result did not refer eligible veterans to this alternative LTC option.⁷ The changes proposed by the Long-Term Care Veterans Choice Act may result in an increase in demand in MFH care and thus increase awareness of the program among VA physicians.¹⁵

Limitations

There are several potential limitations in this study. First, there are limits to the generalizability of the MFH sample given that the sample of veterans was not randomly selected and that weights were not applied to account for nonresponse bias. Second, charting requirements in MFHs are less intensive compared with nursing home tracking. While the training for research nurses on how to conduct MDS assessments in MFHs was designed to simulate the process in nursing homes, MDS data were likely impacted by differences in charting practices. In addition, MFH caregivers may report certain items, such as aggressive behaviors, more often because they observe MFH veterans round-the-clock compared with NH caregivers who work in shifts and have a lower caregiver to resident ratio. The current data suggest differences in prevalence of behavioral symptoms.

Future studies should examine whether this reflects differences in the populations served or differences in how MFH caregivers track and manage behavioral symptoms. Third, this study was conducted at only MFH sites associated with 4 VAMCs, thus our findings may not be generalizable to veterans in other areas. Finally, there may be differences in the veterans who agreed to participate in the study compared with those who declined to participate. For example, it is possible that the eligible MFH veterans who declined to participate in this study were more functionally impaired than those who did participate. More than one-third (39%) of the family members of cognitively impaired MFH veterans who did not participate cited concerns about the veteran’s frailty as a primary reason for declining to participate. Consequently, the high level of functional status among veterans included in this study compared to nursing home residents may be in part a result of selection bias from more ADL-impaired veterans declining to participate in the study.

Conclusions

Although the MFH program has provided LTC nationally to veterans for nearly 2 decades, this study is the first to administer in-home MDS assessments to veterans in MFHs, allowing for a detailed description of cognitive, functional, and behavioral characteristics of MFH residents. In this study, we found that veterans currently receiving care in MFHs have a wide range of care needs. Our findings indicate that MFHs are caring for some veterans with high functional impairment as well as those who are completely independent in performing ADLs.

Moreover, these results are a preliminary attempt to assist VA health care providers in determining which veterans can be cared for in an MFH such that they can make informed referrals to this alternative LTC setting. To improve the generalizability of these findings, future studies should collect MDS 3.0 assessments longitudinally from a representative sample of veterans in MFHs. Further research is needed to explore how VA providers make the decision to refer a veteran to an MFH compared to a nursing home. Additionally, the percentage of veterans in this study who reported experiencing pain may indicate the need to identify innovative, integrated pain management programs for home settings.

New models are needed for delivering long-term care (LTC) that are home-based, cost-effective, and appropriate for older adults with a range of care needs.^1,2 In fiscal year (FY) 2015, the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) spent $7.4 billion on LTC, accounting for 13% of total VA health care spending. Overall, 71% of LTC spending in FY 2015 was allocated to institutional care.³ Beyond cost, 95% of older adults prefer to remain in community rather than institutional LTC settings, such as nursing homes.⁴ The COVID-19 pandemic created additional concerns related to the spread of infectious disease, with > 37% of COVID-19 deaths in the United States occurring in nursing homes irrespective of facility quality.^5,6

One community-based LTC alternative developed within the VA is the Medical Foster Home (MFH) program. The MFH program is an adult foster care program in which veterans who are unable to live independently receive round-the-clock care in the home of a community-based caregiver.⁷ MFH caregivers usually have previous experience caring for family, working in a nursing home, or working as a caregiver in another capacity. These caregivers are responsible for providing 24-hour supervision and support to residents in their MFH and can care for up to 3 adults. In the MFH program, VA home-based primary care (HBPC) teams composed of physicians, registered nurses, physical and occupational therapists, social workers, pharmacists, dieticians, and psychologists, provide primary care for MFH veterans and oversee care in the caregiver’s home.

The goal of the VA HBPC program is to improve veterans’ access to medical care and shift LTC services from institutional to noninstitutional settings by providing in-home care for those who are too sick or disabled to go to a clinic for care. On average, veterans pay the MFH caregiver $2,500 out-of-pocket per month for their care.⁸ In 2016, there were 992 veterans residing in MFHs across the country.⁹ Since MFH program implementation expanded nationwide in 2008, more than 4,000 veterans have resided in MFHs in 45 states and territories.¹⁰

The VA is required to pay for nursing home care for veterans who have a qualifying VA service-connected disability or who meet a specific threshold of disability.¹¹ Currently, the VA is not authorized to pay for MFH care for veterans who meet the eligibility criteria for VA-paid nursing home care. Over the past decade, the VA has introduced and expanded several initiatives and programs to help veterans who require LTC remain in their homes and communities. These include but are not limited to the Veteran Directed Care program, the Choose Home Initiative, and the Caregiver Support Program.^12-14 Additionally, attempts have been made to pass legislation to authorize the VA to pay for MFH for veterans’ care whose military benefits include coverage for nursing home care.¹⁵ This legislation and VA initiatives are clear signs that the VA is committed to supporting programs such as the MFH program. Given this commitment, demand for the MFH program will likely increase.

Therefore, VA practitioners need to better identify which veterans are currently in the MFH program. While veterans are expected to need nursing home level care to qualify for MFH enrollment, little has been published about the physical and mental health care needs of veterans currently receiving MFH care. One previous study compared the demographics, diagnostic characteristics, and care utilization of MFH veterans with that of veterans receiving LTC in VA community living centers (CLCs), and found that veterans in MFHs had similar levels of frailty and comorbidity and had a higher mean age when compared with veterans in CLCs.¹⁶

Our study assessed a sample of veterans living in MFHs and describes these veterans’ clinical and functional characteristics. We used the Minimum Data Set 3.0 (MDS) to complete the assessments to allow comparisons with other populations residing in long-term care.^17,18 While MDS assessments are required for Medicare/Medicaid-certified nursing home residents and for residents in VA CLCs, this study was the first attempt to perform in-home MDS data assessments in MFHs. This collection of descriptive clinical data is an important first step in providing VA practitioners with information about the characteristics of veterans currently cared for in MFHs and policymakers with data to think critically about which veterans are willing to pay for the MFH program.

Methods

This study was part of a larger research project assessing the impact of the MFH program on veterans’ outcomes and health care spending as well as factors influencing program growth.^{7,9,10,16,19-23} We report on the characteristics of veterans staying in MFHs, using data from the MDS, including a clinical assessment of patients’ cognitive, function, and health care–related needs, collected from participants recruited for this study.

Five research nurses were trained to administer the MDS assessment to veterans in MFHs. Data were collected between April 2014 and December 2015 from veterans at MFH sites associated with 4 urban VA medical centers in 4 different Veterans Integrated Service Networks (58 total homes). While the VA medical centers (VAMCs)were urban, many of the MFHs were in rural areas, given that MFHs can be up to 50 miles from the associated VAMC. We selected MFH sites for this study based on MFH program veteran census. Specifically, we identified MFH sites with high veteran enrollment to ensure we would have a sufficiently large sample for participant recruitment.

Veterans who had resided in an MFH for at least 90 days were eligible to participate. Of the 155 veterans mailed a letter of invitation to participate, 92 (59%) completed the in-home MDS assessment. Reasons for not participating included: 13 veterans died prior to data collection, 18 veterans declined to participate, 18 family members or legal guardians of cognitively impaired veterans did not want the veteran to participate, and 14 veterans left the MFH program or were hospitalized at the time of data collection.

Family members and legal guardians who declined participation on behalf of a veteran reported that they felt the veteran was too frail to participate or that participating would be an added burden on the veteran. Based on the census of veterans residing in all MFHs nationally in November 2015 (N = 972), 9.5% of MFH veterans were included in this study.⁷This study was approved by the VA Central Institutional Review Board (CIRB #12–31), in addition to the local VA research and development review boards where MFH MDS assessments were collected.

Assessment Instrument and Variables

The MDS 3.0 assesses numerous aspects of clinical and functional status. Several resident-level characteristics from the MDS 3.0 were included in this study. The Cognitive Function Scale (CFS) was used to categorize cognitive function. The CFS is a categorical variable that is created from MDS 3.0 data. The CFS integrates self- and staff-reported data to classify individuals as cognitively intact, mildly impaired, moderately impaired, or severely impaired based on respondents’ Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) assessment or staff-reported cognitive function collected as part of the MDS 3.0.²⁴ We explored depression by calculating a mean summary severity score for all respondents from the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 item interview (PHQ-9).²⁵ PHQ-9 summary scores range from 0 to 27, with mean scores of ≤ 4 indicating no or minimal depression, and higher scores corresponding to more severe depression as scores increase. For respondents who were unable to complete the PHQ-9, we calculated mean PHQ Observational Version (PHQ-9-OV) scores.

We included 2 variables to characterize behaviors: wandering frequency and presence and frequency of aggressive behaviors. We summarized aggressive behaviors using the Aggressive and Reactive Behavior Scale, which characterizes whether a resident has none, mild, moderate, or severe behavioral symptoms based on the presence and frequency of physical and verbal behaviors and resistance to care.^26,27 We included items that described pain, number of falls since admission or prior assessment, degree of urinary and bowel continence (always continent vs not always continent) and mobility device use to describe respondents’ health conditions and functional status. To characterize pain, we used veteran’s self-reported frequency and intensity of pain experienced in the prior 5 days and classified the experienced pain as none, mild, moderate, or severe. Finally, demographic characteristics included age and gender.

To determine functional status, we included measures of needing help to perform activities of daily living (ADLs). The MDS allows us to understand functional status ranging from ADLs lost early in the trajectory of functional decline (ie, bathing, hygiene) to those lost in the middle (ie, walking, dressing, toileting, transferring) to those lost late in the trajectory of functional decline (ie, bed mobility and eating).^28,29 To assess MFH veterans’ independence in mobility, we considered the veteran’s ability to walk without supervision or assistance in the hallway outside of their room, ability to move between their room and hallway, and ability to move throughout the house. Mobility includes use of an assistive device such as a cane, walker, or wheelchair if the veteran can use it without assistance. We summarized dependency in ADLs, using a combined score of dependence in bed mobility, transfer, locomotion on unit, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene that ranges from 0 (independent) to 28 (completely dependent).³⁰ Additionally, we created 3-category variables to indicate the degree of dependence in performing ADLs (independent, supervision or assistance, and completely dependent).

Finally, we included diagnoses identified as active to explore differences in neurologic, mood, psychiatric, and chronic disease morbidity. In the MDS 3.0 assessment, an active diagnosis is defined as a diagnosis documented by a licensed independent practitioner in the prior 60 days that has affected the resident or their care in the prior 7 days.

Analysis

We conducted statistical analyses using Stata MP version 15.1 (StataCorp). We summarized demographic characteristics, cognitive function scores, depression scores, pain status, behavioral symptoms, incidence of falls, degree of continence, functional status, and comorbidities, using means and standard deviations for continuous variables and frequencies and proportions for categorical variables.

Results

Of the 92 MFH veterans in our sample, 85% were male and 83% were aged ≥ 65 years (Table 1). Veterans had an average length of stay of 927 days at the time of MDS assessment. More than half (55%) of MFH veterans had cognitive impairment (ranging from mild to severe). The mean (SD) depression score was 3.3 (3.9), indicating minimal depression. For veterans who could not complete the depression questionnaire, the mean (SD) staff-assessed depression score was 5.9 (5.5), suggesting mild depression. Overall, 22% of the sample had aggressive behaviors but only 7 were noted to be severe. Few residents had caregiver-reported wandering. Self-reported pain intensity indicated that 45% of the sample had mild, moderate, or severe pain. While more than half the cohort had complete bowel continence (53%), only 36% had complete urinary continence. Use of mobility devices was common, with 56% of residents using a wheelchair, 42% using a walker, and 14% using a cane. One-fourth of veterans had fallen at least once since admission to the MFH.

Of the 11 ADLs assessed, the percentage of MFH veterans requiring assistance with early and mid-loss ADLs ranged from 63% for transferring to 84% for bathing (Table 2). Even for the late-loss ADL of eating, 57% of the MFH cohort required assistance. Overall, MFH veterans had an average ADL dependency score of 11.

Discussion

In this study, we describe the characteristics of veterans receiving LTC in a sample of MFHs. This is the first study to assess veteran health and function across a group of MFHs. To help provide context for the description of MFH residents, we compared demographic characteristics, cognitive impairment, depression, pain, behaviors, functional status, and morbidity of veterans in the MFH program to long-stay residents in community nursing homes (eAppendix 1-3 available at doi:10.12788/fp.0102). A comparison with this reference population suggests that these MFH and nursing home cohorts are similar in terms of age, wandering behavior, incidence of falls, and prevalence of neurologic, psychiatric, and chronic diseases. Compared with nursing home residents, veterans in the MFH cohort had slightly higher mood symptom scores, were more likely to display aggressive behavior, and were more likely to report experiencing moderate and severe pain.

Additionally, MFH veterans displayed a lower level of cognitive impairment, fewer functional impairments, measured by the ADL dependency score, and were less likely to be bowel or bladder incontinent. Despite an overall lower ADL dependency score, a similar proportion of MFH veterans and nursing home residents were totally dependent in performing 7 of 11 ADLs and a higher proportion of MFH veterans were completely dependent for toileting (22% long-stay nursing home vs 31% MFH). The only ADLs for which there was a higher proportion of long-stay nursing home residents who were totally dependent compared with MFH residents were walking in room (54% long-stay nursing home vs 38% MFH), walking in the corridor (57% long-stay nursing home vs 33% MFH), and locomotion off the unit (36% long-stay nursing home vs 22% MFH).

While the rates of total ADL dependence among veterans in MFHs suggest that MFHs are providing care to a subset of veterans with high levels of functional impairment and care needs, MFHs are also providing care to veterans who are more independent in performing ADLs and who resemble low-care nursing home residents. A low-care nursing home resident is broadly defined as an one who does not need assistance performing late-loss ADLs (bed mobility, transferring, toileting, and eating) and who does not have the Resource Utilization Group classification of special rehab or clinically complex.^31,32 Due to their overall higher functional capacity, low-care residents, even those with chronic medical care needs, may be more appropriately cared for in less intensive care settings than in nursing homes. About 5% to 30% of long-stay nursing home residents can be classified as low care.^31,33-37 Additionally, a majority of newly admitted nursing home patients report a preference for or support community discharge rather than long-stay nursing home care, suggesting that many nursing home residents have the potential and desire to transition to a community-based setting.³³

Based on the prevalence of veterans in our sample who are similar to low-care nursing home residents and the national focus on shifting LTC to community-based settings, MFHs may be an ideal setting for both low-care nursing home residents and those seeking community-based alternatives to traditional, institutionalized LTC. Additionally, given that we observed greater behavioral and pain needs and similar rates of comorbidities in MFH veterans relative to long-stay nursing home residents, our results indicate that MFHs also have the capacity to care for veterans with higher care needs who desire community-based LTC.

Previous research identified barriers to program MFH growth that may contribute to referral of veterans with fewer ADL dependencies compared with long-stay nursing home residents. A key barrier to MFH referral is that nursing home referral requires selection of a home, whereas MFH referral involves matching veterans with appropriate caregivers, which requires time to align the veteran’s needs with the right caregiver in the right home.⁷ Given the rigors of finding a match, VA staff who refer veterans may preferentially refer veterans with greater ADL impairments to nursing homes, assuming that higher levels of care needs will complicate the matching process and reserve MFH referral for only the highest functioning candidates.¹⁹ However, the ADL data presented here indicate that many MFH residents with significant levels of ADL dependence are living in MFHs. Meeting the care needs of those who have higher ADL dependencies is possible because MFH coordinators and HBPC providers deliver individual, ongoing education to MFH caregivers about caring for MFH veterans and provide available resources needed to safely care for MFH veterans across the spectrum of ADL dependency.⁷

Veterans with higher levels of functional dependence may also be referred to nursing homes rather than to MFHs because of payment issues. Independent of the VA, veterans or their families negotiate a contract with their caregiver to pay out-of-pocket for MFH caregiving as well as room and board. Particularly for veterans who have military benefits to cover nursing home care costs, the out-of-pocket payment for veterans with high degrees of functional dependence increase as needs increase. These out-of-pocket payments may serve as a barrier to MFH enrollment. The proposed Long-Term Care Veterans Choice Act, which would allow the VA to pay for MFH care for eligible veterans may address this barrier.¹⁵

Another possible explanation for the higher rates of functional independence in the MFH cohort is that veterans with functional impairment are not being referred to MFHs. A previous study of the MFH program found that health care providers were often unaware of the program and as a result did not refer eligible veterans to this alternative LTC option.⁷ The changes proposed by the Long-Term Care Veterans Choice Act may result in an increase in demand in MFH care and thus increase awareness of the program among VA physicians.¹⁵

Limitations

There are several potential limitations in this study. First, there are limits to the generalizability of the MFH sample given that the sample of veterans was not randomly selected and that weights were not applied to account for nonresponse bias. Second, charting requirements in MFHs are less intensive compared with nursing home tracking. While the training for research nurses on how to conduct MDS assessments in MFHs was designed to simulate the process in nursing homes, MDS data were likely impacted by differences in charting practices. In addition, MFH caregivers may report certain items, such as aggressive behaviors, more often because they observe MFH veterans round-the-clock compared with NH caregivers who work in shifts and have a lower caregiver to resident ratio. The current data suggest differences in prevalence of behavioral symptoms.

Future studies should examine whether this reflects differences in the populations served or differences in how MFH caregivers track and manage behavioral symptoms. Third, this study was conducted at only MFH sites associated with 4 VAMCs, thus our findings may not be generalizable to veterans in other areas. Finally, there may be differences in the veterans who agreed to participate in the study compared with those who declined to participate. For example, it is possible that the eligible MFH veterans who declined to participate in this study were more functionally impaired than those who did participate. More than one-third (39%) of the family members of cognitively impaired MFH veterans who did not participate cited concerns about the veteran’s frailty as a primary reason for declining to participate. Consequently, the high level of functional status among veterans included in this study compared to nursing home residents may be in part a result of selection bias from more ADL-impaired veterans declining to participate in the study.

Conclusions

Although the MFH program has provided LTC nationally to veterans for nearly 2 decades, this study is the first to administer in-home MDS assessments to veterans in MFHs, allowing for a detailed description of cognitive, functional, and behavioral characteristics of MFH residents. In this study, we found that veterans currently receiving care in MFHs have a wide range of care needs. Our findings indicate that MFHs are caring for some veterans with high functional impairment as well as those who are completely independent in performing ADLs.

Moreover, these results are a preliminary attempt to assist VA health care providers in determining which veterans can be cared for in an MFH such that they can make informed referrals to this alternative LTC setting. To improve the generalizability of these findings, future studies should collect MDS 3.0 assessments longitudinally from a representative sample of veterans in MFHs. Further research is needed to explore how VA providers make the decision to refer a veteran to an MFH compared to a nursing home. Additionally, the percentage of veterans in this study who reported experiencing pain may indicate the need to identify innovative, integrated pain management programs for home settings.

Most adults in the United States have not been asked about their hearing by their primary care provider in the past 2 years, according to a national poll.

But asking a single question – “Do you think you have hearing loss?” – may be an efficient way to identify patients who should receive further evaluation, researchers said.

Only 20% of adults aged 50-80 years report that their primary care physician has asked about their hearing in the past 2 years, according to the National Poll on Healthy Aging, published online March 2. Among adults who rated their hearing as fair or poor, only 26% said they had been asked about their hearing.

Michael McKee, MD, MPH, a family medicine physician and health services researcher at Michigan Medicine, the University of Michigan’s academic medical center, and colleagues surveyed 2,074 adults aged 50-80 years in June 2020. They asked participants about the screening and testing of hearing that they had undergone. The researchers weighted the sample to reflect population figures from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Men were more likely than women to have been asked about their hearing (24% vs. 17%), and adults aged 65-80 years were more likely than younger adults to have been asked about their hearing (25% vs. 16%).

The survey also found that 23% of adults had undergone a hearing test by a health care professional; 62% felt that it was at least somewhat important to have their hearing tested at least once every 2 years.

Overall, 16% of adults rated their hearing as fair or poor. Approximately a third rated their hearing as good, and about half rated their hearing as excellent or very good. Fair or poor hearing was more commonly reported by men than women (20% vs. 12%) and by older adults than younger adults (19% vs. 14%).

In all, 6% used a hearing aid or cochlear implant. Of the adults who used these devices, 13% rated their hearing as fair or poor.

Those with worse physical or mental health were more likely to rate their hearing as fair or poor and were less likely to have undergone testing.

Although “screening for hearing loss is expected as part of the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit,” the data suggest that most adults aged 65-80 years have not been screened recently, the researchers say.

“One efficient way to increase hearing evaluations among older adults in primary care is to use a single-question screener,” Dr. McKee and coauthors wrote.

“The response to the question ‘Do you think you have hearing loss?’ has been shown to be highly predictive of true hearing loss ... Age-related hearing loss remains a neglected primary care and public health concern. Consistent use of screening tools and improved access to assistive devices that treat hearing loss can enhance the health and well-being of older adults,” they wrote.

Philip Zazove, MD, chair of the department of family medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and one of the authors of the report, noted in a news release that health insurance coverage varies widely for hearing screening by primary care providers, testing by audiologists, and hearing aids and cochlear implants.

Implementing the single-question screener is “easy to do,” Dr. Zazove said in an interview. “The major barrier is remembering, considering all the things primary care needs to do.” Electronic prompts may be an effective reminder.

If a patient answers yes, then clinicians should discuss referral for testing. Still, some patients may not be ready for further testing or treatment, possibly owing to vanity, misunderstandings, or cultural barriers, Dr. Zazove said. “Unfortunately, most physicians are not comfortable dealing with hearing loss. We get relatively little education on that in medical school and even residency,” he said.

“Hearing screening isn’t difficult,” and primary care providers can accomplish it “with one quick screening question – as the authors note,” said Jan Blustein, MD, PhD, professor of health policy and medicine at New York University. “I believe that some providers may be reluctant to screen or make a referral because they know that many people can’t afford hearing aids ... However, I also believe that many providers just don’t appreciate how disabling hearing loss is. And many didn’t receive training in this area in medical school. Training in disability gets very short shrift at most schools, in my experience. This needs to change.”

The survey does not address whether screening practices for hearing loss has changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, though Dr. Zazove suspects that screening has decreased as a result. Even if patients are screened, some may not present for audiology testing “because of fear of COVID or the audiologist not being open,” he said.

Hearing loss is associated with increased risk for hospitalization and readmission, dementia, and depression. “We believe, though studies are needed to verify, that detection and intervention for these patients can ameliorate the adverse health, social, and economic outcomes,” Dr. Zazove said.

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

Most adults in the United States have not been asked about their hearing by their primary care provider in the past 2 years, according to a national poll.

But asking a single question – “Do you think you have hearing loss?” – may be an efficient way to identify patients who should receive further evaluation, researchers said.

Only 20% of adults aged 50-80 years report that their primary care physician has asked about their hearing in the past 2 years, according to the National Poll on Healthy Aging, published online March 2. Among adults who rated their hearing as fair or poor, only 26% said they had been asked about their hearing.

Michael McKee, MD, MPH, a family medicine physician and health services researcher at Michigan Medicine, the University of Michigan’s academic medical center, and colleagues surveyed 2,074 adults aged 50-80 years in June 2020. They asked participants about the screening and testing of hearing that they had undergone. The researchers weighted the sample to reflect population figures from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Men were more likely than women to have been asked about their hearing (24% vs. 17%), and adults aged 65-80 years were more likely than younger adults to have been asked about their hearing (25% vs. 16%).

The survey also found that 23% of adults had undergone a hearing test by a health care professional; 62% felt that it was at least somewhat important to have their hearing tested at least once every 2 years.

Overall, 16% of adults rated their hearing as fair or poor. Approximately a third rated their hearing as good, and about half rated their hearing as excellent or very good. Fair or poor hearing was more commonly reported by men than women (20% vs. 12%) and by older adults than younger adults (19% vs. 14%).

In all, 6% used a hearing aid or cochlear implant. Of the adults who used these devices, 13% rated their hearing as fair or poor.

Those with worse physical or mental health were more likely to rate their hearing as fair or poor and were less likely to have undergone testing.

Although “screening for hearing loss is expected as part of the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit,” the data suggest that most adults aged 65-80 years have not been screened recently, the researchers say.

“One efficient way to increase hearing evaluations among older adults in primary care is to use a single-question screener,” Dr. McKee and coauthors wrote.

“The response to the question ‘Do you think you have hearing loss?’ has been shown to be highly predictive of true hearing loss ... Age-related hearing loss remains a neglected primary care and public health concern. Consistent use of screening tools and improved access to assistive devices that treat hearing loss can enhance the health and well-being of older adults,” they wrote.

Philip Zazove, MD, chair of the department of family medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and one of the authors of the report, noted in a news release that health insurance coverage varies widely for hearing screening by primary care providers, testing by audiologists, and hearing aids and cochlear implants.

Implementing the single-question screener is “easy to do,” Dr. Zazove said in an interview. “The major barrier is remembering, considering all the things primary care needs to do.” Electronic prompts may be an effective reminder.

If a patient answers yes, then clinicians should discuss referral for testing. Still, some patients may not be ready for further testing or treatment, possibly owing to vanity, misunderstandings, or cultural barriers, Dr. Zazove said. “Unfortunately, most physicians are not comfortable dealing with hearing loss. We get relatively little education on that in medical school and even residency,” he said.

“Hearing screening isn’t difficult,” and primary care providers can accomplish it “with one quick screening question – as the authors note,” said Jan Blustein, MD, PhD, professor of health policy and medicine at New York University. “I believe that some providers may be reluctant to screen or make a referral because they know that many people can’t afford hearing aids ... However, I also believe that many providers just don’t appreciate how disabling hearing loss is. And many didn’t receive training in this area in medical school. Training in disability gets very short shrift at most schools, in my experience. This needs to change.”

The survey does not address whether screening practices for hearing loss has changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, though Dr. Zazove suspects that screening has decreased as a result. Even if patients are screened, some may not present for audiology testing “because of fear of COVID or the audiologist not being open,” he said.

Hearing loss is associated with increased risk for hospitalization and readmission, dementia, and depression. “We believe, though studies are needed to verify, that detection and intervention for these patients can ameliorate the adverse health, social, and economic outcomes,” Dr. Zazove said.

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

Most adults in the United States have not been asked about their hearing by their primary care provider in the past 2 years, according to a national poll.

But asking a single question – “Do you think you have hearing loss?” – may be an efficient way to identify patients who should receive further evaluation, researchers said.

Only 20% of adults aged 50-80 years report that their primary care physician has asked about their hearing in the past 2 years, according to the National Poll on Healthy Aging, published online March 2. Among adults who rated their hearing as fair or poor, only 26% said they had been asked about their hearing.

Michael McKee, MD, MPH, a family medicine physician and health services researcher at Michigan Medicine, the University of Michigan’s academic medical center, and colleagues surveyed 2,074 adults aged 50-80 years in June 2020. They asked participants about the screening and testing of hearing that they had undergone. The researchers weighted the sample to reflect population figures from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Men were more likely than women to have been asked about their hearing (24% vs. 17%), and adults aged 65-80 years were more likely than younger adults to have been asked about their hearing (25% vs. 16%).

The survey also found that 23% of adults had undergone a hearing test by a health care professional; 62% felt that it was at least somewhat important to have their hearing tested at least once every 2 years.

Overall, 16% of adults rated their hearing as fair or poor. Approximately a third rated their hearing as good, and about half rated their hearing as excellent or very good. Fair or poor hearing was more commonly reported by men than women (20% vs. 12%) and by older adults than younger adults (19% vs. 14%).

In all, 6% used a hearing aid or cochlear implant. Of the adults who used these devices, 13% rated their hearing as fair or poor.

Those with worse physical or mental health were more likely to rate their hearing as fair or poor and were less likely to have undergone testing.

Although “screening for hearing loss is expected as part of the Medicare Annual Wellness Visit,” the data suggest that most adults aged 65-80 years have not been screened recently, the researchers say.

“One efficient way to increase hearing evaluations among older adults in primary care is to use a single-question screener,” Dr. McKee and coauthors wrote.

“The response to the question ‘Do you think you have hearing loss?’ has been shown to be highly predictive of true hearing loss ... Age-related hearing loss remains a neglected primary care and public health concern. Consistent use of screening tools and improved access to assistive devices that treat hearing loss can enhance the health and well-being of older adults,” they wrote.

Philip Zazove, MD, chair of the department of family medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, and one of the authors of the report, noted in a news release that health insurance coverage varies widely for hearing screening by primary care providers, testing by audiologists, and hearing aids and cochlear implants.

Implementing the single-question screener is “easy to do,” Dr. Zazove said in an interview. “The major barrier is remembering, considering all the things primary care needs to do.” Electronic prompts may be an effective reminder.

If a patient answers yes, then clinicians should discuss referral for testing. Still, some patients may not be ready for further testing or treatment, possibly owing to vanity, misunderstandings, or cultural barriers, Dr. Zazove said. “Unfortunately, most physicians are not comfortable dealing with hearing loss. We get relatively little education on that in medical school and even residency,” he said.

“Hearing screening isn’t difficult,” and primary care providers can accomplish it “with one quick screening question – as the authors note,” said Jan Blustein, MD, PhD, professor of health policy and medicine at New York University. “I believe that some providers may be reluctant to screen or make a referral because they know that many people can’t afford hearing aids ... However, I also believe that many providers just don’t appreciate how disabling hearing loss is. And many didn’t receive training in this area in medical school. Training in disability gets very short shrift at most schools, in my experience. This needs to change.”

The survey does not address whether screening practices for hearing loss has changed during the COVID-19 pandemic, though Dr. Zazove suspects that screening has decreased as a result. Even if patients are screened, some may not present for audiology testing “because of fear of COVID or the audiologist not being open,” he said.

Hearing loss is associated with increased risk for hospitalization and readmission, dementia, and depression. “We believe, though studies are needed to verify, that detection and intervention for these patients can ameliorate the adverse health, social, and economic outcomes,” Dr. Zazove said.

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

The capacity to mount humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccinations may be reduced among people who are heavier, older, and male, new findings suggest.

South_agency/Getty Images

The data pertain specifically to the mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, developed by BioNTech and Pfizer. The study was conducted by Italian researchers and was published Feb. 26 as a preprint.

The study involved 248 health care workers who each received two doses of the vaccine. Of the participants, 99.5% developed a humoral immune response after the second dose. Those responses varied by body mass index (BMI), age, and sex.

“The findings imply that female, lean, and young people have an increased capacity to mount humoral immune responses, compared to male, overweight, and older populations,” Raul Pellini, MD, professor at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, and colleagues said.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze Covid-19 vaccine response in correlation to BMI,” they noted.

“Although further studies are needed, this data may have important implications to the development of vaccination strategies for COVID-19, particularly in obese people,” they wrote. If the data are confirmed by larger studies, “giving obese people an extra dose of the vaccine or a higher dose could be options to be evaluated in this population.”
 

Results contrast with Pfizer trials of vaccine

The BMI finding seemingly contrasts with final data from the phase 3 clinical trial of the vaccine, which were reported in a supplement to an article published Dec. 31, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that study, vaccine efficacy did not differ by obesity status.

Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, professor of immunology at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and an investigator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that, although the current Italian study showed somewhat lower levels of antibodies in people with obesity, compared with people who did not have obesity, the phase 3 trial found no difference in symptomatic infection rates.

“These results indicate that even with a slightly lower level of antibody induced in obese people, that level was sufficient to protect against symptomatic infection,” Dr. Iwasaki said in an interview.

Indeed, Dr. Pellini and colleagues pointed out that responses to vaccines against influenza, hepatitis B, and rabies are also reduced in those with obesity, compared with lean individuals.

However, they said, it was especially important to study the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in people with obesity, because obesity is a major risk factor for morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.

“The constant state of low-grade inflammation, present in overweight people, can weaken some immune responses, including those launched by T cells, which can directly kill infected cells,” the authors noted.
 

Findings reported in British newspapers

The findings of the Italian study were widely covered in the lay press in the United Kingdom, with headlines such as “Pfizer Vaccine May Be Less Effective in People With Obesity, Says Study” and “Pfizer Vaccine: Overweight People Might Need Bigger Dose, Italian Study Says.” In tabloid newspapers, some headlines were slightly more stigmatizing.

The reports do stress that the Italian research was published as a preprint and has not been peer reviewed, or “is yet to be scrutinized by fellow scientists.”

Most make the point that there were only 26 people with obesity among the 248 persons in the study.

“We always knew that BMI was an enormous predictor of poor immune response to vaccines, so this paper is definitely interesting, although it is based on a rather small preliminary dataset,” Danny Altmann, PhD, a professor of immunology at Imperial College London, told the Guardian.

“It confirms that having a vaccinated population isn’t synonymous with having an immune population, especially in a country with high obesity, and emphasizes the vital need for long-term immune monitoring programs,” he added.
 

Antibody responses differ by BMI, age, and sex

In the Italian study, the participants – 158 women and 90 men – were assigned to receive a priming BNT162b2 vaccine dose with a booster at day 21. Blood and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at baseline and 7 days after the second vaccine dose.

After the second dose, 99.5% of participants developed a humoral immune response; one person did not respond. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

Titers of SARS-CoV-2–binding antibodies were greater in younger than in older participants. There were statistically significant differences between those aged 37 years and younger (453.5 AU/mL) and those aged 47-56 years (239.8 AU/mL; P = .005), those aged 37 years and younger versus those older than 56 years (453.5 vs 182.4 AU/mL; P < .0001), and those aged 37-47 years versus those older than 56 years (330.9 vs. 182.4 AU/mL; P = .01).

Antibody response was significantly greater for women than for men (338.5 vs. 212.6 AU/mL; P = .001).

Humoral responses were greater in persons of normal-weight BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2; 325.8 AU/mL) and those of underweight BMI (<18.5 kg/m2; 455.4 AU/mL), compared with persons with preobesity, defined as BMI of 25-29.9 (222.4 AU/mL), and those with obesity (BMI ≥30; 167.0 AU/mL; P < .0001). This association remained after adjustment for age (P = .003).

“Our data stresses the importance of close vaccination monitoring of obese people, considering the growing list of countries with obesity problems,” the researchers noted.

Hypertension was also associated with lower antibody titers (P = .006), but that lost statistical significance after matching for age (P = .22).

“We strongly believe that our results are extremely encouraging and useful for the scientific community,” Dr. Pellini and colleagues concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki is a cofounder of RIGImmune and is a member of its scientific advisory board.

This article was updated on 3/8/21.

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

The capacity to mount humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccinations may be reduced among people who are heavier, older, and male, new findings suggest.

South_agency/Getty Images

The data pertain specifically to the mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, developed by BioNTech and Pfizer. The study was conducted by Italian researchers and was published Feb. 26 as a preprint.

The study involved 248 health care workers who each received two doses of the vaccine. Of the participants, 99.5% developed a humoral immune response after the second dose. Those responses varied by body mass index (BMI), age, and sex.

“The findings imply that female, lean, and young people have an increased capacity to mount humoral immune responses, compared to male, overweight, and older populations,” Raul Pellini, MD, professor at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, and colleagues said.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze Covid-19 vaccine response in correlation to BMI,” they noted.

“Although further studies are needed, this data may have important implications to the development of vaccination strategies for COVID-19, particularly in obese people,” they wrote. If the data are confirmed by larger studies, “giving obese people an extra dose of the vaccine or a higher dose could be options to be evaluated in this population.”
 

Results contrast with Pfizer trials of vaccine

The BMI finding seemingly contrasts with final data from the phase 3 clinical trial of the vaccine, which were reported in a supplement to an article published Dec. 31, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that study, vaccine efficacy did not differ by obesity status.

Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, professor of immunology at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and an investigator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that, although the current Italian study showed somewhat lower levels of antibodies in people with obesity, compared with people who did not have obesity, the phase 3 trial found no difference in symptomatic infection rates.

“These results indicate that even with a slightly lower level of antibody induced in obese people, that level was sufficient to protect against symptomatic infection,” Dr. Iwasaki said in an interview.

Indeed, Dr. Pellini and colleagues pointed out that responses to vaccines against influenza, hepatitis B, and rabies are also reduced in those with obesity, compared with lean individuals.

However, they said, it was especially important to study the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in people with obesity, because obesity is a major risk factor for morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.

“The constant state of low-grade inflammation, present in overweight people, can weaken some immune responses, including those launched by T cells, which can directly kill infected cells,” the authors noted.
 

Findings reported in British newspapers

The findings of the Italian study were widely covered in the lay press in the United Kingdom, with headlines such as “Pfizer Vaccine May Be Less Effective in People With Obesity, Says Study” and “Pfizer Vaccine: Overweight People Might Need Bigger Dose, Italian Study Says.” In tabloid newspapers, some headlines were slightly more stigmatizing.

The reports do stress that the Italian research was published as a preprint and has not been peer reviewed, or “is yet to be scrutinized by fellow scientists.”

Most make the point that there were only 26 people with obesity among the 248 persons in the study.

“We always knew that BMI was an enormous predictor of poor immune response to vaccines, so this paper is definitely interesting, although it is based on a rather small preliminary dataset,” Danny Altmann, PhD, a professor of immunology at Imperial College London, told the Guardian.

“It confirms that having a vaccinated population isn’t synonymous with having an immune population, especially in a country with high obesity, and emphasizes the vital need for long-term immune monitoring programs,” he added.
 

Antibody responses differ by BMI, age, and sex

In the Italian study, the participants – 158 women and 90 men – were assigned to receive a priming BNT162b2 vaccine dose with a booster at day 21. Blood and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at baseline and 7 days after the second vaccine dose.

After the second dose, 99.5% of participants developed a humoral immune response; one person did not respond. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

Titers of SARS-CoV-2–binding antibodies were greater in younger than in older participants. There were statistically significant differences between those aged 37 years and younger (453.5 AU/mL) and those aged 47-56 years (239.8 AU/mL; P = .005), those aged 37 years and younger versus those older than 56 years (453.5 vs 182.4 AU/mL; P < .0001), and those aged 37-47 years versus those older than 56 years (330.9 vs. 182.4 AU/mL; P = .01).

Antibody response was significantly greater for women than for men (338.5 vs. 212.6 AU/mL; P = .001).

Humoral responses were greater in persons of normal-weight BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2; 325.8 AU/mL) and those of underweight BMI (<18.5 kg/m2; 455.4 AU/mL), compared with persons with preobesity, defined as BMI of 25-29.9 (222.4 AU/mL), and those with obesity (BMI ≥30; 167.0 AU/mL; P < .0001). This association remained after adjustment for age (P = .003).

“Our data stresses the importance of close vaccination monitoring of obese people, considering the growing list of countries with obesity problems,” the researchers noted.

Hypertension was also associated with lower antibody titers (P = .006), but that lost statistical significance after matching for age (P = .22).

“We strongly believe that our results are extremely encouraging and useful for the scientific community,” Dr. Pellini and colleagues concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki is a cofounder of RIGImmune and is a member of its scientific advisory board.

This article was updated on 3/8/21.

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

The capacity to mount humoral immune responses to COVID-19 vaccinations may be reduced among people who are heavier, older, and male, new findings suggest.

South_agency/Getty Images

The data pertain specifically to the mRNA vaccine, BNT162b2, developed by BioNTech and Pfizer. The study was conducted by Italian researchers and was published Feb. 26 as a preprint.

The study involved 248 health care workers who each received two doses of the vaccine. Of the participants, 99.5% developed a humoral immune response after the second dose. Those responses varied by body mass index (BMI), age, and sex.

“The findings imply that female, lean, and young people have an increased capacity to mount humoral immune responses, compared to male, overweight, and older populations,” Raul Pellini, MD, professor at the IRCCS Regina Elena National Cancer Institute, Rome, and colleagues said.

“To our knowledge, this study is the first to analyze Covid-19 vaccine response in correlation to BMI,” they noted.

“Although further studies are needed, this data may have important implications to the development of vaccination strategies for COVID-19, particularly in obese people,” they wrote. If the data are confirmed by larger studies, “giving obese people an extra dose of the vaccine or a higher dose could be options to be evaluated in this population.”
 

Results contrast with Pfizer trials of vaccine

The BMI finding seemingly contrasts with final data from the phase 3 clinical trial of the vaccine, which were reported in a supplement to an article published Dec. 31, 2020, in the New England Journal of Medicine. In that study, vaccine efficacy did not differ by obesity status.

Akiko Iwasaki, PhD, professor of immunology at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and an investigator at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., noted that, although the current Italian study showed somewhat lower levels of antibodies in people with obesity, compared with people who did not have obesity, the phase 3 trial found no difference in symptomatic infection rates.

“These results indicate that even with a slightly lower level of antibody induced in obese people, that level was sufficient to protect against symptomatic infection,” Dr. Iwasaki said in an interview.

Indeed, Dr. Pellini and colleagues pointed out that responses to vaccines against influenza, hepatitis B, and rabies are also reduced in those with obesity, compared with lean individuals.

However, they said, it was especially important to study the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in people with obesity, because obesity is a major risk factor for morbidity and mortality in COVID-19.

“The constant state of low-grade inflammation, present in overweight people, can weaken some immune responses, including those launched by T cells, which can directly kill infected cells,” the authors noted.
 

Findings reported in British newspapers

The findings of the Italian study were widely covered in the lay press in the United Kingdom, with headlines such as “Pfizer Vaccine May Be Less Effective in People With Obesity, Says Study” and “Pfizer Vaccine: Overweight People Might Need Bigger Dose, Italian Study Says.” In tabloid newspapers, some headlines were slightly more stigmatizing.

The reports do stress that the Italian research was published as a preprint and has not been peer reviewed, or “is yet to be scrutinized by fellow scientists.”

Most make the point that there were only 26 people with obesity among the 248 persons in the study.

“We always knew that BMI was an enormous predictor of poor immune response to vaccines, so this paper is definitely interesting, although it is based on a rather small preliminary dataset,” Danny Altmann, PhD, a professor of immunology at Imperial College London, told the Guardian.

“It confirms that having a vaccinated population isn’t synonymous with having an immune population, especially in a country with high obesity, and emphasizes the vital need for long-term immune monitoring programs,” he added.
 

Antibody responses differ by BMI, age, and sex

In the Italian study, the participants – 158 women and 90 men – were assigned to receive a priming BNT162b2 vaccine dose with a booster at day 21. Blood and nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at baseline and 7 days after the second vaccine dose.

After the second dose, 99.5% of participants developed a humoral immune response; one person did not respond. None tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.

Titers of SARS-CoV-2–binding antibodies were greater in younger than in older participants. There were statistically significant differences between those aged 37 years and younger (453.5 AU/mL) and those aged 47-56 years (239.8 AU/mL; P = .005), those aged 37 years and younger versus those older than 56 years (453.5 vs 182.4 AU/mL; P < .0001), and those aged 37-47 years versus those older than 56 years (330.9 vs. 182.4 AU/mL; P = .01).

Antibody response was significantly greater for women than for men (338.5 vs. 212.6 AU/mL; P = .001).

Humoral responses were greater in persons of normal-weight BMI (18.5-24.9 kg/m2; 325.8 AU/mL) and those of underweight BMI (<18.5 kg/m2; 455.4 AU/mL), compared with persons with preobesity, defined as BMI of 25-29.9 (222.4 AU/mL), and those with obesity (BMI ≥30; 167.0 AU/mL; P < .0001). This association remained after adjustment for age (P = .003).

“Our data stresses the importance of close vaccination monitoring of obese people, considering the growing list of countries with obesity problems,” the researchers noted.

Hypertension was also associated with lower antibody titers (P = .006), but that lost statistical significance after matching for age (P = .22).

“We strongly believe that our results are extremely encouraging and useful for the scientific community,” Dr. Pellini and colleagues concluded.

The authors disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Iwasaki is a cofounder of RIGImmune and is a member of its scientific advisory board.

This article was updated on 3/8/21.

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

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

Immunization of people 70 and older with the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine in Israel was associated with a precipitous drop in need for mechanical ventilation, new evidence reveals.

Compared with residents younger than 50 – so far vaccinated at lower rates than those of the higher-risk older people – Israelis 70 and older were 67% less likely to require mechanical ventilation for SARS-CoV-2 infection in February 2021 compared with October-December 2020.

“This study provides preliminary evidence at the population level for the reduction in risk for severe COVID-19, as manifested by need for mechanical ventilation, after vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote lead author Ehud Rinott, department of public health, faculty of health sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Beer-Sheva, Israel, and colleagues.

The study was published online Feb. 26, 2021, in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The progress of COVID-19 vaccination across Israel presents researchers with a unique opportunity to study effectiveness on a population level. In this study, 84% of residents 70 and older received two-dose vaccinations. In contrast, only 10% of people in Israel younger than 50 received the same vaccine coverage.

Along with senior author Yair Lewis, MD, PhD, and coauthor Ilan Youngster, MD, Mr. Rinott compared mechanical ventilation rates between Oct. 2, 2020, and Feb. 9, 2021. They found that the ratio of people 70 and older compared with those younger than 50 requiring mechanical ventilation changed from 5.8:1 to 1.9:1 between these periods. This translates to the 67% decrease.

The study offers a “real-world” look at vaccination effectiveness, adding to more controlled evidence from clinical trials. “Achieving high vaccination coverage through intensive vaccination campaigns has the potential to substantially reduce COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality,” the researchers wrote.

Israel started a national vaccination program on Dec. 20, 2020, targeting high-risk residents including people 60 and older, health care workers, and those with relevant comorbidities. At the same time, in addition to immunization, Israel has used strategies like stay-at-home orders, school closures, mask mandates, and more.

Potential limitations include a limited ability to account for the effect of the stay-at-home orders, spread of virus variants, and other concomitant factors; a potential for a delayed reporting of cases; and variability in mitigation measures by age group.

Dr. Youngster reported receipt of consulting fees from MyBiotix Ltd.

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

As humans live longer, a renewed focus on quality of life has made the prompt diagnosis and treatment of sleep-related disorders in older adults increasingly necessary.¹ Normative aging results in multiple changes in sleep architecture, including decreased total sleep time, decreased sleep efficiency, decreased slow-wave sleep (SWS), and increased awakenings after sleep onset.² Sleep disturbances in older adults are increasingly recognized as multifactorial health conditions requiring comprehensive modification of risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment.³

In this article, we discuss the effects of aging on sleep architecture and provide an overview of primary sleep disorders in older adults. We also summarize strategies for diagnosing and treating sleep disorders in these patients.

Elements of the sleep cycle

The human sleep cycle begins with light sleep (sleep stages 1 and 2), progresses into SWS (sleep stage 3), and culminates in rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. The first 3 stages are referred to as non-rapid eye movement sleep (NREM). Throughout the night, this coupling of NREM and REM cycles occurs 4 to 6 times, with each successive cycle decreasing in length until awakening.⁴

Two complex neurologic pathways intersect to regulate the timing of sleep and wakefulness on arousal. The first pathway, the circadian system, is located within the suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus and is highly dependent on external stimuli (light, food, etc.) to synchronize sleep/wake cycles. The suprachiasmatic nucleus regulates melatonin secretion by the pineal gland, which signals day-night transitions. The other pathway, the homeostatic system, modifies the amount of sleep needed daily. When multiple days of poor sleep occur, homeostatic sleep pressure (colloquially described as sleep debt) compensates by increasing the amount of sleep required in the following days. Together, the circadian and homeostatic systems work in conjunction to regulate sleep quantity to approximately one-third of the total sleep-wake cycle.^2,5

Age-related dysfunction of the regulatory sleep pathways leads to blunting of the ability to initiate and sustain high-quality sleep.⁶ Dysregulation of homeostatic sleep pressure decreases time spent in SWS, and failure of the circadian signaling apparatus results in delays in sleep/wake timing.² While research into the underlying neurobiology of sleep reveals that some of these changes are inherent to aging (Box^7-14), significant underdiagnosed pathologies may adversely affect sleep architecture, including polypharmacy, comorbid neuropathology (eg, synucleinopathies, tauopathies, etc.), and primary sleep disorders (insomnias, hypersomnias, and parasomnias).¹⁵

Box

Primary sleep disorders

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is one of the most common, yet frequently underdiagnosed reversible causes of sleep disturbances. It is characterized by partial or complete airway obstruction culminating in periods of involuntary cessation of respirations during sleep. The resultant fragmentation in sleep leads to significant downstream effects over time, including excessive daytime sleepiness and fatigue, poor occupational and social performance, and substantial cognitive impairment.³ While it is well known that OSA increases in prevalence throughout middle age, this relationship plateaus after age 60.¹⁶ An estimated 40% to 60% of Americans age >60 are affected by OSA.¹⁷ The hypoxemia and fragmented sleep caused by unrecognized OSA are associated with a significant decline in activities of daily living (ADL).¹⁸ Untreated OSA is strongly linked to the development and progression of several major health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, stroke, and depression.¹⁹ In studies of long-term care facility residents—many of whom may have comorbid cognitive decline—researchers found that unrecognized OSA often mimics the progressive cognitive decline seen in major neurocognitive disorders.²⁰ However, classic symptoms of OSA may not always be present in these patients, and their daytime sleepiness is often attributed to old age rather than to a pathological etiology.¹⁶ Screening for OSA and prompt initiation of the appropriate treatment may reverse OSA-induced cognitive changes in these patients.²¹

The primary presenting symptom of OSA is snoring, which is correlated with pauses in breathing. Risk factors include increased body mass index (BMI), thick neck circumference, male sex, and advanced age. In older adults, BMI has a lower impact on the Apnea-Hypopnea Index, an indicator of the number of pauses in breathing per hour, when compared with young and middle-age adults.¹⁶ Validated screening questionnaires for OSA include the STOP-Bang Questionnaire (Table 1²²), OSA50, Berlin Questionnaire, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale, each of which is used in different subpopulations. The current diagnostic standard for OSA is nocturnal polysomnography in a sleep laboratory, but recent advances in home sleep apnea testing have made it a viable, low-cost alternative for patients who do not have significant medical comorbidities.²³ Standard utilized cutoffs for diagnosis are ≥5 events/hour (hypopneas associated with at least 4% oxygen desaturations) in conjunction with clinical symptoms of OSA.²⁴

Continue to: Treatment

Treatment. First-line treatment for OSA is continuous positive airway pressure therapy, but adherence rates vary widely with patient education and regular follow-up.²⁵ Adjunctive therapy includes weight loss, oral appliances, and uvulopalatopharyngoplasty, a procedure in which tissue in the throat is remodeled or removed.

Central sleep apnea (CSA) is a pause in breathing without evidence of associated respiratory effort. In adults, the development of CSA is indicative of underlying lower brainstem dysfunction, due to intermittent failures in the pontomedullary centers responsible for regulation of rhythmic breathing.²⁶ This can occur as a consequence of multiple diseases, including congestive heart failure, stroke, renal failure, chronic medication use (opioids), and brain tumors.

The Sleep Heart Health Study—the largest community-based cohort study to date examining CSA—estimated that the prevalence of CSA among adults age >65 was 1.1% (compared with 0.4% in those age <65).²⁷ Subgroup analysis revealed that men had significantly higher rates of CSA compared with women (2.7% vs 0.2%, respectively).

CSA may present similarly to OSA (excessive daytime somnolence, insomnia, poor sleep quality, difficulties with attention and concentration). Symptoms may also mimic those of coexisting medical conditions in older adults, such as nocturnal angina or paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea.²⁷ Any older patient with daytime sleepiness and risk factors for CSA should be referred for in-laboratory nocturnal polysomnography, the gold standard diagnostic test. Unlike in OSA, ambulatory diagnostic measures (home sleep apnea testing) have not been validated for this disorder.²⁷

Treatment. The primary treatment for CSA is to address the underlying medical problem. Positive pressure ventilation has been attempted with mixed results. Supplemental oxygen and medical management (acetazolamide or theophylline) can help stimulate breathing. Newer studies have shown favorable outcomes with transvenous neurostimulation or adaptive servoventilation.^28-30

Continue to: Insomnia

Insomnia. For a primary diagnosis of insomnia, DSM-5 requires at least 3 nights per week of sleep disturbances that induce distress or functional impairment for at least 3 months.³¹ The International Classification of Disease, 10th Edition requires at least 1 month of symptoms (lying awake for a long time before falling asleep, sleeping for short periods, being awake for most of the night, feeling lack of sleep, waking up early) after ruling out other sleep disorders, substance use, or other medical conditions.⁴ Clinically, insomnia tends to present in older adults as a subjective complaint of dissatisfaction with the quality and/or quantity of their sleep. Insomnia has been consistently shown to be a significant risk factor for both the development or exacerbation of depression in older adults.^32-34

While the diagnosis of insomnia is mainly clinical via a thorough sleep and medication history, assistive ancillary testing can include wrist actigraphy and screening questionnaires (the Insomnia Severity Index and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index).⁴ Because population studies of older adults have found discrepancies between objective and subjective methods of assessing sleep quality, relying on the accuracy of self-reported symptoms alone is questionable.³⁵

Treatment. Given that drug elimination half-life increases with age, and the risks of adverse effects are increased in older adults, the preferred treatment modalities for insomnia are nonpharmacologic.⁴ Sleep hygiene education (Table 2) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia are often the first-line therapies.^4,36,37 It is crucial to manage comorbidities such as heart disease and obesity, as well as sources of discomfort from conditions such as arthritic pain.^38,39 If nonpharmacologic therapies are not effective, pharmacologic options can be considered.⁴ Before prescribing sleep medications, it may be more fruitful to treat underlying psychiatric disorders such as depression and anxiety with antidepressants.⁴ Although benzodiazepines are helpful for their sedative effects, they are not recommended for older adults because of an increased risk of falls, rebound insomnia, potential tolerance, and associated cognitive impairment.⁴⁰ Benzodiazepine receptor agonists (eg, zolpidem, eszopiclone, zaleplon) were initially developed as a first-line treatment for insomnia to replace the reliance on benzodiazepines, but these medications have a “black-box” warning of a serious risk of complex sleep behaviors, including life-threatening parasomnias.⁴¹ As a result, guidelines suggest a shorter duration of treatment with a benzodiazepine receptor agonist may still provide benefit while limiting the risk of adverse effects.⁴²

Doxepin is the only antidepressant FDA-approved for insomnia; it improves sleep latency (time taken to initiate sleep after lying down), duration, and quality in adults age >65.⁴³ Melatonin receptor agonists such as ramelteon and melatonin have shown positive results in older patients with insomnia. In clinical trials of patients age ≥65, ramelteon, which is FDA-approved for insomnia, produced no rebound insomnia, withdrawal effects, memory impairment, or gait instability.^44-46 Suvorexant, an orexin receptor antagonist, decreases sleep latency and increases total sleep time equally in both young and older adults.^47-49Table 3^40-51 provides a list of medications used to treat insomnia (including off-label agents) and their common adverse effects in older adults.

Parasomnias are undesirable behaviors that occur during sleep, commonly associated with the sleep-wake transition period. These behaviors can occur during REM sleep (nightmare disorder, sleep paralysis, REM sleep behavior disorder) or NREM sleep (somnambulism [sleepwalking], confusional arousals, sleep terrors). According to a cross-sectional Norwegian study of parasomnias, the estimated lifetime prevalence of sleep walking is 22.4%; sleep talking, 66.8%; confusional arousal, 18.5%; and sleep terror, 10.4%.⁵²

Continue to: When evaluating a patient...

When evaluating a patient with parasomnias, it is important to review their drug and substance use as well as coexisting medical conditions. Drugs and substances that can affect sleep include prescription medications (second-generation antidepressants, stimulants, dopamine agonists), excessive caffeine, alcohol, certain foods (coffee, chocolate milk, black tea, caffeinated soft drinks), environmental exposures (smoking, pesticides), and recreational drugs (amphetamines).^53-56 Certain medical conditions are correlated with specific parasomnias (eg, sleep paralysis and narcolepsy, REM sleep behavior disorder and Parkinson’s disease [PD], etc.).⁵⁴ Diagnosis of parasomnias is mainly clinical but supporting evidence can be obtained through in-lab polysomnography.

Treatment. For parasomnias, treatment is primarily supportive and includes creating a safe sleeping environment to reduce the risk of self-harm. Recommendations include sleeping in a room on the ground floor, minimizing furniture in the bedroom, padding any bedside furniture, child-proofing doorknobs, and locking up weapons and other dangerous household items.⁵⁴

REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD). This disorder is characterized by a loss of the typical REM sleep-associated atonia and the presence of motor activity during dreaming (dream-enacted behaviors). While the estimated incidence of RBD in the general adult population is approximately 0.5%, it increases to 7.7% among those age >60.⁵⁷ RBD occurs most commonly in the setting of the alpha-synucleinopathies (PD, Lewy body dementia, multisystem atrophy), but can also be found in patients with cerebral ischemia, demyelinating disorders, or alcohol misuse, or can be medication-induced (primarily antidepressants and antipsychotics).⁵⁸ In patients with PD, the presence of RBD is associated with a more impaired cognitive profile, suggestive of widespread neurodegeneration.⁵⁹ Recent studies revealed that RBD may also be a prodromal state of neurodegenerative diseases such as PD, which should prompt close monitoring and long-term follow up.⁶⁰ Similar to other parasomnias, the diagnosis of RBD is primarily clinical, but polysomnography plays an important role in demonstrating loss of REM-related atonia.⁵⁴

Treatment. Clonazepam and melatonin have been shown to be effective in treating the symptoms of RBD.⁵⁴

Depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances

Major depressive disorder (MDD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) affect sleep in patients of all ages, but are underreported in older adults. According to national epidemiologic surveys, the estimated prevalence of MDD and GAD among older adults is 13% and 11.4%, respectively.^61,62 Rates as high as 42% and 39% have been reported in meta-regression analyses among patients with Alzheimer’s dementia.⁶³

Continue to: Depression and anxiety

Depression and anxiety may have additive effects and manifest as poor sleep satisfaction, increased sleep latency, insomnia, and daytime sleepiness.⁶⁴ However, they may also have independent effects. Studies showed that patients with depression alone reported overall poor sleep satisfaction, whereas patients with anxiety alone reported problems with sleep latency, daytime drowsiness, and waking up at night in addition to their overall poor sleep satisfaction.^65-67 Both depression and anxiety are risk factors for developing cognitive decline, and may be an early sign/prodrome of neurodegenerative diseases (dementias).⁶⁸ The bidirectional relationship between depression/anxiety and sleep is complex and needs further investigation.

Treatment. Pharmacologic treatments for patients with depression/anxiety and sleep disturbances include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, and other serotonin receptor agonists.^69-72 Nonpharmacologic treatments include CBT for both depression and anxiety, and problem-solving therapy for patients with mild cognitive impairment and depression.^73,74 For severe depression and/or anxiety, electroconvulsive therapy is effective.⁷⁵

Bottom Line

Sleep disorders in older adults are common but often underdiagnosed. Timely recognition of obstructive sleep apnea, central sleep apnea, insomnia, parasomnias, and other sleep disturbances can facilitate effective treatment and greatly improve older adults’ quality of life.

Related Resources

• American Academy of Sleep Medicine. International Classification of Sleep Disorders—Third Edition. https://aasm.org
• SleepFoundation.org. Sleep hygiene. https://www.sleepfoundation.org/articles/sleep-hygiene

Drug Brand Names

Acetazolamide • Diamox
Clonazepam • Klonopin
Doxepin • Silenor
Eszopiclone • Lunesta
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Pramipexole • Mirapex
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Ramelteon • Rozerem
Suvorexant • Belsomra
Temazepam • Restoril
Theophylline • Elixophyllin
Tiagabine • Gabitril
Trazadone • Desyrel
Triazolam • Halcion
Zaleplon • Sonata
Zolpidem • Ambien

As humans live longer, a renewed focus on quality of life has made the prompt diagnosis and treatment of sleep-related disorders in older adults increasingly necessary.¹ Normative aging results in multiple changes in sleep architecture, including decreased total sleep time, decreased sleep efficiency, decreased slow-wave sleep (SWS), and increased awakenings after sleep onset.² Sleep disturbances in older adults are increasingly recognized as multifactorial health conditions requiring comprehensive modification of risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment.³

In this article, we discuss the effects of aging on sleep architecture and provide an overview of primary sleep disorders in older adults. We also summarize strategies for diagnosing and treating sleep disorders in these patients.

Elements of the sleep cycle

The human sleep cycle begins with light sleep (sleep stages 1 and 2), progresses into SWS (sleep stage 3), and culminates in rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. The first 3 stages are referred to as non-rapid eye movement sleep (NREM). Throughout the night, this coupling of NREM and REM cycles occurs 4 to 6 times, with each successive cycle decreasing in length until awakening.⁴

Two complex neurologic pathways intersect to regulate the timing of sleep and wakefulness on arousal. The first pathway, the circadian system, is located within the suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus and is highly dependent on external stimuli (light, food, etc.) to synchronize sleep/wake cycles. The suprachiasmatic nucleus regulates melatonin secretion by the pineal gland, which signals day-night transitions. The other pathway, the homeostatic system, modifies the amount of sleep needed daily. When multiple days of poor sleep occur, homeostatic sleep pressure (colloquially described as sleep debt) compensates by increasing the amount of sleep required in the following days. Together, the circadian and homeostatic systems work in conjunction to regulate sleep quantity to approximately one-third of the total sleep-wake cycle.^2,5

Age-related dysfunction of the regulatory sleep pathways leads to blunting of the ability to initiate and sustain high-quality sleep.⁶ Dysregulation of homeostatic sleep pressure decreases time spent in SWS, and failure of the circadian signaling apparatus results in delays in sleep/wake timing.² While research into the underlying neurobiology of sleep reveals that some of these changes are inherent to aging (Box^7-14), significant underdiagnosed pathologies may adversely affect sleep architecture, including polypharmacy, comorbid neuropathology (eg, synucleinopathies, tauopathies, etc.), and primary sleep disorders (insomnias, hypersomnias, and parasomnias).¹⁵

Box

Primary sleep disorders

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is one of the most common, yet frequently underdiagnosed reversible causes of sleep disturbances. It is characterized by partial or complete airway obstruction culminating in periods of involuntary cessation of respirations during sleep. The resultant fragmentation in sleep leads to significant downstream effects over time, including excessive daytime sleepiness and fatigue, poor occupational and social performance, and substantial cognitive impairment.³ While it is well known that OSA increases in prevalence throughout middle age, this relationship plateaus after age 60.¹⁶ An estimated 40% to 60% of Americans age >60 are affected by OSA.¹⁷ The hypoxemia and fragmented sleep caused by unrecognized OSA are associated with a significant decline in activities of daily living (ADL).¹⁸ Untreated OSA is strongly linked to the development and progression of several major health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, stroke, and depression.¹⁹ In studies of long-term care facility residents—many of whom may have comorbid cognitive decline—researchers found that unrecognized OSA often mimics the progressive cognitive decline seen in major neurocognitive disorders.²⁰ However, classic symptoms of OSA may not always be present in these patients, and their daytime sleepiness is often attributed to old age rather than to a pathological etiology.¹⁶ Screening for OSA and prompt initiation of the appropriate treatment may reverse OSA-induced cognitive changes in these patients.²¹

The primary presenting symptom of OSA is snoring, which is correlated with pauses in breathing. Risk factors include increased body mass index (BMI), thick neck circumference, male sex, and advanced age. In older adults, BMI has a lower impact on the Apnea-Hypopnea Index, an indicator of the number of pauses in breathing per hour, when compared with young and middle-age adults.¹⁶ Validated screening questionnaires for OSA include the STOP-Bang Questionnaire (Table 1²²), OSA50, Berlin Questionnaire, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale, each of which is used in different subpopulations. The current diagnostic standard for OSA is nocturnal polysomnography in a sleep laboratory, but recent advances in home sleep apnea testing have made it a viable, low-cost alternative for patients who do not have significant medical comorbidities.²³ Standard utilized cutoffs for diagnosis are ≥5 events/hour (hypopneas associated with at least 4% oxygen desaturations) in conjunction with clinical symptoms of OSA.²⁴

Continue to: Treatment

Treatment. First-line treatment for OSA is continuous positive airway pressure therapy, but adherence rates vary widely with patient education and regular follow-up.²⁵ Adjunctive therapy includes weight loss, oral appliances, and uvulopalatopharyngoplasty, a procedure in which tissue in the throat is remodeled or removed.

Central sleep apnea (CSA) is a pause in breathing without evidence of associated respiratory effort. In adults, the development of CSA is indicative of underlying lower brainstem dysfunction, due to intermittent failures in the pontomedullary centers responsible for regulation of rhythmic breathing.²⁶ This can occur as a consequence of multiple diseases, including congestive heart failure, stroke, renal failure, chronic medication use (opioids), and brain tumors.

The Sleep Heart Health Study—the largest community-based cohort study to date examining CSA—estimated that the prevalence of CSA among adults age >65 was 1.1% (compared with 0.4% in those age <65).²⁷ Subgroup analysis revealed that men had significantly higher rates of CSA compared with women (2.7% vs 0.2%, respectively).

CSA may present similarly to OSA (excessive daytime somnolence, insomnia, poor sleep quality, difficulties with attention and concentration). Symptoms may also mimic those of coexisting medical conditions in older adults, such as nocturnal angina or paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea.²⁷ Any older patient with daytime sleepiness and risk factors for CSA should be referred for in-laboratory nocturnal polysomnography, the gold standard diagnostic test. Unlike in OSA, ambulatory diagnostic measures (home sleep apnea testing) have not been validated for this disorder.²⁷

Treatment. The primary treatment for CSA is to address the underlying medical problem. Positive pressure ventilation has been attempted with mixed results. Supplemental oxygen and medical management (acetazolamide or theophylline) can help stimulate breathing. Newer studies have shown favorable outcomes with transvenous neurostimulation or adaptive servoventilation.^28-30

Continue to: Insomnia

Insomnia. For a primary diagnosis of insomnia, DSM-5 requires at least 3 nights per week of sleep disturbances that induce distress or functional impairment for at least 3 months.³¹ The International Classification of Disease, 10th Edition requires at least 1 month of symptoms (lying awake for a long time before falling asleep, sleeping for short periods, being awake for most of the night, feeling lack of sleep, waking up early) after ruling out other sleep disorders, substance use, or other medical conditions.⁴ Clinically, insomnia tends to present in older adults as a subjective complaint of dissatisfaction with the quality and/or quantity of their sleep. Insomnia has been consistently shown to be a significant risk factor for both the development or exacerbation of depression in older adults.^32-34

While the diagnosis of insomnia is mainly clinical via a thorough sleep and medication history, assistive ancillary testing can include wrist actigraphy and screening questionnaires (the Insomnia Severity Index and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index).⁴ Because population studies of older adults have found discrepancies between objective and subjective methods of assessing sleep quality, relying on the accuracy of self-reported symptoms alone is questionable.³⁵

Treatment. Given that drug elimination half-life increases with age, and the risks of adverse effects are increased in older adults, the preferred treatment modalities for insomnia are nonpharmacologic.⁴ Sleep hygiene education (Table 2) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia are often the first-line therapies.^4,36,37 It is crucial to manage comorbidities such as heart disease and obesity, as well as sources of discomfort from conditions such as arthritic pain.^38,39 If nonpharmacologic therapies are not effective, pharmacologic options can be considered.⁴ Before prescribing sleep medications, it may be more fruitful to treat underlying psychiatric disorders such as depression and anxiety with antidepressants.⁴ Although benzodiazepines are helpful for their sedative effects, they are not recommended for older adults because of an increased risk of falls, rebound insomnia, potential tolerance, and associated cognitive impairment.⁴⁰ Benzodiazepine receptor agonists (eg, zolpidem, eszopiclone, zaleplon) were initially developed as a first-line treatment for insomnia to replace the reliance on benzodiazepines, but these medications have a “black-box” warning of a serious risk of complex sleep behaviors, including life-threatening parasomnias.⁴¹ As a result, guidelines suggest a shorter duration of treatment with a benzodiazepine receptor agonist may still provide benefit while limiting the risk of adverse effects.⁴²

Doxepin is the only antidepressant FDA-approved for insomnia; it improves sleep latency (time taken to initiate sleep after lying down), duration, and quality in adults age >65.⁴³ Melatonin receptor agonists such as ramelteon and melatonin have shown positive results in older patients with insomnia. In clinical trials of patients age ≥65, ramelteon, which is FDA-approved for insomnia, produced no rebound insomnia, withdrawal effects, memory impairment, or gait instability.^44-46 Suvorexant, an orexin receptor antagonist, decreases sleep latency and increases total sleep time equally in both young and older adults.^47-49Table 3^40-51 provides a list of medications used to treat insomnia (including off-label agents) and their common adverse effects in older adults.

Parasomnias are undesirable behaviors that occur during sleep, commonly associated with the sleep-wake transition period. These behaviors can occur during REM sleep (nightmare disorder, sleep paralysis, REM sleep behavior disorder) or NREM sleep (somnambulism [sleepwalking], confusional arousals, sleep terrors). According to a cross-sectional Norwegian study of parasomnias, the estimated lifetime prevalence of sleep walking is 22.4%; sleep talking, 66.8%; confusional arousal, 18.5%; and sleep terror, 10.4%.⁵²

Continue to: When evaluating a patient...

When evaluating a patient with parasomnias, it is important to review their drug and substance use as well as coexisting medical conditions. Drugs and substances that can affect sleep include prescription medications (second-generation antidepressants, stimulants, dopamine agonists), excessive caffeine, alcohol, certain foods (coffee, chocolate milk, black tea, caffeinated soft drinks), environmental exposures (smoking, pesticides), and recreational drugs (amphetamines).^53-56 Certain medical conditions are correlated with specific parasomnias (eg, sleep paralysis and narcolepsy, REM sleep behavior disorder and Parkinson’s disease [PD], etc.).⁵⁴ Diagnosis of parasomnias is mainly clinical but supporting evidence can be obtained through in-lab polysomnography.

Treatment. For parasomnias, treatment is primarily supportive and includes creating a safe sleeping environment to reduce the risk of self-harm. Recommendations include sleeping in a room on the ground floor, minimizing furniture in the bedroom, padding any bedside furniture, child-proofing doorknobs, and locking up weapons and other dangerous household items.⁵⁴

REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD). This disorder is characterized by a loss of the typical REM sleep-associated atonia and the presence of motor activity during dreaming (dream-enacted behaviors). While the estimated incidence of RBD in the general adult population is approximately 0.5%, it increases to 7.7% among those age >60.⁵⁷ RBD occurs most commonly in the setting of the alpha-synucleinopathies (PD, Lewy body dementia, multisystem atrophy), but can also be found in patients with cerebral ischemia, demyelinating disorders, or alcohol misuse, or can be medication-induced (primarily antidepressants and antipsychotics).⁵⁸ In patients with PD, the presence of RBD is associated with a more impaired cognitive profile, suggestive of widespread neurodegeneration.⁵⁹ Recent studies revealed that RBD may also be a prodromal state of neurodegenerative diseases such as PD, which should prompt close monitoring and long-term follow up.⁶⁰ Similar to other parasomnias, the diagnosis of RBD is primarily clinical, but polysomnography plays an important role in demonstrating loss of REM-related atonia.⁵⁴

Treatment. Clonazepam and melatonin have been shown to be effective in treating the symptoms of RBD.⁵⁴

Depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances

Major depressive disorder (MDD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) affect sleep in patients of all ages, but are underreported in older adults. According to national epidemiologic surveys, the estimated prevalence of MDD and GAD among older adults is 13% and 11.4%, respectively.^61,62 Rates as high as 42% and 39% have been reported in meta-regression analyses among patients with Alzheimer’s dementia.⁶³

Continue to: Depression and anxiety

Depression and anxiety may have additive effects and manifest as poor sleep satisfaction, increased sleep latency, insomnia, and daytime sleepiness.⁶⁴ However, they may also have independent effects. Studies showed that patients with depression alone reported overall poor sleep satisfaction, whereas patients with anxiety alone reported problems with sleep latency, daytime drowsiness, and waking up at night in addition to their overall poor sleep satisfaction.^65-67 Both depression and anxiety are risk factors for developing cognitive decline, and may be an early sign/prodrome of neurodegenerative diseases (dementias).⁶⁸ The bidirectional relationship between depression/anxiety and sleep is complex and needs further investigation.

Treatment. Pharmacologic treatments for patients with depression/anxiety and sleep disturbances include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, and other serotonin receptor agonists.^69-72 Nonpharmacologic treatments include CBT for both depression and anxiety, and problem-solving therapy for patients with mild cognitive impairment and depression.^73,74 For severe depression and/or anxiety, electroconvulsive therapy is effective.⁷⁵

Bottom Line

Sleep disorders in older adults are common but often underdiagnosed. Timely recognition of obstructive sleep apnea, central sleep apnea, insomnia, parasomnias, and other sleep disturbances can facilitate effective treatment and greatly improve older adults’ quality of life.

Related Resources

• American Academy of Sleep Medicine. International Classification of Sleep Disorders—Third Edition. https://aasm.org
• SleepFoundation.org. Sleep hygiene. https://www.sleepfoundation.org/articles/sleep-hygiene

Drug Brand Names

Acetazolamide • Diamox
Clonazepam • Klonopin
Doxepin • Silenor
Eszopiclone • Lunesta
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Pramipexole • Mirapex
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Ramelteon • Rozerem
Suvorexant • Belsomra
Temazepam • Restoril
Theophylline • Elixophyllin
Tiagabine • Gabitril
Trazadone • Desyrel
Triazolam • Halcion
Zaleplon • Sonata
Zolpidem • Ambien

As humans live longer, a renewed focus on quality of life has made the prompt diagnosis and treatment of sleep-related disorders in older adults increasingly necessary.¹ Normative aging results in multiple changes in sleep architecture, including decreased total sleep time, decreased sleep efficiency, decreased slow-wave sleep (SWS), and increased awakenings after sleep onset.² Sleep disturbances in older adults are increasingly recognized as multifactorial health conditions requiring comprehensive modification of risk factors, diagnosis, and treatment.³

In this article, we discuss the effects of aging on sleep architecture and provide an overview of primary sleep disorders in older adults. We also summarize strategies for diagnosing and treating sleep disorders in these patients.

Elements of the sleep cycle

The human sleep cycle begins with light sleep (sleep stages 1 and 2), progresses into SWS (sleep stage 3), and culminates in rapid eye movement (REM) sleep. The first 3 stages are referred to as non-rapid eye movement sleep (NREM). Throughout the night, this coupling of NREM and REM cycles occurs 4 to 6 times, with each successive cycle decreasing in length until awakening.⁴

Two complex neurologic pathways intersect to regulate the timing of sleep and wakefulness on arousal. The first pathway, the circadian system, is located within the suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus and is highly dependent on external stimuli (light, food, etc.) to synchronize sleep/wake cycles. The suprachiasmatic nucleus regulates melatonin secretion by the pineal gland, which signals day-night transitions. The other pathway, the homeostatic system, modifies the amount of sleep needed daily. When multiple days of poor sleep occur, homeostatic sleep pressure (colloquially described as sleep debt) compensates by increasing the amount of sleep required in the following days. Together, the circadian and homeostatic systems work in conjunction to regulate sleep quantity to approximately one-third of the total sleep-wake cycle.^2,5

Age-related dysfunction of the regulatory sleep pathways leads to blunting of the ability to initiate and sustain high-quality sleep.⁶ Dysregulation of homeostatic sleep pressure decreases time spent in SWS, and failure of the circadian signaling apparatus results in delays in sleep/wake timing.² While research into the underlying neurobiology of sleep reveals that some of these changes are inherent to aging (Box^7-14), significant underdiagnosed pathologies may adversely affect sleep architecture, including polypharmacy, comorbid neuropathology (eg, synucleinopathies, tauopathies, etc.), and primary sleep disorders (insomnias, hypersomnias, and parasomnias).¹⁵

Box

Primary sleep disorders

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is one of the most common, yet frequently underdiagnosed reversible causes of sleep disturbances. It is characterized by partial or complete airway obstruction culminating in periods of involuntary cessation of respirations during sleep. The resultant fragmentation in sleep leads to significant downstream effects over time, including excessive daytime sleepiness and fatigue, poor occupational and social performance, and substantial cognitive impairment.³ While it is well known that OSA increases in prevalence throughout middle age, this relationship plateaus after age 60.¹⁶ An estimated 40% to 60% of Americans age >60 are affected by OSA.¹⁷ The hypoxemia and fragmented sleep caused by unrecognized OSA are associated with a significant decline in activities of daily living (ADL).¹⁸ Untreated OSA is strongly linked to the development and progression of several major health conditions, including cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, stroke, and depression.¹⁹ In studies of long-term care facility residents—many of whom may have comorbid cognitive decline—researchers found that unrecognized OSA often mimics the progressive cognitive decline seen in major neurocognitive disorders.²⁰ However, classic symptoms of OSA may not always be present in these patients, and their daytime sleepiness is often attributed to old age rather than to a pathological etiology.¹⁶ Screening for OSA and prompt initiation of the appropriate treatment may reverse OSA-induced cognitive changes in these patients.²¹

The primary presenting symptom of OSA is snoring, which is correlated with pauses in breathing. Risk factors include increased body mass index (BMI), thick neck circumference, male sex, and advanced age. In older adults, BMI has a lower impact on the Apnea-Hypopnea Index, an indicator of the number of pauses in breathing per hour, when compared with young and middle-age adults.¹⁶ Validated screening questionnaires for OSA include the STOP-Bang Questionnaire (Table 1²²), OSA50, Berlin Questionnaire, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale, each of which is used in different subpopulations. The current diagnostic standard for OSA is nocturnal polysomnography in a sleep laboratory, but recent advances in home sleep apnea testing have made it a viable, low-cost alternative for patients who do not have significant medical comorbidities.²³ Standard utilized cutoffs for diagnosis are ≥5 events/hour (hypopneas associated with at least 4% oxygen desaturations) in conjunction with clinical symptoms of OSA.²⁴

Continue to: Treatment

Treatment. First-line treatment for OSA is continuous positive airway pressure therapy, but adherence rates vary widely with patient education and regular follow-up.²⁵ Adjunctive therapy includes weight loss, oral appliances, and uvulopalatopharyngoplasty, a procedure in which tissue in the throat is remodeled or removed.

Central sleep apnea (CSA) is a pause in breathing without evidence of associated respiratory effort. In adults, the development of CSA is indicative of underlying lower brainstem dysfunction, due to intermittent failures in the pontomedullary centers responsible for regulation of rhythmic breathing.²⁶ This can occur as a consequence of multiple diseases, including congestive heart failure, stroke, renal failure, chronic medication use (opioids), and brain tumors.

The Sleep Heart Health Study—the largest community-based cohort study to date examining CSA—estimated that the prevalence of CSA among adults age >65 was 1.1% (compared with 0.4% in those age <65).²⁷ Subgroup analysis revealed that men had significantly higher rates of CSA compared with women (2.7% vs 0.2%, respectively).

CSA may present similarly to OSA (excessive daytime somnolence, insomnia, poor sleep quality, difficulties with attention and concentration). Symptoms may also mimic those of coexisting medical conditions in older adults, such as nocturnal angina or paroxysmal nocturnal dyspnea.²⁷ Any older patient with daytime sleepiness and risk factors for CSA should be referred for in-laboratory nocturnal polysomnography, the gold standard diagnostic test. Unlike in OSA, ambulatory diagnostic measures (home sleep apnea testing) have not been validated for this disorder.²⁷

Treatment. The primary treatment for CSA is to address the underlying medical problem. Positive pressure ventilation has been attempted with mixed results. Supplemental oxygen and medical management (acetazolamide or theophylline) can help stimulate breathing. Newer studies have shown favorable outcomes with transvenous neurostimulation or adaptive servoventilation.^28-30

Continue to: Insomnia

Insomnia. For a primary diagnosis of insomnia, DSM-5 requires at least 3 nights per week of sleep disturbances that induce distress or functional impairment for at least 3 months.³¹ The International Classification of Disease, 10th Edition requires at least 1 month of symptoms (lying awake for a long time before falling asleep, sleeping for short periods, being awake for most of the night, feeling lack of sleep, waking up early) after ruling out other sleep disorders, substance use, or other medical conditions.⁴ Clinically, insomnia tends to present in older adults as a subjective complaint of dissatisfaction with the quality and/or quantity of their sleep. Insomnia has been consistently shown to be a significant risk factor for both the development or exacerbation of depression in older adults.^32-34

While the diagnosis of insomnia is mainly clinical via a thorough sleep and medication history, assistive ancillary testing can include wrist actigraphy and screening questionnaires (the Insomnia Severity Index and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index).⁴ Because population studies of older adults have found discrepancies between objective and subjective methods of assessing sleep quality, relying on the accuracy of self-reported symptoms alone is questionable.³⁵

Treatment. Given that drug elimination half-life increases with age, and the risks of adverse effects are increased in older adults, the preferred treatment modalities for insomnia are nonpharmacologic.⁴ Sleep hygiene education (Table 2) and cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) for insomnia are often the first-line therapies.^4,36,37 It is crucial to manage comorbidities such as heart disease and obesity, as well as sources of discomfort from conditions such as arthritic pain.^38,39 If nonpharmacologic therapies are not effective, pharmacologic options can be considered.⁴ Before prescribing sleep medications, it may be more fruitful to treat underlying psychiatric disorders such as depression and anxiety with antidepressants.⁴ Although benzodiazepines are helpful for their sedative effects, they are not recommended for older adults because of an increased risk of falls, rebound insomnia, potential tolerance, and associated cognitive impairment.⁴⁰ Benzodiazepine receptor agonists (eg, zolpidem, eszopiclone, zaleplon) were initially developed as a first-line treatment for insomnia to replace the reliance on benzodiazepines, but these medications have a “black-box” warning of a serious risk of complex sleep behaviors, including life-threatening parasomnias.⁴¹ As a result, guidelines suggest a shorter duration of treatment with a benzodiazepine receptor agonist may still provide benefit while limiting the risk of adverse effects.⁴²

Doxepin is the only antidepressant FDA-approved for insomnia; it improves sleep latency (time taken to initiate sleep after lying down), duration, and quality in adults age >65.⁴³ Melatonin receptor agonists such as ramelteon and melatonin have shown positive results in older patients with insomnia. In clinical trials of patients age ≥65, ramelteon, which is FDA-approved for insomnia, produced no rebound insomnia, withdrawal effects, memory impairment, or gait instability.^44-46 Suvorexant, an orexin receptor antagonist, decreases sleep latency and increases total sleep time equally in both young and older adults.^47-49Table 3^40-51 provides a list of medications used to treat insomnia (including off-label agents) and their common adverse effects in older adults.

Parasomnias are undesirable behaviors that occur during sleep, commonly associated with the sleep-wake transition period. These behaviors can occur during REM sleep (nightmare disorder, sleep paralysis, REM sleep behavior disorder) or NREM sleep (somnambulism [sleepwalking], confusional arousals, sleep terrors). According to a cross-sectional Norwegian study of parasomnias, the estimated lifetime prevalence of sleep walking is 22.4%; sleep talking, 66.8%; confusional arousal, 18.5%; and sleep terror, 10.4%.⁵²

Continue to: When evaluating a patient...

When evaluating a patient with parasomnias, it is important to review their drug and substance use as well as coexisting medical conditions. Drugs and substances that can affect sleep include prescription medications (second-generation antidepressants, stimulants, dopamine agonists), excessive caffeine, alcohol, certain foods (coffee, chocolate milk, black tea, caffeinated soft drinks), environmental exposures (smoking, pesticides), and recreational drugs (amphetamines).^53-56 Certain medical conditions are correlated with specific parasomnias (eg, sleep paralysis and narcolepsy, REM sleep behavior disorder and Parkinson’s disease [PD], etc.).⁵⁴ Diagnosis of parasomnias is mainly clinical but supporting evidence can be obtained through in-lab polysomnography.

Treatment. For parasomnias, treatment is primarily supportive and includes creating a safe sleeping environment to reduce the risk of self-harm. Recommendations include sleeping in a room on the ground floor, minimizing furniture in the bedroom, padding any bedside furniture, child-proofing doorknobs, and locking up weapons and other dangerous household items.⁵⁴

REM sleep behavior disorder (RBD). This disorder is characterized by a loss of the typical REM sleep-associated atonia and the presence of motor activity during dreaming (dream-enacted behaviors). While the estimated incidence of RBD in the general adult population is approximately 0.5%, it increases to 7.7% among those age >60.⁵⁷ RBD occurs most commonly in the setting of the alpha-synucleinopathies (PD, Lewy body dementia, multisystem atrophy), but can also be found in patients with cerebral ischemia, demyelinating disorders, or alcohol misuse, or can be medication-induced (primarily antidepressants and antipsychotics).⁵⁸ In patients with PD, the presence of RBD is associated with a more impaired cognitive profile, suggestive of widespread neurodegeneration.⁵⁹ Recent studies revealed that RBD may also be a prodromal state of neurodegenerative diseases such as PD, which should prompt close monitoring and long-term follow up.⁶⁰ Similar to other parasomnias, the diagnosis of RBD is primarily clinical, but polysomnography plays an important role in demonstrating loss of REM-related atonia.⁵⁴

Treatment. Clonazepam and melatonin have been shown to be effective in treating the symptoms of RBD.⁵⁴

Depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbances

Major depressive disorder (MDD) and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) affect sleep in patients of all ages, but are underreported in older adults. According to national epidemiologic surveys, the estimated prevalence of MDD and GAD among older adults is 13% and 11.4%, respectively.^61,62 Rates as high as 42% and 39% have been reported in meta-regression analyses among patients with Alzheimer’s dementia.⁶³

Continue to: Depression and anxiety

Depression and anxiety may have additive effects and manifest as poor sleep satisfaction, increased sleep latency, insomnia, and daytime sleepiness.⁶⁴ However, they may also have independent effects. Studies showed that patients with depression alone reported overall poor sleep satisfaction, whereas patients with anxiety alone reported problems with sleep latency, daytime drowsiness, and waking up at night in addition to their overall poor sleep satisfaction.^65-67 Both depression and anxiety are risk factors for developing cognitive decline, and may be an early sign/prodrome of neurodegenerative diseases (dementias).⁶⁸ The bidirectional relationship between depression/anxiety and sleep is complex and needs further investigation.

Treatment. Pharmacologic treatments for patients with depression/anxiety and sleep disturbances include selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors, tricyclic antidepressants, and other serotonin receptor agonists.^69-72 Nonpharmacologic treatments include CBT for both depression and anxiety, and problem-solving therapy for patients with mild cognitive impairment and depression.^73,74 For severe depression and/or anxiety, electroconvulsive therapy is effective.⁷⁵

Bottom Line

Sleep disorders in older adults are common but often underdiagnosed. Timely recognition of obstructive sleep apnea, central sleep apnea, insomnia, parasomnias, and other sleep disturbances can facilitate effective treatment and greatly improve older adults’ quality of life.

Related Resources

• American Academy of Sleep Medicine. International Classification of Sleep Disorders—Third Edition. https://aasm.org
• SleepFoundation.org. Sleep hygiene. https://www.sleepfoundation.org/articles/sleep-hygiene

Drug Brand Names

Acetazolamide • Diamox
Clonazepam • Klonopin
Doxepin • Silenor
Eszopiclone • Lunesta
Gabapentin • Neurontin
Mirtazapine • Remeron
Pramipexole • Mirapex
Quetiapine • Seroquel
Ramelteon • Rozerem
Suvorexant • Belsomra
Temazepam • Restoril
Theophylline • Elixophyllin
Tiagabine • Gabitril
Trazadone • Desyrel
Triazolam • Halcion
Zaleplon • Sonata
Zolpidem • Ambien